Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

The Kashmir Files, is based on incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. Throughout the movie (I've seen it), non-Muslims are called Kafir, so please find the first mention of the word, non-Muslim (it is first mentioned in the plot section) and link that word to the Kafir article from this article. If possible, please change the word, non-Muslim to Kafir as that is the word the terrorists use for non-Muslims in the movie.— BitOfKarate (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

GenoV84 has linked some articles with the Kafir article, where the articles mention the term, "non-Muslim".—BitOfKarate (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: According to the reliable sources cited in the article Kafir, the term means "Non-Muslim". You reverted my edits asserting that the term cannot be linked because it would be a WP:EGG. Please explain where, because the term means exactly that, and this is the first time that I meet another editor which claims that certain articles are not allowed to be linked on Wikipedia.... Once again, according to which rule of WP:MOS? GenoV84 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:EGG says, "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." "Non-Muslim" is a self-evident concept, which doesn't need to be linked to anything. You and your friend are trying to engage in agenda-driven editing. Neither can the term "Kafir" be used in the Plot section as per WP:FILMPLOT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You didn't reply to my question, instead you are accusing me and another user of "agenda-driven editing".... Are you serious now? Check out how many articles related to the history of Islam and other Abrahamic religions I edited throughout the years and dare to say that to me again, instead of accusing me without evidence in blatant violation of the policy WP:BADFAITH. GenoV84 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: "Neither can the term "Kafir" be used in the Plot section as per WP:FILMPLOT"... According to whom? Nobody. Where is it written? Nowhere. Stop misrepresenting WP policies in order to patronize this article; it doesn't work. See also the related entry on the Wiktionary. The specific term in Arabic and the translation in English have the exact same meaning. Now what? GenoV84 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reading difficulties? It is the third sentence: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikilinks are NOT mentioned. Can you read, mate? GenoV84 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You asked why Kafir cannot be mentioned, I answered. Now apparently you can't read your own questions either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow man, sucks to be you! As I said before, this is the first time that I hear from another user that certain articles are not allowed to be linked on Wikipedia.... Once again, according to which rule of WP:MOS? Exactly: none. Furthermore, in case you didn't know, Wikipedia is not censored. GenoV84 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you've also removed the link to the article Mass grave with your reverts. Is there also a particular reason supported by WP policies for deleting links to that article as well? Do you have an explanation for that? GenoV84 (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Linking "mass grave" is less of a problem. But are you confident that the content of that page is relevant to what is depicted in the film? Have you watched the film? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No, and I don't care to watch it. I'm just trying to understand why you're behaving this way, and what's the point of reverting my edits when those wikilinks that I previously added seem to be both pertinent and relevant regarding the context of this article. GenoV84 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the term used in the movie is Kafir, not non-Muslim which is why I asked both those points to be considered. I don't find your answer convincing but I would like an admin to explain what is right. I liked what I read at Wikipedia is not censored.—BitOfKarate (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot call non-Muslims as "Kafirs", nor can it link non-Muslim to "Kafir" (which is an underhand way of doing the same thing). If the film calls all of them "Kafirs", it can be stated, but not as part of the "plot". It can be stated in the commentary sections, with WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Then please add this: ".....mosque sermons urged ‘believers’ to give the Kafir one last push in order to usher in the true Islamic society." GenoV84, Kautilya3, RegentsPark, please add this with quotation marks or paraphrase it.—BitOfKarate (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That is very nice! You gave a properly formatted citation, but omitted the author field. Why was that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But where is Wikipedia calling them kafirs? It is just the plot...if needed, it can be specified that the film is calling them so. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I had a draft template which I used, so I didn't add any new field thinking it will cause a citation error. Here are more citations for, ".....mosque sermons urged ‘believers’ to give the Kafir one last push in order to usher in the true Islamic society."-BitOfKarate (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone must start a Request for Comments, according to WP:RFC, whether to link the term, "non-Muslim" to the Kafir article. I am travelling and don't have the time.-2409:4071:E0D:66C3:A135:3C87:31E0:DD33 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Before starting an Rfc, there needs to be a proper discussion, like this. Kpddg ^(talk) 07:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg, RegentsPark, says it can be done here - I am now in a remote place with network issues, sorry if I don't reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:240f:5ad6::d17:88ad (talk • contribs)

References

Mossad3 CU blocked as a sock of Y2edit?

Which means that all article edits can be reverted, unanswered talk page posts also. Others can be struck through. And although I'm not sure if it would always be a good idea, hat some threads? Close the RfC? Doug Weller talk 07:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Implementation of lede RFC closure

The appeal of the closure of the RfC about article lede has been archived without (IMO) sufficient support to overturn that closure. Therefore, the consensus determined in that RFC can now be implemented. I am not doing so myself since it may involve some (stylistic) adjustments of the citations, which regular editors of the article would be better equipped to make. Courtesy pinging Nableezy and TryKid in case they have any procedural notes or objections respectively; and, Kautilya3 since their proposal was the one selected at the RFC and so they may wish to implement the change. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: I was confused by the {{Under discussion inline}} tag in the lede and didn't realize that the RFC findings had already been implemnted. I have removed the tag since the lede language is currently settled (touch wood). Apologies for the unnecessary pings. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files

in wikipidea page it is written that there is a fictional story line but this thing is in accurate as there are many evidences that hindus were killed by Locals and forced to leave kashmir furtur it can be stll now seen in recent incidents that hindus espacially kasmiri padits are killed in balley so please correct it and stop yours narrative against sufferinf of kashmiri pandit

I CONDEMN SIDDHANT111 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read Contributing to Wikipedia. Your post is incomprehensible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The grammar is a bit off, but it's pretty comprehensible. These complaints would not have been here if the article was treated a bit more fairly and actually followed NPOV instead of RGW axe-griding. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Under RGW, it says "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." All of the claims in this article are backed up by mainstream articles and scholarly papers, so I'm not sure if RGW would apply here. If you have any suggestions on how to fix this article, please share them. X-Editor (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

SIDDHANT111 post is completely comprehensible to any native speaker of English. I agree with this user, this film is not a fictional storyline therefore wikipedia here is an agent of fake news. The film is based in the genocide committed against hindus in the Kashmir valley and there is enough evidence about this. I still remember watching this in the news. Imaging a wikipedia article denying the holocaust. Outrageous, I would say and that is my impression of this article. Very shocking--Northperson (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Northperson,SIDDHANT111, Wikipedia is based on reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia doesn't promote any agenda or anything else. Reliable independent sources, such as the BBC, state that this film is based on a fictional story, which is why Wikipedia must continue to state that the film is based on a fictional story. Hope you will understand. Grabup (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

Pokebot07 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a fictional story

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

The kashmir Files is not a fictional movie...it's a true incident based on exodus of Kashmiri Hindus! 49.36.208.183 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MadGuy7023 can you please check the section below. It is a bit different but related to this topic. Thanks Aisheee (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about linking the term non-Muslim to the Kafir article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to wikilink non-Muslim to Kafir. This is some secondary discussion about including the term Kafir, with a wikilink, in the article but there is no consensus on that point either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should we link the first mention of the term "non-Muslim" in the plot section to Kafir?-Mossad3 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Alternatively, we can simply use the term, "Kafir (with this link when it is used for the first time)" everywhere (or at least in the plot section), as in the movie, instead of non-Muslim.-Mossad3 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The Kashmir Files is based on incidents in Jammu and Kashmir and throughout this movie, non-Muslims are called kafirs. The Kafir article says the term means "Non-Muslim".-Mossad3 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose - As stated in an earlier section, "non-Muslim" is self-explanatory term and there is no need to link it to anything. If the film has Muslims using the term "kafir" often, that is an entirely different matter, and needs to be covered in a separate "Themes" section as for MOS:FILM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kautilya3, Shouldn't our readers know what Islam says about the Kafir? A link should be allowed for the reader to click and read that.-Mossad3 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kautilya3, I can't comprehend your rationale here. If the film has the characters using the term Kafir in the sense of non-Muslims in a trivial sense, it is not a "theme" detail, nor some minute like a dialogue, it is a basic plot detail on who is being targeted there. Newslaundry describes the plot like this: Similarly, the militants are also portrayed as one undifferentiated mass. [...] In fact, there cannot be political differences between militants because they don’t have any political grievances or aspirations – all of them are driven by their hatred towards the Hindu kafir. [...] As far as the civilian population of Kashmir goes, they are also completely in on the project of kafir persecution. Other sources use the term non-Muslim, and if the commenters here are correct, they're translating the word Kafir as non-Muslim, and not some other word like ghair-Musalman. How can there be an EGG concern when the article defines it as non-Muslim, and news articles freely translate it as such? They're equivalent terms in certain contexts, such as this one. Kafir is also an English word now—if the film uses it, we can use it directly use it in the plot section, and if we must translate it to non-Muslim, then there should be no problems linking the original word used in the film. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to link "non-Muslim", write a page on "non-Muslim" and link it there. Doing anything else is WP:OR and WP:EGG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kautilya3, you ignore the full argument. if the film uses the word Kafir, what grounds do we have to replace that with non-Muslim? is that not an interpretation? but it wouldn't be OR or an unjustified interpretation, since multiple sources identify the "Kafir" of the film with non-Muslims. and when that identification is made, our linking it wouldn't be OR either. but we can also simply use the word "Kafir" in the plot, since that's the word used in the film, I don't think you've made any convincing argument against the former or the latter options. the EGG argument is incomprehensible. the linked article makes it clear that Kafir = non-Muslim, so readers would be delivered to the article they were expecting, not to something surprising. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC is not the place to make arguments. That should have happened before]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  very bureaucratic. but it's not a formal RfC anymore anyway. the tag has been removed. consider it a normal talk page discussion. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  TryKid, it is now. I restored the RfC ID.-Mossad3 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with the arguments of TryKid above; we can simply use the term, "Kafir" everywhere, as in the movie, instead of non-Muslim.-Mossad3 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You can’t really support your own RfC just so you know. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 08:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Kautilya3 above; it’s a self-explanatory phrase. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 08:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why are other links not considered 'self-explainatory'? Kpddg ^(talk) 15:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The film mentions non-Muslims as kafirs, so I don't see why the plot can't contain this. The term can also be added this way if needed- ...non-Muslims (called kafirs in the film) Kpddg ^(talk) 13:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Not convinced by opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned, non-Muslim is self-explanatory + kafir, inherently has derogatory connotations for someone who does not adhere to the Islamic belief much like terms such as pagan and infidel do. Further context is needed if said term is to be used. Veggieramen (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) - We use descriptive language. That particular words are used in the movie doesn't mean we should use them (or undermine the neutral description with an WP:EASTEREGG). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Neutrality will not apply here, since it is the words used by the film, not by Wikipedia. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: This film explicitly mentions "Non-Muslims" by using the Arabic word Kafir, therefore the wikilink Kafir seems to be both pertinent and relevant regarding the context of this article and of the movie itself. I thoroughly agree with user TryKid when they say that if the film uses the word Kafir, what grounds do we have to replace that with non-Muslim? is that not an interpretation?. Furthermore, contrarily to what Kautilya3 and some other users claim, the English term "Non-Muslim" is not self-explanatory to people who are not Muslims (i.e., the vast majority of human population on planet Earth) because it has a very specific meaning along with derogatory connotations in the Islamic religion, therefore a wikilink to the appropriate article concerning the meaning, explanation of this term, and its consequences is more than needed.

I think that none of the opposing users have proposed a convincing argument against the usage of this wikilink, at all. In the previous discussion that we had on this same Talk page weeks ago, I asked Kautilya3 to give me a satisfactory answer to the following question, but he tried to dodge my request and never gave an answer to it: according to which rule of WP:MOS and WP:NOTCENSORED certain articles are not allowed to be linked on Wikipedia? GenoV84 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This RFC was started in bad-faith by Mossad3, a sock of Y2edit? who is not only indef blocked but was also topic-banned from Indian politics and specifically from this talkpage at the time of the block. Note that several of the IPs in the discussion preceding this RFC were also the user and BitaKarate1 who initiated that discussion is globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse. That said, several experienced wikipedians unconnected to any of these shananigans have made good-faith contributions to this RFC; so I'd suggest that it be allowed to run but the closer keep an eye for any issues arising from possibly subpar framing or from abuse of the process. Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support: as per TrangaBellam above, no convincing opposition. Tow (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support The user Kautilya3 seems to have lost rationale here. This article is about the movie, not of the true event. Therefore the term Kafir, should be mentioned here because the term "Non-Muslim" was, and I emphasise on this, never used in the movie. This is Wikipedia, please do not spread misinformation here. Yeshehat (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Just watched the film and came to wikipedia and found this mess. The correct term is kafir therefore should be linked. To use the term non-muslim is deceitful and seems more like islamic propaganda where the world is devided in muslims (dar al-Islam) and non-muslim (dar al-harb). As far as I know, wikipedia does not enforce sharia law yet. If we accept this terminology, then we accept that muslims had the right to kill the Hindu kafirs as that is what this term implies accordign to sharia law. I also find the non-muslim term derogatory, it implies that we should be all muslims. Kafir on the other hand is the correct term, used in sharia law and the likely reason for this genocide like many others perpetrated by islamist.--Northperson (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Non-Muslim is simply means a person who is not a Muslim and Kafir is a Arabic word but means the same. We should simply use Non-Muslim because it is a self explanatory term and there is no need to link it to anything. Grabup (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Its clear there's a deeper context surrounding the use of the word "kafir" by the islamic militants, and simply using the term "non-muslim" does not sufficiently give context for the attitude being conveyed. Personally I think that the word "kafir" should be used outright to be consistent with the terms used in the movie though. Josepherino (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. As others have said, the term is self explanatory and does not need a link, and especially does not need a wikilink to a different concept. While the term kafir can be translated as non-Muslim, non-Muslim in general parlance does not carry the same implications as kafir. Note that, especially since the movie uses it, I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the term kafir as a non easter-egg link somewhere in this article about a fictional and historically inaccurate movie that has been presented as factual and historically accurate (and the implications thereof), if it can be neutrally integrated with the support of sources. Whether this can happen I do not know. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

References

• Comment. While I'm somewhat concerned regarding the way in which the filmWhy not just use the term Kafir in the article rather than "non-Muslim"? If the film is using the term, and there is a different connotation between the two, then it seems like it might be best to (1) use "Kafir"; (2) attribute the use of the term to the film itself rather than declaring non-Muslims Kafir in WikiVoice; and (3) then linking to the term Kafir in an attributed way. If the film is taking a POV stance by using Kafir (and it seems like it's an intentional choice) it might be best to explain what that POV is and how the POV is expressed through the film's framing of the situation (i.e. its plot). However, an easter egg sort of link seems imprudent, since the term "non-Muslim" has a different connotation than Kafir. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Many users who expressed support indeed said they would prefer the use of Kafir directly, I think theres consensus in favour of that. The closer may decide to to close that way, they need not be bound only to the original options present. What the POV is might be better explained in historicity, themes, or reception section. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC) updated TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to they need to be bound only to the original options present, no, they don't. If somebody in the discussion proposes a viable alternative to the original options in the RfC and that alternative gains consensus, then the closer would be in error if they were not to note the presence of consensus for that alternative in their summary of the RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes, that's what I meant. Missed the crucial not there. Fixed. Sorry about that. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I feel there is no need to wikilink a self explanatory word. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 03:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I have opened a request for this RfC to be closed, since it has now expired. Kpddg ^(talk) 07:21, 5 August 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.

Improved phrasing of a sentence based on facts: Story centered around a fictional student character, not simply Fictional story

The 3 articles cited in the second sentence of the article do not mention that it is a fictional story. They instead mention that it is a "fictional story of a student". There is a difference between calling one character fictional (through whom the story is being narrated) and calling the entire movie's storyline fictional- where real-life people such as Yasin Malik, Farooq Ahmed Dar, Girija Tickoo, BK Ganjoo and several others have been portrayed. The idea behind the sentence is correct and intends to be based on facts. However, is phrased in a misleading manner. More appropriately- It is a storyline inspired by real events, centered around the fictional story of a student. Aisheee (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? Let's call a spade a spade? Aisheee (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the footnote [a]? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And it is not related to the facts and logic I presented. Disclaimers do not have a retroactive effect on reality. Will you now delete all articles and citations related to the real life people I mentioned above, because a movie that portrays them has this disclaimer? My argument is purely objective and logic based not subjective inferences based. 🙏 Thanks

Now back to the topic: What I mentioned is that clearly the student character who is the central character of the movie is a fictional character. But the movie contains several real instances "additionally". So, the sentence should be "Story centered around a fictional student character", not simply "it is a Fictional story" Aisheee (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Any wiki admins willing to include it based on logic and irrespective of preference? 👋 Aisheee (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Aisheee (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aisheee Admins have no special authority over policy compliant content. And we follow the sources, not logic, which would be original researxh. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't consider the references as sources? My logic is based on sources. I feel like .. i don't know depressed I think M gonna log out for good it makes no sense. There are millions of edits getting approved everyday with fewer sources. Aisheee (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason that you and others are endlessly belaboring the trivial is that the majority of editors who voted in the RfC preferred to pussyfoot around the obvious. The only accurate proposal was proposal B which stated:

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." ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The source in [a] says "Presented as a work of fiction, The Kashmir Files is freed of the constraints that the facts gathered by its makers may pose." X-Editor (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on definitions: There may be some nuanced difference between definitions of words 'Fictional' and 'Fictionalized'

Fictional: ".. relating to or occurring in fiction; invented for the purposes of fiction. .." (Google presented definition of 'Fictional from Oxford languages)

Fictionalized: ".. (of a story) based on a real event or character but with imaginary details added or some facts changed ..". (From dictionary.cabridge.org)

I suggest WP:RfC for choice of right word from above two i.e. 'Fictional' or 'Fictionalized'? Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I literally repeat. If someone makes a movie that includes part of my life and write a disclaimer that it is a fiction, it will mean I really don't exist? My passport will be cancelled? I don't know ...😂😂😂 what to say . Bookku "fictionalized" would make more sense indeed. Compared to what is being "attempted" right now. But, I am out. For some reason this page opens up when I launch my browser and type "w" to go to "webwhatsapp" and quickly press enter. Will clear out in a while.2A01:E0A:911:1070:494:706B:788:E26A (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The "fictional" vs. "fictionalized" discussion was a part of this page from the get-go. Please take a look at the archives. It was discussed to death in the very early weeks. There is no point resuscitating it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing and links encourages suppression of truth

“Largely denied by scholars”: what kind of “scholars”are you referring to? Which part of the the genocide is denied by your “scholars”? The mass shooting? The Girija Tickoo slaughter? The rice can murder? You linked some scroll.in article for the Girija Tickoo case-that hardly talks about the case, except for one sentence that states “allegedly”. So according to your very “expert”opinion do the words of the next off kin sh e less value than a half-assed journalist called Ipsita Chakravarthy? Fix up these issues ASAP. Do not lower the standard of Wikipedia. 2601:647:6400:AC44:24A7:DDB3:7477:3169 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say "largely denied by scholars"? I can't find it. Do you mean where it says "a notion that is widely considered inaccurate by scholars", in the lead section? Who the scholars are is explained in the footnotes to that sentence. (And they're academic scholars, not scarequote "scholars".) Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC).

The article cites the scholars denying the label of genocide to the events, while not denying any specific accusation you mention (Bose is cited debunking the temple destruction claim, but that isn't part of the film afaik). This is based on citations of Alexander Evans, Sumantra Bose, Rai Mridu etc (footnote 17 and 18 in the current version), not the Scroll article. Their arguments sound very sussy to me, but I'm no genocide or Kashmir scholar. The article probably isn't getting fixed in any way anytime soon. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add IMDB and rotten tomatoes rating

Add the IMDB and rotten tomatoes rating of Kashmir Files AKI470 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit

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.

---

In starting of paragraph the its said that it is a fictional story 103.80.22.240 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 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.

IFFI - comments by Nadav Lapid

We saw seven films in the debutant competition, and 15 films in the international competition — the front window of the festival. 14 out of them had cinematic qualities, defaults and evoked vivid discussions. All of us [jury members] were disturbed and shocked by the fifteenth film, by the movie "Kashmir Files". It felt to us like a propaganda, a vulgar movie [which is] inappropriate for an artistic competitive section of such a prestigious film festival. I feel totally comfortable to share [ ] these feelings [ ] with you on stage since the spirit that we felt in the festival can truly accept [ ] a critical discussion, which is essential for art and life. Thanks a lot!
— Nadav Lapid, the head juror, during the closing ceremony of International Film Festival of India (2022)

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it should go in the lead. This coming from a juror of a critical body on film is noteworthy and has become a major talking point. The coverage is tangible too. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead is certainly undue? In light of NOTNEWS, I will wait a couple of days. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have added the reception of film at IFFI in the body in the meantime, where its inclusion is doubtlessly justified in view of the magnitude of coverage and reactions. The reception at the festival in presence of state guests, some of whom have avowedly rallied behind the film, is likely to generate more heat and commentary in the coming days, so it would indeed be politic to await the same before deciding on its lead-worthiness. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If only this festival had been held at the time he was bullying WP Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, do you read Hebrew? Machine translation of a segment from Lapid's interview:

It's a film that the Indian government, if it didn't actually initiate, at least pushed in an unusual way. It justifies the Indian policy in Kashmir and has fascist features. They claim that the dimensions of the event were hidden by the intellectuals and the media. It is always the same method; that there is the foreign enemy, and there are the traitors from within.
— Lapid's interview to Yedioth Ahronoth

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't. I hope he will inspire Bollywood and the Indian media to be a little less craven to the secretive form of Fascism that has spread in India since 2014. Shruti Kapila's recent book is a good analysis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And even more generally. Unlike Pakistan, which produced a Faiz Ahmad Faiz, an Ahmad Faraz or Fahmida Riaz in the face of dictatorship, India has managed nothing creative yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I loved the way in which Navid Lapid quietly, but firmly and with dignity, said spoke out the truth. Perhaps more people in India will be heartened by this to say that (forget the blustering by their government about taking back Gilgit and Baltistan) Indian rule in its own Kashmir might be immoral, has always been. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Israeli embassy shot him down profusely [1].

What is not clear to me is what the jury was doing, and whether this was an agreed assessment of the jury as a whole, or Lapid's own criticism. The above interview comments don't help really. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The jury included one "Sudipto Sen" who is the director of a film that documents (?) how 32,000 girls from Kerala were converted to Islam and trafficked. Safe to say, that Lapid was not speaking for Sen (and hence, the jury - ?). As to the rest, I am acquainted with Chavance's work and feel that she should have been in support; no clue about Javier Angulo or Jinko Gotoh. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Sen has disavowed the statement [2], and rather alleges that Lapid aired a personal opinion. Would be worthwhile to await further statements from the other jurors. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The backlash in NYtimes of 30 minutes ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Going to note one thing, the article is twisting elements of the Israeli embassy's response. Case in point, it references the statements made by the ambassador and says that "he was extremely hurt by reactions (that Lapid was doubting Schindler's List)" when in fact the ambassador states that he was hurt "by the reactions (to Lapid) that were doubting Schindler's List, Holocaust, etc". So I wouldn't rely on it. The embassy's response can be summed up as "say whatever about Israeli issues but don't speak on this for the sake of our ties and Israeli reps residing in India". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the Embassy note implicitly acknowledges that the movie represented the host's interest. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lapid's remarks belong to this article. The ambassador's twitter post etc. are not notable for the article; they might be for a Navid Lapid article if the issue snowballs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: we have an article at Nadav Lapid. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. My mother always said I was dyslexic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And that article is in the press:[3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Lapid says that it was the collective opinion of the jury and he has receipts; urges the media to enquire with Angulo and Chavance. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Excerpts from Lapid's interview with Mako:

It wouldn't occur to me to lecture about the politics of Kashmir in India! [..] You need not be a scholar in the conflict to recognize films for what they are. [..] It was produced by people with a definite agenda. If there is a university course on propaganda films tomorrow, you can take any one minute of this 170--minute-long film as a demonstration [..]

I have been a member of the jury at dozens of prestigious film festivals; nowhere did I come across any similar submission [..] I was neither the first nor will be the last person to raise these concerns about the film [..]

Some of this need to go in. I wonder if this is the sharpest critique of the film since release. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I highlighted the part that we might include. It is a crystal clear statement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, it appears that Ladiv's assessment was that of the jury as a whole. Libération reports that the jury was unanimous but Sudipto Sen — the Indian juror, whose works invoke tropes of Love Jihad among other fringe conspiracy theories — considered the comments to be inappropriate for public consumption. And, true to my predictions, Chavance did call out the film, noting the caricatural one-dimensional portrayal of Muslims etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. In the Indian English-language media now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the story is now so big that it deserves an entire subsection of its own, under Reception. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does: "IFFI row"? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Reception at international film festival" would be my choice. I think we also need to make another pass through the current content and clarify the politics behind the film and the various forces pulling it different directions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems Sen's own public statement is different from the his own jury opinion. I can't verify the French but Wire quotes this: "[Sen] tells us that he shares Nadav Lapid’s opinion, but not the fact of declaring it so openly during the closing ceremony, in front of government representatives." So Ladiv's statement included the opinion of Sen as well. Sen's explanation for his public position is a chilling example from Iran. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait, where did the Liberation have this? I read the article via Europresse (1); let me recheck. My apologies, I did not expand a collapsible header. The relevant portion is:

Sudipto Sen, seul Indien du jury, a exprimé des réserves dans un communiqué. Il affirme que les propos de Nadav Lapid sont «personnels», et que ce n'est pas le rôle du jury d'exprimer des positions politiques. Il nous confie toutefois partager l'opinion de Nadav Lapid, mais pas le fait de la déclarer si ouvertement lors de la cérémonie de clôture, devant les représentants du gouvernement. Et de conclure par une comparaison glaçante : «Les cinéastes peuvent avoir des opinions politiques, mais il faut être responsable. Car nous sommes tous vulnérables. Regardez en Iran : le réalisateur Jafar Panahi vient d'être condamné à six ans de prison pour avoir critiqué le régime».

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead worthiness

Continuing from the point I had raised in the above discussion. The IFFI jury's critique of the film has continued to be the cynosure of media's attention so far its reception is concerned. Its continued omission from the article's lead thus strikes a discordant note, as the lead is supposed to recapitulate the major aspects of the article's topic. Presently, the lead touches on the critical reception of the film in its last paragraph, but we do a disservice to the audience of readers by not covering the prominent negative reception. I wish also to flag the unjustified prominence given to the approbation of non-critics in the foregoing paragraph. Hindu nationalist politicians were heavily involved in the film's promotion and state patronage to it is also apodictic. It doesn't need a second mention. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2023 (2)

Wikipedia itself recognises it to be a true setting and yet there is "fictional storyline" written on it. It should be changed to "partially fictional" as the mass murder or "genocide" actually happened and has been recognised by the ICHRRF as a genocide. Please do change it and keep wikipedia unbiased. - An Indian with true experience of the horror faced in kashmir.

Links : Wikipedia acknowledgement of the true storyline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus#:~:text=30%20or%2032%20Kashmiri%20Pandits,year%20period%2C%201988%20to%201991.

ICHRRF acknowledgement : https://www.ichrrf.org/home/publications-media/pr_03-27-2022

Acknowledgement of the genocide by the India government's National Human Rights Commission :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10x7VxWIqWwI1y5EJ5PZmvumdPONX03eE/view?usp=drivesdk

A better explanation of why it is a genocide:

https://www.juscorpus.com/genocide-of-kashmiri-pandits-reconciliation-and-the-way-ahead/ 202.8.116.154 (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What are "ICHRRF" credentials in this regard? Also, what Wikipedia set forths on the topic is based on the academic characterization of the infelicitous events as constituting an exodus. Scholars do not attest to the frivolous Hindutva rhetoric of a "genocide". Honestly, you are dawdling time you could better spend on enlightening yourself as to what genocide signifies. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias in this article

The article talks about BJP member support, but ignores the disparaging of any film, as witnessed by other parties. The opening sentence itself is false, or rather doesn't acknowledge that prominent academics have also called it a genocide. Consulate Generals have weighed in around the world, also agreeing to the genocide label. I understand the film is controversial. I understand that the director, still needs police protection, like a year later, due to threats on his life. He had Y-category protection, due to threats. So cover the entire controversy - not just one cherry picked angle of it. The film did incredibly well, on a small budget, against all odds, including among non-Indian, non-hindu audiences, globally. It continues to be watched. Sfdoctorp (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Which "prominent academics have also called it a genocide"? Wikipedia's characterization of the film's plot as a fairy tale is on a sound footing as it corresponds to motif coming through in reliable sources. Wikipedia has no good reasons to hew to the trumped-up and frivolous Hindu nationalist use of the genocide label. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See below. This is not "Hindu nationalist" thinking. This is recognized by prominent leaders, including the French Consulate. I don't who you think you are? 172.0.233.143 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What has the French consulate observed concerning the Kashmir files movie for starters? You keep handwaving, but have thus far avoided substantiating any of your contentions. Have you even bothered to go over any of the citations cited in the article's lead? Handwaving sans substantiation is infructuous and unconstructive to boot. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fictional or Real.

As written in the wiki that it's based on a fictional story which is a blatant lie. The whole movie is based on real life incidents and is a true story. 2405:201:5C01:818C:F57A:4FBC:C48B:971B (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please see the archives of this page for multiple previous discussions on this topic. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Over 4 years of research and over 700 interviews were conducted, in creating this film. Government records are clear about many of these stories. Some timeline changes were there, and obviously character names were altered, or combined. 172.0.233.143 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That would assume that we took Indian Government narrative as the truth; we don't do that, but rely on reliable independent sources. This is not being biased against the Indian Government; I live in a different country, but am well aware that many of the things my government says are false or misleading. That's what politicians do. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't take the opinion of the government, but of various independent sources, as stated above. 172.0.233.143 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Noting for the record that the 172.0.233.143 IP has, in his comment on my talk page (to be seen in conjunction with [4]), hinted at also also using the Sfdoctorp (talk · contribs) account on this talk page for content-related discussions. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sometimes my account signs out, and it's just my IP. I am happy to be transparent about that. 172.0.233.143 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Box Office

@User:TrangaBellam, @User:Tayi Arajakate tagging you guys because I've noticed you guys are one of the top contributers on this page. So i've to bring this this thing to attention that first of all The Kashmir Files is not anymore the 2nd highest grossing Hindi film of 2022. Recently Drishyam 2 surpassed it so The Kashmir Files now ranks at 3rd position. Also, Box Office India the oldest and most reputed box-office portal of India in their year-end report noted that The Kashmir Files numbers were not "organic" and its shows were sponsored by political parties, corporates and individuals. I think its important to add a note about this, here is the source of the article - Vellaonwiki (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vellaonwiki: Since Drishyam 2 released at the end of the year and is still in theatres, would it still be counted as "second highest of 2022"? Perhaps if a reliable source terms it that way, we can update it. As to the support, we already have it in the article — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment but it absolutely would. Is Avatar: The Way of Water not the highest-grossing film of 2022 despite being released in December? Unless there was a theatrical re-release that contributed to much of a film's gross its earnings would count towards the original year of release. 2001:8F8:172B:3A55:5D8:DDE9:4464:D9DB (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Here the the source for the Highest Grossing Hindi films of 2022 by Bollywood Hungama - and you can also check List of Hindi films of 2022 page. Also, talking about Box Office India article i talked about before.. The main article doesn't say films collection aren't "organic". Its more about fraudulency than just political support. Vellaonwiki (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've updated it to third — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Mistake

It is not fictional it's truth pls remove that word from there 203.187.238.180 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

The Kashmir Files is a bollywood movie based upon the interviews of the Kashmiri Pandits during the 1990 genocide of Kashmiri Pandits from the region of Kashmir by the liberation group of Kashmir known as JKLF leaded by Faruq Ahmad Dar or Bitta Karate. 27.7.191.170 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The current wording is the result of significant discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Film wins the ‘Best Film’ award at #DadaSahebPhalkeAwards2023. ritesh sahu 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the Dadasaheb Phalke Award but a knock-off copycat award which has no notability. We usually add only notable awards to avoid indiscriminate listings. See WP:DADASAHEB — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

BO in lead

I'd say we remove the As of 28 April 2022 in the lead as its long gone and doesn't matter anymore since its understood as lifetime earnings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

please consider removing the Personal pov and disruptive lines

Isn't the line "most of them were muslims" misleading, because "most" have no true mathematical value. anyone can interpret "most" in different ways and it provides to general figure to rely on. whole section seem to povpush a certain thought that muslims are the victims or suppressed in India. like the lines "muslims are blamed to initiate fire in godhra trains", "most of them who died were muslims", "violence in gujarat showed all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing" and many more. this isn't just a problem ofone page, many wikipedia pages seem to support the same ideology when it comes to hindu-muslim conflicts. for example in both the cases of 2002 Gujarat riots and Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus the number of displaced are about 150,000 (controversial but let's take for now). and the gujarat riots are genocide "as these events had met the "legal definition of genocide," or referred to them as state terrorism or ethnic cleansing. and saying kashmir exodus a genocide is a propaganda by Hindu Nationalists "The descriptions of the violence as "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" in some Hindu nationalist publications or among suspicions voiced by some exiled Pandits are widely considered inaccurate and aggressive by scholars.". I am asking why??? Why this selective sympathy for one community and hate for the other when seemingly both have suffered upto an extent? Similarly The documentary made on Kashmir Genocide The Kashmir Files "presents a fictional storyline" , "the events leading up to it as a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate by scholars", "the storyline attracting criticism for attempting to recast established history and propagating Islamophobia." and "Theatres across India have witnessed hate speech against Muslims, including incitement to violence due to the movie. (i have marked all the as it is references from Wikipedia's articles in green text) RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Please mark any proposed change in the format "Change X to Y" and provide reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"under the watch of a Bharatiya Janata Party government" phrase is false and misleading.

"under the watch of a Bharatiya Janata Party government" phrase is false and misleading. India has central and state governments possibly being governed by different parties at a time. Since at that time in 2003 Indian Kashmir was being ruled by state government formed by National Conference it creates wrong impression that a different party had formed the government in Kashmir. The fact that Bharatiya Janata Party too has historically formed state government in Kashmir makes it more confusing.

The issue at heart is that while describing law and order issue of a state which comes under jurisdiction of state government, information about state government has been omitted while incorporating information about central government without any hint that information pertains to central government and not the state government.

It is interesting that the original article referenced has no such ambiguity but the Wikipedia article creates this ambiguity. So this is not a flaw inherited from the referenced material but a flaw that originated at Wikipedia. Gauddasa (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is as per the source. Note that the film blames Indian National Congress without any compunctions of the kind you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says "under the watch of an apathetic central government". Do you really think wording on Wikipedia matches with the source by omitting "central government"? Also are justifying lack of clarity in Wikipedia by saying that the topic of the article (film) lacks clarity too? I did not object to replacing "apathetic central government" by "Bharatiya Janata Party" while quoting, I objected to removing "central government" that creates serious confusion, on neutral journalistic grounds. At least please be faithful to the source material. Gauddasa (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says "The killings took place in 2003, under the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please go back to the source and read the next like also,

"The killings took place in 2003, under the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Going by the chronology of the film, it happened in the early 1990s, under the watch of an apathetic central government with a leader who sounds suspiciously like Rajiv Gandhi."

Do you see that first sentence clearly mentions the name of prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and eliminates confusion between the state and central government? Do you see that the second sentence explicitly mentions "central government"?

But the sentence on Wikipedia introduces confusion between state and central government as it is not clear which government the sentence is referring to, and since law and order falls under state government's jurisdiction, the reader is more likely to make wrong inference. Interestingly the source does not suffer from this kind of ambiguity. ram das ᵐᵘˡʰⁱᵈ 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)