Open main menu
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force (marked as Low-importance).


Just a note, drafts do not get moved based on when the season premieres, but on when the article is sufficiently detailed. -- AlexTW 03:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Which it has plenty of; does it not? - Brojam (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about it. Doesn't matter either way now. -- AlexTW 03:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Request for comments on an unfolding India-related controversy regarding Season 3 Episode 5 of 'Quantico'Edit

Closing as resolved. RfC participants prefer version 1 over version 2. The article has changed significantly in the meantime so I am closing this RfC with no action.

Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to draw attention to the depiction in this article of a controversy concerning an episode of this series and the response of the producers of the show. The dispute lies between two different versions of this article's description of the controversy:

  1. This one, edited predominantly by myself, which I believe is neutral, concise, and adheres to wikipedia policies concerning Neutrality,Notability,Reliability and Due Weight.
  2. This one, written predominantly by tendentious single-purpose editor Krish! (see combative edit summaries in contribs), which I believe violate Neutrality (value laden language like 'hateful tweets'), Poisoning the well fallacy ('criticized by Indians'), wilful disregard for content that provides valuable context (blanking of "This was dismissed as "ridiculous" and unrealistic, given .."), and numerous other unencyclopedic edits.

Clearly, this is a content dispute that's heating up rapidly, and so I have elected to take a step back and invite commentary from uninvolved objective editors so that further edits can proceed by consensus. Thanks RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC). (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Concise commentsEdit

  • Use version 1 or something like it (see extended discussion below about some further editing); it clearly better comports with our policies (though the RfC opener's reference to WP:Notability is misplaced; that has nothing to do with what content is included in an article, only whether a stand-alone one can exist; I think you are thinking of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). "Hateful tweets" and "Twitter attack" aren't encyclopedic wording. Version no. 1 is also better-sourced.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
First version reads better. For the record, this was a horribly phrased RfC that contains comments on user behavior that absolutely do not belong and should be erased immediately. RfCs are not a means for furthering inter-personal disputes, but ways of resolving content disputes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussionEdit


  • Stop lying
  • Focus on real-time issues in India
  • A fictional show will not affect India's already tarnished image
  • India is infamous for its rapes, ill-treatment of women and misogynist/sexist approach to everything, so why not improve that
  • Maybe the energy and devotion you guys show on asking for an apology from actors and directors for film/tv portrayals, if the same energy was diverted towards voicing corruption, India would have been a great country as opposed to "intolerant" it is right now.

Now coming to your "neutral edits"

  1. The people who you are referring as critics are NOT critics but "trolls" who bark about everything but important issues
  2. "This was dismissed as "ridiculous" and unrealistic"...seriously? Isn't this a tv show? Because last time I checked Grand Central Station that was blown in season 1 is still intact in real life.....LMAO
  3. It has to be included that the criticism was only diverted towards Priyanka Chopra who was threatened, slut-shamed and what not. So why did you remove that?
  4. If a tweet contains words like "whore", "slut", "sleeping with married men", "taking advantage of casting couch to reach where you are"....yes it is ATTACK and these are all HATEFUL tweets, period.
  5. Plus why remove the apology, it should be mentioned in full quotes.
  6. Plus your lines especially this "The episode was also seen as politically motivated in the light of recent evidence against the prevailing notion of "Indian terrorism""........isnt this just a speculation?
  7. Again, most of the people barking on twitter are uneducated BHAKTS who are jobless and dont have anything to do...they are NOT critics.Krish | Talk 08:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I recommend you discuss things a lot more civilly, else you'll find this discussion will not lean in your favour. What exactly is a "bhakt"? -- AlexTW 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Bhakts are the right-wingers who link everything to religion. Their only propaganda is to spread unrest in country for the benefit of their political party.Krish | Talk 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Then I strongly recommend that you reign in your personal attacks and uncivil behaviour in this discussion by using such terminology. -- AlexTW 15:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? Most of the tweets were made by such people. Plus they were also paid Rs. 10/tweet to trash Chopra and her show. So what you have to say about that? Most of the people who criticized the episodes are political pawns.Krish | Talk 15:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You're starting this discussion off with "Dear BHAKTS", as well as "uneducated BHAKTS who are jobless and dont have anything to do". This is not the place to express your personal dislikes, grudges and political views of the tweeters, go to Twitter for that. Wikipedia is a place for you to act a lot more mature and professional. You're here to discuss the content. Not them. -- AlexTW 15:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point. I will take care of that.Krish | Talk 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made significant edits on this section to make it more neutral as well adding some additional fallout of the episode. There were many troubling violations of NPOV. It is useful to use a variety of international trusted sources rather than just Indian sources particularly when dealing with such content. Cowlibob (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cowlibob! This is exactly what I was trying to say.Krish | Talk 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Invited by Bot. I think there is nothing left to add. The current version is fine and properly toned. And it is well sourced and balanced. Nauriya, Let's talk - 29 July 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to "Quantico (season 3)" page.