Talk:The Hindu

Removal of citation links

A number of citation links that described the history of the newspaper, at significant points of its existence, had been removed in an edit, citing WP:SPAM.

The article is about a newspaper. Most of the citations would tend to be from news sources, or from mainstream literature. These links cannot be considered spam, I feel.

Besides, If Iam correct, wiki links are of the rel:nofollow markup. I don't see a genuine problem.

Please discuss on the discussion ( talk ) page, before deleting a significant chink of the article.

Abhishekupadhya (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

The following paragraphe entitled "Criticisms" have been removed on claim it is "POV pushing not backed up by reliable sources". The sources are : www.friendsoftibet.org (Friends of Tibet association), article by Jamyang Norbu, article by nl:Tenzin Sonam in Himal Southasian. Any comments on the sources? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

" The Friends of Tibet has criticized The Hindu by launching a "Save The Hindu" campaign alleging pro-China stances of The Hindu under its communist editor-in-chief Narasimhan Ram. The group's main arguments are that The Hindu is perhaps one of the only mainstream newspapers anywhere in the world to source news articles from Xinhua, China's state-run news agency, and print them verbatim. The group also takes issue with The Hindu Editor-in-Chief N. Ram's description of the Dalai Lama, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, as a man having a "separatist and backward looking agenda." Jamyang Norbu describes N. Ram as an "Indian propagandist for China". According to the Tibetan filmmaker and writer Tenzin Sonam, journalists of The Hindu received directives not to write critically about Tibet, the Dalai Lama or Falun Gong.

The Hindu's stance has spurred opinion blogs to keep track of what they consider to be a pro-Chinese bias of The Hindu, one of which concentrated on The Hindu's reporting in response to the 2008 Tibetan unrest to be characteristic of its pro-China bias"

First of all www.friendsoftibet.org cannot be treated as an independent and reliable source when discussing on the Hindu's stance on Tibet. Secondly, it is not justified having a whole section of criticisms solely on the Hindu's stance on Tibet that is based on an article supposed to be published by the Hindu. If you can show that the Hindu has been consistently publishing article related to Tibet, it may be justified to include Hindu's viewpoint in the article. But I cannot see any such thing here (I have been reading the Hindu for past 25 years). Finally, blogs are never considered to be reliable sources.Salih (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but apparently, it is not only www.friendsoftibet.org and a blog, but also Jamyang Norbu and nl:Tenzin Sonam in Himal Southasian at least (see also here : [1]). Then, concerning blogs, there are several others such as : [2]. Therefore, I do not think it is a good idea to suppress all these informations. To respond to your request about the articles in The Hindu, the issue is not new, back in 2000 (at least) : TIBET - A REALITY CHECK, and some responses from the readers [3]. I will come up with a proposition later. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added some actual criticism from groups like the South Asia Analysis Group and prominent analysts like David Jeyaraj. Redacteur's work may or may not meet RS, I'll reserve judgment on that, but removing all criticism from the page smacks of censorship.Pectore^talk 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the hindu features

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Y Done: The hindu features - merged and Education Plus - redirected as content already covered in this page.
• N Not done: NXg - no content worth merging, but will result in a need for another hat note because of the redirect, so this will be taken to AfD.

Mergers

All of the proposed mergers need to be done, none of those subarticles are notable enough for their own page. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the supplement certainly. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge but selectively, to the supplements section. Not all content on the Friday features article is required. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Too late for a vote? Merge both, since the main article is very bare. Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing this merge discussion now. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

list of managing directors changed to partial list of directors

I have changed the list of Managing Directors to Partial list of directors. For instance, it is unlikely that the paper had a "managing director" before 1905, because of ownership pattern. Also, N. Ram is editor-in-chief of the publications of the company and N. Murali is the managing director. N. Murali's predecessor was S. Rangarajan. Journman, 18.29 hrs, sept 2, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journman (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Invisible section

Under the section "Partial list of Directors", there is an invisible section entitled "reviews". Anybody know why it's invisible? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 12:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Chinese stance

Regarding the pro-Chinese stance, this description of a minor Chinese-Indian diplomatic incident (compare, for example, to the Times of India article on the same incident) may shed some light... -- megA (talk)