Jump to content

Talk:The Kashmir Files: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 301: Line 301:
:::Please check source given by me under '''The truth''' [[User:Dsnb07|Dsnb07]] ([[User talk:Dsnb07|talk]]) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Please check source given by me under '''The truth''' [[User:Dsnb07|Dsnb07]] ([[User talk:Dsnb07|talk]]) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:::: Indeed some reviewers got it wrong. And they aren't RS on the historical accuracy anyway. [[User:Wikihc|Wikihc]] ([[User talk:Wikihc|talk]]) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:::: Indeed some reviewers got it wrong. And they aren't RS on the historical accuracy anyway. [[User:Wikihc|Wikihc]] ([[User talk:Wikihc|talk]]) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
::::: Guys, please stop engaging in [[WP:OR]] analysis of your own. The source said it, and I find it [[WP:DUE]].
::::: Everybody knows feature films are fiction. But this film claims to portray "truth", endorsed by the Prime Minister of India, no less. Many people believe it to be the truth. So, all "untruthful" aspects will be highlighted, by the RS and us. You can't have it both ways. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 08:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


== Government support : Really ? NOPV is a Causality here ==
== Government support : Really ? NOPV is a Causality here ==

Revision as of 08:20, 18 March 2022

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Adding that Koimoi and TOI are not reliable per ICTF. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? what is source of "India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect" Dsnb07 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, ICTF has listed India Today Dsnb07 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=] Not Done. Same India today is used as a source in Litigation section of this article. Is it not selectively treating a RS as good standard or falling standard ? Dsnb07 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of truth

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes Shivaay Softa (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert - Film Companion

Sorry, hadn't seen it. Reverted. Akshaypatill (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues - I should have provided it as a citation. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@TrangaBellam Did you file for an exception for the FilmCompanion URL to be whitelisted? (cc @Skyerise @TheChunky) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC) (merged with existing section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I've done that now. Hemantha (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer Consult this thread; equivalent since nobody except them processes whitelisting requests. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks. Looks like there’ll be a backlog for sometime.. DaxServerOnMobile (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Film Companion is a reliable source per WT:ICTF. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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.
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Both removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I do not object to the article from being used for non-review purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Kautilya3: if that's what you think the film is promoting (and I never refuted that, I haven't seen the film nor do I want to), you can't use a film review to back it up, that too in the lead, saying "according to critics" or alternatively presenting it as a fact while clearly it's an opinion piece. That's why you have been reverted eventually and not by me. If scholars are going to pitch in soon, then wait, don't use unsubstantiated claims which you can't support with better sources. That was what I objected to, and I'm still surprised you think your edits were right.
As for "you have been nothing but obstructive", please discuss the content and not me. Shahid • Talk2me 19:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Tayi Arajakate mentioned the film industry to have a problem with undisclosed advertorials and just now, I came across this tweet from the HT reviewer, whose observations we cover prominently in the first paragraph. I leave it to her (and Kautilya3's) discretion about whether any corrective steps are necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd support removing that as well. Hindustan Times has been reported to have engaged in this practice (see [1]) and the fact the reviewer is practically promoting the film is not encouraging. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely yes - We cant be selective based on biases, if India Today is refereed as RS in Litigation section of the page then why not in Review Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that this purported review has factual issues as well. The claim that Farooq Ahmed Dar alias Bitta Karate (whose character is played well by Chinmay Mandlekar is misleading at best as pointed out below by Dsnb07. Hemantha (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, in that case The Hindu review is also factually wrong and actually quoted in this page - Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo. Krishna's mother is not fashioned on Mrs. Ganjoo. Details Here. An editor has justified used Mrs. Ganjoo because The Hindu citation says.
    Do we promote different standard for The Hindu and India Today? Dsnb07 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor claims (Details Here) Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo is sourced from the The Hindu or ThePrint. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a suitable description of the India Today article requires to be included. I am wondering why censoring is even seen as an option. This is highly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please see WP:CENSOR. Considerable applauds definitely doesn't mean it has paid interest in it, especially when there are visible success in terms of box office return and that there isn't any evidence of paid review. All most all media houses, irrespective of their geo-locations produce content in exchange of money. While that's definitely not ethical, but simply citing such sporadic occurrences to try to convince this case as a paid review isn't tenable. Moreover, I think the basis of this RFC has a fundamental problem. WP:DUE is applicable to Wikipedia articles, and not on articles produced by some media house. We need to make sure Wikipedia articles should follow WP:DUE. We have no guideline that says we can't include any reference that isn't written neutrally, even if I consider for a moment that India Today review isn't written from a neutral point of view. There are also provisions of using OPEDs as references. For references, in general we may cite the same as long as they are satisfying WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:IS. Now, if we get into the argument that if Chaiti Narula is a film critic or not (i don't have any opinion on this), we need to think when we are writing in the present article some critics have accused the film of historical revisionism, who these critics are? some less known twitter users? WP:DUE suggests to keep a right balance of the tone of the article, if we remain oblivious about the negativity and the credibility behind the same, Wikipedia will soon become just another mouthpiece which will be blamed of echoing propaganda of a certain group or groups. We need to be very cautious and be vigilant to make sure that we aren't stepping into a counter-propaganda while fighting a certain propaganda. Also, until and unless there is any consensus regarding the reliability of a media, I think its better to keep aside any personal opinion about if India Today is reliable or not. Every Wikipedia editor should obey the community consensus which is the heart of Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing NOTAFORUM and duplicate requests

Any objection to removing the clear WP:NOTAFORUM comments and requests, as well as the duplicate requests and blank requests? Hopefully that will allow actual constructive conversations to develop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope — DaxServer (t · c · m) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island in lead

Perhaps the claim about Rhode Island should be attributed? The source repeats Vivek's claim, but the certificate from the Rhode Island House of Representatives he provides as proof does not use "genocide"; it uses "ethnic cleansing". Now, that's a primary source so I'm not suggesting changing what Vivek said, only that it be made clear that Vivek is the one saying that the state of Rhode Island "officially recognised Kashmir Genocide". (I can find no sources that mention Rhode Island's certificate except those quoting Vivek.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was literally just looking at that. It also looks suspect, as the Rhode Island house of representatives isn't likely to use the wording "Islamic Gangs." Even if it's legit, it's not recognition by the state, it's a citation to an individual by one part of the state government. It also does not say genocide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it, Zee News is not an RS (in this case, it's not even independent; note that this is a Zee Studios produced film) and I've not seen a single Indian RS or any US based source reporting on this. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not impossible that the citation exists, but they're not anything other than a congratulations for something, not any sort of government declaration. I was also unable to find any decent RS discussing this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fact check on it now, see; Quint Webqoof. There is a citation but it recognises the premiere of the movie and nothing else. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political messaging and historical accuracy

Multiple issues -


Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done enough with the lead. Have no time to get into this section at the moment. I'm sure the sections has inaccuracies (given the involved parties, the emotions and everything, which is understandable), just as the film does, ironically. But I believe when scholarly sources come along, that will be a good way to sort it out. Shahid • Talk2me 00:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please change from Chinmay Mandlekar as Farooq Ahmed Dar (Bitta Karate) to Chinmay Mandlekar as Farooq Malik Bitta. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't se any change addressing issues raised by me. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critic Narendra Modi

Modi's statement need to be moved elsewhere — a section on political reception (?) where tax-benefits can be discussed too. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it out of the section to a new section on the government endorsements. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate Looking at the NDTV and BBC links, Modi didn't seem to insist on "great" conspiracy? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I have removed it now. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Line in lead

Can you (Dev0745) point to the many critics, who have praised the dialog of the film. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to not engage, I will restore the previous version. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TB, on a related issue, did you see propaganda aligned with the ruling party to be superfluous or weak in your edit here? When I'd restored Tayi's addition, I'd seen what I'd considered to be strong enough references - like cementing the current dispensation’s favoured discourse from Anuj Kumar, The Hindu and party, whose agenda he is consciously or inadvertently perpetuating from Shubhra Gupta, IE as well as this siasat article. Hemantha (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hemantha Is Shiyasat a reliable source? I had never heard of it. From this, [2] I think it is more like a local right-wing muslim newspaper. I don't find it to be unbiased. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
673 uses tells me it's okay enough for the contexts here, but this is a bit tangential to the issue. Especially given Modi's comments and the tax breaks, there are and will be more. Hemantha (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside Siasat, I'd think when both the IE and The Hindu reviews have mentioned it, it has enough weight for inclusion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection over the inclusion. I am making sure it is cited from a reliable source. The IE source isn't related to the film and can be amounted for WP:SYNTH. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IE source is a review of the film though? Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to #Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided

Hemantha (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(TrangaBellam), I had not read reviews thoroughly, but background research have been praised by Deccan herald & Pinkvilla. I was thinking only mentioning of praise of performance is not enough in lead section when there is so much negative things was added in lead section. The film is praised for other things also. I think other thing i.e background research should be added as it is mentioned by two articles in Reception Section. I did not noticed dialogues is praised by only one article Deccan herald in Reception section. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(TrangaBellam) & (Tayi Arajakate). I think lead section should be clear. Not all critics or people are accusing it of propaganda and prejudice against muslim, It is only some leftleaning newspapers & critics( especially The Hindu, Indian Express not Quint which is also left leaning) and Muslims(Siasat daily which mouthpiece for Muslims) are. So "some" should be added. Not addding some is like presenting half truth. Definitely it is not accused of propaganda by all critics or people. Truth to be told not half truth to mislead people.Dev0745 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided

Moved from #Line in lead

Hemantha (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about this line - "The film focuses exclusively on the killings of Kashmiri Hindus in 1990 and afterwards whereas Kashmiri Muslims were also killed during the insurgency (in greater numbers in fact)." Anyway, let it be, add a more relible source if you come accross one. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akshaypatill Removed. A month ago, I had written at the t/p of our article on the Exodus about why this comparison of absolute numbers make little sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam, would you also object to any mention in that section, that this kind of comparison is being made, as part of disputing accuracy of the film's weighting of real events (using, say, an India Today fact check, these quotes along with the Print and Siasat)? The text was added by Kautilya3 and I'd added siasat only to show that it wasn't synth to use those numbers in this film's context, when Akshaypatill disputed it on those grounds.
Relatedly on lines in lead, did you object to the use of 'exploitative' in this bundled revert or all of it? Specifically, do you object to the addition of Asim Ali's article? Hemantha (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were caught in the crossfire but now that I see your edits:
The film's focus on violence is not the (only) reason behind critics regarding the film as Islamophobic/proto-Islamophobic. Your framing was probably the unintentional result of a copy-edit.
I have nothing against Ali, who appears to be a decent source.
I do not think "exploitative" adds anything to what is already there, except for the bombast.
Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged from this section. But I can't make head or tail of any of this. I hope somebody can state clearly what it is that being debated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Akshay brought it up in this section, so two separate issues got mixed up but the ping was about this sequence of edits - yours, Akshay's, mine - and ending with this revert by TB. Issue, in my view, is: whether it is okay to call into question the film's lopsided depiction of violence using casualty numbers. Hemantha (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstated it and added stronger sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using those sources here violates WP:SYNTH. Please adhere to wiki policies. Wikihc (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kautilya3, Can we have this in Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus too?Akshaypatill (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes misrepresents data from source given by editor

Notes reads : 89 Hindus were killed by militants between 1990 and 2021, while 1,724 people of other faiths (mainly Muslims) were killed during the same period
Source reads [1]: 89 Kashmiri Pandits, 1,635 people of other faiths were also killed during the same period.

  • Misrepresentation 1  : 89 Hindus (Notes) Vs 89 Kashmiri Pandits(Source)
    • Notes assume there was no Hindu apart from Kashmiri Pandits.
  • Misrepresentation 2  : 1,635 people of other faiths (Notes) vs 1,724 people of other faiths (Source)
    • Notes changes numbers.
  • Misrepresentation 3  : Notes says (mainly Muslims)

Dsnb07 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating more on what notes says "1990 and 2021...............other faiths (mainly Muslims)"
Other faith may include Sikhs, Christens and non-Pundit Hindus. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid , Dhawangupta, RegentsPark I request you to take note of this. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DaxServer, I humbly request you to correct the line where the note was referenced i.e. The film focuses exclusively on the killings of Kashmiri Hindus in 1990 and afterwards whereas Kashmiri Muslims were also killed during the insurgency (in greater numbers in fact). Dsnb07 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1,635 is the number of "other faiths" and 1,724 is the total number. I seem to have miswritten the original note.

There are no Kashmiri Hindus other than Pandits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give source for your claim "There are no Kashmiri Hindus other than Pandits."?
Dsnb07 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the advent and spread of Islam in Kashmir from the fourteenth century onwards, a number of different Hindu castes existed. ... Following the spread of Islam, the Brahmins remained the only Hindus in the valley.[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link which I provided is of post 1947 and as recent as 2001. Dsnb07 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The links you've provided are about the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir and not just the Kashmir Valley. Jammu is predominantly Hindu and has a significant non-Brahmin population. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "IE". IE.
  2. ^ Datta, Ankur (2017), On Uncertain Ground: Displaced Kashmiri Pandits in Jammu and Kashmir, Oxford University Press, pp. 47–48, ISBN 9780199466771
Resolved

Misperception in mention of Article 370 in this page.

The article states The Article 370 of the Constitution that granted a nominally autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir, is named as one of the reasons for the displacement of the Kashmiri Pandits source given by editor it


  • Misrepresentation 1 : Mention of nominally
    • Source nowhere says 370 is nominal
    • In truth - Article 370 was titled as "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions".[1]

Dsnb07 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the Article 370 page being linked? Please go and read that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly request you remove unsourced word nominally. That is the gross misrepresentation of source. Dsnb07 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability. And we expect that the editors will have a certain level of competence to check if something is verifiable. Every word and every fact in a complicated history of 70 years cannot be reduced to individual sources. You need to be able to go read stuff and understand.
In any case, here is a source that uses the exact same terminology [3]. I am not going to engage with you further, while continue to produce endless lists of bad faith arguments and complaints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Article 370: 10 facts that you need to know : Highlights, News – India Today". Indiatoday.intoday.in. Retrieved 18 August 2014.
Resolved

Updated Notes (15 Mar) hampers NOPV

The entire Political_messaging_and_historical_accuracy section doesn't not adhering to wiki:NOPV policy.
Here is one example

  • Single POV - Number sought from some Google book to tell one sided story. (log)
  • Other POV - Kashmiri Pandits population in the Kashmir valley declined from approx 15% in 1947 to, by some estimates, less than 0.1%.

source [1]

Dsnb07 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is some crappy junk which you called a "source". The minimum you need to do is to write down the author, title and publisher. What did you cite Dalrymple for? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly request you to not use offensive words like crappy junk and comply wiki community guideline of good faith.
  • May I ask why did you call sourced book as crappy junk? The book "Without Hesitation" by S K Sharma rated on goodbook and other site
Dsnb07 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another source and quote
"The proportion of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir valley has declined from about 15% in 1947 to, by some estimates, less than 0.1% since the insurgency in Kashmir took on a religious and sectarian flavor"
- Book name : "Know Your India: "Turn a New Page to Write Nationalism" by Dr Ahmad Sayeed Dsnb07 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, K3, and F&G engaged in a source-based analysis of change in % KP with time at the talk-page of our article on exodus, please consult it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(typos fixed) I, K3, and F&f engaged in a source-based analysis of change in % KP with time at the talk-page of our article on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, please consult it. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number and opinion given is this page is hampering NOPV of this page and you are asking me to go to another page. I was not able to understand your ask. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should focus on improving this article and has to happen on its talk page. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Also see: WP:OTHERCONTENT. Moreover, repeated WP:OWN assertions are not helping in building a consensus. We need reliable sources on the historical accuracy and messaging of the film. Apart from the problems pointed out by Dsnb07, the current section is predominantly presenting the movie review of a trainee journalist at The Print, as reliable accounts of the events. They should merely be presented as reviewers opining on the accuracy and be properly attributed. The other sources, also movie reviews or references not about the film (see WP:OR), are not scholarly sources of its accuracy. Tariqabjotu and Shahid have pointed out to this effect earlier. Wikihc (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN is biggest issue in building consensus for the page. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the new links added by Kautilya3 in the writeup, claimed to citations on the accuracy of the film, are from years earlier than the film. They do not talk about accuracy or messaging of this film. Editors using them to make conclusions about messaging and accuracy of the film amounts to WP:OR (see WP:SYNTH). Please remove them. Wikihc (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dalrymple, William (1 May 2008). "Kashmir: The scarred and the beautiful". The New York Review of Books. p. 14.

Misrepresentation : Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo

Article says Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo. (last para in log)

  • Misrepresentation 1 : Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo'
    • No source given by editor says fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo (at least I am not able to find)
  • The truth : Sharda Pandit(Krishna's mother) a fictional character, is based on two true event related to Mrs. Ganjoo and Girji Tickoo . (source)

Dsnb07 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point seem to e right. Nowhere in the sources mentioned do I see that character is based on Mrs. Ganjoo. What is the basis of this arbitrary statement that character is based on Mrs. Ganjoo Bmasterfelix (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the first citation following that sentence and search for "Mrs Ganjoo". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please check source given by me under The truth Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed some reviewers got it wrong. And they aren't RS on the historical accuracy anyway. Wikihc (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please stop engaging in WP:OR analysis of your own. The source said it, and I find it WP:DUE.
Everybody knows feature films are fiction. But this film claims to portray "truth", endorsed by the Prime Minister of India, no less. Many people believe it to be the truth. So, all "untruthful" aspects will be highlighted, by the RS and us. You can't have it both ways. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government support : Really ? NOPV is a Causality here

Now, we have another section apart from Political messaging and historicalaccuracy) which is not adhering to wiki:NOPV.

Let me point out a few things here -

  • Oppositions Party support - There are opposition leaders who has supported the Film and asked for tax free status one such example is prime opposition party Congress's senior leader Bhupesh Baghel ( also Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh) Source
  • Does tax free means support? - India has long history of making film tax free based various reasons. source 1 2 3 4

Dsnb07 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section [Threats] should be added again

An editor added threats to the director because he made this film and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Kashmir_Files&type=revision&diff=1077527751&oldid=1077522351. I request editors to add it and here I am giving multiple sources.

This line was removed - The makers of the film has stated that mutliple Fatwas were issued against Agnihotri and his family. Death threats and calls to stop the release were also reported

Sources :

  • Outlook - Pallavi joshi reveals that a fatwa was issued on her and Vicek-Agnihotri
  • IndiaToday Pallavi Joshi says fatwa was issued against her and Vivek Agnihotri during shoot
  • KoiMoi Vivek Agnihotri Says, “All This Fatwa, Threats, Abuses..For What" and deactives his account.

Dsnb07 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa removed

Fatwa was removed with reason don't think their claims are due without any surrounding context) (log).The reason is very abstract.

  • "Litigaton" Context - Fatwa is a legal ruling on a point of Islamic law. ( check lead of wiki page Fatwa)


Dsnb07 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other support" NOPV issue

Dsnb07 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I respect all editor and keep them in good faith. I am pointing to the content which may arise question on highest standard of Wikipedia's NOPV. Dsnb07 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to [Category:Propaganda films] films?

The article "The Kashmir Files" itself says and I quote - "Critics have accused the film of being.. propaganda". So an accusation by a few critics will be treated as truth.

Dsnb07 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely accusation by some film critics as propaganda is not truth. These films critics are not Scholar. Dev0745 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple BJP "controlled" states - really?

Article in political section says It was declared tax-free in multiple BJP controlled states. India is the largest democracy which is governed by an electorally selected government. Please remove controlled and use governed.

Dsnb07 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribed, leftovers as well.[1]भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as its reasonable — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "First non-BJP state demands tax-break for The Kashmir Files across India". indiatoday.in. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
This reports that the Deputy CM of Maharashtra stated that if the Central GST is waived, it will become tax free all over India.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bhaskarbhagawati, you can probably add what I pointed out above (that the Deputy CM of Maharashtra stated that if the Central GST is waived, it will become tax free all over India), as well as make the change as requested by Dsnb07 (it is in the, "BJP support" section).- 27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already mentioned (check link below). It was added to article and then removed. (log)
Resolved

Wordplay impact neutrality of the article

I humbly request all editors to please refrain from unintentional/intentional wordplay which can change the meaning of sentences and reduces wiki:NOPV of the article. One such example is changing word from urge to call log

Dsnb07 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

call seems to be a better wording than urge. I don’t see any problem with it DaxServerOnMobile (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very clear that "Call" is used in negative connotation, where as it was "request" so urge is right work. Dsnb07 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The second sentence in the lead reads,

the film is based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency

and I request that it be changed to,

the film is based on true incidents during the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus during the Kashmir Insurgency

- I asked to change the, "Kashmiri Pandits" to, "Kashmiri Hindus " because the term, "Kashmiri Pandits" in that sentence links to the, "Kashmiri Hindus " article.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, this or this can be used as sources.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT[1][2][3]भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.
The film itself uses both Hindu and Pundit. Hindu being super set of group so It makes sense to use Hindu. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Kashmir Files: US state Rhode Island officially recognises 'Kashmir Genocide', Vivek Agnihotri pens note". 14 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  2. ^ "The Kashmir Files wins case at Bombay HC; Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri says, 'shall not make any change in my film'". indiatvnews.com. 8 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  3. ^ "Here's what went into making of The Kashmir Files: 700 interviews of victims, 5,000 hours of research". indiatoday.in. 14 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
Dsnb07, I asked to add, "true incidents" also.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not relible. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hemantha (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hemantha
There is a elaborate wiki article which self calls Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus and that's what भास्कर् Bhagawati asked and I quote him - I asked to change the, "Kashmiri Pandits" to, "Kashmiri Hindus ".... Also, there was huge discussion on using Kashmiri Hindu for the article.
Thanks Dsnb07 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, at the time closed it, there were multiple changes requested. On Pandit->Hindu specifically, both Zee news and India Today use Pandit while in IndiaTV, it's only used in a quote. Reading the Exodus discussion, I have no objection to that specific change, though I won't do it myself as its utility is unclear to me. It'd be better to open a new request with only that particular request, but if you wish to reopen this, please do so. Hemantha (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot is based on the events revived utterly on 700 plus video interviews of first generation sufferers of Kashmiri Pandit Genocide.[1][2][3] The film has exhaustive approval.[4] The Kashmiri Pandits sobbed throughout screening, noding analogous faithful portrayal of the genocide on screen happened at no time.[5] Film has housefull encompassing country, promulgate megahit, with twentyfour seven shows, with recurrent audiences.[6] With staggering support from public, government made it tax free in several states.[7] Though, made with modest budget, collections soared manifold.[6] Film has ratified by foreign governments.[1][8] Wherefore, unsubstantiated assertion by paid/vested groups unable to sustain.Thanks.

References

  1. ^ a b "The Kashmir Files: US state Rhode Island officially recognises 'Kashmir Genocide', Vivek Agnihotri pens note". 14 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  2. ^ "The Kashmir Files wins case at Bombay HC; Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri says, 'shall not make any change in my film'". indiatvnews.com. 8 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  3. ^ "Here's what went into making of The Kashmir Files: 700 interviews of victims, 5,000 hours of research". indiatoday.in. 14 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  4. ^ "The Kashmir Files IMDb rating changed from 9.9 to 8.3 after 'unusual activity', Vivek Agnihotri calls it unethical". indiatoday.in. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  5. ^ "The Kashmir Files: Inconsolable Lady Touches Vivek Agnihotri's Feet, Hugs Darshan Kumar at Screening". news18.com. 13 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  6. ^ a b "Why The Kashmir Files is a blockbuster nobody saw coming". indiatoday.in. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  7. ^ "First non-BJP state demands tax-break for The Kashmir Files across India". indiatoday.in. 16 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  8. ^ "'The Kashmir Files': Vivek Agnihotri On Rhode Island Officially Recognising Kashmir Genocide; Calls It 'Historic'". mashable.com. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.

भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 04:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised why the line which you have given with source is not added. The Kashmiri Pandits sobbed throughout screening, noding analogous faithful portrayal of the genocide on screen happened at no time. Film has housefull encompassing country, promulgate megahit, with twentyfour seven shows, with recurrent audiences. This will give a much needed neutrality to the article. I will humbly request you and editor to add it. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting our prime minister, CAMPAIGN IS BEING RUN TO DISCREDIT IT[1]भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhaskarbhagawati You've been here long enough to know that talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM. Can you please focus your posts on article improvements instead of littering talk with repetitive statements? Use mechanisms outlined in WP:DR to resolve any perceived deficiencies. Hemantha (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "PM Modi hails 'The Kashmir Files' movie, says 'campaign is being run to discredit it'". timesofindia. 15 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.

Misrepresentation of source which reduces NOPV

Dsnb07 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are quoting a person, least thing we can do is quote them without changing meaning of message given by an individual. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, revise it.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Did you two realize that it's an interview with Vivek Agnihotri? Changing the sentence to relay that it's a genocide requires a consensus and from what I gather there is an opposite one. Please invite others and discuss further. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning the use of the word genocide does not preclude us from using the word "victims". Several of existing sources on the page use it. Wikihc (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should use "victims" at least. Dsnb07 (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaxServer If an article is quoting or paraphrasing a person (i.e Mr Vivek Agnihotri) then it should use in way that it doesn't change meaning. In my humble opinion it is unethical to change meaning of quotes while paraphrasing and attributes it to the person.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations : quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Dsnb07 (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Victims of a genocide" are generally dead. You can't possibly interview them. This is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Dead victim is just one category out of five. As per United Nations Genocide Convention the Genocide falls into five categories:
All from wikipedia and source
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide Dsnb07 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation #34 is not accessible/error in syntax

Some editorial error in citation #34. Either fix that error or remove the section that's supposed to be backed by it. TruthBeforePolity (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which version you are referring to, however, this version seem to have no more errors in citations. Thanks for the note — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist Bias?

"but has faced charges of historical revisionism, and of being propaganda aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), aiming to foster prejudice against Muslims." This line is clearly biased, based on suppositions and do not cite any reliable sources except for movie reviewers who have a history of Left bias - and even they do not directly say the above lines. UncannyBeast (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you cite a "reliable source" for the claim that, movie reviewers who have a history of Left bias? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't adhere to [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] and [Wikipedia:Manual of Style]

The article uses excessive scare quotes, weasel words, along with Word play of reliable source. At places, it misquotes the individual's statement.

  • Scare quotes : there are 10+ scare quoting done in article. Example {{tq|believes in the "Kashmir cause", Brahma calls a "genocide.", service of a "communal agenda", failing to "translate the grief on the big canvas" , Parliament for "everyone to watch the movie"., ccording to him "reveals the truth"
  • Weasel word : Just read the article to find how weasel words used to impact neutral point of view.
  • Word play of reliable source - There are many and I am listing a few.
    • Changing word from urge to call log. Call" is used in negative connotation, where as it was "request" so urge is right word.
    • Production section reads have interviewed more than 700 emigrants from the exodus whereas Source given says  : interview more than 700 victims of the Kashmir Genocide from all across the world. Please note (As perWikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change .

18:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsnb07 Please stop creating multiple sections for the same things which you have already raised. Use centralized discussion please. It is infeasible to discuss the same things in multiple places on the same page. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, these first and only thread to talk about Scare quotes and Weasel word. I have added wordplay again but IMHO, it was required. we can discuss first two point , if you see from here Dsnb07 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I have set the archive bot to archive threads inactive for 2 days, since this talk page is growing humongously. That puts the ONUS on the initiators of the threads to keep the discussion going. If you absolutely must, you can do {{subst:pin section}} to keep the section. But unless the discussion moves, somebody will eventually get tired of it and release it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2022 (2)

Please change 'A student of ANU,[a] Krishna' to 'A student of JNU,[a] Krishna' Codestellar (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It was set properly. The explanation was set in the footnote followed it. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

2409:4063:6D03:1EE0:4D72:A11D:999E:69CF (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lacking some information kindly let me add it

 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. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2)

The movie does not promote violence against Muslims. It shows story of displaced people. Critics of film does not question its authenticity. They are questioning integrity of filmmaker. Hence, any efforts to portray that the movie promotes violence are not genuine. Hemkak (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 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) 06:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files&oldid=1077808893"