![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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. [1]for the lead, replacing the last two sentences. TryKid dubious – discuss 12:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
fictionalisationinstead.
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its knowledge being kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence, [2] 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.
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence; [2] [3] scholars of Kashmir history consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark.Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:03, 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)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. [2] [3] 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. [4]
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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.[5]
Citations
|
---|
References
|
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)
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
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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. [1]for the lead, replacing the last two sentences. TryKid dubious – discuss 12:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
fictionalisationinstead.
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its knowledge being kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence, [2] 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.
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence; [2] [3] scholars of Kashmir history consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark.Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:03, 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)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. [2] [3] 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. [4]
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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.[5]
Citations
|
---|
References
|
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)
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