Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 8

fiction and conspiracy theories
Films that dramatize and fictionalise historical events are not usually described as having "fictional" storylines on Wikipedia (e.g. Titanic (1997 film), Hotel Rwanda, 100 Days (2001 film)). Describing it simply as a drama film dramatizing historical events would better fit precedent and the spirit of the sources.

The claim that the notion of the events being a genocide is associated with "conspiracy theories" is not supported by the sources cited. The first quote recalls previously mentioned conspiracy theories, but does not describe the assertion of genocide as being "associated" with conspiracy theories by itself. As it stands, it's a synthesis at best. The quotes describe the genocide claims as "aggressive" and quote some KPs saying it wasn't a genocide, but do not describe the assertion as "inaccurate" anywhere. It would be better if some actual genocide scholars are cited there. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll ping @Fowler&fowler for the conspiracy theories bit. I believe he's done digging into the related sources — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theory" because the film claims that it was a "genocide", which has been carefully hidden from the public knowledge by the Indian estalblishment.
 * As for "fictional", the reliable sources mention the fact, and there is no reason we shouldn't. The other movies you mention are not targets of mass propaganda like this one is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Another influx of editors! Talk page is protected for 2 weeks now btw — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this edit is a result of that? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That 99.99% of Kashmiri Pandits are not in Kashmir anymore. That a way of life and culture has disappeared due to violence directed at them is a fact. That the film explore the reasons for it from the point of KP community using real incidences in fictional storyline does not make the sufferings of KPs "conspiracy theory". The film makes no claim of being a documentary. That whe citations for "conspiracy" quoting snedden infact refers to the way majority community normalised the sufferings of KPs...by claiming KPs left enmass on directives of governor so that KMs could be killed enmass. All these are attempts to place the blame the victims and absolve the jihadist of any wrongdoing. That this conspiracy theory been incorporated (that too in an uneducated way) into this page is pathetic. It is like quoting Goebbels on a page about suffering of Jews. There are better ways to write simple descriptions for a film that has been made after talking to hundreds of KPs. Vinayak.razdan (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no citation to Snedden on this page.
 * I am ignoring the rest of your WP:FORUMy rant. But if you repeat it again, it will not be ignored. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should have been obvious to you I meant Alexander Evans. What conspiracy theories? If you have actually read the paper by Evans you would see the immediate context of his use of word "conspiracy theories" is about the ideas that govt. was involved in the exodus of pandits. And if you read the paper you will see how he explains that those theories hold no weight. The use of word and citation is dubious. It serves no purpose other than mislead the reader. Thanks. Vinayak.razdan (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should have been obvious? You are the one who is sloppy and you blame others for not being privy to the infirmities of your hand-brain-coordination?
 * Those are not the conspiracy theories to which Evans refers, although it is easy to make that interpretation. Rather, he is talking about the two notions that either Pakistan or Kashmiri Muslims were determined to drive out the KPs.
 * ("Most KPs believe that they were forced out of the Kashmir Valley; whether by Pakistan and the militant groups it backed, or by Kashmiri Muslims as a community. Representing the latter variant, Pyarelal Kaul contends that the Pandit departure was a clear case of communal intimidation by Muslims, ... Pakistani policy is the root cause, according to Vijay Dhar")
 * The Kashmiri Muslim conspiracy theory i.e that Jagmohan Malhotra, the Governor, in effect pressured the KPs to leave so he could nail the insurgency without restriction or inhibition, is not what Evans is talking about there when he uses the word "conspiracy." For in the very next sentence he says: As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swamy sic Sevak publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, ...
 * The "As" does not constitute refutation of the Muslim conspiracy theories, only that of the Kashmiri Hindus'. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed Bose from the citation — Evans has summarized him accurately and there is little to gain by citation-bombing. I have also incorporated a source where Mridu Rai rejects the label of genocide in her own voice ; accordingly, I have removed the source quoting Sanjay Kak. That being said, I have purged the label of conspiracy theory since none of the cited sources support such a conclusion. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it might also be helpful to add that the Pandit organisations themselves support the claims of genocide/ethnic cleansing, while it is considered inaccurate by the scholars in Kashmir Studies.
 * , I don't think it's right to have unconventional wording simply because it's a propaganda piece, that seems to veer into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. two sources do describe the storyline as fictional, with almost identical wording, but the spirit of claim, the wording of other sources is clearly that it's a dramatization/fictionalization, that's the precedent wording for these genre of work on Wikipedia. I do think this precedent should be followed here too. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theories" was meant to summarise the quote I added yesterday. The issue is also covered in the body. It wasn't my wording. But the movie does hint at a conspiracy (somehow executed by the entire country!), and it needs to be in the lead. The movie does claim that nobody knew that it was a genocide, until now, when the Great Agnihotri revealed it to all of us! And, therefore, everybody is expected to distrust all the governments that preceded the current one and all the media that never covered it. We can't just overlook all this propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam: I have reverted your edits. The lead has been stably in place for a number of weeks now, beyond a peremptory run-through with rationales of emblazoned edit summaries. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I've to re-do my edits 😅 I'll leave the cites in the lead if you want them to be — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that the "conspiracy theories" edit was made here. I don't know what meant by the term. The two conspiracy theories referred to by Evans are that (1) Jagmohan wanted the Pandits out of the Valley, (2) Pakistan wanted them out of the Valley. Neither of them has anything to do with the "genocide" claim or this film. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah - Evans cannot be a source for "conspiracy theories". TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake then, I thought the former wording didn't make much sense so rewrote it based on the quotation in the cite. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No those are not the two conspiracy theories, as I indicate above. Rather, they are: that (a) Pakistan wanted them out and (b) the Kashmiri Muslims wanted them out. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * F&F, there is something called dispute resolution ladder. If you are reverted (rightly or wrongly) and multiple editors object to your interpretations, you need to launch a RfC. Not keep on smashing the revert button.
 * I do not accept your tortuous explanation. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not my problem that you are unable to parse idiomatic English Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not multiple editors, only you. Multiple means many.  You are incorrigibly aggressive. The article has been edited by many (yes many) editors and many were involved in the word-smithing.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does K3's objection not register with you? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that he had seen my post of 10:58 when he replied at 11:01. Please don't play this silly game with me.  I know how to read academic English.  I've been doing it for years.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And there is WP policy of WP:BRD. You made a bold edit (or series of edits).  I, recalling that what you had altered had resulted from an interaction between several editors on the talk page lasting several days, reverted it.  You should have then proceeded to discuss the matter on the talk page, in the way that TayiA and DaxS had done, patiently over days if needed, not pressed the revert button and accuse me of violation of WP policy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hadn't see the 10:58 message when I wrote mine. I read it much later. It may be that Evans was referring to (1) Pakistan (2) Kashmiri Muslims as the agents in the two conspiracy theories. It is not very clear. But, right now, this statement is very contentious and it is being misinterpreted. So I would prefer to leave it out unless we can provide solid backing. It is also worth keeping in mind that none of the movie reviews called it a "conspiracy theory". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about my version before that cited for each descriptor respectively to Evans, Bhatia and Rai: a term that is thought to be highly inaccurate, aggressive, or propaganda? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging for the above. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Aggressive" is a meaningless and superfluous qualifier for an average reader who is not expected to know anything more than the disputed status of Kashmir. There is no reason to alter the current wording: "widely inaccurate and propagandist." TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. It is not a meaningless qualifier.
 * It is meant in the sense of "aggressively promoted to blame Kashmiri Muslims" by Bhatia. (Here is the full quote: Bhatia, Mohita (2020), Rethinking Conflict at the Margins: Dalits and Borderland Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 978-1-108-83602-9,  The dominant politics of Jammu representing 'Hindus' as a homogeneous block includes Pandits in the wider 'Hindu' category. It often uses extremely aggressive terms such as 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' to explain their migration and places them in opposition to Kashmiri Muslims. The BJP has appropriated the miseries of Pandits to expand their 'Hindu' constituency and projects them as victims who have been driven out from their homeland by militants and Kashmiri Muslims.
 * Seriously what is the matter with your edits both on this talk page and the article page (where I have just noticed you have reverted my revert a second time) What makes you think I had read the "current wording" made by you when I wrote what I did above.  I was referring to my original wording.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Bhatia's contextual use of the qualifier is not meaningless. Your proposed incorporation in the third line of the article is.
 * What makes you think I had read the "current wording" made by you when I wrote what I did above - Huh? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is what was in the article before, with cites for each descriptor, widely inaccurate (or highly, grossly, wildly inaccurate), (Evans), aggressive, (Bhatia) and propaganda (Rai quoting a KPSS president) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: But the movie does call it a genocide, right? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the movie calls it a genocide. But, did it invent it on its own or is it merely presenting the Kashmiri Pandits' point of view? If it is the latter, it would be inappropriate to load it with anything more than inaccurate, because the Pandits were the victims after all, and we can't attribute motives to them. Siddharth Gigoo's column had this:
 * So, calling it inaccurate based on scholarly assessments is perfectly fine. But doing anything more would be seen as targeting the victims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And what about
 * "widely inaccurate" in the sense in which I had used the term. Don't worry, I'm not looking to using "widely" again but it could be paraphrased in one of the meanings in which I had meant it:  OED: widely adv 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. ?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And what about the other two terms of my original edit?  (a) aggressive (in the meaning of aggressively promoted to blame, scapegoat, or other the Kashmiri Muslims) cited to Bhati and (b) propaganda (or -dist), which was cited to Mridu Rai quoting a KPSS president?  In my view, it is not the aggressive part, but the propagandist that is weak, as it is based on a remark.  In other words: something like:  a term that is thought to be both highly inaccurate and aggressively promoted by political organizations outside the valley. It would indirectly incorporate the KPSS president's "propaganda" remark?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ok with "widely inaccurate" ("blatantly inaccurate", "grossly inaccurate" or whatever strikes your fancy). But "aggressive" is problematic again, which would mean denying the Pandit experiences which they narrate. No one can know if they are true or false. We had a contemporary news source narrate: At night, Muslim mosques broadcast messages from loudspeakers telling all Hindus to leave Kashmir. "Leave your ladies here," the broadcasts ordered. "We want Kashmir without you but leave your ladies here." So, we have corroboration for what they have been saying. I can't say that they made stuff up "aggressively" or even "propagandistically". We have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 * As for the KPSS statements, I don't see why they are supposed to be more valid than the statements of the Pandits that fled. Maybe, by staying back, they have thrown in their lot in with the Kashmiri Muslims and take a line that supports them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to persist, but what about something like: genocide, a term that is not only highly inaccurate but has also been aggressively promoted by political organizations outside the valley. It would indirectly incorporate the KPSS president's "propaganda" remark?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the last post must have been updated later by me. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think that works fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vague framing: who are these "political organizations"? And, how does "outside the valley" aid a reader? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reader can read it in the sources (with quotes) to which each clause is cited. It could also be expanded to, genocide and ethnic cleansing, terms that is not only highly inaccurate but have also been aggressively promoted by political organizations outside the valley. cited to Evans, Sumantra Bose,  Mohita Bhatia and Mridu Rai. None are blaming the pandits, only the political organizations outside the valley that have attempted to falsely represent them and gain off their victimhood.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reader can read it in the sources (with quotes) to which each clause is cited. It could also be expanded to, genocide and ethnic cleansing, terms that is not only highly inaccurate but have also been aggressively promoted by political organizations outside the valley. cited to Evans, Sumantra Bose,  Mohita Bhatia and Mridu Rai. None are blaming the pandits, only the political organizations outside the valley that have attempted to falsely represent them and gain off their victimhood.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

, "organisations outside the valley" also seemes loaded to me. sources seem to suggest that those who promote the genocide/ethnic cleansing view are the victims themselves, and of course their organisations are outside the valley, because they were forced to flee. that wording, along with comment about false representation, inappropriately suggestions that it's merely some Hindu nationalists presenting a "false claim", instead of what it actually is—victims presenting their lived experiences of what had happened. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri Pandits had a "lived experience" of a genocide? Which source says such a thing?
 * The fleeing Pandits came under the influence of the Hindu Right the moment they landed in Jammu.. RSS published a book on "Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir" within a year. See the Sumantra Bose citation that I reinstated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the sources say that the Pandits who had to flee the valley, the victims, present their experiences as a genocide. I think it would be better to present this piece of information along with the information that this claim is contested by scholars. whether this was done under sway of RSS or "outside organisations", to me it seems like that might not be in the scope of this article. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many types of sources that address this issue, including the tertiary, the secondary, and the primary. In instances of a dispute, WPs time-honored policy is to seek guidance in WP:TERTIARY, which states unequivocally that standard and broad-scale undergraduate textbooks which are vetted for due weight should be utilized when the primary and secondary sources contradict each other.  Few texts are more respected and widely read around the world than Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2012.  It states clearly: ""
 * So, nothing about a genocide, only about promotion and hijacking of vulnerabilities and causes by the Hindu Right, and deaths overwhelmingly of Kashmiri Muslims at the hands of the Indian state. Imagine, this is read around the world.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * if this was meant to reply to me, then you seem to have misread me. from the Mridu Rai interview: [...] claims by Pandits in the diaspora who say that Kashmiri Pandits suffered 'a genocide' and were forced into 'exile'. this should be noted in the article, along with whatever the tertiary sources say about the genocide claim, since the film makes that very claim. I don't see how Metcalf's summaries and it's omissions are relevant here; this is not the Exodus article, this is an article about a film. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 02:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You had said in the exchange with K3: " inappropriately suggestions that it's merely some Hindu nationalists presenting a "false claim"." The Metcalfs clearly state that the cause of the Pandits, extraordinary beneficiaries of successive regimes from colonial times on, was essentially propagandized by the Hindu right, immediately after their exodus. Other sources, such as Sumantra Bose speak to the Hindu nationalist claim that temples were destroyed during this genocide. You are looking for an equal emphasis on fringe views and mainstream scholarly ones. That is patently against WP policy. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you're mistaken in your interpretation of the guideline, I don't think that's what WP: FRINGE means. the film makes a fringe claim that is supported by the Pandits who fled. it's not a fringe claim to say "film makes controversial fringe claim X supported by relevant group (the subject group of the film) Y but [widely] considered inaccurate by scholars of the field". it would have been in violation of fringe if I had proposed something like "the film makes X claim supported by [irrelevant person] Y but opposed by group Z" and cited that to some dubious source supporting the genocide claim, making it sound as if the claim is taken as seriously in the "debate", so to say.
 * the relevant source is already there—the Mridu Rai interview discusses the claims of the Pandits themselves. I propose something like a notion promoted by exiled Kashmiri Pandits and Hindu nationalist organisations that is considered to be widely inaccurate [by scholars in the field]. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 03:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason that Alexander Evans mention Pandits interviewed in the refugee camps is that it was context in which he had encountered the claim, and in which he had attempted to assess whether their reasons were evidence-based. Others, such as Sumantra Bose, encountered it in a different context, that of Hindu nationalist groups promoting a notion of temple destruction.  When a large number of authors contradict a claim in the context of their slightly differing contexts, the claim becomes an independent historical claim, not tied to a specific context of utterance.
 * We don't say anymore that the Aristotle's physics does not hold because Galileo contradicted it in the context of a Catholic church controversy, Copernicus did so in the context of a Orthodox church controversy, Kepler in the context of a Lutheran controversy, and finally Newton in a Church of England controversy. At some point the original contexts become unimportant.
 * The movie also makes the claim. The claim is highly inaccurate. Period. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * but the context is not unimportant here. the film is discussed in the wider context of Hindu nationalism and the "story of the Pandits". the film is not far removed from the origin of the claims in KP and Hindu nationalist narratives, these themes are central to the discussion of the film. it is important to note, I think, both that the film's claims are Hindu nationalist talking points, and that the talking points are supported by the exiled Pandits—as the sources discussing the film and the genocide claims note respectively. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The original sentence edited by me and cited respectively to Evans, Mohita Bhatia and Mridu Rai, was: a term which is thought to be widely inaccurate, aggressive, or propaganda. (The propaganda bit is what Rai attributes to the spokesman of an organization of the KPs who stayed in Kashmir.)
 * "Widely inaccurate," which was my phrasing, is an academic style of saying "wide of the mark," which Evans uses. But this was misinterpreted (with some justification) as "widely considered to be inaccurate," in which wording it had remained.
 * It is the term or notion that is considered x, y, or z. Whether or not the film itself promotes that notion of a genocide is for the latter-day sources to state and thereafter for us to cite.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What the reviews said

 * The Hindu


 * Tanul Thakur:


 * Debashis Roy Chowdhary:


 * Ipsita Chakravarty:

So it is not simply "inaccurate". It is also an attack on the governments, media, academia, etc. How do we cover it in the lead? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe, we can put the word "unearth" to suitable use. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again: what is inaccurate etc. is the notion that the exodus was a genocide. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "a notion that is considered to be widely inaccurate and propagandist" doesn't sound WP:NPOV since "widely" and "propaganda" are in the eye of the beholder.
 * "a claim that is disputed" would cover this better. Valenciano (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV or its absence does not apply to the beholding scholarly sources. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, according to scholars, the notion that the exodus was a genocide is grossly inaccurate, way out in left field, ... When 30 people die during the exodus and 80 of various causes in the six months following, and you call it a genocide it is not just a claim that has been disputed.  It is violent exaggeration that has been debunked.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOURCETYPES, which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A very biased description of the movie
Wikipedia should check out facts before posting such articles It is not fictional story nor is it “widely considered inaccurate “. The very fact that the movie is seen by so many says “ how inaccurate it is widely considered “. Do correct these statements. 70.77.249.132 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @70.77.249.132 Wikipedia Articles use Factually accurate and reliable sources to make articles, your current act of complaining about "in-accuracy" without any sources backing your claim is not helping. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes this page shows biasness towards the film. Hepler434943394 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @70.77.249.132 Kindly tell me what do you consider as a reliable source ?

Wiil be waiting for your reply... Because every part of this movie is true. I am also a kashmiri pandit and we know it. Wikipedia being such a large platform for seeking information should not be dependent on communal sources and others like so.

Large no. of people have watched the movie and almost everybody supports the movie and stands for it. Obviously it hurts those who were responsible for this "genocide" and the people which did not let the truth come out for 32 years causing controversies.

I humbly request you to not misguide those who don't know anything about what happened in 1990 and want to know about it.

Following corrections are needed to be made: 1) It was not an exodus but a genocide. 2) Its not fictional, it's a real story. 3) It is not inaccurate, you may say it is not complete because obviously you can't put all the brutual things that kashmiri pandits have suffered through, in one movie. Sumrit Saproo (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. There are plenty of them cited in the page. Here is another, which I encourage you to read:
 * Nitasha Kaul, Kashmir is not a file: Propaganda and politics in India, The News Minute, 24 March 2022.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By this logic every movie on holocaust should include the reasons for the rise of Nazis. This movie depicts the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims(mainly Hindus in Kashmir). -- Ramcrk (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My edit was reverted. Exodus not always means forced migration by violence. What happened is forced migration. Ethnic cleansing is correct word. We need to change the desription to accurately reflect the truth. While there is wide gap between the narrative of right and left wing parties, truth should not suffer due their biases. Ramcrk (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FILMLEAD?
It occurred to me that lead right now is not necessarily in compliance with WP:FILMLEAD. The criticism of the work itself, let alone the criticism of the source material (KP and Hindu nationalist narratives of genocide in this case), is not supposed to appear in the first paragraph even in the case of very controversial works (e.g. Cuties). The film might be very political, propagandist and so on, but I would suggest that the first paragraph only contain plot details, not the criticisms of historical accuracy of the plot. The current last line can be expanded and incorporated into "historical accuracy" section and summarised down in the lead in line with WP:FILMHIST.

My two specific issues with the material itself raised above, (a) that the description of dramatisations (even politically motivated ones) should ideally be described as just that in line with Wikipedia precedent for similar articles instead of with unusual terms that only seem to appear due to the controversial/propagandist nature of the work, and (b) that the mention of the genocide narrative anywhere in the article should come with it's context (the groups that support it) in line with the sources that discuss the narrative, haven't been satisfactorily resolved in the above sections. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is you are attempting to ground your edits in, please suggest the edits, one sentence, one clause, or one phrase, at a time in the above section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The film opening disclaimer also mentions, "true events" and "Kashmir genocide". I wonder why these weren't added to the selected words in the citation in the lede. HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The director's Twitter post
The director of the movie has apparently directly criticized Wikipedia in a Twitter post about using the expression "conspiracy theory." I just want to make sure that editors here are not suddenly pussyfooting around "conspiracy theory," because they are worried about real-life consequences. Given India's recent and much-cited democratic backsliding, such fear would not be unwarranted, but may I also remind them of Wikipedia policy according to which its text is beholden only to reliable sources, especially scholarly sources, and most especially scholarly tertiary sources that have been vetted for due weight. Whereas the last category of sources is unlikely to appear for a while for a movie released in March, it can be employed to comment on terms or worldviews the movie has been accused of promoting. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is the post. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, I'm dubious that a lead, incuding a phrasing of its one sentence, that had lain fallow for upward of three weeks, is suddenly being raked by all and sundry in a tizzy, with no patience for WP conventions of interaction, because editors have suddenly had an epiphany about the truth. What gives? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are at the level of worrying about real-life consequences. Even in the highly up-voted reddit thread which preceded this, there were a number of comments saying the description here was mostly correct. That sub-reddit is very vocally pro BJP. Also see this interview from 28th April, by a Kerala news website where he gets asked tough questions. There's been a lot of abusive comments about the interviewer and the director had fulminated similarly about that interview before this rant; but I don't think it has escalated to targeted abuse or more. If a journalist can ask those questions to his face, anon editors have nothing to worry as of now. Hemantha (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I (as well as K3) are aware of Agnihotri's rant but cannot care less. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yes, I did read some of the moview reviews, and they said some very critical things as well.  So, the fact that "conspiracy theory" is being removed the day after the director had made a reference to it should be chalked to coincidence?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most certainly, the discussion was started. I'd say it's safe to say it's the causation, despite whatever consensus we reach in the end. and several news outlets picked up on that tweet — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually wondering if we put some of the links in a "In the media" banner on this talk page, as they are directly related to this particular article? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that phraseology in the lead cannot be justified on the basis of Wikipedia policies. I am also glad that we have sense enough to review our content when concerns are raised in public. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Even though the specific phrasing can't be justified, I should say the lead as a whole as it stands at present appears watered down compared to the sum of RS coverage the film has. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you draft that sentence of interest in light of your understanding of reliable sources, ? In other words, what sentence would more accurately represent that sum total? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing more can be added to the first paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD. But I would be in favour of adding the "propaganda" aspect of the film in the third paragraph, using some or all of the sources above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single sentence can fix this, the lead needs some degree of re-writing. It does not do a good job at representing the content, theme and characterisation of the film that RS have made. To illustrate I've scanned through the sources and I'll list those which have some academic value. There are two sets of articles that can be used.
 * One from the field of literary and film criticism in the more traditional review format authored by recognised critics, listed below.
 * And the other from those who have published academic works in the field of political science and have expertise in matters related to Hindu nationalism, listed below.
 * I'm weighing the latter set as the highest quality sources at present as their expertise relates to the context of the film and since there is no peer reviewed work which addresses the film itself yet, once they exist they would supersede these as well. There are countless others of course, but I'm omitting them from either lists as they are largely authored by journalists, columnists and film industry professionals so they would fall primarily in the sector of attributed opinions or current affairs reporting on the film and matters related to it.
 * The lead at present only addresses the qualifier of "genocide" made by the film and has a line on negative critical reception which I do not think is adequate in comparison. If you want I can make a draft of the lead and present it here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. From what I have seen of your work on the page in the past, I trust you will do a balanced and comprehensive job. The lead after precipitous mangling of emphasis and syntax by  and  occurring soon after the director saying, "Boo," is in a depleted state, the work of dozens of editors undone unilaterally.  If pressure is being felt by anyone as a result of the director's Twitter post, it should be openly discussed; that is in fact why I opened this thread.  But a hurried unilateral effort, mostly by two editors, after the lead has lain faillow for three weeks, is not the solution.  "Critical reaction has been mixed," for example, has been changed to "Critical reaction has been negative," but without changing the supportive vignettes of the mixed reaction. Please make a good effort.  All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)  Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * May I also request an uninvolved admin, one or more of perhaps, to please revert the page to its state before the hurly-burly began and lock it for several days, even a week, so the editors here can calmly amend the lead in a cooperative and NPOV manner.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the talk page discussion in the section below has not come to a firm conclusion yet, I have per WP:STATUSQUO reverted the page to its version of 1 May 2022.  I request that you please keep an eye on this page and the instance of edit warring, please lock it in the version  before the dispute began   Thank you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the other from those who have published academic works in the field of political science and have expertise in matters related to Hindu nationalism, listed below.
 * I'm weighing the latter set as the highest quality sources at present as their expertise relates to the context of the film and since there is no peer reviewed work which addresses the film itself yet, once they exist they would supersede these as well. There are countless others of course, but I'm omitting them from either lists as they are largely authored by journalists, columnists and film industry professionals so they would fall primarily in the sector of attributed opinions or current affairs reporting on the film and matters related to it.
 * The lead at present only addresses the qualifier of "genocide" made by the film and has a line on negative critical reception which I do not think is adequate in comparison. If you want I can make a draft of the lead and present it here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. From what I have seen of your work on the page in the past, I trust you will do a balanced and comprehensive job. The lead after precipitous mangling of emphasis and syntax by  and  occurring soon after the director saying, "Boo," is in a depleted state, the work of dozens of editors undone unilaterally.  If pressure is being felt by anyone as a result of the director's Twitter post, it should be openly discussed; that is in fact why I opened this thread.  But a hurried unilateral effort, mostly by two editors, after the lead has lain faillow for three weeks, is not the solution.  "Critical reaction has been mixed," for example, has been changed to "Critical reaction has been negative," but without changing the supportive vignettes of the mixed reaction. Please make a good effort.  All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)  Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * May I also request an uninvolved admin, one or more of perhaps, to please revert the page to its state before the hurly-burly began and lock it for several days, even a week, so the editors here can calmly amend the lead in a cooperative and NPOV manner.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the talk page discussion in the section below has not come to a firm conclusion yet, I have per WP:STATUSQUO reverted the page to its version of 1 May 2022.  I request that you please keep an eye on this page and the instance of edit warring, please lock it in the version  before the dispute began   Thank you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead at present only addresses the qualifier of "genocide" made by the film and has a line on negative critical reception which I do not think is adequate in comparison. If you want I can make a draft of the lead and present it here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. From what I have seen of your work on the page in the past, I trust you will do a balanced and comprehensive job. The lead after precipitous mangling of emphasis and syntax by  and  occurring soon after the director saying, "Boo," is in a depleted state, the work of dozens of editors undone unilaterally.  If pressure is being felt by anyone as a result of the director's Twitter post, it should be openly discussed; that is in fact why I opened this thread.  But a hurried unilateral effort, mostly by two editors, after the lead has lain faillow for three weeks, is not the solution.  "Critical reaction has been mixed," for example, has been changed to "Critical reaction has been negative," but without changing the supportive vignettes of the mixed reaction. Please make a good effort.  All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)  Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * May I also request an uninvolved admin, one or more of perhaps, to please revert the page to its state before the hurly-burly began and lock it for several days, even a week, so the editors here can calmly amend the lead in a cooperative and NPOV manner.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As the talk page discussion in the section below has not come to a firm conclusion yet, I have per WP:STATUSQUO reverted the page to its version of 1 May 2022.  I request that you please keep an eye on this page and the instance of edit warring, please lock it in the version  before the dispute began   Thank you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)