Monday, April 15, 2024
HomeNews ReportsWikipedia page of ‘The Kashmir Files’ vandalised, editor admits to bias: All you need...

Wikipedia page of ‘The Kashmir Files’ vandalised, editor admits to bias: All you need to know

As the film Kashmir Files by filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri is gaining momentum in theatres, the left-liberal cabal is trying to defame it as propaganda and using all possible ways to belittle the atrocities faced by Kashmiri Pandits. Wikipedia, the open-source encyclopedia, plays a vital role in establishing the narrative for the left-liberal section of society and media. Wikipedia’s left-leaning editor TrangaBellam, who was behind vandalising the Wikipedia page of author Vikram Sampath, is now targeting the Wiki page of Kashmir Files.

When we looked at the Revision History of the film’s Wikipedia page for the newest 50 edits, 23 edits were made by TrangaBellam. Please note that the list was captured at around 5 PM IST on March 14. The Revision History on the Wikipedia page changes frequently depending on how the editors are adding, removing or reversing the changes. If we look a the 250 contributions made by the same editor between March 13 and March 14, over 100 contributions were linked to the Kashmir Files.

Revision history of Kashmir Files’s Wikipedia Page. Source: Wikipedia.

Several Wiki editors accused him of bias against the film and also mentioned he was removing genuine positive reviews that the movie got while adding negative reviews on the Wiki page. OpIndia looked into the discussion happening between the editors and made some shocking discoveries.

Wiki editor alleged life threat/hostility from TrangaBellam

It was found that the edits made by a user named Krish, among others on Wikipedia, were reverted multiple times by TrangaBellam. When Krish objected to the edits, TrangaBellam first asked him to approach Wikipedia’s Dispute Resolution Requests or Administrators’noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) and then pointed out that he was keeping an eye on Krish’s edits in the past.

Source: Wikipedia

Krish started the discussion by calling out TrangaBellam and said, “The two editors who are editing this article with bias and with no regard to Wikipedia rules and it’s a clear case of I Don’t Like It. This is appalling and a red signal for the NPOV stance of Wikipedia guidelines.” He sought support from another editor and added, “How do you describe the film as such without no source actually saying that the film has received “negative reviews” and is a “propaganda” film? This is highly suspicious.”

Source: Wikipedia

TrangaBellam had replied to him and asked him to approach ANI as he did not care. He further said, “Though this is the last article, that I am editing, before taking a break from S. Asian discourse, I have no intentions of ceding ground to long-idle POV pushers; your edits across the last few years have not escaped my attention.”

An editor named Shahid expressed his dislike over the tone TrangaBellam and questioned him why he removed India Today’s review and replaced it with Film Companion’s review. Notably, Film Companion has been blacklisted by Wikipedia for spamming the source section.

Generally, if a website gets blacklisted, it is not used as a source for any Wikipedia entry. Shahid specifically called out for making changes that fit into his preferred version. he said, “While I do not want to comment on the hostility between the two editors – the great problem here is with the film article The Kashmir Files, which has been highly unstable over the past few days. TrangaBellam has reverted the article to their own preferred version numerous times, with no consensus and clear opposition on the talk page. That’s what should matter here and what I would ask admins to take note of.”

However, in this case, TrangaBellam claimed even if a website was blacklisted, it could be used as a source and said, “Individual articles by independently notable critics can be whitelisted.” He renowned Desai, who wrote the review on Film Companion as a “notable critic”, and stated for that reason his article could be used as a source.

Source: Wikipedia

Interestingly, while stating the reason for removing India Today’s review, TrangaBellam said, “India Today’s reliability is increasingly suspect, and neither is Narula, a film critic nor has she reviewed any other film for any publication.” The review was written by Chaiti Narula, deputy editor and news anchor at India Today. Narula has been in the field of a journalist since 2008 and has over 14 years of experience in the field. TrangaBellam further added, “If I am not wrong, there was some discussion at WT:INB about India Today’s falling standards under the Modi Regime.”

Source: Wikipedia

Wikipedia and history of vandalism

This is not the first time Wikipedia editors showed biased against the non-left section of Indian society. The same editor TrangaBellam was accused of being biased towards the leftist Hinduphobic and Aurangzeb apologist professor Audrey Truschke. From time to time, OpIndia has reported such bias of Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer with the organisation now, had said on several occasions that Wikipedia is not trustworthy as it has been taken over by leftists who reject content that does not fit their agenda.

Ayodhra Ram Mandir special coverage by OpIndia

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

B.Sc. Multimedia, a journalist by profession.

Related Articles

Trending now

Recently Popular

- Advertisement -

Connect with us