Talk:The Kashmir Files

"under the watch of a Bharatiya Janata Party government" phrase is false and misleading.

"under the watch of a Bharatiya Janata Party government" phrase is false and misleading. India has central and state governments possibly being governed by different parties at a time. Since at that time in 2003 Indian Kashmir was being ruled by state government formed by National Conference it creates wrong impression that a different party had formed the government in Kashmir. The fact that Bharatiya Janata Party too has historically formed state government in Kashmir makes it more confusing.

The issue at heart is that while describing law and order issue of a state which comes under jurisdiction of state government, information about state government has been omitted while incorporating information about central government without any hint that information pertains to central government and not the state government.

It is interesting that the original article referenced has no such ambiguity but the Wikipedia article creates this ambiguity. So this is not a flaw inherited from the referenced material but a flaw that originated at Wikipedia. Gauddasa (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is as per the source. Note that the film blames Indian National Congress without any compunctions of the kind you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says "under the watch of an apathetic central government". Do you really think wording on Wikipedia matches with the source by omitting "central government"? Also are justifying lack of clarity in Wikipedia by saying that the topic of the article (film) lacks clarity too? I did not object to replacing "apathetic central government" by "Bharatiya Janata Party" while quoting, I objected to removing "central government" that creates serious confusion, on neutral journalistic grounds. At least please be faithful to the source material. Gauddasa (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The source says "The killings took place in 2003, under the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please go back to the source and read the next like also,

"The killings took place in 2003, under the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Going by the chronology of the film, it happened in the early 1990s, under the watch of an apathetic central government with a leader who sounds suspiciously like Rajiv Gandhi."

Do you see that first sentence clearly mentions the name of prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and eliminates confusion between the state and central government? Do you see that the second sentence explicitly mentions "central government"?

But the sentence on Wikipedia introduces confusion between state and central government as it is not clear which government the sentence is referring to, and since law and order falls under state government's jurisdiction, the reader is more likely to make wrong inference. Interestingly the source does not suffer from this kind of ambiguity. ram das ᵐᵘˡʰⁱᵈ 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit regarding IFFI

@MBlaze Lightning: Could you explain why the statement is undue? If the support of some jurors merits inclusion, the denial from the jury should also merit inclusion.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi CapnJackSp, first things first, due weight is deduced on the basis of the prominence afforded to a viewpoint in reliable sources. The source you cite for the dubious claim that the festival jury disavowed the observations of its chief juror appends a laconic one-liner on it which doesn't help establish the due weight you lended to it in the prefatory paragraph of the concerning section. Secondly, and this follows from the first point, the bigger red flag is with regards to its veracity itself. Lapid aired the jury's collective appraisal of the film and reliable sources attest to it. The other jurors avowedly endorsed his observation as embodying their consensus. If you can cite a source that makes the claim and substantiates it, we can revisit this. In conclusion, not only is the line UNDUE and inexplicable, but stands out as jarring too in the context of the expressed solidarity amongst jurors. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You have still not explained exactly why it is undue weight, especially one line in two paragraphs that points out that he was at least partially lying when he said it was the "jury's opinon" and not his own. Calling it a dubious claim seems inappropriate when its been well substantiated in RS. If you want the sources, here are a few:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Doubtless there will be more if I look more, these turned up in a single google search.

As for your comments that it is "jarring", it seems to be rather elementary to me. He said something as "jury's opinion", it was pointed out that the jury hadnt discussed anything like that and it was his personal opinion, but later a few members of jury supported his viewpoint. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be banking gratitiously on Sudipto Sen's purported dissent in the chimera of discrediting the jury's critique. It had been brought up in the original discussion concerning it too, where it transpired that his was an inauthentic account of the jury's decision-making and that he had concocted a dissent under duress.[4] Sen later avowed to being part of the jury's consensus opinion. The Wire's reportage touches on his categorical confession and testimonies of other jurors.[5] Sen avowed that he demurred only on the question of "going public", for he didn't wish to incur the wrath of the tyrannical regime in India, and understandibly so, for he was the only Indian national on the jury board. Do you still wish to dredge up this muck now? Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

BO as of in lead

Been a year, I think we can remove it now as there won't be any day-to-day revisions? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Antisocialxme (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC) I want to add information in the hate speech section of the Kashmiri Files, Mamta Banerjee's statement over the movie.

@Anshuchoudhary28, Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources. DreamRimmer (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)