User:YellowMonkey/Times of India

=Times of India = Plagiarism?= Piracy or copyright infringement is wrong because it hurts the creator – if I don't get paid, I decide to stop creating. It kills creativity --Rajesh Kalra, Editor, Times Internet Limited
 * Sanctimonious li'l twits, aren't they? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff on the internet plagiarised from Wikipedia articles that I wrote
I found this pile while googling up for the personal life/outside cricket info for Harbhajan Singh so that it can be sent to WP:FAC


 * Dinesh Karthik - GA - is mostly cut from a Jaunary 2007 version of this GA
 * Shanthakumaran Sreesanth - bits of para 2,3,4 seem similar
 * Zaheer Khan - Wrote that last para (the whole article was plagiarised)
 * Suresh Raina - Wrote the last para, which was plagiarised
 * Munaf Patel - Para 1, 4, 6 plagiarised
 * Yuvraj Singh - para 3 plagiarised.
 * Rudra Pratap Singh - and
 * Amused to note the comment I added "In just 11 ODI matches, he has been awarded the man of the match award 3 times" was correct as of Feb 2006, but nobody updated this throughout the year, and ToI carries wrong info.
 * Irfan Pathan -
 * Although I brought this article up to GA, the last two paragraphs were from the pre-GA version - Pathan's article as of Dec 2006. It humors me to note that the comments "He is developing into an all-rounder, as part of a reallocation of responsibilities under the new Indian cricket coach Greg Chappell. Chappell has identified potential in Pathan's batting, which is regarded as technically correct. With his strong fast bowlers physique, Pathan has the ability to strike the ball long and clean. " and "being groomed as the spearhead of the Indian attack for years to come, as well as a potential captain. Following his strong performances in 2005, Pathan was promoted in December to an A-grade contract by the BCCI." were inserted by me in late 2005 when I had first joined Wikipedia . It is amusing that the insertion of original research and personal analysis made by a newbie, has found it's way onto one of India's leading newspapers.

Blnguyen appears rather amused that his newbie violations of Wikipedia policy have indirectly turned him into a cricket pundit read by tens of millions and maybe hundreds of millions of Indians, speculating that the Board of Control for Cricket in India, may someday install Irfan Pathan as captain of the Indian cricket team.

Other comments

 * Mohammad Kaif -
 * It amuses he that the random POV personal opinion of some editor could be plagiarised by a newspaper. Since when was Kaif, a player who has a ODI strike rate of 70, and is much slower than his team-mates "In full flight, he can be great to watch, like Mohammad Azharuddin, he can find the gaps on the on-side. " - huh?????
 * Sachin Tendulkar -
 * Seems like they chose one of the worst cricket articles on Wikipedia to (partly) plagiarise
 * Robin Uthappa - Plagiarised] straight from Cricinfo, a commercial cricket media
 * Ramesh Powar - Pasted from January wiki version, before I deleted the bogus info about him being "agile" - Powar is the one of the *ahem* chunkiest guys in international cricket.
 * Joginder Sharma - straight copyvio of cricinfo
 * Gautam Gambhir - copyvio of current wiki
 * Rahul Dravid - last three paras from Wiki section "Dravid's style"
 * MS Dhoni - last three paras
 * Harbhajan Singh - plagiarised from old version of wiki article  and cricinfo
 * Ricky Ponting - mostly from old version like this
 * Michael Hussey - -
 * ToI imports a whole pile of Wiki entries for the Australian and West Indies cricketers, errors and all from a bunch of unsourced articles.

Have your say on the Times of India
Is this newspaper rubbish or what?

Vote here
 * The links time out for me at the moment but I don't need to read them before voting a resounding yes. Apparently the ToI sports section was great once upon a time. I have read the paper on and off for the last 10 years and found it to be hopeless. Indiatimes.com is a trashier version of the print edition. Tintin 08:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw some contents through google cache. Unfortunately for you, they probably appear only in the internet and not in print :-) Tintin 08:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw some contents through google cache. Unfortunately for you, they probably appear only in the internet and not in print :-) Tintin 08:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I remember a blog that carried details of all plagiarisms committed by Times of India. About an year-and-half back, they sued (read bullied) the guy and he had to take down the blog. Not that the guy was wrong, actually he didn't had any resources to fight a legal battle with the media giant. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the poorly written Times_of_India#Controversies section. It explains it all :) GizzaChat  &#169; 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it isn't. They are the largest selling daily in the world. They don't plagiarise in print. These incidents seem to be isolated. Perhaps they should be paying more to those who maintain their webpages. :) I think highly of this paper. Lot of media-led activism to promote development and awareness in this country. Google: India Poised. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * note to closing administrator: user is a pro-Times of India POV pusher and an SPA. - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Nick spends too much time viewing the daily 3-4 page celebrity colour liftout on ToI with all those pics of Kareena Kapoor - ...just joking.... Having said that India is the biggest country in the world with a free press by a factor of about 3.5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I subscribe to the TOI... And to think that just two days back they carried an article on the unreliability of wikipedia in their print edition. LOL &mdash; Lost (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can follow it up at WP:FORKS if you want to make a fuss. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Times of India is trash, trashier, trashiest. In some circles(no weasel here, seriously) it has been dubbed TOIlet paper.  Dont believe me?  Check orkut.  They even have a comm dedicated to TOIlet paper. :D  Sarvagnya 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep ToI is a bloody joke. A leftie propoganda sheet. They used to be chic and upper market a few yrs b4, but since 90's they've downsized to the tabloid levels. It is an embarrasment that they are India's biggest selling daily.

@Nick: I think highly of this paper. Omg Nick!!! Narendra Modi would have you deported from Gujarat for saying that!  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * TOI is a piece of junk - I wouldn't use the paper to eat bhel-puri. Its correspondents and writers are hopelessly lacking in journalistic ability - no pertinent reporting, no real stories, a bunch of fanciful, idiotic and naive op-eds. Rama's arrow  21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind you, most of India's English dailies are pieces of crap as well - HT and IndianExpress are fairly useless. The Hindu and Statesman are more respectable. Rama's arrow  21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW Nirav, some of those naieve op'eds are directly lifted from Indian blogosphere!  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I agree with Shri Narendra Modi our lord and savior. Baka man  23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tis a shame we can't write about this in the Times of India article because it won't be adhering to WP:NPOV. GizzaChat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Awful! Excellent! - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for records, I think Modi is a git.<b style="color:#FF9933;"> Amey Aryan DaBrood</b><b style="color:red;">&#169;</b> 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blnguyen told me to sign here.-- §hanel  05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ToI is crap most of the time except on special days like the day after the union budget (today!), the day after elections, etc. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I've only read it online occassionally, so I have yet to make an opinion about the paper.  Nish kid 64  22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, WP:SNOW anyone? -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Worst Newspaper ever. Used to read it in Bombay. One of the worst newspapers in the world. absolutely no content. and i physically estimated as the percentage of ads in the newspaper to be 40%. Also they use the biggest images possible, leaving the nwritten news content to be around 30%. On the Web, the same thing is repeated. Hence, go The Hindu -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Worst website ever too - Though I seldom browse to their site, the few times I ever did used to be traumatic in the pre-Firefox days owing to the zillion popups on that site. Post Firefox, I use that site only to evangelise about FF and impress potential converts.  I show them that FF is so good, that there arent any popups even on timesofindia.com!! :D  Sarvagnya 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they are crap, being such an enormously circulated daily, they should atleast monitor the content of its website. But cheers to open source movement!!! Everybody is using the wikipedia as primary source of information. Great catch!!! --Nirajrm ''talk 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Blnguyen/Wikipedia are enormous contributors to the Sports section of this daily, and since I have enormous respect for both, I must humbly put forward my opinion that the said publication is one of the BEST, MOST AWESOMEST, RAWkiNG NEWSPAPERS IN THE WORLD!!!!11!!!111!!1!!!1one LOL HAX0reD!! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish But, of course, Times of India is only the world's largest distribution daily English newspaper. Once the Yomiuri Shimbun does it, then it'll really be something. --JayHenry 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen, you can now consider yourself a journalist for one of the largest newspapers in the world, you should feel honoured :)  Melsaran  (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It used to be a more honorable profession, when muckracking involved work and produced improvement. Now they just go through the motions without actually looking in the muck.  (SEWilco 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I think the ToI shows very good taste in its sources :-) Have you submitted your invoice as an (involuntary) freelance journalist to them yet?  Grant  |  Talk  09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awful. Has ToI ever printed a correction due to these thefts?  (SEWilco 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Absolutely. I mean, look who they employ :p *runs* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. The Newspaper is pro-establishment and full of ads, with artificially inflated circulation figures. The Indian Express, the Statesman and The Hindu are much better. Amit @  Talk  17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." - They can do whatever they want with it - doesn't matter, although I read only the hindu. thestick (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahahaha... again... hahahahahaha... Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply great stuf. Although, technically, they can publish stuff from Wikipedia without divulging the source. This actually reinforces my opinion about the stuff that goes in to the so called journalistic efforts in most of the newspapers. I have actually seen PR persons writing the review for a new book to be launched in India. The newspapers simply publish the same version without changing a single word. Shovon (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! No wonder you think it's rubbish!  Aaroncrick  (<font color="#FE2712">talk ) 09:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)