Talk:The Kashmir Files: Difference between revisions

Political messaging and historical accuracy

Multiple issues -

• Reference to JNU - In movie there is no reference to JNU, CBFC passed movie only after changing JNU to ANU https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/breaking-vivek-agnihotris-kashmir-files-passed-certificate-7-minor-cuts-cbfc-name-university-changed-jnu-anu/
• Use of islamophobia please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Use_of_islamophobia
• The whole last paragraph assumes a Kashmiri terrorist is Farooq Ahmed Dar ("Bitta Karate") whereas a character is named Farooq malik Bitta which is inspired by Farooq Ahmed Dar. please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Chinmay_Mandlekar's_character
• Toning down of atrocities - The current text does not mention that the movie toned down the atrocities in several incidents. The characters of Girija Tickoo and Mrs. Ganju have been fused into a single character, the atrocities they had to suffer are more horrendous. Both women were also gang-raped but this has been omitted.

Dsnb07 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done enough with the lead. Have no time to get into this section at the moment. I'm sure the sections has inaccuracies (given the involved parties, the emotions and everything, which is understandable), just as the film does, ironically. But I believe when scholarly sources come along, that will be a good way to sort it out. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please change from Chinmay Mandlekar as Farooq Ahmed Dar (Bitta Karate) to Chinmay Mandlekar as Farooq Malik Bitta. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't se any change addressing issues raised by me. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting here since this seems to be the relevant section for Historical Accuracy related issues.

• WP:FILMHIST asks for secondary RS directly comparing the film with history and warns against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH.
• MOS:FILM#Controversies advises a neutrally titled section discussing both the filmmaker's intent and historians' positive and negative assessments of the film based on secondary RS.
• Are film reviewers opinions considered secondary RS?

• Per WP:RS: WP:NEWSORG, such reviews/opinions are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
• Per WP:NOR on book reviews (would also apply to film reviews), book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book.
• Elsewhere too, film reviews are considered Primary Sources . Note that MOS:FILM#Critical_reception similarly refers to secondary sources only when comparing how film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.

• What is the current situation of the article?

• The Historical Accuracy section is based on film reviews which are not secondary RS for accuracy of the film, let alone being scholarly. These are used to make declarative statements about historicity of events depicted in the film.
• Most citations are of The Print film review (written by a trainee journalist) which was discussed earlier to not be usable even in Critical Reception. Others such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, Newslaundary, Indian Express, Film Companion, The Wire etc. are also film reviews/ opinions. The reliability of siasat.com was also questioned. Using such film reviews for factual accuracy was challenged (see archived talk pages) and reverted earlier, but re-included without discussion to build consensus.
• Additionally, references that are from years before the film's release and do not analyze it are cited to make points on historical accuracy, which violate WP:SYNTH.
• Issues of political messaging are covered in the Critical Reception, Government Support, as well as Political Messaging and Historical Accuracy sections. This repeated coverage (often from the same sources) is WP:UNDUE.

Wikihc (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid you are citing a whole bunch of Policy and Guideline pages without much understanding of what they are saying. Note also that all MOS pages are guidelines. They are meant to ensure some kind of uniformity of presentation across Wikipedia (the issue of "how" information is presented). They do not dictate the content ("what" is presented), over and above what the policy pages say.

The section you are talking about was originally added by me under the title Political and historical messaging, which was descriptive, i.e., describes what the film says. ThePrint source (authored by Amogh Rohmetra) was the first one to describe these aspects. The next day The Hindu review appeared and later some others. So, by now some elements of "historical accuracy" have appeared in the section, but I don't believe they have been covered comprehensively. If and when sources appear analysing historical accuracy, they will be added.

As to whether WP:NEWSORG are reliable for this kind of analysis, we have to go by issue and issue. This is not some deep history, but only covering events of some 30-years ago, and many of the present day senior journalists had covered them then and since then. These issues have been continuously under discussion in the public sphere since then, most recently when Rahul Pandita's book was published. So responsible journalists know what the facts are and analyse the film in that context. If there are issues that are contentious, you can flag them and we can find out what the scholarly sources say. When sources are given, don't say, "but they don't talk about the film!" That is not what the policies say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Following wiki core content policies is rarely optional. And WP:NOR is one of them. It explicitly states not to use such reviews as secondary sources of facts about the topic. This doesn't change based on the oldness of the topic, or who the author is. You have also not provided any reason for using these film reviews as secondary sourced statements of facts in one section, while they are correctly used as primary sources attributed to the authors in another. You need to gain consensus over deviation from a policy or guideline, before you include it in the article.

WP:SYNTH is also a wiki policy that dictates what we can(not) include. Following what the policy says, we cannot include statements on the historical accuracy of the film based on combination of what a scholarly source say about the topic, and another source reviewing the film.

What you call descriptive (motivation appears different [1], [2]), was challenged as WP:POV and reverted. There is no reason to re-include it without discussing and building consensus first. If and only when scholarly secondary RS appear that analyze the historical accuracy of the film, we can add them. See the policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Wikihc (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not using the film-reviews for drafting our article on the Exodus. Why are you citing NOR? If you disagree, take the RfC way out. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't understand how WP:NOR prohibits from using primary sources as secondary sources or combining multiple sources to make a point, please read the policy page. The onus is on the wiki-editor to discuss and build consensus before re-including instead of POV-pushing. Until then sandboxing is an option. Wikihc (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Instead of dismissing policy concerns as opinions, perhaps you could explain why you think film reviewers opinions count as secondary reliable sources on the historical accuracy of the film; or how mixing film reviews with sources that don't talk about the film is not SYNTH. Wikihc (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The notion that film reviews may be used for everything besides historical accuracy is nonsensical. Stating the opinions of reviews in Wikipedia's voice can be problematic, but I don't see where we're doing that; all we're doing is summarizing what sources have said about the narrative in the film. WP:SYNTH is explicitly about conclusions or statements not supported in either source. It isn't forbidden to use a source that isn't about this film to, for instance, say what Article 370 is, or to explain that Kashmir is a disputed region. The audience that the film reviews are written for is different than the audience that Wikipedia writes for. WP:SYNTH is about editors not conducting original research, not about making the article incomprehensibly devoid of context. As such the generic complaints above have no merit. If anyone wants to raise a concern with a specific aspect of the text, and why the cited sources do not support it, they should feel free to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The notion that film reviews and opinions are secondary RS is nonsensical. Film reviews can be used for everything but only with attribution to the authors as they are primary sources of authors' opinions. WP:FILMHIST also states the same about incorporating others' reactions to film's approach on history in the Critical Reception Section. However, it states a separate "Historical Accuracy" should be based on reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history. The current Historical Accuracy section states these individual opinions about film's accuracy as facts. Citing multiple primary sources to make general claims of what the film's narrative is, is prohibited. Similarly, combining these primary sources of opinions with secondary sources not about the film is OR. Wikihc (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe Ipshita C.'s article at Scroll.in, cited in our page, to be a prim. source? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Scroll.in has been questionable, including for failure to differentiate between op-eds and others. Consult RSN threads.

Do you believe the reviews from The Print, The Hindu, New Indian Express, Newslaundary, Indian Express, Film Companion, The Wire are secondary RS?

Wikihc (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please take it to RSN and dispute. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the direct question on the sources used, instead of repeatedly disregarding requests to discuss? It appears you refuse to participate. Wikihc (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Combining sources isn't prohibited; I haven't the faintest idea where you got that from. Summarizing material from different sources is the right thing to do when there's many sources available. Summary isn't forbidden synthesis. I'm not engaging in further pointless discussion here; if specific concerns are brought forward, I will discuss them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Combining secondary RS to write about what is directly stated by them isn't prohibited. But combining primary sources to make a declarative claim about the film's accuracy is. Primary sources must be used with attribution and not summarized through weasel words, or as statements of fact. Combining secondary sources not about the film with primary sources has similar problems. Wikihc (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022 (3)

The movie TheKashmirFiles is not a fictional storyline, it is based on true facts. There are 1000s videos that prove all incidents presented in the movie are real. I request you to please update your Wikipedia fictional storyline comment. JitendraKuhar (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: ongoing discussion above. Cannolis (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A movie can have a fictional storyline while still being based on an actual historical event. X-Editor (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This talkpage has been semiprotected..

..for the second time recently, this time for a week. Having non-autoconfirmed users changing other people's comments is a bit too bad, IMO. And the EC-protected requests, all on the theme "The film is all true", are hardly so valuable that we need to leave the page open on their account. If people think a week is too long, please let me know. Bishonen | tålk 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

INR to USD conversions

There is a consensus at WP:ICTF to not use {{INRConvert}} [or any equivalent, or a substitution, per se] in infoboxes (added in Special:Diff/1078889606). See last para at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Films. Do we want to override it here? (cc @TabahiKaBhagwan) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Persecution of Shias in See Also

@Dr. Hamza Ebrahim has added Persecution of Kashmiri Shias to the See also section. The page talks about all historic events of persecution of Kashmiri Shias which is completely out of context about what this page is about. He also reverted my revert. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is totally off topic, This link should not be added here. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Remove the part in Hate Speech where it says activist are calling for violence against Muslims where no where specifically do you state that. The only quote you put is "[s]hoot the traitors to the nation" which is ambiguous statement and can mean anyone. You are implying that only Muslims are traitors to the nation. 2601:81:4080:9C10:0:0:0:8A48 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Extorc, maybe you can help with this request. How do we get consensus?-Y2edit? (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

This article is an attack piece. I observed that other articles on movies mention the story of the movie. Where is the story here? Please also put all the criticism in one section.-116.72.145.139 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The plot is covered. There is just more to deal with in terms of real-world issues around the movie than in most movies. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The story is situated at the Plot section. >>> Extorc.talk(); 19:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, shouldn't all the criticism be put under one section with a title, "Criticism"?-Y2edit? (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We have reliable sources stating that the accounts in the movie are fictionalized. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to find a website or book (and type a link to it here) which says that and we will add it if it meets the criteria at reliable sources (please click that link and read).-Y2edit? (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Many people, including JitendraKuhar above have requested us to add this but please understand - the rules here say that every sentence on Wikipedia needs to be cited with a reference/source which meets the criteria at reliable sources.-Y2edit? (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Real-life incidents

Akshaypatill, Fowler&fowler, UnpetitproleX, Kautilya3, Kpddg, Jhy.rjwk, Uanfala, Johnbod, Mathsci, Kautilya3, JitendraKuhar, Yellowjacket903, RegentsPark, DaxServer, Dwaipayanc, Venkat TL, Sitush, TrangaBellam, Many people are coming and asking us to add that this, "drama" was based on real life incidents. Can we therefore change the leading sentence to,

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents.

This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and possibly many more can be used as sources. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

All the high-quality reviews have been cited in the article. Please read them and find out what they say. I am not interested in reading "this, this and this" kind of sourcesr. If they are worthy, please provide WP:Full citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have added the full citations, can we now change the leading sentence to,

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film, produced by Zee Studios, based on real life incidents.

-Y2edit? (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism section

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

Please see WP:CRITICISM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Calls to kill Muslims

The last sentence of the lead says,

Supporters have praised the film for showing what they say is an often-overlooked part of Kashmir's human rights history,[6] while theatres across India have witnessed hate speech including calls for killing Muslims, incited by activists of the ruling party and related Hindutva organisations.[27][28]

but the sources don't say, "calls for killing Muslims".-Y2edit? (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. None of the sources say 'killing Muslims'! Also, these two sources are not exactly neutral. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I see a section in the first source titled Calls to ‘shoot the traitors’ and kill Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you find some other reliable source saying this? These sources are definitely not neutral. And it says that a group of people were raising these, not a large number of people. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TIME review

• "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". TIME. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

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

Good review. Brings out the subtleties that the others have missed. We should use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

But accuracy is not the film’s priority, nor is it interested in justice and closure for the Pandit community. Instead, the purpose of The Kashmir Files is to inflame hatred against Muslims; against secular parties that Modi’s followers brand anti-Hindu; liberal intellectuals and activists, whose faith in India’s inclusive democracy runs contrary to the supremacist tenets of Hindu nationalism; and against the liberal media that the Hindu right disparages as sold-out “presstitutes.”

That is brilliant! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You forget that this, "drama" is based on real life incidents. India has not, "descended Into Darkness" yet.-Y2edit? (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)