Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Please propose your edits here

Please propose your edits here, in particular @Kautilya3: and @TrangaBellam:. The specifics of your new-found hurry to edit a much worked over lead I am unable to ascertain, but it does not trump Wikipedia policy of interaction with other editors and reaching a talk page consensus in contentious pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on my concerns and the inputs from K3 above, I propose The film presents a dramatisation of the events around the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the disputed region of Kashmir, which it depicts to be a genocide that was deliberately hidden by the Indian media and intellectual establishment. for the lead, replacing the last two sentences. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• A dramatization is an adaptation of something for a stage or film. The something in this instance might be a fictionalized history or a factual history. Which one is it? An adaptation of what? Is the storyline factual or fictional?
• Are you suggesting that the form of the genocide (deliberately hidden) should be described before its content (wildly inaccurate)?
• What are the "events around?" The exodus happened in the early months of 1990, some authors say, from January through March 1990. A few narrow it down further to a month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems simply to be a history with quite a lot of artistic license taken for the purpose of propaganda. The specific criticisms of the history depicted, how real or unreal it is, can be discussed in the main body and later in the lead as MOS:FILM (and specifically WP:FILMHIST) prescribes. If you prefer, we can say fictionalisation instead.
  • I'm suggesting that we describe the plot of the work before we criticise it, per the MOS. The film narrates a genocide that was hidden; that this is not what historically happened can be described later in the appropriate section. This is the convention for films that fictionalise historical events, see WP:FILMHIST.
  • The film jumps through the actual exodus, the atrocities that happened after it, the Indian establishment suppressing it, and so on, that is what I gather from the sources. The film dramatises/fictionalises more than just the specific exodus in the 1990. I think the "events around" covers the gist of all this, if you have a better wording for it, do suggest. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • What would be your objection to: The film presents the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be a genocide whose widely acknowledged implausibility it steps away from considering by presenting its true evidence to have been hidden by a conspiracy of silence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't have any objection to the content of the sentence itself, it practically and ultimately seems to be saying the same thing. But the sentence might be trying to do too much with too little space. I have a general preference for easy-to-parse articles with MOS-compliant layout and would prefer the earlier wording with slight modifications. But if a third editor decides your version is better, I have no objection. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
        • I can reduce it to: The film presents the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be a genocide whose implausibility it overlooks by presenting its evidence to have been masked by a conspiracy of silence. It is 29 words to your 38. This is as far as I can go; it is as much time as I have for this article, which is not really my area of interest. I had appeared here over a month ago because someone or other had asked me to, I forgot now who. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm fine with it, it is certainly better than what we currently have. Please implement it. thanks and regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) From a passing bystander, who reads the BBC, why not "The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence, wholly overlooking its implausibility" or some variant of that? Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Nice, BBC reader. Much better. I'm worried though that some readers might interpret the implausibility to apply to the conspiracy of silence. A variant of this could be: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its silence procured by a conspiracy, its implausibility wholly overlooked. A very good suggestion overall. You, @Mathsci: and @TryKid: decide. My brain is tired. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You could add a but after conspiracy, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci, is there a source for this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. It also came up at WP:AE/WP:ARBIPA on March 30 when admins Abecedare, RegentStreet, EdJohnston, Denis Brown, et al talked about the March 15 BBC news report on the film (Meryl Sebastian in Delhi). Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC news report does not say that this movie peddled a conspiracy theory. Any such claim would be considered WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and multiple reliable sources directly drawing the conclusion would be necessary. Right now, we only have some right-wing commentaries that accuse the government of a "conspiracy of silence".[1][2]. And none of them said that the movie levelled that accusation.

Neither is it clear why that is supposed to be "implausible". Suppressing the facts of communal violence is an everyday occurrence in India. Only when there is a public outcry does some information come out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not the conspiracy of silence that is implausible; it is the fact of the genocide. You have incorrectly interpreted Mathsci's sentence (as I had predicted some readers might) A conspiracy of silence is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.

The English style guides of today, for example, could be said to maintain a conspiracy of silence about the dangling modifier, or other former obsessions of prescriptive grammar. Post-war Germans you could say maintained a conspiracy of silence about Nazism, driven by the daze, anger, guilt, and embarrassment that came with defeat.

But no one will say that either promoted a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory involves a plot, a secret plot that explains an otherwise unexplainable phenomena.

That the Chinese released a lab-made virus in November 2019 to destroy the West is a conspiracy theory. I suggest that you back off with less than relevant comments @Kautilya3: Ask before you leap to make unfounded allegations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything, it is my later version, "its silence procured by a conspiracy" that is at fault, not Mathsci's or my original version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This is what is meant in more leisurely prose: "The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as a genocide, its knowledge kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence; but the film wholly overlooks the genocide's widely-held implausibility." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Implausible: not provoking belief = not based in evidence (Alexander Evans phrasing) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The genocide's widely-held implausibility can be "cite bombed" by the same sources, that currently appear in a dangling half-eaten-away sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If "conspiracy of silence" summarises what the film says, I am fine with it. On the second bit, I don't see why "implausible" is better than "widely inaccurate". The former is not an easily understood word. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As opposed to "widely inaccurate" which I had introduced, it being a rarely used academic expression, a rewording of "wide of the mark," (Alexander Evans original sentence)? I don't think most people understand that use of the adverb "widely," it being the fifth or sixth entry for the adverb in the big OED. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

widely, adv, 5. To a large extent or degree; considerably, extremely; spec. (a) so as to be far from what is correct, desired, or intended; so as to err in opinion or belief (now rare); (b) so as to be far apart from something in nature, character, amount, etc.

1688 J. Bunyan Heavenly Foot-man (1886) 154 Alas, thou art widely mistaken!

1788 R. Burns Let. 7 Dec. (2001) I. 341 You miscalculate matters widely, when you forbid my waiting on you lest it should hurt my worldly concerns.

1821 W. Scott Kenilworth I. viii. 213 She must indeed be widely changed from what she once was.

1841 T. Carlyle On Heroes ii. 114 We shall err widely if we consider this man as a common voluptuary, intent mainly on base enjoyments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem might be trying to cram the criticism of the plot into the same sentence where the claim is introduced. While the sentence is well constructed by the standards of academic/Oxford English, it can be reasonably interpreted to be saying what wasn't intended by ordinary readers. We should reasonably be trying to write at highschool level without too much parsing and dictionary look-up needed.

Would Kautilya3 be okay with the initial sentence (perhaps with modifications like fictionalisation instead of dramatisation) and the MOS scheme where the criticism of the genocide claim is introduced in the later paragraphs? regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what @Kautilya3: says can be accommodated by closely paraphrasing Alexander Evans in this one instance: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its knowledge being kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence, but wholly overlooks the reality that scholars consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark. One advantage of using a more nuanced academic register is that people dispute it less, they are unable to reduce it to something easily ridiculed.

In that sense, @TryKid: I generally disagree with the notion that the text should be dumbed down to the high school level.

It will become more vulnerable to being ridiculed. As long as it is accurate and well-written, complexity shouldn't be shunned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to present true, verifiable information to our readers, deliberate obscurantism does not further that goal—we wouldn't be "presenting" much of anything to our readers. The page is much ridiculed and maligned already, and seeing that the synthesised claim of the genocide claims being associated with conspiracy theories stood for two weeks before it was removed, it's probably only in the interest of Wikipedia that ordinary readers be able to easily ridicule what they see here. We can easily ignore them if they're wrong, and if they are right, everyone benefits.

Does the film overlook that scholars don't consider a genocide plausible? It instead directly attacks the scholars/intellectual establishment, considering them a part of the efforts to suppress it. Maybe this criticism misinterprets the sentence and the meaning of "overlook", and maybe if interpreted correctly, they're saying the same thing and there's no incongruence. But it does not help that it's so easy to misinterpret it. It's awkward when compared to other film articles. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing synthesized about the claim. It is based on an entirely accurate reading of Alexander Evans. The error was in removing it without consensus. That is why I have asked an admin to restore it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@TryKid: Your point about "overlooks" is well taken, but easily fixed: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence; scholars of Kashmir history consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this discussion. Perhaps substituting "claims" might be better than "affirmations", just for brevity. If citations for the second phrase can be given, that would also be good (book sources covering the period 1989-1990 and its aftermath). Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Conspiracy of silence" precisely captures what I thought was originally meant. See my citation here. The long-wided clause following it may be ok, but it kind of suggests that it is a debatable issue rather than to treat it peremptorily with the derision it deserves. Not just scholars, no responsible person or agency has ever called it a genocide. It is just RSS lunacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

But, @Kautilya3: that is not what "conspiracy theories" referred to. Evans meant simply two things: (the cabals of) (a) Kashmiri Muslims and (b) Pakistanis being behind the removal of Hindus from Kashmir by death or eviction, by genocide or ethnic cleansing. Nothing else. There was nothing wrong with "associated with conspiracy theories." In other words, the most accurate summary is something like this (after incorporating Mathsci's suggestion) and turning the indep. clause into a separate sentence:

The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. Scholars of Kashmir consider claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing to be wide of the mark, associated instead with conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan or the propaganda of Hindu nationalism.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Mathsci and TryKid: as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I note the well-worn expression from around here, "sucker punch to the gut," a staple of Hardy Boys of my childhood, now a feature of Indian English, see citation [3] above, but no longer used much by kids here in America. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems fine; I hid your inserted subheader, since it slightly changed what I wanted to write (not very much, actually, with no plan to emphasize anything). Inserting appropriate scholarly sources and avoiding ambiguity as you have done seems fine. I appreciate that contributions have mostly been made in Indian English. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do complete your thoughts, Mathsci. Better to iron out the kinks now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence might be changed to: "Scholars of Kashmir have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan, or Hindu nationalist propaganda." I also agree that the administrators you have mentioned in the previous section might be able to help stabilize edits to the lead (and elsewhere). Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well expressed @Mathsci:, more accurate and NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have the same objections to "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" used here that were raised above. Propaganda is cited to a source that attributes it to a KP in the valley, the source doesn't call it that in it's own voice. Not to rehash the old debate again but... what I got from the paper is different from your interpretation. Evans proposes three explanations for Pandits leaving, (a) Pakistan/militants/KMs forced them out, (b) Jagmohan forced them out, and (c) they left because they had legitimate fears. Evan calls the first two conspiracy theories, but the claims of genocide are not itself called a "conspiracy theory". He simply calls it "wide of the mark." Scholars don't call it a conspiracy theory if I'm interpreting correctly, and they certainly aren't calling genocide claims propaganda either. It would be best to leave it out of the first para as I earlier suggested, or simply describe it as inaccurate there per the wording in your suggestion before this one and then expand on it later in the lead and body. everything from the RSS lunacy and what not can be covered later in the lead and body, we don't need to clutter the opening. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@TryKid: I'm sorry, but you have misinterpreted the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories in the paragraph refer to the Kashmiri Pandit conspiracy theories, not the Kashmiri Muslim conspiracy theory. (Note there were two of the first variety, pegging the blame respectively on (i) the KMs (ii) the Pakistanis, and only one of the second, blaming the governor and his co-conspirators the KPs) The balancing view, i.e. the concluding view, of Evans is not a conspiracy theory.) Here is Alexander Evans full quote: My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based.(A) As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swamy (sic) publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated. (B) Equally, it is important to note that some incidents did take place. Leading KPs were targeted—some attacked, some murdered—but almost always as political targets (e.g., as integrationist politicians, judges and policemen).(C) From the murder of Tika Lal Taploo, President of the Kashmir Bharatiya Jamata Party, on 14 September 1989, to the murder on 4 November 1989 of Nil Kanth Ganjoo, a former high court judge, those attacked could be considered targeted for either political or communal reasons (or a combination of the two):45 Taploo was a Hindu politician, while Ganjoo had previously sentenced Maqbool Butt, a well-known activist for Kashmiri independence, to death. No matter what designs lay behind these attacks, KPs were bound to feel uneasy.(D) Legitimate fear encouraged KPs to leave the Valley they were born in for other parts of India. Once it became clear that the government could not protect senior KP officials—and would pay their salaries in absentia—many other KPs in state employment decided to move.(E) At the outset, few of these migrants expected their exile to last more than a few months.

Here is the logic:

(A) Why would he mention the Muslim conspiracy theory (i.e. that the Governor wanted the KPs to leave so he could deal a death blow to the Muslims) here when he is talking about KPs who hold Pakistan responsible?

(B) Why would he add, "As Sumantra Bose observes," i.e. add support for a proposition, "those RSS claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false ..." if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which Hindus did not need to be driven from anywhere by virtue of destroying their temples; they left of their own accord.?

(C) Why would he use the comment adverb, "equally," (i.e. "in addition, and having the same importance) "some incidents did take place," i.e. some incidents of violence against the Hindus did, if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which the Hindus decamped unscathed in the dead of night so Muslims could be bloodied without collateral damage to the Hindus? Doesn't make any sense. What he is saying there is that whereas it is not true that the JKLF was out to kill Hindus, some Hindus did die in the violence, i.e. not as imagined in the first Hindu conspiracy theory, but unwittingly.

(D) Why would he say, "those attacked could be considered targeted for either political or communal reasons (or a combination of the two)," if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which no Hindus were attacked. Rather, he is offering the balancing view that some Hindus were attacked for political and political reasons. In other words, the two Hindu conspiracy theories while being largely false were not wholly false.

(E) Why would he mention "pay their salaries in absentia" if he were looking to counter the Muslim conspiracy theory? The theory is just that—that the government aided in the migration?

In sum, the Hindu theories of genocide or ethnic cleansing, whether driven by the KMs or Pakistanis, are largely false, ie not "evidence-based," even if they have the occasional grain of truth to lend them credence among their proponents, i.e they are conspiracy theories.

The film makes a serious but false allegation; NPOV requires it to be countered at the place of its description, so that an uninitiated reader can assess with balance at the same time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please consider this again TryKid. It is important to have you on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please also note TryKid, your initial input is now part and parcel of the first sentence; citations have been found for it. There is no overlong sentence now, only a balancing second sentence, which in Mathsci's felicitous phrasing, states: "Scholars of Kashmir have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan, or Hindu nationalist propaganda." It is sober NPOV language. There is nothing in WP's own voice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

TryKid: We could leave out the "Hindu nationalist propaganda." I agree in retrospect, the evidence is weak in the two cited sources. But the two conspiracy theories which in Mathsci's formulation are described unambiguously do need to be mentioned. They are broadscale generalizations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So the two sentences would read: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. Scholars of Kashmir history have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"Scholars of Kashmir" implied [to me] that they belong to Kashmir, which I suppose not. What about "Scholars of/in Kashmir S/studies" or "Scholars studying Kashmir" or others removing the disambiguity? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Dax, how does "scholars of Kashmir history" sound? I've changed to it above. If not acceptable, there are other formulations.

I am sorry, any mention of "conspiracy theories" in the lead requires much stronger evidence. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. One scholar's vague passing reference doesn't cut it. We need to drop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic sources are not hard to find, e.g. the 2017 Cambridge University Press book "Kashmir: History, Politics, Representation", ed. Chitralekha Zutshi (College of William and Mary, Virginia). It's online here.[3] There is an article, "‘Survival Is Now Our Politics’: Kashmiri Pandit Community Identity and the Politics of Homeland", by Haley Duschinski (Center for Law, Justice and Culture at Ohio University). She writes: "In this formulation, the plight of the community became an issue of national concern. If Kashmiri Pandits represented the values of the Indian nation, then the state bore the responsibilities of protecting their lives and properties in the Valley, providing support for them in exile and facilitating their return home. The state’s failure to fulfill these responsibilities constituted an act of heartless neglect, deliberate indifference and even ‘inexplicable and ignoble conspiracy’. This moral failure was a betrayal of the nation and its people." This is just one example and does not seem to be isolated. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, your explanation of the source does make sense. My thinking was that he only "debunks" the first theory there because he hadn't criticised it when he first mentioned it, unlike the Jagmohan theory. But I'll have to agree with Kautilya3 that it is quite an exceptional claim to make on the vague reference. I had similar thoughts on other descriptions that were present in the lead, such as "propaganda" and "aggressive", objections about which were also raised by TrangaBellam in the above section. It's good to see you agree at least one of them, "propaganda", isn't suitable. We should simply leave it at "widely inaccurate" if we must mention criticise the claim.

Mathsci that reference calls the government's failure an "ignoble conspiracy", it does not say that the claim that there was a genocide is "associated with conspiracy theories", which is the claim in dispute. I don't see how can be used to support anything the lead.

I do not think that NPOV requires us to criticize the plot where we mention it. Articles like 300 (film) with controversially inaccurate historical narratives don't have the criticism in the lead, and this seems in line with WP:FILMLEAD. I had suggested that we go with something like the 300 lead above. I seem to be the only one with this position here though, so this seems untenable. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me in support - I have never come across FILMLEAD earlier. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not a vague reference. Evans is the first, the main, and in many cases, the only reference for the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus. So, neglected and unimportant a topic it was that no scholar worth their salt paid attention to it. No scholar other than him did an analysis of whether the handful of deaths of Hindus in Kashmir constituted a "genocide." The main historical focus was on the pro-independence movements in Indian administered Kashmir and the repression of Kashmiri Muslims by the Indian state.

As I've already indicated, the academic consensus, per WP:TERTIARY, of one of the most widely-read textbooks on modern South Asian history, was expressed in

Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 1998, 2004, 2012, a book cited over 850 times on Google Scholar and read around the world:

The imposition of leaders chosen by the centre, with the manipulation of local elections, and the denial of what Kashmiris felt was a promised autonomy boiled over at last in the militancy of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a movement devoted to political, not religious, objectives. The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, and who propagated a distinctive Kashmiri culture that linked them to India, felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of them left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict.

The defense by the Hindu right took many forms, among them the conspiracy theory of ethnic cleansing to which not only Evans, but Sumantra Bose refer. Please note that I am the only one here to have paid Alexander Evans any textual care, to carefully and correctly understand his meaning. It is not a vague remark; it is a part of his conclusion. I am very concerned that because of a movie director's Twitter remarks policy is being ridden roughshod and editors are attempting to remove a criticism from being characterized so. We need to finish this discussion. Peremptory and vanilla supports or opposed don't mean anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I will now attempt to read and understand your particular objection TryKid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations
References

Recent revert

F&F, please explain your revert. Nobody needs to take your consent before installing new edits and if you are reverting me (which is fine), you need to take the initiative to point issues with my edits. K3, since you thanked me for my edit, you might be interested in hearing F&F's discontents.

In the (reverted) edit:

(1) I had added a review which was published by The Outlook Magazine and reordered them. Consensus at this thread.

(2) I changed "mixed" to "negative" - our review section is self-evident. The film has been been subject to increasingly severe critiques with time. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that Kautilya3's copy-edits etc. were reverted too. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Fowler&fowler seems to have forgotten all protocols. A reminder:

Reverting a contribution is sometimes appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page.
— WP:REVERT

All reverts need to have a policy-based justification for reverting. Otherwise, they just constitute WP:edit warring. I am surprised I need to say all this! The edit summary of the revert is also quite below par!

All our edits were small and focussed and had clear edit summaries: "Condensing the plot description", "Separating critical reception from the routine stuff", "Adding a footnote". So, I am not sure what the problem is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f, if you are not explaining yourself, I will reinstate the edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already reinstated all the edits except the "conspiracy theories" line. Since that has a disputed tag, it can stay until the dispute is resolved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You missed F&f's removal of a couple of reviews. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)