Talk:Nadav Lapid

BLP
BLPs do not have controversy section excluding exceptional cases. That aside, the content was not supported by the cited source and is potentially defamatory. Reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As pointed above, "controversy" section is unwarranted. It should be titled in a neutral manner which is "Reception" because what happened was:
 * 1) Nadav Lapid was invited to Goa IFFI
 * 2) Lapid made a comment about The Kashmir Files and his comments are in line with not only mainstream reviews but also the reviews provided by the actual victims of subject
 * 3) Some people with iniquitous agenda got upset over his views, and largely relied on misrepresenting his views but enough people also supported his views
 * 4) He is standing by his views
 * So how it is justifiable to use section titles like "controversy" or "The Kashmir Files imbroglio" especially when Fowler also admit that "It is an imbroglio caused by a large a politically partisan crowd"? We should not give undue weight to those "politically partisan crowd" who are intentionally disparaging him because of their inability to accept criticism as such this incident should be merely treated as yet another incident where opposing party has no basis and there have been no actual repercussion against Lapid. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Coverage in Israeli Media
Haaretz's editorial slant is unsurprising. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , please justify your revert. This is a news article + interview; not an op-ed. The Outlook, The Print and others have taken note of the YNet interview and even linked to it! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia biography page summarises what the SECONDARY sources say about the subject. It is not meant for publishing the views of the subject himself/herself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fundamental disagreement about article standards and interpretation of policy/guidelines; launched a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel the RfC at the very outset of the discussion is kind of premature. Do we have other secondary sources that have covered the interview statement in context of the controversy? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @MBlaze Lightning: NDTV, Indian Express, Hindustan Times among others. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so now that secondary sources have picked it up, it can go, which I note has happened. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We have another interview from Haaretz. Compares Agnihotri with Leni Riefenstahl and holds the film to be a rhinoceros in a cat competition (is this some Israeli metaphor - ?). TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interview? It seemed to be regular press coverage. It quotes the Israeli ambassador saying, "You are welcome to criticize what you don't like in Israel, but not the situation in other countries. I'm not sure you have enough factual basis to make such comparisons." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had provided the wrong link. Fixed. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another interview with Mako:
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyways, these evaluations belong at The Kashmir Files than here. Will cross-post. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * True. I have just watched that interview. Articulate fellow, he is. Lapid.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that his he-WP page doesn't even have a talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Biased reverts
Flower you can added your stuff but there was so sanity in removing sourced content. Fayninja (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia; if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to be coherent. To quote from a policy: TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not disputed content, they are the literal words of Nadav Lapid to the media. Fayninja (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since F&F and I object to the inclusion of your content, it is obviously "disputed". TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any valid reasons supported by sources that you would like to state for your objection or else WP:JDL applies. “Editing disputes are expected to be settled by reasoned civil discourse, and editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified—without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy indeed recommends that we actively attempt to include points of view that counter our own prejudices.” Fayninja (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: That Lapid apologized for a misinterpretation is of no encyclopedic value. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So some remarks to the media have encyclopaedia value while some don’t. This favouritism is beyond my understanding. Fayninja (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some people with iniquitous agenda who got upset over his views and carried out the campaign to falsify his statements just to recruit opposition. It's clearly not Lapid's fault so there is no need to add about that. If I were you, I would rather write "A smear campaign was run against Lapid to falsify his statements by falsely claiming that he rejected the existence of a Kashmiri Hindu exodus. Lapid stated in the subsequent interviews that he was not rejecting the incident but was commenting on the movie, The Kashmir Files." That would also seem WP:UNDUE since our wording of the section is entirely unambiguous just like reliable sources were and they never expressed any doubt over the meaning of his statements. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only write about “the smear campaign” if reliable sources attest to its existence. Adding his misinterpretation apology is not a question of WP:UNDUE but WP:DUE as excluding it from the article will not give full coverage to his subsequent comments on The Kashmir Files controversy after his initial remarks at the IFFI.Also, the article should be exclusively based only on Nadav Lapid’s reaction and responses by prominent parties/personalities to it. I propose for the removal of content propagating a one-sided rejection of the Kashmiri Exodus which is not even supported by Lapid but his apology was completely contrary to it and acknowledged “the Kashmiri tragedy”.A see-also to the Kashmiri Exodus Wikipedia page can be provided for curious readers. Fayninja (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus a see-also to The Kashmir Files reception Fayninja (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well no, we are not putting that stuff back in. It had been added before and removed each time, and for good reasons, before you reinstated it. Its inclusion has continued to be gratitious and unjustified. Your edit this time, though, went a notch farther and misrepresented the very source itself by dint of its omission of the conjunction if. Thus your misrepresentation had the effect of muddying the waters when it was not even clear that Lapid's remarks were in fact misconstrued to begin with. The same source dwelled on Lapid's reiteration of his characterization of the movie as a vulgur propoganda (forget retraction), and this your edit did not cater for. The stuff, ergo, is superfluous and its inclusion thereby is also infructuous in the article. No reliable source that dwells on the controversy apportions weight to these superfluous remarks, making it doubtlessly WP:UNDUE too. The see also section also is not meant for serving as a repository for links that already occur in the body. Lastly, make the effort to indent your comments so the discussion stays tidy. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that it was apology to the misinterpretation being circulated and not a retraction or apology for his original comments on the movie. Will my edit pass if I state this along? Your unverifiable comments have no substance to withhold sourced journalism relevant to the topic.I don’t know what constitutes reliable sources for you but his misinterpretation apology had been reported by all major Indian media houses, including NDTV, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Times of India, India TV, The Hindu and India Today. With such extensive coverage it surely passes WP:DUE Fayninja (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can’t indent using a mobile editor. Fayninja (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Whether the content is WP:UNDUE or not needs to be discussed here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite obviously UNDUE for the reasons I elucidated in my above comment. Fayninja's argument that a number of "Indian media houses" have recycled same thing from common agency do nothing to refute the point. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The film's reception
The film's reception has been controversial with critics laying charges of historical revisionism and Islamophobia; its portrayal of the Kashmiri Hindu exodus as a genocide has no acceptance in scholarship.

Vs

The film's reception has been controversial and the movie's portrayal of the Kashmiri Hindu exodus as a genocide has been rejected with critics laying charges of falsification and Islamophobia.

Here are two versions. How 2nd version isn't better?

"no acceptance in scholarship" is underestimation, because nobody (not just scholars) bought the false claim of a "genocide" which was created with malicious intent. Similarly, critics haven't laid charges of "historical revisionism" but outright fabrication. One can simply view these sources for confirming these facts: Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why include any of this in the first place? It is already dealt with, in the movie's article. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that any critics called it "outright fabrication". But are you saying you would prefer the first version? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3: I wrote the first version; AKG changed it to the second version.
 * Indeed, the movie is far from "outright fabrication". Its sinisterness lies elsewhere, as we note in the end of the first paragraph in our section on Political messaging and historical accuracy. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess I flunked the double negatives!
 * Myth-making, disortion, selective presentation, demonisation, bias, subtle and not-so-subtle cinemautography. There are many roads to propaganda, other than "outright fabrication". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur that those are better and more felicitous terms. However, two clauses earmarked for setting forth the charges of revisionism and lack of scholarly acceptance elucidate the critique in detail I don't think is warranted there. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence,
 * "The film's reception has been controversial and the movie's portrayal of the Kashmiri Hindu exodus as a genocide has been rejected with critics laying charges of historical revisionism and Islamophobia.[11][12][13]
 * or really any comment on the movie and its reception does not belong to this article. It is our commentary unrelated to anything Lapid said or did.  In fact, without it, a reader unfamiliar with the topic is more likely to click The Kashmir Files link and learn something more comprehensive.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind doing away with it altogether, so far as I am concerned. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also fine with the removal of this particular sentence. We can instead improve the main article if needed. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if the other international jury members have WP pages (or even if they don't), they could be mentioned by name, "On Dec the remaining international jury members, Juror1, Juror2, and Juror3 published a letter of support ... etc. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem The criticism, BJP, Israeli Ambassador, etc are given much more space than the support which is described generally. This needs to be fixed.  Either reduce the criticism to abstract words or make the support more detailed.  I can fix it, but don't want to examine the sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the parts about Israeli Ambo need to stay; as the Haaretz noted, there is no precedence of private citizens being publicly rebuked by diplomats in such a caustic tone. Few could have imagined the entire diplomatic corps of Israel posted in S. Asia (even the Sri Lankan envoy jumped into the bandwagon!) going after some acclaimed but not-so-well-known art-house filmmaker, who had dared to criticize an Indian film, in unison!
 * I look forward to your ideas on making the support more detailed. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Maybe expand the last bit after the semi-colon about the other international jury members supporting him with an independent sentence cited to:
 * As you all have been working on this, I'll let you decide the appropriate phrasing. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As you all have been working on this, I'll let you decide the appropriate phrasing. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)