Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 10

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

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

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


 * When a version remains in place for nearly a month after going through wild swings of the month before, it is not just the editors who have actively taken part in a formulation, it is the many watching who by not interfering give their consent. It was expressed by an admin at the FA India. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Version 1 by Kaultilya3, for various reasons expressed above. The stability might have something to do with the article being locked after the swinging period rather than any silent consensus, though I haven't looked at the history to confirm. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong Version 2. The read version 2 is at the bottom of the section Version (continued)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 1, obviously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2 is not the STATUS QUO. For the reason Version 2 see the bottom of the section Version (continued)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In a new subsection F&f counts 34 editors to have edited some part of the article from 4 April 2022, 17:24 to 6:51 2 May 2022, without bothering about the phrase "associated with conspiracy theories", thereby implicitly supporting v2 . I am pinging all of them—except those who have been topic-banned or indefinitely blocked or those who have retired—to provide their opinion: TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot solicit editors; you especially cannot solicit them for a forced straw-poll for which the choices are false. Version 2 is not the version of Fowler&fowler, but the WP:STATUSQUO.  The status quo was edited by TrangaBellam 23 times over the 24 days, see the history in the subsection below.  I am attempting to make sure that only Wikipedia policy is being followed, that this change has not been driven by external pressure despite protestations to the contrary, and that discussion in the sections above about alternative formulations be allowed to proceed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What if all of them had retired? Does that give you carte blanche to change what was the result of past consensus and remained stable for 24 days? There are also the page watchers who give implicit support.  See admin MilborneOne's eloquent post at the end of Talk:India/Archive_47  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only note the inherent irony in pinging a group of admins (not once, not twice, but thrice) to protect the page while requesting me to not "solicit" editors. And please stop waving a wiki-essay about status-quo as "Wikipedia policy" to stonewall discussions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Informing admins to keep an eye out is not the same thing as soliciting them to weigh in. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As to eloquence, we have an administrator stating today about how the default is to leave the text out when there is a dispute over the inclusion of some text in an article. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They said in a dispute "over the inclusion of some text in an article, the default is to leave the text out." The dispute here is over the deletion of longstanding text in the article. If Jayron can be cited for removal, we could remove every sentence in the FA India. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is no FA, which has underwent a community review. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the subject of intense focus by dozens of editors, among them some highly experienced ones, including authors of FAs Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Version 1 as more stable and faithful to reliable sources. >>> Extorc . talk  17:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2 is not the STATUS QUO. For the reason Version 2 see the bottom of the section Version (continued)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Version 1. Version 1 was based on a wider Consensus. Version 2 also appears against WP:NPOV. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Version 1 for the reasons already stated above. While I was hoping for more improvement, I can compromise with Version 1 for now.  ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 12:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2 seems more stable. In the third paragraph of version 1, the sentence about "negative reception" seems to be POV-pushing, with no nuance. It appears to have been cobbled together in an awkward way. The abrupt juxtaposition of the first half with the second makes it look self-contradictory. At the moment there doesn't yet seem to be any WP:consensus, despite claims otherwise. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the correct Version 2 see the bottom of the section "Version (continued)" Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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


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


 * I am pinging some experienced third-party Wikipedia administrators again, so they are aware.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Version (continued)

 * I don't really have the time to go through the barrage of links and information presented above, but I will propose wording for the opening sentence that I think may be the least controversial: "" I don't think we need the disputed sentence at all. Let me know what everyone thinks.--NØ 13:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It already has, "The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir." Pretty much every word in the sentence was subjected to a trial by fire. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The director, I note, has already expressed his disapproval of "fictional." See here. In other words, any effort to respond to what is understood to be external pressure, not WP policy, will not go far. Yours obviously is not that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , My objection to "fictional" and "conspiracy theories" was posted before Agnihotri's tweet, as far as I can see, and I have given policy based reasons for these in other sections many times. I don't think it's right to repeatedly insinuate that everything you oppose is being done under pressure after both editors and others have already clarified they are under no pressure. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not insinuating anything. But the fact remains that a page that is the focus of much Wikipedia and apparently wider attention remained stable for 24 days, and that "conspiracy theory" was removed (soon after the director's tweet) in a somewhat circuitous fashion by first removing it from the cited source's quoted text and thereafter removing the phrase for lack of support in the sources! As for pressure, I opened a specific thread above specifically addressing the issue.  All this nothing to do with you TryKid. That Wikipedia reacted rather quickly to the director's tweet is itself the subject of news. See here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editing activity obviously picks up when the article is in the news, and it can give old editors of an article a new perspective to look at things with, which clueless journalists might interpret as a monolithic Wikipedia giving into pressure. There's nothing sinister going on, there is nothing wrong with responding to an external suggestion if the changes are grounded in policy. It's not that much different from responding to requests on talk pages. It would be best to assume good faith on the part of editors, specially experienced editors posting here, that their suggestions and changes are due to policy considerations and for the reasons they give, and that they're not blindly removing or suggesting things because they felt threatened/under pressure because of a tweet. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Editing activity did not pick up at all, in fact there was more activity per day in the previous 24 days; only more edits attempting to delete the objects of the director's unhappiness. But it took a lot of previous effort to stabilize the article for those 24 days.  It was the work of many more editors than are now champing at the bit to take precisely that part out that the director was unhappy with, though they thought nothing about singling out the ruling party, the BJP, or Hindutva, half a dozen times in the days leading up to my arrival on this page in late March and setting it right. See the doozy from an edit of TrangaBellam before I arrived on the page: "The film has been endorsed, promoted and provided with tax-free status in multiple states by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party,[16][17] leading to significant audiences and commercial success.[18] Critical reception has been mixed,[16] the cinematography and the performances of the cast were described to be compelling,[22] but the film faced accusations of historical revisionism,[23] and of being propaganda aligned with the ruling party,[26] aiming to foster prejudice against Muslims.[27] Supporters have praised it for showing what they say is a part of Kashmir's history that has been overlooked,[13] while theatres across India have witnessed hate speeches including calls for killing Muslims, often provoked by activists of the ruling party and related Hindutva organizations"  And this is a film article.  Its lead had more references to the BJP, ruling party, and Hindutva than it did to the movie.  The same editors are now blaming me over half a sentence?  Seriously?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I absolutely have to choose, I'd say version 1 would be in line with policy (WP:ONUS) but leaving it with a disputed tag, at least temporarily is not necessarily out of line. In the end, I do not think this discussion is productive (and even less so the edit warring that took place over it), a better alternative at this point would be to go for an RfC on whether to include the disputed material or not. Per se I don't really prefer the lead whether it is, with or without it and think it needs restructuring as a whole as I have already said above. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on the restructuring part, wholly. The lead ought be far negative than it is.
 * But the edit-warring to keep a phrase that has lost the confidence of all active editors was disconcerting. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * >>> "The lead ought to be far negative than it is"
 * Do you mean far more negative? I don't know that Tayi is saying it is not negative enough. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote Tayi, I should say the lead as a whole as it stands at present appears watered down compared to the sum of RS coverage the film has. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Version 2 of F&f
This is an updated version 2 that was being favored by F&f and Mathsci (the first sentence also by TryKid and Kautilya3) in the relevant section  ("Please propose your edits here") above: The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be 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.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging . Please amend if you'd like to.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments on Version 2

 * If this isn't one already, it might be necessary to do a RfC on the claim that the "notion of the Exodus being a genocide is associated with conspiracy theories". And preferably along with a RfC on whether the first paragraph should even have the criticisms in there, seeing that might not be in accordance with WP:FILMLEAD. I don't think we are going to arrive on a consensus wording without an RfC if the "conspiracy theory" wording is insisted on.
 * The source you cite talks of "politics of victimhood" in neutral, theoretical terms. It has wildly different connotations in your phrasing, as if the Pandits are cynically pretending to be victims. The I can't decide whether this is more inappropriate than the conspiracy theory bit or not. The second source on Jammu political/Hindu nationalist narratives on Pandits also seems barely relevant to the "politics of victimhood" being associated with any claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing; it does not support the connonations present. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 04:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added more text from Datta if you think he is merely talking about theoretical categories. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to mull over FILMLEAD, whether it even applies to an event that is part movie, a large part to be sure, but not the whole nine yards. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Oh, okay. Please undo my removal. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)