Misplaced Pages

Talk:Article 370 (film): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:24, 26 March 2024 editHaani40 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users913 edits Sourced content removal: QuestionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Revision as of 16:38, 26 March 2024 edit undoKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,593 edits Sourced content removal: ReplyNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:
:::Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. ] (]) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) :::Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. ] (]) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Capitals00|Kautilya3}} Is there a bias against Hindutva/] and the BJP on wikipedia?-] (]) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) ::::{{re|Capitals00|Kautilya3}} Is there a bias against Hindutva/] and the BJP on wikipedia?-] (]) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Here is at least one comment on India's referral to the UN. I can dig up tons, but they are not the main point here.
:::: {{talkquote|India had '''clearly misjudged''' the politics of the U.N.and came under intense criticism for its obduracy. The delegtates of Syria, the U.S., Britain and Colombia poured scorn on India.{{sfnp|Rizvi, India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Problem|1992|p=52}}}}
:::: Nehru was the External Affairs minister, in addition to being the Prime Minister. The responsibility for failed foreign policy rests on his shoulders. I am not privy to what happened in the Cabinet meetings, but it is known that Patel was opposed to taking it to the UN.
:::: I am not sure why you are pouring scorn on "Hindutva" here. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policies that says that any Hindutva view is supposed to be automatically dismissed. -- ] (]) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}} {{reflist-talk}}

Revision as of 16:38, 26 March 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIndia: Cinema Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconFilm: Indian
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to edit is being submitted in order to substantiate on the characters portrayed in the film and their real-life counterparts. As it has been mentioned in the film's disclaimer, the film does not want to bear resemblance to any living person. However, to make it easier for people who did not comprehend the movie, to understand it, the edits need to be made. Xyznwa (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Movie criticism is highlighted in the description - with polical overtones.

the comment about movie being in favor of the ruling party needs to be moved to reviews section. This is nothing but narrative mounding. Misplaced Pages is better than this. Please update it 73.189.128.83 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourced content removal

Capitals00, I had added some text which I copied from the source with this edit but you have removed it. Please explain why you did so.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have also removed the text, "..... and the storyline," with this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This (reference no. 14) does say, "for telling a factual story but in a very textbook like way". That source, by the way, was there already; I did not add it.-Haani40 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I removed the source which clearly doesn't support the content. In fact, I don't find the other two sources supporting either. Somebody seems to have jumped the gun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I suggest we remove these pithy made-up summaries, and write a proper section in the body summarising the reviews. I am sure more reviews will be coming through. By the way, movie reviewers are not authorities on the "facts" so that they can claim that the "facts" have been distorted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: So if the text,

.....but criticised the film for its distortion of facts and promotion of the agenda of the ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party

is not mentioned in the references cited for it (reference nos. 13&14), you must remove it (that text) - it is not a neutral statement.-Haani40 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I did some fixing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indian express said the film "serves its politics unabashedly as it mixes facts with fiction". Koimoi also noted that the movie promotes propaganda. I did little modification to reflect that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Feature films always mix fact with faction. That doesn't amount to "distortion". But I also don't regard the reviewer's idea of "fact" as being reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Let us take this line, for example:

Mixing facts with fiction, and some convenient untruths, dipping into the right-wing narrative of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “blunders” in Kashmir and Maharaja Hari Singh’s “inclination” towards India,

I know plenty of experts who admit Nehru's "blunders" in Kashmir. Probably 90% of Indians would agree that taking Kashmir to the UN was a blunder. Even Nehru himself might have agreed with it.
As for Mahara's inclination, here is Srinath Raghavan:

Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No it is a false Hindutva claim and ironically the cabinet discussion involved their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee as per his own admission before the matter was referred to the UN. There was no blunder.
Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Capitals00 and Kautilya3: Is there a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP on wikipedia?-Haani40 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Here is at least one comment on India's referral to the UN. I can dig up tons, but they are not the main point here.

India had clearly misjudged the politics of the U.N.and came under intense criticism for its obduracy. The delegtates of Syria, the U.S., Britain and Colombia poured scorn on India.

Nehru was the External Affairs minister, in addition to being the Prime Minister. The responsibility for failed foreign policy rests on his shoulders. I am not privy to what happened in the Cabinet meetings, but it is known that Patel was opposed to taking it to the UN.
I am not sure why you are pouring scorn on "Hindutva" here. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policies that says that any Hindutva view is supposed to be automatically dismissed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010), p. 106. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (help)
  2. Roy, T. (2018). Syama Prasad Mookerjee: Life and Times (in Indonesian). Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 351. ISBN 978-93-5305-004-7.
  3. Rizvi, India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Problem (1992), p. 52. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFRizvi,_India,_Pakistan_and_the_Kashmir_Problem1992 (help)
Categories: