edit

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning The Kashmir Files. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does this article state exodus and not genocide? A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field generally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as a genocide, it would be a disservice to our readers to have a description of the topic that does not reflect the consensus view. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources guidelines. The reliable sources consider the description of the violence as a "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" to be widely inaccurate, aggressive, or propaganda.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

WikiProject Film / Indian (Rated C-class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.   WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir / Cinema / History / Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (marked as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (marked as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Low-importance).   This article was last assessed in March 2022. WikiProject Terrorism (Rated C-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "After Vivek Agnihotri lashes out at Wikipedia, they edit The Kashmir Files description". India Today. 2 May 2022. Director Vivek Agnihotri is furious over Wikipedia for describing The Kashmir Files story as 'inaccurate' and 'associated with conspiracy theories'. This resulted in the online encyclopedia editing the description and removing 'associated with conspiracy theories'. "Vivek Agnihotri SLAMS Wikipedia for editing the description of 'The Kashmir Files'". The Times of India. 3 May 2022. Vivek Agnihotri lashed out at Wikipedia for editing the description of his film 'The Kashmir Files'. The Wiki described the story of the film as 'fictional', 'inaccurate' and 'associated with conspiracy theories'. "Vivek Agnihotri is furious as Wikipedia page calls The Kashmir Files 'fictional': 'Hurry, edit more'". Hindustan Times. 3 May 2022. The Wikipedia entry mentions that the film 'presents a fictional storyline centered around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus’ and that it 'depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is considered to be widely inaccurate’. "Vivek Agnihotri fumes as Wikipedia page refers to The Kashmir Files as fictional: 'Failing your secular credentials'". The Indian Express. 4 May 2022. Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri expressed his fury regarding the description on Wikipedia about his recent hit, The Kashmir Files. The site referred to it as a 'fictional' story. Subhash K Jha (5 May 2022). "Wikipedia gets it wrong again, and there is nothing Vivek Agnihotri can do about it". Firstpost. If Wikipedia is to be believed — and it’s sickening and frightening how this self-help quick fix cocky rack of righteous knowledge is taken as the gospel truth by billions across the world—then The Kashmir Files, the film that has drastically revised decades-old mindsets on the savage slaying of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s, is nothing but a flickering fiction, a pack of lies, a web of deceit.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot when more than 3 sections are present.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Yes this page shows biasness towards the film.

Hepler434943394 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah - I (as well as K3) are aware of Agnihotri's rant but cannot care less. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hemantha: 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&fowler«Talk» 08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How would you draft that sentence of interest in light of your understanding of reliable sources, @Tayi Arajakate:? In other words, what sentence would more accurately represent that sum total? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

• Ghosh, Stutee (10 March 2022). "Review: 'The Kashmir Files' Makes a Compelling Case For Kashmiri Pandits". The Quint.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Desai, Rahul (11 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files Is A Defensive And Dishonest Dive Into The Past". Film Companion.
• Gupta, Shubhra (12 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files movie review: Anupam Kher is the emotional core of this overwrought film". The Indian Express.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Kumar, Anuj (14 March 2022). "'The Kashmir Files' movie review: A disturbing take which grips and gripes in turns". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
• Thakur, Tanul (19 March 2022). "As a Film, 'The Kashmir Files' Is Both Laughable and Frightening in Its Relentless Communalism". The Wire.
• Bhatia, Sidharth (19 March 2022). "'The Kashmir Files' Is a Manipulative Propaganda Vehicle To Rouse Emotions Against Muslims". The Wire.
• Bhardwaj, Ashutosh (1 April 2022). "Kashmir Files: Flawed Narratives Of The Fault Lines". Outlook.

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.

• Ali, Asim (15 March 2022). "Don't trust Muslims, leftists or secularists: Why The Kashmir Files is no Schindler's List". Newslaundry.
• Kaul, Nitasha (24 March 2022). "Kashmir is not a file: Propaganda and politics in India". The News Minute.
• Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022). "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". TIME.

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)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: 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 @Kautilya3: and @TrangaBellam: 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&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I also request an uninvolved admin, one or more of @Drmies, DrKay, Ealdgyth, Valereee, El C, MelanieN, and Black Kite: 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&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 @Drmies, DrKay, Valereee, El C, MelanieN, and Black Kite: Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose your edits here

Please propose your edits here, in particular @Kautilya3: and @TrangaBellam:. The specifics of your new-found hurry to edit a much worked over lead I am unable to ascertain, but it does not trump Wikipedia policy of interaction with other editors and reaching a talk page consensus in contentious pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my concerns and the inputs from K3 above, I propose The film presents a dramatisation of the events around the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the disputed region of Kashmir, which it depicts to be a genocide that was deliberately hidden by the Indian media and intellectual establishment.^[1] for the lead, replacing the last two sentences. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A dramatization is an adaptation of something for a stage or film. The something in this instance might be a fictionalized history or a factual history. Which one is it? An adaptation of what? Is the storyline factual or fictional?
• Are you suggesting that the form of the genocide (deliberately hidden) should be described before its content (wildly inaccurate)?
• What are the "events around?" The exodus happened in the early months of 1990, some authors say, from January through March 1990. A few narrow it down further to a month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems simply to be a history with quite a lot of artistic license taken for the purpose of propaganda. The specific criticisms of the history depicted, how real or unreal it is, can be discussed in the main body and later in the lead as MOS:FILM (and specifically WP:FILMHIST) prescribes. If you prefer, we can say fictionalisation instead.
  • I'm suggesting that we describe the plot of the work before we criticise it, per the MOS. The film narrates a genocide that was hidden; that this is not what historically happened can be described later in the appropriate section. This is the convention for films that fictionalise historical events, see WP:FILMHIST.
  • The film jumps through the actual exodus, the atrocities that happened after it, the Indian establishment suppressing it, and so on, that is what I gather from the sources. The film dramatises/fictionalises more than just the specific exodus in the 1990. I think the "events around" covers the gist of all this, if you have a better wording for it, do suggest. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be your objection to: The film presents the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be a genocide whose widely acknowledged implausibility it steps away from considering by presenting its true evidence to have been hidden by a conspiracy of silence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have any objection to the content of the sentence itself, it practically and ultimately seems to be saying the same thing. But the sentence might be trying to do too much with too little space. I have a general preference for easy-to-parse articles with MOS-compliant layout and would prefer the earlier wording with slight modifications. But if a third editor decides your version is better, I have no objection. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can reduce it to: The film presents the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be a genocide whose implausibility it overlooks by presenting its evidence to have been masked by a conspiracy of silence. It is 29 words to your 38. This is as far as I can go; it is as much time as I have for this article, which is not really my area of interest. I had appeared here over a month ago because someone or other had asked me to, I forgot now who. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm fine with it, it is certainly better than what we currently have. Please implement it. thanks and regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) From a passing bystander, who reads the BBC, why not "The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence, wholly overlooking its implausibility" or some variant of that? Mathsci (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nice, BBC reader. Much better. I'm worried though that some readers might interpret the implausibility to apply to the conspiracy of silence. A variant of this could be: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its silence procured by a conspiracy, its implausibility wholly overlooked. A very good suggestion overall. You, @Mathsci: and @TryKid: decide. My brain is tired. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a but after conspiracy, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, is there a source for this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are already in the article. It also came up at WP:AE/WP:ARBIPA on March 30 when admins Abecedare, RegentStreet, EdJohnston, Denis Brown, et al talked about the March 15 BBC news report on the film (Meryl Sebastian in Delhi). Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC news report does not say that this movie peddled a conspiracy theory. Any such claim would be considered WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and multiple reliable sources directly drawing the conclusion would be necessary. Right now, we only have some right-wing commentaries that accuse the government of a "conspiracy of silence".[1][2]. And none of them said that the movie levelled that accusation.

Neither is it clear why that is supposed to be "implausible". Suppressing the facts of communal violence is an everyday occurrence in India. Only when there is a public outcry does some information come out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the conspiracy of silence that is implausible; it is the fact of the genocide. You have incorrectly interpreted Mathsci's sentence (as I had predicted some readers might) A conspiracy of silence is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.

The English style guides of today, for example, could be said to maintain a conspiracy of silence about the dangling modifier, or other former obsessions of prescriptive grammar. Post-war Germans you could say maintained a conspiracy of silence about Nazism, driven by the daze, anger, guilt, and embarrassment that came with defeat.

But no one will say that either promoted a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory involves a plot, a secret plot that explains an otherwise unexplainable phenomena.

That the Chinese released a lab-made virus in November 2019 to destroy the West is a conspiracy theory. I suggest that you back off with less than relevant comments @Kautilya3: Ask before you leap to make unfounded allegations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it is my later version, "its silence procured by a conspiracy" that is at fault, not Mathsci's or my original version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is meant in more leisurely prose: "The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as a genocide, its knowledge kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence; but the film wholly overlooks the genocide's widely-held implausibility." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible: not provoking belief = not based in evidence (Alexander Evans phrasing) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The genocide's widely-held implausibility can be "cite bombed" by the same sources, that currently appear in a dangling half-eaten-away sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "conspiracy of silence" summarises what the film says, I am fine with it. On the second bit, I don't see why "implausible" is better than "widely inaccurate". The former is not an easily understood word. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to "widely inaccurate" which I had introduced, it being a rarely used academic expression, a rewording of "wide of the mark," (Alexander Evans original sentence)? I don't think most people understand that use of the adverb "widely," it being the fifth or sixth entry for the adverb in the big OED. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1688 J. Bunyan Heavenly Foot-man (1886) 154 Alas, thou art widely mistaken!

1788 R. Burns Let. 7 Dec. (2001) I. 341 You miscalculate matters widely, when you forbid my waiting on you lest it should hurt my worldly concerns.

1821 W. Scott Kenilworth I. viii. 213 She must indeed be widely changed from what she once was.

1841 T. Carlyle On Heroes ii. 114 We shall err widely if we consider this man as a common voluptuary, intent mainly on base enjoyments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem might be trying to cram the criticism of the plot into the same sentence where the claim is introduced. While the sentence is well constructed by the standards of academic/Oxford English, it can be reasonably interpreted to be saying what wasn't intended by ordinary readers. We should reasonably be trying to write at highschool level without too much parsing and dictionary look-up needed.

Would Kautilya3 be okay with the initial sentence (perhaps with modifications like fictionalisation instead of dramatisation) and the MOS scheme where the criticism of the genocide claim is introduced in the later paragraphs? regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what @Kautilya3: says can be accommodated by closely paraphrasing Alexander Evans in this one instance: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, its knowledge being kept at bay by a conspiracy of silence,^[2] but wholly overlooks the reality that scholars consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark. One advantage of using a more nuanced academic register is that people dispute it less, they are unable to reduce it to something easily ridiculed.

In that sense, @TryKid: I generally disagree with the notion that the text should be dumbed down to the high school level.

It will become more vulnerable to being ridiculed. As long as it is accurate and well-written, complexity shouldn't be shunned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia is to present true, verifiable information to our readers, deliberate obscurantism does not further that goal—we wouldn't be "presenting" much of anything to our readers. The page is much ridiculed and maligned already, and seeing that the synthesised claim of the genocide claims being associated with conspiracy theories stood for two weeks before it was removed, it's probably only in the interest of Wikipedia that ordinary readers be able to easily ridicule what they see here. We can easily ignore them if they're wrong, and if they are right, everyone benefits.

Does the film overlook that scholars don't consider a genocide plausible? It instead directly attacks the scholars/intellectual establishment, considering them a part of the efforts to suppress it. Maybe this criticism misinterprets the sentence and the meaning of "overlook", and maybe if interpreted correctly, they're saying the same thing and there's no incongruence. But it does not help that it's so easy to misinterpret it. It's awkward when compared to other film articles. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing synthesized about the claim. It is based on an entirely accurate reading of Alexander Evans. The error was in removing it without consensus. That is why I have asked an admin to restore it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: Your point about "overlooks" is well taken, but easily fixed: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence;^[2][3] scholars of Kashmir history consider affirmations of genocide to be wide of the mark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing this discussion. Perhaps substituting "claims" might be better than "affirmations", just for brevity. If citations for the second phrase can be given, that would also be good (book sources covering the period 1989-1990 and its aftermath). Mathsci (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Conspiracy of silence" precisely captures what I thought was originally meant. See my citation here. The long-wided clause following it may be ok, but it kind of suggests that it is a debatable issue rather than to treat it peremptorily with the derision it deserves. Not just scholars, no responsible person or agency has ever called it a genocide. It is just RSS lunacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, @Kautilya3: that is not what "conspiracy theories" referred to. Evans meant simply two things: (the cabals of) (a) Kashmiri Muslims and (b) Pakistanis being behind the removal of Hindus from Kashmir by death or eviction, by genocide or ethnic cleansing. Nothing else. There was nothing wrong with "associated with conspiracy theories." In other words, the most accurate summary is something like this (after incorporating Mathsci's suggestion) and turning the indep. clause into a separate sentence:

The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence.^[2][3] Scholars of Kashmir consider claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing to be wide of the mark, associated instead with conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan or the propaganda of Hindu nationalism.^[4]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mathsci and TryKid: as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note the well-worn expression from around here, "sucker punch to the gut," a staple of Hardy Boys of my childhood, now a feature of Indian English, see citation [3] above, but no longer used much by kids here in America. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine; I hid your inserted subheader, since it slightly changed what I wanted to write (not very much, actually, with no plan to emphasize anything). Inserting appropriate scholarly sources and avoiding ambiguity as you have done seems fine. I appreciate that contributions have mostly been made in Indian English. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do complete your thoughts, Mathsci. Better to iron out the kinks now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence might be changed to: "Scholars of Kashmir have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan, or Hindu nationalist propaganda." I also agree that the administrators you have mentioned in the previous section might be able to help stabilize edits to the lead (and elsewhere). Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well expressed @Mathsci:, more accurate and NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same objections to "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" used here that were raised above. Propaganda is cited to a source that attributes it to a KP in the valley, the source doesn't call it that in it's own voice. Not to rehash the old debate again but... what I got from the paper is different from your interpretation. Evans proposes three explanations for Pandits leaving, (a) Pakistan/militants/KMs forced them out, (b) Jagmohan forced them out, and (c) they left because they had legitimate fears. Evan calls the first two conspiracy theories, but the claims of genocide are not itself called a "conspiracy theory". He simply calls it "wide of the mark." Scholars don't call it a conspiracy theory if I'm interpreting correctly, and they certainly aren't calling genocide claims propaganda either. It would be best to leave it out of the first para as I earlier suggested, or simply describe it as inaccurate there per the wording in your suggestion before this one and then expand on it later in the lead and body. everything from the RSS lunacy and what not can be covered later in the lead and body, we don't need to clutter the opening. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: I'm sorry, but you have misinterpreted the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories in the paragraph refer to the Kashmiri Pandit conspiracy theories, not the Kashmiri Muslim conspiracy theory. (Note there were two of the first variety, pegging the blame respectively on (i) the KMs (ii) the Pakistanis, and only one of the second, blaming the governor and his co-conspirators the KPs) The balancing view, i.e. the concluding view, of Evans is not a conspiracy theory.) Here is Alexander Evans full quote: My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based.(A) As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swamy (sic) publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated. (B) Equally, it is important to note that some incidents did take place. Leading KPs were targeted—some attacked, some murdered—but almost always as political targets (e.g., as integrationist politicians, judges and policemen).(C) From the murder of Tika Lal Taploo, President of the Kashmir Bharatiya Jamata Party, on 14 September 1989, to the murder on 4 November 1989 of Nil Kanth Ganjoo, a former high court judge, those attacked could be considered targeted for either political or communal reasons (or a combination of the two):45 Taploo was a Hindu politician, while Ganjoo had previously sentenced Maqbool Butt, a well-known activist for Kashmiri independence, to death. No matter what designs lay behind these attacks, KPs were bound to feel uneasy.(D) Legitimate fear encouraged KPs to leave the Valley they were born in for other parts of India. Once it became clear that the government could not protect senior KP officials—and would pay their salaries in absentia—many other KPs in state employment decided to move.(E) At the outset, few of these migrants expected their exile to last more than a few months.

Here is the logic:

(A) Why would he mention the Muslim conspiracy theory (i.e. that the Governor wanted the KPs to leave so he could deal a death blow to the Muslims) here when he is talking about KPs who hold Pakistan responsible?

(B) Why would he add, "As Sumantra Bose observes," i.e. add support for a proposition, "those RSS claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false ..." if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which Hindus did not need to be driven from anywhere by virtue of destroying their temples; they left of their own accord.?

(C) Why would he use the comment adverb, "equally," (i.e. "in addition, and having the same importance) "some incidents did take place," i.e. some incidents of violence against the Hindus did, if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which the Hindus decamped unscathed in the dead of night so Muslims could be bloodied without collateral damage to the Hindus? Doesn't make any sense. What he is saying there is that whereas it is not true that the JKLF was out to kill Hindus, some Hindus did die in the violence, i.e. not as imagined in the first Hindu conspiracy theory, but unwittingly.

(D) Why would he say, "those attacked could be considered targeted for either political or communal reasons (or a combination of the two)," if he was talking about the Muslim conspiracy theory in which no Hindus were attacked. Rather, he is offering the balancing view that some Hindus were attacked for political and political reasons. In other words, the two Hindu conspiracy theories while being largely false were not wholly false.

(E) Why would he mention "pay their salaries in absentia" if he were looking to counter the Muslim conspiracy theory? The theory is just that—that the government aided in the migration?

In sum, the Hindu theories of genocide or ethnic cleansing, whether driven by the KMs or Pakistanis, are largely false, ie not "evidence-based," even if they have the occasional grain of truth to lend them credence among their proponents, i.e they are conspiracy theories.

The film makes a serious but false allegation; NPOV requires it to be countered at the place of its description, so that an uninitiated reader can assess with balance at the same time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this again TryKid. It is important to have you on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note TryKid, your initial input is now part and parcel of the first sentence; citations have been found for it. There is no overlong sentence now, only a balancing second sentence, which in Mathsci's felicitous phrasing, states: "Scholars of Kashmir have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan, or Hindu nationalist propaganda." It is sober NPOV language. There is nothing in WP's own voice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid: We could leave out the "Hindu nationalist propaganda." I agree in retrospect, the evidence is weak in the two cited sources. But the two conspiracy theories which in Mathsci's formulation are described unambiguously do need to be mentioned. They are broadscale generalizations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the two sentences would read: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. Scholars of Kashmir history have discounted claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing, preferring to label these as conspiracy theories about Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholars of Kashmir" implied [to me] that they belong to Kashmir, which I suppose not. What about "Scholars of/in Kashmir S/studies" or "Scholars studying Kashmir" or others removing the disambiguity? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dax, how does "scholars of Kashmir history" sound? I've changed to it above. If not acceptable, there are other formulations.

I am sorry, any mention of "conspiracy theories" in the lead requires much stronger evidence. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. One scholar's vague passing reference doesn't cut it. We need to drop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are not hard to find, e.g. the 2017 Cambridge University Press book "Kashmir: History, Politics, Representation", ed. Chitralekha Zutshi (College of William and Mary, Virginia). It's online here.[3] There is an article, "‘Survival Is Now Our Politics’: Kashmiri Pandit Community Identity and the Politics of Homeland", by Haley Duschinski (Center for Law, Justice and Culture at Ohio University). She writes: "In this formulation, the plight of the community became an issue of national concern. If Kashmiri Pandits represented the values of the Indian nation, then the state bore the responsibilities of protecting their lives and properties in the Valley, providing support for them in exile and facilitating their return home. The state’s failure to fulfill these responsibilities constituted an act of heartless neglect, deliberate indifference and even ‘inexplicable and ignoble conspiracy’. This moral failure was a betrayal of the nation and its people." This is just one example and does not seem to be isolated. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, your explanation of the source does make sense. My thinking was that he only "debunks" the first theory there because he hadn't criticised it when he first mentioned it, unlike the Jagmohan theory. But I'll have to agree with Kautilya3 that it is quite an exceptional claim to make on the vague reference. I had similar thoughts on other descriptions that were present in the lead, such as "propaganda" and "aggressive", objections about which were also raised by TrangaBellam in the above section. It's good to see you agree at least one of them, "propaganda", isn't suitable. We should simply leave it at "widely inaccurate" if we must mention criticise the claim.

Mathsci that reference calls the government's failure an "ignoble conspiracy", it does not say that the claim that there was a genocide is "associated with conspiracy theories", which is the claim in dispute. I don't see how can be used to support anything the lead.

I do not think that NPOV requires us to criticize the plot where we mention it. Articles like 300 (film) with controversially inaccurate historical narratives don't have the criticism in the lead, and this seems in line with WP:FILMLEAD. I had suggested that we go with something like the 300 lead above. I seem to be the only one with this position here though, so this seems untenable. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add me in support - I have never come across FILMLEAD earlier. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vague reference. Evans is the first, the main, and in many cases, the only reference for the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus. So, neglected and unimportant a topic it was that no scholar worth their salt paid attention to it. No scholar other than him did an analysis of whether the handful of deaths of Hindus in Kashmir constituted a "genocide." The main historical focus was on the pro-independence movements in Indian administered Kashmir and the repression of Kashmiri Muslims by the Indian state.

As I've already indicated, the academic consensus, per WP:TERTIARY, of one of the most widely-read textbooks on modern South Asian history, was expressed in

Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 1998, 2004, 2012, a book cited over 850 times on Google Scholar and read around the world:

The imposition of leaders chosen by the centre, with the manipulation of local elections, and the denial of what Kashmiris felt was a promised autonomy boiled over at last in the militancy of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a movement devoted to political, not religious, objectives. The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, and who propagated a distinctive Kashmiri culture that linked them to India, felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of them left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict.^[5]

The defense by the Hindu right took many forms, among them the conspiracy theory of ethnic cleansing to which not only Evans, but Sumantra Bose refer. Please note that I am the only one here to have paid Alexander Evans any textual care, to carefully and correctly understand his meaning. It is not a vague remark; it is a part of his conclusion. I am very concerned that because of a movie director's Twitter remarks policy is being ridden roughshod and editors are attempting to remove a criticism from being characterized so. We need to finish this discussion. Peremptory and vanilla supports or opposed don't mean anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will now attempt to read and understand your particular objection TryKid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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&fowler«Talk» 12:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film opening disclaimer also mentions, "true events" and "Kashmir genocide".^[1] 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)[reply]

Recent revert

F&F, please explain your revert. Nobody needs to take your consent before installing new edits and if you are reverting me (which is fine), you need to take the initiative to point issues with my edits. K3, since you thanked me for my edit, you might be interested in hearing F&F's discontents.

In the (reverted) edit:

(1) I had added a review which was published by The Outlook Magazine and reordered them. Consensus at this thread.

(2) I changed "mixed" to "negative" - our review section is self-evident. The film has been been subject to increasingly severe critiques with time. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realized that Kautilya3's copy-edits etc. were reverted too. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like Fowler&fowler seems to have forgotten all protocols. A reminder:

Reverting a contribution is sometimes appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page.
— WP:REVERT

All reverts need to have a policy-based justification for reverting. Otherwise, they just constitute WP:edit warring. I am surprised I need to say all this! The edit summary of the revert is also quite below par!

All our edits were small and focussed and had clear edit summaries: "Condensing the plot description", "Separating critical reception from the routine stuff", "Adding a footnote". So, I am not sure what the problem is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F&f, if you are not explaining yourself, I will reinstate the edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reinstated all the edits except the "conspiracy theories" line. Since that has a disputed tag, it can stay until the dispute is resolved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: You missed F&f's removal of a couple of reviews. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version

@Kautilya3, Tayi Arajakate, DaxServer, TryKid, and Mathsci: Between version 1 and 2, which one do your prefer? In the above sections, there has been extensive discussion on whether the part. characterization of genocide as a "conspiracy theory" is true to source etc.

Please keep your !vote confined to the two choices: as is evident, the eventual lead will carry a different line. F&f insists that until such a line or way-out emerges, version 2 shall stay despite explicit objections by me, K3, and TryKid to F&f's wording about the notion of genocide being associated with conspiracy theories. Fwiw, I am yet to come across anyone who has explicitly supported his wording in version 2 though F&f has claimed of "dozens of editors" being involved in producing the "stable lead", which we (me and K3) stand accused of having destroyed. (F&f, please do ping these editors.)

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When a version remains in place for nearly a month after going through wild swings of the month before, it is not just the editors who have actively taken part in a formulation, it is the many watching who by not interfering give their consent. It was expressed by an admin at the FA India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer Version 1 by Kaultilya3, for various reasons expressed above. The stability might have something to do with the article being locked after the swinging period rather than any silent consensus, though I haven't looked at the history to confirm. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is the wrong Version 2. The read version 2 is at the bottom of the section Version (continued) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Version 1, obviously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Version 2 is not the STATUS QUO. For the reason Version 2 see the bottom of the section Version (continued) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In a new subsection F&f counts 34 editors to have edited some part of the article from 4 April 2022, 17:24 to 6:51 2 May 2022, without bothering about the phrase "associated with conspiracy theories", thereby implicitly supporting v2. I am pinging all of them—except those who have been topic-banned or indefinitely blocked or those who have retired—to provide their opinion:
  @Jhy.rjwk, RegentsPark, Correctinfo2000, Kpddg, Pri2000, Vinrpm.p6054, Akshaypatill, Tow, Khiladi King, X-Editor, Pravega, OpenMindedBloke, Packer&Tracker, Sush150, Extorc, Ktdk, MaranoFan, Bishonen, and Titodutta: TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot solicit editors; you especially cannot solicit them for a forced straw-poll for which the choices are false. Version 2 is not the version of Fowler&fowler, but the WP:STATUSQUO. The status quo was edited by TrangaBellam 23 times over the 24 days, see the history in the subsection below. I am attempting to make sure that only Wikipedia policy is being followed, that this change has not been driven by external pressure despite protestations to the contrary, and that discussion in the sections above about alternative formulations be allowed to proceed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What if all of them had retired? Does that give you carte blanche to change what was the result of past consensus and remained stable for 24 days? There are also the page watchers who give implicit support. See admin MilborneOne's eloquent post at the end of Talk:India/Archive_47#Nice_to_see_this_on_the_main_page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only note the inherent irony in pinging a group of admins (not once, not twice, but thrice) to protect the page while requesting me to not "solicit" editors. And please stop waving a wiki-essay about status-quo as "Wikipedia policy" to stonewall discussions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Informing admins to keep an eye out is not the same thing as soliciting them to weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As to eloquence, we have an administrator stating today about how the default is to leave the text out when there is a dispute over the inclusion of some text in an article. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They said in a dispute "over the inclusion of some text in an article, the default is to leave the text out." The dispute here is over the deletion of longstanding text in the article. If Jayron can be cited for removal, we could remove every sentence in the FA India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is no FA, which has underwent a community review. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was the subject of intense focus by dozens of editors, among them some highly experienced ones, including authors of FAs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Version 1 as more stable and faithful to reliable sources. >>> Extorc.talk 17:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Version 2 is not the STATUS QUO. For the reason Version 2 see the bottom of the section Version (continued) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Version 1. Version 1 was based on a wider Consensus. Version 2 also appears against WP:NPOV. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version 1 for the reasons already stated above. While I was hoping for more improvement, I can compromise with Version 1 for now. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 12:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Version 2 seems more stable. In the third paragraph of version 1, the sentence about "negative reception" seems to be POV-pushing, with no nuance. It appears to have been cobbled together in an awkward way. The abrupt juxtaposition of the first half with the second makes it look self-contradictory. At the moment there doesn't yet seem to be any WP:consensus, despite claims otherwise. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the correct Version 2 see the bottom of the section "Version (continued)" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The period of stability

You have all underestimated its period of stability of over 24 days. Here is the sequence (@TryKid: please note, as you suggested it might have been locked):

• At 00:04 4 April 2022 a previous version was changed to, "genocide, a term whose application to the 1990 exodus is thought to be widely inaccurate, aggressive, or propaganda" by Fowler&fowler based on academic sources.
• At 4 April 2022, 17:24 it was changed to "a description that is inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories." by another editor using an entirely correct interpretation of the same academic sources (and with the support of Fowler&fowler, but it is not F&f's preferred version today, as other experienced editors have weighed in in the last few days).
• On 1 May the director of the movie made a Twitter post, "Dear @Wikipedia, You forgot to add ‘Islamophobia… propaganda… sanghi… bigot… etc’. You are failing your Secular credentials. Hurry, edit more."
• 06:33 2 May 2022 the expression, "The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. " was taken out of Alexandar Evans quote (by TrangaBellam) in the citation, but "and associated with conspiracy theories." remained.
• 6:51 2 May 2022 with the edit summary "Lack of support in sources for the part. word" the phrase, "and associated with conspiracy theories." was removed by TrangaBellam, but the altered quote of Alexander Evans remained.
• During its period of stability from 4 April 2022, 17:24 to 6:51 2 May 2022 , i.e. 24 days, 13 hours, and 27 minutes, and it was edited by 34 users a total of 197 times including both TrangaBellam (23 times) and Kautilya3, but the expression, "and associated with conspiracy theories" remained.
• Per WP:STATUSQUO this is the state in which must remain until a requisite amount of time for 34 users become aware (without being solicited). I note this is not my version. I will post my version in due course.
• As it should be perfectly clear that no hurried action has been taken because of external pressure, that WP policy has been upheld and only policy, even more time may need to elapse than usual before any change can take place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging some experienced third-party Wikipedia administrators again, so they are aware. @Drmies, DrKay, Valereee, El C, MelanieN, and Black Kite: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version (continued)

• I don't really have the time to go through the barrage of links and information presented above, but I will propose wording for the opening sentence that I think may be the least controversial: "The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presents a fictionalized version of the 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, India." I don't think we need the disputed sentence at all. Let me know what everyone thinks.--NØ 13:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It already has, "The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir." Pretty much every word in the sentence was subjected to a trial by fire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The director, I note, has already expressed his disapproval of "fictional." See here. In other words, any effort to respond to what is understood to be external pressure, not WP policy, will not go far. Yours obviously is not that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fowler&fowler, My objection to "fictional" and "conspiracy theories" was posted before Agnihotri's tweet, as far as I can see, and I have given policy based reasons for these in other sections many times. I don't think it's right to repeatedly insinuate that everything you oppose is being done under pressure after both editors and others have already clarified they are under no pressure. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  TryKid I'm not insinuating anything. But the fact remains that a page that is the focus of much Wikipedia and apparently wider attention remained stable for 24 days, and that "conspiracy theory" was removed (soon after the director's tweet) in a somewhat circuitous fashion by first removing it from the cited source's quoted text and thereafter removing the phrase for lack of support in the sources! As for pressure, I opened a specific thread above specifically addressing the issue. All this nothing to do with you TryKid. That Wikipedia reacted rather quickly to the director's tweet is itself the subject of news. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia editing activity obviously picks up when the article is in the news, and it can give old editors of an article a new perspective to look at things with, which clueless journalists might interpret as a monolithic Wikipedia giving into pressure. There's nothing sinister going on, there is nothing wrong with responding to an external suggestion if the changes are grounded in policy. It's not that much different from responding to requests on talk pages. It would be best to assume good faith on the part of editors, specially experienced editors posting here, that their suggestions and changes are due to policy considerations and for the reasons they give, and that they're not blindly removing or suggesting things because they felt threatened/under pressure because of a tweet. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Editing activity did not pick up at all, in fact there was more activity per day in the previous 24 days; only more edits attempting to delete the objects of the director's unhappiness. But it took a lot of previous effort to stabilize the article for those 24 days. It was the work of many more editors than are now champing at the bit to take precisely that part out that the director was unhappy with, though they thought nothing about singling out the ruling party, the BJP, or Hindutva, half a dozen times in the days leading up to my arrival on this page in late March and setting it right. See the doozy from an edit of TrangaBellam before I arrived on the page:

  The film has been endorsed, promoted and provided with tax-free status in multiple states by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party,[16][17] leading to significant audiences and commercial success.[18] Critical reception has been mixed,[16] the cinematography and the performances of the cast were described to be compelling,[22] but the film faced accusations of historical revisionism,[23] and of being propaganda aligned with the ruling party,[26] aiming to foster prejudice against Muslims.[27] Supporters have praised it for showing what they say is a part of Kashmir's history that has been overlooked,[13] while theatres across India have witnessed hate speeches including calls for killing Muslims, often provoked by activists of the ruling party and related Hindutva organizations

  And this is a film article. Its lead had more references to the BJP, ruling party, and Hindutva than it did to the movie. The same editors are now blaming me over half a sentence? Seriously? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I absolutely have to choose, I'd say version 1 would be in line with policy (WP:ONUS) but leaving it with a disputed tag, at least temporarily is not necessarily out of line. In the end, I do not think this discussion is productive (and even less so the edit warring that took place over it), a better alternative at this point would be to go for an RfC on whether to include the disputed material or not. Per se I don't really prefer the lead whether it is, with or without it and think it needs restructuring as a whole as I have already said above. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree on the restructuring part, wholly. The lead ought be far negative than it is.

  But the edit-warring to keep a phrase that has lost the confidence of all active editors was disconcerting. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  >>> "The lead ought to be far negative than it is"

  Do you mean far more negative? I don't know that Tayi is saying it is not negative enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To quote Tayi, 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. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 of F&f

This is an updated version 2 that was being favored by F&f and Mathsci (the first sentence also by TryKid and Kautilya3) in the relevant section ("Please propose your edits here") above:

The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide^[1] and ethnic cleansing, hushed up^[2] by a conspiracy of silence.^[3][4] Scholarship on Kashmir, noting low Hindu fatalities,^[a][b] discusses such claims in the context of conspiracy theories^{[11][12][13][14]} or notions of victimhood.^[15][16]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mathsci:. Please amend if you'd like to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Version 2

If this isn't one already, it might be necessary to do a RfC on the claim that the "notion of the Exodus being a genocide is associated with conspiracy theories". And preferably along with a RfC on whether the first paragraph should even have the criticisms in there, seeing that might not be in accordance with WP:FILMLEAD. I don't think we are going to arrive on a consensus wording without an RfC if the "conspiracy theory" wording is insisted on.

The source you cite talks of "politics of victimhood" in neutral, theoretical terms. It has wildly different connotations in your phrasing, as if the Pandits are cynically pretending to be victims. The I can't decide whether this is more inappropriate than the conspiracy theory bit or not. The second source on Jammu political/Hindu nationalist narratives on Pandits also seems barely relevant to the "politics of victimhood" being associated with any claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing; it does not support the connonations present. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more text from Datta if you think he is merely talking about theoretical categories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to mull over FILMLEAD, whether it even applies to an event that is part movie, a large part to be sure, but not the whole nine yards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Kher casting

@TrangaBellam Info on when actors joining the cast is one of the things we put in film articles. Anupam Kher would've to go back in — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Please undo my removal. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Evans under question

So, we are finally at a point where we have to evaluate the claim of "conspiracy theory" advanced by Alexander Evans. There are two paragraphs on p.21, which state:

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, designed to expel Hindus from the Valley. Mosques 'were used as warning centres. Threatening the Hindus and conveying to them what terrorists and many Muslims of Kashmir wanted to achieve.'[23: Kashmir—Trail and Travail, 56-57] According to Anil Maheswari, the Pandit community was forced to leave the Valley.[24: Crescent over Kashmir, 80-85]

Pakistani policy is the root cause, according to Vijay Dhar: 'In 1990, Kashmiri Pandits were forced to abandon the Valley, because in the eyes of Pakistani strategists of the proxy war, they represented India in Kashmir'.[25: The Hindustan Times, 17 February 1997] Drawing on an Indian Defence Review assessment, Maroof Raza describes the episode as 'a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing'.[26: Wars and No Peace over Kashmir, 74] The current governor, Giresh Saxena, agrees.[27]

These are the two conspiracy theories according to Fowler&fowler. The citations are a mixed bag. Pyarelal Kaul and Anil Maheswari seem to be arguing that all Kashmiri Muslims were responsible. The rest of them placing the onus on Pakistan or the militants it supported. I call them mixed bag, because Kashmiri Pandit sources and security experts have been mixed together. Maroof Raza, for example, has done extensive amount of work on counter-insurgency. Manoj Joshi, whose book was published in 1999 and has been cited extensively since, doesn't appear in the paper.

The mosque broadcasts which appear prominently in Pandit narratives are mentioned only once in this paper, in the above passage. Evans hasn't dug into it or tried to find out how the broadcasts came about. Toronto Star interviewed a refugee in Delhi and they published:

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."^[1]

The disinterest in the mosque broadcasts is a serious deficiency of this paper in my opinion.

Then Evans continues:

While elements of the militancy certainly had an agenda of deliberate and enforced Islamisation, large segments of the militancy (the JKLF, for example) actively claimed to speak for all Kashmiris regardless of religion. Despite this, the bulk of Hindu departures took place during the phase when the JKLF was in the ascendant. In early 1990, the pro-Pakistan element of the Kashmir militancy was in its formative phase. The pro-Pakistan militant organisation Hizbul Mujahadeen had only been going a few months; the pro-independence JKLF determined much of the militant agenda. Islamist leaders, among them Syed Andrabi of Jamaat-e-Tulba, considered KPs to be traitors and agents of India.[28: Syed Andrabi, interview] Their fierce rhetoric had an impact on an already jittery community; the acts of violence that accompanied it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to drive out the Pandits.

This might have been a fair summary of the state of knowledge in 2002 (which has been described wihout any citations), but it is now badly out of date. A lot more information has come out after 2002. Pakistan-based journalists or security experts such as Arif Jamal, Amir Rana, and Amir Mir have published prominent accounts, which have been cited by various security scholars. I wrote the Hizbul Mujahideen page based on these accounts, which you can consult for more detail. Here are some interesting bits:

• Operating under the JKLF banner were also a number of Islamist jihadi groups that owed loyalty to Jamaat-e-Islami: a group called "Zia Tigers" operating since 1987, "Al-Hamza" since 1988, "Hizbul Ansar" led by Muzaffar Shah, a largest and best organized group called "Ansarul Islam", and a subsidiary of it called "Al-Badr". According to Arif Jamal, "this vast network of jihadi groups worked within the JKLF for many months; they were among the most active members of the insurgency."
• The ISI and the Jamaat-e-Islami of Azad Kashmir were intent on bringing Hizbul Mujahideen under the control of Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir. A meeting was arranged in Kathmandu on 14 January 1990, with participants from the Jamaat organisations from Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and the Kashmir Valley. The Kashmiri Jamaat was resistant to direct involvement in the insurgency, saying that it would destroy the organisation and open it to Indian assault. But Syed Ali Shah Geelani dramatically appeared when the negotiations stalled and pushed the Jamaat into supporting the insurgency. Having decided to participate in the militancy, states Arif Jamal, the Jamaat-e-Islami Kashmir moved to "decisive action, activating a decade of planning".

So, on 14 January 1990, the Jamaat agreed to take over Hizbul Mujahideen and activated "a decade of planning". I see a direct link between this event and the mosque broadcasts that began on 19 January. Of course, we don't have any evidence. Nobody has provided any information about who organised the mosque broadcasts. But it is known that they were tape-recorded programmes which were distributed all over the valley and played from the same date. So, this didn't just happen overnight. It was pre-planned.

The significance of 19 January is quite clear. That was when Farooq Abdullah resigned and the Governor's Rule was proclaimed. The fight was now going to be directly between the militants and the Indian government, with no unwanted intermediaries. The 19 January was also the day when the Srinagar police chiefs decided to conduct a house-to-house search for militants. But the mosque broadcasts preempted them by hours.

Rahul Pandita describes what they heard that night:

We were still wondering what would happen next when a slogan we heard left us in no doubt. I remember Ma began to tremble like a leaf when we heard it. ‘Assi gacchi panu’nuy Pakistan, batav rostuy, batenein saan.’ The crowd wanted to turn Kashmir into Pakistan, without the Pandit men, but with their women. They’ll come and finish us. It is just a matter of minutes now, we think. Ma rushed to the kitchen and returned with a long knife. It was her father’s. ‘If they come, I will kill her,’ she looked at my sister. ‘And then I will kill myself. And you see what you two need to do.’ Father looked at her in disbelief. But he didn’t utter a word.^[2]

Is this still a "conspiracy theory", Fowler&fowler? The Pandits just imagined all this and left out of fear because there was an "open revolt"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not talking about whether they did or did not experience fear? We are talking about characterizations of "Genocide" and "Ethnic Cleansing." You may read a much more nuanced and scholarly account in the lead of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What is it you did not understand about:

  During the period of substantial migration, the insurgency was being led by a group calling for a secular and independent Kashmir, but there were also growing Islamist factions envisioning an Islamic state.^[3][4][5] Although their numbers of dead and injured were low,^[6] the Pandits, who believed that Kashmir's culture was tied to India's,^[7][8] experienced fear and panic set off by targeted killings of some high-profile officials among their ranks and public calls for independence among the insurgents.^[9] The accompanying rumours and uncertainty together with the absence of guarantees for their safety by India's federal government might have been the latent causes of the exodus.^[10][11]

  to waste time with meanderings? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Evans never admits that the Pandits were driven out or were asked to leave. He believes that they left on their own accord out of "fear". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>>> "Evans never admits that the Pandits were driven out or were asked to leave. He believes that they left on their own accord out of "fear"

He says,

might KPs have been terrified by uncertainty as much as by direct threats? There was collective unease at the situation as it unfolded. While the numbers of dead and injured were low, militant attacks between 1988 and 1990 induced panic within the Pandit community. There was widespread fear and a sense of impending trouble, fuelled by extremist propaganda on both sides. By late March 1990, the ASKPC (All India Kashmiri Pandit Conference) was appealing to the administration to assist Pandits in ‘shifting to Jammu’. No matter what designs lay behind these attacks, KPs were bound to feel uneasy. Legitimate fear encouraged KPs to leave the Valley they were born in for other parts of India. Once it became clear that the government could not protect senior KP officials—and would pay their salaries in absentia—many other KPs in state employment decided to move.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we are not talking about "fear". We are not talking about "genocide". We are talking about "conspiracy theories", which you and you alone want to add to the lead paragraph. Please don't attempt to sidetrack the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not talking about fear, why are you bringing it up?

>>> which you and you alone want to add to the lead paragraph

Did I add it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You waste community time with a long aside of third-rate sources, the scholars of Toronto Star among them; I reply with best WP can aspire to, and you are accusing me of being unable to paraphrase Alexander Evans Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what rate the sources are. Facts are facts. Evans ignored the facts and branded something as a "conspiracy theory". His proposition is debunked by the evidence various sources have presented. Please say good bye to the "conspiracy theory" proposition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the founders and builders of Wikipedia were wasting time formulating WP:SOURCETYPES which says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." and wasting more time formulating WP:TERTIARY which states: Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. And the major historians of modern India, Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, were also wasting time in their A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, read around the world, and cited 850 times on Google Scholar, when they say, The imposition of leaders chosen by the centre, with the manipulation of local elections, and the denial of what Kashmiris felt was a promised autonomy boiled over at last in the militancy of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a movement devoted to political, not religious, objectives. The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, and who propagated a distinctive Kashmiri culture that linked them to India, felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of them left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh were also wasting time when they wrote in their widely read and cited (300 times on Google Scholar) Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, 2009:^[12]

The modern history of Jammu and Kashmir is normally dated from the Treaty of Lahore (1846) which Sikh rule in the province and marked the beginning of a Hindu monarchy that lasted almost a century. During this period the Hindu elite established an ethnically and economically stratified society in which the status of the vast majority of Muslims was reduced to that of a heavily exploited and servile peasantry ... (Farooq Abdullah's) efforts to establish an all-India oppositional front for more autonomy resulted, first, in his dismissal, and then, in his return to power in alliance with Congress in the rigged assembly elections of June 1987. It was these elections, and the denial of the growing support of the Muslim United Front, that triggered the uprising in the Kashmir valley from 1987 onwards. Thereafter the separatist groups (Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and Hizbul Mujahideen) transformed decades of ethnic oppression into a generalised uprising against the Indian state. Between 1990 and 1995, 25,000 people were killed in Kashmir, almost two-thirds by Indian armed forces. Kashmirs put the figure at 50,000. In addition, 150,000 Kashmiri Hindus fled the valley to settle in the Hindu-majority region of Jammu. In 1991, Amnesty International estimated that 15,000 people were being detained in the state without trial.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metcalf and Metcalf haven't called anything a "conspiracy theory". So they are hardly relevant to the discussion. The second sentence of their paragraph states, The year 1989 marked the beginning of a continuing insurgency, fuelled by covert support from Pakistan. So I doubt if they would label any accusation of Pakistan as a "conspiracy theory".

I very well know that the Pandit narratives are not favoured by scholars. But Evans is alone in calling them "conspiracy theories". I am saying no to that, because I see it as a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)r[reply]

So, if Barbara D. Metcalf, former president of the American Historical Association and Thomas R. Metcalf the Sara Kailath Professor of South Asia at University of California, Berkeley are putting their reputation on the line by saying, "the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a movement devoted to political, not religious, objectives." And some (not all) Kashmiri Pandits are saying they were driven out because of their religion, what is it if not a conspiracy theory? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no support for the bit about "conspiracy theories." F&f do not seem to understand that such labels are very contentious and requires multiple sources which do not need to be synthesized. Even if I accept his reading of Evans (hardly a scholar with towering reputation), the situation remains same.

However, I do not think Evans (or any other scholar) can be blamed for not shedding much light on the mosque broadcasts. No local daily covered anything of relevance. Declassified IB notes etc. contain nada. Ditto as to FIRs lodged by KPs. Kashmir had extensive military installation throughout towns — at least, you shall expect them to have kept some record? Nothing as well. Still, the claims are not outright rejected due to the sheer penetration of militants etc. into local administration who are not expected to be much conducive to logging such gory details.

So, we are left to rely on public memory but to no avail — Pandit migrants and their Muslim neighbors seem to have inhabited parallel universes during those fateful nights. One cannot really seek to decipher the "truth" of these episodes; leading media houses in Kashmir has commissioned investigations into the episode, only to return with a "He said, She said" narrative. The best stance to take, somewhat governed by political correctness, is put forward by Sanjay Kak. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't contentious until the director said "Boo," and some Wikipedians (in the estimation of the Indian media) went running like Chicken Little Exceptional claims run both ways, the fact that the movie is about to be released in the digital media, where Wikipedia's criticism becomes more important, any changes in WP longstanding wording will require exceptional support in the sources to offset Conflicts of Interest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what are we to make of Chitralekha Zutshi, a Pandit herself, who says this was not the first exodus, in her widely read and cited, Languages of Belonging, Oxford 2003:

Since a majority of the landlords were Hindu, the (land) reforms (of 1950) led to a mass exodus of Hindus from the state. ... The unsettled nature of Kashmir's accession to India, coupled with the threat of economic and social decline in the face of the land reforms, led to increasing insecurity among the Hindus in Jammu, and among Kashmiri Pandits, 20 per cent of whom had emigrated from the Valley by 1950."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were the groveling Muslim peasants putting a gun to their heads in 1950 or was it the profit motive? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry they didn't have guns. I meant rusted sickles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

any changes in WP longstanding wording will require exceptional support in the sources to offset Conflicts of Interest - TryKid has already urged you to stop insinuating the same thing over and over, and if you yet persist, we will be discussing our COIs at AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if Kak says,

His ethnography amidst the residents of the camps leads him to conclude that for the Pandits it was “the overall deterioration in law and order, alongside selective assassinations and the content of demonstrations” that made them feel unwanted in Kashmir. The departures continued all through the ‘90s, and by the end of that decade, the Pandits were all but gone. (Kashmir’s Sikhs remained, and do so till today. But that is another story).

and Datta says earlier:

By referencing the Jewish Holocaust, the Pandits can go beyond existing frames in the region and thereby claim their experience to be unique in comparison with other Indians as well as revealing the creative potential of such efforts. The parallels also allow for the adoption of a recognizable (p.179) identity of catastrophic loss and ‘blameless’ victimhood.4 Such a parallel is, ironically, not recognized by poorer and less educated migrants for whom the Jewish Holocaust is an unknown and foreign event.

The Jews did not drive out in their cars in the dead of night because of perceived deterioration of law and order. They were rounded up because of their religion and ethnicity and murdered en masse, at least 6 million to be sure. So, combining Kak and Datta, what is the attempt at identifying with the Jews by the upper crust Pandits if not a conspiracy theory? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mosque broadcasts have been corroborated, though not in full detail:

• During our stay in Srinagar, almost every night we heard slogans and speeches from the mosque calling upon the people to protest against repression. The failure of the democratic and secular forces to solve the long standing grievances of the people seems to have paved the way for the emergence of Islam as an alternative source of inspiration and motivation for the disgruntled masses. Judging by the display of pictures of Khomeini in the streets of Srinagar, we felt that the impact of the Iranian type militant Islamic fundamentalism also could not be ruled out.^[13]
• I told them quite clearly that it was hardly surprising that Pandits were apprehensive. Any minority would be if places of worship of the majority were continually used to blare strident threats to them over loudspeakers—as every mosque was at the time—and if prominent members of their community had been murdered. (I learned later that these inflammatory sermons and their reverberating public applause were audio recordings circulated to mosques to be played over loudspeakers at prayer time.) I also told them that such use of a sacred place was no less than desecration and contempt for the faith.^[14]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting time. WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY is policy Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find Ref 1 to be supportive of the claims; that the mosque blared calls for freedom from Indian occupation etc. are well-corroborated and undisputed. See R. Vaishnovi's memoirs for example. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But all these discussions are a time-waste; to reiterate what I said, There is no support for the bit about "conspiracy theories." [..] [S]uch labels are very contentious and requires multiple sources which do not need to be synthesized. Even if I accept his [F&f's] reading of Evans (hardly a scholar with towering reputation), the situation remains same.

If F&F wishes to include "conspiracy theory", I request that he open a RfC. Else, I will open one. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is unhelpful when you keep accusing me of being some kind of a holdout. When I came to this page in late March, it had become a hotbed of bashing India's ruling party, the BJP, the Hindu nationalists, the Hindutva brigade, and what have you. It had two paragraphs and here is how the second read when I arrived on the page after being requested to stem the rot. It is not the first time I've been asked to do that on Wikipedia.

The film has been endorsed, promoted and provided with tax-free status in multiple states by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party,^[15][16] leading to significant audiences and commercial success.^[17] Critical reception has been mixed,^[15] the cinematography and the performances of the cast were described to be compelling,^[21] but the film faced accusations of historical revisionism,^[24] and of being propaganda aligned with the ruling party,^[27] aiming to foster prejudice against Muslims.^[29] Supporters have praised the film for showing what they say is a part of Kashmir's human rights history that has been overlooked,^[28] while theatres across India have witnessed hate speeches including calls for killing Muslims, often provoked by activists of the ruling party and related Hindutva organisations.^[30][31]

So, let us count, shall we? The three long sentences had four mentions of ruling party, Bharatiya Janata Party, or Hindutva. In my fifth or sixth edit, I wrote in the edit summary, "You can't bring in the ruling political party at every step in the lead. Less is More. Removing one of three mentions in the lead. The leads needs a brief plot for the uninitiated reader. Someone will need to write it. Without it the lead begins to read like a rant. Please fix this."

Would you like me to examine the article's history and count how many edits each of you had made before that and how often you had waged the struggle to reduce gratuitous mention of the BJP etc? So, please don't attempt to teach me hypocritical lessons in cultural relativism. I have made the lead much more balanced, taken out most of the gratuitous anti-Hindu nationalist garbage.

I have more productive things to do on Wikipedia. When you have come up with a coherent argument, let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got the remotest of idea about what are you waxing eloquent about but I will be opening a RfC tomorrow to put an end to this charade. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charade? Please first open the discussion at WT:INB that you are telling others to open about Rima Hooja at Talk:Maharana Pratap Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thereafter, when you open the vaunted RfC, make sure the version 2 is my version 2 at Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Version_2_of_F&f, not the WP:STATUSQUO version under which we shall strive on unconquerable until the RfC is resolved many weeks later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do include questions on the inclusion of criticism in the first paragraph in light of FILMLEAD and using "fictionalisation" instead of fictional if possible, please. They both seem as intractable. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both seem intractable? How so? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does FILMLEAD apply to Holocaust (miniseries)? Fictional or fictionalized? The lead there says, "Holocaust (1978) is an American four-part television miniseries which explores the Holocaust from the perspectives of the fictional Weiss family of Jews in Germany and that of a rising member of the SS, who gradually becomes a war criminal. Holocaust highlights numerous events which occurred up to and during World War II, such as Kristallnacht, the creation of Jewish ghettos, and later, the use of gas chambers. Although the miniseries won several awards and received positive reviews, it was also criticized. Holocaust survivor and activist Elie Wiesel wrote in The New York Times that it was: "Untrue, offensive, cheap: as a TV production, the film is an insult to those who perished and to those who survived."

So if the director had made a Twitter post about "untrue," "cheap," "offensive," "insult," how would you be arguing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their removal from the lead would be tractable or intractable? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the pride of Wikipedia the Featured Article F*CK, which opens with, The film argues that the word is an integral part of societal discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. It examines the term from perspectives which include art, linguistics, society and comedy, and begins with a segment from the 1965 propaganda film Perversion for Profit. Scholars and celebrities analyze perceptions of the word from differing perspectives. Journalist Sam Donaldson talks about the versatility of the word, and comedian Billy Connolly states it can be understood despite one's language or location. Musician Alanis Morissette comments that the word contains power because of its taboo nature. The film features the last recorded interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. Scholars, including linguist Reinhold Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower, explain the history and evolution of the word. Language professor Geoffrey Nunberg observes that the word's treatment by society reflects changes in our culture during the 20th century.

And how will you be applying FILMHIST dear @TryKid: to that opening paragraph? How many violations? If even one, if you don't think you are barking up the wrong tree (meant only metaphorically), don't you think your time is better served getting that article delisted at WP:FAR? , considering it is a WP Featured article, probably one of the most widely read? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, there are no violations in either, indeed they might just prove my point. The first paragraph of the lead of Holocaust contains only the plot and no criticism of it, that only appears in the second paragraph, in line with FILMLEAD. The "fictional" is much better used there, talking of a fictional family, not a "fictional storyline". I would not object to a similar construction with a line about the film following a fictional Pandit family's fictional grandson "exploring" the Exodus.

And Fuck too, is in line with the Documentary section of MOS:FILM, and only gives a synopsis of the elements contained in the documentary itself, not the outside criticism of the material contained, which appears only in the third paragraph. Note that I might have mistakenly said "lead" when I meant the "first paragraph of the lead" in some places. Of course I don't disagree that the criticism must appear somewhere in the lead, since it's supposed to be a summary of the article itself, which must contain the criticism.

"Intractable" might not have been the right word to use. I meant that it would probably be much more efficient to simply do an RfC to obtain a consensus on these issues, since it would be extremely difficult to come to any consensus wording with simple discussion given the differing, hard-to-resolve interpretations of sources and policy between editors. Whether or not criticism should appear in the first paragraph, what words are justified in the criticism, whether the plot should be described as fictional, etc etc. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have experience in reviewing film FAs, Heart of Thomas being a recent one for which I did a peer-review and helped at the FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akira Kurosawa/archive3 where I tried to help but was strapped for time but wasn't able to help enough, which is tragic as he is one of my favorites. And I'm sure there are at least a dozen others at FAC (quite a few I opposed). One Mullum Malarum, I rented the movie with English subtitles to rewrite the plot. It did not become an FA for which I feel guilty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Mullum Malarum. That and Manilal Dwivedi were the two entertaining FACs on my watchlist with your reviews. I don't do a lot of work here, but I do enjoy watching others do it. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, you win some, you lose some. Even with the ones you oppose, you do become familiar with the characters, the director's style, the movie.

For example in a trailer of The Kashmir Files there was a rousing rendition of Faiz Ahmad Faiz's song, which is hardly a Hindu nationalist song. So, although I know very little about the movie, the sum total of its effect might not be as straightforward as its detractors might be imagining. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, past my bedtime.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But before I go, there was also the teenage Bollywood actress from the 70s whose name I'm blanking on but whose mother I determined to be Muslim that even the authors of the article did not know.

The FAC sadly became bogged down, but later someone contacted me; they had contacted relatives of the mother's sister who had migrated to Pakistan after the partition of India, and they supplied me the maiden last name (the nee) of the mother and the maternal grandparents, but by that time I had lost interest in the FAC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimple Kapadia, that's a memorable one too. Maybe the real FAs were the friends we made along the way. :) regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Heavens! It looks like we need an RfC to decide what the RfC should be! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed region of Kashmir

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikara_(2020_film) Here it says "exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir Valley" But when I tried to correct that in the Kashmir files movie from disputed Kashmir region to Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir @User:DaxServer banned me from editing. Why? Bharat0078 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bharat0078 Because you probably violated Wikipedia's neutral policy. You tried to make kashmir sound like it was an integral part of India. You should've written Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But disputed region of Kashmir is there which means entire Kashmir region Indian and Pakistani but the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits happened from the Indian Kashmir and in perticular from the Kashmir valley and not from entire Kashmir. I propose to change it to Kashmir valley of Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Bharat0078 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main article Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, the lead says – from the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley in Indian-administered Kashmir following rising violence in an insurgency – so I guess, we could put the same as – "centered around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir valley in Indian-administered Kashmir" – here (no opinion on the rest of qualifiers atm - Muslim-majority, insurgence - but I think they add the context in full, hopefully [already] explained in the body). I haven't looked at the refs on that page, but perhaps either or all of @Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler: could help with the refs? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Indian-administered Kashmir Valley" should be enough. We are loading rather too much into one sentence otherwise.

A more serious problem is that the "insurgency" has been relegated to a citatiion. But it needs to be in the sentence. Without it, it is entirely perplexing how an "exodus" could become a "genocide". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Why is the left leaning sources are used in article like scroll, thewire quint etc. which are mostly biased Specially for the violence which happened on Ram Navami. Bharat0078 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN is the proper venue for these discussions since you are challenging the reliability of an entire media organization. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banned in other countries

Singapore banned this film: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/singapore-bans-kashmir-files-india-muslims-b2075380.html#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16521868230783&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Farts-entertainment%2Ffilms%2Fnews%2Fsingapore-bans-kashmir-files-india-muslims-b2075380.html Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly remove

• Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Kashmir Files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kindly Remove non fact based conclusive assumptions and personal opinions like usage of terms "fictional storyline", "inaccurate", "conspiracy theories".

The information stated is of biased selective nature and partial. Whereas the documentary is based on interviews with both the affected community and local muslim population. The documentary is depicting the truth with changed character names and portrayed emotions. It can be feasible to assume that the timeline and few dialogues can be considered fictional but calling the whole film "fiction and conspiracy" is apathy and intentional.

Therefore the request is to remove the terms that are not fact based and without citation to verified validated sources like that of bbc and other renowned press.

BBC article stating an estimate of 300000 displaced Hindus. And refers to the armed insurgency erupted in Kashmir.^[1]

BBC article refering to militant activities and atrocities faced by Kashmiri Hindus.^[2]

Indiangengiskhan (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indiangengiskhan, Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. Please read through the policy pages posted on your user-talk page.

Regarding the BBC articles you mention, the figure of 300,000 is not supported by scholarly sources. WP:NEWSORG are only reliable for news, not for summative information of this kind.

There is no contest that Kashmiri Hindus faced militant attacks. I will check if we say it properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 says: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as genocide and ethnic cleansing, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. Scholarship on Kashmir, noting low Hindu fatalities, discusses such claims in the context of conspiracy theories or notions of victimhood.

Ethnic cleansing and genocide drove the exodus. The film is neither factual enough nor sophisticated enough to get into the topic of insurgencies, let alone those with secular aims, not religious ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022), "The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India's Further Descent into Bigotry", Time,  The 'truth' that the film claims to reveal is that there was a “genocide” of Pandits in the 1990s, hidden by a callous ruling establishment and a servile media. Pandits were killed in their thousands, it claims, and not in the low hundreds as the government and Kashmiri Pandit organizations have stated.

From the Time magazine review Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get you but would request you to go through the article below, has reliable source references.

Exodus^[1]

I personally don't believe government figures since they are released to appeal to masses and hide their shortcomings along with entertaining certain audience as per political demand. And for a fact I know hundreds of Displaced Kashmiri Hindus that have lost someone in the genocide and many Kashmiri Pandit organizations (outside Kashmir) having member size more than 200, which brings us to the point that there is no single point organization for Kashmiri migrants and that the claim of one cannot be used to belittle the claims of others. Either due to pressure or personal, political,other vested interests that one might have at some point of time. Therefore it is a sincere request to check more on it. Indiangengiskhan (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Long Dream of Home: The persecution, exile and exodus of Kashmiri Pandits ^[2] Indiangengiskhan (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time for RFC?

I have been periodically following the above debate about the lede para of the article and it has gotten so long, convoluted (and heated) that even I have lost track of the various versions being proposed and whether the proposal is supposed to be temporary stand-in while the debate occurs, or a more "permanent" replacement. Its clear that the current participants are unlikely to hash out an universally acceptable agreement among themselves, and the very length of the discussion is likely to keep uninvolved editors out. So here is my proposal:

1. I suggest that @Fowler&fowler, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, TryKid, and Mathsci: et al, jointly or individually, propose their preferred version for the article's 2nd and 3rd sentence (along with sources, of course).
2. Along with the above version, write up (as concisely as you can!) the best argument for preferring that version.
3. I will then start an RFC listing or linking to the versions + supporting arguments, so that others can weigh in. The RFC closer, which will not be me, can choose among the versions, suggest a blend etc, depending upon the feedback.
4. While this process plays out, I will as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBIPA, "freeze" the lede para in its current form (yes, I anticipate the WP:WRONGVERSION objections, which can be taken to WP:AN).

Some notes and tips:

• Prepare the version + supporting argument in your userspace and just add the link to it here.
• The fewer alternate versions that are presented at the RFC, the better. So, editors are welcome to collaborate in sub-groups to come up with their preferred joint proposal but, again, do so in your user-space, and not here.
• Keep in mind that the "audience" for your supporting arguments, is not each-other, but editors coming to the RFC without being steeped in the past discussions on the topic. So, I'd recommend leaving out any process-based (eg, which version was/wasn't status quo) and personality-based (eg, which editor has previously said what) arguments but rely on reasons based on wikipedia's content and MOS policies and guidelines.

Suggestions for modifying or improving the above process are welcome but since I regard this to be an an admin-action under AC/DS, I don't intend for that meta-discussion to be a free-for-all. I'm pinging admins @RegentsPark, Bishonen, and El C: , who have been previously involved in adminnning this article/talkpage, for input too. Abecedare (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a few days off for reasons explained on my user talk page. My preferred version is in a subsection titled “Version 2 of F&f” or some such. Whether it was written to be a replacement for sentences 2 and 3 I can’t say, but it bears the marks of improvement by Mathsci following earlier interactions with TryKid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I second Abecedare's proposal. The version 1 and 2 discussion is a complete mess (I scanned it for the versions and, apparently, editors are supposed to find them in diffs!). Experienced editors should know better and it is not that hard to create an RfC with the versions clearly stated so that uninvolved editors can give their opinions. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore ban

I see that sources are stating that Singapore banned the film.^[1] However, the government's respective departments' statement reads as the "film will be refused classification".^[2] Did it become as effective ban or is it in process to be implemented in [a near-] future, and how to does it fare with WP:CRYSTAL for future events in such case?

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is effectively banned. The refusal of certification will probably be in a private letter, which might remain private. Since they issued a public statement, it is fine for us to go with how the RS judged it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been denied a rating or classification, which in Singapore is issued by the government and is a precondition for release. Singapore, a highly advanced, literate, multiracial, multiethnic, multi religious society doesn’t have a large segment of its population looking for magical escapes from grinding poverty in the cynical fantasies of religious nationalism. They have disallowed its release.

Given their eloquent prime minister’s earlier statement in parliament, the don’t need, as Milton might have said, glowing embers that teach light to counterfeit a gloom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler it is an effective ban as the producers cannot release it there. Venkat TL (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UK and Australian certifications

These two lack references to substantial coverage as set in WP:FILMRATING. Please help in finding whether there's coverage for them, if not, they'd just fall under "indiscriminate identification of ratings" which the former guideline asks to avoid — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) found the film to contain "strong bloody violence" and certified the film as suitable only for viewers aged 15 years and over. ref name="BBFC" /

Only certifications in the major markets are listed. If it was getting Universal certificate It would be ok to ignore the mention, it did not get U. Moreover the line above talks about Australia without listing Australian certificate. Content has been restored. Adding removing a line does not cause size issues. the info is encyclopedic and the reader gets an idea that the certification are comparable in different major markets. Please dont go overboard in removing relevant to reader information. Pretty sure the British papers discussed its certification. Feel free to expand. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]