Jump to content

Talk:Vivek Agnihotri/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

A separate article for the book - Urban Naxals?

In my opinion, the book titled Urban Naxals will require another article but I would like to know the opinion of other experienced editors for the same. Thank you in advance for your opinion. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Why YouTube interview is not a reliable source?

I would like to discuss if there is such a policy on WP which says that YouTube is not a reliable source. I would like to know if such guideline exists. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tanushree allegations are Undue Weight

Talk here before putting these up. The article has very little about his personal or professional life that adding this is disproportionate. Puck42 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Image uploaded by me was deleted

I am not aware why and how image uploaded by me was deleted in the article. I have restored the image. Maybe it was deleted by mistake while editing by someone. The image is clicked by me by my phone and I have properly uploaded it on Wikimedia Commons in my opinion. Kindly discuss here if there are any queries about the image. Thank you. Have a nice day. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at [1] and the history of this article to find out more. At first sight the uploader was another user not you.SovalValtos (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There were 2 images. Both were removed. Maybe the one uploaded me was also removed by mistake. I was referring to the image uploaded by me. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is locked by Urban Naxal.Citations are biased.

Remove the biased citations Kokanemanoj1 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Kokanemanoj1, which citations are biased and why? ∯WBGconverse 16:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Winged, please follow BRD or at least discuss on article talk page

Winged, please do not keep reverting me in middle of edits. You may discuss your objections here. You never follow BRD. Once reverted it is your onus to present evident to put in your statements. I allowed that to pass and try to make the narration more neutral, then you revert saying poor English. Well, if you can blindly keep hitting revert there can be no discussion, can there be? Please step back. I am afraid you are carrying vendetta from other articles. --Jaydayal (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You are asked to clarify as to what constitutes OR and the rationale behind your recent re-framing of certain prose. PLEASE gain consensus via a discussion. WP:BRD. ∯WBGconverse 09:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If I had removed a content first and then you reverted me, ... who did not follow BRD? Does it apply selectively? If you can hit revert blindly, we get nowhere. Let me alone for 5-10 minutes, can you? --Jaydayal (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Propose your changes over here, get a consensus and then, incorporate them. It's not rocket science. ∯WBGconverse 09:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This source mentions This, they say, reeks of intolerance and could even instigate violence. ∯WBGconverse 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That is one poor source, no editorial oversight, which itself is making a very casual indicative comment. To put it in the lead of a BLP with this much is in violation of BLP, I could even say in violation common sense. And my initial edits were about, keeping the same references, keeping the same meaning, move the response of the subject closer to the accusations. You have reverted me repeatedly there with comments like 'poor Eglish' and 'nope'. I think we ought to do this better. If you can't make up your mind to write it better let me rephrase it and then feel free to work it and make it more aggressive? But I don't like that you can't let me touch a letter and won't do anything about the problem yourself either. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The Print has no editorial oversight? Are you crazy? ∯WBGconverse 10:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged, your this sources says Urban Naxal is for "city dweller who ..." it doesn't say "academia and media who " as told in other source (none of which claim the silly instigation angle). So, do you want to cherry pick half phrase from here and half phrase from there? The Print is a known left publishing house, the statement is too loose and generic, who are the 'critics' according to The Print, there is no depth or substance in that article. You have four other better source which does bring out the 'discredit' angle and deserves inclusion. There is no basis of keeping the 'instigating violence' in the lead of a BLP on this flimsy commentary. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Your first line is too grammatically poor to be sensibly parsed. ∯WBGconverse 10:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
After some additional thoughts, that part. phrase ought be re-framed. Apart from The Print piece and a SAGE publication, I don't note any source that directly describe the term as being used to incite violence.
Obviously, there exists ample critics that deem the usage of the term to other and criminalise certain intellectual sections of the society (often going as far as to compare the term in the lights of Rwanda radio et al) and a summary-view will go in the article:-) There are plethora of excellent articles on the issue. There's Thapar's interview on this very locus, a SAGE journal publication, an EPW piece.....
To summarize, there will be a new section and it will be heavily expanded. I am even thinking 'bout starting a new page on the topic. ∯WBGconverse 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
A line which was sourced to this article read:- Vivek remained unapologetic though and claimed that he was persecuted because of being a Hindu.
You removed the phrase noting:- The sources do not say this. Let me add what this particular source says.
The article contains:-....While he was forced by Twitter to take down the offensive tweet, Vivek is shamelessly unapologetic.....The belief that people are only defaming the “Hindu community” is not exclusive to Vivek alone..... ∯WBGconverse 10:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If you like to mix topics... here it goes: I have made edits with very detailed edit summary and supported by the references that were already there. If you think it is wrong please make improvements there or here, I am not a mad-reverter. If it makes sense I will be glad to acknowledge it. Quit your bragging about command over English. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Where does he say he was "persecuted because of being a Hindu", it is not in the source you quote. You are misrepresenting source. Your comprehension is also very poor. If the article writer says, "the belief that people are only defaming the Hindu community is not exlcusive to Vivek ..." does not translate into "Vivek said he was persecuted because he was Hindu", and there is details in the article, it is in the same para, context, that brings that it is the belief of Vivek that he made that tweet to bring out his belief how "liberals always make placards and run hashtags to defame an entire community when a Hindu is involved.". I said you may make improvement or suggestion (in the light of my response goes without saying) ... but all you did was one more revert with no edit summary except pointer to tp when you haven't suggested anything here or in the edit summary. Are you truly so incompetent and biased? --Jaydayal (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I won't reply to your personal attacks.
There's somewhat clear implications in the source about his stance and I need to re-find the video where Vivek was ranting about how his' being a Hindu led to the inappropriate block of his account; how his freedom of expression was thus curtailed and blah blah.
Once I manage to locate that, I will rewrite the prose. ∯WBGconverse 14:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot engage with you because of your habit of editing/updating your comments in place after they have been responded to. I would also urge you to step down from your moral high stand, I only gave you in return how you have been treating me for weeks. Anyone can see that editing talk page comments in-place is disruptive, moving others comment is disruptive. And any one can judge that my English makes perfect sense and my intent was good from day one. There is a sensible limit to anyone's tolerance against a tirade of unreasonable abuse. Yours is extremely short, few seconds, but I decided that you aren't worthy of a dignified response after a month, lookup my response where I have even thanked you. You want to find evidence in future to support what you want to keep in article today but isn't mentioned in sources today. I disagree. Have your way, feel happy. --Jaydayal (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jaydayal, provide diffs for (1) your habit of editing/updating your comments in place after they have been responded to & (2) moving others comment.. I am unable to see where I was refactoring/transposing my (or your) comments. ∯WBGconverse 15:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Plenty. Two examples should suffice [2] [3] The history of talk page at Parkala Massacre and this page and elsewhere has more. Bishonen you make take a glance. --Jaydayal (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Both the diffs are from some other page and reflects your usual clumsy self, who after failing to properly resolve an edit conflict, went about undoing my in-between edits. Try the 2 column VE edit conflict resolver, it might help you. Please provide diffs for this page and elsewhere or retract. ∯WBGconverse 18:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. No retraction. Any one can check this article and talk page history. Can you show decency and apologize for Fuck Off and several insults before I gave back to you in same coin and you suddenly grew a moral standard for me to follow? There is no sarcasm, this is my opinion. I forget things easily -- I have shown this times and again. --Jaydayal (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright.

The image is from twitter. There is an assertion that it is copyright free for usage here. I see five other uploads from same user was deleted. How can the assertion be validated? How to open a UTRS ticket on commons? --Jaydayal (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Low quality sources, looking for better sources.

If there is a serious writeup on his life that would be very helpful. I think he is a small time director who shot to fame with controversial movie. Different editors might have added one off incident from few news articles but that doesn't truly gives a right view. Like in other BLPs there is always the difficulty to neatly absorb the controversies in the body rather than a separate section. The lede doesn't summarise the body... it stands on its own. Offhand my perception (which I am trying to weigh againts online sources, nothing much offline) is that he is 'known' for his two controversial films Buddha in traffic jam and Tashkent files. But the BLP doesn't reflect this yet. Again, since this is only my perception so far, I need to verify more sources. Please share sources in comment, if you have any, and I would be happy to devote time for reading those. Or... maybe there aren't high quality sources about him. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

How to make this article better?

Lets discuss how to make this article better over here.-- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for admins to kindly look at this page for behavior of Winged Blades of Godric

It is my request to administrators to look at this page for the behavior of some Winged Blades of Godric. He seems to have some issue with Vivek and as a result he is trying to create trouble on this page. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL. ∯WBGconverse 14:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I had already asked you to read WP:LEADCITE, which you did read but paid no heed to, as evident from your usage of attribution in lead, for an unanimous statement backed by a plethora of sources in body.
You have removed the line concerning negative reviews of his first film (Chocolate) and added some, (as an absolutely non-factual qualifier), to the line about BTJ reception, in what are obvious attempts to whitewash the article. The whitewashing gets more evident from your removal of Tanushree-Dutta allegations and Swara Bhasker episode from lead, both of which were hugely covered by RSs and finds tangential mentions in many sketches of Agnihotri in irrelevant news articles.
Agnihotri has spread fake news/propaganda/content, as verified by reputed fact-checkers and RS(s). Some think is weasel wording. Sorta saying Some think Gab houses White supremacists ...
Adding suddenly in year 2018 and she thinks to the Tanushree Dutta episode is ridiculous and misogynist editorializing.
Fuckwitery all around; you are not competent to edit over here, ayurveda's that way. ∯WBGconverse 14:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As useful, you are boring and trying to malign him only because you do not like his ideology. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, Abhijeet Safai - Please stop with the incivility and the personal attacks. It's not doing anything productive or helpful... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

let's keep editing this article constructively

In spite of attacks by Winged Blades of Godric, let's keep editing this article constructively Destruction and insane behavior might be way of working of him and he might have some justifications for the same but lets keep editing this article constructively in spite of many attacks on this article. In the end truth will win for sure. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai, lets keep the subsection headers neutral, before we discuss how to edit this article constructively. There is a massive WP:REFBOMBing that needs to be taken care of. I suggest moving all but 1 of them to the talk page, right away. The talk page can be used to recycle these refs and re-add with usable content to expand the individual sections. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a refbomb but along with those edits long standing consensus version was reverted! I welcome new content, please have discussion before totally reverting consensus text though -- those may also be changed, but only after establishing consensus, as per wiki rules. --Jaydayal (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't know what you two are talking about but afais, REFBOMB relates to a technique to propel an article past our notability-barriers ..... ∯WBGconverse 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section.

Winged wants to put "Vivek Agnihotri has been documented to have propagated fake news, several times" based on these three news articles discussing three of his tweets:

  1. [4] Vivek Agnihotri tweets an edited and misleading video of Kanhaiya Kumar speaking about Islam.
  2. [5] Vivek Agnihotri makes false claim of Nehru responsible for outcome of 1965 Indo-Pak war.
  3. [6] In September, filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri and founder of Aarin Capital, Mohandas Pai, were among many others who tweeted a listicle claiming that a BBC survey had found the Congress to be the second most corrupt party in the world. However, this turned out to be a fake survey and the online editor of the BBC clarified that the premier news organisation never conducts such surveys.

I prefer it to reflect the reality in due weight. These are three articles on tweets of a Film celebrity. The last one talks of Mohandas Pai too in same breath. In which incident many people got duped by BBC look like organization and (re)tweeted their survey result thinking it is BBC, probably thousands. My choice is to include 'twitter', he is not a media anchor or a politician, he is not a cult leader or a religious leader. "Vivek Agnihotri was criticized for sharing unreliable or fake content on twitter" is a middle ground where it makes it clear that this whole 'propagation' is about his tweets. Not his movies or book or something else. This is important because he is described as film maker and writer immediately before and we aren't needed by policy to leave it ambiguous. I also think 'documented to have propagated fake news' is loaded and overdone. We err on the side of caution on BLPs. There is nothing worth calling documentation here. In one case, he got the PM itself wrong! He simply didn't know any better ... either ways it wasn't 'propagating fake news'... we may call it 'manufacturing fake news' but is his twitter considered 'news' at all to begin with? --Jaydayal (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

he got the PM itself wrong! He simply didn't know any better -- ?? No clue about what you're referring to.
many people got duped by BBC look like organization - That is precisely spreading fake news. Pai is another lunatic of the same cohort.
And, yeah Twitter is one of the most-abused tool to spread fake news. ∯WBGconverse 14:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Pai is another lunatic? What do you even mean, who are you Sir? I thought we had consensus above. You agreed to the changes... because I was inactive for a month or so you reverted to your text again? I am reverting you,I trusted you that last time I think. --Jaydayal (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Look WP:3O .... ∯WBGconverse 05:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged you need to justify your tabloid style controversy phrasing on a BLP with policy. All you say is Pai is lunatic, that is not an argument here. --Jaydayal (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged the burden is on you to justify your highly critical wording with sources. You are hitting revert button without any policy abiding argument here other than throwing the rule book at me. Please go for a 3O or DR yourself if that is what you feel like. --Jaydayal (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
He 'thinks' he is smart but in reality he is highly boring. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Abhijeet Safai - That's enough. There's no need for you to inject yourself into this discussion and make pokes and prods at Winged Blades of Godric like that. I know that he started things by saying "Fuckwitery all around; you are not competent to edit over here, ayurveda's that way" at you, but two wrongs don't make a right, and it's going to take both of you stop the "rock throwing" and start discussing things civilly and peacefully. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Oshwah, there's nil need of peaceful discussion around vandalism. Safai's t/p history may provide a clue about his competence levels. Also, you have got the chronology of starting things, wrong, by ~ 2 (vide BTW, you are boring.) edits(vide does not run as per your whims and fancies).∯WBGconverse 16:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric - Ah, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I've crossed out the statement I wrote above. Sorry for the mixup... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Winged, you have just reverted without any response here! I have explained my stand very clearly. And I don't care what you think of Pai, this article is not about Pai. I had to revert, thank you! --Jaydayal (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It was you who brought Pai to the fore, as some sort of defense of Agnihotri's deeds; it does not matter one iota about whether Pai shared the same/some fake news or not and you have made a mountain of the molehill, that my reply alluded to. Fake news is not limited to the traditional domain of news-coverage in the post-truth era.
At any case, you prefer Vivek Agnihotri was criticized for sharing unreliable or fake content on twitter whereas my version was Vivek Agnihotri has been documented to have propagated fake content on several occasions, over Twitter.
Unless and until you feel that sharing info over Twitter does not equate propagation or feel that 3 ain't several (contrary to OED, which defines the word as more than two but not many.) or feel that criticized is more BLP-positive than documented, I fail to see the rationale behind your revert, on this ground.
You are also asked to clarify your stand about deleting the sections about his personal life and filmography. I checked our GA (quality standards, we all ought to strive for) about Sukumar, another film director from India and lo, it has extensive details of filmography comprising mostly of detailed critical reception and commercial performance of each of their works in a proportionate manner. I checked three more GAs about Indian film directors and it was roughly similar themes, every single time.
You are also asked to clarify your stand about removing the part of his book being favorably received by The Organiser. Same about the stuff about No Fathers in Kashmir, an episode which had grabbed immense spotlight in media.
From this edit of your's, you are asked to explain about why he shall not be deemed a right-wing-activist, contra all available sourcing.
Also, do you understand the meaning of frivolous? As our relevant article writes:- The implication is that the claim has not been brought in good faith because it is obvious that it has no reasonable prospect of success. Vexatious may be a better choice, though. Also, why do we need to quote him, as to the Swara-Bhasker-episode? We prefer paraphrasing whilst writing secondary/tertiary literature and do not aim to provide coverage via news-bytes. ∯WBGconverse 09:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Absent any objections in ~ the next day, this will go in. You engaged in similar stonewalling over Parkala Massacre; until we were forced to call the broader community pending which you vanished into thin air. ∯WBGconverse 06:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Safai has been since TBanned and am re-instating the content, noting the support from the below IP user. ∯WBGconverse 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I came here following Agnihotri's rant-tweets claiming of a conspiracy by Urban Naxals to malign his Wikipedia biography and his calls for helping him out. It seems that Vivek is prima facie successful. It's not a mystery that he has a huge fan-following over Twitter, consisting mostly of trolls, (as is the case with most of the influential intellegensia from right wing) and that the ruling party in India often pays these trolls for favorable coverage over social networking sites using a variety of tactics. I believe that his tweets have incurred in an attempt to favorably rewrite his biography, weaponizing Wikipedia's (misguided) principle of allowing anybody to have a say in it's content.

    Deleting critical and commercial reception of his films, trying to introduce doubts unto a reader about an alleged victim's testimony using the crudest and commonest forms of misogynistic treatment (why didn't she speak of it, then?), choosing to remove negative aspects from the introduction along with his controversies at CBFC -- all fell into a distinct pattern.

    I urge Wikipedia to reincorporate this version and maintain your rigid standards. Alben Devoit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.177.233.21 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not obliged to be on Wiki 24x7. Not responding for few days doesn't mean you can make edits without responding to objections or circumventing BLP. When you are done I will make my constructive edits. Anyone can see you are the one stonewalling. --Jaydayal (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I am yet to note a rebut from you, other than vague hand-waving .... ∯WBGconverse 09:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, as arguments in favor of this revert:-
  • 1 :- The tag of ‘anti-national JNU’ was kept alive, however, through repeated rhetorical use in hostile electronic and social media. It was later used interchangeably and in metonymic associations with phrases like ‘tukde-tukde gang’, ‘breaking-India’, ‘anti-India forces’ and ‘urban Naxals’. The very lack of precision in such phrases enhances their rhetorical power in the political space, beyond any form of accountability.
  • 2 :- The ambiguous term now joins the country’s lexicon alongside “anti-national” and “tukde-tukde gang” as a catch-all epithet for those who express dissent.
  • 3 :- The only thing that comes clear from the Organiser and Jaitley definitions is their deliberate vagueness.

Controversy clarification

In these edits I had to flag content in the Controversies section because it's rather poorly-written and some of the stuff is really unclear:

  • "His Twitter account was locked briefly after abusing Swara Bhaskar in relation to the Me Too movement in India"
    • First: "after abusing" implies that it is a fact that she was abused, when it is a perception that she was abused. A neutral encyclopedia would not draw a conclusion. I think this is likely the result of someone trying to pussyfoot around details they found indelicate and instead going with some vague euphemism, but that vague euphemism doesn't impart any information. Note also, Wikipedia is not censored.
    • Second, "in relation to the Me Too movement in India" doesn't convey anything either. That too is vague.
    • Not only does the current version lack detail, but it makes it sound like Bhaskar is a mere victim, when she was actually being kind of a bad-ass by standing up for another woman and for herself. Even more so, since we start the sentence with the very-passive "His Twitter account was locked".
    • Something slightly better would be like "In September 2019, Legislative Assembly member P. C. George criticised a nun who accused a bishop of rape, tweeting, "No one has doubt that the nun is a prostitute. 12 times she enjoyed it and the 13th time it is rape? Why didn't she complain the first time?"<insert reference> Actress Swara Bhasker tweeted back a sharp critique of George, to which Agninotri tweeted "Where is the placard - '#MeTooProstituteNun'?",<insert reference> which Bhasker and other women on Twitter took as an insinuation that he was calling Bhasker a prostitute for sympathising with the nun. Bhasker reported the tweet and Twitter blocked Agnihotri's account until he deleted the response. Agnihotri defended the tweet, describing it as a criticism of <insert his response here><insert reference here>"
  • "He allegedly asked her to strip and dance for giving cues"
    • What does this mean? It looks someone just copied content from an article without bothering to process what the article was saying, or summarising it for the reader. Based on what I can interpret, Irffan Khan was doing some close-up reaction shots. Often in those cases, the actor might need an object or a person to focus on so he could deliver the appropriate expression. Agnihotri allegedly told her to strip and dance, I guess to elicit some emotion from Khan. If that's what is alleged to have happened, why are we shortchanging the reader with vague industry jargon and insufficient context?

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A plethora of sources report that Swara was abused; nothing in WP:NPOV does state that we shall bend backwards to accommodate such cases. Also, Twitter locks account and does not block them. At best, we can write:- His Twitter account was locked for a short span of time, until he agreed to delete a tweet abusing Swara Bhaskar for standing up against an attempted character-assassination of a rape victim by an elected legislator. The tweet was widely parsed as alluding Swara to be a prostitute; Agnihotri chose to stand by the tweet though, claiming that he was only making a point about the selective placarding by liberals, to defame the Hindu community.
Now, I am sure that you do not intend it but your original research over the locus of the second issue is dangerously close towards normalization of the allegations in a quest to be sympathetic to Agnihotri and lies in the apologia-territory. No director (of supposed non B-grade films) asks someone to strip, in order to elicit appropriate reaction from someone in close-up shots. At any case, our original research is meaningless, as we need to go by the sources. Cues ain't an industry jargon and the context seems quite clear to me but yet, I have slightly modified the line to read:- He allegedly asked her to strip and dance for giving expression-cues to her male co-actor Irrfan during one of his close-up shot ... ∯WBGconverse 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that some of the initial details of the "prostitute" controversy may not be necessary, I still have a problem with some of your proposed language. I'll try to be brief:
  • I strongly disagree with your reading of WP:NPOV. "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Prefer nonjudgmental language" are fairly clear about what our approach should be. No editor gets to decide whether or not someone was abused. We should be speaking objectively about the incidents as reported, not deciding whether or not they qualify as abuse, and we certainly shouldn't be describing something as "character-assassination", which again, is a conclusion based on an opinion, not an objective observation, and we shouldn't be calling someone a rape victim if there has been no due process determination that the person was a victim of rape. There are serious libel concerns here if giant Wikipedia is insinuating that someone is a rapist, which is why we, and most news outlets, always use circumspect language like "allegedly" or "suspected" or "accused".
  • Obviously, I am not describing it as abuse; sources do and in abundance.  Not done Removed "character-assassination" and introduced "alleged" before "rape-victim".  Done
  • "His Twitter account was locked for a short span of time" - Again, I don't understand why using the passive voice is the right choice here. Twitter locked (not blocked) his account for publishing something in violation of their TOS. The passive voice is often used in writing when trying to soften the impact of something. "The suspect shot the family to death" vs. "the family was shot to death", the latter almost sounding like it was the family's fault for dying. I don't think the passive voice is the way to go here, especially if you're concerned about perceived apologism.
  • Eh; I have originally incorporated in an active voice before it got changed in the meanwhile. Obviously,  Done.
  • You misinterpreted "so he could deliver the appropriate expression", although I will take some of the blame for that. I wasn't speaking about Irfan, I was attempting to suss out what "for giving cues" meant, because it's not grammatically obvious and "giving cues" is something you could only understand if you were an actor. I seriously had no idea what it meant, and I'm not entirely daft and I speak English fairly well. While I like your "expression cues" change, the "for" needs to go. It should be "in order to give expression cues" or "as a means of giving" or something far better, as there was no indication she was supposed to be part of that process.
  • Thanks;  Done.
  • I don't understand how omitting Agninotri's entire tweet helps readers understand what was so offensive about it. It is the central point of the entire controversy. Are you omitting this by choice? If so, why? We should be presenting the most important facts.
  • We are a tertiary source and we exploit paraphrasing. X said "ABC", to which Y said "PQR" and as a result, Z got very angry and said MNO is shabby writing .... That being said, I have copy-edited once again and introduced a part of his tweet. Sort of  Done.
  • "widely parsed" - I don't think "parsed" comes up a lot in common English outside of computer programming. "Widely interpreted" seems stronger and more universally understood.
  •  Done - Agree, obviously.
  • "the selective placarding by liberals, to defame the Hindu community." I don't understand what any of this means. Placarding? Selective placarding? Through context, it seems he was ticked that everybody posts #metoo signs on Twitter. But what does the Hindu community have to do with this? Where the nun and bishop Hindus? Where is the context that would help a reader understand what his "point" might have been? This article has some, but not all details. Lack of detail is problematic in a section about controversies.
  • Agnihotri's broader point (as he said in a video interview; need to locate it) was that Swara did not appear with a placard (unlike in Asifa et al) because over here, the alleged perpetrator (bishop) as well as the MLA were Christians and it did not fit with her agenda of outage-activism over crimes only commited by Hindus. Agnihotri claimed that he mocked Swaras' not bringing placards from this line of thought but it was intentionally mis-interpreted by Jehadi Urban naxals, thus infringing on his FOE. Blah Blah ..... I have copy-edted. Sort of  Done.
  • "chose to stand by" sounds like a cliche to me and it also looks like close paraphrasing of the Deccan article. I don't know what's wrong with "Agnihotri defended", which is shorter and less descriptive of a decision that we are imagining he made.
  •  Done - Agree.
  • My proposed wording for the first issue: In September 2019, after a nun accused a bishop of rape, Legislative Assembly member P. C. George described the nun as a prostitute. Actress Swara Bhasker criticised the politician's comments, describing them as "slut shame". In response to Bhasker, Agnihotri tweeted, "Where is the placard - '#MeTooProstituteNun'?", which Bhasker and other women on Twitter interpreted as an insinuation that Bhasker was a prostitute for sympathising with the nun. Bhasker reported the tweet and Twitter locked Agnihotri's account until he deleted his post. Agnihotri acquiesced and removed the tweet, but defended it, saying, "It was to make a point that these liberals always make placards and run hashtags to defame an entire community when a Hindu is involved." <could probably use more context for the Hindu defamation claim>
  • Disagree, emphatically. We need to summarize w/o using quotes. Check my edits.
Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, I think that most of your points are satisfied ..... ∯WBGconverse 06:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I am still vigorously against the use of "abused", which is a conclusion or a judgement, in violation of NPOV. However, this ordeal has occupied far too much of my time, so I will be taking this article off my watchlist, and I have asked WT:IN to send more eyes this way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
That's the best way out; I had asked two threads up (at ITNB) for more eyes ...... ∯WBGconverse 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Added some more reference and contextual info to free hanging content. Removed some dead link. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Winged, since you blindly reverted all of my edits pulling in dead links, dropping new references and other improvements I had to fix it and on top of them I have redone some of your desired changes. All my edits are compliant with policies, are referenced properly and abide by the stricter BLP guidelines. --Jaydayal (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If you believe absolutely false and vexatious are exactly same can I request you to remove vexatious? That way the meaning remains unchanged as per you and it is a fair middle ground? Otherwise we can let both stay because the sources say it that way, I am not cooking it up. --Jaydayal (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
In twitter subsection under controversies in context of casteist commentary I had to correct October 2019 to January 2018. That is what the sources say. If you want please get rid of that phrase entirely or keep it January 2018 -- October 2019 is wrong and not supported in any source. --Jaydayal (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
We were conversing up above; before you jumped out on seeing my factual rebuts to your vague arguments and hand waving at policies. Please continue over there.
I undid all of your edits, only to rollback myself minutes later, which you have missed. Then I selectively removed some of your changes, that you have long attempted to impose without any consensus. Get your facts correct. ∯WBGconverse 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If I can insert your edits back so can you. Point out any edit that is without good reference or against policy. I have explained and engaged on talk page with patience for long and offered flexibility. What I have received in return each time is abuse in edit comments and blanket revert of every edit. I am still open to further changes, as is evident from myself repeating some of your edits, going through the references you add and correcting some mistakes. I am never ignoring your constructive edits. I do not own the article. But no one does on Wikipedia. --Jaydayal (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The above section is redundant because you have completely refactored that paragraph and taken my inputs. I have no contention there. We are in agreement there, I haven't reverted your additions there. If we focus on content it will be simpler, what is your response to my point regarding "absolutely false" that I mention above? We haven't discussed this before. You have reverted me twice though without responding. My edit is from the same source that you are using, from the same sentence in the source in fact. Neither of us are misrepresenting sources here. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Why are you going about reverting my paragraph about Urban Naxals (Controversy section) w/o engaging with my reply up above?
Vexatious is one of the most optimal terms to use over here; you are probably alluding some negative connotation to that, which ain't the case. See this source where Agnihotri/his lawyer (??) uses that very term. I can agree with false and vexatious.
See Buddha_in_a_Traffic_Jam#Jadavpur_University. There are a lot of versions/narratives in the domain from various spheres and a lot of allied aspects which immediately receded and followed it; whilst a summary of the entire fracas is obviously merited in this article, it needs to be far more balanced. ∯WBGconverse 10:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I added your suggested wording exactly for "false and vexatious". I am not reverting your edits under urban naxals, you are deleting my addition. It is referenced, relevant and provides a context about what the term is before we summarise the response of critics towards it. Why should we not connect Agnihotri to the term explicitly before we explain further. Some of the added references say it was coined by BJP! I don't want to muddy the waters. Some bare minimum context is always helpful. It is due weight and referenced. Let me see how I can shorten that part further which you disapprove of, it is already at one sentence. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I see I already added back your 'vague rhetoric' before I noticed your response here. Here too, I am in agreement with what you proposal earlier. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.
What's the issue with stifle all dissent. Re-read the aforementioned sources.
Agnihotri's definition of the word (however phrased) belong in the section about his book. Now, why do you feel He promulgated the term Urban Naxals as a reference to individuals in the academia and media who were allegedly colluding with Naxalites in a bid to overthrow the Indian government and thus, were invisible enemies of India. to be a poor choice to your's? ∯WBGconverse 11:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think if he is credited/blamed/criticized for creating the term then what he created can be mentioned before mentioning analysis of it. The book section merits discussion of that book rather than a disjoint statement about this term there. It is not excluded from the article! I noticed two other book review. Let me study them completely and put back what I can of your summary as close to how you want it. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Issues with stifle all dissent, please. You seem to have missed that. Same 'bout Jadavpur Univ.
I agree with the basis of your point but he coined the term in his book and the subsection about the book ought to define it. Whilst it may not be true practically, we always assume that a reader goes through the entire article in a chronological fashion.
I am also looking for reviews of his work; so far, not much success save two pieces at Organiser and NewIE. ∯WBGconverse 11:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent removals by non-ECP editors

NewIndianExpress is one of the most worthless newspapers around, over here. Barring that and Organiser, I have hardly seen any positive coverage. The review over the latter needs to be mentioned for it is a very high profile magazine in Hindutva/RSS/BJP ecosystem, to which Vivek's inclination lies undoubtedly.

I don't get your point about removal of the No Fathers in Kashmir part. A lot many sources have covered the dispute and Vivek's commentary, coupled with his self proclaimed magnanimity. ∯WBGconverse 09:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi winged, I never touched "No Fathers in Kashmir part" it is still there. It is exactly how you typed. I have not touched a letter of it. I do not know who is the other user. I am with you that it can stay. I also agree with you that Orgaiser review can be mentioned. I never removed that part either. In fact I had put it back just like you when the other used deleted it for no good reason. I am again with you here. You need not revert my edits when restoring these parts, basically I support you on these points and we are in agreement! --Jaydayal (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Jaydayal, this is not directed at you; rather at Scencontra. Thanks for the agreement. ∯WBGconverse 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am redoing your edits one by one after going through each associated reference. I think it is very close to exactly how you want it, where I have some differences I am leaving comments in edit and on talk page. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The reception by RSS/BJP is all the important in light of stuff like this, which needs to go into the article, too. ∯WBGconverse 11:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How Agnihotri is right wing activist?

@Winged Blades of Godric: I noticed that you removed some changes by anonymous user from the page. Hereby I want to ask you that how he's right winger? Two sources which are cited don't say anything about the person. Like, this source doesn't make anything declaring him as right-wing activist. And similarly, this source is not saying anything about this person which can label him as right wing activist. It only says that his coined word can be used for any person who is critical of political right. This is probably WP:OR by one or more user or their synthesised conclusion. These type of the claims, especially on BLP can put subject for libel and for many people, to associate with right wing is deteriorating. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m pinging @Kautilya3, Ms Sarah Welch, DBigXray, and Nizil Shah: for their opinion on this issue of calling someone as right winger when sources don’t support. — Harshil want to talk? 11:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Harshil169, see this (vide pro-right activist), this (vide right wing activist), this (vide right wing twitter warrior), this (vide right wing twitter activist) et al. ∯WBGconverse 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Ohh man, most of these sources are tabloids and portals with ambiguous process. Anyone can know that these portals have anti-establishment bias. To declare someone as right winger, we must want some high quality, independent, reliable and multiple editorial sources for it. Does any reliable news like TOI, The Hindu, BBC or Indian Express describe him as right wing activist? For extra ordinary claim, we must need extraordinary evidences for it. Take your time to find what these sources tell about him.— Harshil want to talk? 11:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Scroll is quite reputed, as is The Print and both of them satisfies RS easily. This is not an extraordinary claim, either. TOI is considered to be one of the worst sources per longstanding INB consensus; The Hindu is probably the epitome of anti-establishment journalism contra your premises.
Also see this IndiaToday piece (vide vocal right wing supporter). And, this AltNews piece (vide right wing activist). And, this IndiaTimes piece (vide known for his right-wing leanings), since you seem to admire TOI ;) Here's a Hindustan Times article (vide strong right-wing voice on Twitter) and a HuffPost article (vide right-wing leaning filmmaker). ∯WBGconverse 11:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There’s difference between being right wing activist and being right wing supporter. We need to be careful by labelling someone as Right winger, especially when subject refuses to call himself like this. Here is Indian express article in which he calls himself as Indian wing. Also, here’s another article of The Hindu in which he objects use of term right wing for his film and states it’s anti-right wing. — Harshil want to talk? 11:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Mere semantics, as to your first point. As to rest, we need to find a way to accommodate Vivek's own stance but that does not get to override a plethora of secondary sources esp. that I am yet to chance upon a single source that describes him as India-wing. ∯WBGconverse 12:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
(Responding to Ping) Like WBG already said in his last statement above. Harshil I believe dropping this info amounts to whitewashing. I understand that you are objecting to the line used by WBG. Well, then where is your own proposal ? Please present your supported version of the disputed content along with reliable source. In the absence of your version, and nothing else to choose from, I would let WBG's version to stay here, since it is well sourced. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here’s neutral version. Although he’s described as right wing activist in Media, he refuses to identify himself as right winger and calls himself as ‘India wing’. Apart from the sources mentioned above, he wrote this on his twitter too. Here’s my analysis.

Winged, is it necessary to reply for consensus? Our version is same, so, I posted it. — Harshil want to talk? 07:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Nah; since you are agreeing to my proposed version. (Except for the red-link about OpIndia, which's now a blue link).
Today, I moved the line to the body, because on a re-reading of all sources, it did seem to me that RS(s) in an overwhelming proportion, do perceive him (primarily) as a film-persona rather than some kind of activist. Thus, not suitable to be in lead, in entirety, per concerns of proportionate representation. Do you disagree? ∯WBGconverse 14:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary was directed at Jaydayal, who has been stonewalling changes (and then vanishing for months), since long, up above.
I ought to have separated my edits into two and use clear-er edit summaries :-( ∯WBGconverse 14:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 DoneThis is indeed a better version than previous one. -- Harshil want to talk? 16:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Currently, the article reads like a long chewing out of a person. Not at all encyclopedia-quality. Should be re-written from a neutral point of view per guidelines of WP:BLP. Below are some problematic statements:

  • His films have been mostly subject to poor reviews from critics and have fared poorly at box-office
  • It was subject to poor reception from critics[14] and was a flop. Buddha in a Traffic Jam was received unfavorably by critics[19] and was a flop.[20][21] Junooniyat was subject to poor reviews as well[22] and fared similarly at box office.[23] Zid incurred grossly poor reviews[24] and was a flop.[25]
  • Vivek has been criticised for sharing fake content on Twitter.
  • In January 2018, he was called out for engaging in casteist commentary, after he alleged of reverse-discrimination at a Dalit leader's grandson flying in economy class in contrast to his' flying in economy class, despite being a brahmin.[37]
  • Critics argue that the term is a vague rhetoric, designed to discredit any intellectual who was critical of the establishments or political right and stifle dissent.[40][41]
  • Allegation of Sexual Harassment section

Rabbabodrool (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rabbabodrool, I have reverted your fly-by tagging. Get a consensus on the t/p. ∯WBGconverse 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Since when is consensus needed to mark an article as NPOV? How do I get this "consensus"? Rabbabodrool (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Every editorial action, is pursuant to local consensus. You might try informing WikiProject India (WT:INB) or BLP board (WP:BLPN), to broadcast your grievances w/o felling afoul of canvassing prohibitions. If after a week or so of non-scarce discussion, you have the numbers in your favor, the NPOV banner (obviously) goes in. ∯WBGconverse 04:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
No one responded to my requests at Wikiproject India or BLP board. I have listed the problematic statements above and added the NPOV tag back. Respond to the argument on the talk page. Rabbabodrool (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
An absence of voices, does not a consensus make. ∯WBGconverse 18:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Rabbabodrool please refrain from edit warring over this. If you failed to muster any response, probably because your comment had little weight. User:Winged Blades of Godric has already removed non verified info from the article. Per WP:BLP currently all these have a WP:RS. If you want to rephrase something then you can propose here and folks can talk about it. WP:TAGBOMBING is not the constructive way forward here. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vivek_Agnihotri/Archive_1&oldid=1002595685"