Talk:The Hindu

Section about controversies and criticisms is missing

@Tayi Arajakate: 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.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, 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)

@Tayi Arajakate: 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.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 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)

@Kautilya3: I have elaborated the quotations by adding the context. Thank you for the suggestion.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 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)

@Tayi Arajakate: 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.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 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:

• The Hindu logo.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalization of Page , the criticism section content has been deleted from The Hindu by User:SpacemanSpiff

The criticism section has been deleted by SpacemanSpiff, please try to take action against him for vandalizing the page Username 111223 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Because you're new to Wikipedia, please read WP:BRD for best practices, which should help you avoid being blocked again in the future. If you are reverted, don't get into an edit war, but engage on the talk page without making unfounded accusations about vandalism. The WP:BURDEN is on you to gain consensus for including contentious material. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The Hindu claiming that 640 journalists were targeted by Yunus-led Bangladesh government in eight months is fake

The Hindu has been found to have spread fake news multiple times, has been always been ignored by removing the criticism section previously

source of fake news:- https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/yunus-led-bangladesh-government-has-targeted-640-journalists-in-eight-months-says-report-released-on-world-press-freedom-day/article69534400.ece

Fact-checked https://www.bssnews.net/news-flash/270244 https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/press-wing-debunks-hindu-report-targeting-journalists-govt-1135021 2406:7400:51:32CB:1866:94F9:E42D:BC5A (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism section and attempted censorship regarding the controversies of newspaper

I can see lot of censorship of this page regarding Criticism and censorship WP:SUPPRESS, WP:A/R/C

Source:- https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/press-wing-debunks-hindu-report-targeting-journalists-govt-1135021 Cppfront (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MCE89,

I can see you are trying to suppress all criticism section items of the The Hindu

WP:A/R/C need arbitration committee intervention to take up this matter sincerely

This is a biased way of updating wikipedia when we can add criticism section as well as disinformation section in other media wiki pages

Thanks & Regards NemesisTurbo (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NemesisTurbo. My only edit to this page has been to remove material that was worded too similarly to the source as a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, with a secondary reason being that the edits were not written from a neutral point of view. I have absolutely no issue with you or Cppfront adding well-sourced, WP:NPOV-compliant information that is critical of The Hindu to this page. Just make sure you are not copying or closely paraphrasing your sources. Please also bear in mind that standalone criticism sections are discouraged by many editors, and it may be preferable to integrate (well-sourced, WP:DUE) criticism of the newspaper throughout the article instead. MCE89 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The WP:CRITICISM essay says "editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies."

Instead, criticism should be woven into the article, and in places it is. For example, the second paragraph in The Hindu#Kasturi family describes nothing but criticism. It may be possible to incorporate what's in the current criticism section into other parts.

I'll add that reading this article gave me a strong impression of nepotism in management, and there might be some coverage of that, although nepotism seems accepted and commonplace in Indian organizations compared to other countries. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)