Talk:The Hindu

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)

Requested move 8 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure)  ~SS49~   {talk}  08:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu → The Hindu (newspaper) – Hindu primary meaning is Hindu religion. Just adding the article "The" wont change the meaning. So having "The Hindu" for this newspaper article is ambiguous. Hence disambiguation (newspaper) is necessary. Crashed greek (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia article titling clearly distinguishes between X and The X in general (although I couldn't locate the exact MOS page where this is spelled out). For example, The Telegraph, The Monitor, The Register, The Chronicle, The Times, The Australian etc are not redirects to Telegraph, Monitor, Register... etc. They are either articles about the respective publication (if a single such publication towers over the others with that name) or disambiguation pages to (mainly) the newspapers when no single publication is dominant. Since The Hindu is (by far) the main publication/subject with that exact name, IMO its article should stay at The Hindu. Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The pages you have mentioned The Telegraph, The Monitor, The Chronicle are disambiguation articles, they are not articles like The Hindu, so the analogy doesnt hold. Crashed greek (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I discussed that in my original post and therefore the list didn't end there. See The Times and The Australian mentioned earlier. Also The New Yorker, The Londoner, The Scotsman, The Musalman, The Oregonian, The Oklahoman, The Tennessean, The Nation, The Atlantic, The Observer, The Press, The Guardian etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)'
 * The relevant guideline is at WP:NCTHE (hat tip, ), which supports using The in the article title for the newspaper but not for followers of Hinduism. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above discussion. The prominence of this newspaper creates the common name, few Wikipedia readers will find this confusing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per explanation by  ~Amkgp ( ✉ ) 14:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The definite article eliminates any ambiguity, as nobody would ever actually refer to the Hindu religion as just "The Hindu". Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. No ambiguity exists. In common with the style of headwords in other English reference works, MOS:AT only allows grammatical articles to begin article titles for topics that are works or bodies where the article itself forms part of the proper noun ("The" not "the"). This sort of WP:NATURALDIS is the primarily preferred form of WP:D. Llew Mawr (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Additional) comment:
 * The article title is also italicised to show it is the title of a work.
 * With regard to the comment on the most recent move, Hindu main word is about religion, the name of the religion is Hinduism, not "the Hindu".
 * Also, although I am a practising Hindu, I cannot imagine anyone referring to me, unidiomatically, as "the Hindu" (which would immediately make me think of the newspaper, despite my not living in India nor ever reading a copy).
 * I'm glad the move is being debated though. It wasn't in keeping with a spirit of consensus when the nominator twice moved this article, this year, to The Hindu (newspaper) without discussion or a proposal on this talk page.  Llew Mawr (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hinduism is also called as Hindu religion. Also an adherent of the religion is called Hindu. So it is the primary meaning. Crashed greek (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the above generally. The phrase "the Hindu" is not used in English as a noun phrase to mean anything general about Hindus and Hinduism (except in an obsolescent, borderline-poetic writing style, e.g. "For the Hindu, divinity is a more flexible and multifaceted concept than for the Christian.")  This would be a different matter for the plural, as social struggles between the Hindus and the Buddhists of India is a common enough subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose per all. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.

Redirects
These four are all redirects to this page, but there are no mention of them anywhere in the article. Although I can't be sure if it matches the Redirects for discussion policy, should't these be deleted?
 * Education Plus
 * The hindu features
 * The Hindu Centre
 * The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy

Note: "Education Plus" and "The hindu features" were merged to this article following a discussion here.--YTRK (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Section about controversies and criticisms is missing
This is regarding this edit and other edits in its vicinity. A section dedicated for “controversies and criticism” is present in the Wikipedia articles of almost every major newspaper except The Hindu. Therefore, we need a separate section for listing “controversies and criticism” about this newspaper. This doesn’t fit well in the history section. Please see the article of The New York Times as an approximate template. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The "controversies and critcism" section on The News York Times refers to actual controversies, accusations and criticisms with appropiate summarisation of references and a neutral presentation. Whereas your addition in Special:Diff/981743203 and Special:Diff/981743203 was a random jumble of quotes with no context and no reference to the internal dispute on editorial control, the subject of the cited articles.
 * I made a seperate edit solely to fix this issue in Special:Diff/981780581 which retains the section by name. If you want to retain it, that is fine but it should ideally belong in the history section considering the current state the article is in. If and when necessary, a section on controversies and criticism can be created in an appropriate manner..
 * Please go through, WP:CSECTION; a well developed article like that of The New York Times is not comparable to this one which doesn't even appropiately summarise its basic history as it stands. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go through, WP:CSECTION; a well developed article like that of The New York Times is not comparable to this one which doesn't even appropiately summarise its basic history as it stands. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go through, WP:CSECTION; a well developed article like that of The New York Times is not comparable to this one which doesn't even appropiately summarise its basic history as it stands. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * wp:CSECTION is a valid point. I hereby withdraw my proposal to create a dedicated section for controversies and criticism. However, the content added in this edit is important for maintaining WP:NPOV since it mentions the views critical of the newspaper. Without it, there’s hardly any content in the article critical of the newspaper. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 16:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are apparently editorial disputes. You can research them and write about them instead of name-dropping and cherry-picked quotations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have elaborated the quotations by adding the context. Thank you for the suggestion. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 17:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree to the new edit as it stands since it is presented within its appropriate context, although that edit summary certainly isn't appropriate considering you couldn't even wait for 30 minutes for a response here. In any case, I wouldn't be making changes to that edit so I suppose this is settled here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am sorry for my haste, if you feel I have shown some of it. I shall be refining the content I added today further to improve its cohesion, context and coherence. Please feel free to suggest improvements. Regarding the supposedly inappropriate “edit summary”, please see my reply here. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 17:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hindu logo.webp