Talk:The Kashmir Files

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)

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

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)

 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)

Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Extorc, maybe you can help with this request. How do we get consensus?-Y2edit? (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

 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)

The story is situated at the Plot section. >>> Extorc.talk(); 19:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, shouldn't all the criticism be put under one section with a title, "Criticism"?-Y2edit? (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

-Y2edit? (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg, please reply to the above as well as this.-Y2edit? (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You feel these to be reliable sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please sign your name at the end of every one of your talk page emanations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Kautilya3, Jhy.rjwk, https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/the-kashmir-files-box-office-collection-day-12-vivek-agnihotri-s-film-is-unbeatable-1928318-2022-03-23 and https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/union-minister-nitin-gadkari-says-the-kashmir-files-depicts-true-history-of-valley-2865144 can also be used.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

References

Criticism section

Shouldn't all the criticism be put under one section with a title, "Criticism"?-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRITICISM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kpddg, you seem to be confused about what WP:NPOV means in terms of policy on this project: sources do not need to be "neutral" in any sense, let alone the idiosyncratic bar of particular editors. Our coverage/presentation of the content of those sources is what is required to be neutral. It would be difficult in the extreme to provide only sources that were perfectly neutral in tone from every perspective for even articles on mundane empirical topics, let alone subject matter that is highly controversial. Instead, the test we use on Wikipedia is whether a source meets the WP:RS standard: can you please explain in terms consistent with that policy why you think those source are unreliable? Because if your argument is merely that the sources (according to your personal assessment) are not "neutral", that's just not sufficient: 95% of all sources on social and political topics on this project would have to go, if it was just a matter of an editor or group of editors deciding they are not perfectly dispassionate and objective. Sources are allowed to have opinions (or even to portray facts which are at odds with larger consensus views), and still be used to reference content. However, in cases where we are talking about the perspectives expressed or facts presented in certain sources, WP:attribution becomes increasingly critical, and that would certainly apply to any statements made in this context.

Now, we certainly shouldn't be expressing any opinions supporting or doubting these claims in Wikipedia's own voice/in plain prose. We should make it clear who is making these claims. There is also a question of WP:DUE: sometimes there is just not enough weight behind a particular claim to justify it's inclusion. I personally stake out no particular position on whether or not that is the case here (not until I can look deeper at the issue): I just wanted to point out that the "these sources aren't "neutral", so we can't use them to source any statement" argument doesn't carry any weight under this project's policies or broader community consensus. It's more a question of which statements they can or cannot support. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Please open a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. But why don't you directly discuss the section here first? Wikihc (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Are you accusing that questioning on Hate Speech section is bad faith? Wikihc (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You can open the RfC and be done with this. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

TIME review

• "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". TIME. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

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

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

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)

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)

That is yet another opinion piece under Ideas section, with a disclaimer at the end. Wikihc (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And how reliable is its author as a film critic anyway? Wikihc (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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. [1]. Wikihc (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If it is an opinion piece, it should not be used in this article at all.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

More importantly, these points are irrelevant to this article.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Go ahead and report me. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What are you even saying? Chowdhury isn't notable, he is being considered an SME because he has published peer reviewed literature, which indicates expertise in the area and do you not understand that every secondary source (or primary or tertiary ones) is also a primary source for what the source itself says? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Another decent review

• Kaul, Nitasha (2022-03-24). "Kashmir is not a file: Propaganda and politics in India". The News Minute. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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 [2][3] do no refer to a Jawaharlal Nehru University, but a JNU. (John NotDoe University?). Wikihc (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Kautilya3, Jhy.rjwk, ANU is mentioned in this article with a link to Jawaharlal Nehru University but does that not break the rules since ANU is not even mentioned as JNU?-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I made the first change. The second one, no, because we don't use "Kafirs" in Wikipedia voice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have seen the movie too. If you can't change the second sentence as requested, you can at least link the word, non-Muslim to the Kafir article.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If not Wikipedia voice then we can directly attribute it to them. Ra gup (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Fair enough regarding the participial phrases. Though say for the sentence "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been been endorsed, promoted ...", there is only one possible interpretation or say if instead of "Produced by Zee Studios", one were to use "Written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri", it would follow that the story reflects his writing and directorship. Would these be acceptable according to you?

Regarding the question, was the insurgency the genocide or the exodus? If we go by the film, it doesn't describe the exodus in specific, as a genocide. It outright rejects that there was an exodus distinct from other events in the insurgency and instead shows that the insurgency itself consisted of the genocide, which occurs as a consequence of their hatred for Hindus (and by extension India) and the desire for an Islamic state. That they had and have sympathetic anti-Hindu actors in the Indian establishment who are covering up for them with the narrative of an exodus and that the displaced Pandits are all just survivors of the genocide. So I'd think that, that framing would work better.

And my question wasn't about using "the rise", I'm asking why not simply describe it as "the exodus during the insurgency" instead of "the exodus which followed the rise of an insurgency"? Also I don't see the point of having superfluous material about the Kashmir conflict in the first paragraph of the lead, the article is primarily about the film so only the relevant material should be present. It's not possible to explain the insurgency or the conflict without sacrificing nuance or going too off-topic. The wiki-links exist for a reason. We can still indicate that the region is the subject of a dispute and keep it concise with a sentence like, "The film presents a fictional storyline based on the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus during the insurgency in the disputed region of Kashmir, depicting it as a genocide." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If we were to shift "Written and directed by" to second sentence, then I'd suggest moving the "produced by" further down the lead para, perhaps where the stars are introduced. Setting "produced by Zee Studios" in the first sentence is undue as ZS did what it did, just producing. VA is far more notable, probably even became the core of the film instead of the actors. WP:FILMLEAD provides all the necessary guidelines- which asks us to introduce stars (right now in second para) and plot in the first lead para — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. I'd support moving it further down regardless. ZS isn't the sole producer, it's co-produced with IAmBuddha (VA and Pallavi Joshi's production house) and Abhishek Agarwal Arts which should probably be added or replaced by the names of the four producers. VA has essentially written, directed and produced (along with others) the film so another alternative could be "Written, directed and co-produced by Vivek Agnihotri" and leaving the details about the producers and the production houses for the body of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That is better wording. I'll look for some sources about all the producers and the links between and add them to the body, probably to the production section. If you or any other has some sources ready at hand, that'd be useful — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate and DaxServer: OK, so lets considered "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party." The problems there are not two interpretations necessarily, but that it lacks coherence. You set the reader up with some details in the subordinate clause that the main clause does not directly link to. In other words, what does being released on 11 March have to do with the film being endorsed by Hindu nationalists? If you had said, "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film managed to piggyback on the increased public gusto for movies before the Oscars." Or if you had said, "Theatrically released on the 1000th birth anniversary of the founder of Kashmiri Shaivism, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party," a reader would have instantly understood without looking puzzled. What I saw when I first saw this page a week or two ago, was the use of fronting for the sake of fronting which is what I had seen cursorily at FAC in some Indian movie submissions, basically the form without the content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate and DaxServer: Now about the "rise." I had not added it myself (I forget now how I had phrased it, but K3 tweaked it.) There may be some POV issues if we say "during." The exodus took place at the very outset of the insurgency. It began with the first palpable event of the insurgency in the third week of January 1990; it was quick, and it was substantially over by mid-March 1990. Some 30 Hindus were killed. If you include the stragglers and stretch the exodus to mid-June, some 80 Hindus died from various causes, which included firing by India's armed forces, cross-firing between the insurgents and the army, and deaths at the hands of the insurgents. What happened "during" the emergency (in the most common manner in which "during" is applied) is stated by Metcalf and Metcalf in A Concise History of Modern India:

"As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict."

There were precious few Hindus in Kashmir when 30,000 people (read Muslim) were killed by the Indian State. That is what happened "during." In other words, "during" should be reserved for the major violence, whose victims were not Hindus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate and DaxServer: Now your middle paragraph, Tayi. Are you saying that the storyline is about a genocide that those who were lucky managed to escape? It is about a youth, a genocide denier, the sole survivor in his family of forgotten violence of long ago, who in the face of a new death gradually uncovers the old deaths from which he had been shielded out of love? Is that the idea? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating and pinging. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

PS I mean this is the film's (or its writers') POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

A lot of people are requesting this.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

On second thoughts I renamed the section header as "Political messaging and propaganda". This section discusses the propaganda and Historical inaccuracy. It is ironical to use the header historical accuracy. The section also includes comparison to Nazi propagandist. Venkat TL (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

there are at least three sources including wire in this section of the wiki article, that discuss the propaganda. The section itself is primarily about the propaganda. Dont call it unsourced. It is reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to review the section in detail but I have changed the title from just propaganda to allegations of propaganda for now. @Venkat TL & @Y2edit?, I think this subtitle is better from from a POV perspective. Thoughts? I do fear the whole section needs a close review to avoid any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as well. Tow (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There are half-a-dozen or more sources. Do they all call it "propaganda"? Are the ones that call it propaganda sufficiently neutral? You really have to be careful with value-laden labels like that, especially if you decid to put it in a section title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was trying to tone down the language as well to make it more neutral. I haven't had the change to review all the sources so I will bow out of this debate. Tow (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 @Tow There are at least 3 sources, next to the Nazi propagandist line that discussed the propaganda. Kautilya3, you are adding " historical accuracy " repeatedly into the article. Please provide reliable sources that call the film historically accurate. At least there are 3 sources used in the section that discusses propaganda. Hence my title "Political messaging and propaganda" was more suitable. If you are not agreeing to it, then propose something better, dont restore the Historical accuracy. For now I have removed the word "historical accuracy" till we achieve a consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 & @Venkat TL: What are your thoughts on "and allegations of historical innacuracy"? Tow (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMHIST says 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). It looks like all those idiot-proofed MOS guides have been written just for people like us! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 It might apply to a normal documentary. All the mainstream sources are in consensus that this film is fiction and historically inaccurate. Pursuing a section title "historical accuracy" for this propaganda film is Orwellian. If there is no consensus on a word, I prefer we dont use it at all, unless we have a better idea. @Tow yes, I support the header Allegations of historical inaccuracy, because the section is discussing the inaccuracies. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and prefer that the status-quo header be retained. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam this is a recently created article, and as far as I can see No consensus was achieved beforehand to include the word "Historical accuracy" as section header. So there is no status quo. We will have one at the conclusion of this discussion. Till then, the article can stay without this word and say "Political messaging", I dont mind that till we conclude this. Venkat TL (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Lets see how reliable sources cover this,

• Mishra, Harshita (24 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files: Art, Propaganda and the Dilemma of 'What Sells'". TheQuint. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
• "'The Kashmir Files' Uses Kashmiri Pandits For Propaganda, and Hates Muslims". The Wire. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
• "'The Kashmir Files' Is a Manipulative Propaganda Vehicle To Rouse Emotions Against Muslims". The Wire. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
• "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". Time. Retrieved 7 April 2022. The result of this propaganda is evident in the frenzied reception of the film.
• "Farooq Abdullah calls 'The Kashmir Files' a propaganda film, says it spreads hate". The Week.
• Vyas, Aryan (19 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files: Does Loud Propaganda Negate An Unfortunate Incident In History?". High On Films. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
• "Bollywood triumph or anti-Muslim tirade? 'The Kashmir Files' divides India". South China Morning Post. 21 March 2022.
• "'The Kashmir Files': Is this the 'truth' that most of India is beating to now?". Deccan Herald. 22 March 2022. An unabashed propaganda vehicle, the film presents a laundry list of the pet concerns of the Hindu Right

considering the clear mention of propaganda in the headline or in the description, I suggest Kautilya3 to stop using words in title to create this WP:FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody among us is whitewashing, please. Btw, thanks for the High on Films link. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of these are op-eds, which we normally wouldn't even reproduce in Wikipedia voice without attribution, let alone base section titles on them. Venkat TL, the fact that you don't even bother to mention the authors' names means that you don't understand what op-eds are. See WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest Volume of Outlook

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

• Drabu, Haseeb A. (2022-04-01). "Kashmir: Requiem For A Dream". Outlook.

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

• Bhardwaj, Ashutosh (2022-04-01). "Kashmir Files: Flawed Narratives Of The Fault Lines". Outlook.

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

• Kaul, Suvir (2022-04-01). "Kashmir: The Political Capital Of Pain". Outlook.

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

• Bhasin, Anuradha (2022-04-01). "Kashmir Needs Healing, Not Politicisation Of Pain". Outlook.

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)

Absent any opposition, I will cite Bhardwaj's and Drabu's commentary on the film in our article. Skipping Bhashin (for now) since she doesn't discuss the film explicitly. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate I am also thinking about tweaking with the ordering of reviews. After about a month, it is evident that the overwhelming majority of reviews is negative. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

But what changes are proposed? Ra gup (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think everyone here needs to know what you propose.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Death threats

Thread retitled from "Political sock puppets at work". — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The section Support by ruling party is debatable. "Agnihotri was also provided with a Y-category security detail from the Central Reserve Police Force across the country by the Ministry of Home Affairs." This should not be under the ruling party support section. Agnihotri and his family received threats from Islamists and hence he was given the security.

Please update this as "After Agnihotri and his family received death threats for producing the film highlighting Islamist atrocities he was provided with a Y-category security detail by the government." Amitized (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Previous discussions from archive - here and here. Note - HT doesn't report that he received threats; it reports his claims of receiving threats. That distinction leads to WP:DUE concerns about whether such claims are worth including. Hemantha (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If he has said that he received them, and reliable sources also include them, then it must be true. Such important 'claims' have to be included. 1, 2, 3. These say that he received security on 'the perception of a threat to his life after his film’s release.' Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Our sentence does lack the reason as to why he was provided with security. Reading thru the IE source and the PTI report, an official from Home Ministry was cited saying it was due to intelligence reports of "a threat to his life" and "increased threat perception". Something could be added attributing the report?

References

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the exact reason should be added. The reason is not specified here, and this piece of informatiohas been added under the section 'Government and ruling party support'. This makes it look as though he got security only due to the government's support. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the reason, please go ahead and add it. None have been presented yet though.

The IE article attributes it to anonymous sources, specifically using quotes - based on Intelligence inputs on “a threat to his life”, thus affecting its reliability for the threat claim. The fuller PTI report says This move came weeks after Agnihotri claimed a threat to his life over the release of his film and given how his other claims during the movie's release have held up - Rhode Island claim was later shown to be extremely exaggerated, Kapil Sharma said his allegations about the show were false, the Bhopal remarks had all the hallmarks of a PR stunt and so on, it's impossible to see the threat claim as reliable. Hemantha (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

But these are not just claims, it has been acted upon, and security has been given. No reliable sources are saying that he got security due to government support. All say that he received threats; not only based on 'claims', but 'intelligence inputs' also. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're both correct to an extent, and I for one think it probably makes sense to add something along the lines of a clause saying "...based on what a Ministry official described as a perceived threat to the director's safety following the release of the film.", since the one non-anonymous (or at least partially non-anonymous) source that The Indian Express article mentions is the unnamed Ministry of Home Affairs official who states that this is the Ministry's position. Beyond that attribution, the TIE article does not expressly endorse or attempt to undermine the claim (which of course is what you would expect and hope for in news coverage of such a subject). Barring further evidence or perspectives presented in reliable sources tending to discredit or enhance the perceived veracity of the claim, leave it to the reader to decide for themselves whether this was a genuine security measure for the sake of protecting life from a credible threat, or if it was a cynical ploy/act of fidelity by the ruling party to support propaganda aligned with it's messaging. If I'm perfectly honest, I doubt either of those polarized views is entirely accurate or entirely wrong, but the important point here is that the reader is entitled to reach those conclusions for themselves based on their own interpretation of the actions of the parties in the given context, and (failing further evidence one way or another) should be left to do just that, not pushed to one side or the other by either an express statement in our prose, nor by a material omission. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The wording proposed seems fine to me and I agree entirely with other points. Hemantha (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So can we write this: Agnihotri was provided with a Y-category security detail from the Central Reserve Police Force across the country by the Ministry of Home Affairs, based on intelligence reports which said that there was a "threat to his life". Kpddg ^(talk) 05:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The attribution to the ultimate source is more appropriate in this instance. You could always directly quote the commentary of the official inline briefly, though: "An assessment by the Intelligence Bureau has found that there is a threat to his life." That would not be the approach I advise, but there are various permutations of the sentence that include such a quote that would work. But I do think we need to be clear as to who made the claim, in what context, even if the official being quoted by the Express goes unnamed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And I feel it should be moved out of the 'Government support' section as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My reply was about something along the lines of a clause saying "...based on what a Ministry official described as a perceived threat to the director's safety following the release of the film." by Snow_rise. No WP:RS has been presented for saying in wiki-voice that there actually were intelligence reports about threats. Hemantha (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The government perceives who is vulnerable. The government protects those it has so perceived. It is double-barreled government support. One barrel is the spy-glass; the other the rifle gun. Hemantha's phrasing is rigorously NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, Kpddg, and am supportive of that view to a substantial extent: you are saying (if I read you correctly) that protecting any of its citizens from harm is a legitimate function of Indian government apparatus. Therefore, any suggestion of additional pretext for the action should have support in sourcing, and placing this fact in this section seems to be suggesting such additional pretext, even if that implication is not actually made in the prose itself. In other words, the security determinations are in support of the director personally, but are not per se actions in support of his recent work. All of that has a certain logic and certain degree of weight under policy.

That said, it's pretty impossible to straight-facedly postulate a variation on these facts where a film is made about these exact same events, but embracing a more typical Muslim Kashmiri perspective on what occurred, and imagine that the same response would issue from the same state security and ministerial apparatus under BJP influence. For that matter, the average Hindu citizen with credible threats to their life does not benefit from a Y-category security detail. So no matter how you slice it, the support given by the Ministry of Home Affairs is arguably impossible to disentangle entirely from the director's current profile and the alignment of the film's perspective with views popular with the government that ultimately makes the decision about how much security he gets in light of perceived threats. Noticeably, the Express article is structured in tacit representation of this fact: notice that it uses scare quotes to describe the threat to Agnihotri's life, more than once, including in the lead: the author/editors of that article are clearly and expressly attributing the claim, because they realize that the timing and context invites skepticism from some parties as to which way the intelligence community/specific officials are going to lean in a case of mixed evidence of a threat in these circumstances--and that furthermore, when those determinations and the intelligence that informed them are only elaborated upon vaguely and expressed through career administrative politicians, that there are concerns about spin.

So, all factors taken together, I think this is a reasonable place to mention this small cluster of facts. Its extremely difficult to know how much these decisions and statements were the product of politicking and how much they represent parties making good faith decisions just to protect life. When it comes to such a politically and socially loaded situation as this, there is an unavoidably significant influence just from the unconcscious biases of the large number of political and intelligence officials who would contribute to a complicated chain of information and official decisions. Context is king, so I think, so far as we are very careful about what is said, that section is probably a reasonable place to discuss the security detail. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hemantha's phrasing and SnowRise's cogent arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing was entirely Snow_rise's as well. My involvement was limited to nitpicking here. Hemantha (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to include New Zealand-based publication "The Indian Weekender" Movie Review opinion

This is a request to Wikipedia editors to kindly consider including the New Zealand-based publication 'The Indian Weekender's Movie Review opinion about 'The Kashmir Files'.

The Indian Weekender’s reviewer U. Prashanth Nayak rated the movie 4 stars out of 5 and wrote “Agnihotri is not interested in appeasing the whole town. He rips away the shawl of excessive political correctness and exposes the heart of suffering”.

EarnesTaster (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Although the Indian Weekender's critic's writing is excellent, I feel it can be further improved in the following manner: He rips away the shawl of excessive political correctness thereby leaving the heart of suffering with only the endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, thoracic wall, hypodermis, dermis, epidermis and the government-supplied security to protect it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film[2] written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri, and produced by Zee Studios.[5] The film presents a toned-down, true storyline[1][6] about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley in a portion of the disputed region of Kashmir administered by India.[7][8] The early-1990 exodus, which followed the rise of an insurgency, is a gruesome genocide emotionally depicted in the movie.[14] . After the movie, many Kashmiris - both Pandits and local Muslims have confirmed the authenticity of this well-researched movie 2402:E280:210B:B2:576:E6F2:92F6:3F08 (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I object to the words, "conspiracy theory" in the lead - it is based on real life incidents for which the director submitted evidence to the Film Certification Board.-BitaKarate1 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

From one of the cited sources:

The “truth” that the film claims to reveal is that there was a “genocide” of Pandits in the 1990s, hidden by a callous ruling establishment and a servile media. Pandits were killed in their thousands, it claims, and not in the low hundreds as the government and Kashmiri Pandit organizations have stated.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Indian website and the thoughts of the Film Certification Board do not have much bearing on the content that would be included in this article. We need reliable third-party sources. Please see WP:RSPSS for a list of sources that are usually considered reliable. Tow (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you should probably add that.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"See Also" section

Is there a specific reason why Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus isn't in the "See Also" section? I notice that Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is in the list. Apologies if this has been discussed and archived already.Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO. Pages linked in the body are not listed in the "See also" section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is linked in the body. Shouldn't that be removed then? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate the guidance of not listing pages linked in the body in the "See also" section. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So it probably should be added to the, "See also" section. -2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

"fictional to Based on true events" 2409:4052:790:E231:0:0:398:60AC (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Tow (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)