Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 13

RfC about article lede
How should the the film's subject/content be described in the article's lede paragraph? Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See recent discussions on this topic in talk-page archives 8, 9, 10 and 11. Three proposals for what the lede paragraph should say after the first sentence (i.e., after, The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri.) are as follows:

Survey
Note Please refrain from having threaded discussions in this section and be aware that the article and talkpage are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal B, with or without equivalent substitutions. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the second sentence in this proposal may or may not conform to some general preferences in WP:FILMLEAD, in the instance of a highly controversial movie&mdash;the subject of recent or current bans in several countries, calls for bans in India, and descriptions in the media as a potential powder keg&mdash;the sentence's countervailing presence immediately after, and not later in the lead, is important for neutrality.
 * The other proposals at the moment of writing (22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)) equate an exodus with genocide, which seems to be somewhat confusing, as an exodus is undertaken by those whose migration defines it, whereas genocide befalls those on whom it is perpetrated. Also, a film is of necessity a dramatization
 * I will not be participating further in this RfC, but wanted to acknowledge the help of many Wikipedia editors, whom I shall not name, allowing them the privilege of doing so themselves if they wish. I also wish to thank the other participants and especially the Wikipedia administrators for going the extra mile to make it possible. All the best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal B as it gives a more cautiously phrased summary, using accurate academic references to Kashmir history for those particular events; the other proposals seem less careful, with too much sourcing to hyped media headlines. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal A. WP:FILMLEAD asks us to summarise "the general premise of the film", which is clearly that there was a "genocide" (not "ethnic cleansing"). Our NPOV mission requires us to immediately counter it by what the scholars say. Any further elaboration has to wait to a later paragraph or the "Historical accuracy" section of the article. The "fictional storyline" phrase is also important because they film made a hue and cry about depicting real events, which is not exactly true as explained in the Political messaging and historical accuracy section.
 * I am opposed to Proposal C because it does not satisfy the NPOV mission. I am also opposed to the Proposal B because it ties itself in too many knots with plenty of WP:SYNTHESIS, especially in trying to bring in "conspiracies". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C
 * Any of the Proposal B's equivalent substitutions, plus to have been caused by a genocide for to be a genocide, and any other minor grammatical or stylistic changes are not contentious, and, at least to me, acceptable for Proposal C too.
 * My opinion on the contentious issues are: (a) WP:FILMLEAD is a guideline, bypassing it to include criticism in the first paragraph simply because of a controversy is not neutral. It wasn't done for other controversial or historically inaccurate films in recent memory (e.g. Cuties, 300 (film)), and it shouldn't be done here either.
 * (b) Calling claims of genocide a "conspiracy theory" is not supported by the sources cited, and in my opinion is borderline synthesis.
 * (c) Drama films based on historical events, even if historically inaccurate and with artistic liberties taken, as they usually are, to follow a fictional character, are described as fictionalised or dramatised in the lead in Wikipedia articles. "Fictional storyline" is not suitable wording for the lead. See e.g. Titanic (1997 film). regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal A (invited by the bot) With the caveat that I don't have the 30 wiki minutes to thoroughly learn all of this. My first (but complex) choice would very strong attribution throughout, prefacing each thing with "the film portrays ......" But "A" is the simple solution with the blanket "fiction" statement.   "B" is terrible, it is written in a way that (probably inadvertently) claims, in the voice of Wikipedia that the fictional items are factual. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal C >~ Proposal A >>> Proposal B: WP:FILMLEAD does not suggest to critique the content, right at the second line of the lead though I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir, and the intense criticism it has received on grounds of being a propaganda film. I am also inclined to think that dramatisation, as suggested in C, is a better word choice. Johnbod once remarked that 5 references on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble. This is exemplified in Proposal B: whoever has used the word conspiracy in describing any facet of the exodus has been cited (Duschinki (2018), being the prime example) to support a blunt sentence; Balcerowicz (2022) and Chowdhari (2019) does not have anything on conspiracy theories (casting severe doubts and/or flat rejection of ethnic cleansing claims etc. does not a conspiracy theory make) etc. That being said, I appreciate Version B's emphasis on the low fatality count etc. and esp. the part about politics of victimhood - they belong in the lead but not in the second line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal B because it details the mainstream view. I can tolerate proposal A, but I have strong reservations against Proposal C. First para of the lead summarizes lead. The first para should put the mainstream view strongly. I also believe that the lead should mention the fact that the film makers applied for the certification as a drama movie and never called it documentary etc. Source:  Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C is by far the best. Strongly oppose Proposal B - it is way off the mark, five citations and only one supports the "conspiracy" claim. The rest simply just dispute the claims, which is different from calling it a conspiracy theory. Borderline synth, as noted by User:TryKid.


 * Proposal A is still inconsistent with WP:FILMLEAD, controversies go in later in the lead, where this has already been covered adequately. Option C is the cleanest and most policy aligned version. >>> Extorc . talk  20:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C The opening sentence/first para should give just enough the context about the about the film per WP:FILMLEAD. Any sort of criticism/controversies/historical (in)accuracies should go in the succeeding paragraphs. The aim should be to achieve a well-balanced lead per NPOV, not stuffing everything possible in the opening line -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C: It is the most appropriate proposal out of the four. The film is not entirely fictional, and 'dramatisation' seems suitable. It plainly depicts what the film is about. Any differeces in opinion or any opposition can be mentioned later. Agree with the rational presented by TryKid. And I also oppose the usage of Indian-administered Kashmir, which can maybe be called Jammu & Kashmir. Kpddg  (talk)  15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C >~ Proposal D Proposal C is the best among A,B,C as option C is a brief neutral description consistent as per WP:FILMLEAD using NPOV words such as dramatisation, and avoiding controversies in the lead paragraph. Next, I prefer, Proposal D (in Discussion Section), which follows standard non-controversial WP:FILMLEAD and simple NPOV summary similar to most other Wiki movie pages (below 2 examples) {Controversial critique of genocide issue should not be in the first paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD} Jhy.rjwk (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)



Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

*Proposal A: It's important that the truth about this propaganda film as it's summarised in the current lede should remain there. First sentence in this proposal, film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus should stand anyway which is duly backed with reliable sources. Alternate proposal D could also be used along with the above first sentence. Further details about genocide depiction and its association with conspiracy theories could be given in second paragraph. USaamo (t@lk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Strike topic ban violation by the user, see user's talk page. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal A > B The film's narrative is centred around a conflict upon which considerable mainstream scholarship and historicity exists. Gauging from the discussion and sources, it goes without saying that both the film and its director have attracted controversy and strong, polarising opinions, and the reasons underpinning those would constitute a separate, lengthy debate. It would be imprudent, therefore, for the lead to not make note of the conflicting reception that is largely responsible for the subject's notability. Proposal A followed by B appears the best option at this point as it neatly summarises the issue. Proposal C should not be entertained as it violates WP:NPOV and doesn't adequately address the existing controversy.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal A I think it reads best and gets the point across. I don't C discusses its inaccuracies right, and B is overly convoluted. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C > A per and . UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C. All those talking about option A ignore the fact that it is blatantly violating WP:FILMLEAD. Option B not only has the same issue as option A, but is further an extreme misrepresentation of sources, specifically about "conspiracy theories". When 4 of the 5 citations don't support the claim, the claim is inaccurate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal C. Most comprehensive of all. Other proposals are close to breaching WP:TOOMUCH. Dhawangupta (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal A –  Proposal A best option here. As "A" satisfies both WP:FILMLEAD and WP:NPOV policies. Doesn't see "B" as a really good fit for lead, due to WP:NPOV. And Proposal C is totally outta equation, it's totally against what WP:NPOV tells us. I do have my sympathies for kashmiri Pandits and their losses, but I believe a fictional story should be called fictional and and any wrong claim, even in lead section, should be countered immediately after, with a scholarly opinion/fact (as in proposal A). Thanks Radioactive  (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C (with a minor caveat, "to be a genocide" -> "to be caused by genocide") for reasons described above. It is necessary that our article lead should note that what the film claims (that the exodus was triggered by genocide) is not in line with scholarly sources. But this is best done by operating within the guidelines set by WP:FILMLEAD–Criticism of any film does not belong in the very second sentence of the article. NPOV is not being contravened simply because the information appears in the succeeding paragraphs of the lead, that is the standard practice for most films (consider The Birth of a Nation, arguably the most controversial film of all time, or Triumph of the Will). These articles stick to the conventions described in FILMLEAD so I don't see a reason to treat The Kashmir Files differently. B is excellent prose and the parts of it that enjoy community support should be included in the third paragraph, clubbed with criticism of the film. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal C; it is sacrificing clarity and precision for brevity. I have yet to decide between proposals A & B. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I slightly prefer Option A over Option B. The content in B is good, but it's too early in the article to examine the veracity of it's claims in that much detail. Conversely, C is obfuscating the issue, and is an NPOV violation in addition to being a poor summary of the article. Option A does a decent job of getting the point across without getting too far into the weeds. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C Its brevity makes it the best proposal. The opening sentence should not be longer. If someone wants to know more about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, they can get more information by accessing its article. Any other controversy or divergence from reality should be placed in its own section, not in the opening sentences. AnneDant87 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Note: New user with a few edits outside of the discussion.
 * Proposal C per above comments and per WP:FILMLEAD. The first paragraph is supposed to be brief and to the point and should not include controversy. X-Editor (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal C is to the point and neutral wording following WP:NPOV rule. Rohmanh (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal C is by far the best. Short, simple and neutral. Other options are ok, but they raise other concern of perception, which, for a movie article shouldn’t be there. OpenMindedBloke  (talk ) 10:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal A with WP:FILMLEAD asking to summarize the most important aspects of the film, the notion that it's genocide and silenced, and WP:NPOV asking to achieve a neutral narrative — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal C (+ Proposal D) as per WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:LEADSENTENCE which neutrally introduces the film. It is the most direct and does not try to turn it into a news-style lead. Additionally, for the further paragraphs, Proposal B is not appropriate as the sources don't seem to support it without WP:SYNTH. Wikihc (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Proposal C. WP:FILMLEAD does not state that any "contentious" aspect of a film can not mentioned in the lead paragraph, it gives a description of what should generally be included, that does not mean that nothing else can be included. Not to mention what's contentious or not is mostly an editor's subjective opinion which should have no bearing on content. In this case omitting the fact that the genocide claim is considered highly inaccurate by scholarly accounts is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Claims that do not have mainstream acceptance need to be clearly specified as such and followed by the mainstream view so that readers are not mislead into assuming that it is an accepted view, this is non-negotiable policy. Proposal C thoroughly fails at doing so and gives an impression of plausibility. Otherwise prefer Proposal A over B, the latter has become convoluted and almost goes into a point wise refutation.


 * In addition, there are a couple problems with the RfC formulation itself. There are too many redundant citations in the proposal statements for things which are not disputed. This makes it more difficult for editors particularly ones who do not already have background knowledge to address the question. Secondly, the proposals A and B are subdivisions of what should have been one since the latter is an expanded version of the former, both including variants of the mainstream view addressing the genocide claim and the other omitting it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: The Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) defines dramatization as a play or film adapted from a novel or depicting a particular incident, giving the example the film is a dramatization of a true story. That is the sense I had in mind, and which I think I've seen used in many other Wikipedia articles too. I gather that not all films are dramatizations in this sense; most of them are original works not adapted from any novel or depicting any real-life incidents. Based on the definitions of fictionalisation in A Dictionary of Media Communication (3 ed.), 1. The transformation of actual happenings into fictional form; to represent real people or events in the manner of fiction and as if they were fictional: as in fictionalizing a biography. 2. A pejorative term for an overindulgence in dramatic licence. 3. A narrative based partly or wholly on fact but written as if it were fiction. Films and broadcast dramas of this kind often bear the label ‘based on a true story’., it also seemed like a good fit, though I couldn't find proper sources using it for the film. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That I have averred not to participate further in the RFC is not a carte blanche for participants to at first offer the excuse of lacking the time to learn about the issues, but sallying forth nonetheless to misinterpreting the issues, and, in your instance, arriving at two binaries "fictional" and "factual" with no shades of meaning between.  To "portray," in a transferred or extended sense, is to depict, imagine, picture, or represent. In no clause, phrase, or word of the first sentence in Version B is there an implication of factuality or for that matter of the fictional; the sentence sidesteps those issues as the information to judge either is not granted us.  This is all I have to say. I will ignore your judgment of "terrible."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Following on from Fowler&fowler, using a dictionary as a source to justify sentences in the lead goes against the way wikipedia is written. But besides that, writing a lead for an unconventional film like this is unlikely to follow regimented patterns, since it was promoted as a type of docudrama. Taking The Holocaust as a point of reference (even if it clearly isn't comparable), the docudrama Schindler's List was not well received by the director of Shoah; while in Poland, there were negative reactions to the 9-hour-long documentary. The reception and historical accuracy of The Kashmir Files share some of the problems with these two other films. Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason about why you introduce the qualifier early 1990s in the second line? It is already in the first line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Version A has another important bit: Agnihotri did portray not only the exodus as a genocide but also the events that lead to it . You might like to incorporate the information in your version. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The qualifier is an copy-paste artifact I missed to clean up after Shouldn't be too messy to make the minor grammatical change now, I'll change it.
 * I was hesitant as the sources only explicitly say the Exodus or the "events during the insurgency" (which continued after the Exodus) were depicted to be a genocide. I haven't watched the film and don't know if it compresses/changes all the events that happened after the Exodus to be before it, or leaves them in the right order while also depicting them as part of genocide. The events leading up to construction is a more sensible construction though, I'll change it, if it's hopefully also not too messy. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * None across the political spectrum in India doubts that TKF is depicting the exodus to be a genocide - why are so many citations needed? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is a legacy version. They were bundled in the main page. Abecedare unbundled them for the ease of the RfC participants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alternate Proposal


 * , this RfC is being supervised by an admin,, under an WP:ARBIPA regime. Your proposal is late in the game, does not enjoy WP:RFCBEFORE, and does not address any of the issues being debated in the three original proposals. I see it as an effort to muddy the waters. I suggest that you withdraw it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree that this proposal is late in the game, and I have been told by Abecedare on my talk page to put it in Discussion so I have parked it here. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

USaamo (t@lk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Strike topic ban violation by the user, see user's talk page. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you explain how C is a NPOV violation? NPOV applies to the article as a whole and also to the lead as a whole, since it is an executive summary of the article. NPOV does not apply to any random couple of lines, decontextualized from the preceding and succeeding passages. It is neither my nor TryKid's contention that the lead shy away from discussing the inaccuracies etc. and I will be the first to oppose any such ludicrous proposal. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Contrary to 's poor choice of words for the poser, we are not discussing what should be there in the lede paragraph.
 * MOS:LEAD states outright that [t]he lead section of a Wikipedia article is not a [..] "lede" paragraph. Also, consult the instructive example at MOS:NOTLEDE about Bhopal disaster. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal C is an NPOV violation because of its second sentence. The film's narrative is fictional, but is close enough to reality that disambiguating fact from fiction is necessary. The first two sentences of Inglorious Basterds do this well, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is part of WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Closure
Shall I post at ANRFC? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging just in case. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do. And thanks to all the participants. Abecedare (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and did it myself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear aBcdare, thanks and subliminal good luck in the decision making. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I look forward to reading the closure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Closure review
FYI: there is ongoing discussion on whether the above closure should be endorsed/overturned. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget estimation
Now that we have a range, the Estimation tag could be removed in the Infobox? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The range itself is an estimation. Hemantha (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agnihotri's Quote
On the recent addition of the quote, what does the buzzword-y sentence add really? It's meaningless even by his own POV (surely the film has been trumpeted as focusing the world's attention on the humanity of Pandits in Kashmir?) and isn't even a particularly witty turn of phrase. Hemantha (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (@Hemantha I've split your reply to separate the topics) I think Agnihotri's views on what the film is about are due enough to include. Re this quote, he stated that "Our film is very clearly about what happens when terrorism seeps in and when humanity is absent", a straight forward assertion of what the film is about — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Aarti Tikoo Singh review
@TrangaBellam CNN quotes her review in their article on the film. I think this review could be considered reliable ?

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. She is neither a notable critic nor a notable journalist. CNN may have quoted her due to her being a local journalist. Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Zee5 - Indian Sign Language
@Kautilya3 I suppose the removal is not intentional? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was intentional, because it is off-topic. Whether it was first or second or what else is really not about this film. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia description of The kashmir files movie
How something can be termed as fictional when all the incidents where taken from a documented past and records are properly kept 2409:4065:E17:497D:596F:8123:F11F:E579 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The opening credits of the film say that "This film... does not claim accurateness or factuality of historic events", so it would be a fictional storyline based on a true event. X-Editor (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022
Kashmiri files is not a fictional story. So i request you to change it 202.142.121.219 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --N8wilson 🔔 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also review guidelines for edit requests if you choose to resubmit with sourcing. Also note that this topic is controversial and has already been discussed in an earlier RfC on this page which reached consensus. A compelling case would need to be made in order for editors to support changes that depart from existing local consensus. --N8wilson 🔔 06:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)