Talk:The Hindu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Chennai workgroup.

To-do list for The Hindu:	edit · history · watch · refresh
(Thanks for your help, any assistance will be appreciated!) Fill up gaps in history Edit the section on Editorial stances, to include more significant/historic editorials Reorganize the article: at present several anomalies in dates, ordering of events etc. Improve the criticism section Give info on "firsts" by hindu More info on technological advances pioneered by paper Recent history: redesign/editotial policy/reader's editor appointment etc.

[edit] This wiki article sucks

I am not talking about the persistent efforts of leftwingers to censor out any content considered unflattering to The Hindu, or the equally persistent efforts of The Hindu's critics to get the censored stuff back in.

I am talking about the fact that this article truly, verily, really, and authentically sucks and sucks bigtime. It doesn't meet the basic objective of providing useful information about The Hindu to a reader who knows nothing about the paper.

It is poorly written. It has loads of irrelevant "information". It has a bad structure. It reads like a high school essay written by an amateurish student under the belief that the more the text, the greater the ability to score.

I'd chop history down to one-fourth the size it is today.

I'd cut the size of praise and criticism sections too.

Achievements section -- come on, is this a marketing brochure for The Hindu?

Supplements -- crazy that anybody thought this is relevant information. The Hindu is an Indian newspaper. Why would any curious visitor from, say, Papua New Guinea, be interested in what supplements the paper carries? Somebody is stretching the definition of "encyclopaedia" a bit.

This article is urgently in need of reform. (Like The Hindu itself, I might add.)

[edit] About the Stand taken in Srilankan Tamil Issue

[discussion btw Doctorbruno and 129.186.232.42(guest) ] Hindu, during Indian Ocean Tsunami, reported that [1] speculation has been rife on the fate of Mr. Prabakaran who lives in the rebel-held north Sri Lanka. Except for a signed statement by him expressing condolences to all the victims of the tsunami, the elusive leader has neither made a public presence nor delivered a radio speech, further fuelling such speculation. Few days later the editorial [2]said Assuming he is alive, the LTTE supremo will be under tremendous pressure to appear in public. Not only will such surfacing be the only way to express solidarity with the people he claims to represent, it is the only way by which he can set at rest the stories aswirl about his fate.

Few days later the paper acknowledged that Prabhakaran appears in public [[3]] as The leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, V. Prabakaran, today made his first public appearance, after the December 26 tsunami, in rebel-held Kilinochchi where the LTTE's political headquarters is situated.

The fact that the the editor in chief N.Ram has been awared the Singala Ratna award needs to be mentioned. Whether or not the paper is tilted towards the Srilanka Government in reporting the incidents in Srilanka is for the readers to decide, comparing the above sentences

[edit] Bias

Hindu is exteremly biased. It acts as a Chinese propaganda machine for the communist party of China. There is an excellent blog dedicated to anlayze the extereme anti nationalism shown by The Hindu. Read through the blog it makes a detail analysis of all the articles in The Hindu.Blog exposing the anti India agenda Every media is tilted if not swayed or biased. While not blaming that the paper is biased (we cannot tell that) it will be better that if we atleast inform the readers that the paper views this scenario from this point of view.

Hence, instead of opinions' we can report the facts about the paper in a simple to understand way

For example in the following way. If you can add your points to the list, may be we can get a balanced view

The paper generally supports

The paper is pro communist as far as economics is concerned

The paper generally opposes

The paper is anti BJP

Doctor Bruno 13:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] embedded comments

some of them, moving here.

infobox
1. image: yet to find appropriate frontpage pic
Ram
1. He was also part of the BJP watch group<--explanation req?--> which termed the rule at the centre in the late 1990's "fascist". Mr.Ram regularly writes<--unverified--> for "People's Democracy", the official paper of Communist party of India - Marxist.
80's on:
1. Things changed<--things changed? from what? one cannot simply start off saying "things changed" without saying what went before, how it changed, what the change is?--> for the newspaper since the late 1980's when its ownership passed into hands of the family's younger members.
Criticism:
1. The following are some of the instances in which the Hindu's editorial stance <--editorial stance, incl. news selection and relative coverage-->did not satisfy the political right, especially the BJP. Critics<--as long as the critics remain unnamed, i'll call this statement weaselly--><--to wikieditors: don't "theorize"; no original research; ie, don't add self-made criticism: add only criticism that comes from a source other than yourself--> point out these as examples of the newspaper falling short of its original standards of objectivity and fair journalism.
2. In 2003, Jagannathan mentions a general<--a general feeling? in his mind, or where? mm... this jagannathan is a great reporter, eh? looks like he's not so free of the editorializing bug himself?--> feeling that some of its reports are "anti-Hindu"
general comment: this is not an op-ed piece, it's an encyclopedia

-Pournami 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some changes explained

some changes i've restored, other changes(ie reversion to my version) i'd like to explain:

The Current editor-in-chief and his political views>>Current editor-in chief

this short titile is enough, i feel. actually, i doubt if the section is needed at all, or whether its necessary/relevant to overemphasize the "fact" that Ram is a marxist. Ram is not a party member "Communist" as far as I know. What if he is a marxist? Doesn't make him any less human, any less a person, any less competent in his job, doesn't erode his credibility/achievements in any way. In the history of a 125yr old newpaper, why should one ed's role be overemphasised, esp since none of the others' contribs are acknowledged? what is the necessity of intra-article pointing by such elaborations?? e.g placing "his pol convictions" in the section header, lines like.."there are indications that.., see below for criticism"..?

However, he hardly mentions the human rights violations committed by China in Tibet.

the rv removed this line; i didn't restore it, because.. i don't know.

the situation is, i see this article in a mess, i thought i'd work on it, i said, i'm not going for edit wars; some of the comments i inserted, gets deleted, twice over and reverted, i'm under no obligation to restore the changes remov by reversion, but i thought some of the changes removed by reversion(minor:tense/word changes) ought to have remained, therefore, changed accordingly; but this insertion abt tibet; i wouldn't put it in myself; because, i'm ignorant on the subject; anyone is welcome to put it back in anytime. i'd like to discuss the issue here on talk page.

An editorial in August 2003 acknowledged that the newspaper was also affected by the `editorialising as news reporting' virus, and expressed a determination to buck the trend, restore the professionally sound lines of demarcation, and strengthen objectivity and factuality in its coverage.

now this line has been replaced by original quote.

whoever added it might say, i only summarized it, what's wrong? well. it's a wrong summary. that the newspaper was also affected by the: here,

what the editorial clearly says is that, that the hindu also was affected by the bug.. ie, the hindu, as well as every other np was affected by the bug..

you see, this np recognised what was ailing all of newspaperdom, including itself, diagnosed the disease correctly and was taking corrective measures.. that is what the quoted para says. one can't use summarising as a way of editing out a certain sense out of what one is quoting. am i not correct in this regard? -Pournami 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the editorial is too long and most of it is irrelevant. So I reverted to the older version. Also, to Pournami, no body is claiming that a Marxist is less human.

N Ram 's political views are important because he is responsible for what is published in the newspaper. It helps to place the newspaper in context. In fact, I would go to such an exent to claim that "only" his political views are relevant to this article, but I dont insist on not adding anything else. It is up to the editors.

69.5.146.199 08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Only to insert this you reverted to earlier version:

However, he hardly mentions the human rights violations committed by China in Tibet.

The following examples are arguably some (though by no means all) instances in which the newspaper has fallen short of its original standards of objectivity and fair journalism

also to replace quote with summary. this undid the partial wikification i'd done. if you want to insert something, do so instead of reverting to earlier version, which causes loss of intermediate changes. Thanks-Pournami 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] assorted probs: incomplete list

(resolved issues removed periodically)

possible O.R.

If whoever inserted the foll info can cite a source, please do so.

Started as a nationalist newspaper *mildly opposed* to the then British rulers of India
In a post-colonial India where the printed word was much respected, more so if it was in English, The Hindu was to the citizens of Madras what The Times was to pre-tabloid-era Londoners. (this statement has another problem. I really don't understand what it means. which times, what did it mean to pretab londoners? wp does not have to be anglocentric in narration, i read in some guideline)(also: the printed word is universally respected; esp in India always the case; "more so if it was in English" seems subjective judgement)
The Hindu's journalism for a major part of its life was staid, *non-controversial almost to the point of being self-effacing* and *never on the wrong side of the Establishment*(muthaiah's looking back on 125 bday has some relevant historical analysis i think. if this is sourced from there, isn't something missing)(cf. [4] and accompanying pieces[][]: most OR seems manipulated retelling of the muthaiah articles
But even this commercial dominance is increasingly coming under attack. The Deccan Chronicle, a broadsheet with a tabloid spirit, was recently launched in The Hindu's stronghold of Chennai, and is reputed to be causing some damage to the latter's circulation. The Times of India, India's (and the world's) largest circulated English langauge daily<--is it?-->, is set to launch in Chennai<--when? or has it happened already?-->, and is projected<--POV/Weasel--> to cause further damage to The Hindu.<--you mean, diminish readership? well, "cause more damamge to" isn't the way of wording it. diminish readership does not in itself imply the hindu disintegrating-->

Asserting pov

Stating Pov and who said so is ok; asserting any pov is not ok

"Indeed, in popular Indian perception,".. is this alright?(popular india n perception may be passable; still sounds OR; but "indeed" is unnecessary)
The paper *may have* minced words on occasion, it may have adopted a purposefully vague, on-the-fence stand once in a while and may have killed controversial stories now and then. The paper was also *known to have* occassionally peddled propaganda (There *are also indications* that the newspaper may have become biased in the recent times. See Criticism below
Its neutral image was been *affected to such an extent that* it *was probably* one of the factors that led to Mr. N Ram being appointed on August 27, 2003 as its editor-in-chief
There are however a number of instances of the paper reflecting a radical tenor in its opinionating, even if this is pro-left opinion. A case in point is..(as though implying pro left opinion is always radical; also, "however" is unjustified)
While the younger generation of The Hindu's editors have been responsible for the partial politicization of the paper[ who says so? who says it never was politicised earlier], they have also contributed much to its commercial success.
But even this commercial dominance is increasingly coming under attack[says who].
The Deccan Chronicle, a broadsheet with a tabloid spirit, was recently launched in The Hindu's stronghold of Chennai, and is reputed[weasel/uncited] to be causing some damage to the latter's circulation.

possibly wrong

please verify

Mr.Ram regularly writes for "People's Democracy", the official paper of Communist party of India - Marxist.unverified info. requesting verification
readership/turnover: cite source of info. might be speculative, but the info must be sourced from someplace, right? Requesting verification
But even this commercial dominance is increasingly coming under attack. The Deccan Chronicle, a broadsheet with a tabloid spirit, was recently launched in The Hindu's stronghold of Chennai, and is reputed to be causing some damage to the latter's circulation. The Times of India, India's (and the world's) largest circulated English langauge daily<--is it?-->, is set to launch in Chennai<--when? or has it happened already?-->, and is projected<--POV/Weasel--> to cause further damage to The Hindu.<--you mean, diminish readership? well, "cause more damamge to" isn't the way of wording it. diminish readership does not in itself imply the hindu disintegrating-->

will continue adding to this list.

requiring exactness.

things changed for the newspaper since the late 1980's when its ownership passed into hands of the family's younger members. (which year? who are the younger members? ram, ravi? i don't know date of ownership change.)(besides, "things changed" is assertion of pov)
He was also part of the BJP watch group which termed the rule at the centre in the late 1990's "fascist

talk comment

doctor bruno's comment above is reasonable; i ask editors with conflicting views on hindu's objectivity and bias to take that comment seriously. rather than alleging bias, state facts generally accepted. for example; it is very probable that much of the criticism is put in by editors who tend to celebrate as achievement hindu's opposition to cong in issues like bofors; and denigrate as bad practise hindu's criticism of officially known positions of bjp. i wonder what percentage of people who look up the page are aware of indian political realities.

something very disturbing

look at this: i was looking around for some info; chiefly to ascertain who made such crits against hindu in the first place and gets replicated in wp. i couldn't fix any source. this site by some fanatics seems to regard wp as credible source. and that too, an article written violating wikiguidelines; possibly by other extremely biased people like the ones spreading propoganda via mail. ther is a need for fixing the article wholly -Pournami 10:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pournami, great work! Keep it up...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you signup as a user and sign your comments. helps people communicate to you at one place. Thanks -Pournami 07:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] left leaning

[About this line:]
"*Of late[not exact], the newspaper has been displaying[subjective] a strong pro-left tilt"

I made some edits to this page but lost my password and so am logging in as a differerent user. Here is a reference for The Hindu being a left leaning newspaper
http://www.worldpress.org/newspapers/ASIA/India.cfm
You can probably edit that particular line by providing the reference, but I dont think that its left-leaning nature should be blanked out.[*note: editing comment: [shifting some text from here, deleted, see section below-Pournami 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)]end of edit*]But dont go about mentioning that this perception exists only in the so-called "rightwing" circles. You need to prove that worldpress.org is a right wing circle before that. And how do you measure that thing anyway? LazyTiger 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit that particular line by providing ref, not blank out left lean, you say: ok, perfect. : (this was done later-Pournami)]

i'm not aware of what worldpress.org is, how their info is sourced; although the page listed contains a note at the bottom "if you think the info is inaccurate or incomplete, let us know"; i let them know that i was curious abt how they classify newspapers by politic-affiliation;(i don't think they'll reply[*editing my comment: i was later proved wrong, Ms. Teri Schure of worldpress.org sent me a reply mail which confirmed that they source info by rigourous methods)..end of edit*-~]; i didn't address any concern abt inaccuracy at the site, but there are gaping holes and incompleteness visible in the indian list, which is none of our immediate concern here; just mention. however, dear mr tiger, that ref is sufficient to mention "left lean" in the article for now. the info box mentions centre left; which is enough imo, but if you insist..-Pournami5 April 2006 (UTC)

[a rejoinder to the above]

And looks like the worldpress.org belied your expectations by giving you a reply. LazyTiger 17:50, 5 April 2006

[edit] a dispute regarding wiki-editor bias

LazyTiger provided the following two links in addition to the one above:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/04rajeev.htm

http://www.india-world.net/op-ed/pseudosecularism.html

along with some remarks regarding Pournami's bias. A short quarrel ensued, during which it was revealed that Pournami considers herself as having a leftist pov. This might possibly affect the quality (neutrality) of this particular article, since she seems to be the one trying to NPOV it. The dispute is over and some "unnecessary discourse" is deleted, with lazytiger's permission:-Pournami 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lazy Tiger wants to emphasize that it is too lazy to have quarrels and that some of the perceptions of quarrels are not shared by it. And the lazy tiger would be thankful to Pournami, if she did not change the tiger's comments. LazyTiger 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ayodhya

Regarding Ayodhya dispute and the finding of a massive structure by ASI, even The Hindu says that it could be a crucial turning point.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/08/26/stories/2003082607670100.htm

It is not just pro-mandir voices who consider this significant because The Hindu is not a pro-mandir voice.

LazyTiger 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

PTI report was published as such. PTI reporter termed it a turning point. hindu's editorial assessment as attested by prominence given to sahmat backed historians was clearly that the evidence was doctored. it is no secret that sahmat is leftist; we have agreed that since ram takeover, hindu is leftleaning. so what prob?-Pournami 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What problem? There are no problems for me. Is PTI a pro-mandir voice? The newsreport appeared in The Hindu anyway. So it cant be said that the newspaper was holding a different opinion. LazyTiger 02:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth making each point too long and tedious? I reverted to the previous verison because of that. One can use indirect speech (is that also considered POV by some?) to make things smaller. LazyTiger 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

you must be referring to this edit: here's my edit and your kind hearted revert. Is it worth making? one, how about deleting that point, then? you wont agree to that, would you. i'm prepared to make it long and tedious. use of indirect speech in itself is not pov. if you summarise and report something, shouldn't "take the sense out of" whatever is reported. i think your revert to be unjustified. i feel like reverting back, but i will not, not now anyhow. you agree that the hindu is left leaning? you provided a non rightwing reference, and two "so called right wing" good reliable sources for the same, that the hindu is indeed left leaning. stating pov is ok, not assertion of pov. take a look at this example from a help page:

Here is some weaselly writing: "Some people have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate."

The following is just as weaselly: "The president's critics have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate."

If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:

"Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts.

that was what i did. to change opinionated language to concrete facts.-Pournami 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here the point is the disproportionate coverage, not the content itself. There is a lot of difference between criticising the content and criticising the extent of coverage. It looks like your edit missed the difference. Anyway, it is not impossible to do whatever you are claiming to do without making the point tedious. LazyTiger 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Here the point is the disproportionate coverage, not the content itself".

Q:Disproportionate, according to who? You? Me? Ram? D. K.? BJP? PTI? thehoot? ASI? Disproportionate, according to who? I don't know. According to who? If it is "your" opinion, its OR. Its not my opinion. Not N. Ram's, I think. SriRam's opinion, i don't know("Forgive me, o Lord, my little jokes on thee, and i'll forgive thee thy great big one on me"..Frost). D.K. would be a good source. But i'll have to state his name. same goes for other sources "BJP, PTI, thehoot, ASI". provided you give links(since i'm too lazy to do the same). If you want to insist that all of "D.K., BJP, PTI, thehoot, ASI" are of the same opinion, just provide me ref links. This is genuinely a good faith question, please understand.

In Response to -

":"Here the point is the disproportionate coverage, not the content itself".

Q:Disproportionate, according to who? You? Me? Ram? D. K.? BJP? PTI? thehoot? ASI? Disproportionate, according to who?"

Once again you are mixing up issues. The point in the criticism specifies that the coverage is unequal. Of course you are asking according to who, but that is a completely different question. If this is your question, then you can modify the article by asking for references. But what you have instead done is to edit the article by bringing in the content into the picture. And content and extent of coverage are two different issues. I am trying to tell you why I reverted to the older version. LazyTiger 17:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Comments

To Pournami, regarding the Article -

I see that some changes have been made by you. My first question is - Why did you remove POV? I am not insisting on a POV but from my side, I have no objection for a POV. I have to go through the article to ask other questions. You can reply in the talk page.

i dont know how many ppl look up the article per day. none of our concern. i don't know how many wikieditors included the article in their watchlist. i'm not exactly sure why i removed the pov tag; i thought the cleanup tag was more necessary. the initial plan i had was to (in all points of npov dispute of article, i am primarily concerned only about sources, and in certain places, wording: but more importantly, sources. i'm more concerned abt NOR than NPOV) attach ^{[citation needed]} to every suspected OR case, which when attended to, would somewhat solve the pov issue. not solve, improve pov dispute situation.

you must have a lot of questions regarding article now. since ive somewhat messed up the situation now. -Pournami 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

the situation is roughly as follows: forgive the mysterius temporary disappearance of the tags. appropriate tags can be reinserted shortly. currently occupied with citation uniformity, working on it. forgive the exact quotes: can be summarised subsequently. thanks for waiting(read: i'm upto some mischief)-Pournami

To BostonMA and Pournami -

I have no problem with waiting for 24 hours. If I make any change, it will only be after 24 hours and I will remember to explain changes in the talk page. If I forget, you or anyone else can remind me.

LazyTiger 19:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

both of us will not *revert* each other without waiting for twenty four hours. this does not apply to any other changes. not applicable for inserts, only deletions. ie, either of us can insert what we want; but for removing stuff from article, we need to either wait for 24 hours after the insertion took place, or simply, more better option would be, express our intention to each other on talk page: ie, in case i insert any sentence. if you want it removed, instead of just rving, talk here, tell me: "this line/these words you insert are unnecessary for such-and-such reason and hence i ask it to be removed"; implying that if no response comes from me for 24 hours, you can remove the words/lines yourself.

supose you want to undo any insert i made: its better to ask me remove it myself than you doing it yourself. believe me, i'm willing to delete anything i add to the article, i have no "its my words so they should stay" complex. more like, "i put it in, someone cant just blank it without telling me what was wrong with it"-Pournami 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] asking for sources

To lazy tiger: if you are blue tiger, if you are the one to have introduced the asi report-dispro-coverage issue here in this article, and if it's not OR, i think you can provide a source?-Pournami 21:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hindu.com/2003/09/04/stories/2003090403251004.htm http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/foundnlost.html

The former is for August 2003 and latter for June (12 not 11) 2003. Both address ASI issue. You may have to browse through the latter, but you will find the dispropotionate coverage issue raised. The accuracy can be directly verified by looking into the archives. In the article, Aug 2003 is given as example, but you can also add June one if you want. LazyTiger 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yep, thanks. ok, i'll go through articles and see what more i can put in. do insert the sources yourself if you feel like. -Pournami 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest cleanup tag(confusing)

I thought the history was incomplete and wrong, so i started filling in from the first; but looks like it has too much detail. i will first put in what i think fits right; later planning on revising by deleting, editing out parts. The tags are intended to warn "readers" that there's something not quite alright with the article; also to other editors, i think any other editors interested in article should wait a bit before editing out what i put in; i intend to trim what i put in myself. the section history as of now is very mesy, things in wrong order and missing pieces and too much detail in places. wait, and things will improve!-Pournami 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addition of content that belongs elsewhere

Frontline and N. Ram have separate articles and I think as of now, tibet/bjp lament takes too much space.-Pournami 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, the tibet nonsense is removed now. -Pournami 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradictory editorial stances

I just can't understand some of the contradictions listed.

The 2nd one : There are no references to 2 editorials in the first place, unless it is being indicated that one ed. piece contradicted itself. If that's the case, there is no contradiction in (a) opining that Yadav was wrong in accepting bribes (b) opining that he didn't need to resort to it anyway.

The 3rd one : the specific quotes are (a) the paper believes that the incident was intended to provoke communal tensions (b) the paper criticized the BJP for attempting to get political mileage out of the incident (c) the paper calls for political debate and a beef-up of machinery to deal with such terrorism (d) the paper believes that the incident should prompt those in authority to institute reforms and better training. No contradiction, as far as i can make out, amongst any of these 4 points.

The 4th one : in the op-ed piece cited first, the paper makes the point that Narendra Modi justified the "pogrom", or the post-Godhra violence, which many (including the Supreme Court) believe was orchestrated by his party and government officials, on the basis of action-reaction theory. The second op-ed piece refers to the action-reaction theory itself, and wonders when the cycle is going to stop. In other words, in the first instance, the paper didn't reject the theory itself, just the use of it to rationalize the incitement to and abetting of violence.

These need to be removed, unless someone can point out the errors in my reading. Sdsouza 21:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Waited for a week, have removed 2/3/4; also one portion of the contradictory editorial stance section moved into Criticism, since it does not illustrate contradictions, as much as it talks about the opinion someone has about the leanings of the 'paper. Sdsouza 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] too complicated

I think in wikipedia, we should not be discussing about the stance taken by hindu and elaborate on it. At best what we can do is to indicate hindu's preference as a one liner.

Why do we debate on what Hindu does on Srilankan's politics ? It takes off the essence of what the title is about.

This title is about The Hindu newspaper

It is not about the stance taken by The Hindu on a worldly happening

[edit] far left? vandalism?

the article stood stating this was a far left newspaper. Given its described a second largest english newspaper in India, that would be a curious situation. Last time this same user added that 'information', it was reverted. Above, its linked that its considered left-leaning, and even then the credibility of the source was questioned as saying this from a rightist perspective. Theres yet no refference given to the claim its a far leftist newspaper. I found the claim particularly odd since in the body of the article a quote states its conservative. So, im reveting this, and if no such claim is substantiated and this adition is repeated, this behaviour is bordering on vandalism.--83.131.128.249 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Tibet

The criticizm about The Hindu seems to be too biased. Links go to "Friends of Tibet" articles that are too rhetorical. These articles make uncited statements and allegations against The Hindu. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mssnlayam (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 January 2007..

Friend of Tibet has substantiated all the allegations with sufficient proofs which are nothing but the scanned images of the print edition and regarding the identity of Xinhua , the articles can be verified from respected sites such as FAS.org , Janes defence weekly . - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.145.142.36 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 January 2007..

Could you please point the links to these articles. I do not think it would be appropriate to include biased allegations. Every person might have a different allegation, we cannot include all that. Is there some reliable source (not a campaign page) with this information?

They allege that the editorial board of The Hindu, led by N Ram has instructed their centres not to carry any 'Tibet', 'Dalai Lama','Tianmensquare' and 'Falun Gong' stories criticising the policies of the Chinese government.

. - Mssnlayam 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles have not been cited yet, even though the editor has come back to edit the article subsequent to the request. ~~Removing the references to this section of criticism~~. Sdsouza 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did check the Friends of Tibet URL, and the substantiation you refer to above seems to be the article there itself, rather than elsewhere. I also googled for the "Tibet : A Reality Check" article, and found it on Frontline, a sister publication. Since The Hindu Wikipedia article (and the Wikipedia itself) should not opine on who is right/justified on the Tibet issue, but rather should be recording, in this case, criticism of The Hindu, I replaced the text with a sentence that should hopefully be acceptable. Alternate wording/expansion (that reflect the facts, rather than opinions) should also be fine. Sdsouza 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet Issue

The Tibet issue defenitely holds certain waitage as it could seen from the spacing given by Readers Editor himself and the rest of the media . The hindu group's lackey under ids Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk)\VRSrini\122.. is trying to replicate the patronization carried out in wiki frontline_magazine entry without allowing any space for any valid cricicsm from other editors

[edit] Contradictory Editorial Stance : (a) MF Hussain & the Danish Cartoon (b) Human rights issues

The MF Hussain & Danish Cartoon reference : I don't see the contradiction. The Hussain painting(s), as far as i know, are works of art, while the Danish cartoons episode is very confusing (since the original cartoons for which the publisher apologized were supplemented by others sent by mail, and other newspapers across Europe went on to republish the originals ... see Danish cartoons. The motives in these two cases cannot be equated (and in fact the Hussain paintings lay unnoticed by the protestors for 26 years). I believe therefore that opinions can vary without contradiction on the two episodes.

The Human rights part (both the rosy picture and the over-emphasis) is unsubstantiated.

Can the editors who put these in (and others) please discuss? Thanks, Sdsouza 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No response for the past 5 days; paragraphs removed. Sdsouza 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of following section

Purported Pro-Chinese opinion/Editorial view vis-a-vis the boundary dispute with India - I reverted this addition because (a) there wasn't an editorial at the link provided; there was the opinion of a person whose association with the newspaper is unclear (she certainly isn't cited as the editor). (b) anyway the opinion piece isn't pro-chinese as much as it questions the needless (according to the piece) furore over 2 countries re-iterating long held official positions. (c) the contradiction against the second URL provided isn't clear either. The 2nd piece is that of the Reader's editor who explains why the newspaper thought the Chinese leader's statement wasn't news-worthy. Sdsouza 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In such text such as "Mention about highlighting the cause of rural economy" from the post independence sections needs to be removed as there is not even a single independent source to verify that except description given by Hindu.

[edit] Singur episode in the Criticism section

The paragraph about the Singur episode does not carry a single reference to any individual or organization criticizing The Hindu. In fact, it is now the Wikipedia article which is criticizing the newspaper, coming close to WP:OR! Can the editor who insert the section (or anyone else) provide citations for the criticism? If this section was intended for Contradictory Editorial Stances, application of OR still seems to hold. Further, how does endorsing Roy's stance on one issue while (possibly) not doing it on another issue become a contradiction?

Would also like to add that I removed a statement not backed by citations through this edit. Thanks, Sdsouza 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Waited for five days for clarification, removing this paragraph. Sdsouza 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chindu comment in lead

Substantiate it with a real citation or it will be removed.--Blacksun 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has provided a single activist blog as a reference for this. I believe this is insufficient citation for saying that "blogosphere" in general calls The Hindu by this name. Abhiag 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Sections

The references cited are suspect in this section. Dasu Krishnamoorty is a general media critic who has criticised Indian media on the whole, which of course includes The Hindu. But then in many of his articles he also quotes the Hindu and its editors in a positive way.

Also, the readership survey quoted says that the circulation of almost all the major newpapers haves gone down. Not just 'The Hindu'.

I would say we need better references than this for this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolasanibk (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open letter to the Hindu editor

Open letter from academics criticising the bias and hushing up in reporting Nandigram incidents Doesn't this deserve mention in the article? 59.91.253.113 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hindux.gif

Image:Hindux.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate edits

This edit by Sahyadhri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is inappropriate for the following reasons:

The first criticism by Dasu Krishnamoorty is:

“

A media analyst Dasu Krishnamoorty based on his reading of the newspaper during the period from December 2002 to January 2003, opines that The Hindu gives undue weight to only one side of issues. To prove this, he cites examples of news reports (identifiable by datelines) that opines on the issue reported. (These examples appeared in the paper prior to the editor change of August 2003. A count of op-ed pieces during the two month period to show that one point of view gets more weightage, while opinions differing from the editorial stance are not adequately represented. His main complaint is that the paper does not adequately reflect majority sentiment.

”

This is a dead link.
To support the claim "Hindu gives undue weight", the reference is used itself is a Hindu article. Per WP:RS, to support a particular claim we need to provide third party or secondary reliable sources. Thus this paragraph is original research.

The second criticism is from a local organization called Friends of Tibet. The organization itself should never be taken as a reliable neutral source, it is a clear partisan source. It is a nonnotable local organization and constitutes WP:UNDUE.

The third reference is a blog.

The forth reference is a random letter to editor by a person and fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

B Raman of South Asia analysis group and a retired additional secretary`s opinion about Hindu is not an isolated view about the newspapers anti Dalai-Lama stand and the propagandistic nature of the newspaper.His views should be included and the article`s SELF promotion look should be taken awayGeorgearunn (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

The 19th reference in criticism section is the readers editor of the Hindu.The readers editor only makes a general comment regarding the legal system existing in the country against offensive mails and abusive language.

"There is yet another category that indulges in not professional but personal abuse (I am not the target in these), using words like "mad dog," "stooping to accommodate thugs and manipulating and exploiting Indians," and so on. These writers, assuming the names and addresses are genuine, are obviously not aware that they lay themselves open to a charge of defamation and ensuing legal proceedings."

This words from the citation seems to be the source of instigation that the Hindu is going to take legal action.Clearly this not even makes a valid recommandation to original research tag since the conclusion itself is wrong and has nothing to do with `reviews of paper` as mentioned in criticism..At other parts of the citation mentioned the author has gladly welcomed constructive criticisms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgearunn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:arun has again removed this part. IMO , this needs to be included since

"....These writers, assuming the names and addresses are genuine, are obviously not aware that they lay themselves open to a charge of defamation and ensuing legal proceedings. Those who use false names and addresses perhaps do not know that law enforcers have ways of finding out the identity of the offenders.Any statement that exposes a person to contempt, hatred or ridicule, or tends to injure him or her in the profession or trade, is defamatory under the law. Communication to a third party other than the person defamed is held to be publication and can be a cause of legal action. An attack on the moral character or attribution of disgraceful conduct can be defamation " can be considered as a legal threat as it is coming from the editor of the newspaper himself.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that should be included. The reader's editor was just making a causal remark- it is not serious. Also they have not taken any action so far, so I feel this is irrelevant to be mentioned here. --Sahodaran (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)