Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

India Today Review

We have a review by one Chaiti Narula, published at India Today (TV channel)'s website. Opinions are welcome on whether the review is due or not. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• No - Neither is she a film-critic (a news-anchor, her beat is finance, business, and politics) nor has she reviewed any film prior to this case. As Kautilya3 wrote, [T]hat this movie has essentialized "Indian-ness", no newspaper will be caught dead without a review of it. Whatever junk they can lay their hands on, they will print. But we are under no obligation to carry all reviews that we can lay our hands on.

• Lest someone confuses it, the venue of publication is not the far-famed eponymous magazine. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: What is the difference? India Today (TV channel) and India Today (magazine) seem to have the same publisher and both have indiatoday.in as their website. They seem the same. I admit, I know the magazine but have never heard of the TV channel. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Both the news channel and the magazine is owned by the same company, Living Media and share the same brand name "India Today" but have seperate editorial teams. The content on the website indiatoday.in primarily comes from the news channel's staff and the magazine only publishes its articles under indiatoday.in/magazine. Since the review isn't published under the magazine section and author in question (Chaiti Narula) is a deputy editor and news anchor at the channel, it's safe say that the review comes from the channel rather than the magazine. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note - this isn't an RfC.
• Definitely yes. First, what Kautilya3 said has little relevance here, particularly considering what they did yesterday on the article using a single column by The Print. It doesn't matter if Chaiti Narula is a film critic or not - she has been assigned the job to write a review for this reputed newspaper. Please don't make film critics into these superior journalists. Most film critics do not have film education and all of them are just people with opinions. That's it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Here is the review:

Narula, Chaiti (7 March 2022). "Review: The Kashmir Files opened, the bandage ripped off. What do you see?". www.indiatoday.in. India Today. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Low weight to None - There is no evidence of the author having any specialisation film critiques, or political affairs. She admits herself, "I am not a history major in my formal education." But history lessons are precisely what she draws from the film, which is supposed to be a work of fiction, e.g., "It was a monumental failure on the part of the state in its obligation to protect the minority Hindu Pandits in the valley." One would have expected her to at least read through the archives of her own magazine India Today, for which she is supposedly a Deputy Editor. It is unclear what she actually knows about the Kashmir conflict while she derides the "intellectuals who constantly bat for 'azadi'". It is a very low-quality review without much substance. In my view, there is no harm in omitting it entirely. Wikipedi is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE compilation of all published material. Its WP:DUE weight is practically none. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  • "There is no evidence of the author having any specialisation film critiques" - this could be true of most of the reviewers present now on the article. We cite reliable sources. Yesterday you added a column to support a tall claim in the lead - did you even know anything about him? And what is "specialisation film critiques" anyway?
  • The rest of what you said is clearly your own POV, especially the part where you dismiss her legitimacy based on her knowledge on the Kashmir conflict. Do you realise it is a film review and not a review of the conflict? See MOS:FILM and what is required in writing reception sections. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It should be included. It's a review of the film from a well known media org. Also such a prominent value has been given by some wiki editors above to the review by Amogh Rohmetra, who is a trainee journalist at The Print for less than 3 months. In that light, the reasons to disregard India Today's review don't make any sense and appear POV pushing. Wikihc (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, since a higher standard is needed here than would be required for most other films. The film has a historical and political context, it asserts as fact, claims which contradict scholarly consensus, something that is reproduced in many of the reviews. In addition, the film industry in particular has problems with undisclosed advertorials and the film has received a lot of reviews from those who have no former involvement in reviewing films. Therefore restricting it to publications with a reputation for independence as well as accuracy on socio-political issues, and to recognised film critics associated with those publications seems appropriate. India Today is a mixed bag with respect to independence or accuracy and the author Chaiti Narula appears to have never been involved in reviewing films before this, so I don't mind it being omitted.

That said, this should apply to the Rediff.com review and ThePrint article as well; the first one is primarily an aggregator and the review is written by a Koimoi staff (not to mention it asserts that the film is a "real chronicle"), while the second one is an opinion piece, not even marked as a review, and is authored by a journalist who has never reviewed any other film either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Both removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

For now. Till I rework the content. Please state your objections to the latter at #ThePrint article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not object to the article from being used for non-review purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, thank you for your measured response. As I said above, I trust your integrity and that's why I support your stand. My only concern is that you mention above "scholarly consensus", and it can't just be touched upon briefly. In order to avoid strong opposition which may well be inevitable (I see that this film really provokes incredible, polarised views all over the place based on people's political position), I highly recommend that a historical accuracy section be worked upon where scholars' points are presented fairly in order to back up the choice of reviews and everything else in it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy can come later. The first thing to do is to document what the film says about the history. I had a section called Political and historical messaging yesterday, and I recall you complaining incessantly about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, because it was based on one single source, that too a review, and definitely not the scholarly sources we're looking for to achieve veracity that is solid as a rock. That was my point the whole time through - I never objected the inclusion of the content otherwise. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You are joking! The movie was released two days ago, and you expect "scholarly sources" to pop up analysing what it says! Journalists are the people that cover these things. Yes, scholars will pitch in soon, but the fact that the film is promoting blatant Islamophobia needs to go there first. I have told you that, if you have other sources that say other things, you can bring them. I am afraid you have been nothing but obstructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: if that's what you think the film is promoting (and I never refuted that, I haven't seen the film nor do I want to), you can't use a film review to back it up, that too in the lead, saying "according to critics" or alternatively presenting it as a fact while clearly it's an opinion piece. That's why you have been reverted eventually and not by me. If scholars are going to pitch in soon, then wait, don't use unsubstantiated claims which you can't support with better sources. That was what I objected to, and I'm still surprised you think your edits were right.

As for "you have been nothing but obstructive", please discuss the content and not me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• No per Tayi and due to the fact that beyond two cookie-cutter sentences, it has nothing to say about the aspects of the movie other than the story. The extensive focus on political aspects where the author herself felt obligated to clarify her place in the political spectrum makes it impossible to see it as anything other than a political essay. In addition, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception specifically says Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited and as Kautilya3 has explained, the author is neither a professional film critic nor an expert commentator connected to topics covered. Hemantha (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Tayi Arajakate mentioned the film industry to have a problem with undisclosed advertorials and just now, I came across this tweet from the HT reviewer, whose observations we cover prominently in the first paragraph. I leave it to her (and Kautilya3's) discretion about whether any corrective steps are necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'd support removing that as well. Hindustan Times has been reported to have engaged in this practice (see [1]) and the fact the reviewer is practically promoting the film is not encouraging. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely yes - We cant be selective based on biases, if India Today is refereed as RS in Litigation section of the page then why not in Review Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that this purported review has factual issues as well. The claim that Farooq Ahmed Dar alias Bitta Karate (whose character is played well by Chinmay Mandlekar is misleading at best as pointed out below by Dsnb07. Hemantha (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, in that case The Hindu review is also factually wrong and actually quoted in this page - Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo. Krishna's mother is not fashioned on Mrs. Ganjoo. Details Here. An editor has justified used Mrs. Ganjoo because The Hindu citation says.

  Do we promote different standard for The Hindu and India Today? Dsnb07 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Editor claims (Details Here) Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo is sourced from the The Hindu or ThePrint. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a suitable description of the India Today article requires to be included. I am wondering why censoring is even seen as an option. This is highly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please see WP:CENSOR. Considerable applauds definitely doesn't mean it has paid interest in it, especially when there are visible success in terms of box office return and that there isn't any evidence of paid review. All most all media houses, irrespective of their geo-locations produce content in exchange of money. While that's definitely not ethical, but simply citing such sporadic occurrences to try to convince this case as a paid review isn't tenable. Moreover, I think the basis of this RFC has a fundamental problem. WP:DUE is applicable to Wikipedia articles, and not on articles produced by some media house. We need to make sure Wikipedia articles should follow WP:DUE. We have no guideline that says we can't include any reference that isn't written neutrally, even if I consider for a moment that India Today review isn't written from a neutral point of view. There are also provisions of using OPEDs as references. For references, in general we may cite the same as long as they are satisfying WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:IS. Now, if we get into the argument that if Chaiti Narula is a film critic or not (i don't have any opinion on this), we need to think when we are writing in the present article some critics have accused the film of historical revisionism, who these critics are? some less known twitter users? WP:DUE suggests to keep a right balance of the tone of the article, if we remain oblivious about the negativity and the credibility behind the same, Wikipedia will soon become just another mouthpiece which will be blamed of echoing propaganda of a certain group or groups. We need to be very cautious and be vigilant to make sure that we aren't stepping into a counter-propaganda while fighting a certain propaganda. Also, until and unless there is any consensus regarding the reliability of a media, I think its better to keep aside any personal opinion about if India Today is reliable or not. Every Wikipedia editor should obey the community consensus which is the heart of Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. I have read the article. This cannot be used as a writing on either history or films. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided

Moved from #Line in lead

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

I am talking about this line - "The film focuses exclusively on the killings of Kashmiri Hindus in 1990 and afterwards whereas Kashmiri Muslims were also killed during the insurgency (in greater numbers in fact)." Anyway, let it be, add a more relible source if you come accross one. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Akshaypatill Removed. A month ago, I had written at the t/p of our article on the Exodus about why this comparison of absolute numbers make little sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, would you also object to any mention in that section, that this kind of comparison is being made, as part of disputing accuracy of the film's weighting of real events (using, say, an India Today fact check, these quotes along with the Print and Siasat)? The text was added by Kautilya3 and I'd added siasat only to show that it wasn't synth to use those numbers in this film's context, when Akshaypatill disputed it on those grounds.

Relatedly on lines in lead, did you object to the use of 'exploitative' in this bundled revert or all of it? Specifically, do you object to the addition of Asim Ali's article? Hemantha (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You were caught in the crossfire but now that I see your edits:

The film's focus on violence is not the (only) reason behind critics regarding the film as Islamophobic/proto-Islamophobic. Your framing was probably the unintentional result of a copy-edit.

I have nothing against Ali, who appears to be a decent source.

I do not think "exploitative" adds anything to what is already there, except for the bombast.

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I got pinged from this section. But I can't make head or tail of any of this. I hope somebody can state clearly what it is that being debated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Akshay brought it up in this section, so two separate issues got mixed up but the ping was about this sequence of edits - yours, Akshay's, mine - and ending with this revert by TB. Issue, in my view, is: whether it is okay to call into question the film's lopsided depiction of violence using casualty numbers. Hemantha (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Fictional" self contradiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the lead states: the film claims to be based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits (Emphasis mine). Again, there is no valid reason to add the word "claims" about the what the film is based on. Being based on something does not mean it is a documentary. The same is true of countless other films. When all RS point to what it is based on, such wording appears suspect. When User:77Survivor fixed this, it was again pushed back [2]. Wikihc (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Line in lead

Can you (Dev0745) point to the many critics, who have praised the dialog of the film. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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

TB, on a related issue, did you see propaganda aligned with the ruling party to be superfluous or weak in your edit here? When I'd restored Tayi's addition, I'd seen what I'd considered to be strong enough references - like cementing the current dispensation’s favoured discourse from Anuj Kumar, The Hindu and party, whose agenda he is consciously or inadvertently perpetuating from Shubhra Gupta, IE as well as this siasat article. Hemantha (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Hemantha Is Shiyasat a reliable source? I had never heard of it. From this, [3] I think it is more like a local right-wing muslim newspaper. I don't find it to be unbiased. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

673 uses tells me it's okay enough for the contexts here, but this is a bit tangential to the issue. Especially given Modi's comments and the tax breaks, there are and will be more. Hemantha (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside Siasat, I'd think when both the IE and The Hindu reviews have mentioned it, it has enough weight for inclusion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection over the inclusion. I am making sure it is cited from a reliable source. The IE source isn't related to the film and can be amounted for WP:SYNTH. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

(TrangaBellam), I had not read reviews thoroughly, but background research have been praised by Deccan herald & Pinkvilla. I was thinking only mentioning of praise of performance is not enough in lead section when there is so much negative things was added in lead section. The film is praised for other things also. I think other thing i.e background research should be added as it is mentioned by two articles in Reception Section. I did not noticed dialogues is praised by only one article Deccan herald in Reception section. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(TrangaBellam) & (Tayi Arajakate). I think lead section should be clear. Not all critics or people are accusing it of propaganda and prejudice against muslim, It is only some leftleaning newspapers & critics( especially The Hindu, Indian Express not Quint which is also left leaning) and Muslims(Siasat daily which mouthpiece for Muslims) are. So "some" should be added. Not addding some is like presenting half truth. Definitely it is not accused of propaganda by all critics or people. Truth to be told not half truth to mislead people.Dev0745 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no third party media analysis, I mean analysis not reporting of International media. Although International media BBC and Alzazeera published article, they only reported not done any analysis. Only Print have done analysis, which may count. According to me, BBC have done mediocre reporting. Alzazeera have published one sided article. You can find about Alzazeera's biased reporting and anti-India narrative in Wikipedia article. Thanks (Dev0745 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC))

Misrepresentation : Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo

Article says Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo. (last para in log)

• Misrepresentation 1 : Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo'
  • No source given by editor says fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo (at least I am not able to find)
• The truth : Sharda Pandit(Krishna's mother) a fictional character, is based on two true event related to Mrs. Ganjoo and Girji Tickoo . (source)
  • Who was Mrs. Ganjoo? his husband was shot him and forced she was forced to eat the blood-soaked rice. Source
  • who was Girja Tickoo? : a Kashmiri hindu raped, and sliced into two pieces by Militants using carpenter saw. source Cite : Tikoo, Colonel Tej K. Kashmir: Its Aborigines and Their Exodus. Lancer Publishers LLC. ISBN 978-1-935501-58-9.</ref>

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

The point seem to e right. Nowhere in the sources mentioned do I see that character is based on Mrs. Ganjoo. What is the basis of this arbitrary statement that character is based on Mrs. Ganjoo Bmasterfelix (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed some reviewers got it wrong. And they aren't RS on the historical accuracy anyway. Wikihc (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Guys, please stop engaging in WP:OR analysis of your own. The source said it, and I find it WP:DUE.

Everybody knows feature films are fiction. But this film claims to portray "truth", endorsed by the Prime Minister of India, no less. Many people believe it to be the truth. So, all "untruthful" aspects will be highlighted, by the RS and us. You can't have it both ways. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The text has since been altered by other editors. I sugges you read that, and if you are still not happy with it, do an WP:RFC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Critical reception Vandalism

Dear Wiki community,

I am putting out current and previous version of Critical reception of the wiki page. All good review was intentionally removed and all bad (except 1) was kept on this page. Forget about any thing largest media house [India Today]'s review was removed because it gave 4 point. I don't want to say this but truth must be told, Indian wiki community was hacked by a few and they running as mafia. Sad days for Wikipedian.

Dsnb07 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

1. In Previous version, positive reviewed had a paragraph followed by review contains criticism . This is how we do in wikipedia page and write a balance and neutral article.
2. In current version, both paragraphs are focused on review contains criticism. This is how people do on propaganda page.

Dsnb07 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING.

India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect and neither is Narula a film-critic nor has she reviewed any other film for any publication. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding that Koimoi and TOI are not reliable per ICTF. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? what is source of "India Today's reliability is increasingly suspect" Dsnb07 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, ICTF has listed India Today Dsnb07 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, there was some discussion at WT:INB about India Today's falling standards under the Modi Regime (cc:Kautilya3). I reiterate that neither is Narula a film-critic nor has she reviewed any other film for any publication. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that this movie has essentiallised "Indian-ness", no newspaper will be caught dead without a review of it. Whatever junk they can lay their hands on, they will print. As for India Today, I know its senior editors have mass-copied Wikipedia. And, we just caught the Entertainment pages of TOI doing the same a few days ago. So, standards are non-existent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=] Not Done. Same India today is used as a source in Litigation section of this article. Is it not selectively treating a RS as good standard or falling standard ? Dsnb07 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree. Hindustan Times is also reliable. But its review was also removed by @TrangaBellam. The HT reviewer Monica Kukreja has a profile on Rotten Tomatoes. Thoughts? Vizziee (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Politics Section

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

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

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

The article makes it clear that only "some" are pushing this idea of Islamophobia in the film. These two lines also don't make the exact same points. One makes a point about violence while the other makes a point about historical revisionism. X-Editor (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Let me get two lines from the article -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanamonde

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

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

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

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

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

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

India Today wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:FILMHIST states,

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

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

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

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

MOS:FILM states,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whosoever concerned, Please add Left parties or remove BJP As per source. We should take source in entirety (and not selectively) or change source to suit certain kind of narrative. This makes content questionable and against NPOV. Please change. Dsnb07 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

BJP's Role in 1990

The Political messaging and Historical accuracy section states

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2: Nobody said support ... to exodus. Your entirely useless posts in this talk page are becoming a big distraction. @Hemantha (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Maintain a consistent stance here.

Varun80 (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources for director's claims of threats

Moved from User talk:Bhaskarbhagawati § Interviews are primary sources

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

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

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

References

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

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

However, I see that this information has been included in the Government Support section. That is unreasonable. Government provided security is not a support of the movie. This information is better suited in the Theatrical release section. As the security has been provided due to the threats after release of the movie. Wikihc (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Those links aren't secondary sources for the threats, they are primary; as the claims are carried as quotes of the director. The IE article you link to (HT is an uncredited video, so probably not reliable), says based on Intelligence inputs on “a threat to his life”, sources told. Note the scare quotes and the anonymous sourcing. In the context where the govt has put its entire weight behind this movie and its director, there is valid grounds for questioning the reliability of these threat claims. Hemantha (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Section [Threats] should be added again

An editor added threats to the director because he made this film and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Kashmir_Files&type=revision&diff=1077527751&oldid=1077522351. I request editors to add it and here I am giving multiple sources.

This line was removed - The makers of the film has stated that mutliple Fatwas were issued against Agnihotri and his family. Death threats and calls to stop the release were also reported

Sources :

• Outlook - Pallavi joshi reveals that a fatwa was issued on her and Vicek-Agnihotri
• IndiaToday Pallavi Joshi says fatwa was issued against her and Vivek Agnihotri during shoot
• KoiMoi Vivek Agnihotri Says, “All This Fatwa, Threats, Abuses..For What" and deactives his account.

Dsnb07 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fatwa removed

Fatwa was removed with reason don't think their claims are due without any surrounding context) (log).The reason is very abstract.

• "Litigaton" Context - Fatwa is a legal ruling on a point of Islamic law. ( check lead of wiki page Fatwa)

Dsnb07 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you read the sources, you would find that they are attributing the claim to the producers, in other words, the sole information about the fatwas comes from them. I would also suggest you read through the policies and try understanding them, assessing sources and whether to include something or not is part of general editorial process and not a violation WP:NOR. Lastly, the litigations aren't even remotely comparable, the fact they exist isn't a claim but something that has been litigated upon and their details reported on. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Even in case of Audrey Truschke, the sole information about the hate mail comes from what she wrote on a website. Ref 25 on her page and Wikipedia has no problem in that case. Why now? Varun80 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)