Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 5

TIME review


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


 * Good review. Brings out the subtleties that the others have missed. We should use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is brilliant! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You forget that this, "drama" is based on real life incidents. India has not, "descended Into Darkness" yet.-Y2edit? (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is yet another opinion piece under Ideas section, with a disclaimer at the end. Wikihc (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And how reliable is its author as a film critic anyway? Wikihc (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also interesting to note: I have not said what you have written is untrue. But it is not the only truth.- Debasish Roy Chowdhury on the film's plot. . Wikihc (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is an opinion piece, it should not be used in this article at all.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of the Twitter feud?
 * We are not precluded from citing opinion-pieces etc. under any policy, and that the author has co-authored an OUP monograph (2021) on rapid erosion of democracy and its social bases in Modi's India with John Keane only adds to his reliability. In particular, consult WP:RSEDITORIAL:The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no erosion of democracy in India (not now at least) but there is in all the neighborhood! It is a false allegation.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More importantly, these points are irrelevant to this article.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is he a specialist and recognized expert on films? No. Also, not all opinions are notable or due for inclusion. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political opinions.  Wikihc (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * People who are not film-critics but scholars of sociology etc. can have their expertise on social aspects of of a film. Is DRC's opinion reliable for technical aspects of film-making - say, color-palettes etc.? No. Is his opinion reliable for analyzing the sociopolitical milieu of a film? Yes.
 * If you continue to push your idiosyncratic interpretations of policies and guidelines, you will be sanctioned. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to AGF. Ill-considered accusations of impropriety are uncivil, and will be reported. Wikihc (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and report me. Bye, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Back on the topic at hand. Opinion pieces are primary sources. The author of the piece has shown political motivations for writing of the piece. Also, primary sources cannot be used to analyze per WP:PRIMARY. We need secondary sources for that. Wikihc (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing your personal re-interpretation of policies. Primary sources are "are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved", which it is not. The op-ed like most others is a secondary source and the author is a sociologist, i.e a subject matter expert. It has more than sufficient weight for inclusion, particularly when it is at present one of the few pieces authored by someone with expertise in the area. Also do note that claims of impropriety without any substantiation, such as "[he has] shown political motivations for writing of the piece" is a likely BLP violation. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing your personal re-interpretation of policies. While we can discuss the inclusion; per WP:RSEDITORIAL, such opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. Wikihc (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This just shows that you've failed to understand the sentence. They are primary sources for statements attributed to the author, not primary sources on the subject of those statements. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinion of the author in an opinion piece are statements attributed to the author. They aren't considered reliable for statements of fact anyway. They are Primary source for their opinion (eg. for the text quoted above by Kautilya3). See WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. Wikihc (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Op-eds when authored by SMEs can be reliable for statements of fact. WP:NEWSORG clearly states, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."
 * In this case, it is authoritative and trying to wiki-lawyer around it with a generic example of opinion pieces (which usually aren't authored by specialists) doesn't really work. Till you can get better sources (which in this case would be peer-reviewed literature) or an equivalent source (such as another op-ed by a specialist) which contradicts it, it can be used without attribution. If anything much of the quoted material is consistent with many of the points brought up in the reviews of the film critics and the other specialist op-ed. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You earlier made a generic claim that most op-eds are secondary sources. It appears you now think that it is limited to op-eds by subject matter experts. Meanwhile, Debasish Roy Chowdhury has been described as a journalist everywhere, not as a sociologist.  We can consider if there is a secondary rs that describes the author as a subject matter expert on sociology.  Anyhow, howsoever notable an author may be, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, opinion pieces of notable figures are still primary. Reliability is a separate issue. The author has questioned the accuracy of the film in the article, yet later called it as not untrue (see above); which doesn't lend credibility to using the piece as fact; irrespective of the author being reliable or not.   Also given the politically opinionated nature of the writing, it is very much appropriate to directly attribute rather than trying to put opinion piece in wiki voice. Keep in mind, we do the same when referring to the opinions of the film critics in Critical Reception. Wikihc (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you even saying? Chowdhury isn't notable, he is being considered an SME because he has published peer reviewed literature, which indicates expertise in the area and do you not understand that every secondary source (or primary or tertiary ones) is also a primary source for what the source itself says? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you even saying? Chowdhury isn't notable, he is being considered an SME because he has published peer reviewed literature, which indicates expertise in the area and do you not understand that every secondary source (or primary or tertiary ones) is also a primary source for what the source itself says? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Another decent review

 * TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Not a reliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the Indian Weekender's critic's writing is excellent, I feel it can be further improved in the following manner: He rips away the shawl of excessive political correctness thereby leaving the heart of suffering with only the endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, thoracic wall, hypodermis, dermis, epidermis and the government-supplied security to protect it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2022
Someone has typed, in the plot section but it should be,  Please change it. Thanks (I have seen the movie)!- Y2edit? (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The subsequent sentence reads, Please change it to,  with the link I have added - as that is the word used in the movie.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I made the first change. The second one, no, because we don't use "Kafirs" in Wikipedia voice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have  seen the movie too. If you  can't change the second sentence as requested, you can at least link the word, non-Muslim to the Kafir article.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022
The movie is based on true incidents. The writer and directory interviewed hundreds and put those incidents only in the movie. Do not call it fiction. 76.192.156.128 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Real-life incidents
,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Many people are coming and asking us to add that this, "drama" was based on real life incidents. Can we therefore change the leading sentence to, This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and possibly many more can be used as sources. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * All the high-quality reviews have been cited in the article. Please read them and find out what they say. I am not interested in reading "this, this and this" kind of sourcesr. If they are worthy, please provide WP:Full citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have added the full citations, can we now change the leading sentence to, -Y2edit? (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please reply to the above as well as this.-Y2edit? (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You feel these to be reliable sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , You are an experienced editor. You must tell me. I have been warned of soapboxing on my talk page already and would like to avoid any sanction/s. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the lead to be NPOV, we should mention more neutral language: storyline, claimed to be based on real-life incidents by the film-producer, as has been mentioned in many WP:RS sources. Single source should not be used to mentioning only fictional, without broader references. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please sign your name at the end of every one of your talk page emanations. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can either avoid both fictional and real-life mention in the lead paragraph; or we would have to mention both claims to be Neutral and WP: NPOV, as Reliable sources are available for both claims and mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhy.rjwk (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kautilya3, the first sentence should be changed to "The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents." Stonebreaker18 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source: Tribune India

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

https://www.indiatoday.in/newsmo/video/the-kashmir-files-meet-real-life-butcher-of-kashmiri-pandits-farooq-ahmed-dar-aka-bitta-karate-1929619-2022-03-25 Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/the-kashmir-files-box-office-collection-day-12-vivek-agnihotri-s-film-is-unbeatable-1928318-2022-03-23 and https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/union-minister-nitin-gadkari-says-the-kashmir-files-depicts-true-history-of-valley-2865144 can also be used.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, has provided reliable sources. Now please use them to make the article more balanced. I believe that some editors are pushing their POV and we will need your help to make this article more neutral.-Y2edit? (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Each source can be used for a different sentence, in a different paragraph, instead of putting it just in one place.-Y2edit? (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please change the protection level of this article from Extended confirmed protected to semi-protected, so that more people can edit it (asking for 500 edits to become eligible to edit this article is too much). Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A notice has been posted on the talk page of the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article that the exodus will not be changed to genocide and you can post a similar message here (to deter disruptive editing).-Y2edit? (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the protection is fine, we don't want to see aggressive editing on this contentious article. Note that you can always propose changes on this talk page and, if there is consensus, effect changes to the article indirectly. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please change the leading sentence to, with reliable sources. I don't have 500 edits under my belt yet to change it.-Y2edit? (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Criticism section

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


 * Please see WP:CRITICISM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which says separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Wikihc (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Calls to kill Muslims

 * The last sentence of the lead says, but the sources don't say, "calls for killing Muslims".-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. None of the sources say 'killing Muslims'! Also, these two sources are not exactly neutral. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a section in the first source titled Calls to ‘shoot the traitors’ and kill Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you find some other reliable source saying this? These sources are definitely not neutral. And it says that a group of people were raising these, not a large number of people. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  14:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Kpddg, you seem to be confused about what WP:NPOV means in terms of policy on this project: sources do not need to be "neutral" in any sense, let alone the idiosyncratic bar of particular editors. Our coverage/presentation of the content of those sources is what is required to be neutral.  It would be difficult in the extreme to provide only sources that were perfectly neutral in tone from every perspective for even articles on mundane empirical topics, let alone subject matter that is highly controversial.  Instead, the test we use on Wikipedia is whether a source meets the WP:RS standard: can you please explain in terms consistent with that policy why you think those source are unreliable?  Because if your argument is merely that the sources (according to your personal assessment) are not "neutral", that's just not sufficient: 95% of all sources on social and political topics on this project would have to go, if it was just a matter of an editor or group of editors deciding they are not perfectly dispassionate and objective.  Sources are allowed to have opinions (or even to portray facts which are at odds with larger consensus views), and still be used to reference content.  However, in cases where we are talking about the perspectives expressed or facts presented in certain sources, WP:attribution becomes increasingly critical, and that would certainly apply to any statements made in this context.


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


 * That section titled Hate Speeches is merely a collection of news about people who watched the film. Does not belong in an encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikihc (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please open a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. But why don't you directly discuss the section here first? Wikihc (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to debate bad-faith proposals. Please make your case before the broader community. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing that questioning on Hate Speech section is bad faith? Wikihc (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can open the RfC and be done with this. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting your repeated suggestions for RfC since some 8 hours after the topic was opened for discussion here. Wikihc (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't mention Jawaharlal Nehru University
The conflicted section on Historical Accuracy states: The film is seen depicting the Jawaharlal Nehru University[a] as an unpatriotic institution sympathetic to terrorism.. Yet the cited sources do no refer to a Jawaharlal Nehru University, but a JNU. (John NotDoe University?). Wikihc (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , JNU is an acronym of Jawaharlal Nehru University - you may add a link to the same where it occurs in the article for the first time.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do not mention that, and we don't do OR. An acronym can have several expansions. Eg. JNU, JNU etc. Wikihc (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, ANU is mentioned in this article with a link to Jawaharlal Nehru University but does that not break the rules since ANU is not even mentioned as JNU?-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

But what changes are proposed? Ra gup (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think everyone here needs to know what you propose.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022
The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film[2] written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri, and produced by Zee Studios.[5] The film presents a toned-down, true storyline[1][6] about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley in a portion of the disputed region of Kashmir administered by India.[7][8] The early-1990 exodus, which followed the rise of an insurgency, is a gruesome genocide emotionally depicted in the movie.[14]. After the movie, many Kashmiris - both Pandits and local Muslims have confirmed the authenticity of this well-researched movie 2402:E280:210B:B2:576:E6F2:92F6:3F08 (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I object to the words, "conspiracy theory" in the lead - it is based on real life incidents for which the director submitted evidence  to the Film Certification Board.-BitaKarate1 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From one of the cited sources:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an Indian website and the thoughts of the Film Certification Board do not have much bearing on the content that would be included in this article. We need reliable third-party sources. Please see WP:RSPSS for a list of sources that are usually considered reliable. Tow (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , you should probably add that.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , you should probably add that.-2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Tow (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning
User: Kautilya3 I would like to know your reasoning for the reverts. The references are not related to the film, they are more relevant to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. If we go in such a way, we will be having another integrated 'Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus' page. And I haven't removed the line, I have only removed unrelated sources. The current source is enough for the line. Akshaypatill (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I only reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO, which had been sitting here for several days. It is by now well-established that the film is making very strong, and false, historical claims. So we can't help but add what the scholars say about those aspects. Please do not remove them again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was added four days ago, but alright the reasoning seams fair. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Political messaging and historical inaccuracy
Section should be named as "Political messaging and historical inaccuracy". The section discusses the inaccuracies. The heading is ironical. Venkat TL (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This movie is based on real life incidents. Some sources for that have been cited here - please add sentences using the same. Do you have it in you to make this article conform to WP:NPOV?-Y2edit? (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I renamed the section header as "Political messaging and propaganda". This section discusses the propaganda and Historical inaccuracy. It is ironical to use the header historical accuracy. The section also includes comparison to Nazi propagandist. Venkat TL (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * there are at least three sources including wire in this section of the wiki article, that discuss the propaganda. The section itself is primarily about the propaganda. Dont call it unsourced. It is reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't had the opportunity to review the section in detail but I have changed the title from just propaganda to allegations of propaganda for now. @Venkat TL & @Y2edit?, I think this subtitle is better from from a POV perspective. Thoughts? I do fear the whole section needs a close review to avoid any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as well. Tow (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are half-a-dozen or more sources. Do they all call it "propaganda"? Are the ones that call it propaganda sufficiently neutral? You really have to be careful with value-laden labels like that, especially if you decid to put it in a section title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was trying to tone down the language as well to make it more neutral. I haven't had the change to review all the sources so I will bow out of this debate. Tow (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 @Tow There are at least 3 sources, next to the Nazi propagandist line that discussed the propaganda. Kautilya3, you are adding " historical accuracy " repeatedly into the article. Please provide reliable sources that call the film historically accurate. At least there are 3 sources used in the section that discusses propaganda. Hence my title "Political messaging and propaganda" was more suitable. If you are not agreeing to it, then propose something better, dont restore the Historical accuracy. For now I have removed the word "historical accuracy" till we achieve a consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 & @Venkat TL: What are your thoughts on "and allegations of historical innacuracy"? Tow (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMHIST says If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). It looks like all those idiot-proofed MOS guides have been written just for people like us! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 It might apply to a normal documentary. All the mainstream sources are in consensus that this film is fiction and historically inaccurate. Pursuing a section title "historical accuracy" for this propaganda film is Orwellian. If there is no consensus on a word, I prefer we dont use it at all, unless we have a better idea. @Tow yes, I support the header Allegations of historical inaccuracy, because the section is discussing the inaccuracies. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree and prefer that the status-quo header be retained. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam this is a recently created article, and as far as I can see No consensus was achieved beforehand to include the word "Historical accuracy" as section header. So there is no status quo. We will have one at the conclusion of this discussion. Till then, the article can stay without this word and say "Political messaging", I dont mind that till we conclude this. Venkat TL (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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


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


 * Most of these are op-eds, which we normally wouldn't even reproduce in Wikipedia voice without attribution, let alone base section titles on them., the fact that you don't even bother to mention the authors' names means that you don't understand what op-eds are. See WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not added or removed any authors' name in the citations. These refs are autogenerated with the script as explained in WP:REFB. You should complain to the script developers why they skipped the authors. I have presented my side of the arguement, along with multiple sources that discusses and explicitly call this propaganda. I am still waiting to see those reliable sources that call this "Historical accurate", Are you still searching them? Venkat TL (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 (2)
I've seen the movie. In the lead, please change, "Raised by a Kashmiri Hindu schoolteacher who had witnessed the deaths, but shielded him from their knowledge, ......." to, "Raised by a Kashmiri Hindu schoolteacher who had witnessed the deaths, but shielded him from the knowledge of how they were actually killed, ......."
 * In the Plot section, in the Circa 1989–1990 sub-section, after the very last sentence, please add that it is based on the real life 2003 Nadimarg massacre of Kashmiri Hindus, with the link. 2402:8100:281D:73BB:110E:5D5D:AFCC:C545 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. The plot section describes only the plot, as per WikiProject Film guidelines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think he is asking for the addition of "of how they were actually killed". >>> Extorc . talk  18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please add that.-116.72.144.243 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"See Also" section
Is there a specific reason why Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus isn't in the "See Also" section? I notice that Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is in the list. Apologies if this has been discussed and archived already.Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:SEEALSO. Pages linked in the body are not listed in the "See also" section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is linked in the body. Shouldn't that be removed then? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've removed it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to locate the guidance of not listing pages linked in the body in the "See also" section. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So it probably should be added to the, "See also" section. -2402:8100:281F:BC6F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" MOS:NOTSEEALSO - shortcut to that area of the SEEALSO section.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change in lead to make it easier to read
Current wording is awkward:

Proposed simpler versions without changing the intended meaning of the sentence:

Or

- Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup . Not sure why I didn't notice this, but I didn't.  I think the second version is better.  It flows better.  "Indian-administered" doesn't address the nub of the issue. I must have introduced it, attempting to be over-scholarly. Many thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest:
 * since massacres in Jammu have alao been incorporated (see 2003 Nadimarg massacre) in it - 2402:8100:2819:71AC:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * since massacres in Jammu have alao been incorporated (see 2003 Nadimarg massacre) in it - 2402:8100:2819:71AC:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Remove the Muslim-majority part, replace Kashmir with Kashmir Valley, I don't think Pandits from Jammu which is a part of Kashmir went through Exodus. Kashmir valley provides a better precision. signed, 511KeV    (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 30 to 80 killed, not all by insurgents, does not a genocide make. This is a page for improving an article, not for airing well-worn biases.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "depicted in the film as a genocide", so it isn't in wikipedia's voice (Wikipedia is not calling it a genocide)- 2402:8100:282B:DBF5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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









, fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Absent any opposition, I will cite Bhardwaj's and Drabu's commentary on the film in our article. Skipping Bhashin (for now) since she doesn't discuss the film explicitly. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tayi Arajakate I am also thinking about tweaking with the ordering of reviews. After about a month, it is evident that the overwhelming majority of reviews is negative. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-order them whichever way you think is correct. I am quite short on time at present so don't wait for a response from me. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)