![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Fowler&fowler, I fail to see what's wrong about fronting sentences with phrases. It is not specific to reviews and is fairly common in Indian English. In this case, it's just a way to avoid repeatedly starting sentences with "The film ...", "It has ...", etc. Regarding the plot in the lead, I don't think it needs more expansion, the lead should be a concise summary of the article and the plot is only one aspect of the film. It's not a norm in film articles to have expansive plots in the lead if they have it at all. Also regarding government promotion and commercial success, the relation is explicitly made in the citation so I've restored that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It is understood even if you don't mention the "slap." It tells us that X came stumbling ... (when it was) thrust into the limelight ... (past participle clause)). There is a clear semantic link between the subordinate clause which fronts and the main clause X came stumbling. But when a sentence says:
Thrust into the limelight on the Oscars stage, a preserve of bar-room brawls came stumbling into dining table conversations.
there are all sorts of issues.
Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film showcases a fictional storyline[6] set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide.
"Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party."The problems there are not two interpretations necessarily, but that it lacks coherence. You set the reader up with some details in the subordinate clause that the main clause does not directly link to. In other words, what does being released on 11 March have to do with the film being endorsed by Hindu nationalists? If you had said, "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film managed to piggyback on the increased public gusto for movies before the Oscars." Or if you had said, "Theatrically released on the 1000th birth anniversary of the founder of Kashmiri Shaivism, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party," a reader would have instantly understood without looking puzzled. What I saw when I first saw this page a week or two ago, was the use of fronting for the sake of fronting which is what I had seen cursorily at FAC in some Indian movie submissions, basically the form without the content. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There were precious few Hindus in Kashmir when 30,000 people (read Muslim) were killed by the Indian State. That is what happened "during." In other words, "during" should be reserved for the major violence, whose victims were not Hindus. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
"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 early-1990 exodus is depicted in the film to have followed a genocide,[14] a description that is widely inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[15]"The rest can go in a footnote. "Widely" is important; the genocide idea is wide of the mark, as Alexander Evans states in the cited source. If the historical events are not well-known, the storyline's description should carry a disabusal at the end. Finally, and generally, "during" can mean throughout the course of, or secondarily, at a point in the course of. Neither sense applies to the very beginning. We can't really say, "He was named Mohandas by his parents during his life." But we can say, "During the course of his long life only once did he eat meat." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, (translation: mother of lawlessness?), please re-insert that it was co-produced by Zee Studios, it is a matter of reputation. - 2402:8100:2818:E9F0:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else, who feels the section to be way too detailed? WP:NOTNEWS etc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article has too many unnecessary details and sections. For a movie article, the information added is way too muchz OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 07:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with TrangaBellam, the NZ section is too detailed, and needs to be shortened. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler I have reverted and restored some wikilinks that you removed. I think they are helpful for the readers. In addition "are thought to be" appears to me as original research while "have been described as" is an acceptable attribution. The nationalist cause need to be mentioned as it helps the reader understand the governments support. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
I am not following this topic greatly. Primary reading of present lead brought me couple of doubts those who know movie and rest of background can assess better.
1) One sentence goes ".. The film presents a fictional storyline .."
2) Another sentence goes ".. a description that is widely inaccurate, propagandist, and associated with conspiracy theories. .."
3) No doubt Fictional or fictionalised too get criticized for not being accurate depiction of the reality as long as RS is available. Still Fictional or fictionalised are fictions end of the day and a thorough accuracy can not be expected either. So an encyclopedist is expected to keep WP:Due balance while including criticism of Fictional or fictionalised vis a vis accuracy against real life.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea who has added the surfeit of "ruling party," "ruling BJP," and "Hindutva," in the lead. I'm no fan of nationalism, let alone the ethnic or religious, as people on WP know, but don't you think you guys (meant gender neutrally) are overdoing it? The editors who engage in this seem to be so driven by their views that they are unable to accurately understand nor judiciously paraphrase the very sources that they have so liberally added. India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent, but they did not produce the movie. I suggest that the editors who are doing this rein in this tendency. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL ( talk) 16:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Riding on overwhelming government support and tax breaks from several states across the country, the controversial movie has become a runaway success. It has also come under bitter criticism as it's unprecedented for the government to put its weight behind a commercial movie. - How 'The Kashmir Files', Praised By PM Modi, Became A Runaway Success
"The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film.". Running at 170 minutes, I doubt anyone other than IT Cell promoters will call it a "small film". I think this kind of promotion by an incumbent government using entire machinery of union and state government is unprecedented in the history of Independent India. Venkat TL ( talk) 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film; which contradicts the claim of "word-of-mouth propelling" the movie. Hemantha ( talk) 02:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
it is helped by a combination of factors. And it rides them all. It is a well-made film and a well-marketed one too. It tugs at your heart because it tells a true story, but it adds some popular and populist agendas to it. And then, a whirlwind discussion in national news 24x7 followed by social media forwards help it stay suspended in public's minds for long..- Hindustan Times - The Kashmir Files' box office success decoded: How news, social media, word of mouth scripted an unlikely success story
Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards. CNBC TV18 The Kashmir Files is bringing back to theatre people who hadn’t visited in years
Even before the BJP's promotion and tax free campaign the film was well on track.The advance booking occupancy is almost full in theatres as positive word of mouth is helping the film to attract cinema lovers. On Sunday afternoon, the film was declared tax-free in Gujarat. Akshay Kumar cheers for Anupam Kher's 'The Kashmir Files'
❯❯❯ Pravega g=9.8 05:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)The biggest takeaway from the success of The Kashmir Files is to never ever dodge the audience’s word-of-mouth. India.com How The Kashmir Files Became The Biggest Hindi Film Post-Pandemic – Politics or Not! Explained
But even sustained word of mouth goes only so far ... The answer is in the messaging. The Kashmir Files found itself linked to nationalism and patriotism, earning endorsement from the government itself. Of course it helps when the word is from the mouth of the Prime Minister. When PM Modi himself gave a speech about the film in the Parliament, that turned the tide for the film. That speech and the political rebuttal on it from the opposition turned the film into an issue of national significance. That is publicity one can't buy in any market. "It was quite similar to how it happened with Uri as well. There also, after an endorsement by the PM, the box office earnings got a boost," says Atul Mohan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party has been endorsing The Kashmir Files with all its might. Several BJP-ruled states, ... have given it tax exemptions, bolstering its commercial success.and the full context for "word of mouth" is
Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards, The Kashmir Files has been mired in misinformation that’s being circulated widely on social media.
differs from naturally occurring word of mouth, in that it is actively influenced or encouraged by organizations (e.g. 'seeding' a message in a networks rewarding regular consumers to engage in WOM, employing WOM 'agents')Hemantha ( talk) 11:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This is in response to Fowler's statement above that India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent
.
Note that many are from the release day itself, well before any idea of audience reception could be formed. Searches in local languages will show more sources. Social media, of course, has even more instances of direct promotion by BJP politicians. Opindia has posts from December 2021 as well. Hemantha ( talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The citation for this review is not working. When an attempt to add the correct link is made, it a notice shows that this site is blaclisted. It was blacklisted last year. I found archives (like 1, 2, 3)where this issue was raised, but no action seems to have been taken. I am not able to add the URL here as well. As the current citation is improper, what can be done? Kpddg (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Nobody can state it as a fictional story it's a true hidden story 106.205.164.17 ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In the political messaging section, there is a issues I found.
A Kashmiri separatist militant named Farooq Malik Bitta is depicted in the movie, fashioned after Farooq Ahmed Dar ("Bitta Karate") and Yasin Malik rolled into one. But he is also shown as being involved in the 2003 Nadimarg massacre, which was of neither's doing. Sharda, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo, is shown to have been killed in this massacre, which was not the case in real life.
Now here the citation are opinions where the characters parallels are drawn. I couldn’t find any official source where it’s mentioned that these characters are based only on the said person in the article. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In principle, yes. Please make proposal of Change X to Y and add a reliable source. Users can then discuss if it can be added. Venkat TL ( talk) 19:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 20:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey I’ve added NPOV to page, please feel free to remove it if you think it’s a little too much. My concern with the content is about how a movie taken to add so much criticism/praise. One thing to notice is that the movie is based on real facts , and it’s not a real story. The biggest difference in the 2 is that first depict the real events but not in the same order and not by the same people. The events are real but the production took the liberty to place when, where and whom. While a real story is something should be depicted verbatim with less liberty to change things. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussed at User_talk:TrangaBellam#Please_cite_sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss this page's issues here and not on User talk pages Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with OpenMindedBloke that page should have a NPOV tag, as there are multiple issues in this article are that are actively being debated on Talk page. Also, there are several concerns that some sources are being used to support POV, and neutrality of the page is very much in question at least through April 2022. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
IMO some editor took too much liberty to draw parallels. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking from your responses, I bet you’re not open to other opinions. Your statement ‘’’ Pretty sure you have still not read WP:FALSEBALANCE’’’, what is this. Your recent comments questions your own neutrality, but most of all, making a personal comment of what I read/know. Please stop judging, this place is created to promote healthy discussion. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles like this actually expose the fault line in the editor community. And i don’t want to be a part of it so I’ll this article as is and move to some other. All the best. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In the lead, the wording includes "Depicted as genocide". Should it be "described as genocide"? How does one depict a "genocide"? Does the movie actually do it or just use the word "genocide" for the exodus? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 00:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Understood.
Another wording point in the lead - "an exodus" - Should it be "the exodus" instead? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler, in this diff, you added out of the ordinary to describe the commercial success. But I feel that this phrasing would not be appropriate, and also not completely grammatically fine. There is no definition for ordinary here, so maybe it can be replaced. Kpddg (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
X-Editor ( talk · contribs) has changed a sentence in the lead to:
Critical reception has been mixed,[19] with the cinematography and the acting thought to be compelling,[25] but the plotline has been accused of recasting established history[26] and propagating Islamophobia.
The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia.I could easily flip the two:
The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible.
With the ellipses, it would read:
The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline thought to recast established history and propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting (thought) to be irresistible.
How would you rephrase this in your manner of correction? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be compelling, but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia.It would sound smoother if the second "being" were not there, but I have no compelling objection to it. Can we agree to enter it (with or without the second "being") instead? If you agree, go ahead and make the edit you choose. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Fowler&fowler, I fail to see what's wrong about fronting sentences with phrases. It is not specific to reviews and is fairly common in Indian English. In this case, it's just a way to avoid repeatedly starting sentences with "The film ...", "It has ...", etc. Regarding the plot in the lead, I don't think it needs more expansion, the lead should be a concise summary of the article and the plot is only one aspect of the film. It's not a norm in film articles to have expansive plots in the lead if they have it at all. Also regarding government promotion and commercial success, the relation is explicitly made in the citation so I've restored that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It is understood even if you don't mention the "slap." It tells us that X came stumbling ... (when it was) thrust into the limelight ... (past participle clause)). There is a clear semantic link between the subordinate clause which fronts and the main clause X came stumbling. But when a sentence says:
Thrust into the limelight on the Oscars stage, a preserve of bar-room brawls came stumbling into dining table conversations.
there are all sorts of issues.
Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film showcases a fictional storyline[6] set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide.
"Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party."The problems there are not two interpretations necessarily, but that it lacks coherence. You set the reader up with some details in the subordinate clause that the main clause does not directly link to. In other words, what does being released on 11 March have to do with the film being endorsed by Hindu nationalists? If you had said, "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film managed to piggyback on the increased public gusto for movies before the Oscars." Or if you had said, "Theatrically released on the 1000th birth anniversary of the founder of Kashmiri Shaivism, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party," a reader would have instantly understood without looking puzzled. What I saw when I first saw this page a week or two ago, was the use of fronting for the sake of fronting which is what I had seen cursorily at FAC in some Indian movie submissions, basically the form without the content. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There were precious few Hindus in Kashmir when 30,000 people (read Muslim) were killed by the Indian State. That is what happened "during." In other words, "during" should be reserved for the major violence, whose victims were not Hindus. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
"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 early-1990 exodus is depicted in the film to have followed a genocide,[14] a description that is widely inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[15]"The rest can go in a footnote. "Widely" is important; the genocide idea is wide of the mark, as Alexander Evans states in the cited source. If the historical events are not well-known, the storyline's description should carry a disabusal at the end. Finally, and generally, "during" can mean throughout the course of, or secondarily, at a point in the course of. Neither sense applies to the very beginning. We can't really say, "He was named Mohandas by his parents during his life." But we can say, "During the course of his long life only once did he eat meat." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, (translation: mother of lawlessness?), please re-insert that it was co-produced by Zee Studios, it is a matter of reputation. - 2402:8100:2818:E9F0:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else, who feels the section to be way too detailed? WP:NOTNEWS etc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article has too many unnecessary details and sections. For a movie article, the information added is way too muchz OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 07:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with TrangaBellam, the NZ section is too detailed, and needs to be shortened. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler I have reverted and restored some wikilinks that you removed. I think they are helpful for the readers. In addition "are thought to be" appears to me as original research while "have been described as" is an acceptable attribution. The nationalist cause need to be mentioned as it helps the reader understand the governments support. Venkat TL ( talk) 10:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
I am not following this topic greatly. Primary reading of present lead brought me couple of doubts those who know movie and rest of background can assess better.
1) One sentence goes ".. The film presents a fictional storyline .."
2) Another sentence goes ".. a description that is widely inaccurate, propagandist, and associated with conspiracy theories. .."
3) No doubt Fictional or fictionalised too get criticized for not being accurate depiction of the reality as long as RS is available. Still Fictional or fictionalised are fictions end of the day and a thorough accuracy can not be expected either. So an encyclopedist is expected to keep WP:Due balance while including criticism of Fictional or fictionalised vis a vis accuracy against real life.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea who has added the surfeit of "ruling party," "ruling BJP," and "Hindutva," in the lead. I'm no fan of nationalism, let alone the ethnic or religious, as people on WP know, but don't you think you guys (meant gender neutrally) are overdoing it? The editors who engage in this seem to be so driven by their views that they are unable to accurately understand nor judiciously paraphrase the very sources that they have so liberally added. India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent, but they did not produce the movie. I suggest that the editors who are doing this rein in this tendency. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL ( talk) 16:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Riding on overwhelming government support and tax breaks from several states across the country, the controversial movie has become a runaway success. It has also come under bitter criticism as it's unprecedented for the government to put its weight behind a commercial movie. - How 'The Kashmir Files', Praised By PM Modi, Became A Runaway Success
"The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film.". Running at 170 minutes, I doubt anyone other than IT Cell promoters will call it a "small film". I think this kind of promotion by an incumbent government using entire machinery of union and state government is unprecedented in the history of Independent India. Venkat TL ( talk) 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film; which contradicts the claim of "word-of-mouth propelling" the movie. Hemantha ( talk) 02:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
it is helped by a combination of factors. And it rides them all. It is a well-made film and a well-marketed one too. It tugs at your heart because it tells a true story, but it adds some popular and populist agendas to it. And then, a whirlwind discussion in national news 24x7 followed by social media forwards help it stay suspended in public's minds for long..- Hindustan Times - The Kashmir Files' box office success decoded: How news, social media, word of mouth scripted an unlikely success story
Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards. CNBC TV18 The Kashmir Files is bringing back to theatre people who hadn’t visited in years
Even before the BJP's promotion and tax free campaign the film was well on track.The advance booking occupancy is almost full in theatres as positive word of mouth is helping the film to attract cinema lovers. On Sunday afternoon, the film was declared tax-free in Gujarat. Akshay Kumar cheers for Anupam Kher's 'The Kashmir Files'
❯❯❯ Pravega g=9.8 05:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)The biggest takeaway from the success of The Kashmir Files is to never ever dodge the audience’s word-of-mouth. India.com How The Kashmir Files Became The Biggest Hindi Film Post-Pandemic – Politics or Not! Explained
But even sustained word of mouth goes only so far ... The answer is in the messaging. The Kashmir Files found itself linked to nationalism and patriotism, earning endorsement from the government itself. Of course it helps when the word is from the mouth of the Prime Minister. When PM Modi himself gave a speech about the film in the Parliament, that turned the tide for the film. That speech and the political rebuttal on it from the opposition turned the film into an issue of national significance. That is publicity one can't buy in any market. "It was quite similar to how it happened with Uri as well. There also, after an endorsement by the PM, the box office earnings got a boost," says Atul Mohan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party has been endorsing The Kashmir Files with all its might. Several BJP-ruled states, ... have given it tax exemptions, bolstering its commercial success.and the full context for "word of mouth" is
Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards, The Kashmir Files has been mired in misinformation that’s being circulated widely on social media.
differs from naturally occurring word of mouth, in that it is actively influenced or encouraged by organizations (e.g. 'seeding' a message in a networks rewarding regular consumers to engage in WOM, employing WOM 'agents')Hemantha ( talk) 11:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This is in response to Fowler's statement above that India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent
.
Note that many are from the release day itself, well before any idea of audience reception could be formed. Searches in local languages will show more sources. Social media, of course, has even more instances of direct promotion by BJP politicians. Opindia has posts from December 2021 as well. Hemantha ( talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
References
The citation for this review is not working. When an attempt to add the correct link is made, it a notice shows that this site is blaclisted. It was blacklisted last year. I found archives (like 1, 2, 3)where this issue was raised, but no action seems to have been taken. I am not able to add the URL here as well. As the current citation is improper, what can be done? Kpddg (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Nobody can state it as a fictional story it's a true hidden story 106.205.164.17 ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In the political messaging section, there is a issues I found.
A Kashmiri separatist militant named Farooq Malik Bitta is depicted in the movie, fashioned after Farooq Ahmed Dar ("Bitta Karate") and Yasin Malik rolled into one. But he is also shown as being involved in the 2003 Nadimarg massacre, which was of neither's doing. Sharda, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo, is shown to have been killed in this massacre, which was not the case in real life.
Now here the citation are opinions where the characters parallels are drawn. I couldn’t find any official source where it’s mentioned that these characters are based only on the said person in the article. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In principle, yes. Please make proposal of Change X to Y and add a reliable source. Users can then discuss if it can be added. Venkat TL ( talk) 19:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 20:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey I’ve added NPOV to page, please feel free to remove it if you think it’s a little too much. My concern with the content is about how a movie taken to add so much criticism/praise. One thing to notice is that the movie is based on real facts , and it’s not a real story. The biggest difference in the 2 is that first depict the real events but not in the same order and not by the same people. The events are real but the production took the liberty to place when, where and whom. While a real story is something should be depicted verbatim with less liberty to change things. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussed at User_talk:TrangaBellam#Please_cite_sources. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss this page's issues here and not on User talk pages Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with OpenMindedBloke that page should have a NPOV tag, as there are multiple issues in this article are that are actively being debated on Talk page. Also, there are several concerns that some sources are being used to support POV, and neutrality of the page is very much in question at least through April 2022. Jhy.rjwk ( talk) 09:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
IMO some editor took too much liberty to draw parallels. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking from your responses, I bet you’re not open to other opinions. Your statement ‘’’ Pretty sure you have still not read WP:FALSEBALANCE’’’, what is this. Your recent comments questions your own neutrality, but most of all, making a personal comment of what I read/know. Please stop judging, this place is created to promote healthy discussion. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles like this actually expose the fault line in the editor community. And i don’t want to be a part of it so I’ll this article as is and move to some other. All the best. OpenMindedBloke ( talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In the lead, the wording includes "Depicted as genocide". Should it be "described as genocide"? How does one depict a "genocide"? Does the movie actually do it or just use the word "genocide" for the exodus? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 00:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Understood.
Another wording point in the lead - "an exodus" - Should it be "the exodus" instead? Webberbrad007 ( talk) 02:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler, in this diff, you added out of the ordinary to describe the commercial success. But I feel that this phrasing would not be appropriate, and also not completely grammatically fine. There is no definition for ordinary here, so maybe it can be replaced. Kpddg (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
X-Editor ( talk · contribs) has changed a sentence in the lead to:
Critical reception has been mixed,[19] with the cinematography and the acting thought to be compelling,[25] but the plotline has been accused of recasting established history[26] and propagating Islamophobia.
The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia.I could easily flip the two:
The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible.
With the ellipses, it would read:
The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline thought to recast established history and propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting (thought) to be irresistible.
How would you rephrase this in your manner of correction? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be compelling, but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia.It would sound smoother if the second "being" were not there, but I have no compelling objection to it. Can we agree to enter it (with or without the second "being") instead? If you agree, go ahead and make the edit you choose. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)