Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Drama Film to Historical Drama

Propose change in the lead from Drama Film to Historical Drama. Please could fellow watchers of this article share views? Tsachin (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur with you, see Plot section above.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that other editors have also asked to change "fictional drama film" to "drama film" in the lead. I would agree. Drama films are already fictional. The specific use of 'fictional' as adjective is redundant. Wikihc (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Historical Drama is the relevant subcategory and would be useful to add.Wikihc (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If the participants here are in agreement, are there any others who would oppose this change TrangaBellam Kautilya3 ? Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish don't have any objection to this consensus reached here, can some editor with enough seniority action this? I highlight these four because they usually agree and claim consensus on such pages and are most likely to object and revert this edit (refer elsewhere on this talk page or the Vikram Sampath talk page if in doubt) given their support for fictional in the lead which has been successfully removed and their current support for "claims to be" in the lead. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tagging all users with edit-credentials active on this page who might potentially have an opinion to ensure this consensus is wide enough Hemantha, DaxServer, Akshaypatill, Tayi_Arajakate, 511KeV, Extorc, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

None of those pings went through because you signed later, but I've no opinion either way about this. Hemantha (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hemantha. Have re-submitted my comment so the pings go through Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not the way to fix failed pings, Webberbrad007. They still won't have gone through (see WP:PING), which is just as well; it's up to people themselves if they want to watch this page or not. Please don't ping anybody, nor post on their pages,[1] as that may compromise consensus. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

• Comment - Responding to ping. I don't have a strong view on the matter. But I haven't seen any source cited for the change. I would also like to know how other films dealing with Kashmir conflict have been characterised. Are 30-year old events considered "historical" in film literature? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wiki Definition: A historical drama (also period drama, costume drama, and period piece) is a work set in a past time period, usually used in the context of film and television.

  30-year old is a Generation ago, so it should qualify. Happy to hear opposing arguments to this though. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Several examples available of movies made on events about 30-year old (or under) at the time of the movie release being classed as such. See Exodus_(1960_film), The_Garden_of_the_Finzi-Continis_(film) etc -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Changed my mind after having read through the Plot section. The film is set in the current times, with flashbacks covering "historical" happenings. Most of the characters are alive in present times, with Pushkar Nath having died only recently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I also find it odd that most Indian films that are set in historical periods aren't characterised as "historical drama", e.g.: Lagaan, Parineeta (2005 film), Devdas (2002 film), or more recent 83 (film). This doesn't seem to be an important category in Indian cinema. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Those articles can also be improved. Wikihc (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Wikihc here.

Kautilya3, your objection makes use of incorrect comparisons as I shall highlight below:

1. Schindler's List had several survivors alive and the movie even shows Schindler's wife Emilie Schinder. So the claim that if someone from the movie is still alive, it can't be classed as historical drama isn't true.

2. The movies you mention in your second comment are not based on actual events. The correct comparisons would be the ones that have been highlighted above already - Schindler's List, Exodus_(1960_film), The_Garden_of_the_Finzi-Continis_(film) etc

If you have other reasons for objecting, please could you highlight? Tsachin (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the plot sections of the movies you have mentioned, say that the plot oscillates between the current time period and a certain historical period. So they are not valid comparisons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Schindler's List ending is current time period with old Emilie Schinder being shown.

Happy to discuss any other reasons you might have for objecting. Tsachin (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Did you say "The movies you mention ... are not based on actual events"? Nothing in historical drama says that the movies had to be baded on "actual events". So, is this a backdoor ploy to claim that the movie is based on "actual events", even though historical drama doesn't seem to be an established category in Indian cinema? "Historical" needs to be added to claim that this movie describes "history"? TrangaBellam, do you see this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The movie is based on exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, which is a historical and well documented fact unless you are disputing that either

1. the movie isn't based on that OR

2. the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits didn't happen

However, that isn't relevant to the discussion as the definition for historical drama doesn't require it. Tsachin (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, your claim that the category doesn't exist in Indian cinema also is false. See featured article Mughal-e-Azam as an example. Tsachin (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree and vote for changing it to historical drama after reading this thread.

Dsnb07 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree : This is indeed set in Historical Context and does consist of drama which appear to be the only criterion for Historical Drama. The question asked by Kautilya : Haider is considered a "Crime Drama" but I think Historical drama can be more relevant here. I think 30 years is indeed enough of a time for calling it history because it is almost a generation. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Tamjeed_Ahmed your edit is not in line with above consensus. Please could you revert the edit and help build consensus before using your power to edit the lead? -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree (goes without saying given I initiated this section). Webberbrad007, the anti-consensus edit by Tamjeed_Ahmed has been successfully reverted now. Thus far, I count below editors in favour (excluding myself): Shivamtiwari 22, Extorc, Wikihc, Bhaskarbhagawati, Webberbrad007, Dsnb07 and none who want to participate being against. Can this be considered general consensus? Tsachin (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral No strong opinion. I don't see much difference in Fictional drama and Historical drama. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• It would be informative if a line "based on true events" is added in description as there are many articles and news supporting it. Srinath66 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is agreeable to change its category from a drama film to historical drama since there are various resources to confirm this. Shivamtiwari 22 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Drama would be more suitable.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 04:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to failed ping. I think the characterization as historical drama is fair enough. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks TrangaBellam Tsachin (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I have changed my mind from neutral over the fact that using a broader term will be helpful to avoid any conflict in future. Drama film suits per MOS:BEGIN. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 06:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agree to the change. (for avoidance of doubt) Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The film is set in the current times, with "history" shown in flashbacks, so it does not seem to be historical. Furthermore since the "history" in the film is itself disputed, this film does not seem to be a historical drama. Chaipau (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical_drama#Historical_accuracy gives the example of Titanic_(1997_film) which is also set in current times, with the past shown in flashbacks. Wikihc (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wikihc: Titanic_(1997_film) is not set it current times, it flashes forward to current times. Nevertheless, I would have agreed with you but Kashmir files is attempting to straighten the "history". It is attempting to become a source of history by itself. Here is a quote from the BBC article:

The film strenuously argues that what happened to Kashmiri Pandits during the militancy was a “genocide”. The word is repeated and emphasised, along with “exodus” and references to the Holocaust. Numbers are trotted out to support this argument – 4,000 Kashmiri Pandits killed and five lakh displaced since the armed conflict began.

According to official figures, only 219 were killed, says the character of Radhika Menon, a smirking leftwing university professor who is apparently hellbent on brainwashing students. These are indeed the government figures, but the number is discredited immediately because it is uttered by her. The other deaths were not counted because they were not reported, it is suggested.

Would Propaganda film be a more appropriate genre?

Chaipau (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Titanic is literally set in the current times with the film beginning with a search of the wreck of RMS Titanic; followed by Rose telling the story about the fictitious Heart of the Ocean and her journey on Titanic to them as a flashbacks. The film also ends in the current time with Rose throwing away the Heart of the Ocean into the ocean. Wikihc (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

N-th all time highest first x-day records

@SGiaNaksh introduced Special:Diff/1077815873/1077820387 some stats about the film's records on first Monday, first Tuesday, first Wednesday, first Thursday - all time 7th, all time 20th, etc. These all seem very much like trivia. OTOH, the 323% growth seems very much encyclopaedic as it describes the growth and the source [2] says the next highest is Housefull 4 at 93%, so 323 seems significant. And probably breaking the record for highest increase in collections on first Monday significant as well? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I blanked the paragraph but the two of you might restore what you determine to be encyclopedic. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The increase in theatres 630->2000->4000 could be moved to Theatrical release section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is regarding a recent update which removed the whole box office section. The reason provided is "Not a financial log" which is inadequate and injustifiable.

• Please check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office for more details on Box office section
• Here are some examples Box_office section of film where a detailed financial log is provided.
  • Indian Films : Bajrangi_Bhaijaan#Box_office , PK_(film)#Box_office, Secret_Superstar#Box_office
  • Hollywood films : Avatar_(2009_film)#Box_office Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day#Box_office both are Wikipedia:Good articles)

RegentsPark sir please help. and Abecedaresir CC you based on our last message Dsnb07 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dsnb07: I don't see an issue here. DaxServer made a comment about excessive trivia, TrangaBellam removed the section with an explicit "restore what you determine enyclopedic" comment on the talk page. All this is well within the norms of collaborative editing. Someone should probably rewrite the section without the trivia or get consensus that it isn't actually trivia. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree on excessive trivia and being less encyclopaedic . Check the wiki film example provided by me, if you compare with examples it is much less. Also, these are not just any example last two are rated a Wikipedia:Good articles. It should have been removed at first less specially if it is edit protected. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"excessive trivia"?? first of all that's not "excessive", that's just the information provided by one of the most reliable Indian box office collection portal, Bollywood Hungama. Also, who are we the editors to decide what is trivia and what is not, what should be allowed on wikipedia pages and what should be not huh? There's no rule like only a certain amount of information or details you can add on a wikipedia page. The main policy of wikipedia is that you can add literally any statement or "trivia" with proper and reliable sources. The box office section was well sourced y'all should add it back!SGiaNaksh (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare Would you be kind and give some pointers to @SGiaNaksh [on their talk page] about this one? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 00:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we discussing this or not? Or I'll add all those box office facts again.SGiaNaksh (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@SGiaNaksh Like I said, the nth highest first X-day are a trivia. For example, see List of box office records set by Avengers: Endgame and List of box office records set by Avatar and the likes which state the records when they are the highest or fastest, viz. it is at the top position. I still object to these trivia. I don't think they have due weight and are indiscriminate listings.

From the earlier version (linked at the top), I see one record that is set: the 323% growth, and its relevance. Regarding the box office, it seems like it's a norm to mention the numbers in the opening days and weekends and WP:FILMBOXOFFICE also allows it in this section. The increase in theaters can also be restored, no objection to that. I intend to do that myself, if not others, when I get some time. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:SGiaNaksh, User:Dsnb07 I don't think excessive numbers are necessary as they can crowd the article and add little value. Add only the notable ones. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on it is not excessive numbers, Even if editor thinks so its better to re-write or leave as it is so that someone improve it specially for an article which is being updated rapidly.

Few example provided by me, are good article and full of box office number. Dsnb07 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC){{od

How about this:

The Kashmir Files opened to box office with an earnings of ₹3.55 crore, ₹8.50 crore and ₹15.10 crore in India respectively on its first three days, taking its opening weekend collection to ₹27.15 crore. After the response from the first two days, the screens were increased to 2,000 on 13 March 2021. With a collections growth of 323% on its first Monday compared to the release day, the film broke the record for the highest increase in collections for an Indian film on its first Monday. At the end of the first week, the film earned ₹97.30 crore at the domestic box office. After the response from the first week, the screens were increased to 4,000 on 18 March 2021.

The film emerged as a box-office hit within its first two days of release. As of <date>, the film grossed ₹xyz crore in India and ₹xyz crore overseas, for a worldwide gross collection of ₹xyz crore.

The first Monday is described as "Khooni Monday test", I'm assuming it's something important in the filmi-world. All references shall be carried from this version. Do we also state the opening weekend collections from overseas? I was not able to use another wording instead of "domestic" as suggested by WP:FILMBOXOFFICE. Suggestions/improvements? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

2 cents

• use India instead domestic
• we include overseas collection - either same global ( in case of cumulative) or name region such as Americas, Europe (if data is available)
• why domestic and overseas is confusing for non-resident wikipedia reader.

Dsnb07 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. I'm not really seeing why the first Monday is such a big deal and the source used before (boxofficeindia, I think) had numbers which were contradicted by their own site elsewhere, but don't have strong objections at the moment. Hemantha (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added the text with a bit of modifications from Dsnb07. Based on a rough translation of "Khooni Monday test" to "slaying monday test", I suppose it's something important. WP:ICTF would know better. Do you have the links which contradicted the numbers? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

In that bollywoodhungama article, I'd read the stat "Highest increase in collections on first Monday" as increase from Sunday, but apparently it's increase from Friday. So, yeah, I was wrong to say contradiction. On the importance, Khooni Monday seems to be BH's own branding of first monday test which itself appears mostly in niche (at best) sources. Based on reading this, I believe it is supposed to be an indicator of success based on whether it fell or not; but this film is such an outlier on that statistic that the quantum of change itself is now being given heavy prominence. Hemantha (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

edit request

Please tag Abhishek Agarwal Arts in the infobox and as a co-producer in description. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

On the accusation of Islamophobia

According to the Indian Home Ministry's internal data, 1,583 Hindu civilians were killed in the conflict between 1988 and 2005, while the Muslim civilians killed in the same period numbered 12,245

A section cites this as a justification for why the movie is Islamophobic. This is a very weak argument.

To begin with, Hindu people are about 1% of the population of Kashmir. If a hundred Kashmiris were drawn from random, it is unlikely even one Hindu would make the list. It is damning evidence of an anti-Hindu sentiment when nearly 1,500 Hindus were killed (10% of the total casualties). On top of that, there is undoubtedly a religious angle to their murder. The 12,000 or so Muslims were not killed because they were Muslims. The Hindus on the other hand were targeted for no reason other than their religion. Indielov (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. Please read the sources, and avoid engaging in WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims of truth

• "The Kashmir Files movie review: A remarkable film that brings out gory truth about Hindu genocide in the Valley", Firstpost, 11 March 2022.
• "Vivek Agnihotri Film is Closest to Truth, Unlike Any Other in the Past", News18, 13 March 2022.
• "Vivek Agnihotri | Exposing The Truth Of Kashmiri Hindu Exodus | Making Of Kashmir Files", The Sham Sharma Show (via youtube),
• IANS, Vivek Agnihotri Calls Making The Kashmir Files A ‘Challenge In India’, Says, “It Cannot Stop Me From Telling The Truth”, 7 March 2022.
• "Vivek retweeted him and wrote, “I am so glad for you @AbhishekOfficl you have shown the courage to produce the most challenging truth of Bharat. #TheKashmirFiles screenings in USA proved the changing mood of the world in the leadership of @narendramodi.", The Hindustan Times, 13 March 2022.
• "The Kashmir Files Movie Review: Vivek Agnihotri's Film Gives The Closest Picture Of the Truth, Sentinel Assam, 12 March 2022.
• "Going by Agnihotri’s copybook, these are truths that need to be told, however unpleasant or provocative some may consider them to be. As one of the characters in the movie, himself a journalist, observes, it is not the lies that we tell that are so reprehensible. It is the truths that we hide that destroy us. Vivek Agnihotri has a truth to tell and he has dared to tell it." (Makarand Paranjpe, The Kashmir Files: A story of India that the world needs to see, Firstpost, 13 March 2022)
• "Truth, truth, truth" (occurring 15 times) on the IMDB reviews by viewers presumably. (I wonder how they got that idea?)
• "Every once in a while comes a film that dares to challenge the set narrative by depicting the truth that has been kept suppressed by vested interest. Vivek Agnihotri’s The Kashmir Files is one such movie that narrates the tale of the Hindu genocide that took place in Kashmir in the 90s. ... It is a well-known fact that Kashmiri Hindus were expelled from the Valley by Islamic Jihadists. Therefore, why should anyone have any problem in the truth being shown?" (Manish Sharma, Fierce opposition to the film “The Kashmir Files” shows the desperation of ‘liberals’ to whitewash Hindu genocide, Hindu Post, 9 March 2022.)

The list goes on. And, more claims will stream in everyday. So, I mainain that the claim of "truth" needs to be assessed and all its warts explained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is ironic too that they claim to tell the "truth", and when we highlight the "truths" that have been told, we are accused of stating "slanted/biased opinions"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes Shivaay Softa (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Kashmiri Muslim apologises for KP genocide, calls for collective apology from Kashmiri Muslims Amitized (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you are expecting adding it to this section, but read WP:NOTAFORUM — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022 (3)

The controversies section could be improved by clarifying some of the below details. 1. "Blame is also attached to Farooq Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990; the former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi; and home minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in 1990 and a person of Kashmiri heritage" is ambiguous and grammatically incorrect. It could be improved to "Blame is also attached to Farooq Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990; the former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi; and home minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in 1990. 2. "the Bharatiya Janata Party that supported his government, are absolved of responsibility" could be improved to "the Bharatiya Janata Party that supported his government, but was not part of his cabinet of ministers, are absolved of responsibility" 3. The 'Note' at the top of the Plot section, looks odd and out of place, like a band-aid. Instead of making a superficial observation, it can point the user to the Wikipedia page on 'Non-Linear Narrative' in story telling, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_narrative A simple sentence such as, "Due to the historical nature of the story, it relies on non-linear narration of the story." and the non-linear narration could point to the abovementioned page.

Look forward to making this page better! Thanks for considering this request! Best! Virakiwi (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This article his on a highly contentious topic, so this change will require consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Article doesn't adhere to [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] and [Wikipedia:Manual of Style]

The article uses excessive scare quotes, weasel words, along with Word play of reliable source. At places, it misquotes the individual's statement.

• Scare quotes : there are 10+ scare quoting done in article. Example {{tq|believes in the "Kashmir cause", Brahma calls a "genocide.", service of a "communal agenda", failing to "translate the grief on the big canvas" , Parliament for "everyone to watch the movie"., ccording to him "reveals the truth"
• Weasel word : Just read the article to find how weasel words used to impact neutral point of view.
• Word play of reliable source - There are many and I am listing a few.
  • Changing word from urge to call log. Call" is used in negative connotation, where as it was "request" so urge is right word.
  • Production section reads have interviewed more than 700 emigrants from the exodus whereas Source given says  : interview more than 700 victims of the Kashmir Genocide from all across the world. Please note (As perWikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change .

18:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnb07 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dsnb07 Please stop creating multiple sections for the same things which you have already raised. Use centralized discussion please. It is infeasible to discuss the same things in multiple places on the same page. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir, these first and only thread to talk about Scare quotes and Weasel word. I have added wordplay again but IMHO, it was required. we can discuss first two point , if you see from here Dsnb07 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:REVIEW advices in favor of quoting reviewers. Some of the scare quotes are intentional because they cannot be carried in wiki-voice. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Respected sir, here the editor is sourcing interview of produced and quoting him. and I don't know from where you bought reviewer in an interview to say .... "MOS:REVIEW advices in favor of quoting reviewers" Dsnb07 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

translate the grief on the big canvas and communal agenda are quoted from two film-reviews. Genocide is scare-quoted, since it is so fringe in scholarship.

reveals the truth and everyone to watch the movie are used in a referential sense. Thanks, archived. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This section is all the more interesting in light of the above section where you point us to the principle of minimal change and urge that quoted text [] be faithfully reproduced. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source which reduces NOPV

• Production section reads : have interviewed more than 700 emigrants from the exodus
• Source given says  : interview more than 700 victims of the Kashmir Genocide from all across the world

Dsnb07 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are quoting a person, least thing we can do is quote them without changing meaning of message given by an individual. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead, revise it.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 05:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Did you two realize that it's an interview with Vivek Agnihotri? Changing the sentence to relay that it's a genocide requires a consensus and from what I gather there is an opposite one. Please invite others and discuss further. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Questioning the use of the word genocide does not preclude us from using the word "victims". Several of existing sources on the page use it. Wikihc (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we should use "victims" at least. Dsnb07 (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer If an article is quoting or paraphrasing a person (i.e Mr Vivek Agnihotri) then it should use in way that it doesn't change meaning. In my humble opinion it is unethical to change meaning of quotes while paraphrasing and attributes it to the person.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations : quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Dsnb07 (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Victims of a genocide" are generally dead. You can't possibly interview them. This is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, Dead victim is just one category out of five. As per United Nations Genocide Convention the Genocide falls into five categories:

1. • 2.4.1Killing members of the group
   • 2.4.2Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
   • 2.4.3Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
   • 2.4.4Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • 2.4.5Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

All from wikipedia and source

https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide Dsnb07 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in the article reads,

As a part of the production, Agnihotri claimed to have interviewed more than 700 emigrants from the exodus and recorded their stories over a period of two years.

Since we are attributing to Agnihotri directly and calling it a "claim", the use of the word victims from the source is merited. Inline citation, if necessary. Similar direct attribution and inline citation can also be used for the word genocide, as we use it elsewhere in the article. Wikihc (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Related Topics

I had added a See Also section of a related article Ocean of Tears (a short film, product of the same conflict). It got reverted first by a user with edit summary not related and second time by a different user with edit summary there are tons of "films on conflict" of Kashmir. Pinging both users Dhawangupta and Extorc, please explain why is it not related and name a few films from those tons of films? Also can we add Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir to the See Also Section as well keeping in view WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Mehrajmir13 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Out of many movies made on the "same conflict" you are adding only Ocean of Tears (the page created by you). This documentary is not about exodus of Kashmiri pandits that's why it does not belong here. Read "WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE" and you would know it is irrelevant to mention them here.

Calling The Kashmir Files and Ocean of Tears as related is like calling Gadar and Gandhi related. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to add other movies that deal with the Kashmiri sufferings too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing how films like Fanaa (2006 film) and I Love India can belong to the section. MOS:ALSO:

One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree to adding back OoT.

That our film claims to be a "documentary" and has been widely held by critics to reproduce the statist perspective with hefty sprinkling of communal propaganda, the mention of OoT—as a documentary, which is representative of the other POV—leads to NPOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

"The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has endorsed and promoted the film in explicit terms.[17][48][49][50] Union Minister Smriti Irani was one of the most vocal in promoting it.[17] Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attacked critics in response to negative reviews, claiming that there is a conspiracy to discredit the film, which according to him "reveals the truth"; he met with Agnihotri to congratulate him, as did Home Minister Amit Shah.[49][51] The BJP Information and Technology Cell, known for being the party's propaganda unit promoted the film with its head raising calls for people to watch it.[49] Agnihotri was also provided with a Y-category security detail from the Central Reserve Police Force across the country by the Ministry of Home Affairs.[52] Pro-government media were also involved in its promotion; OpIndia—a pro-Hindutva news portal—published several articles raining praises on the film and questioning the motives of critics as well as opposition parties while television channels hosted multiple shows and debates to the same ends.[49]

The film was declared tax-free in multiple BJP governed states—Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar and Himachal Pradesh—with calls by several chief ministers and Members of Parliament for "everyone to watch the movie".[48][53][54][55][56] Assam and Madhya Pradesh granted vacations to government employees and police personnel respectively, if they planned to watch the movie, and Assam, Karnataka and Tripura governments held special screenings of the film.[49] In addition, in the states of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and West Bengal, which have opposition parties in power, BJP legislators have called for their respective state governments to make the film tax-free.[49] Across the country, BJP legislators have bought out screens for audiences to watch the movie for free.[49]

At the theatres, BJP-affiliated Hindu Right activists are seen to have raised slogans calling for violence against Kashmiri Muslims as well as Indian Muslims in general. In one instance, "Shoot the traitors" (Desh ke gaddaro ko goli maro salon ko) slogan was heard, making it look like a spontaneous outburst, but it was allegedly raised by members of the Hindu Jagran Manch, a member of the Sangh Parivar.[57] In Jammu, a Kashmiri Pandit activist and his family were heckled by a mob of activists allegedly belonging to the BJP, for he had labelled the film exploitative of the Pandit community.[58]

The film's runaway success at the box office has been credited to the extensive government support that it has received."

According to this anyone supporting Hindus is from BJP? What kind of people are editing this page? You are adding anything as per your wish. No one questions movies based on holocaust. No one questions movies based on 9/11. No one questions movies based on 26/11. Then why so much hatred for this movie? This movie is not a story but a true incident which is much more heart wrenching then what is shown in the movie still people trying to degrade it. Generally you ask for credible sources before editing the page but here you have clearly written that "desh ke gaddaron ko goli maaro salon ko" is targeted against muslims? Please keep your personal thoughts and opinions away while editing this page. The above quoted bold paragraphs clearly shows the hatred towards BJP and Government of India and Hindus. So kindly please check through this. Pratham0320 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for success

In the article, government support has been described as the only reason for success of the film. Meanwhile, other RS have provided multiple reasons for the same including: subject of the film, word of mouth, Kher's performance, Kapil Sharma controversy. This is also reported by the film companion , currently used in the Critical Reception section. However, it triggers a protection filter on wiki.

The reasons for film's success must be properly expanded. Wikihc (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA and HT-Entertainment are not reliable. FC as well as ET are good enough for adding a line on "word-of-mouth". TrangaBellam (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

DNA has some 8815 uses as a source on wikipedia . And HT is considered reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. I would be surprised if an article on bollywood is not on their entertainment->bollywood category. Wikihc (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

+ HT is considered reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Dsnb07 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Usage on Wikipedia is not evident of anything. Consult recent RSN threads about DNA. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide the link? Wikihc (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

dnaindia does not result in any search results in RSN archives. Also DNA is consider reliable per WP:ICTF.Wikihc (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That DNA page is a photo gallery credited to "Web team". Use of such churnalism sources doesn't do any favor to your arguments. Just because something appears on a website of a publication considered reliable, doesn't make it automatically worthy of inclusion. Hemantha (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:PHALKE in WP:ICTF itself refers to HT->Entertainment->Bollywood article as source. HT film review should accordingly also be included in the Critical Reception. Wikihc (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor, the HT review was removed because the reviewer has engaged in explicit promotion of the film, to the extent of weighing in on that Kapil Sharma non-controversy. Her previous extensive interactions with the director and the lead of the film have been uniformly effusive. How does that sound independent enough for inclusion here? (twitter<dot>com/search?q=from%3Amonikarawal%20AnupamPKher%20OR%20vivekagnihotri for previous interactions - change <dot>, somehow twitter search is blacklisted) Hemantha (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. X-Editor (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

This is fabricated piece written by anti hindu sold people. Please stick to facts, when Kashmiri Pandits were slaughtered, raped and killed, what is this other than GENOCIDE? India should ban fakepedia for propogating false narrative. 223.233.79.100 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

India should ban Wikipedia? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? X-Editor (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This talkpage has been semiprotected..

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

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

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

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

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

Typo

Please update Lead second para: the film was “released” — thanks! — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 21:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done --RegentsPark (comment) 21:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Political messaging and historical accuracy

Multiple issues -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What is the current situation of the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you call descriptive (motivation appears different [3], [4]), was challenged as WP:POV and reverted. There is no reason to re-include it without discussing and building consensus first. If and only when scholarly secondary RS appear that analyze the historical accuracy of the film, we can add them. See the policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

INR to USD conversions

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

Persecution of Shias in See Also

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

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

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

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

Request for Comments about adding that this is based on real life incidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we add that this is based on real life incidents in the body and lead? -Y2edit? (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people are requesting this.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Some sources have been cited here and I don't want to repeat it for fear of being sanctioned.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

In the second sentence of the article, "Fictional Storyline" should be removed as al-jazeera is not a reputable source of journalism. Also, Al-jazeera's own views towards a certain community has a direct conflict of interest with the film's views on the same community leading to biased views and false journalism. Stonebreaker18 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests are only for straight-forward issues that do not require discussion. Whether or not a particular source is reliable for a particular assertion can be discussed here. After that, the WP:RSN noticeboard would be an appropriate place to pursue the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so al-jazeera is not a reputable source of journalism and hence without proper citation that ending part of sentence should be removed. Stonebreaker18 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's just the word 'fictional' that you are concerned about, BBC also says it - The Kashmir Files, released on Friday, tells the fictional story ... - and is already referenced as well. Hemantha (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)