![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
-- Iflex ( talk) 04:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The Times of India is a tabloid by western standards and the claim that it to be included in Newspaper category should be avoided.
The infobox links to the disambiguation page Tabloid. Please can someone who knows the Times change the link to tabloid journalism or Tabloid (newspaper format)? It's not obvious whether the term refers to the style or the size here. Certes ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Rrjanbiah The Times of India is not owned by Indiatimes as you might think. Please take a look at this link About the Publishers. The Times Group is owned by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
"Today, Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd is India's largest media house. The Times Group is a multi-edition, multi-product, multi-media organisation, and has to its credit several leading publications. Among the publications are The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Maharashtra Times, Femina and Filmfare. The Group also has interests in the entertainment and media industry in the form of Radio Mirchi, Planet M, Times Music and Times Multimedia."
So Times of India newspaper is owned by The Times Group and
The Times of India is the flagship brand of the Group. It is India's premier English daily and world’s largest circulated English broadsheet daily. It is published from ten cities across India, has a circulation of over 21,44,842 copies, and is read by over 4.42 million people.
also for Indiatimes:
"In April 2000, Times Internet Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, was floated to handle the Group's Internet properties. Times Internet Ltd's mother brand is Indiatimes."
--
kunjan1029 04:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the reference that TOI is the world's largest in circulation among all newspapers and tabloids combined, because this claim has not verified by independent survey (the cited reference for this claim had been an article in TOI itself).
I removed these from the page.
Please provide any link or some citation for this bit of information below:
"The newspaper's magazine section published independent of the newspaper (separately in all there centers) but distributed with the newspaper has promoted raising speed limits, bringing the minimum age of drinking down, and openness of sexual ideas."
and these because it contradicts the 4th paragraph.
"This shift in style of reporting has helped the newspaper maintain its position as the largest selling English daily in India."
-- kunjan1029 04:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Removed this: For example in 2003 the report on Uttar Pradesh government's Taj heritage project showed a computer generated photograph of a multi story building towering above the Taj Mahal in the backdrop. This of course has to be seen in context of newspapers like Indian Express, which thrive on sensationalism and taking potshots.
Firstly, this hardly constituted sensationalism since the image is an artistic rendering of how Taj Mahal would look if the Mayavati Govt had approved the construction of a corridor behind the Taj Mahal. The infamous idea has been shelved and the project is known as the [ Taj Corridor Scam]. BTW, the Mayavati Govt fell because of this, so its hardly sensationalism. pamri 12:58, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Reverting this edit with slight modifications. The ambani breakup story is still valid as an example of criticism against ToI, sensational or not, irrespective of the truth of the matter. Simply because, the story failed to provide names or any other information about them (obviously because of libel concerns) although it was a front page story and failed to follow up on the story even after the fallout became public. Sensationalism also refers to news which sacrifices facts/truth for attention-grabbing headlines and this, IMO is a good example. pamri 13:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the list of editions really necessary? And if so, do they need to be links? They wouldn't seem to merit individual articles. Chick Bowen 02:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Have removed 'However, right now one can aptly call it the "Tabloid of India"' from this section. It seems incongrous with the topic of the common man and is also a personal viewpoint.
leo
The newspaper also runs the cartoons of the popular Indian political cartoonist R K Laxman. The " common man" is a senior Indian citizen present in each one of the cartoons only as the mute witness to every event. However, right now one can aptly call it the "Tabloid of India"
Whose top 10 list of best indian journalists is that. Could someone either mention the source. If its personal opinion then I think its should be rewritten. User: Aniket ray
Fortunately or unfortunately, The Times of India incites passions by the journalistic community in India, primarily those in competition, who can't stomach the success of The Times of India and also the group in general. The successes are most definitely due to a marketing focus, but they can hardly be termed as management interference. The owner is also the defacto publisher. Who are we as third parties to pass judgement on what style he chooses to run the paper.
To all those people reading/editing this article and the people who are not aware of this background, please be aware of all the negative hyperbole that is posted under the guise of neutral observations.
Someone more familiar with India's political landscape and media culture should address the Criticisms section for POV issues. For example, the last paragraph's assertions about its being a "Pro-Establishment paper" and a supporter of government must either be attributed or removed. Who is to say that "its whole-hearted approval of Indira Gandhi's excessive repression measures during the internal Emergency in the 1970s is not lost on political observers?" Perhaps the person who added these comments feels that they are self-evidently true, but I can assure you that they are not from my vantage point in the US. Citations are sorely needed. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to deal with these issues. But somebody should. Tcatts 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Much of the the criticism section is opinion based on bad facts. for.eg. 'medianet' refered in the article is used to sell space in the life style supplements and not the main paper. A fine line, but a line nonetheless. Something an impartial oberver will point out. Which leads one to think that the whole section is motivated...
The infobox says its political stance is "libertarian", but none of the description in the article body supports that, and it's also not in keeping with anything I know about it. I've heard it described as "centrist" and "pro-establishment", and in recent years as "tabloid", but I haven't heard it described as "libertarian". -- Delirium 19:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1.Jug Suraiya[Jugular Vein], Swaminathan S. Anklesria[ Swaminomics] , Rashmee Roshan Lal[View from London] & Chidananda Rajghatta [ [1]]are amongst its most popular columnists.Cartoons by Jug Suraiya&Neelabh[Dubyaman II] and Ajit Ninan[ Just Like That] are far sharper than RK Laxman's[Common Man]which too are wittier.Rajat Pandit writes on Indian defence matters & on foreign affairs.
2.The Times of India has been called the treasure island of scholarly body of work on international relations.[ [2]]
Kushwah 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Out of that treasure island they they wack their brains to publish crap front page news like 'Madhya Pradesh banning vibrating Condoms'(20 June 2007-Pune edition) with pictures and often publishing drunk punks in parties (in Pune Times),and really third rate flutter creating news thrashes.They are nothing but the new czar of Yellow journalism in India.So they can better donate the above mentioned scholarly body of work on international relations to some educational institution.
its excellent-jigyasa thakur,journalism,mcu,bhopal(2007) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.2.102.149 (
talk)
18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hear! hear! I second this! The Times of India is indeed the Trash of India. Their journalists simply steal photographs and texts form other websites and publish them as their own. The new way of journalism for the TOI is copy&paste. Whatever happened to respected forms of journalism - the TOI has no idea what this is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.54.166.142 ( talk) 10:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The Political Allegiance Of The Times Of India is given as "Conservative". What does this term imply? There is no political party called Conservative in India. TathD 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting the quotes in the criticisms section because they aren't necessary and are cluttering the page, as well they are difficult to understand. Please feel free to revert, but something had to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonwilliamsl ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC). -- plus it's the most liberal paper in India, so the conservative tag doesn't make sense
I have removed the following paragraphs from the Criticism section, not because I don't think they are false, but because it is unacceptable to have criticism unreferenced after at least eight months in which it has sat under a notice that it needs to be referenced. This is totally irresponsible. Wikipedia was not created for the lazy, irresponsible, casual blatherings of some editor somewhere. It was created for responsible descriptions of the subject of each article. Part of those responsible descriptions are responsible criticisms. Neither I nor anybody else can tell what's responsble and what isn't unless we know the sources. Someone who knows of the sources or who can redo the criticism section, please do so.
These are the paragraphs:
Noroton 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (self edit, removed some capitalization in my comments Noroton 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
for people like us there is something yellow journalism do exists and few things only serves this form and they are said to be conservative or something else,but in real they should be supported and admired for their such contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.102.149 ( talk) 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The newspaper has a declared Liberal stance as covered in a Leader Article a few months ago. I have changed it to liberal and quoted the appropriate article. Please do read the article, before making commentary
The Cover Price varies from edition to edition and from day to day. Can vary from as little as Rs 1.50 to Rs. 5
Regarding the criticism, it seems that a lot of people love to hate the times, simply because it is the most successful news organisation. Do consider that their editors/journalists are perhaps one of the best paid. Their marketing pretty much steamrolls all competition etc.
IMHO, most of the criticism is wholly unjustified etc. But, that is just that, My Opinion
I must compliment Noroton, for the excellent edit on this article, this was being vandalised too often by critics of TOI ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 07:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems to have added a rant about "malpractice" at this paper. Not being a regular reader of the paper I can't comment on its validity, but in its current form it's quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. I've dfdfdf removed it but saved a copy here in case it can/should be salvaged.
TIMES OF INDIA KOLKATA EDITION Times of India "Kolkata edition" has a malpractice of printing the same news everyday. These activities have been well observed among a lot of fans of Times of India newspaper. In spite of written complaints the authorities keep on doing this malpractice. It has been surprisingly found that the newspaper today being sold by one newspaper dealer contains the same old news which were printed on the previous day, so as a result in a comparatively very small area there are two different versions of the same brand and day newspaper. -- George ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
'Why India is delaying to implement MNP scheme in india... why don't the media play the key role in implementing this scheme at the earliest.. why cant the media question the minister's & TRAI members for the reason behind the delay.. why cant the strong media like u raise voice against the economic & social barriers...we the citizens are keenly looking forward for this scheme as this scheme can kick the weak operators & worst service providers.. kindly make this article a nation wide cause to implement to the earliest..' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.231.136 ( talk) 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
'Why India is delaying to implement MNP scheme in india... why don't the media play the key role in implementing this scheme at the earliest.. why cant the media question the minister's & TRAI members for the reason behind the delay.. why cant the strong media like u raise voice against the economic & social barriers...we the citizens are keenly looking forward for this scheme as this scheme can kick the weak operators & worst service providers.. kindly make this article a nation wide cause to implement to the earliest..' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.231.136 ( talk) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone verify this text?
"There was a serious backlash against the paper's irresponsible coverage following the verdict of Ayodhya disputed land case. This also provoked serious criticism about the paper's poor news standards in Twitter."
And I doubt it is admissible as encyclopedic material. Please comment on why this is put here. MikeLynch ( talk) 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
TOI pletform on writing news how Nirbhik ptrkar ( talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I sincerely salute to the civil society members for herculean work done to eradicate corruption from our country. I pray to God to give you courage to carry forward this movement. I understand that this movement is being fought on the basic principles of truth and non-violence and all the activity will be carried out in the frame work of constitution of this country.
I have some basic question about the movement against corruption. Positive outcome of this movement will give benefit to each and every citizen of this country. Therefore, if any citizen wants to participate in this novel cause under basic principles laid by the civil society then civil society members should not object in participation.
Sir, India is a democratic country where individual or group of individual can have different opinion on various issue but they can have common thought on particular issue like eradicate the corruption from this country. If you start isolating the people on particular ground such as the corrupt people, RSS, Muslim league, Deoband, member of any political party can not participate in this movement then most of the citizen of this country will be isolated.
Kindly recall our freedom movement where different class of people right from bonded labour to the industrialist actively participated for common goal to get the country independent from British rule even though their aim was different.
Please note that the affected persons are very powerful and they are trying their best to the divide the people and make this movement futile as British government did in freedom movement. Therefore, I sincerely request you to give a serious thought on the point I have raised this will help in accelerating this movement to a positive logical end.
With best regards
Purushottam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.30.4 ( talk) 11:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, the reason I reverted is that adding a whole subsection about a single incident appears to be quite excessive to me, and thus violating WP:DUE. Now, I think that the overall info could be added, but I'd say it should come down to 2 or 3 sentences and incorporated into the rest of the section. Let's follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see TOI publishing biased news regularly. Most of these get exposed too. I'm providing the latest one that I came across here:
Times of India, in a desperate attempt to defame Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi, published the following article: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-10/ahmedabad/41265948_1_ahmedabad-mall-mall-officials-fee
Thankfully, Tweeters exposed TOI's lie: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/10/toi-says-ahmedabad-mall-charged-muslims-on-eid-tweeters-expose-lie-116744.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.163.68 ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please include this, this is a neutral article and all aspects must be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.73.48 ( talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Citition needed for stating that person was arrested under FERA .Further removed the Mauritius story that is about an article which was disputed now this 150 year old paper we cannot a single article can confirm it to be controversy . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSECTION advises us to integrate contents and rather can give WP:UNDUE focus on them and label the section as "Controversy". Currently, almost 50 percent of the article body goes to the controversy section.
@ Neptune's Trident: Actually, the citation for the "conservative" stance is worldpress.org not wordpress. I did find it being asked at the RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#worldpress.org but it got no response. Overall, it maybe less than reliable IMO. Whatever it is, it's page talking about each newpaper's political stance is widely cited in many pages; I wonder if that's a problem. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an edit (relocation of contents) here .
I know that one always likes to recount what certain people in history might have said about a certain entity, especially when it sounds favourable, but is what Curzon said really relevant for the opening section of this wiki? I accept that it is relevant enough for the subject, and can be placed somewhere else within the article - perhaps in the history section, but wikis of other prominent newspapers like The Times, Washington Post and New York Times do not seem to add such glorifications in the opening paragraphs.
In the same breath, the BBC survey seems really dated to write in the opening section, since they have these each year. Wouldn't this be more appropriately placed in the awards section? Notthebestusername ( talk) 10:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Goel, Vindu; Gettleman, Jeffrey; Khandelwal, Saumya (2 April 2020). "Under Modi, India's Press Is Not So Free Anymore". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 April 2020. b uidh e 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
-- Iflex ( talk) 04:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The Times of India is a tabloid by western standards and the claim that it to be included in Newspaper category should be avoided.
The infobox links to the disambiguation page Tabloid. Please can someone who knows the Times change the link to tabloid journalism or Tabloid (newspaper format)? It's not obvious whether the term refers to the style or the size here. Certes ( talk) 20:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Rrjanbiah The Times of India is not owned by Indiatimes as you might think. Please take a look at this link About the Publishers. The Times Group is owned by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
"Today, Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd is India's largest media house. The Times Group is a multi-edition, multi-product, multi-media organisation, and has to its credit several leading publications. Among the publications are The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Maharashtra Times, Femina and Filmfare. The Group also has interests in the entertainment and media industry in the form of Radio Mirchi, Planet M, Times Music and Times Multimedia."
So Times of India newspaper is owned by The Times Group and
The Times of India is the flagship brand of the Group. It is India's premier English daily and world’s largest circulated English broadsheet daily. It is published from ten cities across India, has a circulation of over 21,44,842 copies, and is read by over 4.42 million people.
also for Indiatimes:
"In April 2000, Times Internet Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, was floated to handle the Group's Internet properties. Times Internet Ltd's mother brand is Indiatimes."
--
kunjan1029 04:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed the reference that TOI is the world's largest in circulation among all newspapers and tabloids combined, because this claim has not verified by independent survey (the cited reference for this claim had been an article in TOI itself).
I removed these from the page.
Please provide any link or some citation for this bit of information below:
"The newspaper's magazine section published independent of the newspaper (separately in all there centers) but distributed with the newspaper has promoted raising speed limits, bringing the minimum age of drinking down, and openness of sexual ideas."
and these because it contradicts the 4th paragraph.
"This shift in style of reporting has helped the newspaper maintain its position as the largest selling English daily in India."
-- kunjan1029 04:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Removed this: For example in 2003 the report on Uttar Pradesh government's Taj heritage project showed a computer generated photograph of a multi story building towering above the Taj Mahal in the backdrop. This of course has to be seen in context of newspapers like Indian Express, which thrive on sensationalism and taking potshots.
Firstly, this hardly constituted sensationalism since the image is an artistic rendering of how Taj Mahal would look if the Mayavati Govt had approved the construction of a corridor behind the Taj Mahal. The infamous idea has been shelved and the project is known as the [ Taj Corridor Scam]. BTW, the Mayavati Govt fell because of this, so its hardly sensationalism. pamri 12:58, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Reverting this edit with slight modifications. The ambani breakup story is still valid as an example of criticism against ToI, sensational or not, irrespective of the truth of the matter. Simply because, the story failed to provide names or any other information about them (obviously because of libel concerns) although it was a front page story and failed to follow up on the story even after the fallout became public. Sensationalism also refers to news which sacrifices facts/truth for attention-grabbing headlines and this, IMO is a good example. pamri 13:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is the list of editions really necessary? And if so, do they need to be links? They wouldn't seem to merit individual articles. Chick Bowen 02:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Have removed 'However, right now one can aptly call it the "Tabloid of India"' from this section. It seems incongrous with the topic of the common man and is also a personal viewpoint.
leo
The newspaper also runs the cartoons of the popular Indian political cartoonist R K Laxman. The " common man" is a senior Indian citizen present in each one of the cartoons only as the mute witness to every event. However, right now one can aptly call it the "Tabloid of India"
Whose top 10 list of best indian journalists is that. Could someone either mention the source. If its personal opinion then I think its should be rewritten. User: Aniket ray
Fortunately or unfortunately, The Times of India incites passions by the journalistic community in India, primarily those in competition, who can't stomach the success of The Times of India and also the group in general. The successes are most definitely due to a marketing focus, but they can hardly be termed as management interference. The owner is also the defacto publisher. Who are we as third parties to pass judgement on what style he chooses to run the paper.
To all those people reading/editing this article and the people who are not aware of this background, please be aware of all the negative hyperbole that is posted under the guise of neutral observations.
Someone more familiar with India's political landscape and media culture should address the Criticisms section for POV issues. For example, the last paragraph's assertions about its being a "Pro-Establishment paper" and a supporter of government must either be attributed or removed. Who is to say that "its whole-hearted approval of Indira Gandhi's excessive repression measures during the internal Emergency in the 1970s is not lost on political observers?" Perhaps the person who added these comments feels that they are self-evidently true, but I can assure you that they are not from my vantage point in the US. Citations are sorely needed. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to deal with these issues. But somebody should. Tcatts 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Much of the the criticism section is opinion based on bad facts. for.eg. 'medianet' refered in the article is used to sell space in the life style supplements and not the main paper. A fine line, but a line nonetheless. Something an impartial oberver will point out. Which leads one to think that the whole section is motivated...
The infobox says its political stance is "libertarian", but none of the description in the article body supports that, and it's also not in keeping with anything I know about it. I've heard it described as "centrist" and "pro-establishment", and in recent years as "tabloid", but I haven't heard it described as "libertarian". -- Delirium 19:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1.Jug Suraiya[Jugular Vein], Swaminathan S. Anklesria[ Swaminomics] , Rashmee Roshan Lal[View from London] & Chidananda Rajghatta [ [1]]are amongst its most popular columnists.Cartoons by Jug Suraiya&Neelabh[Dubyaman II] and Ajit Ninan[ Just Like That] are far sharper than RK Laxman's[Common Man]which too are wittier.Rajat Pandit writes on Indian defence matters & on foreign affairs.
2.The Times of India has been called the treasure island of scholarly body of work on international relations.[ [2]]
Kushwah 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Out of that treasure island they they wack their brains to publish crap front page news like 'Madhya Pradesh banning vibrating Condoms'(20 June 2007-Pune edition) with pictures and often publishing drunk punks in parties (in Pune Times),and really third rate flutter creating news thrashes.They are nothing but the new czar of Yellow journalism in India.So they can better donate the above mentioned scholarly body of work on international relations to some educational institution.
its excellent-jigyasa thakur,journalism,mcu,bhopal(2007) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.2.102.149 (
talk)
18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hear! hear! I second this! The Times of India is indeed the Trash of India. Their journalists simply steal photographs and texts form other websites and publish them as their own. The new way of journalism for the TOI is copy&paste. Whatever happened to respected forms of journalism - the TOI has no idea what this is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.54.166.142 ( talk) 10:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The Political Allegiance Of The Times Of India is given as "Conservative". What does this term imply? There is no political party called Conservative in India. TathD 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting the quotes in the criticisms section because they aren't necessary and are cluttering the page, as well they are difficult to understand. Please feel free to revert, but something had to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonwilliamsl ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC). -- plus it's the most liberal paper in India, so the conservative tag doesn't make sense
I have removed the following paragraphs from the Criticism section, not because I don't think they are false, but because it is unacceptable to have criticism unreferenced after at least eight months in which it has sat under a notice that it needs to be referenced. This is totally irresponsible. Wikipedia was not created for the lazy, irresponsible, casual blatherings of some editor somewhere. It was created for responsible descriptions of the subject of each article. Part of those responsible descriptions are responsible criticisms. Neither I nor anybody else can tell what's responsble and what isn't unless we know the sources. Someone who knows of the sources or who can redo the criticism section, please do so.
These are the paragraphs:
Noroton 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (self edit, removed some capitalization in my comments Noroton 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
for people like us there is something yellow journalism do exists and few things only serves this form and they are said to be conservative or something else,but in real they should be supported and admired for their such contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.102.149 ( talk) 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The newspaper has a declared Liberal stance as covered in a Leader Article a few months ago. I have changed it to liberal and quoted the appropriate article. Please do read the article, before making commentary
The Cover Price varies from edition to edition and from day to day. Can vary from as little as Rs 1.50 to Rs. 5
Regarding the criticism, it seems that a lot of people love to hate the times, simply because it is the most successful news organisation. Do consider that their editors/journalists are perhaps one of the best paid. Their marketing pretty much steamrolls all competition etc.
IMHO, most of the criticism is wholly unjustified etc. But, that is just that, My Opinion
I must compliment Noroton, for the excellent edit on this article, this was being vandalised too often by critics of TOI ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 07:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems to have added a rant about "malpractice" at this paper. Not being a regular reader of the paper I can't comment on its validity, but in its current form it's quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. I've dfdfdf removed it but saved a copy here in case it can/should be salvaged.
TIMES OF INDIA KOLKATA EDITION Times of India "Kolkata edition" has a malpractice of printing the same news everyday. These activities have been well observed among a lot of fans of Times of India newspaper. In spite of written complaints the authorities keep on doing this malpractice. It has been surprisingly found that the newspaper today being sold by one newspaper dealer contains the same old news which were printed on the previous day, so as a result in a comparatively very small area there are two different versions of the same brand and day newspaper. -- George ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
'Why India is delaying to implement MNP scheme in india... why don't the media play the key role in implementing this scheme at the earliest.. why cant the media question the minister's & TRAI members for the reason behind the delay.. why cant the strong media like u raise voice against the economic & social barriers...we the citizens are keenly looking forward for this scheme as this scheme can kick the weak operators & worst service providers.. kindly make this article a nation wide cause to implement to the earliest..' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.231.136 ( talk) 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
'Why India is delaying to implement MNP scheme in india... why don't the media play the key role in implementing this scheme at the earliest.. why cant the media question the minister's & TRAI members for the reason behind the delay.. why cant the strong media like u raise voice against the economic & social barriers...we the citizens are keenly looking forward for this scheme as this scheme can kick the weak operators & worst service providers.. kindly make this article a nation wide cause to implement to the earliest..' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.231.136 ( talk) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone verify this text?
"There was a serious backlash against the paper's irresponsible coverage following the verdict of Ayodhya disputed land case. This also provoked serious criticism about the paper's poor news standards in Twitter."
And I doubt it is admissible as encyclopedic material. Please comment on why this is put here. MikeLynch ( talk) 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
TOI pletform on writing news how Nirbhik ptrkar ( talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I sincerely salute to the civil society members for herculean work done to eradicate corruption from our country. I pray to God to give you courage to carry forward this movement. I understand that this movement is being fought on the basic principles of truth and non-violence and all the activity will be carried out in the frame work of constitution of this country.
I have some basic question about the movement against corruption. Positive outcome of this movement will give benefit to each and every citizen of this country. Therefore, if any citizen wants to participate in this novel cause under basic principles laid by the civil society then civil society members should not object in participation.
Sir, India is a democratic country where individual or group of individual can have different opinion on various issue but they can have common thought on particular issue like eradicate the corruption from this country. If you start isolating the people on particular ground such as the corrupt people, RSS, Muslim league, Deoband, member of any political party can not participate in this movement then most of the citizen of this country will be isolated.
Kindly recall our freedom movement where different class of people right from bonded labour to the industrialist actively participated for common goal to get the country independent from British rule even though their aim was different.
Please note that the affected persons are very powerful and they are trying their best to the divide the people and make this movement futile as British government did in freedom movement. Therefore, I sincerely request you to give a serious thought on the point I have raised this will help in accelerating this movement to a positive logical end.
With best regards
Purushottam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.30.4 ( talk) 11:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, the reason I reverted is that adding a whole subsection about a single incident appears to be quite excessive to me, and thus violating WP:DUE. Now, I think that the overall info could be added, but I'd say it should come down to 2 or 3 sentences and incorporated into the rest of the section. Let's follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see TOI publishing biased news regularly. Most of these get exposed too. I'm providing the latest one that I came across here:
Times of India, in a desperate attempt to defame Gujarat's Chief Minister Narendra Modi, published the following article: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-10/ahmedabad/41265948_1_ahmedabad-mall-mall-officials-fee
Thankfully, Tweeters exposed TOI's lie: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/10/toi-says-ahmedabad-mall-charged-muslims-on-eid-tweeters-expose-lie-116744.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.163.68 ( talk) 15:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please include this, this is a neutral article and all aspects must be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.73.48 ( talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Citition needed for stating that person was arrested under FERA .Further removed the Mauritius story that is about an article which was disputed now this 150 year old paper we cannot a single article can confirm it to be controversy . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSECTION advises us to integrate contents and rather can give WP:UNDUE focus on them and label the section as "Controversy". Currently, almost 50 percent of the article body goes to the controversy section.
@ Neptune's Trident: Actually, the citation for the "conservative" stance is worldpress.org not wordpress. I did find it being asked at the RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#worldpress.org but it got no response. Overall, it maybe less than reliable IMO. Whatever it is, it's page talking about each newpaper's political stance is widely cited in many pages; I wonder if that's a problem. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an edit (relocation of contents) here .
I know that one always likes to recount what certain people in history might have said about a certain entity, especially when it sounds favourable, but is what Curzon said really relevant for the opening section of this wiki? I accept that it is relevant enough for the subject, and can be placed somewhere else within the article - perhaps in the history section, but wikis of other prominent newspapers like The Times, Washington Post and New York Times do not seem to add such glorifications in the opening paragraphs.
In the same breath, the BBC survey seems really dated to write in the opening section, since they have these each year. Wouldn't this be more appropriately placed in the awards section? Notthebestusername ( talk) 10:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Goel, Vindu; Gettleman, Jeffrey; Khandelwal, Saumya (2 April 2020). "Under Modi, India's Press Is Not So Free Anymore". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 April 2020. b uidh e 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)