Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Regarding spreading misinformation

Respected Sir/Ma'am, Wikipedia,

Hope your team are doing well. This article has been grossly edited and is filled with misinformation. This movie is purely based on true incidents and numerous testimonies by Kashmiri Pandits themselves. A particular section of the society causing such terror and genocide in Kashmir keeps on editing the page with fake news and misinformation with the intention of spreading Hinduphobia. They are insensitive towards the pain of the affected Kashmiri pandits.

Wikipedia has many regular reader, myself being one of them got shocked to read this page full of utter nonsense and cooked-up stories from anti-nationals and extremists. I believe your team and organization will do their own research and take necessary action to prevent spreading of fake and hurtful news.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Anonymous Avid Reader 2604:3D08:7C81:4700:1101:8778:553D:F851 (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@2604:3D08:7C81:4700:1101:8778:553D:F851 You're completely right. I too agree with you on the opinion that this article is full of misinformation and Anti-Hindu Propaganda. I've also been noting that many Wikipedia articles present an anti-BJP Propaganda. This article must be unlocked and be available to all editors rather than only anti-nationalists and anti-Hinduists. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

2604 and PadFoot2008, this article may have something you find interesting:A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia. If you know of good WP:RS that could be of use for the The Kashmir Files WP-article, bring them here so interested editors can take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Please consult the cites sources for further details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Widely considered"

The lede currently looks like this (Bold added by me):

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.

This academic article from Academia.edu does describe the exodus as a genocide. There are other scholarly sources that describe it as genocide or ethnic cleansing. There's no "conspiracy theory" in place as the lede claims. Some sources may disagree how to interpret this event, but there doesn't seem to be an academic consensus that this is "widely considered" to not be genocide. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The film calls it "genocide", not "ethnic cleansing". And, please don't bother mentioning unpublished or self-published work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

• 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)

Abecedare, RegentsPark, the issue is very clear cut. An RfC hasn't happened yet only because Fowler has changed goalposts mid-course. The lead paragraph as it apears now is "Version 2":

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.

The "Version 1" is the same text without the bod bit. TrangaBellam and I have opposed the bold bit because it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which requires multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail. But all we have is a vague allusion in Alexander Evans's journal article, without any discussion of the "conspiracy" about it.

The #Versions section did a straw-poll, where it is clear that Fowler is pretty much alone in his stance on the bold bit. The Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 11#Alexander Evans under question section probes what Evans actually says and how far we can take it.

Not also that there is no discussion about "conspiracy theories" in the body of the article, as required for MOS:LEAD, and no such commentary is even allowed in the lead paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD. So, all this is against policy, and against editor consensus. It is just one editor's effort to bully the community. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Not the place. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a version in place for most of the month of April which both you and your cohort TrangaBellam edited 8 and 23 times respectively, without a peep in objection about conspiracy theory. Before, that, when I arrived on the page, it’s lead was replete with gratuitous references critical of Hindu nationalism, the ruling party, and the BJP, allowing the film no heft or credit of its own, reducing its spectacular success to the waiving of the entertainment tax by the BJP government, changing my edit “it has been an extraordinary commercial success, which it has been according to the box-office returns, to “it has been a commercial success,” changing the longstanding edit, “the critical reception has been mixed” the acting has stood out for praise, etc. to “critical reception has been negative.” You and your cohort may not have necessarily made those edits but you did not make the slightest of whispered peeps in protest before my arrival on this page. It was left to me to make the BJP not sound like the favorite whipping boy of WP, and give the lead some sense of a film article. I was the one that gave the lead a smattering of a plot, the editor who made the article less about the BJP, and more about itself. Then the director made a Twitter post on May 1 excoriating WP about “conspiracy theory,” though his post was interpreted by the India to be an implicit reference in WPs article to “fictional” and to “Islamophobic,” the implication already much reduced by my timely intervention. On May 2 your cohort removed the Twitter-post-excoriated phrase from the article. When I reverted the edit on the grounds that a version was in place which was in effect the consensus version, as the phrase had remained unchanged despite nearly 200 edits to the article of which 23 hade been made by your cohort, but nary the briefest allusion was made to epithets of the overnight opprobrium. The Indian media, quick to jump at follow up opportunities reported the very next day that WP has caved in. |I then opened a new thread Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 8#The director's Twitter post. Other editors made what in my opinion were more nuanced replies. Your cohort TrangaBellam posted the reply, “Yeah, both Kautily3 and I are aware of the director’s rant but couldn’t care less.” Later you, Kautilya3, denounced the inclusion of the collocation “conspiracy theory” to be thoroughly out of line with Wikipedia policy, but perhaps aware that you had been part of a conspiracy of silence that batted nary an eyelid during its month long presence, you added the observation, “I am also glad that we have sense enough to review our content when concerns are raised in public.” which seemingly distanced you from your cohort’s characterization above. It also made wonder what WP policy this was for reviewing content. I reinstated the previous version blessed by your month-long silence, added a inline disputed tag to the new-found offensive collocation and opened another thread Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 9 I reinstated the previous version blessed by your month-long silence, added a inline disputed tag to the new-found offensive collocation and opened another thread Please propose your edits here, you and your cohort chose to ignore it altogether by starting a new thread which chacterized my reversion to the status quo, to be my version, even though those words were not mine, but Tayi Arajikate’s felicitous ones later tweaked by Bishonen’s good sense, both of which had my support. So, now admins have stepped in, and suggested something in line with WP policy and you attempting to second guess them, finding your new objections in more Wikilawering arguments around film articles, whereas I remain the one who has actually helped edit movie articles (see Heart of Thomas and its FAC. There are at least two proposed versions, one is yours resulting from the removal of the offensive words, there is one proposed by me, [[1]] and there is the status quo version currently in place with the disputed tag, which is might not be to our liking, but under whose reminding glare we must strive until a new consensus is reached. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Unless you strike the blatant personal attacks directed at me in your next edit to this talk-page, you will be at ANI. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Please take me to ANI. Enough of your persistent threats. Please be mindful of your recent post at FPC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC) @Abecedare and RegentsPark: can you please restrain Fowler&fowler from ranting all over agai?. We have heard all of this a hundred times before. And it has nothing to do with the issue on hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: So far the proposed versions are:

1. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate (citations as in current article)
2. The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be have been caused by 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. (citations listed here)

If anyone wishes to revise the versions, citations etc or write up something explaining why they prefer one over the other, please do so in your userspace and provide a link here that I can include in the RFC. Please do not try to use this section to re-argue the choice, article history, or editors, since its only aim is to decide on the opening question for the RFC, which I plan to start sometime on (say) Wednesday May 18th. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Updated v2 per comment. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

PS: I didn't include the status quo version in the above list since no one has said yet that that is the one they prefer. If it's anyone's first choice, please speak up anytime before the RFC starts. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thank you for the posts here. I think version 2 should be, “to have been caused by …”. It was my error. Also, any chance the RFC could begin Thursday May 19? Not a big deal, but the next three days are inconvenient for me. I may or may not take part in the RFC, but I do want the citations and the supporting arguments to be in place before it begins. You may remove or collapse this post after you have acted on it, howsoever you do. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thursday should be fine. I have updated v2 as per your note. Any other (minor or major) updates to either of the two versions are also welcome since, at this point, we shouldn't feel constrained to stick with any particular prior proposal merely due to path dependence. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare, sorry for the last minute showup, I propose this Version 3 for the RfC: The film presents a fictionalised storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. I'll put the supporting rationale in the RfC vote, mostly condensing previous discussions. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: See the proposed RFC draft in my sandbox. Please feel free to edit the wording, references etc pertaining to your own proposal; and, if anyone can fix the " harvnb error", that would be great! Suggestions to tweak the framing or formatting of the RFC are welcome too. As long as it suits everyone involved, I intend to start off the actual RFC in 24ish hours. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: Unless one of you asks me to hit the pause, I'll post the RFC (as it stands at that moment) in a couple of hours. Sorry for the repeated pings, but bugging you now since it gets much messier and confusing to make any changes in the proposals once the RFC goes live. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks Abecedare. I think we are ready to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Done The RFC is live now.

@Fowler&fowler, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: can you copy over your comments in the Survey section from my sandbox to the actual RFC? I didn't do so myself so that (minor reason) the attribution and time-stamps are clear and (main reason) because some of the proposals were edited after some of those comments, and you may therefore choose to modify the comments accordingly.

Lastly, thanks to all of you for the time, effort and diligence you have shown in the effort to get the article lede right. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Request to add some information and remove some misinformation from the page 203.219.205.246 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 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. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

This is not a fictional movie Milindgoel1990 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a true story Milindgoel1990 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Blood soaked rice and the use of opinion pieces in wiki voice

In this edit, it has been added that the idea of forcing his mother to eat the blood-soaked rice is apparently made up by the movie, as Mrs. Ganjoo disowned it. with a citation to an opinion piece. The cited opinion piece reads: Ganjoo’s brother said he had never heard of it, and that his sister-in-law had never mentioned it either, which cannot be used to imply that Mrs. Ganjoo disowned it. It can also not be used to present the interpretation of BK Ganjoo's brother's words by the author as that of Mrs Ganjoo's words. However the Political messaging section is rife with views in opinion pieces presented as facts in wiki-voice. In this case, there is extrapolation even from the opinion piece.

Nevertheless, the incident of Mrs. Ganjoo being forced to eat her husband's blood soaked rice is not "a recent add on". It has been noted across the decades.

• Testimony of Sunanda Vashisht in the US Congressional hearing on Human rights 2019, [2]
• D.N. Dhar, Kashmir, a Kaleidoscopic View, 2005 - Page 152
• Salman Khurshid, Beyond Terrorism: New Hope for Kashmir, 1994 - Page 61

Wikihc (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will revert it for now. But it doesn't really check out. Stories like this, once generated, circulate. And nobody knows where they came from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed to a version, more accurate to source:

But the additional portrayal of militants forcing his wife to eat the blood-soaked rice was rejected by Ganjoo's brother as 'fiction'; he emphasized that the family was never consulted while making the film.

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikihc had a valid objection to K3's usage of an opinion-piece, I have cited the feature from The Print which is referenced by Kak but without attribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

But where did he "emphasize" that the family was never consulted?

The version about the neighbours that I had heard, in one of Sushil Pandit's talks (paraphrasing from memory) is that the neighbours told the militants that Ganjoo was in the house and he had not gone out anywhere. When the militants replied that they had looked everywhere, they asked, have you checked the attic? This was probably speculation as well, but better than the brother's theory that they neighbours had peeked into the attic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Ali Fayaaz. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So, it looks like Salman Haidar's book is the first place it got put into print. No information as to where he got it from. The family as clueless about it as the rest of us. And the ex-bureau chief of Daily Excelsior is asking questions rather than answering them. We are in good shape. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Genocide of kashmiri pundits is a historically established fact. The page should be edited to remove that this is merely a conspiracy theory. This statement is biased, lacks backing of historical facts and a propaganda. 2601:646:9D81:130:6952:F226:3B63:BE8B (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for this change.--RegentsPark (comment) 23:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be an RfC above that deals with this. You might want to consider opining there (with reliable sources).--RegentsPark (comment) 23:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Biased editing of this article

Left leaning editors and admins are at work to set up narrative that this movie is a conspiracy theory and and it has a fictional storyline based on the editorials of BBC which is widely recognized as anti India and anti Hindu. Also Al Jazeera which is widely biased and have an anti India stand as indicated by trainload of authors Hope wikipedia to be neutral encylopdia free from the clutches of allged distorians and the left leberal wiki editors. Hope @Jimbo Wales: care to look into this issueIpdesign1 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: dont rev again, dont engage in an edit war on talk. I have pinged @Jimbo Wales: to have a look into this matterIpdesign1 (talk)

Ipdesign1, welcome to Wikipedia. All the sources used in the article are reliable sources. If you have an issue with any of them, please take it to WP:RSN. We can't take your view that somebody or something is "left leaning", whatever that means. But multiple reviewers and scholars echoed the same or similar views. As such, the article meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV criteria. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

fyi 'left leaning' means those editors of wiki who have an inclination, affection and support towards political left ideology. Ipdesign1 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Look, it's hardly helpful to frivolously accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "left ideology." POV-pushing is not accepted here. Pinging Jimbo ain't gonna help, he don't care. Firestar464 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

He may very well care, but conclude that him weighing in here will not improve things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Budget estimation

@Tigerikkada The quoted source explicitly mentioned that the budget is an approximate which is why we also mentioned it as estimation in the infobox and elsewhere — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'd noticed that there is a range of estimates out there for the budget. There are claims of 6 to 10 cr by industry insiders and others. On the other end is 25 cr by GQ India as well as IE. All these sources appear equally reliable (or I should say, unreliable). If we are to carry a number, what would the thoughts be about carrying a range, say 10cr to 25cr, citing Moneycontrol and GQ India? Hemantha (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with going for a range with a note mentioning the estimates by various sources -- Ab207 (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha Could you also propagate it to the lead and Production section? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've updated now. Hope the template formatting is okay. Hemantha (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for updating. No need to be sorry mate ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

not a fictional movie based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus 49.36.185.131 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. See discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Fictional or reality

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.

---

Is Wikipedia an authority to decide whether Kashmir Files is fake or real , Users here are giving bias information and linking un realated links Het666 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, Het666, Wikipedia is not an authority, people get to present reasoned arguments, supported by evidence, about what Wikipedia should say. If you have read all the lengthy discussions and the supporting references (I certainly haven't), and still have something more to add, then do so. If you want to refute others' assertions, then you will need to give details, not just a blanket assertion that some links are unrelated. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the film is based on facts which was done in form of genocide of Kashmiri Pandits WikiIntellectuals (talk) 22:24, 14 June 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.

Cite error

I don't understand why the ref #36 is throwing an error. Could someone fix it? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Ab207 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnihotri's "humanity tour" in Britain

Apparently caused a scene in Cambridge. You can read the whole saga by going to the top of the thread. Some media coverage: [3] [4] (webcache)

This comes on top of a previous scene at Oxford. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to include this in the article? I'm not sure how it is related to this movie... Kpddg ^(talk) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not yet. Just gathering information for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This incident would however not be related to the movie. Perhaps you may want to include it in his own article when enough information is known. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We could say in the music section: "The director Mr Agninotri has taken to singing the Oxbridge Blues." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Newyorker

“The Kashmir Files” is not subtle. Numerous scenes show angry and bloodthirsty Muslims leering at Hindu women, and inflicting torture and humiliations upon Hindu families. Though Hindus make up four-fifths of India’s population, the film presents Kashmir as a cautionary tale—that a large group of Muslims could at any moment turn against Hindus. To see it as anything other than a glorified exercise in stigmatization and fearmongering would be a mistake. And it was released in India at an especially perilous time. Communal violence directed at India’s Muslim minority has risen steeply in recent years.

While “The Kashmir Files” seeks to portray the genuine hardships faced by Kashmiri Hindus, it is missing vital historical context.

Recently, on Twitter and in the press, [Vivek Agnihotri] has attacked much of the coverage of the movie, saying it is based on an anti-Indian and anti-Modi agenda. His rhetoric echoes that of many of Modi’s supporters, who attribute opposition to the Prime Minister’s policies—and concerns about Indian democracy—to a bigoted anti-Hinduism.
— Chotiner, Isaac (2022-06-21). "What a Disturbing New Film Reveals About Modi's India". The New Yorker.

Anyway, please read the entire interview. Quite a read esp. with Chotiner's excellent interjections. We have much to add to the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I did this morning. Chotiner was thoroughly under-prepared. Threw Agnihotri softballs. Or should I say a beachballs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you guys are making up stuff. “The Kashmir Files” is a soft, emotional film. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore - Muscular secularism

Singapore’s decisive stance on the film is reflective of its robust, interventionist approach to the management of multiculturalism and diversity in the city state. The governing People’s Action Party in Singapore has long perceived issues of ethnicity and religion as highly sensitive and requiring close management. Academic Walid Jumblatt Abdullah has referred to this as muscular secularism – “a direct, interventionist approach” to ensure “the submission of religion to the overarching authority of the state, rendering the state the final arbiter in all affairs within its borders”. ... While Singapore favoured a ban as a means of protecting its secularism, the BJP used the film as a way to legitimise its Hindu nationalist discourse, further fracturing communal relationships in an increasingly polarised India.
— Chakraborthy, Antara; Prakash, Pravin (27 May 2022). "A tale of two countries: interpreting The Kashmir Files". The Interpreter. Lowy Institute.

The Interpreter publishes op-ed like articles. Could this be considered reliable for the above sentences related to Singapore's ban? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Popular myth among some Wikipedians is that Oped are banned here. Please click on WP:RS and do a ctrl + f for Opinion on that page. Reliability is discussed in relation to what it is being used to cite. What is the causing concern about the content in this page this source is cited for? Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022 (2)

"The Kashmir Files is based on a true story of genocide of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslims. It represents the atrocities faced by the Kashmiri Pandits and their genocide and is widely acclaimed for boldly showing the true story." 45.64.86.127 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 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. Grabup (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)