Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 276526 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Talk:The Kashmir Files - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:The Kashmir Files

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sequel / Extension - The Kashmir Files: Unreported

[edit]

I think we should add information about the docu-series The Kashmir Files: Unreported, which is being seen as a sequel to the movie. the series contains interviews that were conducted as a part of the research for the film.

Some link: https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/kashmir-files-unreported-post-iffi-row-vivek-agnihotri-announces-kashmir-files-follow-up-film/article66204169.ece

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/vivek-agnihotri-unveils-series-the-kashmir-files-unreported-makes-big-claim-4228831

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/exclusive-watch-pallavi-joshi-on-the-kashmir-files-unreported-nobody-calls-me-to-work-in-their-films-12910672.html

https://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/web-series/article/the-kashmir-files-unreported-vivek-ranjan-agnihotria-pallavi-joshi-promote-upcoming-series-at-dal-lake-23299878

Indian-administered Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir/Kashmir region

[edit]

Based on above discussion and my points in #lede change. I changed Indian-administered Kashmir to Kashmir region. I would like to have discussion on this name change. Please refer to my #lede change to voice for or against my opinion. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 05:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note the article uses "Kashmir" and "Jammu and Kashmir" in the whole article except that spot. Viewers will be confused if IAK is used. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 05:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. The notice on this page, as you already noted, says "Editors are not permitted to modify the lede paragraph of this article without prior discussion and consensus on the talkpage", yet you changed it without gaining any such consensus for this change. Please ensure that you do so before making any more changes. I am quite surprised that an editor with as much experience as you have is incapable of understanding such a clear instruction. Black Kite (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, i opened the discussion here. @Black Kite Tell your views negative my points ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite repeating the points
let's keep the area generalized/neutral as "Kashmir region". see pages of Uri: The Surgical Strike, Jolly LLB 2, Operation Gold Fish, Shershaah, Wagah (film), Dunki (film), Chandu Champion, Amaran (2024 film), Kashmir Daily, Fighter (2024 film), HIT: The Third Case, Inshallah, Football, Junooniyat (of vivek agnihotri) use "Jammu and Kashmir"; Mission Kashmir, Shikara (2020 film), Leo (2023 Indian film) Tango Charlie, Sam Bahadur (film), Sita Ramam, Haider (film), Inshallah, Kashmir, Sheen (film) and all other movies use "kashmir". The Kashmir Files: Unreported also uses "Kashmir". If any change voice your opinions in Talk:The Kashmir Files#Indian-administered Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir/Kashmir region before changes. This film was used to cater predominantly Indian audience. Also if you are using IAK in lede in 1 line why it gets converted abruptly to Kashmir and J&K lateron throughout the article. Refs supporting my views and more points are in #lede change
I have a request that if the designation of region doesn't change let's change all other articles. Purposely movies on military operations are likely to instill more dispute than this internal matter of India where in military films cross border issues create negative sentiments in rival nations of India. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in talking about other issues as it might take the discussion in a different direction. Let us focus on clearing the issue related to The Bengal Files only. --ADWikiax (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ADWikiax@TricanaQ@Goswami21@PSDA1@Computeracct i understood that this article also has other issues and that you are busy with Bengal Files but just spend a moment to resolve this issue (sorry for pinging) ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 13:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir or J&K is the correct usage.
It is the name(s) of the region(s).
As you noted, it gets changed to Kashmir and J&K later on in the article.
The use of the word Indian-administered is to deliberately used here to inflame sentiments in India. This is an Indian movie made to cater to mainly the Indian audience.
I support changing this in the lede(/lead paragraph) to Kashmir region. Computeracct (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not permitted to modify the lede paragraph of this article without prior discussion and consensus on the talkpage.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page."‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 13:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit

[edit]

Seeing this revert, I would like to know if anyone here has a problem with the said edit.

Noting the quality of the sources for enforcing the said edit, I support restoration of it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the restriction tells that it applies only when the edit has been challenged. Nobody had challenged it until now. Yes I used academic sources for it. Orientls (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too strongly support its restoration. Not restoring it would violate WP:NPOV by omission EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS:FILMLEDE, the lede sentence should be bare bones data about the film itself, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title, the year of its earliest public screening (either general release or at a film festival), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. See WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance that applies to other elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." The wikivoiced addition of propaganda film as such directly in the lede sentence would appear to be incorrect (this is coming from someone who populated most of the Category:Indian propaganda films a while back, including for its previous film The Tashkent Files). A look at the GA The Birth of a Nation (the quintessential propaganda film) also provides on how such stuff should be handled. Indian cinema and politics (and generally as well) is nothing new, cf. Tamil cinema and Dravidian politics, and films categorized as propaganda are out and abound. I can understand adding such reception/criticism (when attributed to RS) to the body or perhaps elsewhere in the lede but directly wikivoicing this in the lede sentence is problematic and what should be avoided per MOS. This also appears to have affected The Tashkent Files and The Bengal Files, will seek further comments from the WP:FILM and WP:ICTF noticeboards. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic sources have been cited for the sentence and the entire article describes how it was a propaganda movie. Your objections make no sense. Orientls (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The objection is not to the inclusion of the sources or adding an attributed description as such (elsewhere in the lede or body) but to its placement directly in the lede sentence. The edit replaced the genre drama with propaganda which is simply not how the lede sentences for feature films are supposed to go per MOS. Gotitbro (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As always, you are engaging in what is nothing more than Hindutva apologia. Jud Süß and Theresienstadt (1944 film) are both Wikipedia:Good articles which call those respective movies propaganda films in the lead sentence. The latter does not state any genre aside from it being a propaganda film. In additon, The Eternal Jew (film), Hearts of the World, Triumph of the Will, Olympia (1938 film), The Rothschilds (film), Homecoming (1941 film), are just some of many, many, film articles which call it propaganda in the lead sentence. That is taking aside the fact that The Kashmir Files being propaganda is attributed here to highly reliable scholarly sources. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:casting aspersions on valid P&G based arguments is without basis. For someone who populated and expanded articles under the Indian propaganda films cat including those released currently and added recent controversies raised by Hindu nationalists for the usual films, apologia indeed. Please focus on the content here than engage in baseless PA. What some scholars and reviewers describe the film as does not trump our MOS guidelines, there is a reason we avoid such labelling directly in the lede sentence (e.g. from other partisan hacks such as Dinesh D'Souza), it opens up a can of worms for a whole host of films critiqued as such and opening the articles of all recent political films as such, from any side, against MOS would degrade encyclopedic quality not improve it despite however editors may feel they are WP:RGWing. Comparing this to the well known [Nazi] propaganda films, univerally described as such, is also something. Gotitbro (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that matters is how reliable sources describe a subject, and as far as this movie is concerned, the consensus that this was a propoganda movie is far too obvious in the reliable sources that have been already presented. And as far as the term itself is concerned, the precedents are aplenty; so I am not seeing sense in the objections you raise. You could provide us with reliable sources that tell us how the Kashmir files was not a propaganda movie.
MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Kashmir Files told the true incidents that happened in Kashmir and is not a propaganda film.
1 From Deccan herald (WP: ICTF approved):
"Vivek Agnihotri’s ‘The Kashmir Files’ is about the untold and heart-wrenching stories of Kashmir Pandits’ (KP) displacement, which were waiting to be heard in the last 30 years. He has chosen incidents narrated from the Kashmiri Pandits’ for a dramatised version of events that unfolded after the emergence of Islamic militancy in the valley state in 1989."
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/entertainment/the-kashmir-files-movie-review-anupam-kher-is-brilliant-in-this-heart-wrenching-story-1090519.html
2. From Hindustan Times (WP: ICTF approved)
"While Kashmiri Pandits continue to hope for justice even after over 30 years, the film attempts to document the ordeal of these displaced families with authenticity and not just for a cinematic recreation."
Thankfully, it is not your typical Bollywood masala film based on true events and told with the colours of a rainbow. Agnihotri tells the horrible tale as it should have been told."
3 from news 18 (WP: ICTF approved)
"The Kashmir Files Review: Vivek Agnihotri Film is Closest to Truth, Unlike Any Other in the Past"
It is pain in its rawest form because it is a movie that’s been closest to the truth, unlike any other from the past. None of the deaths were fictional, none of the tragedies coincidental, none of the wounds exaggerated or underrepresented.
https://www.news18.com/news/movies/the-kashmir-files-review-vivek-agnihotris-movie-is-closest-to-the-truth-unlike-any-other-in-the-past-4863527.html
All of these say The Kashmir Files film shows the truth, is authentic, shows true incidents etc. Computeracct (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Computeracct has since been blocked for conflict-of-interest issues and undisclosed paid editing. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article and its lede have been through multiple discussions and RfCs which have provided for the current stable lede. P&G take precedence over how we present RS in this case (MOS:FILM), especially in a CTOPS article like this. There is a reason we don't describe most films under Category:Propaganda films with the descriptive, this is especially true for contemporary ones where we have to be even more circumspect.
From what I can gather while the sources, in the article, note its mostly negative reviews and government sponsorship most eschew the 'propaganda' descriptive. This is not to dispute what the film is/might be but why a strict adherence to MOS needs to be had.
A look at established film databases ([1] [Drama], [2] [Drama], [3] [Drama/Thriller], [4] [Mystery/Thriller]); other academic sources ([5] [historically inaccurate], [6]/[7]/[8]/[9]/[10] [controversial], [11]/[12]/[13]/[14] [nationalistic], [15] [partisan], [16]/[17] [exaggerated, gory], [18]/[19] [Hindu nationalist], [20] [unidimensional]). On the other hand there are even some positive reviews already in article (and others as well [21], [22], [23], [24]).
As such, we should be fine with the current consensus version of the lede per previous consensus and MOS. Though attributed additions elsewhere in the lede/body may be fine and can be discussed. Gotitbro (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of the propaganda label is both supported by reliable scholarly sources and also abides by MOS. As stated above, countless other film articles, including WP:Good Articles have had this framing, which you have completely ignored. Lastly, something being WP:STABLE does not mean it should never change. That is the entire point of having discussions such as these. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there an RfC to decide to the lead? Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 13#RfC about article lede. Everything about the lead was extensively discussed and decided then. You would need another widely advertised RfC to relitigate this. These talk page discussions with 3 supporting participants won't do. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant in the original 2022 RfC, completely agree with TryKid. The WP:CTOPS notice at the very top of this talk page specifically states "Editors are not permitted to modify the lede paragraph of this article without prior discussion and consensus on the talkpage." That exists there for a reason. Thus this edit without prior discussion itself is a violation of the arbitration measure to begin with (as also noted by Rosguill in the revert). UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2025

[edit]

Please change the, "Raliv, Galiv ya Chaliv" mentioned in the Plot section to, "Raliv, Chaliv ya Galiv[1]" 2409:40F2:341:4E3:E8E4:28FF:FE72:CE6C (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Paranjape, Makarand R (2022-04-08). "Bitterest Truth of History: Raliv, Tsaliv ya Galiv". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2025-10-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files&oldid=1314667585"