Jump to content

Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

RfC about article lede

Option A - there having been no refutation at all to Vanamonde's point on option C failing NPOV, despite it meeting WP:FILMLEAD, causes me to give less consideration towards those favoring the MOS over what NPOV demands, and as such I find a consensus for option A here among the choices offered. nableezy - 21:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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.



How should the the film's subject/content be described in the article's lede paragraph? Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See recent discussions on this topic in talk-page archives 8, 9, 10 and 11. Three proposals for what the lede paragraph should say after the first sentence (i.e., after, The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri.) are as follows:

Proposal A

The film presents a fictional storyline[1][2][a] centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir.[4][5] It depicts the exodus and the events leading up to it[6] as a genocide,[7][8][9][10][11] a notion that is widely considered inaccurate.[12] The film claims that the facts were suppressed by a conspiracy of silence.[13][14]

Proposal B

The film portrays the 1990s exodus of Hindus from the Muslim-majority valley in Indian-administered Kashmir[15] to have been caused by ethnic cleansing[16] and genocide,[17] both kept from being widely known[18] by a tacit agreement for silence.[19] Scholarship on Kashmir, which notes low Hindu fatality totals during the exodus,[b][c] considers such claims to involve unsubstantiated conspiracies[26] or narratives of victimhood.[27]
(Equivalent substitutions: 1. "a 1990s exodus" for "the 1990s exodus;" 2. "hushed up" for "kept from being widely known;" 3. "kept from getting widely known" for "kept from being widely known;" 4. "conspiracy of silence" for "tacit agreement for silence." You may then vote: Proposal B, sub – and –, etc.
Note: The citations and their long quotes are there to aid the participants in their evaluations, not for inclusion in the article in that form. They are also meant to demonstrate that even if Proposal B does not necessarily summarize pre-existing text in the main body, it can be easily expanded into the main body, with citations.)

Proposal C

The film presents a dramatisation[28][29] centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence.[8][14]

Survey

Note Please refrain from having threaded discussions in this section and be aware that the article and talkpage are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Although the second sentence in this proposal may or may not conform to some general preferences in WP:FILMLEAD, in the instance of a highly controversial movie—the subject of recent or current bans in several countries, calls for bans in India, and descriptions in the media as a potential powder keg—the sentence's countervailing presence immediately after, and not later in the lead, is important for neutrality.
  • The other proposals at the moment of writing (22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)) equate an exodus with genocide, which seems to be somewhat confusing, as an exodus is undertaken by those whose migration defines it, whereas genocide befalls those on whom it is perpetrated. Also, a film is of necessity a dramatization
  • I will not be participating further in this RfC, but wanted to acknowledge the help of many Wikipedia editors, whom I shall not name, allowing them the privilege of doing so themselves if they wish. I also wish to thank the other participants and especially the Wikipedia administrators for going the extra mile to make it possible. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal B as it gives a more cautiously phrased summary, using accurate academic references to Kashmir history for those particular events; the other proposals seem less careful, with too much sourcing to hyped media headlines. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal A. WP:FILMLEAD asks us to summarise "the general premise of the film", which is clearly that there was a "genocide" (not "ethnic cleansing"). Our NPOV mission requires us to immediately counter it by what the scholars say. Any further elaboration has to wait to a later paragraph or the "Historical accuracy" section of the article. The "fictional storyline" phrase is also important because they film made a hue and cry about depicting real events, which is not exactly true as explained in the Political messaging and historical accuracy section.
I am opposed to Proposal C because it does not satisfy the NPOV mission. I am also opposed to the Proposal B because it ties itself in too many knots with plenty of WP:SYNTHESIS, especially in trying to bring in "conspiracies". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C
  • Any of the Proposal B's equivalent substitutions, plus to have been caused by a genocide for to be a genocide, and any other minor grammatical or stylistic changes are not contentious, and, at least to me, acceptable for Proposal C too.
  • My opinion on the contentious issues are: (a) WP:FILMLEAD is a guideline, bypassing it to include criticism in the first paragraph simply because of a controversy is not neutral. It wasn't done for other controversial or historically inaccurate films in recent memory (e.g. Cuties, 300 (film)), and it shouldn't be done here either.
  • (b) Calling claims of genocide a "conspiracy theory" is not supported by the sources cited, and in my opinion is borderline synthesis.
  • (c) Drama films based on historical events, even if historically inaccurate and with artistic liberties taken, as they usually are, to follow a fictional character, are described as fictionalised or dramatised in the lead in Wikipedia articles. "Fictional storyline" is not suitable wording for the lead. See e.g. Titanic (1997 film). regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal A (invited by the bot) With the caveat that I don't have the 30 wiki minutes to thoroughly learn all of this. My first (but complex) choice would very strong attribution throughout, prefacing each thing with "the film portrays ......" But "A" is the simple solution with the blanket "fiction" statement. "B" is terrible, it is written in a way that (probably inadvertently) claims, in the voice of Wikipedia that the fictional items are factual. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C >~ Proposal A >>> Proposal B: WP:FILMLEAD does not suggest to critique the content, right at the second line of the lead though I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir, and the intense criticism it has received on grounds of being a propaganda film. I am also inclined to think that dramatisation, as suggested in C, is a better word choice.
    Johnbod once remarked that 5 references on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble. This is exemplified in Proposal B: whoever has used the word conspiracy in describing any facet of the exodus has been cited (Duschinki (2018), being the prime example) to support a blunt sentence; Balcerowicz (2022) and Chowdhari (2019) does not have anything on conspiracy theories (casting severe doubts and/or flat rejection of ethnic cleansing claims etc. does not a conspiracy theory make) etc. That being said, I appreciate Version B's emphasis on the low fatality count etc. and esp. the part about politics of victimhood - they belong in the lead but not in the second line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal B because it details the mainstream view. I can tolerate proposal A, but I have strong reservations against Proposal C. First para of the lead summarizes lead. The first para should put the mainstream view strongly. I also believe that the lead should mention the fact that the film makers applied for the certification as a drama movie and never called it documentary etc. Source: "The Kashmir Files is a 'drama' movie: censor board in RTI reply". The Indian Express. 7 April 2022. Retrieved 9 April 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C is by far the best. Strongly oppose Proposal B - it is way off the mark, five citations and only one supports the "conspiracy" claim. The rest simply just dispute the claims, which is different from calling it a conspiracy theory. Borderline synth, as noted by User:TryKid.
Proposal A is still inconsistent with WP:FILMLEAD , controversies go in later in the lead, where this has already been covered adequately. Option C is the cleanest and most policy aligned version. >>> Extorc.talk 20:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C The opening sentence/first para should give just enough the context about the about the film per WP:FILMLEAD. Any sort of criticism/controversies/historical (in)accuracies should go in the succeeding paragraphs. The aim should be to achieve a well-balanced lead per NPOV, not stuffing everything possible in the opening line -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C: It is the most appropriate proposal out of the four. The film is not entirely fictional, and 'dramatisation' seems suitable. It plainly depicts what the film is about. Any differeces in opinion or any opposition can be mentioned later. Agree with the rational presented by TryKid. And I also oppose the usage of Indian-administered Kashmir, which can maybe be called Jammu & Kashmir. Kpddg (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C >~ Proposal D Proposal C is the best among A,B,C as option C is a brief neutral description consistent as per WP:FILMLEAD using NPOV words such as dramatisation, and avoiding controversies in the lead paragraph. Next, I prefer, Proposal D (in Discussion Section), which follows standard non-controversial WP:FILMLEAD and simple NPOV summary similar to most other Wiki movie pages (below 2 examples) {Controversial critique of genocide issue should not be in the first paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD} Jhy.rjwk (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Haider is a 2014 Indian drama film written, produced and directed by Vishal Bhardwaj, co-produced by Siddharth Roy Kapur, and co-written by Basharat Peer. It stars Shahid Kapoor and Tabu in the lead roles with Kay Kay Menon and Shraddha Kapoor in supporting roles and Irrfan Khan in an extended cameo.

Mission Kashmir is a 2000 Indian Hindi-language action thriller directed and produced by Vidhu Vinod Chopra. Starring an ensemble cast of Sanjay Dutt, Hrithik Roshan, Preity Zinta, Sonali Kulkarni and Jackie Shroff, its screenplay was written by Suketu Mehta.

Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

*Proposal A: It's important that the truth about this propaganda film as it's summarised in the current lede should remain there. First sentence in this proposal, film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus should stand anyway which is duly backed with reliable sources. Alternate proposal D could also be used along with the above first sentence. Further details about genocide depiction and its association with conspiracy theories could be given in second paragraph. USaamo (t@lk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Strike topic ban violation by the user, see user's talk page. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Proposal A > B The film's narrative is centred around a conflict upon which considerable mainstream scholarship and historicity exists. Gauging from the discussion and sources, it goes without saying that both the film and its director have attracted controversy and strong, polarising opinions, and the reasons underpinning those would constitute a separate, lengthy debate. It would be imprudent, therefore, for the lead to not make note of the conflicting reception that is largely responsible for the subject's notability. Proposal A followed by B appears the best option at this point as it neatly summarises the issue. Proposal C should not be entertained as it violates WP:NPOV and doesn't adequately address the existing controversy. Mar4d (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal A  – Proposal A best option here. As "A" satisfies both WP:FILMLEAD and WP:NPOV policies. Doesn't see "B" as a really good fit for lead, due to WP:NPOV. And Proposal C is totally outta equation, it's totally against what WP:NPOV tells us. I do have my sympathies for kashmiri Pandits and their losses, but I believe a fictional story should be called fictional and and any wrong claim, even in lead section, should be countered immediately after, with a scholarly opinion/fact (as in proposal A). Thanks Radioactive (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C (with a minor caveat, "to be a genocide" -> "to be caused by genocide") for reasons described above. It is necessary that our article lead should note that what the film claims (that the exodus was triggered by genocide) is not in line with scholarly sources. But this is best done by operating within the guidelines set by WP:FILMLEAD–Criticism of any film does not belong in the very second sentence of the article. NPOV is not being contravened simply because the information appears in the succeeding paragraphs of the lead, that is the standard practice for most films (consider The Birth of a Nation, arguably the most controversial film of all time, or Triumph of the Will). These articles stick to the conventions described in FILMLEAD so I don't see a reason to treat The Kashmir Files differently. B is excellent prose and the parts of it that enjoy community support should be included in the third paragraph, clubbed with criticism of the film. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposal C; it is sacrificing clarity and precision for brevity. I have yet to decide between proposals A & B. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    On further reflection, I slightly prefer Option A over Option B. The content in B is good, but it's too early in the article to examine the veracity of it's claims in that much detail. Conversely, C is obfuscating the issue, and is an NPOV violation in addition to being a poor summary of the article. Option A does a decent job of getting the point across without getting too far into the weeds. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C Its brevity makes it the best proposal. The opening sentence should not be longer. If someone wants to know more about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, they can get more information by accessing its article. Any other controversy or divergence from reality should be placed in its own section, not in the opening sentences. AnneDant87 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Note: New user with a few edits outside of the discussion.
  • Proposal C per above comments and per WP:FILMLEAD. The first paragraph is supposed to be brief and to the point and should not include controversy. X-Editor (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C is to the point and neutral wording following WP:NPOV rule. Rohmanh (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C is by far the best. Short, simple and neutral. Other options are ok, but they raise other concern of perception, which, for a movie article shouldn’t be there. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal A with WP:FILMLEAD asking to summarize the most important aspects of the film, the notion that it's genocide and silenced, and WP:NPOV asking to achieve a neutral narrative — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Proposal C (+ Proposal D) as per WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:LEADSENTENCE which neutrally introduces the film. It is the most direct and does not try to turn it into a news-style lead. Additionally, for the further paragraphs, Proposal B is not appropriate as the sources don't seem to support it without WP:SYNTH. Wikihc (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal C. WP:FILMLEAD does not state that any "contentious" aspect of a film can not mentioned in the lead paragraph, it gives a description of what should generally be included, that does not mean that nothing else can be included. Not to mention what's contentious or not is mostly an editor's subjective opinion which should have no bearing on content. In this case omitting the fact that the genocide claim is considered highly inaccurate by scholarly accounts is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Claims that do not have mainstream acceptance need to be clearly specified as such and followed by the mainstream view so that readers are not mislead into assuming that it is an accepted view, this is non-negotiable policy. Proposal C thoroughly fails at doing so and gives an impression of plausibility. Otherwise prefer Proposal A over B, the latter has become convoluted and almost goes into a point wise refutation.
In addition, there are a couple problems with the RfC formulation itself. There are too many redundant citations in the proposal statements for things which are not disputed. This makes it more difficult for editors particularly ones who do not already have background knowledge to address the question. Secondly, the proposals A and B are subdivisions of what should have been one since the latter is an expanded version of the former, both including variants of the mainstream view addressing the genocide claim and the other omitting it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment: The Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) defines dramatization as a play or film adapted from a novel or depicting a particular incident, giving the example the film is a dramatization of a true story. That is the sense I had in mind, and which I think I've seen used in many other Wikipedia articles too. I gather that not all films are dramatizations in this sense; most of them are original works not adapted from any novel or depicting any real-life incidents. Based on the definitions of fictionalisation in A Dictionary of Media Communication (3 ed.), 1. The transformation of actual happenings into fictional form; to represent real people or events in the manner of fiction and as if they were fictional: as in fictionalizing a biography. 2. A pejorative term for an overindulgence in dramatic licence. 3. A narrative based partly or wholly on fact but written as if it were fiction. Films and broadcast dramas of this kind often bear the label ‘based on a true story’., it also seemed like a good fit, though I couldn't find proper sources using it for the film. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @North8000: That I have averred not to participate further in the RFC is not a carte blanche for participants to at first offer the excuse of lacking the time to learn about the issues, but sallying forth nonetheless to misinterpreting the issues, and, in your instance, arriving at two binaries "fictional" and "factual" with no shades of meaning between. To "portray," in a transferred or extended sense, is to depict, imagine, picture, or represent. In no clause, phrase, or word of the first sentence in Version B is there an implication of factuality or for that matter of the fictional; the sentence sidesteps those issues as the information to judge either is not granted us. This is all I have to say. I will ignore your judgment of "terrible." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Following on from Fowler&fowler, using a dictionary as a source to justify sentences in the lead goes against the way wikipedia is written. But besides that, writing a lead for an unconventional film like this is unlikely to follow regimented patterns, since it was promoted as a type of docudrama. Taking The Holocaust as a point of reference (even if it clearly isn't comparable), the docudrama Schindler's List was not well received by the director of Shoah; while in Poland, there were negative reactions to the 9-hour-long documentary. The reception and historical accuracy of The Kashmir Files share some of the problems with these two other films. Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @TryKid: Is there any particular reason about why you introduce the qualifier early 1990s in the second line? It is already in the first line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Version A has another important bit: Agnihotri did portray not only the exodus as a genocide but also the events that lead to it. You might like to incorporate the information in your version. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The qualifier is an copy-paste artifact I missed to clean up after Shouldn't be too messy to make the minor grammatical change now, I'll change it.
  • I was hesitant as the sources only explicitly say the Exodus or the "events during the insurgency" (which continued after the Exodus) were depicted to be a genocide. I haven't watched the film and don't know if it compresses/changes all the events that happened after the Exodus to be before it, or leaves them in the right order while also depicting them as part of genocide. The events leading up to construction is a more sensible construction though, I'll change it, if it's hopefully also not too messy. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 06:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alternate Proposal
Proposal D

The film is centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir.[4][5] Distributed by Zee Studios, the film stars Mithun Chakraborty, Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, Pallavi Joshi, Puneet Issar, and Bhasha Sumbli.[30] Jhy.rjwk (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jhy.rjwk, this RfC is being supervised by an admin, Abecedare, under an WP:ARBIPA regime. Your proposal is late in the game, does not enjoy WP:RFCBEFORE, and does not address any of the issues being debated in the three original proposals. I see it as an effort to muddy the waters. I suggest that you withdraw it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Kautilya3, I agree that this proposal is late in the game, and I have been told by Abecedare on my talk page to put it in Discussion so I have parked it here. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

:* This proposal along with the first sentence of Proposal A will make a better lede. USaamo (t@lk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Strike topic ban violation by the user, see user's talk page. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Vanamonde93, can you explain how C is a NPOV violation? NPOV applies to the article as a whole and also to the lead as a whole, since it is an executive summary of the article. NPOV does not apply to any random couple of lines, decontextualized from the preceding and succeeding passages. It is neither my nor TryKid's contention that the lead shy away from discussing the inaccuracies etc. and I will be the first to oppose any such ludicrous proposal. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Contrary to Abecedare's poor choice of words for the poser, we are not discussing what should be there in the lede paragraph.
    MOS:LEAD states outright that [t]he lead section of a Wikipedia article is not a [..] "lede" paragraph. Also, consult the instructive example at MOS:NOTLEDE about Bhopal disaster. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Proposal C is an NPOV violation because of its second sentence. The film's narrative is fictional, but is close enough to reality that disambiguating fact from fiction is necessary. The first two sentences of Inglorious Basterds do this well, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is part of WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes and references

Notes

  1. ^ The opening credits of the film carry the disclaimer: "This film... does not claim accurateness or factuality of historic events".[3]
  2. ^ 30–80 Kashmiri Pandits had been killed by insurgents by mid-year 1990 when the exodus was largely complete, according to several scholars.[20][21][22]
  3. ^ During the four-year period, 1988 to 1991, Indian Home Ministry data records 217 Hindus civilians fatalities.[23] A scholar has interpreted the government data to total 219 Pandit fatalities;[24] another scholar estimates: 228 Pandit civilian fatalities.[25]

References

  1. ^ Sebastian, Meryl (15 March 2022). "Kashmir Files Vivek Agnihotri's film exposes India's new fault lines". BBC News. Retrieved 27 April 2022.
  2. ^ "Kashmir Files, hailed by Modi, triggers anti-Muslim hate speech". Al Jazeera. 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  3. ^ Kak, Sanjay (13 April 2022), "The dangerous 'truth' of The Kashmir Files", Al Jazeera
  4. ^ a b Akhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019,  Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
  5. ^ a b Jan·Osmaczyk, Edmund (2003), Mango, Anthony (ed.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M, Taylor & Francis, p. 1191, ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5,  Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan. It has borders with Pakistan and China.
  6. ^ The exodus followed the rise of violence in an insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
  7. ^ Mitra, Shilajit (12 March 2022). "Movie Review| Kashmir Files, A limp attempt at provocation". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
  8. ^ a b Kumar, Anuj (14 March 2022), "'The Kashmir Files' movie review: A disturbing take which grips and gripes in turns", The Hindu
  9. ^ Ali, Asim (15 March 2022). "Don't trust Muslims, leftists or secularists: Why The Kashmir Files is no Schindler's List". Newslaundry. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  10. ^ Chakravarty, Ipsita (19 March 2022). "Here are five things 'The Kashmir Files' gets wrong about Kashmir". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  11. ^ Sherjeel Malik, The Kashmir Files: A One Sided Narrative That Spews Hatred And Misinformation, Kashmir Digits, 12 March 2022.
  12. ^ * Evans, Alexander (2002). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. S2CID 145573161. My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swayam Sevak publications' claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated.
    • Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-century conflict, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 122, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  In 1991 the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the movement's parent organisation, published a book titled Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir.<Footnote 38: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir (Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan, 1991).> It claimed among many other things that at least forty Hindu temples in the Kashmir Valley had been desecrated and destroyed by Muslim militants. In February 1993 journalists from India's leading newsmagazine sallied forth from Delhi to the Valley, armed with a list of twenty-three demolished temples supplied by the national headquarters of the BJP, the movement's political party. They found that twenty-one of the twenty-three temples were intact. They reported that 'even in villages where only one or two Pandit families are left, the temples are safe ... even in villages full of militants. The Pandit families have become custodians of the temples, encouraged by their Muslim neighbours to regularly offer prayers.' Two temples had sustained minor damage during unrest after a huge, organised Hindu nationalist mob razed a sixteenth-century mosque in the north Indian town of Ayodhya on 6 December 1992.<Footnote 39: India Today, 28 February 1993, pp.22–25>
    • Bhatia, Mohita (2020), Rethinking Conflict at the Margins: Dalits and Borderland Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 978-1-108-83602-9,  The dominant politics of Jammu representing 'Hindus' as a homogeneous block includes Pandits in the wider 'Hindu' category. It often uses extremely aggressive terms such as 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' to explain their migration and places them in opposition to Kashmiri Muslims. The BJP has appropriated the miseries of Pandits to expand their 'Hindu' constituency and projects them as victims who have been driven out from their homeland by militants and Kashmiri Muslims.
    • Rai, Mridu (2021), "Narratives from exile: Kashmiri Pandits and their construction of the past", in Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (eds.), Kashmir and the Future of South Asia, Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series, Routledge, pp. 91–115, 106, ISBN 9781000318845, Among those who stayed on is Sanjay Tickoo who heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (Committee for the Kashmiri Pandits' Struggle). He had experienced the same threats as the Pandits who left. Yet, though admitting 'intimidation and violence' directed at Pandits and four massacres since 1990, he rejects as 'propaganda' stories of genocide or mass murder that Pandit organizations outside the Valley have circulated.
  13. ^ Kumar, Anuj (14 March 2022), "'The Kashmir Files' movie review: A disturbing take which grips and gripes in turns", The Hindu, The film is based on the testimonies of the people scarred for generations by the insurgency in the State, and presents the tragic exodus as a full-scale genocide, akin to the Holocaust, that was deliberately kept away from the rest of India by the media, the 'intellectual' lobby and the government of the day because of their vested interests.
  14. ^ a b Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (2022-03-30). "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". TIME. 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.
  15. ^
    • Akhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019,  Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
    • Jan·Osmaczyk, Edmund (2003), Mango, Anthony (ed.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M, Taylor & Francis, p. 1191, ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5,  Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan. It has borders with Pakistan and China.
  16. ^
    • Gupta, Shekhar (19 March 2022), "Looking beyond, 'Kashmir Files', catharsis & closure need justice, for all cases of mass injustice", The Print,  What Vivek Agnihotri's latest film The Kashmir Files wants to convey is correct in essence. ... that between around November 1989 and May 1990, almost all of the native Hindus from the Kashmir Valley, mostly Kashmiri Pandits, had been brutally forced out by Islamised forces in an Indian equivalent of ethnic cleansing.
    • Punj, Balbir (April 7, 2022), "The Kashmir Files: A tale of horror and gross injustice", Hindustan Times,  The Kashmir Files has brought into focus one of the darkest chapters of recent Indian history, ... The Files details, in a raw and lacerating form, how an entire ancient culture was killed by those who invoked radical Islam to validate their agenda of ethnic cleansing.
  17. ^ Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022), "The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India's Further Descent into Bigotry", Time,  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.
  18. ^ Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022), "The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India's Further Descent into Bigotry", Time,  It's not clear why the horrors visited upon the Pandits are presented as having been hushed up. The film's young protagonist learns about it all from files of newspaper cuttings of the time. His inability to remember the events of three decades ago—like the 65% of India's population below the age of 35—is a function of demographics rather than deceit.
  19. ^
  20. ^ Braithwaite, John; D'Costa, Bina (2018), "Recognizing cascades in India and Kashmir", Cacades of violence:War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia, Australian National University Press, ISBN 9781760461898,  ... when the violence surged in early 1990, more than 100,000 Hindus of the valley—known as Kashmiri Pandits—fled their homes, with at least 30 killed in the process.
  21. ^ Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads, Inside a 21st-Century Conflict., Yale University Press, p. 92, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  On 15 March 1990, by which time the Pandit exodus from the Valley was substantially complete, the All-India Kashmiri Pandit Conference, a community organisation, stated that thirty-two Pandits had been killed by militants since the previous autumn.
  22. ^ Joshi, Manoj (1999), The Lost Rebellion, Penguin Books, p. 65, ISBN 978-0-14-027846-0, By the middle of the year some eighty persons had been killed ..., and the fear ... had its effect from the very first killings. Beginning in February, the pandits began streaming out of the valley, and by June some 58,000 families had relocated to camps in Jammu and Delhi.
  23. ^ Swami, Praveen (2007), India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947–2004, Routledge, p. 175, ISBN 978-1-134-13752-7,  Table 7.1: Violence in Jammu and Kashmir, Hindu civilian fatalities: 1988 (0), 1989 (6), 1990 (177), 1991 (34)
  24. ^ Manzar, Bashir (213), "Kashmir: A Tale of Two Communities, Cloven", Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII (30): 177–178, JSTOR 23528003,  Official records suggest that 219 Kashmiri Pandits had been killed by militants since 1989.
  25. ^ Evans, Alexander (2002-03-01). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. The Indian government figures are set out in its Profile of Terrorist Violence in Jammu & Kashmir (New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, March 1998). Between 1988 and 1991, the government claims 228 Hindu civilians were killed. Even if the bulk of government officials and politicians killed over the same period were Hindus and this is added, this figure would increase by a further maximum of 160. Hence the figure of 700 appears deeply unreliable.
  26. ^
    • Evans, Alexander (2002-03-01). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. S2CID 145573161. Most KPs believe that they were forced out of the Kashmir Valley; whether by Pakistan and the militant groups it backed, or by Kashmiri Muslims as a community. Representing the latter variant, Pyarelal Kaul contends that the Pandit departure was a clear case of communal intimidation by Muslims, designed to expel Hindus from the Valley. Mosques 'were used as warning centres. Threatening the Hindus and conveying to them what terrorists and many Muslims of Kashmir wanted to achieve. ... My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swayam Sevak publications' claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated.
    • Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-century conflict, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 122, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  In 1991 the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the movement's parent organisation, published a book titled Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir.<Footnote 38: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir (Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan, 1991).> It claimed among many other things that at least forty Hindu temples in the Kashmir Valley had been desecrated and destroyed by Muslim militants. In February 1993 journalists from India's leading newsmagazine sallied forth from Delhi to the Valley, armed with a list of twenty-three demolished temples supplied by the national headquarters of the BJP, the movement's political party. They found that twenty-one of the twenty-three temples were intact. They reported that 'even in villages where only one or two Pandit families are left, the temples are safe . . . even in villages full of militants. The Pandit families have become custodians of the temples, encouraged by their Muslim neighbours to regularly offer prayers.'<Footnote 39: India Today, 28 February 1993, pp.22–25>
    • Duschinski, Haley (2018), "'Survial Is Now Our Politics': Kashmiri Pandit Community Identiy and the Politics of Homeland", Kashmir: History, Politics, Representation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 172–198, 179, ISBN 9781108226127, The conflict in Kashmir was framed as the inevitable culmination of the clash between Hindus and Muslims, India and Pakistan, and secularism and fundamentalism in South Asia, with Kashmiri Pandits as its victims. In this formulation, the plight of the community became an issue of national concern. If Kashmiri Pandits represented the values of the Indian nation, then the state bore the responsibilities of protecting their lives and properties in the Valley, providing support for them in exile and facilitating their return home. The state's failure to fulfill these responsibilities constituted an act of heartless neglect, deliberate indifference and even 'inexplicable and ignoble conspiracy'. This moral failure was a betrayal of the nation and its people. This community discourse was nationalistic in tone, casting Kashmiri Pandits as true patriots who had sacrificed greatly for their devotion to the Indian nation.
    • Balcerowicz, Piotr; Kuszewska, Agnieszka (2022), Kashmir in India and Pakistan Policies, Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-1-138-48012-4,  Notably, the Pandit leaders accused the militants of targeted ethnic cleansing, and the Indian government (especially the Home Affairs Minister, Mufti Syed and the Governor of J&K, Jagmohan Malhotra of masterminding the exodus in order to drive out the militants. Approximately 100,000–150,000 refugees left Kashmir
    • Chowdhari, Rekha (2019), Jammu and Kashmir, 1990 and Beyond: Competitive Politics in the Shadow of Separation, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-9-353282318,  The whole issue of exodus of Kashmiri Pandits has been mired in controversy. Among the multiple discourses that have evolved in the post-exodus period, one relates to the discourse of 'ethnic cleansing' ... As per the ... discourse, terror was used in a systematic manner to 'cleanse' Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley. This argument negates the tradition of coexistence of the two communities and focuses on the continued 'persecution' of Pandits. Inevitably, in this argument, the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits precedes 1989. While the pro-Muslim attitude of the state is held responsible for 'a silent migration' of Pandits from Kashmir even before the rise of militancy, the 1990 exodus is attributed to the religious nature of the Kashmiri movement.
  27. ^
    • Datta, Ankur (2016), On Uncertain Ground: Displaced Kashmiri Pandits in Jammu and Kashmir, Oxford University Press, pp. 174–175, 178, 179, 180, 221, ISBN 978-0-19-946677-1,  (pp. 173–174) ... the denial of rights, has been a significant current among Pandit organizations. One of the most significant of these efforts is by the Panun Kashmir Movement (PKM), ... not only presents Kashmiri nationalism as an Islamic fundamentalist movement, it specifically describes the targeting of the Pandits by Kashmiri Muslims as consistent with acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and as part of a strategy to remove all non-Muslims from Kashmir. (p. 178) By referencing the Jewish Holocaust, the Pandits can go beyond existing frames in the region and thereby claim their experience to be unique in comparison with other Indians as well as revealing the creative potential of such efforts. The parallels also allow for the adoption of a recognizable (p.179) identity of catastrophic loss and 'blameless' victimhood. Such a parallel is, ironically, not recognized by poorer and less educated migrants for whom the Jewish Holocaust is an unknown and foreign event. Hence, the parallel with the Holocaust is limited to a particular section of the migrant community. This raises a concern with regard to the ability to generalize claims of genocide for all migrants. Nevertheless, well-to-do migrants are the section of the community who shape representations in the public space. The claim for victimhood that parallels an event such as the Holocaust and drawing upon the associated vocabulary of genocide is essential to laying claim to victimhood of a particular quality, which establishes differences between themselves and other Indians. ... (p. 180) While Pandits insist upon a chain of events that led to their displacement, the facts they draw upon are often denied or not acknowledged by others. ... The Pandit exodus is also believed to have been engineered by the Indian state. According to Bose, the exodus had the potential to colour the movement for Kashmiri independence as an intolerant Islamic fundamentalist movement (Bose 1997: 72). While Bose's discussion is based on his own data and features interviews with Pandits who stayed back in Kashmir, he also draws on investigative studies conducted by human rights activists. The most notable of these studies is by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in New Delhi (PUCL 1991), which reported that Pandits were not specifically targeted and that their properties and institutional structures such as temples were not destroyed. Hence, even before a claim for victimhood can be heard, the overall history of the migration is subject to doubt. (p. 221) ... The Pandits are (p.228) often regarded as unconvincing victims in terms of material well-being, the support they receive from the state, their location outside an immediate war zone, and the relatively smaller number of casualties sustained. These qualities are significant when brought into comparison with cases of other communities in Jammu such as ... victims of ongoing state and militancy violence and oppression in the Kashmir Valley, and communities who were displaced due to military activity on the border between India and Pakistan and have been inadequately compensated.(p. 268) About the author: He has also lived in the city of Jammu where he conducted his fieldwork among the Kashmiri Pandits who have been displaced by the conflict in the Kashmir Valley. His work addresses questions of displacement and dislocation, place-making, and the politics of victimhood.
    • Bhatia, Mohita (2020), Rethinking Conflict at the Margins: Dalits and Borderland Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 978-1-108-83602-9,  The dominant politics of Jammu representing 'Hindus' as a homogeneous block includes Pandits in the wider 'Hindu' category. It often uses extremely aggressive terms such as 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' to explain their migration and places them in opposition to Kashmiri Muslims. The BJP has appropriated the miseries of Pandits to expand their 'Hindu' constituency and projects them as victims who have been driven out from their homeland by militants and Kashmiri Muslims.
  28. ^ Purkayastha, Shorbori (21 March 2022). "Does 'The Kashmir Files' Represent Kashmiri Pandits or Co-opts Them?". The Quint. While some feel that it is about time that the painful story of Kashmiri pandits be shared with the country unabashedly, others point out that in the process of dramatisation, the movie strays from facts and ends up vilifying and generalising Kashmiri Muslims.
  29. ^ "The Kashmir Files box office collection day 7: Vivek Agnihotri's film hours away from crossing Rs 100 crore mark". The Indian Express. 18 March 2022. While some have praised its brutal dramatisation of an oft-ignored chapter in recent Indian history, others have questioned its motivations.
  30. ^ Negi, Shrishti (9 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files Producer Pallavi Joshi: Am I Making the Film for Hindu Rashtra? I'm Just Telling a Story". News18. Retrieved 11 March 2022.

Closure

Shall I post at ANRFC? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
pinging Abecedare just in case. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Please do. And thanks to all the participants. Abecedare (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Went ahead and did it myself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear aBcdare, thanks and subliminal good luck in the decision making. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I look forward to reading the closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 19 June 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.

Closure review

FYI: there is ongoing discussion on whether the above closure should be endorsed/overturned. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget estimation

Now that we have a range, the {{Estimation}} tag could be removed in the Infobox? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. The range itself is an estimation. Hemantha (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnihotri's Quote

On the recent addition of the quote, what does the buzzword-y sentence add really? It's meaningless even by his own POV (surely the film has been trumpeted as focusing the world's attention on the humanity of Pandits in Kashmir?) and isn't even a particularly witty turn of phrase. Hemantha (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(@Hemantha I've split your reply to separate the topics) I think Agnihotri's views on what the film is about are due enough to include. Re this quote, he stated that "Our film is very clearly about what happens when terrorism seeps in and when humanity is absent", a straight forward assertion of what the film is about — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Aarti Tikoo Singh review

@TrangaBellam CNN quotes her review in their article on the film. I think this review could be considered reliable ?[1]

References

  1. ^ Rhea Mogul, Esha Mitra, Manveena Suri (28 April 2022). "India's latest box office smash 'The Kashmir Files' exposes deepening religious divides". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No. She is neither a notable critic nor a notable journalist. CNN may have quoted her due to her being a local journalist. Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zee5 - Indian Sign Language

@Kautilya3 I suppose the removal is not intentional? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It was intentional, because it is off-topic. Whether it was first or second or what else is really not about this film. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia description of The kashmir files movie

How something can be termed as fictional when all the incidents where taken from a documented past and records are properly kept 2409:4065:E17:497D:596F:8123:F11F:E579 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The opening credits of the film say that "This film... does not claim accurateness or factuality of historic events", so it would be a fictional storyline based on a true event. X-Editor (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

Kashmiri files is not a fictional story. So i request you to change it 202.142.121.219 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --N8wilson 🔔 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Please also review guidelines for edit requests if you choose to resubmit with sourcing. Also note that this topic is controversial and has already been discussed in an earlier RfC on this page which reached consensus. A compelling case would need to be made in order for editors to support changes that depart from existing local consensus. --N8wilson 🔔 06:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files/Archive_13&oldid=1109723768"