Talk:The Hindu/Archive 1

circulation
Is it really the best selling English newspaper in India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaamir (talk • contribs)
 * No. But, it is a respected newspaper in India and popular in South India. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not THE best, but number 3 in terms of circulation. Latest ABC figures do confirm this- see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

credibility
Any idea as to what to do about this issue of The Hindu turing a blind eye to low journalistic standards and not responding to e-mails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.74.227 (talk • contribs)
 * No idea. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

POV
I'd like to bring to Wiki's attention the repeated attempts by some user (in China by the looks of the IP address) who is repeatedly altering this page so it reads as a personal diatribe against Ram, editor-in-chief of The Hindu. His/her last edit's details are as follows (from the 'page history' list): 15:49, 2 February 2006 59.92.196.98 While other versions of the page on Wiki seem somewhat fair and factual, even if POV is inserted marginally, this one is pure opinionating, and does not in my view belong in Wiki. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)
 * I am putting in a POV tag.--Sahodaran 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sahodaran and others, I agree- however as I said above- this user with IP address 59.92.196.98 keeps inserting this version of the page- with the strong anti-Ram and anti-Communist rhetoric. This has been going on for a while. I have sometimes tried to restore earlier versions, but this guy is relentless! Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

Is it not a fact that Ram is close to the CPIM, and a founding member of the SFI? Is it not a fact that he endorses the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Why is it "anti-communist" and "anti-Ram" rhetoric to state FACTS? The readers of Wikipedia's entry on The Hindu deserve to know its politics. Please look up, for example, the entry on Daily Telegraph. Readers are told of the paper's link with the Tories. The neutrality of that article is not disputed. Read up the entry on The Times. Murdoch's ownership of the paper and his links with Labour are much commented upon. Why is it "bias" only when a newspaper's pro-communist sumpathies are revealed? A "sanitized" entry on "The Hindu" where the paper's CPIM links are pushed under the carpet no doubt pleases the pro-communist, pro-Ram segemnt of readers, but is not in the interest of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyameva jayate (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, whoever this anti-Communist, pro-tibet loon is, there is a difference between BALANCED commentary on political leanings and specific individuals holding editorial and other posts in the newspaper (as there are in the Wiki entries for The Times and the Daily Telegraph) and outright diatribes, based on a personal vendetta/agenda of some sort. Wiki is not the space for the latter- you should start your own blog and keep your rants there. To demonstrate, please consider the following phrases used in the Wiki entry on The Hindu by you or whoever is doing this:

It's time that Wiki editors dealt with this appropriately. The very examples this partisan writer has drawn attention to, the Daily Telegraph and The Times, clearly point to what an ideal template of balanced political critique may look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)
 * The Hindu is seen as the unofficial mouthpiece of one of India's communist parties- This is POV not fact
 * Glorification of the Communist parties is the norm and any criticism targeted at them is virtually non-existent- POV, not fact
 * notably the right-of-center BJP, rountinely get unfavourable, opinionated and editorialized coverage- POV, the Sangh parivar (opposition right-wing party) has indeed been in a state of turmoil and a number of other papers have also reported this.
 * The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth- Hardcore POV!
 * Ironically, though, for a newspaper committed to Marxist politics... POV for sure (is it on some record, e.g. admitted by The Hindu itself, that it is committed to Marxist politics? Are you crazy?) Wikipedia is not about bending the truth to support your viewpoint.
 * Title "The Hindu's Moments of Glory"- inappropriate/sarcastic- and in the latest draft has completely deleted the balanced accounts of the papers role in the Bofors scandal and the Tamil Nadu Assembly privilege case.
 * Reply to the above:
 * Actually, let us see what Wikipedia's editors need to deal with.

Now let us look at this gentleman's own copy: This sentence was introduced by ME. The Abuser gentleman doesn't dispute it. In other words, as long as I sing hosannahs to The Hindu, he is cool. The moment factual criticism about this pro-CPM paper is aired, he brings the knives out. Some balanced persepective that. Why doesn't the abusing gentleman ask: "The Hindu is tradition? Isn't that POV?" He doesn't ask it because it fits in neatly with his own perceptions. My sentence. Must have made the Abusing gentleman, I suspect, deliriously happy, because we see that it is not challenged. "Attractive visual appeal" is PoV allright? Some find circus posters attractive, and some others find CPM posters attractive. So the Abusing gentleman must have quibbled with my description. He doesn't. Why would he? Singing hosannahs to The Hindu is the name of the game. Here is a journalism primer for the Abusing gentleman: No matter what the excuse, a newspaper is expected to be committed to, first and foremost, truth and objectivity. Even if the claim that no newspaper in India gives good coverage to CPIM is true (which it is not), that is not justification enough for The HIndu to run pro-CPM propaganda. At any rate, we are NOT disputing The Hindu's right to be a CPIM mouthpiece. We are merely stating the fact that it is! And stating this fact (which the Abuser himself agrees with, though with his characteristic gloss replacing "CPIM" with "Left") brings forth abuse! To sum up: The abusing gentleman's writeup does not meet the basic requirements of a Wiki entry, whereas mine does, because the latter presents a balanced picture giving praise to The Hindu where it desreves it, and pointing out its flaws where they need to be.
 * First and foremost, they need to deal with rude people who are bringing a culure of abuse to Wiki, as in, "whoever this anti-Communist, pro-tibet loon is"
 * Second: "The Hindu is seen as the unofficial mouthpiece of one of India's communist parties- This is POV not fact". OF COURSE it is a point of view: it is perfectly legitimate to characterize a newspaper with a widely held point of view because no newspaper declares itself to be the mouthpiece of any political party (barring the party organs). The Guardian is widely seen as leftwing newspaper. The Independent is widely seen as a Liberal Democrat paper. The Daily Telegraph is seen as a Tory paper. The New York Times is widely seen as a Democrat paper. The Wall Street Journal is widely seen as a Republican paper. And no matter however much the afore-mentioned abuser dislikes it, the fact is that the The Hindu is seen as a pro-CPM paper. It is not a mere coincidence that the current editor of the paper, Ram, is a founding member of the CPIM's student body, is it? Why does the afore-mentioned abuser want to suppress this fact? What is his agenda in wanting to suppress a VITAL fact that throws much light on The Hindu's politics?
 * "Glorification of the Communist parties is the norm and any criticism targeted at them is virtually non-existent- POV, not fact". Here is the deal. Can the abuser point out to three, JUST THREE, op-ed pieces that have appeared in The Hindu in the last ten, that is TEN, years criticizing CPIM in the same no-holds barred manner that BJP or Congress is criticized?
 * "the Sangh parivar (opposition right-wing party) has indeed been in a state of turmoil". Excuse me? What does the "Snagh Parivar" being in a "state of turmoil" have to do with The Hindu's routine bashing of the BJP? On the contrary, as we speak, the Election Commission of India is unearthing massive electoral fraud in CPIM-ruled West Bengal in the form of bogus voters, and there has not been a word of condemnation from The Hindu.
 * "The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth- Hardcore POV!" That is again a widely held perception. I'll let this pass, but I'll soon show what according this abusing gentleman constitutes truth.
 * 1) "The Hindu enjoys considerable popularity, especially in South India, where it enjoys a cult status of being local tradition"
 * 1) "The reference to the Hindu religion in its name is actually a misnomer, and the paper is actually regarded as one of the most vocal critics of the Hindutva agenda." PoV. What connection Hindu religion and Hindutva have, given the claim of Marxists themselves that they are opposed only to Hindutva, not Hindu religion? The Abusing gentleman seems confused.
 * 2) With photo-heavy content, The Hindu sports an attractive visual appeal
 * 1) "and today one of the reasons for its continued popularity are its ability to balance entertainment and images with unbiased reporting and in-depth analysis." PoV.
 * 2) . "after an ownership change, it became a proponent of the nationalist struggle against colonialism, virtually being a mouthpiece of the Indian National Congress" PoV. Apparently, it's ok to say that THe Hindu was once a mouthpiece of the Congress. (Did it declare itself committed to Congress politics?) But no sooner than the fact that today the same paper is pro-Communist is brought out, knees begin to jerk frantically.
 * 3) "All along, The Hindu displayed a strong independent stand however, with its emphasis on truthfulness, objectivity" Tons and tons of PoV here, all the way. Shall we forget that the father himself accused the son of turning the paper into a scandal-monger? That is, the outgoing editor was accused by the incoming as not being truthful!
 * 4) "The Hindu still remains independent, progressive " Virtual minefield of PoV here. Independent according to who, Mr Abuser? Progressive according to who? No Communist, with Communism's genocidal track record of killing millions, can be progressive according to a lot of sane people in the world. Let's not forget that The Hindu justified Tiananmen Square. And that its current editor virtually justified the cultural genocide of Tibetan Budhdhism.
 * 5) "It however also has to be acknowledged that the Leftist parties get very bad press from other media organizations" Wow. This truck-load of PoV from a gentleman who faults mefor stating the FACT that The Hindu routinely gives bad press to CPIM's political rivals, and more so to BJP.

Satyameva jayate 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Satyameva- Aww, you sound hurt... All you have done my friend, is to list whatever the previous user has written and call each statement a POV and defend your own points he/she listed as non-POV. I personally do think your version of the page reflects a more unrestrained bias. So, I also think this is one for Wiki's editors to adjudicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.185.226 (talk • contribs)

And you, dear chap, seem to have abandoned even your pretense at reasoned argument. While Wiki's editors adjudicate, please do a couple of favors 1) to me: leave _my_ version unmolested, which I personally think is bias-free and 2) to yourself: enrol in Logic 101 at LSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyameva jayate (talk • contribs)

A few sentences in the article were not only POV but also incorrect. They have been replaced with a neutral stance. Nobody is sure yet what the circulation of Deccan Chronicle is.

POV tag 8th Feb '06
Ok, Mr Birbal from Bangalore, or whoever you are, you're very clever for being able to do a reverse DNS look up, and I salute your wisdom. And, I am not really interested in wasting my time with endless reverts as you seem to be. However, without prejudice and bias (to prove it, I do concede that you have indeed made the page seem less like a virulent personal attack), may I submit to you that I question whether the following inserted by you is true:

"Consequent to the change in its politics, The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth. Its cult status of being tradition is on the wane too. Ironically, though, for a newspaper committed to Marxist politics, The Hindu owes success to the monopoly status (in the Madras market) that its founders built, and is still thriving in the capitalistic and fiercely competitive Indian media market".

It is at least disputable, you must agree, that something so paramount as "The Hindu's reputation of being a stickler for the truth" cannot be thrown in there without some concrete evidence such as the results of an opinion poll or survey about the paper. If you can find something like that and put it in here I would be happy to let your statement remain (If you notice I have anyway let it remain- not deleted it- but just added a POV tag to voice my dissent). I would say a similar thing about its' "cult status" and the cause of its success being its monopoly position (is there a counterfactual for this- i.e. some way of showing that IF some other paper like the TOI came into Tamil Nadu The Hindu would DEFINITELY suffer?)- could you please provide more evidence to back up these opinion?

Again, I am putting these questions to you purely for the sake of making this page look factual- any personal views of mine that coloured my initial reactions are regretted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

[Reply] If you want this page to look factual, please read The Hindu. Following the turmoil of 2003 at the paper's helm, there was much comment in the media on how its politics was getting the better of its journalism. Here is a sample:. I can give hundreds of examples from The Hindu itself showing its rank opportunism, its lack of ethics and absence of commitment to consistency of principle. In fact, I gave one here recently: When Bihar Assembly is dissolved The Hindu hails the move as constitutionally proper, because the CPIM was in favour of it. When eventually the supreme court rules that the dissolution was unconstitutional, the Hindu follows suit cocnurring with the court, thereby setting a new record in eating one's own words. When Hindus protest an MF Husain painting showing a naked Sita in the company of a naked Hanuman, the Hindu spews venom against them, sets itself up as a barometer of Hindu sensibilities and declares that there was nothing to take offence at all. But when Islamists (not, note, Muslims) rage against a few cartoons, The Hindu decalres that offence was indeed given because non-Muslims failed to respect Islamic taboos on pictures!!

I can put all these examples in the Wiki entry, with references to each and every of them. When you juxtapose,say, The Hindu's first editorial on Bihar assembly dissolution, next to its second one following Supreme Court's judgement, the contrast is nothing short of dramatic. And many of the examples I can cite with references to content from The Hindu itself, I promise, will be no less dramatic.

But Wiki entry on The Hindu is not a research paper. It is a summary of what the paper is and what the public perception about it is. If you want to insist that The Hindu is a newspaper of truth, integrity and ethics, please give what you are pretty good at demanding of others: the results of an opinion poll or survey. LIkewise, how about that bit about other papers not giving space to critques of neo-liberal policies etc ... any evidence in the form of an opinion poll or survey, or is it merely your exalted opinion? Moreover, why is it a requirement of any newspaper that it should criticize these so-called neo-liberal policies? Does The Hindu criticize Marxist fanaticism? There is an irony, dude, in living in UK enjoying the fruits of capitalism and dictating to Indians what economic policies they should follow. An irony as sweet as the Iyengar family that runs The Hindu getting richer by the day plugging Marxism even as their riches come from the advertising revenue made possible by "neo-liberal" policies. From Pepsi to Coke to Ford to General Motors, nary a business representative of the Great Satan goes unrepresented in The Hindu's  pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyameva jayate (talk • contribs)

[Reply] well, since i am trying to look at our debate with an unbiased eye it seems to me that what we are arguing over is definitely YOUR exalted opinion against mine. i admit, i may not be able to find an opinion poll that says that the hindu reflects truth, integrity and ethics, but its popularity in south india and indeed other parts of the country to me reflect that. but that again you put down to its monopoly position, and as i said that cannot be proven or disproved since there is no counterfactual. again, maybe it is my opinion, but i believe that in a country where 26% or more of the population is below the poverty line, and muslims as a minority were constantly beseiged by the fundamentalist Sangh Parivar and the BJP government, there IS a need for a critique of neo-liberalism which does nothing more for the poor other than the debatable 'trickle down' and there IS a need for critiquing mainstream Hindutva politics that can climax in horrible pogroms like gujarat and if anything less, outrages such as ayodhya. this again, i would call accepted fact, but you would call opinion.

having said this, i do agree with you that there have been inconsistencies such as the bihar episode, but i think you find these with any indian paper. i mean if you ask me, there are far worse crimes in the mainstream media today, such as the Times of India selling even editorial space for a price. so, is this a reason for singling out the hindu for critique? i am not sure. your criticism about the leftist tilt is relatively more valid, in my view. such a tilt by newspapers towards ANY party is contrary to its theoretical position as one of the non-partisan pillars of democratic society. however, i think it is reasonable to suggest that if The Hindu seems pro-left it may only be because it is pro-poor in its opinionating, and there is nothing wrong with that considering India is the country with the most poor people in the world, and they live a life of utter indignity. and secondly, as you pointed out, bias towards left parties in particular makes a strange bedfellow with dependence on ad revenues from goods that cater purely to the middle and upper classes. so what do you suggest, that The Hindu stop accepting advertisements? perhaps that is indeed what you mean, for then it would imply that the paper perish entirely, an outcome, i am sure, that would make you happy.

one more thing you do need to take note of, however is that at least i have had the decency (since my last entry addressed to you), to keep the personal stuff out of it, which you haven't. i refuse, for the record, to agree that my right to comment on Indian politics is in any way compromised because i am writing from the UK, not only because i am indian, live in india and am just abroad temporarily, but more because your assumption that you have a greater moral authority to comment on this matter reeks of continued prejudice.

and as a last word, since i feel Mr Bangalore and I are reaching an 'agree-to-disagree-position' (at least in my view, since i believe we are now down to the brass tacks of one person's opinion against another's), I STILL APPEAL TO WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TO LOOK INTO MY VIEW THAT THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED (not saying they should agree with my view), based on scholarly as well as public opinion on what reputation The Hindu enjoys today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.185.82 (talk • contribs) [also edited from ip

how is the hindu 'progressive'? whose definition of progress is this? we are told that to remove astrology column is progressive! if its only as simple as that. yesterday in an editorial hindu said that european newspapers should not have published the cartoons in deference to quranic injunctions against pictures. now that is crazy, for a newspaper to argue that other newspapers should bend and crawl before religious dictats (just like it does). far from being progressive, the hindu is a reactionary, regressive and revanchist newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.169.66 (talk • contribs)

How does gently reminding the free press of its responsibilites constitute any sort of attack on the right to freedom of expression? The aforementioned editorial in no way implied that newspapers in Denmark or anywhere else do not have this RIGHT. It seems in no way partisan to point out that this right also comes with reasonable SELF-MODERATION (I wouldn't even call it censorship) responsibilities. The Hindu is not isolated within the mainstream media in expressing this opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.99.54 (talk • contribs)

[re to]"having said this, i do agree with you that there have been inconsistencies such as the bihar episode, but i think you find these with any indian paper"

all newspapers? you must be kidding. yea! inconsistency is probably a part of media reporting. But what appears in Hindu is one sided reporting. The glaring fact is that, you find no alternative column, atleast say once in a fortnight, no once in a month, written by a rightist, im sorry, atleast by a maoderate columnist. if this trend of the hindu were to continue, im afraid it will be nothing but a competitor of people's democracy.

If we are gonna get into the debate of different points of view, then, we are in the process of questioning everything in the article..who said hindu is fair, just, true and holds on to integrity n truth? In the issue of danish cartoons - "The aforementioned editorial in no way implied that newspapers in Denmark or anywhere else do not have this RIGHT. It seems in no way partisan to point out that this right also comes with reasonable SELF-MODERATION (I wouldn't even call it censorship) responsibilities. The Hindu is not isolated within the mainstream media in expressing this opinion." -again, almost every single piece of journalism in media, carried atleast one opinion which condemned the barbaric behaviour of the extremists but not the Hindu. i say, Hindu is isolated in the mainstream media.

i wish to inform you as a fourth generation reader of Hindu in my family, i dared to stop the subscription, opposed to the view of family, which reads hindu just because its been read for decades in our family. the same has been adopted in our neighbourhood and in our town too, so the point of view that Hindu is losing its traditional base is true. If you are searching for statistics to disvrove it - i will turn a leftist now- to say they are nothing but "merely manipulated numbers".

The article needs to be expanded, agreed. but for sure, it represents the right (correct!) view point and is not biased! - arjun 08:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Check
Seeing the above discussion,I believe the article as of now needs to undergo a POV check.--Sahodaran 08:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sahodaran, I agree completely. As the editor BostonMA has mentioned below, the article at the moment seems replete with personal observations that are tantamount to equating The Hindu with a propaganda machine. Not only does this seem to be a grossly unjust view of the paper, it is factually incorrect and quite misleading. Additionally, as BostonMA has also said, such personalized judgements of The Hindu, or indeed any subject of an article, are inconsistent with the fundamental aims of Wikipedia. Editors such as Blue Tiger and others whose political philosophies clash with those of The Hindu, please note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.31.170 (talk • contribs)

Nehru on Hindu
suggested putting in Nehru quote: Done

negative criticisms
Insertion by blanked by   with following explanation:
 * Inaccurate

Firstly, to whoever posted 'Negative Criticisms' (as opposed to?) and 'Criticisms', please do not post the same content to the discussion page as well. This is not the page's intended purpose. Secondly, the so-called critcisms, while fair in some regards (e.g. of Business Line) are blatantly inaccurate when discussing the loss of market share after the Deccan Chronicle coming to Tamil Nadu. No officially recongnized figures are available in this regard as it is too premature, and in fact a major view seems to be that the DC has not made a significant dent at all. Please do not post such misleading statements, masquerading as facts. Again, an appeal to Wiki editors to address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Policy of No Original Research
Wikipedia has a policy of No Original Research. If you are not familiar with this policy, please read it. In short, this policy states that even though a fact may be known to be true by one of the editors, unless the fact can be found to be stated by a reputable source, that fact may be removed by any editor.

The current article claims that the Hindu is an unofficial mouthpiece for Communist Party of India Marxist (CPIM).

Whether or not this statement is true, it needs to be backed by a reputable source. I therefore request that the editors of this article who wish the statement remain to provide such a source. --BostonMA 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree heartily. I am unsure if you will be able to change this about the page's contents though, given the number of people who seem to portray the newspaper as Marxist (conflating the paper with its proprietors'personal politcal beliefs). I've tried and it only leads to editing wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.141 (talk • contribs)

"The Hindu has lost much of its earlier reputation of being a stickler for truth." - If we are going to question the marxist credentials of The Hindu, then from where do we justify the point that, atleast at some point of time, it had a reputation of being a stickler for truth. I wish the editor of this article provides a reputable source, for such points to remain. - arjun 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear respected Arjun, the point you make is appropriate. If the article claims that the paper has or once had a reputation for being a stickler for truth, that claim also needs a reputable source.  There are quite a few claims in the article that require sources, and I only mentioned one, but I do not mean that the others should not also be required to meet the same standard.
 * With regard to the relationship between the Hindu and the CPI M, I am not saying that Wikipedia policy forbid reporting such facts. I am only saying that Wikipedia policy is against reporting personal observations.  For example, anyone may read the newspaper and can compare the space devoted to criticizing the BJP with the space devoted to criticizing the CPI M.  Any Wikipedia editor may draw conclusions from this experience.  However, conclusions drawn from personal experience are not what most Wikipedia editors believe ought to be included in an article, nor are they appropriate according to the existing policy.  However, news about the Hindu that is notable and published in a reputable newspaper is acceptable Wikipedia material, provided it is properly attributed.  For example, the conflict between The Hindu and Tamil Nadu legislature is well documented and mention of this conflict in the article is appropriate as long as both sides of the dispute are fairly represented.  --BostonMA 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag
Whoever is trying to put POV checks, better explain why you are doing it. Else, I am going to remove them. I have already seen the previous reasons and they are hardly satisfying or relevant in the light of some subsequent changes made.

And, by the way, if you think there is a personal diatribe against N Ram or Communists, you need to point out where it is. - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.232.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Dear anonymous user. I restore the POV tags because it appears to me that the current page does not meet the guidelines of NPOV.  I think my opinion is shared by a number of editors.  I currently do not have the time to argue with all the POV pushers who guard this page.  However, I will continue to maintain a POV tag. Also, when adding comments to a talk page, please add them at the end, not at the top.  --BostonMA 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Boston MA, You need to be more specific. If you cannot justify your position, you cannot expect the POV tag to remain. Guest(129.186.232.42)

Just as an example:
 * "The Hindu is seen by some as the unofficial mouthpiece of one of India's communist parties, the CPIM".

This is highly POV and no source has been provided. --BostonMA 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Boston MA, It is not POV because it mentions that "Some People" see The Hindu as an unofficial mouthpiece of the CPI(M). The statement does not say that The Hindu IS the mouthpiece of CPI(M). And if no source has been provided, you need to put the citations tag. Not the POV tag. Guest(129.186.232.42)
 * "some people" is classic WP:WEASEL William M. Connolley 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. That line is deleted. Guest(129.186.232.42)

New Tag
Looking at the discussion in POV Tag, I have placed a new tag and refered to all those places where citations are needed.

BlueTiger

Why POV Tags?
To the gentlemen or ladies who are putting the POV Tags - Please write some reasons below, before doing so. I think we all agree that we must know why there needs to be a POV tag. Please point out *explicitly* which statements are POV and why you consider them as POV. Otherwise, some people will be putting the tags and others will be removing them for eternity.

-BlueTiger


 * BlueTiger, the article is very POV. Virtually all of the numerous claims in the article for which there is a fact tag, are POV.  Even the points at which fact tags have been added is not complete.  For example, statements such as:
 * "There is also a general feeling that some of its reports are anti-Hindu [6]"
 * Even though this statement has a citation, it is no less POV that the assertion that the Hindu is anti-Indian, or that John Kerry is un-American. For the article to be Neutral Point of View, it must not give undue weight to a particular point of view, even if that particular POV can be backed by citations. --BostonMA 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, OK, I understand the problem. I will allow the POV check to remain till such statements are modified. Since I added some of them I am willing to make them more neutral, in the near future.

-BlueTiger

BlueTiger, thank-you. --BostonMA 01:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching this space for some time now. While no one questions the right of Mr Ram to hold on to his beliefs, problems start when he peddles his opinions, conjectures, prejudices and hatred as "news". His coterie consisting of people like Harish Khare, Neena Vyas, Siddharth Varadarajan and others routinely assist him in this venture. All these people are entirely right to hold views that they cherish, but let them not peddle this as "news". One hardly sees any criticism of AIADMK (possibly out of fear), Congress (in tandem with CPIM's approach), RJD, SP, BSP etc.The Left, as per its beliefs, can do no wrong. Especially since Ram took over, except for the rare dissenting letter from reader Hilda Raja, there are no letters of dissent or criticism in "letters to the Editor". The paper tackles criticism-laden letters by not publishing them -- I know because my friends and I have sent numerous letters. None of them were edited/published or even a reply in courtesy received. The sense of priority in the Hindu is disturbing. Sonia Gandhi is referred to as merely Gandhi (not even as Mrs. Gandhi) -- to build a false image of her belonging to the Mahatma's family. Ravings, rantings and imaginary successes of the DMK chief and Dayanidhi Maran are prominently reported (not rated as news in any other national daily) -- possibly because of the reported matrimonial connections between the Hindu and the DMK chief's families. BJP is, by default, described as the "saffron outfit", "saffron party", Hindu Taleban etc. Equally, Prakash and Brinda Karat, Sitaram Yechuri, Bardhan, Jyoti Basu, HKS Surjeet find themselves idolized by the paper. The paper's glorious days were at the time of its investigation of the Bofors scandal. Now it reads like publications from the CPIM office in Alimuddin Street in Calcutta. I maintain that Ram and his group are entitled to their views -- but he should NOT falsely package it as news and warp readers' minds. It must be truly exhilarating to sit on a paper worth Rs 400 crores and peddle communism and pontificate. Except for the matrimonial and obituary sections, the Hindu has outlived its usefulness. jayravi1944@yahoo.com[209.161.234.242]

Jayravi, That The Hindu is a highly biased newspaper is well known to many. I agree with you on most points. I suspect, the criticism column is going to increase in the near future. BlueTiger 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)]

BlueTiger, the guy who removed the word 'significant' from the title 'The Hindu's Significant Achivements' and all you other The-Hindu-bashers: You chaps don't seem to have understood one basic point that the editor BostonMA made (see what he says above)- ALL your so-called criticisms are POV!!! But unfortunately for you guys this blatantly biased format you keep giving this piece will not last, because it is completely contrary to the basic purpose of Wikipedia, to be NPOV. Scroll back up and carefully read what BostonMA has said, and then you'll realise that your quibbles with the supposed Marxist and anti-Hindutva line of The Hindu can at best get a passing mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Anonymous user. Point out explicitly which statements are POV and why it is POV. Keep it short and cut all the unnecessary rhetoric. If only the criticism section is POV, then would you mind if I move the POV check to the criticism section instead? BlueTiger 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)] BlueTiger, the article is very POV. Virtually all of the numerous claims in the article for which there is a fact tag, are POV. Even the points at which fact tags have been added is not complete. For example, statements such as:
 * Like the anon user said,let me quote BostonMA once again,for the information of Blue Tiger;

There is also a general feeling that some of its reports are anti-Hindu [6]"

Even though this statement has a citation, it is no less POV that the assertion that the Hindu is anti-Indian, or that John Kerry is un-American. For the article to be Neutral Point of View, it must not give undue weight to a particular point of view, even if that particular POV can be backed by citations. --BostonMA 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC) The statement was already changed to the following - "As late as 2003, Jagannathan mentions a general feeling that some of its reports are "anti-Hindu" [22]" Now this is a fact and not a POV. At best, you may want to change it to "In 2003 etc....", but that is up to you. BlueTiger 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)]
 * This is a simple arguement.You can and should write facts,and all kinds of valid criticisms with proper citations,but dont opiniate.Let facts speak for themselves,without the help of peacock/weasel terms,and thus stick to NPOV.Simple.--Sahodaran 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Points of view are expressed by people. A statement that a given person expressed a point of view is a fact (assuming that the person did actually express that point of view).  However, an article does not have neutral point of view merely because it contains only facts. Reciting numerous facts which illustrate a point of view gives weight to that point of view.  There must be balance in the article, so that points of view are not given undue weight.   Please read WP:NPOV for a more thorough explanation.  --BostonMA 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only one place in the article where The Hindu being "anti-Hindu" is mentioned. Does this sound like undue weightage? BlueTiger 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)]
 * Would it be safe to say that it is your opinion that The Hindu has an objectionable bias? That is a point of view, and it is a point of view that is represented by many points made in the article:
 * (There are also indications that the newspaper may have become biased in the recent times. See Criticism below).
 * He was also the vice-president of the Students Federation of India (SFI) [4], (the students's wing of the Communist Party of India - Marxist) at the time of its formation in 1970. A staunch supporter of the Chinese regime, he is on record claiming that no damage was done to Tibet by China [citation needed]. He was also part of the BJP watch group which termed the rule at the centre in the late 1990's "fascist"[
 * Of late, the newspaper has been displaying a strong pro-left tilt.
 * Venkatachari Jagannathan, a business journalist based in Chennai (Madras), quotes its Joint Managing Director N Murali, saying that the newspaper's readers have complained that its reports are biased and its objectivity is lacking [5]
 * Its neutral image has been affected to such an extent that it was probably one of the factors that led to Mr. N Ram being appointed recently as its editor-in-chief [6], [7
 * However, whether this change has made the newspaper any less biased is debatable. [8]
 * In an article in August 2003, The Hindu itself recognized that it was affected by the 'editorialising as news reporting' virus and expressed a determination to restore the objectivity of its coverage [10].
 * I could continue, but extending the list would add little new information. The point is that the current article expresses the point of view that the Hindu is biased and objectionably so.  That POV is found throughout the article, and is given undue weight.  A good test to see whether an edit is neutral in its point of view might be this.  On the basis of the edit can you guess the POV of the editor?  --BostonMA 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The contention that a particular point of view is being given "undue" weightage does not hold water if that "POV" is closer to the truth. In this case, we have the newspaper itself acknowledging some of its mistakes, which makes one "POV" closer to the truth. Wikipedia mentions that if a view point is more significant, then it is easier to substantiate it and hence you will find that in this case, almost all statements that support this particular "POV" have references.

Still, if you are under the impression that competing points of view are not given proper weightage, then you are free to present the alternate point of view regarding The Hindu. Instead of telling the so-called "opposite camp" that they are giving undue weightage to a particular POV, one can mention facts supporting the the other "POV" to make the article more "balanced", if one is under the impression that it is not. If the other POV is equally valid, it is not hard to find references for it. Regarding your specific points, Point # 1 is just trying to balance the other points in the same paragraph. Point # 2 is purely a fact about the editor of The Hindu and does not necessarily support any point of view. The readers have the right to be informed about the political views of a newspaper editor, especially since newspapers deal a lot with politics. The same thing can be said about Points 4, 5 and 7. People have the right to know the recent changes and events that are associated with the newspaper, even if they support a POV. Infact, if you had read one of the links, you will find some quotes from N Ram himself mentioning that he was made editor in order to promote objectivity. Here, the "undue" weight objection falls again because the "POV" in question has more support from a reliable source.

Point # 6 is trying to balance point # 5, lest someone should come to the conclusion that the change made the newspaper less biased.

As for point # 7, it can be equally argued that it supports the opposite point of view that the Hindu is a decent enough newspaper to acknowledge its own mistakes and strive to be more objective.

That leaves us with point # 3, which is (arguably) closer to the truth. Circumstantial evidence comes from N Ram himself, who has rejected a "rightist" label for The Hindu and implicitly accepted the leftist label for "The Frontline".

BlueTiger 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Rathna?
Removed reference to N Ram being awarded Sri Lanka Rathna from Controversies section. I couldn't find any reference to a Sri Lanka Ratnam award, let alone N Ram being awarded the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.56.27 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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 : ). Then, concerning blogs, there are several others such as : . 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 . 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.Pectoretalk 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hindu is a Left leaning newspaper and it is evident from its articles and references. Who is removing this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4490:D660:0:0:0:0:B07 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

the hindu features

 * ✅: The hindu features - merged and Education Plus - redirected as content already covered in this page.
 * : 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&#8225;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&#8225;Hobbes 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Uncited
Removed uncited claims and review which gives The Hindu itself as a source and the link not working based on reviews in 1965 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin456 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This deletion was improper. A news source is not required to be online for a valid citation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ownership and 'the family'
The current ownership of the paper should be described. Also there are references early in the text to 'younger members of the family' and other references to family kinship on the managing board or senior staff, this should be placed in suitable context. Imc (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

History from the paper 1895 to 1980+
Can anyone fill in the history of this paper for this time period? Maybe divide up the history into subsection dealing with different editors and/or major editorial policy shifts? -- 14.97.222.211 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Hindu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041124154440/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/th125/stories/2003091300830500.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/th125/stories/2003091300830500.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613132939/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers34/paper3360.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers34%5Cpaper3360.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Review Section
the claim about the reviews is unverified and undue.Tintin456 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC) and do not mention it and need a source other than the hinduTintin456 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs in the Reviews section are sourced. You removed them claiming that they were not, and then again claiming that the links do not work. Both those removals were incorrect statements. It is mid-evening here and I am not planning on doing any heavy stuff on Wikipedia until tomorrow. The statements can stay until then and I will read the sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go though them cannot find a single word about the review and is  a dead link Tintin456 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you were doing but this clearly contains the information about what The Times said. I've added a citation of the actual issue of The Times, since I have access to their digital archive. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the above and various archived online sources such as this, it appears that the section (and The Hindu cited source) is correct. While we really should use an independent source, there isn't actually a problem here. That research took me about five minutes, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

American Newspaper Publishers' Association statement needs a source other than The hindu further do we need this review section all other newspapers do not.Tintin456 (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is cited. I've just verified it. Now please drop this. - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

N. Murali is a Director of the The Hindu
His opinion is relevant.That quote was made by N. Murali one of the Directors of The Hindu and written that farewell letter here as well and also here and this in addition to the The Times of India. N. Murali one of the Directors of The Hindu has clearly stated here rich tradition of credibility, objectivity, balance and editorial primacy had of late been compromised as per The Times of India ,I do not get why you are removing sourced information form | Times of India here  a reliable source .I stop from editing this articles ,I have no connection with any newspaper.Please do not remove sourced information .The same letter has also been published in other media outlets given above.Tintin456 (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

incorrect info
Deccan Chronicle also says Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (DCHL) publishes the largest circulated English newspaper in South India  as per there Website Further The Hindu is not largest circulated English newspaper in Karnataka Times of India has a larger circulation than them and in andhra and Telegahna  Deccan Chronicle  has a higher circualtion.Even the claim of highest circulation in South India needs a third party cite.Normsynge (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The information is available here but is members-only. We need to find a member because I do not trust the newspapers to get it right. I may contact the ABC to ask whether they could make an exception to their membership requirement and email me the list (or even an annotated version of it that could be uploaded at Commons). There are various reasons why they might refuse, not the least of which is copyright. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume that I can access the list but will take a day or so.... ~ Winged Blades Godric  05:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see that they have figures up to December and those include state-wise stats. It is the state-wise stuff that seems to be the bone of contention here. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have emailed them anyway. Ideally, we would like them to publish it in an open-access area of their website. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sitush is right here .We need The information of which newspaper is the largest circulated in South India.


 * Further the infro of which is the English newspaper per state if possible.Normsynge (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)