Talk:Mumbai Mirror

Disruptive Edits: Political Alignment
Please don't remove the section on Political Alignment as user Defcon has done. There is an infobox that states its political alignment and it has to be explained/described in greater detail in the article. All newspapers and magazines have a section on political leanings. Why is he/she not being NPOV and removing it on Mirror? Heartily (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please respond. Heartily (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That section on alignment violated WP:NOR. The text added was a conclusion that was reached by you based on separate articles published by the newspaper itself. Please look at the rules under NOR that I have linked to get a better idea of how such a section can be created. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They have been called anti-government here. It's a secondary source. We can link to it in the article. Heartily (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, basically what Ujwal.Xankill3r said . The reason we're removing the section is not since we disagree with it (I've never heard of the Mirror before and have no clue what its actual political bias is), but rather since the sourcing is not adequate to support the claims you're making about its bias, and the burden is on you to provide the evidence. If you can find reputable publications (such as those in green here) talking about the Mirror having the bias you describe, then the section can be re-added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Give me a minute to check out The Wire. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Wire piece you linked looks like quality source for discussing the reputation of the newspaper. Based off of that, we'll be able to add something about the Mirror reputation to the article. However, it can't be the full section you just re-added, since every statement needs to be sourced, so a source saying that the paper often took an adversarial stance against the government isn't good enough to say, for instance, that it had a specific stance on the metro. I'm going to have to remove most of the section because of that, and only the claims that are specifically supported can be re-added. Please do not add anything more than that—making repeated edits after they've been reverted by others is known as edit warring and can lead to a ban. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fine. You may do so. However, some details are necessary too on the kind of coverage they have followed and why they are anti-government. Heartily (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the first two statements you have added make sense but you will have to provide secondary sources for the remainder of the section. Otherwise it still continues to have WP:NOR issues and should be removed. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you believe they are "anti-government", you would need to provide reliable secondary sources which explicitly state that. You can't derive that from your opinion of their articles and then site those articles to justify the claim. Even the The Wire references which you provided were opinion pieces which can't be used to make such claims, not to mention even the opinion pieces were inappropiately summarised in your addition. I would highly recommend familiarising yourself with the policy on no original research. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , we had arrived at a consensus about it and you removed all edits made by other users as well. In this case, all the other publications whose leanings are mentioned as RW or LW should have that removed then too. Those are opinion pieces too. And you put a block warning on an old discussion on my talkpage that was closed? How does that make you NPOV yourself? What do you mean that the additions were inappropriately summarised? They were summarised in the other edits by . You appear to be throwing up a fight here for no good reason and that is not in good faith. Heartily (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I strongly suggest you stop making any edits to this page that are not clearly supported by a consensus at the talk page. You've gone over the three revert rule at this point and are very likely to be blocked if you continue. Take the warnings seriously.
 * Regarding the comment you made in your summary Don't remove it altogether as details are important, or the article looks too short and like a stub, our goal isn't to prevent the page from developing, but we cannot allow material that has been challenged to be reinstated without adequate sourcing. Developing a page is hard work, but it can be done if you put in the effort and avoid getting yourself blocked for edit warring. You'll need to find more good sources, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem finding better sources and anyone replacing the sources. But the edits were made by you as well, and my last comment had actually been an agreement to your changes. So I don't understand what you mean by no consensus. Tayi Arajakate entered the discussion later and said there was no consensus, but it was your comment about The Wire being accepted that I had gone ahead with. Block warnings don't make any sense unless there is a logic to it. Heartily (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the only consensus was an ok regarding WP:NOR for The Wire citation and that one statement. There was no consensus regarding the remainder of the statements. And a different editor can come in an raise further issues with the statement as well. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , when did I say that a different editor can't come in and raise further issues? Please stop misrepresenting my statements. It is all there for everyone to see what I said and what I didn't. I only pointed out that Tayi Arajakate's statement about no consensus after consensus was already achieved was out of order. I never said he/she couldn't join in. Anyhow, it's resolved now, and we'll add better sources as we come across them. Heartily (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , when did I say that a different editor can't come in and raise further issues? Please stop misrepresenting my statements. It is all there for everyone to see what I said and what I didn't. I only pointed out that Tayi Arajakate's statement about no consensus after consensus was already achieved was out of order. I never said he/she couldn't join in. Anyhow, it's resolved now, and we'll add better sources as we come across them. Heartily (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

, based off my comment, we had consensus to add the two lines currently at the top of the political alignment section. We did not and still do not have consensus to add the rest of the section that you re-added, or to add "left-wing" to the lead. I would suggest that you undo your most recent two edits, as that is a show of good faith and will reduce the chance that you are blocked. Then, if you want to add more to the political alignment section, find reliable secondary sources for it (keeping in mind the original research policy linked above), propose it here at the talk page, and if others agree, then add it to the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine,, point taken. But the cited "left-wing" adjective in the lead was something we did agree/consent on having. If it is in the Infobox, as it is on all other publications' infoboxes, it can be in the lead too like it is in the leads of other RW publications. Heartily (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "cited" adjective in the lead is not supported by the citation, just as the one in the infobox. I've removed the adjective from both places. If you have reliable secondary sources which explicitly support it, you are free to bring them forward.
 * Then there is this edit where you modified the line, "It was often critical of political authorities" to "It was often critical of the ruling party at the center". This is explicitly contrasted by the citation itself, which states that "the Mumbai Mirror remained its independent self, doing stories that were often critical of the state and Central government". Besides the point that the entire sourcing for the section is from a single opinion piece which is not even attributed to the author, and should be removed as undue. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've marked this article as a stub. You can add to it yourself as this discussion is boring me now and I have a lot of other stuff to do. I don't have as much as time you do. Heartily (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've marked this article as a stub. You can add to it yourself as this discussion is boring me now and I have a lot of other stuff to do. I don't have as much as time you do. Heartily (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mumbai Mirror is owned by Times Group. The source I added mentioned Times of India, which is owned by the same company. The political alignment cannot be different for different departments of the same company. 203.212.220.31 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? —  Earwig   talk 18:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive Parts
Some pruning needs to be done. Also as a defunct newspaper that's not in daily print anymore but weekly, this article does make it read like a promotion. BombaiyyaMag (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (February 2024)
Excessive edits from now blocked sock and likely UPE. Tagging as it it need a thorough check for NPOV, verify sources, etc. CNMall41 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)