Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 6

Lead wording
, I fail to see what's wrong about fronting sentences with phrases. It is not specific to reviews and is fairly common in Indian English. In this case, it's just a way to avoid repeatedly starting sentences with "The film ...", "It has ...", etc. Regarding the plot in the lead, I don't think it needs more expansion, the lead should be a concise summary of the article and the plot is only one aspect of the film. It's not a norm in film articles to have expansive plots in the lead if they have it at all. Also regarding government promotion and commercial success, the relation is explicitly made in the citation so I've restored that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've another question, why do you oppose using "the exodus during the insurgency"? The present wording, that states "the exodus which followed the rise of an insurgency" makes the sentence much more convoluted. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting here the  of "leading to" in reason for commercial success in the lead, which was earlier . Also see earlier discussion on reasons for success. Wikihc (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is already on the talk page. If you are going to make a revert, you could bother replying here instead of through edit summaries. Regarding what the plot is, there is an entire section in the article which describes it.
 * If you still want an overview, the college student (Krishna Pandit) is the sole survivor from his family and is brought up by the school teacher (Pushkar Pandit). Pushkar had witnessed the family's death when Krishna was a small child and had adopted him. The story follows Krishna who is now a college student, gets brainwashed by the professor (Radhika Menon) but when Pushkar dies, he sets out to find the "truth" about the exodus and how his family died. Pushkar had never opened up about about what had happened, suffered from mental illness by the end but had confronted Krishna and rejected what he had been taught at college. Throughout the story, there are interspersed flashbacks of Pushkar of the times during the "genocide". The flashbacks themselves constitute more than half of the story, I'm not going to get into the themes since that's covered quite well in secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant to write something here right away, but was drawn away by some urgent tasks. Will post something in a few minutes, once I figure out what it was I had reverted, and what the language was even earlier.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this is hurried. I  hope I don't sound too didactic here.  Employing participial phrases with adverbial meaning is common in English writing.  There is nothing wrong with, say, "Thrust into the limelight on the Oscars stage, a preserve of bar-room brawls came stumbling into dining table conversations."   It is understood even if you don't mention the "slap."  It tells us that X came  stumbling ... (when it was) thrust into the limelight ... (past participle clause)).  There is a clear semantic link between the subordinate clause which fronts and the main clause X came stumbling. But when a sentence says: "Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film showcases a fictional storyline[6] set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide."  there are all sorts of issues.
 * There are those of meaning, such as "showcase" (a verb formed from a noun), meaning "to exhibit, to display, to present in a favorable manner." How will the reader figure out what it means to present a fictional storyline in a favorable manner when they don't know what is being favored? Favoring a storyline has little meaning.
 * Syntactically, there is an unclear relation between the clause "Produced by Zee Studios" and "the film showcases a fictional storyline" What is meant is: "The film, which was produced by X, presents a ..."  But when you write, "Produced by X studio, the film presents ..." the reader can easily interpret it in the sense of "as a result of being produced by X studio," which a reader very likely would if you had written, "Checked by a dozen copy-editors, the film presents a flawless fictional storyline."  There is a similar problem with "set around the time of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir insurgency,[7] which it portrays as a genocide." Was the insurgency the genocide or the exodus?
 * Descriptive prose in Indian English as seen from the time of R. K. Narayan and Mulk Raj Anand, and still found in The Hindu,  The Statesman is well known around the world.  I don't think that is the issue here.
 * It is true that a string of simple descriptive sentences are boring and we all try to hold on to the reader or vary the pace of the narrative in various ways. If you think that is the issue in the current version, it can be easily fixed, but not in a way that compromises precision.
 * As for your question about the insurgency, "the rise" was added by I had written, "following the insurgency in X."  They made a good point that the insurgency is ongoing, the exodus began soon after the insurgency began.
 * As for Kashmir, we do need to explain that Kashmir is a disputed region per the norm in all Kashmir-related articles. The insurgency in some sense is the long-term cost of the dispute, in the view of some scholars.
 * No matter how many sources one can marshall in support, it is hard to make a decisive claim that a movie's vast popularity is the direct result of a government's publicity. Those are events that may have followed one another, one perhaps given notice by the other, but causality is very tricky in such situations and is best avoided.  The government of the day can find many ways of skinning the publicity cat, not all of which are obvious.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk», I would agree with you about causality. I pointed to archived discussion to draw attention to other sources that indicate film's success being due to word-of mouth publicity, etc along with government support. There seemed to be a consensus on reliability of at least two sources there. Anyhow, I see that the direct causal link has been  in the article.  Wikihc (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a better thing would be to say that the idea that the exodus was a genocide is thought to be very inaccurate, aggressive, and propaganda, as we state on the Exodus page; let me see what I can do. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tayi, Many thanks for the plot. I have to run now, but will come back to that later in the day. Thanks very much for your many well-voiced concerns.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough regarding the participial phrases. Though say for the sentence "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been been endorsed, promoted ...", there is only one possible interpretation or say if instead of "Produced by Zee Studios", one were to use "Written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri", it would follow that the story reflects his writing and directorship. Would these be acceptable according to you?
 * Regarding the question, was the insurgency the genocide or the exodus? If we go by the film, it doesn't describe the exodus in specific, as a genocide. It outright rejects that there was an exodus distinct from other events in the insurgency and instead shows that the insurgency itself consisted of the genocide, which occurs as a consequence of their hatred for Hindus (and by extension India) and the desire for an Islamic state. That they had and have sympathetic anti-Hindu actors in the Indian establishment who are covering up for them with the narrative of an exodus and that the displaced Pandits are all just survivors of the genocide. So I'd think that, that framing would work better.
 * And my question wasn't about using "the rise", I'm asking why not simply describe it as "the exodus during the insurgency" instead of "the exodus which followed the rise of an insurgency"? Also I don't see the point of having superfluous material about the Kashmir conflict in the first paragraph of the lead, the article is primarily about the film so only the relevant material should be present. It's not possible to explain the insurgency or the conflict without sacrificing nuance or going too off-topic. The wiki-links exist for a reason. We can still indicate that the region is the subject of a dispute and keep it concise with a sentence like, "The film presents a fictional storyline based on the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus during the insurgency in the disputed region of Kashmir, depicting it as a genocide." Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If we were to shift "Written and directed by" to second sentence, then I'd suggest moving the "produced by" further down the lead para, perhaps where the stars are introduced. Setting "produced by Zee Studios" in the first sentence is undue as ZS did what it did, just producing. VA is far more notable, probably even became the core of the film instead of the actors. WP:FILMLEAD provides all the necessary guidelines- which asks us to introduce stars (right now in second para) and plot in the first lead para — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good point. I'd support moving it further down regardless. ZS isn't the sole producer, it's co-produced with IAmBuddha (VA and Pallavi Joshi's production house) and Abhishek Agarwal Arts which should probably be added or replaced by the names of the four producers. VA has essentially written, directed and produced (along with others) the film so another alternative could be "Written, directed and co-produced by Vivek Agnihotri" and leaving the details about the producers and the production houses for the body of the article. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is better wording. I'll look for some sources about all the producers and the links between and add them to the body, probably to the production section. If you or any other has some sources ready at hand, that'd be useful — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so lets considered "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party." The problems there are not two interpretations necessarily, but that it lacks coherence. You set the reader up with some details in the subordinate clause that the main clause does not directly link to. In other words, what does being released on 11 March have to do with the film being endorsed by Hindu nationalists? If you had said, "Theatrically released on 11 March 2022, the film managed to piggyback on the increased public gusto for  movies before the Oscars."  Or if you had said, "Theatrically released on the 1000th  birth anniversary of the founder of Kashmiri Shaivism, the film has been endorsed, promoted, given tax-free status by India's Hindu nationalist ruling party," a reader would have instantly understood without looking puzzled. What I saw when I first saw this page a week or two ago, was the use of fronting for the sake of fronting which is what I had seen cursorily at FAC in some Indian movie submissions, basically the form without the content.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now about the "rise." I had not added it myself (I forget now how I had phrased it, but K3 tweaked it.) There may be some POV issues if we say "during."  The exodus took place at the very outset of the insurgency.  It began with the first palpable event of the insurgency in the third week of January 1990; it was quick, and it was substantially over by mid-March 1990.  Some 30 Hindus were killed.  If you include the stragglers and stretch the exodus to mid-June, some 80 Hindus died from various causes, which included firing by India's armed forces, cross-firing between the insurgents and the army, and deaths at the hands of the insurgents. What happened "during" the emergency (in the most common manner in which "during" is applied) is stated by Metcalf and Metcalf in A Concise History of Modern India: "'As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict.'" There were precious few Hindus in Kashmir when 30,000 people (read Muslim) were killed by the Indian State.  That is what happened "during."  In other words, "during" should be reserved for the major violence, whose victims were not Hindus.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating with ping.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now your middle paragraph, Tayi. Are you saying that the storyline is about a genocide that those who were lucky managed to escape? It is about a youth, a genocide denier, the sole survivor in his family of forgotten violence of long ago, who in the face of a new death gradually uncovers the old deaths from which he had been shielded out of love?  Is that the idea?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Updating and pinging.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I mean this is the film's (or its writers') POV. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The storyline is both of those things, the genocide is what the youth uncovers and is depicted in the flashbacks. The point of my middle paragraph was that even if the wording were to be interpreted as the insurgency being depicted as a genocide, it would not be an inaccurate interpretation.
 * With regards to using "during", I don't see how that is a POV issue. It may not have been the entirety of the insurgency, but it is an event that did happen during it. Stating that is no different from saying that a specific skirmish or a specific instance of human rights violation happened during the insurgency. It doesn't imply anything about who were the bigger victims. Which brings me to the other point that if even this is a problem, then the additional information about the exodus and the insurgency should not be present in the first couple sentences of the lead in the first place, the primary topic is the film and not the exodus.
 * And okay so be it with regards to fronting, those were just suggestions. I assume the other suggestion is alright since there is a direct link? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the context of the exodus could be placed in a footnote where it'd also have more space for an adequate description. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Footnote seems more appropriate — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * True, the sentence "The early-1990 exodus, which followed the rise of violence in an insurgency, is depicted in the film as a genocide,[14] a description that is inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[15]" is a mouthful. On second thoughts it is also incorrect, for the rise it refers to is of the violence which could have begun any time in the insurgency. Also, obviously the exodus (a mass exit) can't literally be a genocide (a mass killing), but a response to one, or the makings of one. So, on third thoughts, there is no reason to mention the insurgency in the lead paragraph. How about "The early-1990 exodus is depicted in the film to have followed a genocide,[14] a description that is widely inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[15]" The rest can go in a footnote. "Widely" is important; the genocide idea is wide of the mark, as Alexander Evans states in the cited source. If the historical events are not well-known, the storyline's description should carry a disabusal at the end. Finally, and generally, "during" can mean throughout the course of, or secondarily, at a point in the course of. Neither sense applies to the very beginning.  We can't really say, "He was named Mohandas by his parents during his life." But we can say, "During the course of his long life only once did he eat meat."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Zee studios
, (translation: mother of lawlessness?), please re-insert that it was co-produced by Zee Studios, it is a matter of reputation. - 2402:8100:2818:E9F0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Disorder actually. Anyways, what do you mean by matter of reputation? Sources don't generally weigh Zee more than others, their primary contribution seems to be related to distribution. The credited producers are from IAmBuddha (Agnihotri's production house) and Abhishek Agarwal Arts, so restoring it would place undue weight on Zee. This was discussed in the section on lead wording above. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In India, Zee TV and Zee Studios are reputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.122.58 (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, they have a more significant presence in Bollywood relative to the others but that doesn't say anything about their involvement in the the film, which seems to be fairly minimal. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tayi Arajakate, agree about the lead, as all producers cannot be named in the lead. But the section The_Kashmir_Files should mention it. The infobox does. Strange that the article body lacks the name. Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem might be with "co-," which means "jointly." Feels odd to say, "jointly produced by one party."  You could say, "Written, directed, and, partly produced by"  or directed "and, in part, produced by."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler, thanks and agree. I would prefer "partly produced by" in the lead.
 * In the production section (Not in lead) Zee studio should be added, as it also features in the film posters, like the one in the infobox. FWIW, here is the list of producers. I am assuming the ordering is based on share. Venkat TL (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just examined the WP pages of some of my favorite movies of the last 100 years. Usually, as in Casablanca, nothing is mentioned about the production in the first paragraph of the lead.  Production seems to be mentioned only when there is a significant backstory about it, as of the Government of West Bengal in Pather Panchali.   So, I shall be WP:BOLD and take out "co-produced by" etc.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

NZ Censor Board
Anyone else, who feels the section to be way too detailed? WP:NOTNEWS etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article has too many unnecessary details and sections. For a movie article, the information added is way too muchz OpenMindedBloke (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with TrangaBellam, the NZ section is too detailed, and needs to be shortened. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed the New Zealand section as talk page consensus indicates. Venkat TL (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Copy edits in Lead
@Fowler&fowler I have reverted and restored some wikilinks that you removed. I think they are helpful for the readers. In addition "are thought to be" appears to me as original research while "have been described as" is an acceptable attribution. The nationalist cause need to be mentioned as it helps the reader understand the governments support. Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It is too literal. Readers understand. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler Ok, I yield. The more recent version of copy edits is acceptable to me. Venkat TL (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Couple of concerns regarding the lead
Greetings,

I am not following this topic greatly. Primary reading of present lead brought me couple of doubts those who know movie and rest of background can assess better.

1) One sentence goes ".. The film presents a fictional storyline .."
 * There is a nuanced difference in wordings 'fictional' and 'fictionalised'
 * Fictional is fictional connection to real life is unknown
 * Fictionalised is also fictional but likelyhood of inspiration from real life is more.

2) Another sentence goes ".. a description that is widely inaccurate, propagandist, and associated with conspiracy theories. .."


 * I do not have issue with the criticism there in. The reference cited is Evans, Alexander (1 March 2002). whether it is possible to use citation after release of the movie in  2022 or later one. IMHO, A 2002 citation  reflecting upon 2022 movie sounds bit odd, and brings in concerns close to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

3) No doubt Fictional or fictionalised too get criticized for not being accurate depiction of the reality as long as RS is available. Still Fictional or fictionalised are fictions end of the day and a thorough accuracy can not be expected either. So an encyclopedist is expected to keep WP:Due balance while including criticism of Fictional or fictionalised vis a vis accuracy against real life.
 * For example 'documentary close to real life may attract more criticism vis a vis accuracy, then Fictionlised will attract criticism vis a vis accuracy then fictional is supposed to attract much lesser criticism vis a vis accuracy. IMHO


 * Pl. do not ping me, Though I brought attention to couple of factors, I am less likely to be interested in further detail discussion myself.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Can't really used fictionalized unless the director establishes what precise events were these he has fictionalized.
 * The new version of that sentence is: The early-1990 exodus[9] is depicted in the film as a genocide,[15] a notion at odds with recorded events and associated with conspiracy theories. It is not synthesis as I can easily split it into two sentences without loss of meaning or emphasis.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The "ruling party"
I have no idea who has added the surfeit of "ruling party," "ruling BJP," and "Hindutva," in the lead. I'm no fan of nationalism, let alone the ethnic or religious, as people on WP know, but don't you think you guys (meant gender neutrally) are overdoing it? The editors who engage in this seem to be so driven by their views that they are unable to accurately understand nor judiciously paraphrase the very sources that they have so liberally added. India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent, but they did not produce the movie. I suggest that the editors who are doing this rein in this tendency. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So I suggest you remove it. - 2402:8100:2819:71AC:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * PS How much is the entertainment tax in India, i.e. what percent of the ticket price? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 18% - please see https://cbic-gst.gov.in/pdf/press-release/press-release-entertainment-services.pdf - 2402:8100:2819:71AC:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you remove the  words, "a description that is inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories" also from the  lead as it does not seem neutral- 2402:8100:282B:DBF5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And how much does a ticket to the Kashmir Files generally cost in India? From the cheapest to the most expensive? Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This article outlines what 'tax free' means in the context of the movie. In brief, while IP's 18% number is correct, only the states' portion of 9% was waived; with the result that the tickets for this film generally cost 9% less. Prices vary across states and show-times, but generally Rs 200 or so in city multiplexes. Hemantha (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In Delhi, it is Rs.500/- in at least some theatres.-2402:8100:282B:DBF5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, the range should be Rs 70-100 at the lower end to Rs 750-800 at the higher. Hemantha (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&amp;fowler would you dispute that the Indian Government and the ruling party was deeply involved in the promotion and earning of the film? Delhi Chief Minister during a debate in assembly about making the movie tax free even noted that the BJP members were sticking bills of the film. So I dont see a problem in keeping this in the lead. Venkat TL (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well,  I am trying to figure out what segment it is in India's vast scale of economic inequality that is flocking to the movie. Although it is ORish at this stage, we know thanks to, , and some independent sleuths I pressed into service thereafter that the average ticket on the first weekend was $3.  The average per capita income of India in 2021 was $2200, i.e.  $6 a day in this non-leap year. So, very likely the average- or below-average wage earner was not flocking.
 * Ipso facto, for the flockers the 9% reduction didn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. So what was it really: was the ruling party promoting the movie, or was it promoting itself in the wake of the movie's success? I'd say a pinch of the first and a dollop of the second. India's movie critics might not have caught up with this ground truth yet, but, like Galileo before me, posterity will bear me out.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler I believe it would be the dream of every film marketeer to have worlds largest IT cell, work for him in promoting his film. Not sure if you are aware but the Owner of Zee media group (one of the producers) is a BJP MP. In my opinion, the ruling party deserves a massive chunk of credit for the promotion and eventual financial success of this film. This is not the only film of its kind, but certainly the most successful (financially).  Venkat TL (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What does all that have to do with the tax waiver and its mention in the lead? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The ruling party has promoted the movie, but its result is not so much as inferred by the article. It gives an impression that the film was successful only due to its support. Not many reliable souces state this. Many other films have their own advertising machinery. Commercial success should not be attributed or linked to the ruling party. Kpddg  (talk)  16:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kpddg @Fowler&fowler We should include what the reliable sources are publishing. Please see the quote.
 * Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already explained in an edit summary what riding on means and tweaked the sentence accordingly. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Riding on' implies support. It does not say that most of the film's success was due to the government's help. And NDTV and Scroll.in are not competely neutral. Kpddg  (talk)  16:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That article from NDTV is very well written. That's not my complaint.  "Riding on" means "borne by, " or "carried by."  It is an apparent sense.  I've paraphrased it in the lead as "seemingly helped by."  (explained also in my edit summary yesterday).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Fowler&fowler says, some State Governments just used this movie to promote themselves (the movie was a success because of word of mouth and What's app campaigning).-116.75.88.220 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IP user do you have a reference for your claim? Venkat TL (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.news18.com/news/movies/the-kashmir-files-vivek-agnihotri-says-its-a-criminal-offence-to-show-his-film-for-free-4892360.html, https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/box-office-collection/the-kashmir-files-day-15-vivek-agnihotri-against-rrr-7837254/ , https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/photo-gallery-the-kashmir-files-5-reasons-why-vivek-agnihotri-anupam-kher-film-has-emerged-as-a-box-office-success-2939739 , https://www.india.com/entertainment/telugu-news-radhe-shyam-vs-the-kashmir-files-box-office-proves-how-word-of-mouth-can-become-bane-or-boon-for-a-film-check-detailed-collection-report-5286483/ , https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/box-office-collection/the-kashmir-files-box-office-collection-vivek-agnihotri-rrr-7838670/ and https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/why-the-kashmir-files-is-a-blockbuster-nobody-saw-coming-1925582-2022-03-15 , https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/the-kashmir-files-box-office-collection-anupam-kher-mithun-chakraborty-starrer-helmed-by-vivek-agnihotri-refuses-to-slow-down-will-cross-rs-200-crore-mark-tomorrow-bollywood-news-entertainment-news-article-90391948 say, "word of mouth".
 * https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/the-kashmir-files-box-office-success-decoded-how-news-social-media-word-of-mouth-scripted-an-unlikely-success-story-101648227536467.html says, ".....the film also received a push on social media, particularly on WhatsApp and Facebook. A viewer, who watched it in a Ghaziabad theatre on its second weekend, said, "I don't go to watch films in the theatre. But I received a message on a family WhatsApp group saying that this is a small film about a good issue. It needs support"-116.75.88.220 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing the links. These are reliable sources. IT cell primarily operates through social media and one cannot distinguish between the IT cell promotion or word of mouth. You can call them both. India today also notes, "The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film.". Running at 170 minutes, I doubt anyone other than IT Cell promoters will call it a "small film". I think this kind of promotion by an incumbent government using entire machinery of union and state government is unprecedented in the history of Independent India. Venkat TL (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , an IP has provided reliable sources for it above, so I request you to add that this movie was propelled by word of mouth publicity (the BJP only used the movie for their own publicity, later) citing some of those references.-2402:8100:2818:DECA:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This has also been brought up before. India Today, possibly the only reliable source in the above list IP has added (others are typical "Entertainment Desk" authored products), says The BJP, in particular, is putting its weight behind the film; which contradicts the claim of "word-of-mouth propelling" the movie. Hemantha (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused... Why have I been pinged? I don't even know what this article is about. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I know who this mass pinging user is. Please note that you will be blocked for editing as IP. Venkat TL (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are multiple reasons behind the film's success, mentioning just BJP support in the lead seems unfair.
 * The word of mouth is the primary reason behind the success, as per sources mentioned above. ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 04:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources
 * Even before the BJP's promotion and tax free campaign the film was well on track.
 *  ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 05:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see what the articles actually say.
 * HT - But even sustained word of mouth goes only so far ... The answer is in the messaging. The Kashmir Files found itself linked to nationalism and patriotism, earning endorsement from the government itself. Of course it helps when the word is from the mouth of the Prime Minister. When PM Modi himself gave a speech about the film in the Parliament, that turned the tide for the film. That speech and the political rebuttal on it from the opposition turned the film into an issue of national significance. That is publicity one can't buy in any market. "It was quite similar to how it happened with Uri as well. There also, after an endorsement by the PM, the box office earnings got a boost," says Atul Mohan.
 * CNBCTV18 - Mainly anecdotes; says Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party has been endorsing The Kashmir Files with all its might. Several BJP-ruled states, ... have given it tax exemptions, bolstering its commercial success. and the full context for "word of mouth" is Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards, The Kashmir Files has been mired in misinformation that’s being circulated widely on social media.
 * ToI and India.com don't even make any pretense of being journalistic or reliable. The "word of mouth", if at all applicable to this film, is actually Word-of-mouth marketing; which (from the article) differs from naturally occurring word of mouth, in that it is actively influenced or encouraged by organizations (e.g. 'seeding' a message in a networks rewarding regular consumers to engage in WOM, employing WOM 'agents') Hemantha (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * CNBCTV18 - Mainly anecdotes; says Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party has been endorsing The Kashmir Files with all its might. Several BJP-ruled states, ... have given it tax exemptions, bolstering its commercial success. and the full context for "word of mouth" is Largely propelled by word-of-mouth and WhatsApp forwards, The Kashmir Files has been mired in misinformation that’s being circulated widely on social media.
 * ToI and India.com don't even make any pretense of being journalistic or reliable. The "word of mouth", if at all applicable to this film, is actually Word-of-mouth marketing; which (from the article) differs from naturally occurring word of mouth, in that it is actively influenced or encouraged by organizations (e.g. 'seeding' a message in a networks rewarding regular consumers to engage in WOM, employing WOM 'agents') Hemantha (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of BJP support
This is in response to Fowler's statement above that India's ruling party may well have promoted the movie once its success became apparent.


 * 9 March - BJP minister in Uttarakhand writes letter asking for the film to be made tax-free
 * 11 March - Film released
 * 11 March - Haryana govt announces tax waiver
 * 11 March - BJP spokesperson in Indore books an entire theater in Indore (machine-translated) It was apparently the first show
 * 11 March - BJP Yuva Morcha protest in a Madhya Pradesh town, warning cinemas that other films will be blocked if Kashmir Files isn't shown (machine-translated)


 * 12 March - Modi meets the film team


 * 12 March - VHP unit in Nimbahera, Rajasthan organises special screening for BJP workers and citizens (machine translated)


 * 11 or 12 March - VHP activists protest in Agra demanding shows at low prices (machine translated)

Note that many are from the release day itself, well before any idea of audience reception could be formed. Searches in local languages will show more sources. Social media, of course, has even more instances of direct promotion by BJP politicians. Opindia has posts from December 2021 as well. Hemantha (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

filmcompanion review
The citation for this review is not working. When an attempt to add the correct link is made, it a notice shows that this site is blaclisted. It was blacklisted last year. I found archives (like 1, 2, 3)where this issue was raised, but no action seems to have been taken. I am not able to add the URL here as well. As the current citation is improper, what can be done? Kpddg  (talk)  12:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Why you want to add a blacklisted site? Venkat TL (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why is its review there in this article? Kpddg  (talk)  12:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the site is blacklisted, then should the review also not be removed? Kpddg  (talk)  12:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion in the archives; we need to wait for Beetsra. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, because its been a long time since then. Kpddg  (talk)  12:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I found it. It was discussed and even marked as resolved. Here is the link to archive Talk:The_Kashmir_Files/Archive_2. Consensus seems to be to use it and whitelist it. It may take some time though. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Fictional story
Nobody can state it as a fictional story it's a true hidden story 106.205.164.17 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Says who? The film makers did not make any such claim while seeking certification from CBFC. Venkat TL (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a fictional storyline based on a real life exodus, which the article makes clear. X-Editor (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Problem in the historic accuracy section
In the political messaging section, there is a issues I found.

Now here the citation are opinions where the characters parallels are drawn. I couldn’t find any official source where it’s mentioned that these characters are based only on the said person in the article. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @OpenMindedBloke what do you mean by "official source"? which office? Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Movie credits, directors press release something like that … OpenMindedBloke (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe it is documenting what articles in reliable sources written by critics and authors are saying about the plot characters. Rahul Pandita is a noted author with books on Kashmir. They know the history well and have drawn conclusions accordingly. Is there any rebuttal by other historians? Has Agnihotri or his team denied those claims? Venkat TL (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What claims?? Can you point out where the movie characters and the real people mapping is documented? I’m just trying to find a source from these parallels can be verified? Does it sound reasonable to you? OpenMindedBloke (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @OpenMindedBloke I vaguely remember Agnihotri's wife Pallavi Joshi's statement somewhere that she was doing the role of Romila Thapar and tried her best to act in a way that everyone hated her. I cant recall where I read but I believe you can find them in searches. There may be similar mapping for others too. Venkat TL (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you cite it? I believe that’ll be a good source. And do we have the same for other characters as well? Because this is a very charged topic, it’ll be great if we don’t add opinion pieces. What do you suggest? OpenMindedBloke (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That was Tashkent Files, acc. to Twitter. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @TrangaBellam. You are right, I stand corrected. Pallavi Joshi played the role of Nivedita Menon in Kashmir Files according to this journalist. @OpenMindedBloke You can look at the Tamil film Thalaivii as an example, the film makers will not publish the mapping, but the viewers and critics do that. All the reviews are opinion pieces, you cannot ban them here. Opinion pieces are not banned on Wikipedia. Please read Reliable sources and do a ctrl + F search for opinion to read more. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the critics can help with the mapping, but we should not make any statement and present them as facts. I’m not asking to remove the opinion but I’m asking to work on the language, like the statement above. So character is X is combination of Y and Z, that’s an opinion of a person. But if the character X portrays something done by any person P. Should we portray it in a way that highlights opinions as well not completely rely on them. Like the above statement can be re written as ‘’’As per reviewer R the character X is fashions person Y and Z, but in the movie X also fashioned some action done by P” OpenMindedBloke (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In principle, yes. Please make proposal of Change X to Y and add a reliable source. Users can then discuss if it can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The movie clearly depicts certain real-life incidents. Knowledgeable journalists can find the connections. We say, "according to X" etc. only when there is disagreement among the WP:RS. These are not "opinions" in the sense of somebody saying "this movie aweful", though plenty of peopld have said that too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I’m not to send my message across correctly. Let me do one thing, let me send out a draft edit, then you can see if it fits or not.

OpenMindedBloke (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
Hey I’ve added NPOV to page, please feel free to remove it if you think it’s a little too much. My concern with the content is about how a movie taken to add so much criticism/praise. One thing to notice is that the movie is based on real facts, and it’s not a real story. The biggest difference in the 2 is that first depict the real events but not in the same order and not by the same people. The events are real but the production took the liberty to place when, where and whom. While a real story is something should be depicted verbatim with less liberty to change things. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Discussed at User_talk:TrangaBellam. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss this page's issues here and not on User talk pages Jhy.rjwk (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with OpenMindedBloke that page should have a NPOV tag, as there are multiple issues in this article are that are actively being debated on Talk page. Also, there are several concerns that some sources are being used to support POV, and neutrality of the page is very much in question at least through April 2022. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Disagree about the alleged NPOV issues. I have raised some issues on the talk page, you can do so too. The tag is not needed as there are no major issues that the users have pointed. The article has reliable sources that support the content. Venkat TL (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Having some sources is not a sufficient reason to remove NPOV, as there are many issues being discussed on Talk page, which show that the neutrality is under dispute at this time Jhy.rjwk (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are some ongoing disputes, but they are about minor things such as some wording or phrasing. You are free to start threads to discuss major issues of POV that you feel need to be addressed. If they are genuine concerns and supported by reliable sources, they will be addressed. Please note that y2edit has been blocked from this page for wasting everyones time with his POV related stuff. You should not follow his footsteps. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO some editor took too much liberty to draw parallels. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @OpenMindedBloke Pretty sure you have still not read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia should include what reliable sources say, not what you believe. If you think that is the case, that someone wrote something wrong and different than what the RS say, check the reference, verify what the article says and what the reference says, and if you find any problem report it on the talk page for discussion and consensus. This is the correct process. The process is not that I will tag the article as POV because it does not conform to what I believe in. If you can't point individual instances of POV problems in the article and provide suggestions to fix them, then you are wasting your time. Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Venkat TL why personal attacks buddy. I’m pointing out problems and creating specific instances about how the neutrality is missing. But you don’t have make personal statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenMindedBloke (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @OpenMindedBloke, No I have no intentions of personal attack. I made a blunt and straight to the point statement regarding your tagging and the comments. If you find anything offensive I am willing to remove. Please point the personal attack. (I made this comments minutes after you pointed your concern) I had not seen your new thread that time. So please ignore the last line as outdated. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking from your responses, I bet you’re not open to other opinions. Your statement ‘’’ Pretty sure you have still not read WP:FALSEBALANCE’’’, what is this. Your recent comments questions your own neutrality, but most of all, making a personal comment of what I read/know. Please stop judging, this place is created to promote healthy discussion. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles like this actually expose the fault line in the editor community. And i don’t want to be a part of it so I’ll this article as is and move to some other. All the best. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That was my opinion based on my reading of your comment, where you are acting oblivious to what was written on that page. That was neither a personal attack nor intended to be one. You have still not confimed if you have read that page. You have said bye third time now. Venkat TL (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with OpenMindedBloke on WP:FALSEBALANCE. OpenMindedBloke, please don't say bye to this Important page. Your inputs are highly required for neutrality of this page Jhy.rjwk (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Depicted as genocide" OR "described as genocide"
In the lead, the wording includes "Depicted as genocide". Should it be "described as genocide"? How does one depict a "genocide"? Does the movie actually do it or just use the word "genocide" for the exodus? Webberbrad007 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * They may or may not use the word "genocide," but if they do, they don't only do that. I'm given to understand there's plenty graphic violence waged by Muslim insurgents and directed at Kashmiri Hindus for the reason of their religion, and and sloganeering too. Bollywood films are not generally subtle.
 * See the secondary meanings in:
 * (Webster's unabridged): to represent, portray, or delineate in other ways than in drawing or painting
 * 
 * OED: To represent or portray in words; to describe graphically.
 * 1873  J. A. Symonds Stud. Greek Poets ix. 294   Sophocles aims at depicting the destinies, and Shakspere the characters of men.
 * And OED 3. To represent, as a painting or picture does.
 * 1871  J. R. Macduff Memories of Patmos iv. 45   Cartoons..in bold outline depicting the ever-varying and diversified features in church life and character.
 * 1871  J. Yeats Techn. Hist. Commerce i. ii. 45   Their oldest monuments depict women spinning   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS Have changed that sentence to active voice. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood.

Another wording point in the lead - "an exodus" - Should it be "the exodus" instead? Webberbrad007 (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was in two minds about it, finally change "the" to "an." I guess I was thinking that "the" might seem to presumptuous to a reader unfamiliar with the region's history.  (Also, the Kashmir Hindus, had exited the valley in smaller proportions before.) But I don't trust my ear any more; there's been too much drafting and redrafting.  You are a better judge.  Please feel free to change it to the version that sounds better to you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Describing Commercial Success
@Fowler&fowler, in this diff, you added out of the ordinary to describe the commercial success. But I feel that this phrasing would not be appropriate, and also not completely grammatically fine. There is no definition for ordinary here, so maybe it can be replaced. Kpddg  (talk)  02:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Extraordinary"? Webberbrad007 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds excellent. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Some new edits by an editor
has changed a sentence in the lead to: "Critical reception has been mixed,[19] with the cinematography and the acting thought to be compelling,[25] but the plotline has been accused of recasting established history[26] and propagating Islamophobia."


 * The transitive verb accuse which is in the passive form in their construction, has the active meaning, "To charge (a person) with a fault, crime, or offense." (OED, 3rd Edition, 2011) How is a storyline being accused?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The term "accused" can also refer to a "claim that (someone) has done something wrong.", according to Google when you search "accused". I doesn't have to refer to a crime and my usage of the word "accused" follows the non-crime definition. X-Editor (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think @Fowler&fowler is saying that accused usually refers to a person or an entity like a company. A storyline cannot be accused of doing something. Tow (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, you are here.  Good. So let me pursue some other trains of thought. The original sentence which you changed had several ellipses. In addition, "Compelling" is the adjective here, which means irresistible, or demanding respect, not the present participle of the verb "compel. Let's use "irresistible" instead to avoid that confusion. Without the ellipses, the sentence would read: The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia.   I could easily flip the two: The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible.

With the ellipses, it would read: "The critical reception has been mixed, with the plotline thought to recast established history and propagate Islamophobia, but the cinematography and acting (thought) to be irresistible." How would you rephrase this in your manner of correction? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be irresistible, but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia." is the right phrasing in my opinion. X-Editor (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so lets do away with the ellipses and bring back the "compelling" and write: The critical reception has been mixed, with the cinematography and acting being thought to be compelling, but the plotline being thought to recast established history and to propagate Islamophobia. It would sound smoother if the second "being" were not there, but I have no compelling objection to it. Can we agree to enter it (with or without the second "being") instead? If you agree, go ahead and make the edit you choose. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite one user's relentless promotion of strange visions of hitherto arrived consensus, the text in the lead seems to have arrived at some kind of new homeostasis, the result of the efforts of various people, not least, and in no particular order, Let's keep it stable.  A text that flops around is not generally seen to be authoritative.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And last but not least to ! Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good for the sentence. X-Editor (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that a talk page consensus is not just between two people. 's formulation is better than what we had arrived at, though our's was not necessarily wrong. We must acknowledge that.  Please restore the edit.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it as is and wait for consensus. X-Editor (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My vote is for Tow's version. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)