Talk:India: The Modi Question

How to access this series in India?
Please suggest some platforms to watch it in india 106.213.80.243 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject - only for discussing how to improve the article. That said, I'll assume that you want to watch the documentary in order to improve the article, which is quite reasonable.
 * I'm sure there are various methods, but it would be inappropriate to recommend torrents or piracy websites on Wikipedia, since we have a strict policy on copyright. The content is legally distributed on BBC's iPlayer, but only available if your IP address is in the UK. I'm not sure what the legalities are of using a VPN to access it - you might look into that.  09:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is currently no legal means to access the series in India, besides from using a VPN to watch it on services such as BBC's iPlayer. However, several screenings are taking place in major Indian cities, which one can attend. There are torrents or pirated versions available on shadow-library websites, although this is not appropriate to list here. In addition, a PIL has been filed in the Indian Supreme Court, which may make the series legally accessible in India if ruled in favour of the appealing parties. MaleficentChimera (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article is written in a tone that reflects the personal opinion or political biasness. Majorly rely sources like BBC, New York Times and Washington posts, most of these are government funded, yes they are reliable but not in political disputes and should not be used in so. i think more variety of sources be used to give both sides their due weight according to WP:DUE. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are either reliable or they are not. These sources are reliable, and therefore I have removed the NPOV tag since no good reason has been given for it. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What Black Kite said. If there are other sources of high quality that you wish to include, please provide them. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the line "most of them were muslims" misleading, because "most" have no true mathematical value. anyone can interpret "most" in different ways and it provides to general figure to rely on. whole section seem to povpush a certain thought that muslims are the victims or suppressed in India. like the lines "muslims are blamed to initiate fire in godhra trains", "most of them who died were muslims", "violence in gujarat showed all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing" and many more. this isn't just a problem ofone page, many wikipedia pages seem to support the same ideology when it comes to hindu-muslim conflicts. for example in both the cases of 2002 Gujarat riots and Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus the number of displaced are about 150,000 (controversial but let's take for now). and the gujarat riots are genocide "as these events had met the "legal definition of genocide," or referred to them as state terrorism or ethnic cleansing. and saying kashmir exodus a genocide is a propaganda by Hindu Nationalists "The descriptions of the violence as "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" in some Hindu nationalist publications or among suspicions voiced by some exiled Pandits are widely considered inaccurate and aggressive by scholars.". I am asking why??? Why this selective sympathy for one community and hate for the other when seemingly both have suffered upto an extent? Similarly The documentary made on Kashmir Genocide The Kashmir Files "presents a fictional storyline", "the events leading up to it as a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate by scholars", "the storyline attracting criticism for attempting to recast established history and propagating Islamophobia." and "Theatres across India have witnessed hate speech against Muslims, including incitement to violence due to the movie. (i have marked all the as it is references from Wikipedia's articles in green text)
 * and i have only started. Is this the neutrality of Wikipedia? Is this WP:NPOV? i think certainly not. i think such articles need a huge rework.
 * yes, don't worry i will raise this issue in talk pages of all the above mentioned articles too. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the policy you cite? NPOV on Wikipedia is determined by summarizing what reliable sources say. I don't see you offering any sources contradicting the information in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "argument" that the New York Times and the Washington Post are "government funded" would need some very good references, something in the range of the news that Fox News anchors privately despise DT, yet support him publicly for commercial reasons. What's more, even if the WP and the NYT were "government funded," would that imply they're pro-muslim and anti-Hindu, and that the USA-goverment is promoting this narrative. Which is quite unlikely; the whole "argument" says more about the worldview of the proposer than about reality. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan Can you link to the discussion or consensus of Wikipedia where it was proven that Fox News anchors privately despise Donald Trump, yet support him publicly for commercial reasons. so i can learn what some very good sources are to prove such things. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WP, NYT, for example? CNN? Can you provide the publications which show that WP and NYT are funded by the US government? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * why would WP, NYT expose themselves? I want to know what publications wikipedia prefer when it comes to controversial topics, leaving big government supported publications like WP, NYT, Al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN. like here is an example of anti-hindu stand by CNN.
 * and here is my argument for why BBC is Government funded is on this basis
 * The government controls it through a board that they appoint in the same way that shareholders would appoint a board of governors to manage their Company. The BBC is funded by a compulsory tax on televisions. Nobody is allowed to watch any television program in Britain unless they pay to fund the BBC. So in that sense the government own it. Whether they watch it or not. did you see the connection.
 * Please guide me:
 * 1) if these arguments are enough.
 * 2) i have to do research and put more sources supporting my claim.
 * 3) or just abandon this aim of establishing NPOV in the south asian articles of Wikipedia. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Following option 3 would be the best advice; without discounting your personal opinions and values, Wikipedia follows certain procedures, which give little room for your preferred take on these matters. This may seem unfair to you, but further insistence on your pov will, in all likelihood, be met with scelsis and, eventually, sanctions. So, you better find another area of interest to edit, or even leave Wikipedia completely aside, and find other avenues to share your worldviews. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i think that's bitter but truth tbh.


 * and two last questions, than i am leaving this talk,


 * are the sanctions applicable even if one discusses the topic on talk page without disrupting the original article? and comment if the sources i mentioned for CNN are enough to prove it anti-hindu and the argument i put forward in the case of BBC enough? because you didn't said anything about them. Thanks for your valuable suggestions. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with others carries no sanctions. But if one starts changing article content unilaterally when there is content dispute and consensus has not been reached, then it will most likely bring sanctions/blocks. The links you cite are not good enough to support your claim that WP, NYT, BBC are anti-Hindu. I'm not saying that these sources themselves are not good. But the articles that you link. They merely say that some Indians in the US think these newspapers are anti-Hindu (it wouldn't matter if they said that all Indians in the US think so too). That doesn't mean they are actually anti-Hindu. Calling some reputed publisher anti-something is a very big claim and big claims require big evidence. In this case, it would be a near-consensus or majority opinion in 3rd party reliable sources, including academic ones, that these websites are anti-Hindu. Hope that clarifies Wikipedia's positions towards sourcing. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)