Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 7

Death threats
— DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) The section Support by ruling party is debatable. "Agnihotri was also provided with a Y-category security detail from the Central Reserve Police Force across the country by the Ministry of Home Affairs." This should not be under the ruling party support section. Agnihotri and his family received threats from Islamists and hence he was given the security.

Please update this as "After Agnihotri and his family received death threats for producing the film highlighting Islamist atrocities he was provided with a Y-category security detail by the government." Amitized (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Previous discussions from archive - here and here. Note - HT doesn't report that he received threats; it reports his claims of receiving threats. That distinction leads to WP:DUE concerns about whether such claims are worth including. Hemantha (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If he has said that he received them, and reliable sources also include them, then it must be true. Such important 'claims' have to be included. 1, 2, 3. These say that he received security on 'the perception of a threat to his life after his film’s release.' Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  09:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Our sentence does lack the reason as to why he was provided with security. Reading thru the IE source and the PTI report, an official from Home Ministry was cited saying it was due to intelligence reports of "a threat to his life" and "increased threat perception". Something could be added attributing the report?


 * — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the exact reason should be added. The reason is not specified here, and this piece of informatiohas been added under the section 'Government and ruling party support'. This makes it look as though he got security only due to the government's support. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  10:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source for the reason, please go ahead and add it. None have been presented yet though.
 * The IE article attributes it to anonymous sources, specifically using quotes - based on Intelligence inputs on “a threat to his life”, thus affecting its reliability for the threat claim. The fuller PTI report says This move came weeks after Agnihotri claimed a threat to his life over the release of his film and given how his other claims during the movie's release have held up - Rhode Island claim was later shown to be extremely exaggerated, Kapil Sharma said his allegations about the show were false, the Bhopal remarks had all the hallmarks of a PR stunt and so on, it's impossible to see the threat claim as reliable. Hemantha (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But these are not just claims, it has been acted upon, and security has been given. No reliable sources are saying that he got security due to government support. All say that he received threats; not only based on 'claims', but 'intelligence inputs' also. Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're both correct to an extent, and I for one think it probably makes sense to add something along the lines of a clause saying "...based on what a Ministry official described as a perceived threat to the director's safety following the release of the film.", since the one non-anonymous (or at least partially non-anonymous) source that The Indian Express article mentions is the unnamed Ministry of Home Affairs official who states that this is the Ministry's position. Beyond that attribution, the TIE article does not expressly endorse or attempt to undermine the claim (which of course is what you would expect and hope for in news coverage of such a subject). Barring further evidence or perspectives presented in reliable sources tending to discredit or enhance the perceived veracity of the claim, leave it to the reader to decide for themselves whether this was a genuine security measure for the sake of protecting life from a credible threat, or if it was a cynical ploy/act of fidelity by the ruling party to support propaganda aligned with it's messaging.  If I'm perfectly honest, I doubt either of those polarized views is entirely accurate or entirely wrong, but the important point here is that the reader is entitled to reach those conclusions for themselves based on their own interpretation of the actions of the parties in the given context, and (failing further evidence one way or another) should be left to do just that, not pushed to one side or the other by either an express statement in our prose, nor by a material omission. SnowRise let's rap 00:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording proposed seems fine to me and I agree entirely with other points. Hemantha (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So can we write this: Agnihotri was provided with a Y-category security detail from the Central Reserve Police Force across the country by the Ministry of Home Affairs, based on intelligence reports which said that there was a "threat to his life". Kpddg  (talk)  05:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The attribution to the ultimate source is more appropriate in this instance. You could always directly quote the commentary of the official inline briefly, though: "An assessment by the Intelligence Bureau has found that there is a threat to his life."  That would not be the approach I advise, but there are various permutations of the sentence that include such a quote that would work. But I do think we need to be clear as to who made the claim, in what context, even if the official being quoted by the Express goes unnamed. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I feel it should be moved out of the 'Government support' section as well. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk)  05:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My reply was about something along the lines of a clause saying "...based on what a Ministry official described as a perceived threat to the director's safety following the release of the film." by Snow_rise. No WP:RS has been presented for saying in wiki-voice that there actually were intelligence reports about threats. Hemantha (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The government perceives who is vulnerable. The government protects those it has so perceived. It is double-barreled government support. One barrel is the spy-glass; the other the rifle gun.  Hemantha's phrasing is rigorously NPOV.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I get where you are coming from, Kpddg, and am supportive of that view to a substantial extent: you are saying (if I read you correctly) that protecting any of its citizens from harm is a legitimate function of Indian government apparatus. Therefore, any suggestion of additional pretext for the action should have support in sourcing, and placing this fact in this section seems to be suggesting such additional pretext, even if that implication is not actually made in the prose itself. In other words, the security determinations are in support of the director personally, but are not per se actions in support of his recent work.  All of that has a certain logic and certain degree of weight under policy.


 * That said, it's pretty impossible to straight-facedly postulate a variation on these facts where a film is made about these exact same events, but embracing a more typical Muslim Kashmiri perspective on what occurred, and imagine that the same response would issue from the same state security and ministerial apparatus under BJP influence. For that matter, the average Hindu citizen with credible threats to their life does not benefit from a Y-category security detail.  So no matter how you slice it, the support given by the Ministry of Home Affairs is arguably impossible to disentangle entirely from the director's current profile and the alignment of the film's perspective with views popular with the government that ultimately makes the decision about how much security he gets in light of perceived threats.  Noticeably, the Express article is structured in tacit representation of this fact: notice that it uses scare quotes to describe the threat to Agnihotri's life, more than once, including in the lead: the author/editors of that article are clearly and expressly attributing the claim, because they realize that the timing and context invites skepticism from some parties as to which way the intelligence community/specific officials are going to lean in a case of mixed evidence of a threat in these circumstances--and that furthermore, when those determinations and the intelligence that informed them are only elaborated upon vaguely and expressed through career administrative politicians, that there are concerns about spin.


 * So, all factors taken together, I think this is a reasonable place to mention this small cluster of facts. Its extremely difficult to know how much these decisions and statements were the product of politicking and how much they represent parties making good faith decisions just to protect life. When it comes to such a politically and socially loaded situation as this, there is an unavoidably significant influence just from the unconcscious biases of the large number of political and intelligence officials who would contribute to a complicated chain of information and official decisions. Context is king, so I think, so far as we are very careful about what is said, that section is probably a reasonable place to discuss the security detail. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hemantha's phrasing and SnowRise's cogent arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrasing was entirely 's as well. My involvement was limited to nitpicking here. Hemantha (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But then the 'Islamist threat' angle is also missing. The film has highlighted the atrocities of Islamists which may have caused the director to be their threat target. Amitized (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"Hindutva Activists" raised slogans
The Hate Speech section states

"At the theatres, Hindutva activists raised slogans advocating for fatal violence against Kashmiri Muslims as well as Indian Muslims in general."

But both the cited sources do not say that at all, they say that the slogans were raised by "Hindus" and a "Hindu Monk". Kindly remove the WP:OR of those Hindus being Hindutva activists. >>> Extorc . talk  12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Either "Few Hindus" or "Audience" can be written in place. >>> Extorc . talk  12:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc you can choose the source from these to add there. Venkat TL (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc you can choose the source from these to add there. Venkat TL (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc you can choose the source from these to add there. Venkat TL (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc you can choose the source from these to add there. Venkat TL (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The widely
Hi  It is "widely" in the sense of "wide of the mark." The expression is used, though maybe not commonly, maybe more academically. See in published books. We could change it to "far from accurate." I don't think Alexander Evans meant it was widely thought to be inaccurate. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OED (revised June 2017) 5. To a large extent or degree; considerably, extremely; spec. (a) so as to be far from what is correct, desired, or intended; so as to err in opinion or belief (now rare);  (b) so as to be far apart from something in nature, character, amount, etc.
 * So, maybe "a notion associated with conspiracy theories and considered far from accurate." would be smoother than my phrasing, but will have the same intended meaning. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't much like that use of the word, Fowler; I feel it may have been contaminated by an association with "wildly inaccurate", and is pretty rare. But I'm certainly not wedded to that opinion, and it's a small matter in any case. Please feel free to revert. (As for "far from accurate", it sounds a bit... well, piddling; I don't think it's an improvement.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
 * It is much older usage. "Wildly" in the current meaning of "an extreme extent" (I'm wildly crazy about ...) is a 20th-centry meaning. What you have is fine too. No worries. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022
The original lines on the article was -

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama filmwritten and directed by Vivek Agnihotri.The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir.It depicts the early-1990 exodus to be a genocide,a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.

I want to change this to -

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama filmwritten and directed by Vivek Agnihotri.The film presents a storyline (based on reality) centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early-1990 exodus to be a genocide, which has been a historical truth and suppressed for many years. It shows the pain and sufferings of the displaced Kashmiri Pandit community. ArtemisGaladriel (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to correct a few lines. ArtemisGaladriel (talk) 06:33, 12 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) 08:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌. The present content is well-sourced. Your edit has no sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph changes needs Consensus

 * Please avoid changes to lead paragraph without discussion and Consensus on Talk page as per WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. Any changes without consensus will bring neutrality of this article into question. Please maintain last consensus reached by K3 on lead paragraph, until new consensus is formed . Jhy.rjwk (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can some admin please help here? This editor does nothing but edit war over imaginings of previous consensus and their own private prognostications of NPOV.  An editor who is unable to write, to draft anything intelligible, can't hold the rest of us to ransom. I've been around nearly 16 years on Wikipedia. I know a thing or two by now. I shouldn't have to waste so much time on such strange doings. Just examine the proceedings of the day whereby many of us have engaged each other to arrive at something that finally reads well.  In comes this editor and insouciantly pulls the rug from under our feet, back to some unreadable previous text. Please help, some admin.  I beg you. I beg you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear  Fowler&amp;fowler, Please avoid making changes to lead paragraph without consensus on Talk page. Please maintain last consensus reached earlier by several editors including Kautilya3  on lead paragraph, until new consensus is formed . Thanks for your cooperation. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We should maintain the last consensus by K3:
 * The early-1990 exodus, which followed the rise of violence in an insurgency, is depicted in the film as a genocide, a description that is inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.
 * The latest edit by F&F is without consensus:
 * The early-1990 exodus[9] is depicted in the film as a genocide,[15] a notion associated with conspiracy theories and at odds with recorded events.
 * This new edit attempts to hide violent Insurgency, and pushes a emphasis on certain version of recorded events. This needs to be balanced with more neutral view . Jhy.rjwk (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see the consensus - both were drafted by F&F and K3 had little to do with the framing, if I am not wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct. But I don't understand why the insurgency has been removed. (There are still close to a hundred posts everyday!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been removed, only moved into a ref note within the sentence per the discussion between and  above which I joined and implemented.  I think it was mainly the issue of the sentence becoming too long and lacking grace. I thought that we are now beyond the stage of an initial response and have the luxury of the long view.
 * As for Jh*, s/he seems to have a 24x7 cottage industry devoted to divining how  I trip  up the good people of this world.  I remain yours evilly  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
 * I do observe the same regarding the edits of Jhy.rjwk - here and on the exodus article last month. If this is getting too much tendentious, perhaps move for sanctions? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. I don't have much skill in that venue of life, but I'll be happy to support and comment and find diffs. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kautilya3 that Insurgency should be mentioned in the lead paragraph as per earlier consensus; and not hidden in a ref note Jhy.rjwk (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
Request to remove "It depicts the early-1990 exodus to be a genocide,[14] a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories." Abhiduggal5001 (talk) 16:18, 16 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. Cannolis (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Factual incorrect information
Its not a fictional storyline. As usual wrong narrative has been updated in Wikipedia to hide the truth. 46.253.188.3 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2022
There is a spelling mistake in the word 'movie', which is currently written as the word 'move' following 'Bollywood'. 86.29.103.88 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks. >>> Extorc . talk  18:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022
Please remove the below. It is not some conspiracy theory. Real people have dies and thousands of Hindu families were displaced and their homes burnt. "a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[16]" 108.35.75.3 (talk) 21:59, 21 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hinduphobic edits
This article has extremely hinduphobic edits which support terrorist ideology. This article has parts which try to misrepresent genocide of more than half million kashmiri pandits and trying to white wash terrorist activities of Islamic militants 206.84.226.182 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We'd need specific diffs or sections of text to look at to be able to evaluate that claim. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2022
Please unlock edit option. This article against the movie has been written with an henious intent of maligning the movie to suite the narrative of communists, islamic extremists and political parties like congress and other opposition members 103.24.85.178 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 04:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Archive summary: Going through the archives for this talk page
With regard to the history of this talk page and bringing up points that can be looked at once more- (Ongoing edit; I am saving in parts purposely, thank you. I will strike this once done.) DTM (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC) DTM (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Archive 1#For the joy of all- Can OpIndia's reviews be used here even if it is listed at WP:RSP? Wouldn't it be a good idea to add that to the review section, making it more complete? This is with respect to the whitelist process.
 * 2) Archive 1#My two cents-  I suggest to create a list of all reviews available online, and continue from there. On what basis have some reviews been added and others left out? For example Hindustan Times, The Rolling Stones and National Review. A list indeed.
 * 3) * Archive 4#Reasons for success - ...the HT review was removed because the reviewer has engaged in...
 * 4) Archive 1#Lack of NPOV and WP: I Don't Like It- India Today's review removal is discussed. Film Companion is mentioned in this conversation. I removed Film Companion's review just now from the article on the basis that it is blacklisted. Some editor had removed the link but left the citation so that the filters don't catch it.
 * 5) * Archive 2#Revert - Film Companion- This was placed in MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Archived without any outcome. WT:ICTF invoked.
 * 6) * Archive 3#India Today Review- A proper discussion take places however I see no concluding summary. Other reviews from Rediff.com and ThePrint mentioned.
 * 7) Archive 1#Use of islamophobia- the intro has "propagating Islamophobia". Is this conversation done ? This is the only location in the entire article where "Islamophobia" is used.
 * 8) Archive 1#Plot added- Krishna's speech in the plot. I do believe something like "Mir Shams-ud-Din Araqi and Humanism are mentioned" can be added, without going into how they exactly they are used.
 * 9) Talk:The_Kashmir_Files/Archive 1- Another unfinished conversation about reviews. I am clubbing this with similar above.
 * 10) Archive 1#Use of the word Genocide in the plot- A number of talk page conversations have touched upon the "genocide" point. I think it best to look at the current usage in the article. It is used in three locations. In another section, this can be rediscussed, if anyone feels the need to, focusing specifically on these three entries.
 * 11) Archive 2#Government support : Really ? NOPV is a Causality here- Dsnb07 raised NPOV of "Political messaging and historical accuracy". No discussion on this., any comments?
 * 12) Archive 2#Language - Kashmiri- This is a good point. Hindi (with some lines in Kashmiri and English).
 * 13) Archive 3#Fatality numbers used to question film's depiction as lopsided-  Has this been addressed for you?
 * 14) Archive 3#Misrepresentation :_Krishna's mother, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo- The article currently says - "Sharda, fashioned after Mrs. Ganjoo" - phrasing needs some work.
 * 15) Archive 3#Abdulah and BJP role in 1990 - One side POV which contradiction with hard facts- discussion on MOS:FILM.
 * 16) Archive 4#Claims of truth-  Is this line of thought complete ?
 * 17) Archive 4#Drama Film to Historical Drama- What is the outcome of this proposal- Propose change in the lead from Drama Film to Historical Drama. - was the user just asking for comments. Irrespective of the user, can this be applied to the article in its current form? Seems like "Historical Drama" has taken a back seat.
 * 18) Archive 5#Political messaging and historical inaccuracy-  this talk page conversation was left hanging with your comment last. Is this over with?
 * Fowler&fowler Continuing talk page conversations go on the talk page. the revert makes no sense. DTM (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this has no place in my sandbox or userspace. DTM (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-ping. and . I had pinged you above (Venkat TL point 15 and Shahid point 4) but I didn't get a notification of them going through. DTM (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler restored again. As I said I am just continuing unfinished conversations and asking if they are unfinished where unsure. No public service, please, just wikipedia policies and guidelines. Last restore. DTM (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, you made a bold talk page edit, an unheard-of one, I reverted it. The protocol is WP:BRD.  Edits on a page, especially controversial pages, have complex group dynamics, they can achieve a consensus wording without anyone being consistent.  Please don't try to play GA reviewr, nominator, judge, and jury.  In the middle of this, you seemed to have changed your user name.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Images
- thank you for the good morning revert just now. Talking of images... please help create a India map for this arcitle with regard to tax states and stuff. Inkscape will help in creating a nice SVG. Any ideas for this map? DTM (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh oh, earnings by state on a map. That would be cool! DTM (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IndiaInPixels has done this . This is another interesting one by them "What percentage of cities in each state are screening The Kashmir Files?" . DTM (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - We could also choose a more appropriate picture of Kher? The GA nom mentioned did point out it was from a wedding. DTM (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bollywood Hungama allows select photos to be uploaded to commons. There are images of Kher directly related to the movie. DTM (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are they already uploaded to Commons or on Bollywood Hungama? Could you give some links. I could upload them — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I currently cannot find any. Going by this commons category Commons:Category:Files from Bollywood Hungama, the rationale for their upload, and their use in Wikipedia articles - these images can be used The Kashmir Files Photos on Bollywood Hungama
 * This is of Bhasha Sumbli and Kher is nice- . There are a number of more suitable images as well on that link. A simple no smile one of Kher . Please do go ahead and choose one+. Thanks. DTM (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no. Only those from parties and events are licensed. Only those of Kangana Ranaut are eligible — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh bother. DTM (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead with the maps. DTM (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This map is chosen as per map used in- States and union territories of India The Kashmir Files tax free states.svg DTM (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does Assam have a peculiar shade?
 * I will be only interested in a map that shows the BJP/NDA ruled states with a color (say, saffron) and tax-free status with stripes or bars. A reader can easily understand the correlation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Assam's color has to do with - Himanta Biswa also clarified that as Assam does not have any entertainment tax, there is no point in a waiver. The claim appears to be disingenuous and indirectly contradicted by this explainer (Assam apparently was the first to ratify GST Bill and I don't think a state can exclude specific industries/services from GST). But I couldn't quickly source any specific rebuttal. Hemantha (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2022
I want to edit to make changes in some of the wrong information shown in The Kashmir Files. Hepler434943394 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2022
2405:204:112C:A4CA:F86E:1B65:740E:F7BD (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC) It's a Real Story inspired with Real events and talks about Terrorism in kashmir
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. signed,  511KeV    (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Accurate citations
This page may have protected in bad faith. If there is a strong consensus of its inaccuracy then please help compile a list of citations to be suggested for edit requests. The current edit requests do not provide any sources to back the proposed changes. Ookadookasodacracka (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda
Gathering here some quotes regarding the propaganda aspects of the movie:
 * New Indian Express:


 * Asim Ali:


 * Darab Farooqi:


 * Deccan Herald:


 * South Asian Today:


 * Nitasha kaul:

Almost all of them make clear that they are not calling the Kashmiri Pandit trauma as "propaganda", rather the film's depiction of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but these are your two-bit spur-of-the-moment film critics of Bollywood. It doesn't really matter what their opinion is. They can be used for factual material such as the film calling the exodus a genocide, or the plot, or the box office success, but not for whether the film has propaganda, as none of them know Indian history in any depth to be deemed scholarly. I think it is best to just stick to genocide, and how that term has been treated in the scholarly literature.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean just look at the constructions: you get horror that verges on the caricature.
 * What does that mean? A depiction of horror that seldom rises above caricature? That is not how you use verges. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my railing at the sources, doesn't diminish in the least bit my respect for you or my admiration for the work you must have had to do to round up the sources. Kudos. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) I will post something tomorrow morning, hopefully refreshed by sleep.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)