Talk:Frontline (magazine)

message: The alternate edit (by liberal democrat) is shoddy, lacks analytical rigour, and quotes sources which have nothing to say about the Frontline (magazine). The Xinhua source has not a word about Frontline and this is crazy that such a nonsensical edit is being reverted to again and again. I request administrators to ban the contrary editorial writer (Lib Democrat) for reverting to pure bile and nonsense.Vrsrini (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An appeal to stop this nonsense 

message: Endlessly reverting each other, is not going to get anyone anywhere, and is very unhelpful. The present edit war needs to stop, or, I will re-protect the page, and, block those involved from editing, for disruption. Please either utilise A request for comment on the article, or, work out changes on the talk page, instead of endlessly reverting. Also, you guys might find Dispute resolution helpful. Thank you, SQLQuery me! 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop

message: The only concern expressed here was regarding the point on Anti - Imperialism which i pointed out (along with many Users as it can be seen in discussion in the past) with sufficient sources that it was just Anti -Americanism which the current editor in Chief of the The Hindu group is endorsing at all the level,Standing on a high horse on issues like civil liberty and Freedom of press ,the magazine spaces articles and view points from media agencies Like Xinhua which appeared like a double speak/hypocracy,this was the only point many users in the past and me now was trying to point out, but the contrarian editor has tried discounting this down through out the period of time. Many occassions this edit could get survive because of the one sided locking of the article.
Most funny part about this is that for substantiating the claims the user is just making use of the entries in tha article itsef and certain other Advocacy groups such as Znet. 
The contrarian editor agreed to accomadate the critism to a minor extent only after a persistant battle.The following points still needs to be contested.
1.Anti-Americanism / Imperialism,which the contrarian editor was not able to come out with sufficient sources except those from the article which many percieves as marxist global perspective of Anti americanism
2.Duplicity on stand on Human Rights ,Democracy ,Freedom of Press
finally dont alter/remove the comments of other users in the discussion page.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronisation

message: The entry on Frontline mentions the genre and niche that the magazine occupies as well as it's editorial opinions and positions on various national and international issues. Time and again, a libelous version is being reverted to, in opposition to the well elucidated entry on the magazine. Libelous accusations using sources which are not Wikipedia compliant are pointed out. After repeated edit-wars, the entry was re-written to place both the criticisms as well as the niche/perspective of the magazine. The libelous entry-reverter "Liberal Democrat"/"Lib Democrat" doesn't respect discussion. The user doesn't respect primary sources as "proof of validation". Instead libelous criticisms provided by agenda-oriented sources are ONLY considered in the entry. It is a travesty of Wikipedia policy as well as the maintenance of an edit entry. 
Vrsrini 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The libel problem

message: Baffling never works , if you believe about Zillion example ,it can't reflect wiki opinion . provide at least a few for 1 and 2 . Ramachandra Guha's article came in Telegraph daily just a snapshot is taken from HVK ,it passesvery well the Wiki verifiability.
Once more to warn you , name calling will invite intervention ,even if you are not looged in
wiki discussion page is not aplace to discharge gabbing , what ever you are adding a verifiable source need to be provided
What better source on a topic than the topic itself?? 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Party Opinion Request - Denied
I noticed that someone deleted your post on the 3PO page because of not only an improper format but also an improper request.  3PO is not the solution you need.  This issue would best be resolved by an admin.  That's why they get special powers...because unlike you and me, they don't have the freedom to do whatever they want.  They are duty bound, as admins, to work for the rest of us and resolve issues like blocking and banning.  If you don't know any admins, a good way to find them is to check your talk page for the very first comments left there...most of the time, some mistake made early in a Wikipedia career is caught by an admin and he or she leaves a nice reminder as to proper Wiki policy.  I didn't want you to just wait around for the 3PO forever...hope this helps :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion on Anti-imperialism

message: i vaguely remember that Frontline in the 80s was much different from what it has been since 90s. i remember seeing a feature on a gathering of 'most beautiful women'. Also, a special issue supporting LTTE. could any old frontline reader tell if it was really different in 80s--Hydman 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Party Opinion Request - Denied
I noticed that someone deleted your post on the 3PO page because of not only an improper format but also an improper request.  3PO is not the solution you need.  This issue would best be resolved by an admin.  That's why they get special powers...because unlike you and me, they don't have the freedom to do whatever they want.  They are duty bound, as admins, to work for the rest of us and resolve issues like blocking and banning.  If you don't know any admins, a good way to find them is to check your talk page for the very first comments left there...most of the time, some mistake made early in a Wikipedia career is caught by an admin and he or she leaves a nice reminder as to proper Wiki policy.  I didn't want you to just wait around for the 3PO forever...hope this helps :) DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontline in 80s 

message: It is the use of terms like 'Anti Imperialism', Progressive and 'neo liberal' and may be 'Left wing', which is causing a lot of dispute. 
Insetad, we may use specific instances Like 
"Frontline Opposes US Foreign Policy including its armed intervention in Iraq and its policy on Iran."
"It supports policies of Hugo Chavez and the coming together of Chavez, Castro and the Bolivian President (forget his name)" 
"It opposes Hindutva and the parties/Organizations which promote it, namely BJP, VHP and RSS"
.....And so on.
These would give a fair picture about the editorial outlook of this magazine annd also avoid disputes over terms. 
Hydman 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions