Talk:Hindustan Times

message: Shame that no comment on current the propaganda of Hindustan Times can be published on this side. This means that the article about Hindustan Times is an untrusted and biased source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:25EC:5A01:A9B7:DB27:B697:9502 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE--KnowledgeHegemony 05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of the article

message: Is this name correctly spelt? Who was this person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.146.35 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubi Waston? 

message: Section History says
* K. M. Panikkar was its first editor with Devdas Gandhi (son of Mahatma Gandhi) on the editor's panel.
But according to that source, 
* It was at Mahatma Gandhi's behest that my grandfather started the newspaper, and it was Gandhiji's [=Mahatma Gandhi] son Devdas Gandhi who was our first editor.
The long quote that makes up the following paragraph of this article says 
* Sadar Panikkar launched the Hindustan Times as a serious nationalist newspaper. ... He became the editor and funds flowed freely from activist Akali patrons.
The source article continues
* It was edited at times by many important people in India, including Devdas Gandhi (the son of Mahatma Gandhi) and Khushwant Singh."
So we have three candidates: K. M. Panikkar, Sadar Panikkar, and Devdas Gandhi. It seems most likely that the book's detailed report is accurate and more reliable than Shobhana Bhartia's reminiscence. (Note: Panikkar is used both as a surname and as a title of respect.)
--Thnidu (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First editor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hindustan Times. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150502221904/http://www.trustadvisory.info:80/allindia_2014.html to http://www.trustadvisory.info/allindia_2014.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hindustan Times updated their logo and newspaper's look. It should be updated. BihariGuy (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Of The logo 

message: Has Shishir Gupta left the paper? I don't think he has. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shishir Gupta 

message: Can you add more than just a snide personal attack you made on this unnecessary revert to restore a incoherent section? None of these non-notable and regular incidents caused any "controversy" against Hindustan Times. The whole section also contradicts WP:NOCRIT. If you are so eager to write about these non-notable WP:NOTNEWS incidents, you can do that on their own articles. Azuredivay (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are some pretty novel interpretation of policies you've got there. Editors at the newspaper getting fired over negative coverage of the ruling party and after correspondences between ministers and the paper's owner is very obviously neither offtopic (as you claim in your edit summary) nor routine incidents (as you seem to be claiming now). The normal response to "incoherency" is usually an attempt at improving the comprehension of a section and not removal. The contents of the section may not be to your liking but Wikipedia is not censored. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree that it is incoherent but also accuse of censorship at the same time. HT must have seen removal and resignation of 1000s of workers in nearly 100 years of their operations. Are you going to cover each of it? Your own interpretation and self-assessment of a news item isn't what Wikipedia needs but if the item is actually WP:DUE and actually affected the reception of the main subject. To cherry pick the item from a news article and present it as "controversy" is POV pushing. Azuredivay (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR, the new policy you have linked there refers to material for which no published sources exist. Whereas, this is cited to multiple reliable independent sources, i.e the news items. The news articles are in depth and entirely about the incidents, it certainly has due weight for inclusion. Every firing doesn't recieve this kind of coverage so that question is pretty ridiculous. I've also not said that I agree that it's incoherent (not that it would justify removal which would be well.. censorship), maybe the prose could be improved but that's about it. The POV pushing accusation is pretty ironic after your conduct here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No source exists for the claim that HT's "Editors at the newspaper getting fired over negative coverage", that is why I cited WP:OR. The only example of alleged firing was 'Bobby Ghosh' but it was never established he was fired since other sources than the Wire say he left to New York for personal reasons. For now, I have fixed the factual errors to deal with the POV concerns and expanded on HT's response. Azuredivay (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Editor" without the "s" then, OR refers to material in article mainspace anyways. The other source (exchange4media) is a press release repository, which mimics the HT general counsel's response but its attributed in our article which is alright. It's good that you have come around to not censoring that section, from my brief glance I don't see an issue in your new edit so that's that then, this is what you should have done in the first place. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, on a second look, contrary to the claim that your edit dealt with POV concerns, it in fact introduced them with editorialised expression of doubt (i.e repeated use of "claim" for the reports but not for HT responses). While there is no problem with adding HT's responses, such editorialisation is inappropriate especially when you lack independent reliable sources which actually cast doubts on them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Media Bias/Fact Check has been determined to be unreliable WP:MBFC and cannot be used. If the IP editor doesn't self revert, I'll be seeking WP:AN3 help — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, that shows the inconsistency why Media Bias CAN be used as it is described as "accurate enough to be used as ground-truth for e.g. media bias classifiers" 2001:A61:24E6:D601:D5D5:F291:20EA:AD23 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

text: As you quoted, that applies only to sourced information. Unsourced information, or information backed up only by unreliable sources, can (and arguably should) be removed from articles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Bias Fact Check 

message: today, the youtube channel of HT published a video with the title "how Putin's men are destroying West's weapons before they reach Kyev". this video needs to be classified as Russian propaganda as journalistic standards and objective reporting are not adhered to. 91.183.69.144 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Propaganda by HT 

message: Political alignment of newspaper is missing. Its sister newspaper Mint has this entry DrDSAK (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political alignment missing