Talk:Frontline (magazine)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An appeal to stop this nonsense[edit]
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)
Please stop[edit]
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)
Patronisation[edit]
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)
The libel problem[edit]
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)
A major shifting of goalposts is being made by the user "Liberal Democrat" on this entry.
The Frontline claims to an anti-imperialist agenda. Articles are provided as proof for the same. The criticism has also been accorded in the criticisms section. What passes as proof is for all to see. There is no contention that breaks Wikipedia guidelines. It is clear that the constant changing of the magazine's entry in Wikipedia is governed by an agenda that is akin to vandalising. Till such proof is not provided that Frontline has *only* an "Anti-American" agenda, the current entry MUST be retained.
Vrsrini 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
discussion on Anti-imperialism[edit]
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) --That is contradiction of Wiki guidline see WP:Verifiability guideline--Liberal Democrat 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 1. Provide the Links "The multitude of articles on Colonialism, British Imperialism" . Wiki is based on verfiability.
A major shifting of goalposts is being made by the user "Liberal Democrat" on this entry.
The Frontline claims to an anti-imperialist agenda. Articles are provided as proof for the same. The criticism has also been accorded in the criticisms section. What passes as proof is for all to see. There is no contention that breaks Wikipedia guidelines. It is clear that the constant changing of the magazine's entry in Wikipedia is governed by an agenda that is akin to vandalising. Till such proof is not provided that Frontline has *only* an "Anti-American" agenda, the current entry MUST be retained.
Vrsrini 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no violation. Primary Sources are mentioned for verification. 14:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.251.170 (talk)
2."Frontline only reflects views of intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Harry Magdoff" - agreed but wiki is not about opiniating anti-establishment postures are part of any democratic society. You sited Iran - American issues as anti imperialistic stand which was a thorough distortion ,in view of Iran's stand Holocaust, Terrorist groups etc. for anti - imperialism provide adequate sources other than Iran - American articles --Liberal Democrat 12:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Liberal Democrat 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rant about Frontline seems to be out of a bias, which has come about without even reading the Magazine. There are a zillion examples of the Anti-imperialist core of the Frontline. From opposing neoliberalism through the multilateral agencies, which is considered to be part of the Imperialist project to Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan, the Frontline has been consistent in this approach. On a political note, with the presence of the United Nations, there is no need for America to send its own troops to Iraq or Iran (as it threatens to do now, to attack a sovereign recognised nation). The Iranian president's stand on Holocaust is his own academic opinion. That doesn't give the right for the United States to issue threatening calls for pre-emptive strikes. Iran has repeatedly asserted (as a NPT nation) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes on its own accord. And so on and so forth. I request the naysayer to atleast read the Frontline and not take stands based on personal opinion. Anyone writing a wiki entry on an issue/item should atleast be familiar with the item. "Liberal Democrat" seems completely ignorant of the facts on ground. 202.177.180.42 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Allegation which are duly supported with refernces still remain unexplained regarding Tibet and and anti-americanism. The contrarian editor instead of dodging and threshing the facts should come ahead and prove his point through sufficient sources , and again explain the dispropotionate significance of Zmag. The criticism regarding Tibet sufficiently hold ground considering the high horse of democratic rights and freedom of press on which the magazine is claiming to be riding on,that too in comparison with media like NYtimes.--Liberal Democrat 10:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If Frontline's articulations on the Iran/Iraq issues are termed as "anti-Americanism" then the Monthly Review's or Socialist Register's or Economic and Political Weekly's are to be termed the same. But MR and SR are based in America, so how could their opinion be "Anti-American" ?? Frontline only reflects views of intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Harry Magdoff, etc, who are all American citizens and taxpayers. To reduce Imperialism to Americanism alone is plain stupidity as is vice-versa. The multitude of articles on Colonialism, British Imperialism, freedom struggle, impact of neoliberal policies, etc are a proof of Frontline's commitment to Anti-Imperialism. 202.177.251.170 10:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the earlier entry for The Frontline Magazine, because of the fact that the entries (made by Rengesh Srinivasan and one another person) do not fit the standards that are required of a encyclopaedia entry. The question to be asked is why? Here is why...
"But its liberal crusade at home is at odds with the open support it holds out to dictatorial leftist regimes abroad like the chinese and the baathists of iraq. It supports the Chinese Government and strongly claims that China, at no point of time, harmed Tibet. Furthermore, in an ostentatious manner, Frontline magazine has cricised in detail, Dalai Lama, detailing that, he has misinformed the masses of the world. It also carried out a exclusive cover story on the Status of Tibet, wherein it white-washed the innumerous atrocities committed by the Chinese Government and explained that China has always had appreciable intentions on every subject. The coverage of 2001 Iraq Referendum carried a view wherein Saddam Hussein was hailed as a democratic leader and saviour of Iraqi people"
Iraq, first. It is patently untrue that Frontline at any point of time, openly "espoused" or "supported" the Baathist regime in Iraq. Numerous articles in the Frontline have showed the rather shady links between the Saddam Hussein Regime and the Americans during the early eighties, the Unocal deals etc. The Frontline has on the other hand, been very scathing on American Imperialism and it is pertinent to note that its world view is based on this very basis-point, i.e. American Imperialism.
On China, the manner the entry writer portrays Frontline's opinionating on China, it is presumed all vis-a-vis Frontline, all is sanguine with China. This is not the case. As regards, the issue, titled, "Advantage China", the issue clearly worked upon the differences between the Indian and Chinese Economies and analysed the factor of linkages in both of these economies to judge, as to where equitable release of productive forces would happen at a maximum and concluded that in this regard, China was at an advantage.
The wiki entry uses the word, "ostentatious" to depict the Frontline's opinionating on the issue of Tibet. Clearly, the authors of the entry have already presumed that the issue of Tibet is "uncontestable" and the Chinese position, right or wrong, need not be debated at all, even provided a perspective of territoriality from the Chinese side. This in no turn should reflect on Frontline, either.
The point I am trying to make is that an encyclopaedia entry should cover that subject broadly and try to focus on the seeming "uniqueness" of that particular entry and should not be coloured by comments that are targeted politically in a rather trivial manner. Frontline, by all respects, towers over existing Indian magazines, in tenor, tone, analysis, rigour, scientificity, academic worth and quality of publishing. This is what makes it unique as a magazine. Its political views are varied to be covered and should not be restricted to a minor quibble on its position on just one particular issue. If thats the case, any encyclopaedic entry on say, the New York Times, would be an aggregation of quibbles and complaints.
It is easy enough to argue on and on without any first hand material to substantiate your claims. It is unfortunate to see that people think the author would just pen down in an encyclopedia without having any authentic proof to substantiate it. Im afraid you didnot check the link i provided in The Hindu Article in this site where there are clear links provided for readers. Donot write comments and change articles in haste.
Frontline magazine in its isssue dated September 2-15 2000, in a cover story titled, goes on not just to criticise Dalai Lama but carry out grave insults on him.
And on Iraq, search the magazine archives, Ive got the links to justify my claims.
There is not one issue of Frontline which has been true to ethical standards of journalism. I must have actually used the terms "official magazine "peoples democracy" has a voice in main-stream Indian media, through Frontline.
The previous article will be reinstated. Im not providing further links, for, may this person who strongly stands for the values of Frontline come up with "authentic" justifications from valid and reliable sources! Further debates are welcome. - SS 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
SS plays the broken record yet again. Where had I refuted his links per se in the discussion above?? The point that I was lucidly making was that the entry for Frontline was not "encyclopaedic" enough simply because it amounted to a string of cribs. If cribs and carps on editorialization in a magazine is what that makes an encyclopaedic entry, then any fourth estate firmament in the world would be introduced by an avalanche of editorial positions it took on various topics.
SS seems therefore very amateurish, squeamish and flippant in his entry, both in the wikipedia entry and in the discussion.
If for every comment on the Frontline, I need to provide a link, then I certainly can.
On Iraq: Sep 28- Oct 11, 2002, and several other issues in 2002 and 2003.
On China: I have already elaborated that the Dalai Lama is only an individual on whom positions can be taken. If politicians are subject to criticism, why not religious or spiritual leaders who also have a political agenda?? Why can't Frontline take a position against any individual at all. I personally myself feel that the agenda that the Dalai Lama has for Tibet seems revanchist, so do I go to the Dalai Lama's entry page and mention it?? An encylopaedic entry should rather focus on the broad opinion about the entry based on the entry's role.
The Frontline's role as a magazine is to report, analyse and editorialize using a certain platform. Its platform is leftist, which is acknowledged in my entry and its platform is also progressive, in the sense of its coverage of issues, which are more people-oriented than any other magazine in India, any cursory reading of magazines at a given particular time can be a vouchsafe for the above argument.
--Vrsrini
have changed 'Anti imperialistic' to Anti American. Accusing any country of being imperialistic is a POV. Perhaps we could add allies too, but i have seen very few anti Brit articles in FL.--Hydman 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
have also added a line on FL opposing economic reforms. --Hydman 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well some, commies have again added the anti imperialist clause. Did Frontline ever oppose soviet imoerialism in Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia?? or the Chinese imperialism in Tibet?
Frontline is Left wiong, not wikipedia.
Yet again there have been questions raised on the phrase, "Anti-Imperialist"... Just to answer the "inane" question above, the Frontline magazine was started in 1984. The Chinese invasion of Tibet was in the '50s and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in the late '70s. Frontline didn't even exist to cover these events. There is no proof that it endorses either of the above. On the contrary, Frontline has consistently highlighted the Iraqi invasion or other ventures, say in East Africa, etc of late from the view point of Imperialism. I request those who update the Wiki entry to atleast read the Frontline.
--Vrsrini.
Comrade Vsrini, i have been reading frontline for a long time. It does not take a great intellectual to figure out that it is a left wing magazine. It is only because it still retains some of the traditions of 'Hindu' group that it is short of being a mouthpiece of communists and carries some good articles on science and english. Else, Anti imperialism is used only by left wingers or proobably their new friends like Iran. if you mention Frontline is left wing, it automatically becomes 'anti-imperialist' Your answer to my 'inane question' does not reckon that Soviets stayed put in Afghanistan till 89. And Chinese still continue to occupy tibet. You might also refer to FL editions in early 90 to see that this mag was almost siding with the insurgents in Kashmir Hydman 07:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL, some individual, considers my post more worthwile than i do! i had reverted my above post not really being interested in any more discussion, but somebody else reverted my revert. Would that individual also carry this discussion forward? Hydman (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Frontline in 80s[edit]
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)
- 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)
Suggestions[edit]
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)
Fair point. But in the world of left wing journalism, to which Frontline subscribes to (as pointed out clearly in the wiki entry), neoliberalism, anti-imperialism and "progressive" form core terminologies. As such therefore it is not a problem to use these terms as long as the context of Frontline being a left wing magazine is retained, which indeed is the case.
As for what issues it endorses, which governments it supports, etc..that can't be a case of a wikipedic entry, for we would then have to point out positioning of Frontline toward every government under the sun, in that case. Surely, you wouldnt' want that.
The dispute over terms stems from the non-understanding of the fact that Frontline is as much a left wing magazine as is others in the genre. The dispute has been laid out by only one dissenter, who, this author is sure, hasn't bothered to even read the Frontline to lay down such a critique. Vrsrini (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)