Talk:The Kashmir Files

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)

[[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)

TrangaBellam has also removed a positive review by Monica Kukreja published by Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/the-kashmir-files-movie-review-anupam-kher-is-the-soul-of-this-gut-wrenching-film-that-s-brazen-and-brutal-101646904407351.html

Here is MK's review profile in Rotten Tomatoes. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/monika-rawal-kukreja/movies

This review should be included in Critical Reception. Vizziee (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Box office details

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

---

Now some of these wikipedia editors are just being extremely biased. Its ok if you have problems with the film and filmmakers but can these people be a little professional? They just removed all the box office details of the film by saying its not a "financial log". Like seriously doing anything to discredit the films success.. If you look at the box office section of any huge blockbuster Bollywood film like PK or Dangal, its well detailed. But its not ok when it comes to The Kashmir Files because these biased editors can't digest the success of the film right? someone please fix this shit asap, thank you!SGiaNaksh (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SGiaNaksh (talk • contribs) 13:10, March 18, 2022 (UTC)

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

Discussed and closed by who exactly and why? I need proper explanation. i added all those details with a proper source and i need a explanation for each and every edit of mine which got reverted or removed! also i'm new to this "talk" thing on wikipedia so don't mind.SGiaNaksh (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

SGiaNaksh, the admin closed this thread because the topic is under discussion in another thread already. See in the closure, where it says "already being discussed"? That's a link to the active discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 19 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)

Yes Shivaay Softa (talk) 20:25, 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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• No. I have read the article. This cannot be used as a writing on either history or films. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 18 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)

In fact this addition request should be accepted. There were a lot of local Kashmiri spoken whether it may be slogals raised by the terrorists or normal conversations between people of Kashmir. In the movie, however, English subtitles were provided whenever the Kashmiri was spoken. Shivamtiwari 22 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Shivamtiwari 22, Welcome to Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss the dialogues of the film, this space is for raising any issues in the article. I hope you will not misuse the space again. Thankyou and Happy editing. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 05:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Political messaging and historical accuracy

Multiple issues -

• Reference to JNU - In movie there is no reference to JNU, CBFC passed movie only after changing JNU to ANU https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/breaking-vivek-agnihotris-kashmir-files-passed-certificate-7-minor-cuts-cbfc-name-university-changed-jnu-anu/
• Use of islamophobia please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Use_of_islamophobia
• The whole last paragraph assumes a Kashmiri terrorist is Farooq Ahmed Dar ("Bitta Karate") whereas a character is named Farooq malik Bitta which is inspired by Farooq Ahmed Dar. please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Chinmay_Mandlekar's_character
• Toning down of atrocities - The current text does not mention that the movie toned down the atrocities in several incidents. The characters of Girija Tickoo and Mrs. Ganju have been fused into a single character, the atrocities they had to suffer are more horrendous. Both women were also gang-raped but this has been omitted.

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

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)

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)

I don't se any change addressing issues raised by me. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that WP:MOSFILM states that filmmakers' intent and historians' views (positive and negative) on the film have to be presented in the historical accuracy section. The section as currently written is filled with declarative statements on accuracy based on film reviewers' opinions which are not RS for this. WP:MOSFILM also emphasizes on having no WP:SYNTH when writing on historical accuracy. Sources which are not related to the film are being used right now to judge its accuracy. Wikihc (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

If you choose to not engage, I will restore the previous version. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The IE source is a review of the film though? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved to #Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided

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

(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)

(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)

There is a significant number of sources that support that position, adding "some" would denote that the praises are unanimous and criticism is limited, which is editorialisation with the addition of a unsupported vague qualifier. You can minimise the criticism in your mind by calling them "some left leaning newspapers" or "Muslim mouthpiece" (whatever that means), etc but that has no bearing on how reliable sources are assessed; two of them are from high quality national dailies with their reviews authored by recognised film critics, which makes such minimisation in wiki-voice inappropriate. They are also not the only ones who have used such descriptions, its a sample of sources just as the ones for the praises are. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely it is accusation by some left leaning and Islamic newspapers and their critics such as The Hindu, Indian Express, New Indian Express, film companion and Siasat daily who terming it propaganda. Centre and right also some left leaning newspapers such as India Today, Times of India, Deccan herald, Koimoi, Filmibeat, Fist Post, Hindustan Times, News18, India glitz, Quint didn't term it anti muslim and propaganda. It is clear some critics are terming it propaganda not all. But due to no proper third party Independent media analysis(Although BBC and Alzazeera have published article, they have their own agenda(vested interest), funded by state, BBC reporting is mediocre, Alzazeera reporting is biased & one sided), So There is no source to ascertain this. Thanks for clarifying. Dev0745 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided

Moved from #Line in lead

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

I reinstated it and added stronger sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Using those sources here violates WP:SYNTH. Please adhere to wiki policies. Wikihc (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, Can we have this in Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus too?Akshaypatill (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH with other sources does not resolve. Also please follow MOS:FILM on RS for historical accuracy. Wikihc (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Dsnb07 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

WP:OWN is biggest issue in building consensus for the page. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

References

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)
  • Who was Mrs. Ganjoo? his husband was shot him and forced she was forced to eat the blood-soaked rice. Source
  • who was Girja Tickoo? : a Kashmiri hindu raped, and sliced into two pieces by Militants using carpenter saw. source Cite : Tikoo, Colonel Tej K. Kashmir: Its Aborigines and Their Exodus. Lancer Publishers LLC. ISBN 978-1-935501-58-9.</ref>

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

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)

Go to the first citation following that sentence and search for "Mrs Ganjoo". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please check source given by me under The truth Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed some reviewers got it wrong. And they aren't RS on the historical accuracy anyway. 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Source has already been provided by User:Dsnb07 on how the movie character is fashioned after Tikoo just as much. Other sources point to the same. Eg. . Your repeated citation is of a film review from a trainee journalist at The Print, who missed on this, unlike other sources. Meanwhile, you have been engaging in WP:SYNTH by using sources unrelated to the film to make original claims about its accuracy. It's not our job to do that, despite what you claim. We only document RS which do that, not present our analysis by combining sources unrelated to the film. Please read WP:OR. Also, are you claiming what was done to Girja Tikoo as "untruthful"? Wikihc (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

Please vote for adding aforementioned fatwa in thread or litigation. Hemantha, DaxServer, Akshaypatill, Tayi_Arajakate, 511KeV, Extorc, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Webberbrad007 Dsnb07 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dsnb07 Kindly refrain from pinging multiple users and mentioning Please vote for adding. This can be seen as a form of WP:Canvassing. If you ping multiple users make a statement that doesn't call for a particular vote. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 12:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ack. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I do believe that the fatwa and Y security can be added with inline citation as needed. Production section seems to be better suited for this than Litigation though, as this was during the last day of the shooting. Wikihc (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Other support" NOPV issue

• If the section above Other support is called Government support, why can't we say Opposition support?
• The whole article uses Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) liberally but refrain using Indian National Congress for Bhupesh Baghel (Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh)
• Apart from Bhupesh Baghel, Please add more opposition leaders who are asked for tax-free status. adding one more here.
  • Maharashtra governed by the opposition parties such as NCP, Congress etc has asked BJP headed the centre to waive tax for the film.
  • Source ^^ https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/maharashtra-govt-wants-centre-to-waive-gst-on-the-kashmir-files-122031601016_1.html

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

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)

Adding to Category:Propaganda films films?

Thread retitled from "Adding to [Category:Propaganda films] films?". — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree. Request editor to correct it. Dsnb07 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Movie is based on True Stories and people who felt exposed with this movie started this narrative calling it a Propaganda movie. Movie is well received by majority and is growing popularity. Categorizing this is propaganda movie is an Injustice to movie makers. Srinath66 (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Request editors to correct it. Dsnb07 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - It is not an obvious "propaganda film", even though it is said to have large elements of propaganda in it. I don't think we have evidence to call it a "propaganda film". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

it is not at all a propaganda film but bursting propaganda of left Ranita negi (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This, this, this or this can be used as sources.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORTभास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

References

Dsnb07, I asked to add, "true incidents" also.-27.7.11.53 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources are not relible. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hemantha (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Plot

The plot is based on the events revived utterly on 700 plus video interviews of first generation sufferers of Kashmiri Pandit Genocide. The film has exhaustive approval. 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. With staggering support from public, government made it tax free in several states. Though, made with modest budget, collections soared manifold. Film has ratified by foreign governments. Wherefore, unsubstantiated assertion by paid/vested groups unable to sustain.Thanks.

References

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

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)

Quoting our prime minister, CAMPAIGN IS BEING RUN TO DISCREDIT ITभास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@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)

References

Misrepresentation of source which reduces NOPV

• Production section reads : have interviewed more than 700 emigrants from the exodus
• Source given says  : interview more than 700 victims of the Kashmir Genocide from all across the world

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

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)

Go ahead, revise it.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 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)

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)

I agree, we should use "victims" at least. Dsnb07 (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Seriously, Dead victim is just one category out of five. As per United Nations Genocide Convention the Genocide falls into five categories:

1. • 2.4.1Killing members of the group
   • 2.4.2Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
   • 2.4.3Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
   • 2.4.4Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • 2.4.5Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

MOS:REVIEW advices in favor of quoting reviewers. Some of the scare quotes are intentional because they cannot be carried in wiki-voice. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Kautilya3 We need a FAQ. I am very busy IRL but will try to write one, this weekend. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do so. I was thinking of the same! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinionated opening paragraph - portrayed as a genocide

Thread retitled from "Opinionated opening paragraph".

“The Kashmiri exodus is portrayed as a genocide” Genocide meaning - the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group A large number of Kashmiri Pandits (an ethnic group) were killed and forced to leave (exodus) their homes during the event in question. There is no need to call it a portrayal of a genocide. 122.161.72.254 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We are beholden to scholars who do not support such an assessment. Consult our policy on orig. research. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Somebody removed it again. I will readd it with additional sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are replying at the correct thread? The IP editor wants to characterize the events as genocide in wiki-voice. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources for director's claims of threats

Moved from User talk:Bhaskarbhagawati § Interviews are primary sources

For reasons unclear to me, Bhaskarbhagawati has moved it here. This is about their repeated edits (1, 2) reverted once by me Hemantha (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The ToI article, and all the others on Agnihotri's claims, make it clear in the first couple of sentences, that they are covering an interview. There isn't a sentence in any of them which does not have something like "He said", "tells us" and so on. Please read WP:PRIMARY on when it's appropriate to use claims in interviews and when it's not. Hemantha (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement construe The makers of the film has stated that mutliple Fatwas, death threats and calls to stop the release were issued against Agnihotri and his family. is attribution to director, kindly discern WP:ATTRIBUTION. At this time Vivek Agnihotri gets Y-category security through Government of India. भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Your response makes it crystal clear that you didn't read WP:PRIMARY, so it's useless for me to reply to your harangue, but still A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Just by attributing, something primary doesn't automatically become WP:DUE for inclusion. Hemantha (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Drama Film to Historical Drama

Propose change in the lead from Drama Film to Historical Drama. Please could fellow watchers of this article share views? Tsachin (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur with you, see Plot section above.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that other editors have also asked to change "fictional drama film" to "drama film" in the lead. I would agree. Drama films are already fictional. The specific use of 'fictional' as adjective is redundant. Wikihc (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Historical Drama is the relevant subcategory and would be useful to add.Wikihc (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If the participants here are in agreement, are there any others who would oppose this change TrangaBellam Kautilya3 ? Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish don't have any objection to this consensus reached here, can some editor with enough seniority action this? I highlight these four because they usually agree and claim consensus on such pages and are most likely to object and revert this edit (refer elsewhere on this talk page or the Vikram Sampath talk page if in doubt) given their support for fictional in the lead which has been successfully removed and their current support for "claims to be" in the lead. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagging all users with edit-credentials active on this page who might potentially have an opinion to ensure this consensus is wide enough Hemantha, DaxServer, Akshaypatill, Tayi_Arajakate, 511KeV, Extorc, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

None of those pings went through because you signed later, but I've no opinion either way about this. Hemantha (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hemantha. Have re-submitted my comment so the pings go through Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not the way to fix failed pings, Webberbrad007. They still won't have gone through (see WP:PING), which is just as well; it's up to people themselves if they want to watch this page or not. Please don't ping anybody, nor post on their pages,[3] as that may compromise consensus. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

• Comment - Responding to ping. I don't have a strong view on the matter. But I haven't seen any source cited for the change. I would also like to know how other films dealing with Kashmir conflict have been characterised. Are 30-year old events considered "historical" in film literature? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wiki Definition: A historical drama (also period drama, costume drama, and period piece) is a work set in a past time period, usually used in the context of film and television.

  30-year old is a Generation ago, so it should qualify. Happy to hear opposing arguments to this though. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Several examples available of movies made on events about 30-year old (or under) at the time of the movie release being classed as such. See Exodus_(1960_film), The_Garden_of_the_Finzi-Continis_(film) etc -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Changed my mind after having read through the Plot section. The film is set in the current times, with flashbacks covering "historical" happenings. Most of the characters are alive in present times, with Pushkar Nath having died only recently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I also find it odd that most Indian films that are set in historical periods aren't characterised as "historical drama", e.g.: Lagaan, Parineeta (2005 film), Devdas (2002 film), or more recent 83 (film). This doesn't seem to be an important category in Indian cinema. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Those articles can also be improved. Wikihc (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Wikihc here.

Kautilya3, your objection makes use of incorrect comparisons as I shall highlight below:

1. Schindler's List had several survivors alive and the movie even shows Schindler's wife Emilie Schinder. So the claim that if someone from the movie is still alive, it can't be classed as historical drama isn't true.

2. The movies you mention in your second comment are not based on actual events. The correct comparisons would be the ones that have been highlighted above already - Schindler's List, Exodus_(1960_film), The_Garden_of_the_Finzi-Continis_(film) etc

If you have other reasons for objecting, please could you highlight? Tsachin (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the plot sections of the movies you have mentioned, say that the plot oscillates between the current time period and a certain historical period. So they are not valid comparisons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Schindler's List ending is current time period with old Emilie Schinder being shown.

Happy to discuss any other reasons you might have for objecting. Tsachin (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Did you say "The movies you mention ... are not based on actual events"? Nothing in historical drama says that the movies had to be baded on "actual events". So, is this a backdoor ploy to claim that the movie is based on "actual events", even though historical drama doesn't seem to be an established category in Indian cinema? "Historical" needs to be added to claim that this movie describes "history"? TrangaBellam, do you see this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The movie is based on exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, which is a historical and well documented fact unless you are disputing that either

1. the movie isn't based on that OR

2. the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits didn't happen

However, that isn't relevant to the discussion as the definition for historical drama doesn't require it. Tsachin (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, your claim that the category doesn't exist in Indian cinema also is false. See featured article Mughal-e-Azam as an example. Tsachin (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree and vote for changing it to historical drama after reading this thread.

Dsnb07 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree : This is indeed set in Historical Context and does consist of drama which appear to be the only criterion for Historical Drama. The question asked by Kautilya : Haider is considered a "Crime Drama" but I think Historical drama can be more relevant here. I think 30 years is indeed enough of a time for calling it history because it is almost a generation. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Tamjeed_Ahmed your edit is not in line with above consensus. Please could you revert the edit and help build consensus before using your power to edit the lead? -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree (goes without saying given I initiated this section). Webberbrad007, the anti-consensus edit by Tamjeed_Ahmed has been successfully reverted now. Thus far, I count below editors in favour (excluding myself): Shivamtiwari 22, Extorc, Wikihc, Bhaskarbhagawati, Webberbrad007, Dsnb07 and none who want to participate being against. Can this be considered general consensus? Tsachin (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral No strong opinion. I don't see much difference in Fictional drama and Historical drama. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• It would be informative if a line "based on true events" is added in description as there are many articles and news supporting it. Srinath66 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is agreeable to change its category from a drama film to historical drama since there are various resources to confirm this. Shivamtiwari 22 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Drama would be more suitable.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 04:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to failed ping. I think the characterization as historical drama is fair enough. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks TrangaBellam Tsachin (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

N-th all time highest first x-day records

@SGiaNaksh introduced Special:Diff/1077815873/1077820387 some stats about the film's records on first Monday, first Tuesday, first Wednesday, first Thursday - all time 7th, all time 20th, etc. These all seem very much like trivia. OTOH, the 323% growth seems very much encyclopaedic as it describes the growth and the source [4] says the next highest is Housefull 4 at 93%, so 323 seems significant. And probably breaking the record for highest increase in collections on first Monday significant as well? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I blanked the paragraph but the two of you might restore what you determine to be encyclopedic. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The increase in theatres 630->2000->4000 could be moved to Theatrical release section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is regarding a recent update which removed the whole box office section. The reason provided is "Not a financial log" which is inadequate and injustifiable.

• Please check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office for more details on Box office section
• Here are some examples Box_office section of film where a detailed financial log is provided.
  • Indian Films : Bajrangi_Bhaijaan#Box_office , PK_(film)#Box_office, Secret_Superstar#Box_office
  • Hollywood films : Avatar_(2009_film)#Box_office Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day#Box_office both are Wikipedia:Good articles)

RegentsPark sir please help. and Abecedaresir CC you based on our last message Dsnb07 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dsnb07: I don't see an issue here. DaxServer made a comment about excessive trivia, TrangaBellam removed the section with an explicit "restore what you determine enyclopedic" comment on the talk page. All this is well within the norms of collaborative editing. Someone should probably rewrite the section without the trivia or get consensus that it isn't actually trivia. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree on excessive trivia and being less encyclopaedic . Check the wiki film example provided by me, if you compare with examples it is much less. Also, these are not just any example last two are rated a Wikipedia:Good articles. It should have been removed at first less specially if it is edit protected. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"excessive trivia"?? first of all that's not "excessive", that's just the information provided by one of the most reliable Indian box office collection portal, Bollywood Hungama. Also, who are we the editors to decide what is trivia and what is not, what should be allowed on wikipedia pages and what should be not huh? There's no rule like only a certain amount of information or details you can add on a wikipedia page. The main policy of wikipedia is that you can add literally any statement or "trivia" with proper and reliable sources. The box office section was well sourced y'all should add it back!SGiaNaksh (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare Would you be kind and give some pointers to @SGiaNaksh [on their talk page] about this one? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 00:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we discussing this or not? Or I'll add all those box office facts again.SGiaNaksh (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@SGiaNaksh Like I said, the nth highest first X-day are a trivia. For example, see List of box office records set by Avengers: Endgame and List of box office records set by Avatar and the likes which state the records when they are the highest or fastest, viz. it is at the top position. I still object to these trivia. I don't think they have due weight and are indiscriminate listings.

From the earlier version (linked at the top), I see one record that is set: the 323% growth, and its relevance. Regarding the box office, it seems like it's a norm to mention the numbers in the opening days and weekends and WP:FILMBOXOFFICE also allows it in this section. The increase in theaters can also be restored, no objection to that. I intend to do that myself, if not others, when I get some time. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:SGiaNaksh, User:Dsnb07 I don't think excessive numbers are necessary as they can crowd the article and add little value. Add only the notable ones. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on it is not excessive numbers, Even if editor thinks so its better to re-write or leave as it is so that someone improve it specially for an article which is being updated rapidly.

Few example provided by me, are good article and full of box office number. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Punctuation

Can someone please correct the punctuation and spacing errors in the first paragraph? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Fictional" self contradiction

• Do we understand how ridiculously biased the article is now and just to push single POV?
  • It looks so absurd and contradictory that there is a dedicated section for Historical accuracy.
  • There is only one source is given for "Fictional" whereas other sources say based on the true events.
  • Several RS cited in Article talks about real events and persons which is liberally quoted in Article. Bizarreness is hitting sky

Dsnb07 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer sir please save article from such vandalization . Dsnb07 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Historical accuracy section: see MOS:FILM#Historical and scientific accuracies — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest change it to Historical Drama not "Fictional" Drama. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fictional is not even genre what value it is adding there. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The same MOS:FILM states that a film that is based on historical events and has elicited contrary views may warrant a neutrally titled "Historical accuracy" section with sources that survey the filmmakers' intent or historians' differing assessments (positive or negative) of the film's historical accuracy. (emphasis mine). Currently, opinions of film reviewers have been taken as RS for historical accuracy. This includes the repeatedly cited The Print review, which was discussed to be removed even from the Critical Reception section. Not to mention MOS:FILM on historical accuracy also cautions against combining sources to imply conclusion about film. The current writeup is riddled with sources that don't make direct remarks about the film's accuracy and are in fact from years before its release. Wikihc (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, the lead states: the film claims to be based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits (Emphasis mine). Again, there is no valid reason to add the word "claims" about the what the film is based on. Being based on something does not mean it is a documentary. The same is true of countless other films. When all RS point to what it is based on, such wording appears suspect. When User:77Survivor fixed this, it was again pushed back [5]. Wikihc (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I notice that there are a few editors who are making edits which amount to denying the Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus. This article urgently needs neutral Wikipedia editors who ensure that those vandalising this article are denied the opportunity to push a biased point of view. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The fictional elements of the movie are already implied by the word "drama" which includes fictional or semi-fictional narratives. See Drama (film and television). I have removed the 'historical fiction' too because the cited, quite a strong source calls it a "Drama film".Akshaypatill (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As discussed above fine grained and appropriate Film Genre is Historical Drama Dsnb07 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir

Some of you must try to make the, "Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir" article also more neutral (I don't think it is now).-Y2edit? (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is essence on Wikipedia. Sometime some articles such as this one become is causality, already raised several NPOV issues and many of them remained unaddressed. Dsnb07 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Box office

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

---

I don't understand this? Literally any film article on Wikipedia that is developed to a standard has information that goes well into detail about financials, whether it be as recent as The Batman or something as old as Gadar: Ek Prem Katha. 2001:8F8:172B:3784:700F:17C2:1D83:EE4A (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Mb, I just saw the discussion above. But there's certainly more to keep in that section than trivia that ought to be removed. 2001:8F8:172B:3784:700F:17C2:1D83:EE4A (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Abdulah and BJP role in 1990 - One side POV which contradiction with hard facts

Let me get two lines from the article -

• Blame is also attached to Farooq Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990
  • "Blame is also attached". Acting State CM is responsible for law and order. So why "attached"? why not just be blamed?
  • more detail here 1 2
• the Bharatiya Janata Party that supported his government, are absolved of responsibility.
  • Half-truth - What is not said here is outside supported and there was no BJP minister in the central V P Singh ministry
  • How a party is responsible if they are giving outside support without being part of the government? By taking back support(?) and making a governmentless nation in a situation when the government is needed to handle a crisis.
  • Vishwanath Pratap Singh formed the government on 2 Dec 1989 at the peak of Kashmir insurgency, who was Prime ministers of India before him.

PS: I believe that all editors are in good faith and it is a mistake that needs to be corrected.

Dsnb07 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to carefully read our policies on no original research; we're summarizing what the best sources say about the movie's historical accuracy and point of view, not analyzing its content ourselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I know no original research and that's why I have not edited and just called out Wikipedia:UNDUE of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Dsnb07 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and it's not best sources for sure which was discuss on talk page(IIR). Dsnb07 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde

• what cited sources says - genocide took place, whose survival depended on the outside support of the Bharatiya Janta Party and the Left parties.
• What article says - the Bharatiya Janata Party that supported his government, are absolved of responsibility.

You see lack of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view even here. How article refrain mentioning Left parties which is mentioned in source? But Bharatiya Janta Party mentioned several tine in article.

07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Dsnb07 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Now source is changed let me put old cited source and log Dsnb07 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why there are two sections on this issue. BJP's role in the Centre's handling is well-known. Manoj Joshi:

The strongest pressure for the removal of Farooq came from the BJP, and in view of perceptions of Jagmohan's closeness to the majority community, V.P. Singh may have taken the decision as a sop to the party. If so, it was another bad decision.

India Today wrote:

But Sohan Lal was just one among over 10,000 Hindu families which have left the valley - and whose insecurities organisations like the RSS and VHP are trying to exploit.... If there were any doubts that RSS cadres had taken over the demonstration, they were put to rest when a placard that read "Down with Indian secularism" was raised. Sohan Lal had never heard such a communal outburst.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir add Left Parties which was also supporting Gov. ( as per the cited source ) Dsnb07 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have information that the Left parties had responsibility in the Pandit exodus? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This whole lack of consensus is because of not using the RS as per MOS:FILM on historical accuracy, but based on opinions of film reviewers; which as Dsnb07 shows are also not properly used in writing the section. Wikihc (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It is your contention that WP:FILMHIST is violated. How? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Already pointed out earlier to Kautilya3 and others in previous edits that MOS:FILM requires historians' assessment of the film as RS. See under secondary section, subsection controversies. On what basis do you find film reviewers opinions as RS for historical accuracy? Wikihc (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMHIST states,

If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology).

For films based on history or science, analysis should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science.

It is your claim that (1) there has not been ample coverage about the accuracy issues or (2) article published by Scroll.in, The Hindu etc. do not qualify as secondary sources or (3) both?

I wish to emphasize that our section also doubles up as the container about "political messaging". TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FILM states,

film that is based on historical events and has elicited contrary views may warrant a neutrally titled "Historical accuracy" section with sources that survey the filmmakers' intent or historians' differing assessments (positive or negative) of the film's historical accuracy.

The cited articles incl. the most cited The Print article (which was earlier agreed as not useful even for Critical Reception), as well as The Hindu, New Indian Express, Newslaundary, Indian Express, Film Companion etc. are under Film Reviews/ Opinions. Why do you think film reviewers opinions are secondary RS for history to be used in making declarative statements in the article? Wikihc (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Political messaging with citations from the same film reviews is already covered under Critical Reception and Government Support sections. Having one more section covering it is WP:UNDUE. Wikihc (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikihc, your interpretation is quite off the mark here. Commentary in secondary sources about the film's historical accuracy is just as reasonable to include as commentary on any other aspect of the film. If historians discuss historical accuracy, we would of course give them more weight; but there's no policy or guideline stating that a film review that otherwise meets the criteria for a source may not be cited for its comments on historical accuracy. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, it is not my interpretation but that of WP:RS. Such reviews are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Which is why we correctly attribute them in the Critical Reception section. They don't become secondary RS for historicity in another section. Historical analysis requires higher standards of scholarly secondary RS. Wikihc (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Here sir, you only cited this in article. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/the-kashmir-files-movie-review-a-disturbing-take-which-grips-and-gripes-in-turns/article65223787.ece Dsnb07 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

BJP's Role in 1990

The Political messaging and Historical accuracy section states

"the serving Prime Minister in 1990, and the Bharatiya Janata Party that supported his government, are absolved of responsibility." I wonder why is this relevant to be mentioned here. The Party had no role in the incident. The cited sources "1"."2". don't make any mention of BJP. This must be removed. >>> Extorc.talk(); 05:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I am following WP:BOLD to remove it now. >>> Extorc.talk(); 07:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I object to the removal since it's quite relevant. How about a reword like I'd done before? (it got reverted in what was called cross-fire, and this part wasn't specifically objected to. I'll ping the parties later if required)

Blame is also attached to Farooq Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir till 1990 and the former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. It fails to note that the exodus occurred when the state was under Governor's rule, the governor having been appointed by the V. P. Singh-led Government of India, which had the support of Bharatiya Janata Party.

References

Hemantha (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if my specific text isn't up to standards, note that Asim Ali specifically refers to BJP support. Hemantha (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support to government not to exodus/genocide. In that case add Left party as well. Details +1 here Dsnb07 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said support ... to exodus. Your entirely useless posts in this talk page are becoming a big distraction. Hemantha (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No Sir, it is not. I am raising valid issues. Point me to a posts which is useless. Dsnb07 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No Sir, it is not useless.. correction Dsnb07 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I support removal is undue here. Dsnb07 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I support removal. 'it' is undue here Dsnb07 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Dsnb07, other issues aside, your repetitive posts here are becoming quite tiresome; they make it hard for others to edit. Please make your points concisely, and in a single edit when possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

anuj sharna's review talks about Bitta Karate's Conviction...this is not true... He was released on bail without conviction and the judge remarked that police did a shoddy job 2402:8100:2454:323D:1:2:CB12:2941 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, this appears to be correct.

After spending 16 years in jail, Karate was released on bail without conviction. Judge N.D. Wani, while releasing him, remarked that the “allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and carry a punishment of death sentence or life imprisonment but the fact is that the prosecution has shown total disinterest in arguing the case.”

Karate is a free man today while his victims have given up on justice.
— Pandita, Rahul (2016-04-21). "A cry for Pandits from down south". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

TrangaBellam (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was correct (in 2016). Is there an edit being proposed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 It is correct and the particular case has not progressed. Karate has been recently incarcerated (prob. under UAPA) against separate charges of terror-financing but going by recent media-profiles, he is yet to be convicted under those grounds either.

I have already changed the line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir file reference

Independent Reviews of Pundits written books, audio links should be published in reference. This will help to understand what was the severity of the 1990 Genocide 37.186.48.79 (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Consult our policy on reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Source Vs Edit

• What article says : The central character Krishna Pandit is shown as turning against the present-day prime minister Narendra Modi due to the influence of terrorists
• What cited source says : it portrays that it is the terrorists who try to provoke Krishna to go against Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well.
• Source cited on Article : The Print

There is a big difference in meaning of between what source says and what article says. Dsnb07 (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. in this edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary

Noticed some back and forth changes being made to this section. Instead of communicating solely through edit-summaries, after the first bold-revert cycle, could the editors discuss the issues here instead? Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Pri2000, Kautilya3, and Ab207:. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding with some problematic WP:OR, the word count is increased to 754 following Pri2000's additions. Unnecessary details should be removed to bring down the size and comply with 700 word limit per WP:FILMPLOT. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Pri2000, please note Ab207's comment. You had also added a value-laden label "Kashmiri terrorism", which cannot be used with WP:RS and attributions. The character names have been written as "Shiva", "Brahma" etc. in numerous published sources. Your expansion of the Cast section is also unwieldy (and includes contentious terms like "truth" and "terrorism" again). Please read MOS:FILM before making any further attempts to edit this section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Abecedare hey I've removed ANU from the plot section. But rest I changed after watching the movie today itself. Please let me know if any other changes are needed. Pri2000 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare ok. But please don't remove slogans which were used. It was Mustafa Batte Safa and Azaadi Azaadi was also used in whole movie. Whether in flashbacks of genocide or in present. Pri2000 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare and one more thing to be noted that Brahma was called Brahma by Pushkar and friends only. Others called him Brahm Dutt. Similarly Shiva's name was mentioned Shiv Pandit and Shiva was just his nickname when his childhood friend turned terrorist Bitta's son Abdul gave his interview to Krishna Pri2000 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Politics Section

Article says - "The film's exclusive focus on violence of Muslims on Hindus has been seen by some as promoting Islamophobia. Kashmiri Muslims were also killed during the insurgency, and in greater numbers, often at the hands of Indian security apparatus. The film has also faced charges of historical revisionism and unnuanced storytelling, in what some have deemed a ploy to foster prejudice against Muslims."

• Prejudice against Muslims -> Wikilinked to Islamophobia
• promoting Islamophobia and "in what some have deemed a ploy to foster prejudice against Muslims." - WP:UNDUE Article already made a point in previous line why repeating it and pushing a particular POV. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Anger issues

X-Editor changed in this edit, "anger of Pandits" into "anger towards Pandits". I have no idea what he is up to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed the line to say "of" instead of "towards". X-Editor (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Related to the same edit, "reviewing for" is more accurate than "of". For eg, Tuteja has written for Koimoi and Bollywood Hungama, just in the past week. I've changed it for reviewers who I know have writings in other publications. Hemantha (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

However, The movie is based on the real-life stories told by the refugee Kashmiri Pandits to Vivek Agnihotri and his wife. The director, along with his wife, claims to have interviewed over 700 victims of the exodus over the course of two years before taking the project forward.  https://m.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/amp/the-kashmir-files-1647244890-1 117.234.238.107 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 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. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 04:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2022 (2)

• Current : The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language Drama film.
• Proposal : The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language Historical Drama film.
• Justification : A Wikipedia:consensus has been reached in a discussion above -> Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama
• Where : First line of the article. DavidGoliathWiki (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Please Edit this Page

So someone came here and edit the page then protected this page.... I am requesting wiki editors to fix the page as soon as possible... And last thing for the editor who change this page... Dude wiki is a neutral platform don't play your dirty tricks... We demand a neutral page of the Kashmir file.. where everything will be neutral. From the box office to reviews. (Edit)Oh so sorry I am scared... Really 🤣 And I don't said any bad words or any political propaganda. I just said to make this page neutral.. not on your ideology favour or on my ideology favour(I saw your edits so I know your ideology).. so I don't brake any rules... 42.110.130.113 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

first of all talk to everyone in a civil way otherwise you will banned for lifetime DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"stupid ", "5-6 year old kid", "don't play your dirty tricks", Clear violation of WP:TALKNO >>> Extorc.talk(); 06:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)