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)

We purely report what is manifested in reliable sources, fast checking them is inimical to statute, India Today is contemplated as reliable in Wikipediaभास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Hindustan Times is also reliable. But its review was also removed by @TrangaBellam. The HT reviewer Monica Kukreja has a profile on Rotten Tomatoes. Thoughts? Vizziee (talk) 23:06, 20 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)

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 here since this seems to be the relevant section for Historical Accuracy related issues.

• WP:FILMHIST asks for secondary RS directly comparing the film with history and warns against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH.
• MOS:FILM#Controversies advises a neutrally titled section discussing both the filmmaker's intent and historians' positive and negative assessments of the film based on secondary RS.
• Are film reviewers opinions considered secondary RS?

• Per WP:RS: WP:NEWSORG, such reviews/opinions are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
• Per WP:NOR on book reviews (would also apply to film reviews), book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book.
• Elsewhere too, film reviews are considered Primary Sources . Note that MOS:FILM#Critical_reception similarly refers to secondary sources only when comparing how film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.

• What is the current situation of the article?

• The Historical Accuracy section is based on film reviews which are not secondary RS for accuracy of the film, let alone being scholarly. These are used to make declarative statements about historicity of events depicted in the film.
• Most citations are of The Print film review (written by a trainee journalist) which was discussed earlier to not be usable even in Critical Reception. Others such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, Newslaundary, Indian Express, Film Companion, The Wire etc. are also film reviews/ opinions. The reliability of siasat.com was also questioned. Using such film reviews for factual accuracy was challenged (see archived talk pages) and reverted earlier, but re-included without discussion to build consensus.
• Additionally, references that are from years before the film's release and do not analyze it are cited to make points on historical accuracy, which violate WP:SYNTH.
• Issues of political messaging are covered in the Critical Reception, Government Support, as well as Political Messaging and Historical Accuracy sections. This repeated coverage (often from the same sources) is WP:UNDUE.

Wikihc (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid you are citing a whole bunch of Policy and Guideline pages without much understanding of what they are saying. Note also that all MOS pages are guidelines. They are meant to ensure some kind of uniformity of presentation across Wikipedia (the issue of "how" information is presented). They do not dictate the content ("what" is presented), over and above what the policy pages say.

The section you are talking about was originally added by me under the title Political and historical messaging, which was descriptive, i.e., describes what the film says. ThePrint source (authored by Amogh Rohmetra) was the first one to describe these aspects. The next day The Hindu review appeared and later some others. So, by now some elements of "historical accuracy" have appeared in the section, but I don't believe they have been covered comprehensively. If and when sources appear analysing historical accuracy, they will be added.

As to whether WP:NEWSORG are reliable for this kind of analysis, we have to go by issue and issue. This is not some deep history, but only covering events of some 30-years ago, and many of the present day senior journalists had covered them then and since then. These issues have been continuously under discussion in the public sphere since then, most recently when Rahul Pandita's book was published. So responsible journalists know what the facts are and analyse the film in that context. If there are issues that are contentious, you can flag them and we can find out what the scholarly sources say. When sources are given, don't say, "but they don't talk about the film!" That is not what the policies say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

Of course, you can't find "third party independent media analysis" when you have rejected them with your personal classification of sources in the same comment. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no third party media analysis, I mean analysis not reporting of International media. Although International media BBC and Alzazeera published article, they only reported not done any analysis. Only Print have done analysis, which may count. According to me, BBC have done mediocre reporting. Alzazeera have published one sided article. You can find about Alzazeera's biased reporting and anti-India narrative in Wikipedia article. Thanks (Dev0745 (talk) 16:06, 20 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)

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)

Kautilya3 Already provided RS link. I agree with Wikihc - "Please stop engaging in WP:OR analysis of your own. The source said it, and I find it WP:DUE." Dsnb07 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The text has since been altered by other editors. I sugges you read that, and if you are still not happy with it, do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 20 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)

+1 Dsnb07 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I was fairly clear? The sole information about the fatwas' existence comes from the producers; claims like this would at least need secondary reporting, so it falls under undue weight. This is particularly when one of their other claims (Rhode Island) was fact checked recently, so the veracity of their claims appear questionable. Also "fatwas" have no legal status in modern India regardless of whatever Islamic law may say. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No you weren't fairly clear then and not even now.

Seriously, the logic of sole information came from producer falls flat on its face,

1. Editors need to do research to say claim is right or wrong which is against No original research.
   1. If yes, it should not apply to everyone. The Litigation section should be removed in its entirety because
      1. Sole litigant filed PIL against movie in Bombay HC
      2. Sole IAF widow filled writ.
2. There are multiple Reliable Sources around fatwa outlook, India today, The Free press and TOI

May Allah/god save wikipedia's neutrality of point of view. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

How did you end up with 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 to remove the litigations? Why would they be products of original research and/or undue weight? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 00:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, just noticed you're now topic banned and will not be able to reply until it's in effect, were if this Fatwa issue remains unresolved. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 00:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is still many undue weight in the article ( and raise in talk page) and this was certainly not one. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read the sources, you would find that they are attributing the claim to the producers, in other words, the sole information about the fatwas comes from them. I would also suggest you read through the policies and try understanding them, assessing sources and whether to include something or not is part of general editorial process and not a violation WP:NOR. Lastly, the litigations aren't even remotely comparable, the fact they exist isn't a claim but something that has been litigated upon and their details reported on. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:08, 20 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)

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)

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)

Respected sir, here the editor is sourcing interview of produced and quoting him. and I don't know from where you bought reviewer in an interview to say .... "MOS:REVIEW advices in favor of quoting reviewers" Dsnb07 (talk) 20:50, 20 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)

The links provided by भास्कर् Bhagawati are secondary RS for the threats at and Y security provided to Agnihotri. Several other RS also cover it. If the director of the movie gets threats due to the movie, it is due for inclusion in the article about the said movie.

However, I see that this information has been included in the Government Support section. That is unreasonable. Government provided security is not a support of the movie. This information is better suited in the Theatrical release section. As the security has been provided due to the threats after release of the movie. Wikihc (talk) 19:18, 20 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)

• Oppose I have changed my mind from neutral over the fact that using a broader term will be helpful to avoid any conflict in future. Drama film suits per MOS:BEGIN. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 06:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree to the change. (for avoidance of doubt)

Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:01, 20 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){{od

How about this:

The Kashmir Files opened to box office with an earnings of ₹3.55 crore, ₹8.50 crore and ₹15.10 crore in India respectively on its first three days, taking its opening weekend collection to ₹27.15 crore. After the response from the first two days, the screens were increased to 2,000 on 13 March 2021. With a collections growth of 323% on its first Monday compared to the release day, the film broke the record for the highest increase in collections for an Indian film on its first Monday. At the end of the first week, the film earned ₹97.30 crore at the domestic box office. After the response from the first week, the screens were increased to 4,000 on 18 March 2021.

The film emerged as a box-office hit within its first two days of release. As of <date>, the film grossed ₹xyz crore in India and ₹xyz crore overseas, for a worldwide gross collection of ₹xyz crore.

The first Monday is described as "Khooni Monday test", I'm assuming it's something important in the filmi-world. All references shall be carried from this version. Do we also state the opening weekend collections from overseas? I was not able to use another wording instead of "domestic" as suggested by WP:FILMBOXOFFICE. Suggestions/improvements? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

2 cents

• use India instead domestic
• we include overseas collection - either same global ( in case of cumulative) or name region such as Americas, Europe (if data is available)
• why domestic and overseas is confusing for non-resident wikipedia reader.

Dsnb07 (talk) 20:12, 20 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)

It will be greatly appreciated if the discussion about the genre is continued in the section above, "Drama Film to Historical Drama" — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Dsnb07, it appears unclear whom the above comment is directed to, due to formatting. Wikihc (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Whosoever concerned, Please add Left parties or remove BJP As per source. We should take source in entirety (and not selectively) or change source to suit certain kind of narrative. This makes content questionable and against NPOV. Please change. Dsnb07 (talk) 19:52, 20 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)

The source clearly mentions the support of the BJP and the left parties. Why are the editors keeping only BJP and omitting the Left? Aint it a biased behavior and presentation of half-truths? Varun80 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Case 1: Do you have information that the Left parties had responsibility in the Pandit exodus? -- @Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if someone has information that BJP had a role in the exodus.

Case 2: 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)

If only this editor had seen what the other biased editor said had said above (or acting selectively blind)

Maintain a consistent stance here.

Varun80 (talk) 09:30, 21 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)

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 without 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)

Respected editors, No one want to talk on this? Dsnb07 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that only "some" are pushing this idea of Islamophobia in the film. These two lines also don't make the exact same points. One makes a point about violence while the other makes a point about historical revisionism. X-Editor (talk) 01:22, 21 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 (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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is still under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir, already there is consensus no one is opposing Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama. Dsnb07 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

In The last line of second paragraph it is written that - The film was endorsed, promoted and provided with tax-free status in multiple states by the BJP. Here by the BJP should be changed to something appropriate like States governed by the BJP 2409:4055:4E1D:9997:E14F:4625:B01:6316 (talk)Rgp

It shouldn't be, there is a semantic distinction between the two. Changing it to "states governed by the BJP" would mean that the promotion and endorsement has come solely from the state governments whereas it has come from not only the state governments but from the central government as well as the BJP as an organisation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I agree I have tried to point out that 'States by BJP' is incorrect And should be corrected to something appropriate. Ra gup (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

An alternative is to expand it to state something like "by the state governments, the central government and the party organisation of the BJP" but that seems excessive for the lead, at that point. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it seems a little excessive but the line is "The film has been endorsed, promoted and provided with tax-free status in multiple states by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party." Is it grammatically correct and makes sense for the states to be by any organisation/even government. Shouldn't there be something between "multiple states" and "by the" to have proper meaning? Ra gup (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for success

In the article, government support has been described as the only reason for success of the film. Meanwhile, other RS have provided multiple reasons for the same including: subject of the film, word of mouth, Kher's performance, Kapil Sharma controversy. This is also reported by the film companion , currently used in the Critical Reception section. However, it triggers a protection filter on wiki.

The reasons for film's success must be properly expanded. Wikihc (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA and HT-Entertainment are not reliable. FC as well as ET are good enough for adding a line on "word-of-mouth". TrangaBellam (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA has some 8815 uses as a source on wikipedia . And HT is considered reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. I would be surprised if an article on bollywood is not on their entertainment->bollywood category. Wikihc (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

+ HT is considered reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Usage on Wikipedia is not evident of anything. Consult recent RSN threads about DNA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the link? Wikihc (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

dnaindia does not result in any search results in RSN archives. Also DNA is consider reliable per WP:ICTF.Wikihc (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:PHALKE in WP:ICTF itself refers to HT->Entertainment->Bollywood article as source. HT film review should accordingly also be included in the Critical Reception. Wikihc (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Mention of New Zealand's review classification under Theatrical Release and other supposed bands in UAE, Qatar, and Singapore

NZ's classification review was removed. But this has been reported in many media outlets today: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/the-kashmir-files-on-new-zealand-censor-review-of-bollywood-film-ex-deputy-pm-says-this-2832350 Also, any other source of Agnihotri's claim (in an interview with Lallantop) that the movie has been banned from release in UAE, Qatar, and Singapore? This should be mentioned under release or the lead paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizziee (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Quoting WP:NOTNEWS (which I'd linked to in my edit summary) Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Perhaps if the NZ review actually reclassifies it, it could be added but the mere news of a review is not something that's of enduring notability. On the director's claims, please see sections above on Rhode Island citation, where his claims have been shown to be completely unreliable. Please add back if you have any reliable source (one which isn't just reporting or quoting his statements). Hemantha (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Change drama film to film based on testimonial of first generation victims Change exodus to genocide Change faced accusations to faced accusations from Muslim leaders Wwwsidd (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

A Wwwsidd (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022 (2)

{{subst:trim|1=

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film,[2] written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film is based on the –Genocide-- of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency,[6] which it portrays as a genocide.[12] It stars Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, Pallavi Joshi and Mithun Chakraborty.[13] The film was theatrically released on 11 March 2022.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohangosavi01 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias in Government supportsection

references to an IT cell seem to have no basis in the article used as a source. The article mentions "WhatsApp forwards" and governmental support through removal of some taxes but no reference to an IT cell or propaganda as the author has stated on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondsinthesky1935 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)