Talk:Mass media in Uganda/Archive 1

POV
It should be possible to reference claims, direct or indirect, of media suppression with reliable sources. Given the political nature of such a claim, it's something that should be referenced and not overlooked. It is not a case of "water is wet" or the "sky is blue". Similarly, claims of website popularity (Facebook, various online newspapers) should be source-able, otherwise it's original research at best or personal opinion at worst. Its also not clear if this article represents all points of view. Is the media climate in Uganda that much better? Terms like "active and prosperous" stand out here. Is this description based on a reliable sources or is it opinion of the article creator? Does this article overstate it? Does it understate it? WIth what reads like personal opinion rather than information based on reliabel sources, it's hard tell. This along with peacock terms like "vibrant" and descriptions of newspaper's politics brings the neutrality of this article into question.--RadioFan (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you indeed read the article fully and followed through on the references provided. Because if you did then surely you would have got a clearer picture of media in Uganda. These so called claims are indeed facts that have been sourced from the references which have been provided. Did you bother to check them? If the sourced material suggests government oppression of media, then i dont see why that can not be emphasized in the article. After all, other sources are sighting it. Or should we not state facts because they will be construed as biased and therefore try to be as politically correct as possible? Is neutrality more important than stating facts? I usually find it odd when someone who is not even from a specific country or without any information about the state of socioeconomic climate in the country adjudges something to be biased. How would you know for sure? Isn't it better if editors who have relevant knowledge about the topic be the ones to dispute neutrality? And lastly, feel free to edit the article and remove the peacock terms that you suggest exist. Now that would be helpful. Chris.Gido (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some more footnotes would clarify things. There are a number of sections that are entirely unreferenced.  If the intention was to let other references stand there, named references could help here. On a personal note, you might want to ease up a bit.  Try not to take article criticism personally, especially involving neutrality.  Our end goal is the same, a good quality article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media in Uganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922011947/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/16/653840 to http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/16/653840
 * Added tag to http://www.monito.co.ug/
 * Added tag to http://www.ubc.co.ug/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ugandan open access repositories
A list of open access repositories of scholarly communication in Uganda was deleted from en:Wikipedia on 9 April 2018. The wikicode is here. -- Oa01 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)