Jump to content

Talk:The Kashmir Files

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ra gup (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 4 April 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Political messaging and historical accuracy

Multiple issues -

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

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


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 [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Following wiki core content policies is rarely optional. And WP:NOR is one of them. It explicitly states not to use such reviews as secondary sources of facts about the topic. This doesn't change based on the oldness of the topic, or who the author is. You have also not provided any reason for using these film reviews as secondary sourced statements of facts in one section, while they are correctly used as primary sources attributed to the authors in another. You need to gain consensus over deviation from a policy or guideline, before you include it in the article.
WP:SYNTH is also a wiki policy that dictates what we can(not) include. Following what the policy says, we cannot include statements on the historical accuracy of the film based on combination of what a scholarly source say about the topic, and another source reviewing the film.
What you call descriptive (motivation appears different [1], [2]), was challenged as WP:POV and reverted. There is no reason to re-include it without discussing and building consensus first. If and only when scholarly secondary RS appear that analyze the historical accuracy of the film, we can add them. See the policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Wikihc (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using the film-reviews for drafting our article on the Exodus. Why are you citing NOR? If you disagree, take the RfC way out. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand how WP:NOR prohibits from using primary sources as secondary sources or combining multiple sources to make a point, please read the policy page. The onus is on the wiki-editor to discuss and build consensus before re-including instead of POV-pushing. Until then sandboxing is an option. Wikihc (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of dismissing policy concerns as opinions, perhaps you could explain why you think film reviewers opinions count as secondary reliable sources on the historical accuracy of the film; or how mixing film reviews with sources that don't talk about the film is not SYNTH. Wikihc (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that film reviews may be used for everything besides historical accuracy is nonsensical. Stating the opinions of reviews in Wikipedia's voice can be problematic, but I don't see where we're doing that; all we're doing is summarizing what sources have said about the narrative in the film. WP:SYNTH is explicitly about conclusions or statements not supported in either source. It isn't forbidden to use a source that isn't about this film to, for instance, say what Article 370 is, or to explain that Kashmir is a disputed region. The audience that the film reviews are written for is different than the audience that Wikipedia writes for. WP:SYNTH is about editors not conducting original research, not about making the article incomprehensibly devoid of context. As such the generic complaints above have no merit. If anyone wants to raise a concern with a specific aspect of the text, and why the cited sources do not support it, they should feel free to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that film reviews and opinions are secondary RS is nonsensical. Film reviews can be used for everything but only with attribution to the authors as they are primary sources of authors' opinions. WP:FILMHIST also states the same about incorporating others' reactions to film's approach on history in the Critical Reception Section. However, it states a separate "Historical Accuracy" should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history. The current Historical Accuracy section states these individual opinions about film's accuracy as facts. Citing multiple primary sources to make general claims of what the film's narrative is, is prohibited. Similarly, combining these primary sources of opinions with secondary sources not about the film is OR. Wikihc (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe Ipshita C.'s article at Scroll.in, cited in our page, to be a prim. source? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of Scroll.in has been questionable, including for failure to differentiate between op-eds and others. Consult RSN threads.
Do you believe the reviews from The Print, The Hindu, New Indian Express, Newslaundary, Indian Express, Film Companion, The Wire are secondary RS?
Wikihc (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take it to RSN and dispute. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you answer the direct question on the sources used, instead of repeatedly disregarding requests to discuss? It appears you refuse to participate. Wikihc (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Combining sources isn't prohibited; I haven't the faintest idea where you got that from. Summarizing material from different sources is the right thing to do when there's many sources available. Summary isn't forbidden synthesis. I'm not engaging in further pointless discussion here; if specific concerns are brought forward, I will discuss them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Combining secondary RS to write about what is directly stated by them isn't prohibited. But combining primary sources to make a declarative claim about the film's accuracy is. Primary sources must be used with attribution and not summarized through weasel words, or as statements of fact. Combining secondary sources not about the film with primary sources has similar problems. Wikihc (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://guides.library.ucla.edu/c.php?g=180311&p=4418400

INR to USD conversions

There is a consensus at WP:ICTF to not use {{INRConvert}} [or any equivalent, or a substitution, per se] in infoboxes (added in Special:Diff/1078889606). See last para at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Films. Do we want to override it here? (cc @TabahiKaBhagwan) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Shias in See Also

@Dr. Hamza Ebrahim has added Persecution of Kashmiri Shias to the See also section. The page talks about all historic events of persecution of Kashmiri Shias which is completely out of context about what this page is about. He also reverted my revert. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally off topic, This link should not be added here. signed, 511KeV (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Remove the part in Hate Speech where it says activist are calling for violence against Muslims where no where specifically do you state that. The only quote you put is "[s]hoot the traitors to the nation" which is ambiguous statement and can mean anyone. You are implying that only Muslims are traitors to the nation. 2601:81:4080:9C10:0:0:0:8A48 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Extorc, maybe you can help with this request. How do we get consensus?-Y2edit? (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

This article is an attack piece. I observed that other articles on movies mention the story of the movie. Where is the story here? Please also put all the criticism in one section.-116.72.145.139 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The plot is covered. There is just more to deal with in terms of real-world issues around the movie than in most movies. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The story is situated at the Plot section. >>> Extorc.talk(); 19:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, shouldn't all the criticism be put under one section with a title, "Criticism"?-Y2edit? (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

The movie is based on true incidents. The writer and directory interviewed hundreds and put those incidents only in the movie. Do not call it fiction. 76.192.156.128 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We have reliable sources stating that the accounts in the movie are fictionalized. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find a website or book (and type a link to it here) which says that and we will add it if it meets the criteria at reliable sources (please click that link and read).-Y2edit? (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many people, including JitendraKuhar above have requested us to add this but please understand - the rules here say that every sentence on Wikipedia needs to be cited with a reference/source which meets the criteria at reliable sources.-Y2edit? (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life incidents

Akshaypatill, Fowler&fowler, UnpetitproleX, Kautilya3, Kpddg, Jhy.rjwk, Uanfala, Johnbod, Mathsci, Kautilya3, JitendraKuhar, Yellowjacket903, RegentsPark, DaxServer, Dwaipayanc, Venkat TL, Sitush, TrangaBellam, Many people are coming and asking us to add that this, "drama" was based on real life incidents. Can we therefore change the leading sentence to,

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents.

This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and possibly many more can be used as sources. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the high-quality reviews have been cited in the article. Please read them and find out what they say. I am not interested in reading "this, this and this" kind of sourcesr. If they are worthy, please provide WP:Full citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I have added the full citations, can we now change the leading sentence to,

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

-Y2edit? (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kpddg, please reply to the above as well as this.-Y2edit? (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You feel these to be reliable sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, You are an experienced editor. You must tell me. I have been warned of soapboxing on my talk page already and would like to avoid any sanction/s. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the lead to be NPOV, we should mention more neutral language: storyline, claimed to be based on real-life incidents by the film-producer, as has been mentioned in many WP:RS sources. Single source should not be used to mentioning only fictional, without broader references. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your name at the end of every one of your talk page emanations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can either avoid both fictional and real-life mention in the lead paragraph; or we would have to mention both claims to be Neutral and WP: NPOV, as Reliable sources are available for both claims and mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhy.rjwk (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kautilya3, the first sentence should be changed to "The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents." Stonebreaker18 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Source: Tribune India

Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s The Kashmir Files is a ‘brutally’ honest take

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/reviews/story/vivek-ranjan-agnihotris-the-kashmir-files-is-a-brutally-honest-take-377416

Reliable Source: India Today

With the release of "The Kashmir Files", the character Farooq Ahmed Dar is making headlines. It is said that Chinamy Mandlekar’s character in the film is loosely inspired by real-life “Butcher of Pandits” Bitta Karate.

https://www.indiatoday.in/newsmo/video/the-kashmir-files-meet-real-life-butcher-of-kashmiri-pandits-farooq-ahmed-dar-aka-bitta-karate-1929619-2022-03-25 Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, Jhy.rjwk, has provided reliable sources. Now please use them to make the article more balanced. I believe that some editors are pushing their POV and we will need your help to make this article more neutral.-Y2edit? (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each source can be used for a different sentence, in a different paragraph, instead of putting it just in one place.-Y2edit? (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, please change the protection level of this article from Extended confirmed protected to semi-protected, so that more people can edit it (asking for 500 edits to become eligible to edit this article is too much). Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A notice has been posted on the talk page of the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article that the exodus will not be changed to genocide and you can post a similar message here (to deter disruptive editing).-Y2edit? (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2edit?: I think the protection is fine, we don't want to see aggressive editing on this contentious article. Note that you can always propose changes on this talk page and, if there is consensus, effect changes to the article indirectly. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jhy.rjwk, please change the leading sentence to,

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri, based on real life incidents.

with reliable sources. I don't have 500 edits under my belt yet to change it.-Y2edit? (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y2edit?, Almost all the sources you have provided are websites or blogs, which are not considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. The only honest-to-goodness RS is Hindustan Times (citation 11), but it says nothing about what you claim. India TV says, a "netizen" claims that it is a true story. The jagranjosh.com article (which may or may not be in the published newspaper) is tagged as "general knowledge". It says "The movie is based on the real-life stories told by the refugee Kashmiri Pandits to Vivek Agnihotri and his wife". The "stories" told by Kashmiri Pandit refugees do not automatically become "real-life". There is considerable debate about the real or unreal nature of their stories, which have been discussed at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, based on scholarly sources.

Note also that the real life basis is discussed extensively in the Political messaging and historical accuracy section. Even though some aspects of the film's narrative are based on real-life incidents, there is still considerable fictionalisation and distortion. It is not possible to say that the film is "based real life incidents". If that is the kind of judgement the film hoped for, I am afraid it considerably falls short. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trending news: Why The Kashmir Files shocked the audience, the 10 characters whose true story is shown". Hindustan News Hub. 2022-03-21. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  2. ^ Jain, Vaishali (2022-03-14). "'Scenes in The Kashmir Files are real!' Claims netizen sharing 'proof' with newspaper reports, videos". Trending News – India TV. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  3. ^ Javaid, Arfa (2022-03-14). "Is 'The Kashmir Files' based on a true story?". Jagranjosh.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  4. ^ Pandey, Vaishali (2022-03-17). "4 Horrific Real-Life Incidents Shown In The Movie 'The Kashmir Files'". Postoast. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  5. ^ Sen, Neil W. (2022-03-15). "Horrific Documented Real Incidents That Have Been Showcased In The Kashmir Files". www.mensxp.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  6. ^ Goshwami, Sarmistha (2022-03-31). "Is Kashmir Files real story or fake? Know the truth about it". DMER Haryana: Recruitment, News, Admit card, result. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  7. ^ Shrivastava, Aditi (2022-03-15). "Know the real characters of 'The Kashmir files'; The true story behind, check the excerpt of timeline". jagrantv. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  8. ^ "4 Horrific Real-Life Incidents Shown In The Movie 'The Kashmir Files'". '. 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  9. ^ "The Kashmir Files Decoded: Here Is The List of Real Life Characters From The Movie". MetroSaga. 2022-03-16. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  10. ^ Kumar, Vineeta (2022-03-25). "How The Kashmir Files Became The Biggest Hindi Film Post-Pandemic - Politics or Not!". India.com. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  11. ^ "The Kashmir Files' box office success decoded: How news, social media, word of mouth scripted an unlikely success story". Hindustan Times. 2022-03-26. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

Criticism section

Shouldn't all the criticism be put under one section with a title, "Criticism"?-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CRITICISM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which says separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Wikihc (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calls to kill Muslims

The last sentence of the lead says,

Supporters have praised the film for showing what they say is an often-overlooked part of Kashmir's human rights history,[6] while theatres across India have witnessed hate speech including calls for killing Muslims, incited by activists of the ruling party and related Hindutva organisations.[27][28]

but the sources don't say, "calls for killing Muslims".-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. None of the sources say 'killing Muslims'! Also, these two sources are not exactly neutral. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a section in the first source titled Calls to ‘shoot the traitors’ and kill Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find some other reliable source saying this? These sources are definitely not neutral. And it says that a group of people were raising these, not a large number of people. Kpddg (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That section titled Hate Speeches is merely a collection of news about people who watched the film. Does not belong in an encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikihc (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please open a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. But why don't you directly discuss the section here first? Wikihc (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to debate bad-faith proposals. Please make your case before the broader community. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing that questioning on Hate Speech section is bad faith? Wikihc (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can open the RfC and be done with this. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your repeated suggestions for RfC since some 8 hours after the topic was opened for discussion here. Wikihc (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIME review

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good review. Brings out the subtleties that the others have missed. We should use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But accuracy is not the film’s priority, nor is it interested in justice and closure for the Pandit community. Instead, the purpose of The Kashmir Files is to inflame hatred against Muslims; against secular parties that Modi’s followers brand anti-Hindu; liberal intellectuals and activists, whose faith in India’s inclusive democracy runs contrary to the supremacist tenets of Hindu nationalism; and against the liberal media that the Hindu right disparages as sold-out “presstitutes.”

That is brilliant! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You forget that this, "drama" is based on real life incidents. India has not, "descended Into Darkness" yet.-Y2edit? (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is yet another opinion piece under Ideas section, with a disclaimer at the end. Wikihc (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how reliable is its author as a film critic anyway? Wikihc (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting to note: I have not said what you have written is untrue. But it is not the only truth.- Debasish Roy Chowdhury on the film's plot. [3]. Wikihc (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an opinion piece, it should not be used in this article at all.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of the Twitter feud?
We are not precluded from citing opinion-pieces etc. under any policy, and that the author has co-authored an OUP monograph (2021) on rapid erosion of democracy and its social bases in Modi's India with John Keane only adds to his reliability. In particular, consult WP:RSEDITORIAL:The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no erosion of democracy in India (not now at least) but there is in all the neighborhood! It is a false allegation.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, these points are irrelevant to this article.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is he a specialist and recognized expert on films? No. Also, not all opinions are notable or due for inclusion. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political opinions. Wikihc (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People who are not film-critics but scholars of sociology etc. can have their expertise on social aspects of of a film. Is DRC's opinion reliable for technical aspects of film-making - say, color-palettes etc.? No. Is his opinion reliable for analyzing the sociopolitical milieu of a film? Yes.
If you continue to push your idiosyncratic interpretations of policies and guidelines, you will be sanctioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to AGF. Ill-considered accusations of impropriety are uncivil, and will be reported. Wikihc (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and report me. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back on the topic at hand. Opinion pieces are primary sources. The author of the piece has shown political motivations for writing of the piece. Also, primary sources cannot be used to analyze per WP:PRIMARY. We need secondary sources for that. Wikihc (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing your personal re-interpretation of policies. Primary sources are "are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved", which it is not. The op-ed like most others is a secondary source and the author is a sociologist, i.e a subject matter expert. It has more than sufficient weight for inclusion, particularly when it is at present one of the few pieces authored by someone with expertise in the area. Also do note that claims of impropriety without any substantiation, such as "[he has] shown political motivations for writing of the piece" is a likely BLP violation. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing your personal re-interpretation of policies. While we can discuss the inclusion; per WP:RSEDITORIAL, such opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. Wikihc (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This just shows that you've failed to understand the sentence. They are primary sources for statements attributed to the author, not primary sources on the subject of those statements. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion of the author in an opinion piece are statements attributed to the author. They aren't considered reliable for statements of fact anyway. They are Primary source for their opinion (eg. for the text quoted above by Kautilya3). See WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. Wikihc (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds when authored by SMEs can be reliable for statements of fact. WP:NEWSORG clearly states, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."
In this case, it is authoritative and trying to wiki-lawyer around it with a generic example of opinion pieces (which usually aren't authored by specialists) doesn't really work. Till you can get better sources (which in this case would be peer-reviewed literature) or an equivalent source (such as another op-ed by a specialist) which contradicts it, it can be used without attribution. If anything much of the quoted material is consistent with many of the points brought up in the reviews of the film critics and the other specialist op-ed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You earlier made a generic claim that most op-eds are secondary sources. It appears you now think that it is limited to op-eds by subject matter experts. Meanwhile, Debasish Roy Chowdhury has been described as a journalist everywhere, not as a sociologist. We can consider if there is a secondary rs that describes the author as a subject matter expert on sociology. Anyhow, howsoever notable an author may be, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, opinion pieces of notable figures are still primary. Reliability is a separate issue. The author has questioned the accuracy of the film in the article, yet later called it as not untrue (see above); which doesn't lend credibility to using the piece as fact; irrespective of the author being reliable or not. Also given the politically opinionated nature of the writing, it is very much appropriate to directly attribute rather than trying to put opinion piece in wiki voice. Keep in mind, we do the same when referring to the opinions of the film critics in Critical Reception. Wikihc (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another decent review

Sources don't mention Jawaharlal Nehru University

The conflicted section on Historical Accuracy states: The film is seen depicting the Jawaharlal Nehru University[a] as an unpatriotic institution sympathetic to terrorism.. Yet the cited sources [4][5] do no refer to a Jawaharlal Nehru University, but a JNU. (John NotDoe University?). Wikihc (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihc, JNU is an acronym of Jawaharlal Nehru University - you may add a link to the same where it occurs in the article for the first time.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not mention that, and we don't do OR. An acronym can have several expansions. Eg. JNU, JNU etc. Wikihc (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

Someone has typed,

After Bitta and his gang leave the house, Pushkar takes Karan to the hospital and requests his doctor friend Mahesh Kumar to save Karan's life.

in the plot section but it should be,

After Bitta and his gang leave the house, Pushkar calls and requests his doctor friend Mahesh Kumar to come in an ambulance and save Karan's life.

Please change it. Thanks (I have seen the movie)!- Y2edit? (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent sentence reads,

However, the hospital gets taken over by militants, who forbid the hospital staff from treating non-Muslims.

Please change it to,

However, the hospital gets taken over by militants, who forbid the hospital staff from treating Kafirs.

with the link I have added - as that is the word used in the movie.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

In the second sentence of the article, "Fictional Storyline" should be removed as al-jazeera is not a reputable source of journalism. Also, Al-jazeera's own views towards a certain community has a direct conflict of interest with the film's views on the same community leading to biased views and false journalism. Stonebreaker18 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests are only for straight-forward issues that do not require discussion. Whether or not a particular source is reliable for a particular assertion can be discussed here. After that, the WP:RSN noticeboard would be an appropriate place to pursue the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so al-jazeera is not a reputable source of journalism and hence without proper citation that ending part of sentence should be removed. Stonebreaker18 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just the word 'fictional' that you are concerned about, BBC also says it - The Kashmir Files, released on Friday, tells the fictional story ... - and is already referenced as well. Hemantha (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead wording

Fowler&fowler, I fail to see what's wrong about fronting sentences with phrases. It is not specific to reviews and is fairly common in Indian English. In this case, it's just a way to avoid repeatedly starting sentences with "The film ...", "It has ...", etc. Regarding the plot in the lead, I don't think it needs more expansion, the lead should be a concise summary of the article and the plot is only one aspect of the film. It's not a norm in film articles to have expansive plots in the lead if they have it at all. Also regarding government promotion and commercial success, the relation is explicitly made in the citation so I've restored that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've another question, why do you oppose using "the exodus during the insurgency"? The present wording, that states "the exodus which followed the rise of an insurgency" makes the sentence much more convoluted. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here the re-inclusion of "leading to" in reason for commercial success in the lead, which was earlier removed. Also see earlier discussion on reasons for success. Wikihc (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, this is already on the talk page. If you are going to make a revert, you could bother replying here instead of through edit summaries. Regarding what the plot is, there is an entire section in the article which describes it.
If you still want an overview, the college student (Krishna Pandit) is the sole survivor from his family and is brought up by the school teacher (Pushkar Pandit). Pushkar had witnessed the family's death when Krishna was a small child and had adopted him. The story follows Krishna who is now a college student, gets brainwashed by the professor (Radhika Menon) but when Pushkar dies, he sets out to find the "truth" about the exodus and how his family died. Pushkar had never opened up about about what had happened, suffered from mental illness by the end but had confronted Krishna and rejected what he had been taught at college. Throughout the story, there are interspersed flashbacks of Pushkar of the times during the "genocide". The flashbacks themselves constitute more than half of the story, I'm not going to get into the themes since that's covered quite well in secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate: Apologies, I meant to write something here right away, but was drawn away by some urgent tasks. Will post something in a few minutes, once I figure out what it was I had reverted, and what the language was even earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, this is hurried. I hope I don't sound too didactic here. Employing participial phrases with adverbial meaning is common in English writing. There is nothing wrong with, say,

Thrust into the limelight on the Oscars stage, a preserve of bar-room brawls came stumbling into dining table conversations.

It is understood even if you don't mention the "slap." It tells us that X came stumbling ... (when it was) thrust into the limelight ... (past participle clause)). There is a clear semantic link between the subordinate clause which fronts and the main clause X came stumbling. But when a sentence says:

Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film showcases a fictional storyline[6] set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide.

there are all sorts of issues.
There are those of meaning, such as "showcase" (a verb formed from a noun), meaning "to exhibit, to display, to present in a favorable manner." How will the reader figure out what it means to present a fictional storyline in a favorable manner when they don't know what is being favored? Favoring a storyline has little meaning.
Syntactically, there is an unclear relation between the clause "Produced by Zee Studios" and "the film showcases a fictional storyline" What is meant is: "The film, which was produced by X, presents a ..." But when you write, "Produced by X studio, the film presents ..." the reader can easily interpret it in the sense of "as a result of being produced by X studio," which a reader very likely would if you had written, "Checked by a dozen copy-editors, the film presents a flawless fictional storyline." There is a similar problem with "set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide." Was the insurgency the genocide or the exodus?
Descriptive prose in Indian English as seen from the time of R. K. Narayan and Mulk Raj Anand, and still found in The Hindu, The Statesman is well known around the world. I don't think that is the issue here.
It is true that a string of simple descriptive sentences are boring and we all try to hold on to the reader or vary the pace of the narrative in various ways. If you think that is the issue in the current version, it can be easily fixed, but not in a way that compromises precision.
As for your question about the insurgency, "the rise" was added by @Kautilya3: I had written, "following the insurgency in X." They made a good point that the insurgency is ongoing, the exodus began soon after the insurgency began.
As for Kashmir, we do need to explain that Kashmir is a disputed region per the norm in all Kashmir-related articles. The insurgency in some sense is the long-term cost of the dispute, in the view of some scholars.
@Wikihc: No matter how many sources one can marshall in support, it is hard to make a decisive claim that a movie's vast popularity is the direct result of a government's publicity. Those are events that may have followed one another, one perhaps given notice by the other, but causality is very tricky in such situations and is best avoided. The government of the day can find many ways of skinning the publicity cat, not all of which are obvious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler«Talk», I would agree with you about causality. I pointed to archived discussion to draw attention to other sources that indicate film's success being due to word-of mouth publicity, etc along with government support. There seemed to be a consensus on reliability of at least two sources there. Anyhow, I see that the direct causal link has been added again in the article. Wikihc (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikihc: I think a better thing would be to say that the idea that the exodus was a genocide is thought to be very inaccurate, aggressive, and propaganda, as we state on the Exodus page; let me see what I can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi, Many thanks for the plot. I have to run now, but will come back to that later in the day. Thanks very much for your many well-voiced concerns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments about adding that this is based on real life incidents

This topic is under discretionary sanctions (see notice at top of page). Please discuss issues based on reliable sources and wait for responses before escalation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should we add that this is based on real life incidents in the body and lead? -Y2edit? (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are requesting this.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have been cited here and I don't want to repeat it for fear of being sanctioned.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Political messaging and historical inaccuracy

Section should be named as "Political messaging and historical inaccuracy". The section discusses the inaccuracies. The heading is ironical. Venkat TL (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is based on real life incidents. Some sources for that have been cited here - please add sentences using the same. Do you have it in you to make this article conform to WP:NPOV?-Y2edit? (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Volume of Outlook

The April issue of Outlook is on the film and relevant sociopolitical issues:

Using a ruthless marketing strategy and partisan visions of persecution, 'The Kashmir Files' seeks to rewrite history and distort reality.

Once again, Kashmir is the altar on which India is trying to refashion its national identity, this time with a distinctive majoritarian flavour.

Writing and filmmaking to demonise Muslims in Kashmir helps no Pandit. These only stoke the fire of communal antagonism.

Unravelling Kashmir’s truth, howsoever harsh, is important but it must be told with all its intricacies.

Kautilya3, fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newslaundry coverage

A discussion by the Newslaundry team on the film and the issues surrounding it (Hafta podcast on youtube, start around 26:00).

The Newstrack videos, mentioned in the discussion, are excerpted in a series of four video releases by Newslaundry. The first part can be found here. These are the "real Kashmir Files", so to speak. Abhinandan Sekhri mentions that India Today, which owns all this coverage has chosen not to use it, for reasons only they know.

Alpna Kishore, one of the original Newstrack journalists who covered Kashmir in the 1990s, made these remarks in the Hafta podcast:

(26:33) I think the film is a series of factual episodes. Everything that is shown did happen. But there is absolutely no context. Let me just elaborate... All this cannot be incorported ... (26:38) How does one explain to somebody 30 years later that, 'hey there is a bigger story; there is a larger picture'. Yes, this terrible thing happened. It is a tragedy. But there is more to the picture. So, I think that context is missing from the film entirely. The narrative is ideological. I can't accept it as the truth. Yes, it is the truth. It is there in the episodes. But the ideological domination of the film is such that, I am never allowed to see what the other side has to say. They are only painted black. But they must have some story. They must have something to say.

(35:34) He talked about (the narrative) "as he sees it". That is the job of the censor board in this country. I remember that when I was at Newstrack, we were not allowed to carry a "single narrative". We had to carry the rejoinder. Sometimes, our stories were stopped because we had one side of the view, we didn't have the other side.

The institutions are eroded to such a great extent that the censor board which would have never ever passed this film earlier, has not only passed it, but has passed it without any kind of cuts. This kind of thing has always led to incitement. It has led to it earlier as well. The state or the establishment was conscious of the fact that, in a country like India, incitement is only a breath away. You have to be careful with your facts, you have to present them, in a fair and balanced way. I don't think this film is that. And I think the institution that was supposed to not allow the film-maker to show it just "as he sees it" but also balance its facts, did not do its job.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This last point was also covered in the part 2 of the Reporting from Kashmir series (start around 20:33). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what changes that proposed? Ra gup (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files&oldid=1080912647"