This is an archive of past discussions about The Kashmir Files. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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."[1]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".[1][2] Something could be added attributing the report?
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 rap00:04, 5 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. SnowRise let's rap16:53, 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&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. SnowRise let's rap20:01, 6 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.talk12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Bishonen: 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&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&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 | tålk22:35, 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&fowler«Talk»00:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022
This edit request to The Kashmir Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
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&fowler«Talk»23:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear Fowler&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)
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 @Tayi Arajakate: and @DaxServer: 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&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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
This edit request to The Kashmir Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022
This edit request to The Kashmir Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2022
This edit request to The Kashmir Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
3) It is not broad in its coverage; tautologically, it cannot as critical opinion has not had time to mature and become broadscale.
4) It is not at all clear that it is neutral. I say this as a major contributor to the lead of the article.
5) It is hardly stable. It may have quietened down some, but still very prone to wild swings. IPs post all the time complaining about the biased coverage.
6) It has one illustration outside of the non-free poster in the infobox. It is of one of the actors at a wedding reception in 2014.
In addition, the nominator has not made any edits to this article. I know they are not required to in general, but in a very recent controversial article, some history of a nominator's edits is very useful for the assurance of other editors who have spent much effort on fine-tuning the words and arriving at a provisional balance. Some very experienced editors have spent days discussing one clause in one sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This should have been a quick fail but IPs complaining about biased coverage is no reason. How many t/p rants does India attract on a monthly basis? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing note to the nominator: I would like to commend the nominator, @FacetsOfNonStickPans: for the submission. I am sure they have the ability to drastically improve the article. In the past they have shown an appreciation for rigor and evenhandedness in their edits. They should continue to strive for these. In time, perhaps in three months, perhaps in six, the topic itself will become more settled, its body of associated literature more broad-ranging. It would then become very worthy of a renewed GA submission. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:08, 27 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-
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.
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.
Archive 3#India Today Review- A proper discussion take places however I see no concluding summary. Other reviews from Rediff.com and ThePrint mentioned.
Archive 1#Use of islamophobia- the intro has "propagating Islamophobia". Is this conversation done Shshshsh? This is the only location in the entire article where "Islamophobia" is used.
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.
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.
(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)
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&fowler«Talk»11:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Images
@TrangaBellam:- 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)
IndiaInPixels has done this [1]. This is another interesting one by them "What percentage of cities in each state are screening The Kashmir Files?" [2]. DTM (talk) 06:57, 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)
This is of Bhasha Sumbli and Kher is nice- [3]. There are a number of more suitable images as well on that link. A simple no smile one of Kher [4]. Please do go ahead and choose one+. Thanks. DTM (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
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.[1] 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)
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:
Attached to this is the disclaimer that the film, set between the 1980s and present times, intends no disrespect to any community or faith. Both statements are woefully compromised. The Kashmir Files hasn’t the slightest concern for its subject people, gleefully exploiting their trauma and tragedy for cheap rhetoric. And its communal agenda is so brazen it beats most mainline propaganda.[1]
Asim Ali:
There are countless ways of looking at any given fact. What separates facts from knowledge is context. This context – narratives that help us weave together facts – is what makes them intelligible to our limited human mind. These narratives are at the heart of both drama and politics and, if used in a deliberately misleading way to serve a partisan cause, is also known as propaganda.[2]
Darab Farooqi:
I believe this is propaganda rather than a genuine work of art or workmanship. Propaganda, by definition, is the spread of information – facts, arguments, speculations, half-truths, or outright lies – in order to sway public opinion. It serves a goal, is one-sided, and delivers the truth in a partial or convenient manner. In this regard, The Kashmir Files shines.... There isn’t a single Muslim character in the film who is empathetic. Every single Muslim character is either deceitful or evil. This raises an essential question: did the film’s writer and director come across the information that many Muslims were slain by militants in the year 1990 alone? It’s unlikely that the film maker didn’t see this figure. However, it is neglected since it does not serves the director’s aims. For the propaganda that was being formulated, this bit of reality is inconvenient and uncomfortable.[3]
Deccan Herald:
But as you watch this film, it becomes obvious that director Vivek Agnihotri is working on a very different agenda. Instead of sensitivity, you get horror that verges on the caricature; instead of tragedy, you get a shriek of propaganda; instead of a human story of displacement and wrong, you get a laundry list of the pet concerns of the Hindu Right; instead of a repudiation of hate, and an overriding sense of the colossal loss that divisiveness brings in its wake, you get an unsubtle incitement to still more hate.[4]
South Asian Today:
The subject is not propaganda; the film is. Ellena Zellhuber McMillan wrote, “Propaganda is about creating an illusion and manipulating the truth, and in this regard, the film is fundamentally the same.” The intersection of propaganda and cinema is not new, and some patterns largely remain the same: relying heavily on evoking negative emotions, distorting historical facts in the name of cinematic liberty, pandering to majority politics — all of which ‘The Kashmir Files’ has excelled at.[5]
Nitasha kaul:
Against this backdrop [of Hindutva], the recently released movie The Kashmir Files is communal propaganda by an Indian filmmaker that trades upon this suffering. Unsurprisingly, it fits right into mainstream contemporary India. [6]
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&fowler«Talk»16:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean just look at the constructions: you get horror that verges on the caricature.
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&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) I will post something tomorrow morning, hopefully refreshed by sleep. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done. The present content is well-sourced. Your edit has no sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Done Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 18:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. 💜 melecie talk - 04:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
![[3]](https://media2.bollywoodhungama.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Kashmir-Files-4-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://media2.bollywoodhungama.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Kashmir-Files-8.jpg){kind=link}