Talk:Daily News and Analysis

We do not usually do "criticism" or "controversy" sections, in part because they tend to become a magnet for disruptive, partisan contributions. In addition, there is nothing unusual in journalists taking pot-shots at each other and at their management. The phenomenon of Twitter storms and recentism needs to be put into context and for this reason I have again removed this recent addition. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is an important issue involving a threat to freedom of speech in India. For this reason i am responding to Sitush's post with a suggestion to other readers to post the deleted content in the main article if they feel it is sufficiently newsworthy. If you do read the referenced article, notice the names of the people who spoke up on behalf of Ayyub, and who considered this issue to be a threat to freedom of speech in India. Soham321 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why is an editorial decision so often portrayed as a matter of "freedom of speech"? Have any non-journalists commented on this? And I mean proper comments, not just signing a petition or tweeting something. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The fact that you are asking whether any non-journalists have commented on this means you have not read the referenced article. Anyways, the answer to your question is: yes, prominent non-journalists have also commented on this issue. Go read the referenced article once again. You may have to do some scrolling to read the embedded tweets. Soham321 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, it shows that you didn't comprehend my response, which specifically excluded tweets. We've got to get away from this increasing tendency for Wikipedia to react to every little storm on social media. We are not a news website, nor a social network. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

if anyone wants to re-add to the main article the material removed by Sitush they may use the following two references for doing so: [1] and [2] As i have mentioned earlier, this is about freedom of speech in India and hence this issue deserves inclusion in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

One more reference on this issue: [3]. I am saddened to see Sitush trying to bury this important issue under the carpet. Soham321 (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't realise you had started another section. We don't record every single Twitterstorm, most of which are ephemeral. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And we don't usually use op-eds, either. You are well into the edit warring area here, so I suggest you self-revert and await consensus for inclusion. You were bold in adding and were reverted. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The New York Times article, which has been cited as a reference, is not an Op-ed. It is an editorial. Soham321 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily News and Analysis. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071219110303/http://www.chronosphere.biz:80/IMO/26/imo.html to http://www.chronosphere.biz/IMO/26/imo.html#dna

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

In order to combat some of the issues that plagued the article earlier due to which it appears to have been made a redirect, I've re-written this article as a historical description of the newspaper's business from print to television and web. Please review. BombaiyyaMag (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply