Talk:The Kashmir Files

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

change The film tells the story of the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the early 1990's due to the Kashmir Insurgency. to The film tells the story of the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus in the early 1990's due to the Kashmir Insurgency. 180.151.26.44 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly provide sources which indicate this was a genocide? >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The trailer of the film itself says that the film is based on true stories of the victims of "Kashmir Genocide". SGiaNaksh (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The trailer is not a reliable source. Please get me a reliable source stating that this is based on a "Genocide". >>> Extorc.talk(); 20:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How is trailer not a relaible source? this is a wikipedia page of the film and not what actually happened in Kashmir. The makers wanted to show the truth which was not shown by the media back then. It maybe a conspiracy theory but still the film itself is made on the "Genocide" as well as exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and this is the is wikipedia page of the "film". The makers themselves are saying its based on genocide and that should be most reliable source.. they literally made this film. SGiaNaksh (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at what you said.

'true stories of the victims of "Kashmir Genocide"'

Which genocide are you talking about? Can you get me any reliable source that there was a genocide?

"The makers themselves are saying its based on genocide and that should be most reliable source."

You cannot ask a criminal whether he committed a crime or not, he is not the most reliable source on that topic. Similarly, if someone has made any artistic work, you need secondary sources claiming that this is based on a "Genocide".

"It maybe a conspiracy theory but still the film itself is made on the "Genocide" as well as exodus of Kashmiri Pandits"

If it is a conspiracy theory, then we cannot do what you are demanding for, At all. >>> Extorc.talk(); 06:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are articles that call it a "genocide":

https://theconversation.com/call-the-crime-in-kashmir-by-its-name-ongoing-genocide-120412

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/separate-homeland-would-satisfy-aspirations-of-kashmiri-pandits-panun-kashmir/articleshow/28052075.cms?from=mdr RavagingCare (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comparing criminals with filmmakers now?? a filmmaker can show anything he wants in his film whether its fictional or real its his point of view and again this is a wikipedia page of a film not actual Kashmir. Not mentioning genocide on its wikipedia page is just misleading because the audience will see it in the movie and this is a wikipedia page of a MOVIE. SGiaNaksh (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The source provided actually says it's the Muslims that are targeted, not Hindus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in Litigation Section>

The PIL had sought a stay on its release on grounds that it would depict Muslims as killing the Kashmiri Pandits, presenting a one-sided view that would hurt the sentiments of Muslims and could trigger violence against Muslims by inflaming the Hindu community.[16]

This is unrelated to the case filed by the wife of the Airforce staff. The Bombay high court PIL was file was Intezar Hussain Sayed

Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is about the PIL and not about the case filed by the widow. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement mis-represented the court's order, by making it read as though the court has given a verdict on the entire film being based on non-facts, when the court order is actually specific to the husband of the plantiff only. Based on the same cited sourced by you.

~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The ruling on the widow's case is on the entire film, it stays its release, the condition is that the scenes that are incorrect (acc. the court) and relate to her husband should be deleted. Also it's not a "verdict", its a ruling which the producers can challenge. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, ruling and source cited by you it self says it it only about a scene involved widow's husband. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The source says "A district court has ordered a stay on Vivek Agnihotri’s film, The Kashmir Files, which was slated to release on March 11." and quotes the order saying "Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to release the movie The Kashmir Files until the aforesaid removal..." What you're talking about is the condition under which the film can be released. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is it mentioned in the article that this is filed by the wife of air force staff? >>> Extorc.talk(); 05:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate has mentioned in the wiki page and cited it. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the Litigation section, the opening para too has incorrect information that says, "... but the release of the film was suspended by a permanent prohibitory injunction, after a ruling in favor of a lawsuit filed by the widow of a Indian Armed Forces squadron leader ..." This is not true, only a very small part of the film was restrained but release was not suspended as falsely written. See this article: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/hindi/jammu-court-restrains-makers-of-the-kashmir-files-from-showing-scenes-related-to-squadron-leader-ravi-khanna/videoshow/90146503.cms RavagingCare (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Name of PIL filler should not be removed

The Bombay high court PIL was filed was respected Intezar Hussain Sayed, why people are removing his name? just to discredit him?

Dsnb07 (talk)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC) 

Because names of non notable individuals should not be mentioned per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, it adds nothing to the article nor does it "discredit him". You need to stop restoring it, the onus for achieving consensus for inclusion is on you. Moreover this is a BLP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"film based on true events" should be restored along with the citations and "drama" should be removed

There seems to be a delibrate attempt to remove all citations that show that the film is based on true events while and uncited word "drama" has been introduced. There is immense biased information on this page. These are the sources that show that the film is based on true events: RavagingCare (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Those were removed because drama is a genre. Look at the page for the film Uri: The Surgical Strike.

It says "Uri: The Surgical Strike is a 2019 Indian Hindi-language action film "

Which means the genre is action. The genre has nothing to do with it being based on a true event and you can see that is mentioned in the next line in that article.

"A fictionally dramatized account of the true events of the retaliation to the 2016 Uri attack"

What you are seeking is to replace the genre (that definitely is Drama) with the base of the film which is not how film Wikipedia pages are written.

The page already says that this film is based on the exodus of Kashmiri pandits. Perhaps "based on true events" could be added in future after more people have watched the film and a wider consensus exists regarding the depiction of the event. >>> Extorc.talk(); 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

false information that the film has been stayed by court should be removed as the film has been released and is being viewed in theaters

There is a lot of false information about the film. There is no court stay. The film has been released and people are already watching it in theaters all over India. This news says that film had faced legal hurdles but has hit the cinema houses.

13:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavagingCare (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Change the opening line from: "The Kashmir Files is an Indian Hindi-language drama film" to: "The Kashmir Files is an Indian Hindi-language film based on true events"

and add these citations for the same:

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/the-kashmir-files-a-remarkable-film-that-brings-out-gory-truth-about-hindu-genocide-in-the-valley-10184041.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/movie-reviews/the-kashmir-files/movie-review/90110494.cms
https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/vivek-agnihotri-on-the-kashmir-files-i-wanted-to-make-a-film-about-people-who-did-not-pick-up-guns-10416331.html
https://esajaelina.com/the-kashmir-files-real-characters-name-images-pictures-based-on-true-story/ RavagingCare (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The opening sentence already concludes with "the film depicts the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus with whom? I had earlier given these four citations, but even the citations were removed. The word drama has been added with no citation at all. There is a definite attempt to bias information on this page. RavagingCare (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus means that you need to discuss in the talk page about the required changes and develop understanding. The edit request is to be used when that understanding has already been developed. This edit request was posted within 29 minutes of the ""film based on true events" should be restored along with the citations and "drama" should be removed". @RavagingCare >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already posted in the talk page. How much time do you give to seek consensus if no one replies? Also why were my citations removed without assigning any reason? RavagingCare (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification

User:Dsnb07 is sockpuppet of User:Manasbose from west bengal. He is using 2402:3A80:1A42:A390:3C1F:EF69:AFAD:3541 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Comolion (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to report this. Kindlyh report this here >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not puppet. Seriously this how we are building wiki community. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Change "Agnihotri's wife Pallavi Joshi" with just "Pallavi Joshi"

Change "Agnihotri's wife Pallavi Joshi" with just "Pallavi Joshi". She need not be identified by her husband's name or for that matter by anybody's name. If somebody wants to know more about her, they can do another search on her name or just visit her Wikipedia article. Khalwai (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Kiran Halwai

I agree ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, i have done that change. >>> Extorc.talk(); 06:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for Yograj Singh's Removal need to be corrected in the Article.

Yograj Singh was removed from the movie for making Hinduphobic abusive, hateful and misogynistic statements on Hindu women. He was not removed for making speeches in Farmer's protest. References- https://www.news18.com/news/movies/yuvraj-singhs-father-yograj-singh-dropped-from-the-kashmir-files-over-blasphemous-speech-3166961.html

Why are the editors ignoring this and have moved onto other edit requests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The source you have provided mostly contains quotes from Agnihotri and it does not directly verify what you are saying. Information related to biographies of living people need much stronger sourcing as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a video of the abusive speech by Yograj Singh- https://twitter.com/GemsOfBollywood/status/1335093362198659072 Article speaking of the same. https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/buzz-arrestyograjsingh-trends-on-twitter-as-yuvraj-singh-father-former-indian-cricketers-provocative-speech-during-farmers-protest-goes-viral-3147908.html

You talk of BLP. Do you have any evidence that Yograj Singh was removed from the movie for speaking in farmers protest? Please share the references that support why this unverified statement was allowed in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC) 

There is an citation at the end of the sentence in the article, which verifies it. We need strong secondary sources to include what you want to, not twitter accounts or marginal sources that are reporting on twitter accounts calling his speech "anti hindu". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Where does the citation say that he was removed for speech at farmers protest? The citation clearly states this- "When I got to know about his speech, I was shocked. I cannot tolerate someone talking about women like that. On top of that, he tried to create such a hateful and divisive narrative. He is not a part of my film anymore.?" Which clearly indicates he was removed from the film for a speech that was derisive of women. Please stop filibustering for a valid edit request and take care of it. It looks like the editor inserted his own interpretation rather than the facts stated in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I request the moderators to take note this erroneous edit where the editor has used his own interpretation and is acting in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH by intentionally twisting the facts for the reasons which Yograj Singh was removed from the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

miss writing

it was not hindu exodus it was genocide 2409:4053:397:9500:0:0:1BC:A0 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly cite sources. >>> Extorc.talk(); 17:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"Courage shown by the members of the Kashmiri Pandit community who survived that gruesome ethnic genocide" Source : https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/57431/commemoration-of-martyrdom-day-of-kashmiris

"Expresses its condolences to the families and friends of all those who were killed, raped and injured in that act of genocide" Source https://theprint.in/india/how-killing-of-this-kashmiri-hindu-leader-led-to-exodus-of-pandits-from-valley/732572/

kashmiri pandits asked for "white paper to fix responsibility for their genocide and forced migration"

Source : https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kashmiri-pandits-observe-holocaust-day-to-mark-30-years-of-mass-exodus-6224739/ 

"The making of Kashmir Files by Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri is one such attempt to uncover the truth about Hindu genocide" Source: https://www.manushi.in/film-reviews/facing-truth-head-on-vivek-agnihotris-film-the-kashmir-files Dsnb07 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word Genocide in the plot

There are many people flooding in trying to get a change in terminology in this page and facilitate the use of the word "Genocide" which is not shocking but I would support the use of the word Genocide in the Plot section because this is what the entire movie calls the event. There are even shots where they correct a character from saying exodus and say genocide. Just leaving this here so that any attempts to remove it can consider this before. >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The film may call it that but it refers to a real event, for which neither the film nor reviewers are RS, one would need historical scholarship to call it that which no such source does to my knowledge. In an expanded plot section, it could perhaps be included that the film emphasises on calling it genocide, as long as it is in a qualified statement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Although the movie may not be RS, plot of a work of fiction must contain what that work contains in itself, not our interpretation of it. Restoring my original edit.

For reference: ″Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.″ MOS:PLOT

Dhawangupta (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The film claims to represent a real event, that's not an interpretation but written down in the prelude of the film itself. Using the film to make claims about the event which contradicts scholarly consensus goes contrary to WP:PROFRINGE. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not using the film to make a claim. I am stating the plot of the film, which should be as it is what the film claims or shows.

I will make my point with an example. Let's say there is a film about any real event and introduces a story with werewolves in it. Do we need to mention that according to scholarly consensus werewolves don't exist? And, in plot, should we mention "...heroine meets what the movie claims to be werewolves..."?

I guess, no, then, why scholarly consensus is needed when describing a plot, which is obviously a work of fiction, howsoever based on real events. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think people are talking past each other. If the plot of the film is clearly described as the plot of a work of fiction, it can use whatever words it wants to describe the events shown on screen. If the plot claims to be anchored in reality, then it needs to reflect what reliable sources say about that reality. You can't have it both ways; we cannot say the film is based on real-world events, and then ignore what sources say about those events; that would be a violation of NPOV, and the principles outlines in WP:FRINGE apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me give a more precise example to make my point. Mary Kom (film) is obviously based on real life. Now, first line of its plot mentions another real life incident. But, what plot doesn't contains is that "the movie claims there was a boxing glove found by Mary Kom". It simply states Mary Kom found a glove in the crash. Whether or not she found it in real life, is of no significance.

Thousands of examples can be given like this.

Now, similarly here, movie claims the event as "genocide". Whether or not it was a genocide can be found in critical reception section of the article or in the detailed article of the event itself. However, plot doesn't need to mention that film "claims it" as such and such. Plot should be simply plot, not scholarly details. WP:FRINGE applies to the introduction and other section, not to the plot.

Quoting from MOS:PLOT - "It can be presumed that the work, as presented by the plot, involves fictional elements and proceeds in a straightforward manner. However, care should be taken to avoid incorporating elements of an in-universe perspective."

MOS:INUNIVERSE doesn't require plot to be consistent with real world events, but, rest of the sections. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• From WP:FILMPLOT, "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, describe the events on screen as simply as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." Dhawangupta (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias reverts

I invite film article writers such as SNUGGUMS, Kailash29792 and Cyphoidbomb to put forth their views about this. So this editor reverted me while we were discussing on his talk page and without hearing my side, he reverted me, again. His edits are filled with bias and trying to mould the narratve of the film based on one or two sources. The reception section is the big proof and he highlights the negative reviews first and presents a consensus without RT etc. I tried to explain to him but he reverted me again. See my discussion here.Krish | Talk To Me 12:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shubhra Gupta is a Rotten Tomatoes Top Critic - it goes w/o saying that her reviews shall be accorded with higher priority. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about Shubhra Gupta? I did not say anything about Subhra Gupta, did I? Also can't you read that my version got lost hen he reverted me because of an edit conflict?Krish | Talk To Me 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you arguing about why the negative reviews are highlighted first? In Tayi's version, the starting review is by Shubhra Gupta. Then is a very gushing review by Chaiti Narula. So, you are contradicting yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I just changed the order. In place of Narula is Ghosh's review since she is a RT-approved critic. However, I have kept Gupta at start since Gupta is a Top Critic unlike Ghosh. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Brought Kukreja to the first paragraph, as well.

That being said, I notice that India has no RT Top Critic except Shubhra Gupta, Anupama Chopra, and Udita Jhunjhunwala. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I shifted my stance - consult this edit-summary. Removal of Narula is discussed below. Purging off watchlist - it is under 30/500. Thanks,

• I'm responding to the message at my talk page to centralise things.

The fact that the reviews are mixed is not unsourced, there are two inline sources ([1], [2]). If a review is positive we should accurately summarise it by highlighting the positive aspect and the opposite for the negative ones. There is no order to how reviews should be arranged, The Indian Express one isn't the most negative (The News Indian Express one is which is in the middle), it is preceded by the image which highlights a positive aspect and is followed by a very positive review. Going from good to bad does not seem compliant with neutral point of view which frontloads a section.

There is an additional problem here, the film claims to represent a true event and is marketed as almost a documentary film. We can't use reviewers who are not RS for history to state something which contradicts scholarly consensus which a lot of the reviews do. To do otherwise is to violate WP:PROFRINGE. The Firstpost review is one of the worst examples of them. Therefore higher standard is required here which involves giving preference to WP:INDIANEXP and omitting sources like WP:TOI, which may have been alright for articles without a historical or political context. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since when did a reception of film started with negative reviews? For panned films, yes, but in this cases the film has mostly received 4 or 3 stars. So how come the first three reviews in the reception section are negative? Subhra Gupta is top critic of Wikipedia that her review should be the first one here? The Box Office World is non-RS. Also We cannot say "the film's reception is mixed based on one line in an article. Where are the review roundups? There is no RT score so how did you guys know this film had a mixed reception? Also, this article is about a film based on an event and not the article about that event.. There is a difference. So your words does not hold water.Krish | Talk To Me 13:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Many reviewers have not touched it (understandably so) and there is no review roundup as of now, using reviews from journalists (and even politicians) published in marginal sources which have a history of undisclosed advertorials is not the solution, particularly when it is so controversial. There has been no discussion on BO Worldwide and has been used uncontroversially generally, regardless its not the only source staying the overall reviews are mixed. The first three reviews were 1.5, 4 and 2.5 (out of 5) which is in-line with a film getting mixed reviews, we also give preference to recognised SMEs which Shubra Gupta (who gave it a 1.5) is as a film critic, in contrast it's generous to place Narula's as second when she's a journalist and not a critic.

The article about the film also can not state something about the event as a fact which is not supported by scholarly consensus, it isn't limited to article about the event. What it can do is describe what the film states, as long as it is made clear that it comes from a point of view which is a minority or a fringe one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why I smell WP:I DON'T LIKE here? It's not about you, it doe s not have to be. Who gave you the authority to act as if the moral compass in on you? Wikipedia works on sources. For it to be called "a propaganda film or mixed reviewed film", there has to be numerous articles and not just one and that too 1 review each. In fact you use a film review to call it a propaganda film. Anyways, I don't see any result of this discussion with you as you are "my way or highway" kind of an editor. So congratulations on writing bias edits on wikipedia.Krish | Talk To Me 14:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any bias reverted here. No further comment on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support SNUGGUMS.Krish | Talk To Me 13:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Did I miss anything here?Krish | Talk To Me 14:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If a third party RS reports a film's reception, nothing should stop one from using it. If another source contradicts it, we should be like "X said the film received mixed reviews, while Y said it was negative." Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this says, it received positive reviews and this says exceptional reviews and this also says positive reviews. So now what, Kailash29792? Krish | Talk To Me 16:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022 (2)

Dux000 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC) I have to add some key links regarding the current box office earning and the news of this situation, as this movie releases just two days ago so we still need a lot to change as we see some links are showing it as a propaganda film to spread false allegation, this movie is getting more and more loved by the audience and the sentiment may hurt which will affect this whole Wikipedia page, so I request you to remove this protected page to public page.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception Vandalism

Dear Wiki community,

I am putting out current and previous version of Critical reception of the wiki page. All good review was intentionally removed and all bad (except 1) was kept on this page. Forget about any thing largest media house [India Today]'s review was removed because it gave 4 point. I don't want to say this but truth must be told, Indian wiki community was hacked by a few and they running as mafia. Sad days for Wikipedian.

Dsnb07 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

1. In Previous version, positive reviewed had a paragraph followed by review contains criticism . This is how we do in wikipedia page and write a balance and neutral article.
2. In current version, both paragraphs are focused on review contains criticism. This is how people do on propaganda page.

Dsnb07 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING.

India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect and neither is Narula a film-critic nor has she reviewed any other film for any publication. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding that Koimoi and TOI are not reliable per ICTF. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? what is source of "India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect" Dsnb07 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, ICTF has listed India Today Dsnb07 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, there was some discussion at WT:INB about India Today's falling standards under the Modi Regime (cc:Kautilya3). I reiterate that neither is Narula a film-critic nor has she reviewed any other film for any publication. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that this movie has essentiallised "Indian-ness", no newspaper will be caught dead without a review of it. Whatever junk they can lay their hands on, they will print. As for India Today, I know its senior editors have mass-copied Wikipedia. And, we just caught the Entertainment pages of TOI doing the same a few days ago. So, standards are non-existent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Critics review

Why did not include those critics review who gave 5 or 4.5 out of 5 stars??? 2.50.129.160 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Examples - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Review by Shubhra Gupta

new discussion

We have discussed and build consensus to remove reviewer credentials but it is again added. Dsnb07 (talk)

old discussion

Undue importance is given.

1. Rotten Tomatoes Top Critic: Why were credentials of the reviewer floated? Shall we do for all reviewers?
2. Describing it as a propagandist: IMHO, This is the view of the reviewer and not the review of the movie. Doesn't add value here

Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is a reputed standard in the world of film-reviews etc. — to be held as one of the 175 odd "top critics" by their editorial board, is significant. If any of the other reviewers has been comparably awarded, please do mention. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shall we add credentials of all actors as well, there are five National Film Awards personality are also associated to movie? Or it just not suits to certain narrative. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The review of a movie is indeed the view of a reviewer. This is no gotcha moment. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

View on subject is not review of movie are two different thing. This is no eureka moment. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that it will be more productive if you try contributing to your native language's version of Wikipedia? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As North American, my language is English. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To be more honest, there is difference on preconceived opinion of topic and review of movie.

1. Example of preconceived opinion of topic : Propaganda aligned with the ruling party's discourse,
2. Review of movie : Talks about screenplay , acting quality, script, direction, story etc,

Dsnb07 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It is your claim that all the movie-critics who have derided countless films as acts of propaganda across the past century were not reviewing the movie? Interesting. In other words, you believe that a movie review must be insulated from the pushes and pulls of socio-political reality and judge the work only from within a narrow lens of cinematic technicalities? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Like all human, a movie-critics have all rights around freedom of expression and they can talk/write/propagate about anything under the sun. As per Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedian should try to present all perspective with unbiased articulation (neutral view) and not an individual's naked opinion.

~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Dsnb07 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do it for any critic. If the reader wants to check the credentials of a certain reviewer, they should check themselves. Rotten Tomatoes is a review-aggregation website, but I can't see what Wikipedia policy says we should use it this way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dsnb07 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Please refer to this discussion and adhere to it. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made and establish a consensus. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A couple of jumlas

A couple of jumlas that haven't made it into the news yet.

BJP-ruled states are falling over each other to declare the movie free of entertainment tax. In the other states, BJP legislators have written to their CMs demanding them to do the same.

In several places, I heard that the thetres are declaring "house full" and running the movies without any audiences. Presumably, somebody advanced-booked the tickets even without audience, just declare "house full". The talk says "99% of the thetres all across India" are declaring house full, even in Kolkata. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As per bookmyshow, most cinema was precooked on Sunday. If on Sunday night, following Monday shows are prebook in some cinemas , you can say that. Source https://in.bookmyshow.com/buytickets/the-kashmir-files-kolkata/movie-kolk-ET00110845-MT/20220314 Dsnb07 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice point - I missed that all those states who have accorded the tax-exempt status are ruled by BJP. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice point, India (central government) is ruled by BJP. so we can attribute this also ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The central government doesn't collect the entertainment tax. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice point, does it means certain state government is not doing it because they just want to oppose BJP? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Another jumla that slipped my mind is the "unusual voting activity" on IMDB, where the film scores almost all perfect 10's with nothing lower. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

May be because suddenly 2% user voting 1 star raised to 4.2% with in 4 hrs. Bots in action? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar to what happened in the Critics review section of the page. All sudden, positive review was curtailed to 3-4 lines and given more space. Just check this history of page, and it will tell the truth. ~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents

Okay, my two cents, as I've been requested to observe the ongoing dispute:

• First, I'm an uninvolved party here - don't know much about the film and don't have much interest in it either.
• Now to the Reception section - first off, why was the Deccan Herald review removed here? It's a perfectly legitimate source.
• Secondly, I wouldn't use Pinkvilla - I personally never use it as I don't consider it reliable enough.
• By contrast, India Today's review should be used, for sure.
• I totally agree with Kailash29792 - find a third-party source that sums up the entire thing. I personally trust Tayi Arajakate to maintain the article in good and neutral shape.
• I suggest to create a list of all reviews available online, and continue from there.
• Rotten Tomatoes is not a measure for anything, to be frank, certainly not for which critics we should or shouldn't include in our R section - it's an American website and its tagging of certain reviewers should not guide us (certainly not in the way suggested above).
• I realise now the film polarises editors based on their political position. If we need, it will be taken to WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN (if we must). Please note that personal agendas will be clearly visible to all anyway so if anyone feels too strongly about the subject, I'd suggest that they try to disengage for a while until there's a clearer picture of the film's reception. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shahid I am not sure why you removed your earlier assessment, but I totally agree with you. Words representing critics biases and contentious interpretations such as- Islamophobia, Communal Agenda, propaganda etc, should be removed.

~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Because I reverted it, but Kautilya3 reverted it. I see, so here's my comment - the lead says, "According to critics, it presents a one-dimensional narrative, defaming the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and promoting Islamophobia." - this tall, contentious claim is referenced to one single review and nowhere does it say it promotes Islamophobia but "almost" does so (equally terrible obviously but should be put in context). A better source is needed, for sure, where it actually says that critics said this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 is vandalizing plot section and using his imagination. Movie doesn't have any reference of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Movie refers to ANU an fictional institution. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Shshshsh, I cited a reliable source. You can't contest it with your own opinions. If those assertions are false, find some other RS that counters it. Do you have a source that asserts a multi-dimensional narrative? One that says it promotes JNU? One that says it isn't Islamophobic?

Dsnb07, the same argument goes for you. Find a source that says it is not referring to JNU. Claiming somebody to have "vandalised" something without providing evidence is considered a personal attack. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is something which you should be aware of. You are blaming me and Shahid where as you are not even reading our sane suggestions. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

ThePrint article

Kautilya3: this is even worse than before. You're using a review and now stating the writer's words as an actual fact. That too in a WP:LEAD which should be a summary of the article. Then also this section is the worst - it's based on one source, that too a film review. Is this serious? I would highly recommend that you revert yourself until you find more and better reviews to back up your claims. This is exactly what I meant when I wrote above "if anyone feels too strongly about the subject, I'd suggest that they try to disengage for a while". Right now two editors disagree with you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As people say, Wikipedia content is not decided by a general election. It is decided by what is said in the reliable sources. As I said, you are welcome to find reliable sources that counter it or disagree with those views, and then we can discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Shahid, Dsnb07 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 - you haven't cited sources, but one single source which certainly does not support the contentious claim you've added, certainly not in the lead. Indeed, it's not a matter of elections, but consensus, which you haven't reached despite being reverted once. I highly recommend that you revert yourself now, because I'm about to start an ANI discussion on your conduct which may well lead to your ban from this article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 please refer to Wikipedia:Consensus. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I do not contest the claim made, it may be true, but it's not supported in the article by your single source (a single film review). I know nothing about the film (nor do I want to) but your editing is unacceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not a film review. It is a regular news article. (See the section below.) WP:Consensus is used when policy-based objections are raised. So far, all you have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think IDONTLIKEIT is exactly what's true of your behaviour. This is not a review but a column with an opinion, nothing that could be used across the board and certainly not mentioned in the lead. You need to provide a source that someone acys that the film has been accused of what you wrote. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Now you have three editors who disagree with your edits (Tariqabjotu has reverted you and for good reason). Now, can we actually gather here sources and readd this information in a good and balanced way? Because I actually do think these accusations are valid and should be included sooner or later, just in the right way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

ThePrint article on the movie, is a regular journalistic article, authored by a full-time journalist at ThePrint. There are no special considerations that apply to this article as RS. Articles from ThePrint are used all over Wikipedia to varying degrees, as the context demands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism of Plot

A user has vandalised the plot section and put details based on his/her imagination as well as biased opinions of critics. This is completely against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have pointed to it in Talk:The_Kashmir_Files&oldid=1076980155#My_two_cents section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Whole Political and historical messaging section was sourced by only on source and that to a movie review.

1. First it should be separate section and in worst case should be added to review section.
2. Second, again and again all neutrality of this page reduced but such act.

Dsnb07 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is not a "review". It is a regular news story, written by an in-house journalist of The Print. It is mostly focused on the truth or falsity of the real life claims or depiction of real life players in the movie. I haven't included any review-like aspects from the source, e.g., "disturbig", "discomfiting", "deathblow to credibility" and such opinions. Those would go in the reception section. There you can argue about relative WP:WEIGHT, but not regarding facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a column based on one opinion. the last place where it should be included is the lead, much less in such wording. And no way an entire section could be based on this column/review. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Article is part REEL TAKE category of ThePrint which is nothing but review. Also gives 3 stars to movie. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You guys are missing something fundamental here. Normally, movies are fiction, works of art. For those things, the only aspects that matter are the feelings they evoke, the aesthetic aspects. Different people, and different reviewers, might react in different ways, and present their opionions, which we cover in a balaned way.

But this movie claims to be reality. So, we are required to explain what "reality" it depicts, and assess whether it is accurate or not. These are most factual matters, not opinion matters.

Please read through WP:NPOV carefully (in particular the WP:YESPOV section). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show RS where the movie claims it is a documentary. Wikihc (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you are right, but you can't attack the film's accuracy with one source from a column. You know why I didn't revert you back? First, because I thought you'd realise how unacceptable your edits are, and secondly, because I knew someone else would revert you sooner or later because of the absurdity in this one line in the lead. I totally understand that you feel too strongly about it. Really. And I'm not against including these opinions in the article. But they have to be located properly, not in the lead even before the cast is presented. This is not done. There could be a section on historical accuracy if you like, but it should be properly constructed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims of truth

• "The Kashmir Files movie review: A remarkable film that brings out gory truth about Hindu genocide in the Valley", Firstpost, 11 March 2022.
• "Vivek Agnihotri Film is Closest to Truth, Unlike Any Other in the Past", News18, 13 March 2022.
• "Vivek Agnihotri | Exposing The Truth Of Kashmiri Hindu Exodus | Making Of Kashmir Files", The Sham Sharma Show (via youtube),
• IANS, Vivek Agnihotri Calls Making The Kashmir Files A ‘Challenge In India’, Says, “It Cannot Stop Me From Telling The Truth”, 7 March 2022.
• "Vivek retweeted him and wrote, “I am so glad for you @AbhishekOfficl you have shown the courage to produce the most challenging truth of Bharat. #TheKashmirFiles screenings in USA proved the changing mood of the world in the leadership of @narendramodi.", The Hindustan Times, 13 March 2022.
• "The Kashmir Files Movie Review: Vivek Agnihotri's Film Gives The Closest Picture Of the Truth, Sentinel Assam, 12 March 2022.
• "Going by Agnihotri’s copybook, these are truths that need to be told, however unpleasant or provocative some may consider them to be. As one of the characters in the movie, himself a journalist, observes, it is not the lies that we tell that are so reprehensible. It is the truths that we hide that destroy us. Vivek Agnihotri has a truth to tell and he has dared to tell it." (Makarand Paranjpe, The Kashmir Files: A story of India that the world needs to see, Firstpost, 13 March 2022)
• "Truth, truth, truth" (occurring 15 times) on the IMDB reviews by viewers presumably. (I wonder how they got that idea?)
• "Every once in a while comes a film that dares to challenge the set narrative by depicting the truth that has been kept suppressed by vested interest. Vivek Agnihotri’s The Kashmir Files is one such movie that narrates the tale of the Hindu genocide that took place in Kashmir in the 90s. ... It is a well-known fact that Kashmiri Hindus were expelled from the Valley by Islamic Jihadists. Therefore, why should anyone have any problem in the truth being shown?" (Manish Sharma, Fierce opposition to the film “The Kashmir Files” shows the desperation of ‘liberals’ to whitewash Hindu genocide, Hindu Post, 9 March 2022.)

The list goes on. And, more claims will stream in everyday. So, I mainain that the claim of "truth" needs to be assessed and all its warts explained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is ironic too that they claim to tell the "truth", and when we highlight the "truths" that have been told, we are accused of stating "slanted/biased opinions"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinions?

Tariqabjotu, Would you care to exlain what "slanted/biased opinions" you have reverted here? (Edit summary: everting/undoing various edits that introduced slanted/biased opinion as fact)

Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, TrangaBellam, can you state your views on this as well, please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC) correcting diff. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was watching this dispute but failed to intervene in time due to a patchy internet connection. I will make a detailed comment but for now, I support your additions except the line in lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no knowledge of or interest in the movie or book. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The editing here is far too rapid for me to spend much time on it at the moment, sorry. I don't want to spend an hour wordsmithing a section only for it to be wiped out a minute later. I do think there's evidence to say that critics praised the acting, but that historical accuracy has been called into question, in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert - Film Companion

• Please point to the consensus wherein Film Companion was deprecated as a source. (It was spam-blacklisted due to seeding spam and whitelisting requests are routinely allowed. ICTF says, Individual articles by independently notable critics can be whitelisted.
• Pinkvilla is a reliable source esp. per ICTF. To override a project consensus, you need to use RSN. Your personal preferences are immaterial.
• The unreliability of the particular India Today review has been discussed at talk-page and it is disingenuous to not participate in the discussion but restore it.
• It is ridiculous to claim that RT is an American website and that their bestowal of honors on particular film-critics is immaterial for Indian context. That being said, I am willing to concede as long as the second section starts with Gupta. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Nice to see you but how is that orig. research? Check this list. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Couldn't find the source mentioning her to be a top RT critic Akshaypatill (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)05:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen it. Reverted. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No issues - I should have provided it as a citation. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force has blacklisted Film Companion and its should not be added as source. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you having issues in comprehending basic English? The project did not blacklist it for quality issues; rather spam-patrollers did due to seeding spam. It explicitly allows whitelisting for reviews by indep. notable critics like Desai is. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Dsnb07, I have allowed you (or any other editor) to remove Gupta's RT qualifier as long as the second section (of largely negative reviews) starts with her. Please do not post the same message at multiple sections. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You have imposed your privilege by saying "I have allowed you (or any other editor) to remove Gupta's RT". I thought wikipedia is community just realize you've stacked claim on ownership of wiki. Not a way to build consensus. Sad state of discussion. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made and establish a consensus. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (2)

When you say 'its a drama film written and directed by vivek '. It seems to be a fictional or created movie. Which misleads the readers. But this film portrays the actual incident and sufferings of the natives back then. Happyman5555565655 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there is some merit to the broader thrust of this request since the film claims to have been derived from video testimonies of displaced Kashmiri Pandits. However, I cannot find any reliable source describing the film as a docudrama. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made and establish a consensus. ~~~

Dsnb07 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Court Case

The India Today Report says that a "district court" (what is its location in the Indian judicial hierarchy?) ordered Agnihotri to immediately remove and delete the scene and incorrect facts [..] or to amend/alter the scene and the incorrect facts [..]

How was it abided by: deletion or alteration? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No subsequent coverage. Couldn't find anything. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Btw, is MensXP (1) reliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to review TrangaBellam claims "India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect" and here S/He are claiming something else. No consistent in view? or Selective view? Dsnb07 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What is your view on final India Today? Dsnb07 (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

{{pronoun|TrangaBellam}} outputs she.

My final view (there isn't any; reliability depends on context) on India Today is irrelevant because this news has been reproduced in multiple other reliable sources to the same details. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So a lie is reproduced it's true? Anyways, that doesn't matter here. Please add review as well if you are adding this one. please be unbiased, honest, and follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Dsnb07 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You claim that their reporting of the court order was a lie? Please provide sources to the effect and I will remove the line + source. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the source provided by you. Dsnb07 (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (3)

This is not exodus alone. It is genocide of Kashmiri Pandits by Jihadists too but no mention in the details. Please add genocide word too. Tkpkbehosh (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I have already provided several link supporting this here Dsnb07 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You believe that a majority of the reliable sources on the topic describes it as a genocide? If so, please cite a couple of books published by any academic press of repute that use the term genocide to characterize the events. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made and establish a consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced lead statement - Mixed reviews

The following line in the lead section is unsourced - Dsnb07 (talk

-- Reviews were mixed; positive ones praised cast performances and realist depictions of the events while the negative ones found the film to be unnuanced and revisionist propaganda..

The lead summarises the body. As long as it does so accurately, it doesn't need citations. See MOS:LEADCITE. -

Moreover, the Wikipedia policy is that the content should be "verifiable", not that they should be "sourced". - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

For contested material, an in-line citation would be needed per MOS:LEADCITE. But "mixed reviews" does have that, there are three citations for it in the article at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV and WP: I Don't Like It

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. Shshshsh, we need to raise this concern to the administrators. The review section is not about the film's merits but it's politics and supposed "Phobia" of a community? What about cinematography, acting, writing? Also 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.Krish | Talk To Me 07:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Go to ANI or wherever - I do not care. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This shows that you accept being bias towards this article and this is a strictly against wikipedia guidelines. Oh wow.Krish | Talk To Me 07:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Go to ANI and make your case against me. Or you can note your objections to the current version. Whatever helps you feel better.

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 (1, 2 etc.) across the last few years have not escaped my attention. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a threat? Clearly you don't know that I have never edited political articles here and those suggestions I made on the talk pages came from a reader reading those biased words included in those articles. Your threat of "I know your past two edits on talk pages" suggest that you don't want anyone challenging your bogus claims? Only you have a right to edit political articles here and I cannot even question the edits on talk pages? Are you suggesting that I can't even edit talk pages here? You adding biased material here is "freedom to write truth" and my questioning two unrelated things makes me POV pushers? Are you for real? What kind of intimidation is this? Are you threatening me with a physical harm in real life?Krish | Talk To Me 08:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, TrangaBellam - I see that you too feel very strongly about it, just like Krish and the user above whose name I forget. But why did you remove the review by India Today, which is a reputable newspaper, and re-added Film Companion without being granted permission to use it (it's blocked)?

First, this "go to ANI" thing is not a good idea. It shows that you are absolutely careless about your actions and the process that Wikipedia should take.

I have no strong opinions here. I couldn't care less about the film, I'm actually sympathetic with both sides on this talkpage in a way, and I strongly believe both sides should be presented. My goal here is neutrality which I think that all of you seek to undermine by pulling it to your side. I'm not saying your version is necessarily bad, but you have reverted the article numerous times over the past 24 hours and more, restoring your preferred version and dismissing others' points without discussing it with them properly and agreeing upon a particular version. Is this a way to edit articles? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Spare the preaching which is neither here nor there.

I have explained my reasons for removing the India Today review both at this talk-page (twice) and at the NPOVN thread. Whose permission do I need to use the Film Companion piece? Have you read my comments, prim. directed at you, over this thread? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

First you haven't whitelisted it yet (the FC source). Why else don't you use the url link within the Ref?

Second, India Today is perfectly legitimate and should be used - your explanation does not hold water. It is a film review and should be used.

Third, this is not preaching. Your attitude is most hostile and discouraging. This "go to ANI" thing, the countless reverts, are not acceptable, and you should know that by now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It will be whitelisted in due course of time - that does not affect whether we can use the source or not.

As to India Today, both me and Kautilya3 thinks that it ought not be used whereas you (and maybe, Krish!) opine to the contrary - the onus of inclusion lies on you and the dispute resolution ladder can be helpful. I will be posting a message at WT:INB for opinions.

I do spot only two reverts and two is not countless. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want me to present you with diffs, I can do it. Even if you don't call them reverts.

You need to first whitelist FC. You should remove it until and unless you can use its link. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

India Today Review

We have a review by one Chaiti Narula, published at India Today (TV channel)'s website. Opinions are welcome on whether the review is due or not. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• No - Neither is she a film-critic (a news-anchor, her beat is finance, business, and politics) nor has she reviewed any film prior to this case. As Kautilya3 wrote, [T]hat this movie has essentialized "Indian-ness", no newspaper will be caught dead without a review of it. Whatever junk they can lay their hands on, they will print. But we are under no obligation to carry all reviews that we can lay our hands on.

• Lest someone confuses it, the venue of publication is not the far-famed eponymous magazine. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: What is the difference? India Today (TV channel) and India Today (magazine) seem to have the same publisher and both have indiatoday.in as their website. They seem the same. I admit, I know the magazine but have never heard of the TV channel. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Both the news channel and the magazine is owned by the same company, Living Media and share the same brand name "India Today" but have seperate editorial teams. The content on the website indiatoday.in primarily comes from the news channel's staff and the magazine only publishes its articles under indiatoday.in/magazine. Since the review isn't published under the magazine section and author in question (Chaiti Narula) is a deputy editor and news anchor at the channel, it's safe say that the review comes from the channel rather than the magazine. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note - this isn't an RfC.
• Definitely yes. First, what Kautilya3 said has little relevance here, particularly considering what they did yesterday on the article using a single column by The Print. It doesn't matter if Chaiti Narula is a film critic or not - she has been assigned the job to write a review for this reputed newspaper. Please don't make film critics into these superior journalists. Most film critics do not have film education and all of them are just people with opinions. That's it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Here is the review:

Narula, Chaiti (7 March 2022). "Review: The Kashmir Files opened, the bandage ripped off. What do you see?". www.indiatoday.in. India Today. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Low weight to None - There is no evidence of the author having any specialisation film critiques, or political affairs. She admits herself, "I am not a history major in my formal education." But history lessons are precisely what she draws from the film, which is supposed to be a work of fiction, e.g., "It was a monumental failure on the part of the state in its obligation to protect the minority Hindu Pandits in the valley." One would have expected her to at least read through the archives of her own magazine India Today, for which she is supposedly a Deputy Editor. It is unclear what she actually knows about the Kashmir conflict while she derides the "intellectuals who constantly bat for 'azadi'". It is a very low-quality review without much substance. In my view, there is no harm in omitting it entirely. Wikipedi is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE compilation of all published material. Its WP:DUE weight is practically none. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "There is no evidence of the author having any specialisation film critiques" - this could be true of most of the reviewers present now on the article. We cite reliable sources. Yesterday you added a column to support a tall claim in the lead - did you even know anything about him? And what is "specialisation film critiques" anyway?
  • The rest of what you said is clearly your own POV, especially the part where you dismiss her legitimacy based on her knowledge on the Kashmir conflict. Do you realise it is a film review and not a review of the conflict? See MOS:FILM and what is required in writing reception sections. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It should be included. It's a review of the film from a well known media org. Also such a prominent value has been given by some wiki editors above to the review by Amogh Rohmetra, who is a trainee journalist at The Print for less than 3 months. In that light, the reasons to disregard India Today's review don't make any sense and appear POV pushing. Wikihc (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, since a higher standard is needed here than would be required for most other films. The film has a historical and political context, it asserts as fact, claims which contradict scholarly consensus, something that is reproduced in many of the reviews. In addition, the film industry in particular has problems with undisclosed advertorials and the film has received a lot of reviews from those who have no former involvement in reviewing films. Therefore restricting it to publications with a reputation for independence as well as accuracy on socio-political issues, and to recognised film critics associated with those publications seems appropriate. India Today is a mixed bag with respect to independence or accuracy and the author Chaiti Narula appears to have never been involved in reviewing films before this, so I don't mind it being omitted.

That said, this should apply to the Rediff.com review and ThePrint article as well; the first one is primarily an aggregator and the review is written by a Koimoi staff (not to mention it asserts that the film is a "real chronicle"), while the second one is an opinion piece, not even marked as a review, and is authored by a journalist who has never reviewed any other film either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Both removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

For now. Till I rework the content. Please state your objections to the latter at #ThePrint article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not object to the article from being used for non-review purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, thank you for your measured response. As I said above, I trust your integrity and that's why I support your stand. My only concern is that you mention above "scholarly consensus", and it can't just be touched upon briefly. In order to avoid strong opposition which may well be inevitable (I see that this film really provokes incredible, polarised views all over the place based on people's political position), I highly recommend that a historical accuracy section be worked upon where scholars' points are presented fairly in order to back up the choice of reviews and everything else in it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy can come later. The first thing to do is to document what the film says about the history. I had a section called Political and historical messaging yesterday, and I recall you complaining incessantly about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, because it was based on one single source, that too a review, and definitely not the scholarly sources we're looking for to achieve veracity that is solid as a rock. That was my point the whole time through - I never objected the inclusion of the content otherwise. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You are joking! The movie was released two days ago, and you expect "scholarly sources" to pop up analysing what it says! Journalists are the people that cover these things. Yes, scholars will pitch in soon, but the fact that the film is promoting blatant Islamophobia needs to go there first. I have told you that, if you have other sources that say other things, you can bring them. I am afraid you have been nothing but obstructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• No per Tayi and due to the fact that beyond two cookie-cutter sentences, it has nothing to say about the aspects of the movie other than the story. The extensive focus on political aspects where the author herself felt obligated to clarify her place in the political spectrum makes it impossible to see it as anything other than a political essay. In addition, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception specifically says Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited and as Kautilya3 has explained, the author is neither a professional film critic nor an expert commentator connected to topics covered. Hemantha (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

Hello, Pls change the work Exodus to Genocide. It was a genocide. 2600:387:C:2C18:0:0:0:2 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Language - Kashmiri

Since there is significant Kashmiri also spoken in the film, it should also be added with Hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.26.45 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (4)

The actual story of displaced Hindus and Kashmiri genocide, which included those Muslims who opposed the terrorism in the valley. 216.209.131.168 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)