Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin

WikiEdu - Spring 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 18 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YadiraZhang, Jiawei Lu, Nortontwo, Huilinyan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Danauca, Yunzhe Xu, Tannerfoweraker, Katy Shi, Kristin Liu, Zeddd1. 00:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plot?

This article about a movie that has garnered over half a billion dollars in ticket sales should at least have some sort of plot summary. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is blocked in China. The film is probably not shown outside China, absolutely not in the U.S.. No distributor has been willing to do it, such as China Media Capital, or China Lions, therefore without seeing it, it's hard for anyone to write a plot. Similar things happen to 1921 (2021 film), unless there are Chinese audience willing to write in English. Supermann (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The movie will premiere in the U.S. and Canada on Nov 19. We will soon find out the plot. Supermann (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The movie is now widely available in cinemas, for instance in Britain's Cineworld. BeŻet (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Movie industry becoming self-reliant

The fact that this film is dependent mostly on domestic audiences yet was able to earn such a high box office take. It shows an emerging trend of Chinese films no longer needing international appeal to be successful. Should we also add that fact in since almost every mainstream Media article is talking about it when it mentions this film. That this particular blockbuster movie has spurred wide discussion on how Chinese film industry has become self-reliant and worrying Hollywood industry. Nvtuil (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda film

Reliable sources consistently describe this as a straight-up propaganda film (it was literally made by the Chines government). I fail to understand why "propaganda film" is not in the lead and why the body of the article says that "some" characterize it as a propaganda film (as if it were an opinion held by some). Reliable sources describe it as a propaganda film, it's not random opinions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans the second paragraph of the lead section sort of gets at that when it details the film’s relationship with the CCP. However the more innocuous title of Publicity Department of the CCP is used instead of Propaganda Department of the CCP so that might be worth changing if you really wanted to highlight the propagandistic element of the film Estnot (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we apply this same reasoning to films made with money provided by the US military? Top Gun doesn't have a line in the lead describing how the US Navy rewrote the script or how the production crew was partially funded and trained with/produced in conjunction with US military advisors and press agents. NPOV applies to the countries that don't speak English, you know. AScanner (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutrality policy or guideline. You can look it up yourself. Supermann (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't mean a whitewashing policy. --Ifnord (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you. There is also a "not a soapbox" on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And I have been accused of that by some editors here. Better not pin your hope on Wikipedia. Supermann (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dispute" in the lead paragraph -- this is actually addressed by one of the linked sources already used in the article. https://new.qq.com/omn/20210613/20210613A049W400.html Posters5 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Translation from the article -- "The film "Changjin Lake" was planned, created and filmed under the direct guidance of the Central Propaganda Department and the National Film Administration. It also received strong support from the Propaganda Bureau of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission, the Propaganda Department of the Beijing Municipal Party Committee, and the Propaganda Departments of the Liaoning and Hebei Provincial Party Committees."

User:Posters5 this is a point that would be better made in the request for comment or Name of Department discussion sections below Estnot (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

--Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I would like the "Reception" and "Controversies and inaccuracies" section expanded, to see examples of inaccuracies, like on other western films that contain inaccuracies. Such as in The Patriot film, there is concrete examples. In this way the reader can make up their own mind to they find those examples as "propaganda" or not. I don't personally care either way if it is or not, but rather that there should be a higher standard on Wikipedia, not like now as I'm writing this, where the article says among other things; "The movie has been described as propaganda.[17][51][52][53] The Telegraph described it as an “anti-US propaganda film”, while the BBC wrote that it was “Chinese propaganda”." Okay, what makes it "Chinese propaganda"? Sure, personally I probably know the answers, but still, really low quality stuff.

Can we use sources that are not a) drenched in bias ("Why we should be wary of China's renewed interest in the Korean War"); a renewed interest would unveil the corrupt, inhuman, fascist rise of South Korea and the US's destructive part in it, ie, "it should stay forgotten, because it would make us look bad", and b) can we include the accusation of propaganda on virtually every American movie ever produced? I think this would balance out the decrepit, smelly anglo-chauvinistic ideology that pervades the entirety of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podfarming (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Improper synthesis

User:Nvtuil these opinions which you have edit warred to re-add appear to constitute improper synthesis as they were not made in response to criticisms of the film. Indeed they were made months prior to the film even being released and in response to a completely different topic. on top of that there are also sourcing and balance issues as well. Please discuss or this will have to be removed. Estnot (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Estnot, before you written the above message to me. I already removed it as I agree in part, that the scholars weren't referring (specifically) to the film. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052059507 And I had already removed it myself. Nvtuil (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is what he wrote

@Estnot I read his article and he did indeed say it is "arguably state propaganda". His own words. Etc

Scott Mendelson Forbes Staff

I actually saw the film last night at IMAX, so I can certainly see why it’s performing well. It looks spectacular and you can see the money on screen with the copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces. Some of the effects are a little dodgy (especially in terms of explosions and vehicle destruction), but the practical stunt work and fight scenes are pretty damn impressive. There’s a mid-movie sequence that just transitions for around 28 minutes from one kind of peril (tank fights!) to another (knife fights!) with a remarkable relentlessness that would make George Miller nod in approval.

Yes, it is arguably “state propaganda,” in that it revels in the notion of the Chinese army beating back American forces in the early days of the "War to Resist American Aggression and Aid Korea." The victory decimated General McArthur’s declarations that the war to aid South Korea in beating back invading North Korean forces would be ‘over by Christmas.’ So, no, this isn’t a nominal military engagement being repackaged as a big-deal historical event. I would argue the “propaganda” elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments, with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes. Nvtuil (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

as a first step, please present the final version of your summary of Mendelson’s review. I can’t have a productive discussion pinpointing the exact areas of disagreement I have with your summary when you keep changing it as if you were moving pieces on a movie set. Estnot (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I already gave it. What possible issues can you possibly have with it?

"Reviewing the movie for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said that while the film was "arguably state propaganda", it was no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers and "the film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men". He said that after watching the film that he can understand why the movie was performing well as it looks spectacular and one can "see the money on screen with the copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces". He argued that the “propaganda elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments, with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes." Nvtuil (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what's been published. If you have issues, then go tell me it. But DON'T stonewall and claim we need to delete well sourced solid information from the article. You have to actually give a genuine compelling reason on Talk on what issues you have with it (which I doubt there is genuinely any). I have seen that on this article, you kept deleting over and over any mere mentions of Chinese victory in the (Plot section) at least 8 times despite that is ridiculous. Given that it's obviously what the movie is about as described in many mainstream articles. Why do that? Regardless not playing that game with you. You either give a reason here but I am not censoring Scott's review. Nvtuil (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

a couple of issues:

a) I’m not censoring you. The problem is that you’re not following policy. WP:BRD and WP:ONIS clearly means that you’re the one at fault for restoring this controversial material

b) he doesn’t say it was “no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers”, he says it was arguably no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers. If you’re going to qualify what he said about the movie as state propaganda then you must also qualify what he said about the movie’s jingoism compared to other movies

b) the structuring of the paragraph is strange. Since the review is being used as part of the section concerning its reception as a propaganda film it only makes sense to cite everything that he thinks about this film that is related to propaganda upfront. You have confusingly broken up the flow so that his views on that matter now appear at the beginning and the end of the review.

c) "the film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men" this part seems to contradict his argument that the film is no more jingoistic than other movies

d) it does not include his comparison of the film with The Eight Hundred where he describes it (Lake Changjin) as a “generic war actioner”

e) “He said that after watching the film that he can understand why the movie was performing well as it looks spectacular and one can "see the money on screen with the copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces"” a lot of bloated information in this section needs to be cutEstnot (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

When he says that the movie is arguably "no more jingoistic" than the mentioned American war films. He meant that it's not as jingoistic as them. That it is not that bad. And his own words that "the film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men" supports his statement that the movie is not extremely jingoistic but shows the enemy as human beings in a kinder light. There is no contradiction at all. It perfectly supports what he said. How can you not comprehend that? Nvtuil (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you deliberately do this but you also made completely wrongful accusation towards me here to justify removing the info. I didn't do what you had accused me of doing at all, and you do owe me an apology.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052064517 Nvtuil (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also the sentence structure is not weird. It highlights what he says about propaganda. That only in the (final parts), he sees the arguable propaganda surface but for the rest of the film, it's pretty dry in the propaganda department. When I include his full exact quote, it shows the full context of why he had said the word "dry". When you simply say that he called the film as "dry" without giving any context, people won't understand why he use the word dry. He meant the rest of the movie is dry om propaganda and is mostly a generic normal war film overall. This is why I include his full quote so there is no more dispute and fuss about what he said. Nvtuil (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A) you write: When he says that the movie is arguably "no more jingoistic" than the mentioned American war films.

that is not what he said. What he said was It’s arguably no more jingoistic, at least until the final montage, than (offhand) Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers. What he did not say was “It’s no more jingoistic, at least until the final montage, than (offhand) Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers.” By taking out the word “arguably” and presenting his view in objective voice you distort his position (and gives readers the correspondingly distorted impression) by presuming he does not think the movie can (all along) be more jingoistic than the other ones.

B) you write: And his own words that "the film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men" supports his statement that the movie is not extremely jingoistic but shows the enemy as human beings in a kinder light. There is no contradiction at all. It perfectly supports what he said. How can you not comprehend that?

Because citing that part of the review in the decontextual way that you did would at best not explain how the movie is (arguably) not as jingoistic as other films and at worse give readers the misleading impression that the movie is not jingoistic (and hence contradict his position that the movie is not as jingoistic as other films) Not as jingoistic does not mean not jingoistic. That is why it would be more appropriate to use the sentence he wrote before: It has more interest in making China look good than in making America look “bad.”

As for the rest of your post, it does not make any sense so I will not take the time to really respond to it. To take just one example he uses the word “dry” to explicitly refer to movie itself: the exact quote is with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes. Your assertion that “dry” refers to the movie’s propaganda quotient is bizarre to the point of incomprehension.

As an improvement I propose the following.

“Reviewing the movie for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said that while the film was arguably state propaganda, it was also arguably no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers, adding that the “‘propaganda’ elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments.” He further described the movie as spectacular with its “copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces” against what was a “pretty dry war picture” and a “generic war actioner” when compared with The Eight Hundred.”Estnot (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You're arguing now that Scotty contradicts himself with his own statements like the america soldiers were portrayed in a humanised light. He doesn't contradict himself. He mentions that for most of the film, he didn't see any overt arguable propaganda except for the final part.

I suggest we clarify on what Scotty deems as propaganda here at minimum.. He had watched the film and states that the propaganda element (which is arguable) is when the Chinese rub it in to General McArthur and mock his words that he will finish the war quickly and bring the troops home by Christmas. And that the Chinese ultimately pushed out the UN forces from North Korea. To him, it's debatable whether that is truly propaganda but Scotty says that this kind of arguable propaganda only surfaces in the final parts. But for the rest of the movie, it was pretty dry and just your generic war film. .

Regardless let's settle this by quoting what Scotty said in full about propaganda element.

• this was Scotty statement in regards to the propaganda element in the film:

"Yes, it is arguably “state propaganda,” in that it revels in the notion of the Chinese army beating back American forces in the early days of the "War to Resist American Aggression and Aid Korea." The victory decimated General McArthur’s declarations that the war to aid South Korea in beating back invading North Korean forces would be ‘over by Christmas.’ So, no, this isn’t a nominal military engagement being repackaged as a big-deal historical event. I would argue the “propaganda” elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments, with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes. It’s arguably no more jingoistic, at least until the final montage, than (offhand) Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers. It has more interest in making China look good than in making America look “bad.” The film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men. That said, this is far more of a rah-rah epic than last year’s grim and comparatively self-critical The Eight Hundred. There’s nothing as jaw-dropping as that film’s sequences of doomed Chinese soldiers holding off a key warehouse while wealthier Chinese citizens watch as if it’s an evening’s entertainment from across the street. It’s frankly a generic war actioner."

When we quote him fully. We let the readers decide for themselves and the quote is full. So there be no more dispute on misinterpreting what Scotty said. Nvtuil (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And my original disagreement with your edit is that you had removed context of why he said the rest of the film was "dry". When you remove the first half of his sentence and then call the movie as dry. Readers will not truly understand what he meant by it. The current edit shows his full quote and is good enough already unlike your edit below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052064517

You wrote :

He also described the film as looking spectacular with “copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces”, a “pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes,” and a “generic war actioner.”[34].

I wrote

He argued that the “propaganda elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments, with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes.

My edit shows his full quote and gives context on why he is calling the rest as dry. Also I adding "arguably jingoistic" since you nitpick over it. I have put it in. No drama necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052224102 Nvtuil (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless I propose this improvement:

Reviewing the movie for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said that while the film was arguably state propaganda in that it revels in the notion of the Chinese army beating back American forces and decimating General McArthur’s declaration that the war would be over by Christmas. It was also arguably no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers, adding that the arguable “‘propaganda’ elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments.” He further stated he can certainly understand why the movie was performing well as the movie was spectacular with its “copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces”. Nvtuil (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say he contradicts himself with his own statement. I said the way you are using his statement makes it look like he is contradicting himself. You’re also conflating what he says about the film that is propagandistic with what is jingoistic. The part where he talks about the film’s treatment about US soldiers relates to his views about the film’s jingoism, not propaganda.

Once again citing just the part of the review where he says the film treats American soldiers as mere opposition forces who care about their own men does not explain how the movie is (arguably) not as jingoistic as other films and at worse give readers the misleading impression that the movie is not jingoistic (and hence contradict his position that the movie is not as jingoistic as other films) Not as jingoistic does not mean not jingoistic. That is why it would be more appropriate to use (if at all) the sentence he wrote before: It has more interest in making China look good than in making America look “bad.”

The context surrounding his description of the movie as “dry” is that the action sequences are (in his words) spectacularly done. Or to put it another way the movie is “dry” in comparison to the copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces. It is a similar situation when he describes the film as a “generic war actioner”: the context surrounding this description is another war movie with specific qualities. Or to put it another way the movie is a generic ear actioner in comparison to the far more of a rah-rah epic than last year’s grim and comparatively self-critical The Eight Hundred. Your proposed text not only removes this contextual information but removes these two descriptions entirely.

Just for clarity’s sake this is my proposed summary

“Reviewing the movie for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said that while the film was arguably state propaganda, it was also arguably no more jingoistic than Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers, adding that the “‘propaganda’ elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments.” He further described the movie as spectacular with its “copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces” against what was a “pretty dry war picture” and a “generic war actioner” when compared with The Eight Hundred.”

Since it is clear you are not really reading the argument I am making I have asked for an outsider to look at this discussion Estnot (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Funny I was honestly thinking the same about you. You are conflating what he said. He was saying that vast bulk of the film was a pretty normal generic war film, and the arguable propaganda parts only surface at the end. But compared to "The Eight Hundred", this film was much more of a rah-rah epic. He only calls it a pretty dry war picture as in dry in propaganda as shown in his full quote.

I would argue the “propaganda” elements only really rise to the surface in the final moments, with the rest of the film being a pretty dry war picture with some impressive scale and action scenes.

And never once said the movie was a pretty dry war picture” and a “generic war actioner” When compared with The Eight Hundred.” He very clearly said it was more a rah rah epic when compared to The Eight Hundred, and that overall the film is just a normal general action war film.

Honestly you're making a mistake but I don't care so much to constantly argue you over this. From my view, it's 92% correct and 8% unprofessionally outright wrong but I have added in your proposed summary, that is written in your own words.

Nvtuil (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are we solving something here or just arguing because I don't see any consensus between the two of you and no one else appears to be involved (TLDR). Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

the issue has been resolved. My version of the summary was agreed upon Estnot (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Estnot: you have violated the three revert rule, making at least 8 or more reverts within 24 hours ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). Could you refrain from editing the article for a while? BeŻet (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sequel: Watergate Bridge / Shui Men Qiao / Bridge Shuimen?

Anyone ventures a guess what the geographical name is in the West? I can't imagine it's gonna be Watergate Bridge. Look forward to the official translation, but in the meantime would like to find out the English equivalent on the western map. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Estnot:, if you read suicide attack and then suicide attack#Korean War, you can see not just the Chinese used the tactics during the war. The South Koreans did it. The North Koreans did it. I hope there is no war! But we gotta reflect what the reliable source says. To remove that, it's best to find out that the state media didn't actually report it that way; that Variety reported fake news. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

what other Wikipedia articles say about suicide attacks isn’t relevant to what is being discussed here. The issue is about neutrality, more specifically neutral wording. Anything which state media says is not neutral and to pretend otherwise (which you appear to be doing) would go against policy on npov and indeed common senseEstnot (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

To suppress a reliable source, you appear to be not neutral because you don't like the volunteer force to be portrayed as having used suicide attacks. If you actually read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." While I am all for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, what you are doing here doesn't make sense. It's a movie, not the real events' documentaries. You would have to find another historian who would come out and say, "No. The volunteer force didn't use suicide attacks to blow up the bridge." And that's impossible. Supermann (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

it’s not about me suppressing information from a reliable source, it’s about you misusing information from a reliable source. It’s about you violating neutrality by giving undue weight to state media discourse and presenting the views of state media in objective voice. To the extent that it should be used, the article makes it very clear that the use of suicide attacks to attack the bridge is comes from the perspective of Chinese state media (“According to Chinese state media reports, the Chinese forces had to bomb the bridge three times after the U.S. side rebuilt it after each attempt, succeeding at last only when soldiers strapped explosives to their bodies and embarked on a suicide attack.”) this at the very least requires attribution Estnot (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify as I’ve requested outside advice through the npov noticeboard. My position is to remove any reference to the views of Chinese state media as stated in the Variety article Estnot (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I kept your "undue" and I think we should attribute to Rebecca David who had attributed to state media reports. As I had said before, I would like to find out whether any state media actually had reported it that way. This is a nationalistic movie, so state media should be given weight. They are providing their version of the "facts." Supermann (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

David’s attribution doesn’t need to be specified because she is writing for a reliable source (this is according to wp:rsp). I’ve reverted your addition of the extra information because it is redundant (the SCMP source doesn’t say anything new) and the last part of it appears to violate wp:clop as it is copied nearly verbatim from the Variety article. (“the Chinese forces bombed the bridge three times after the U.S. side rebuilt it after each attempt and succeeded only when the soldiers embarked on a suicide attack.”) As your new content is being reverted and I am asking outside advice to look through this section I will ask that you to not revert until a mutually agreed upon wording can be arrived atEstnot (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Now you are placing undue weight to Rebecca Davis. I haven't found a single state media coverage saying suicide attack was used. That's why we need to attribute to Rebecca who had attributed to state media. We need to hold every named journalist accountable for that coverage. And it's not Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, because it was attributed. We could use quotation mark if you insist. SCMP is in my view the second media echoing the title translation and more nuanced in terms of saying, "likely to be named Water Gate Bridge." Now, Xinhua also called that a literal translation. Supermann (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

your arguments about undue weight do not make any sense. We do not need attribution for the sentence in question because there is no need to question its veracity and validity: the form and nature of it pertains to facts and not opinion, there is no discernible agenda that would compel or otherwise influence Davis to distort what the Chinese sources reported, the sentence already has attribution and is written as part of a piece for a reliable source (see the “Variety” entry in wp:rsp). Or to put another way all these reasons are proof that we can and are entitled to assume that the journalist has done her due diligence with regard to the claim in question. What you found as a matter of personal research is irrelevant to deciding whether her views are weighty enough to be included in the article. If, on the other hand, another article in a reliable source disputed what she said that Chinese state media said then that would be fair game to question whether her views are valid and therefore weighty enough to be included in the main article. Moreover, if you were right and citing Davis was placing undue weight on her reporting because you could not corroborate the state media reports that she said what they said, then we would still have to remove both what the state media reports supposedly said and what she said they said because it makes no sense to keep false or falsified information in the article. As it stands, your insistence on keeping what you deem to be apocryphal information in the article is not just on its own very strange, but also confusing in light of your initial summary of the Variety article ([9]) in which you attempted to present what Davis said Chinese state media said about Water Gate Bridge in objective voice. Estnot (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No need to go back to earlier edits after I again and again compromise with you. There is a political context here on entertainment reporting. And that's why we need to hold reporters accountable instead of treating what they write as bible/quran/or whatever religious books. All I am asking is to give complete attribution and context. Supermann (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been the one making the compromises. Not you. I have allowed your part about the Chinese state media’s portrayal of the bridge attack to stay up (for now) which is a sort of compromise that you would never agree to if the roles were reversed. Your assertion that there is a “political context here on entertainment reporting”is utter nonsense that is disproved by wp:rsp (Variety is a reliable source) and betrays your lack of objectivity and what appears to be basic knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Since by even your own account you cannot verify through personal research what Davis said Chinese state media said (I haven't found a single state media coverage saying suicide attack was used.), there can no logical reason by even your own standards to continue keeping her summary of what the Chinese state media sources say anymore. I will give this discussion a few more days to develop before removing the information entirely again Estnot (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Then in that case, you are doing OR in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I don't think that's allowed. Feel free to remove it, before anyone else incl me to take you to ANI. I am respecting Rebecca's reliability. However, like all things in lives, "Trust, but verify." Supermann (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I am all for original research myself personally speaking. The state media report is extremely likely based on, "【纪录片】冰血长津湖 超高清完整版 - YouTube by the August First Film Studio. English title, "Frozen Chosin." Start watching around 1:19:05. You will find the suicide attack we all hope to find. I wish Rebecca had been more clear. The documentary also features music from Transformers: The Score. This is unexpected yet expected. Once you watch the documentary, you can find another 2021 book called 血战长津湖 uses similar wording to echo it, "至（1950年）12月6日晚，姜庆云的敢死队先后三次冲过美军的阵地，以血肉之躯，把新架设的大桥和基座全部炸毁." The suicide attack is totally legit. I am damned sure the sequel will feature such plot. Supermann (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not my original research. It’s your original research. I’m using irony (ie your original research) to show you how bad your argument is. That by even your own standards you would have to delete the information you are arguing to include. You were the one who said you could not find the things that Davis said Chinese state media said (I haven't found a single state media coverage saying suicide attack was used.). If that is the case then it means you think she fabricated the things that Chinese state media said. There is only one reason why you would point that out and that is because you think the information in question (ie the information you are arguing to include) has no place in the articleEstnot (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My own research, incl. the documentary and book, if you have actually watched and read, validates Rebecca's reporting, unless you mistook what I wrote. This issue is closed. Suicide attack was used. Supermann (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Before you were arguing that Davis needed to be held accountable and the things she said Chinese state media said should not be given undue weight because you could not verify through your personal research the validity of what Davis reported about Chinese state media (I haven't found a single state media coverage saying suicide attack was used.) and the validity of her reporting was tainted by her politics (There is a political context here on entertainment reporting.) Now you say that Davis should be cited as a reliable source (presumably free of political bias now) because your personal research verified the things that she says the Chinese state media says? At this point you are just trolling Estnot (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying you haven't found a single state media coverage saying suicide attack was used. Neither had I. But since then, I have found those coverage. Just not sure if you have chosen not to watch or read them at all. Not sure if you are trying to white wash the history or not recognize the great sacrifices of the Chinese voluntary army. Plenty of original research has proven Rebecca did a watertight job here. We should respect what the RS says. I will revert yours, unless @Firefangledfeathers: strongly advises against. At the end of the day, whatever you do is futile, because truth will come out whether suicide attack was used in the sequel. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Battle at Lake Changjin and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It has been a little while since there's been active discussion on this issue. It's unclear what Estnot and Supermann now feel is the best option for the sequel section. My view is that the detail about a suicide attack is unnecessary for this article. It is very likely that there will be more coverage of the sequel in the future, probably enough for its own article, at which point it should be clear what short plot summary is due for this article. For now, just mentioning the planned sequel and the basic focus is enough. The basic plot summary does not need attribution to Variety. To be clear, my supported version is A sequel likely to be entitled Water Gate Bridge (Chinese: 水门桥; Pinyin: Shui Men Qiao) is currently under production. The movie will be about a maneuver undertaken by the People’s Volunteer Army in the same campaign to destroy a bridge that was used by the US forces as part of their withdrawal. I have this page watchlisted, and will be happy to explain my view further or answer any followup questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The current version before the lockdown is good enough for me, totally reflecting what Variety says and I have finally found the state media describing the suicide attack in a very euphemistic way for him and others. Rebecca Davies from Variety didn't come up with fake news. Btw, this battle is not that meaningful to the American Empire. You can read all about it on the Marine Corps University website at Korean War 1950-1953 (usmcu.edu) and Montross_U.S. Marine Operations in Korea Vol lll.pdf (usmcu.edu). Before you say anything further, I am guilty of original research. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Supermann, you'll be glad to know that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, so research away. I am curious: if you think Variety didn't come up with fake news, and you've verified the facts in other sources (though maybe not ones we'd use in the article) why support attribution? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I am slow. What do you mean by "I support attribution"? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries. The current version attributes views to Variety twice. "According to Variety, the movie ... and "Variety described Chinese ...". I interpreted your comment as support for the current version, and therefore both cases of attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I would've preferred "Variety's Rebecca Davis" in the first instance and then "she" in the second instance. I don't know who at Variety edits her article. But just like many articles here where we attribute to the writer, I think we should too. But Estnot kept reverting to just Variety. Deleting the 2nd "variety" seems a bit synthesizing, even with the cite at the end of the sentence, if you really read the Variety article. Just my two cents. I don't want to tag him on ANI, since I have received many myself on other articles. I understand his frustration and am glad that admin locked the article for now. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Name of Department

@Estnot: You are attempting to use a different name for the department than what it is officially called. In your revert you claimed there is consensus on the talk page about this, but I see none. If you want to use the different name, and thus rename the wikilink, you need to give a good reason here. BeŻet (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

the “propaganda film” section of this talk page show that there were at least two editors who explicitly agreed with and none who explicitly disagreed with using the title “propaganda department of the ccp” over the title which you prefer (“publicity department…”). This appears to indicate local consensus and is not overcome even with your explicit objection in virtue of the vote tally (2 for 1 against). Pinging User:Snooganssnoogans as he was the editor who made this initial change Estnot (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with using the old name of the department, unless we want to change the name of the underlying dept on its page. Supermann (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Either the lead should explicitly call this a "propaganda film" in WP voice (like RS do) or it should clearly state that the film was commissioned by the propaganda department of the CCP. Most readers do not know that the "Publicity Department" is a propaganda arm, so it's unclear to me why we should mislead readers on that point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Sources compare the jingoistic nature of the film to that of American equivalents like Pearl Harbour. BeŻet (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

So what? Pearl Harbor was made by a private company. This is a film literally made by the authoritarian regime in China. It's a straight-up propaganda film (and is described as such by reliable sources). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If you watch the end credits of Pearl Harbor, it says, "We gratefully acknowledge the support and cooperation of the Department of Defense and all branches of the U.S. military in the making of this film: US Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard." So you can't say a private company pulled this off independently on its own. Supermann (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Pearl Harbor and plenty of other films are also straight-up propaganda films. You keep saying that they are described as such by reliable sources, but that's not true - you're talking about op-eds and assertions like "South Koreans think it's propaganda". Likewise, you will find thousands of op-eds describing certain American war films as propaganda. BeŻet (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

BBC: "It's a Chinese propaganda film"[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section removal

user:Nvtuil Please explain this edit of yours. [11] it seems like it should be fairly self explanatory why the historical inaccuracies section should be an independent one given the amount, relevance and value of the material that went under it prior to your edit. Estnot (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are not even experts. They are just opinions cherrypicked by a biased media. Even the German newspaper doesn't actually say outright the movies has historical inaccuracies. Just sneakily cherrpicking people who most likely never watched the movie and presenting their opinions. We don't present opinions from non experts as if they are authoritative facts. Nvtuil (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

one of the people who was cited in the section before you removed it was is Rah Jong-yil, a former South Korean diplomat with a doctorate. So this certainly disproves your assertion that “they are not even experts”Estnot (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: "Commissioned by the CCP" in the lead?

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 the lead include the following sentence: "The film was commissioned by the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party and announced as part of the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. I cannot for the life of me understand why editors on this page keep edit-warring this sentence out of the lead. This is basic and highly pertinent information about the film. As far as I can tell, pretty much all reliable sources make sure to highlight this when they cover the film:

• Reuters: "It was made with the support of the central government's propaganda department"[12]
• NY Times: "The film, sponsored by the government"[13]
• BBC: "Commissioned by the Chinese government"[14]
• Washington Post: "commissioned by the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party and made with support from the central military commission and local governments in Beijing and Hebei and Liaoning provinces."[15]
• CNN: "commissioned by the Chinese government"[16]
• ABC News: "financed by the government’s propaganda department"[17]
• PRI: "commissioned by the government"[18]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are more sources which say the same thing:

— The Diplomat: “The 3-hour war epic commissioned by China’s propaganda department depicts a battle from the Korean War” [19]

— The Wire India: “To many South Koreans, the film is another propaganda piece filled with historical inaccuracies and bankrolled by the Chinese government” [20]

— Global Voices: “A former investigative reporter Luo Changping was recently arrested for mocking the newly released propaganda movie” [21]

— Stripes: “The Battle at Lake Changjin was commissioned by the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party and made with support from the central military commission and local governments in Beijing, Hebei and Liaoning.” [22]

— The Telegraph: “Anti-US propaganda film beats James Bond and Marvel at the box office” [23]

— The Straits Times: “the latest movie, made under the direct guidance of the Communist Party of China’s propaganda department, is the most such recent effort.” [24]

— Business Insider: “A Chinese state-backed propaganda epic about the defeat of US troops is on track to become the country's highest-grossing movie of all time.” [25]

— Politico: “One of the most costly and highest-grossing Chinese films in history, it’s a propagandists’ retelling of an against-all-odds Chinese victory over U.S. forces.” [26]

— China Digital Times: “mocking an ill-fated Chinese military unit depicted in a recent big-budget propaganda film.” [27] Estnot (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• No. - It should instead say that it was commissioned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, which is the correct and official name of the department. BeŻet (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why should we use the "official" name rather than (i) the more commonly understood name and (ii) the name that reliable sources use? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Supermann (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  The NPOV guideline clearly instructs us to follow reliable sources. So if we follow NPOV, we should characterize the department as a propaganda department, just like RS do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  The "reliable sources" have editorial bias here. We don't really have to rename the department here. The rest of the reception does the job. Supermann (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Understood. You're instructing us to violate the NPOV and RS guidelines because you fundamentally disagree with or do not understand the guidelines. That's good to know. The closer of this RfC should evaluate your views on the subject accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you want to achieve consensus, it would help to not use snarky comments. As explained in WP:PARTISAN, reliable sources can be biased, non-neutral and subjective. This means that while what the source is saying is factual, the wording or framing of it can be biased or non-neutral. We know that when the sources are talking about the "propaganda department", they are referring to the publicity department. It is entirely correct to use the official name here, and there's no need to apply the biased wording. BeŻet (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  With so many stars under your belt, and your passion, why don't you come to help on Film censorship in China? It's a project I started, but obviously I don't have control over there. Happy editing. Supermann (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

this appears to be a case of an editor simply not liking what policies say Estnot (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Which policy says we should link to articles using non-official names? BeŻet (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Which policy says we must link to articles using their official names? Estnot (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You're the one talking about "what policies say". Which policies? What do they say? BeŻet (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

wp:rs and wp:npov. Which policy says we must link to articles using their official names despite no reliable sources referring to the article’s referent by as such but instead all refer to it by its unofficial name? (Propaganda Department of the Chinese government/CCP/CPC) Estnot (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are those policies saying to support your stance? BeŻet (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

you would know if you took the time to read them. Show me a reliable source that refers to the Propaganda Department of the Chinese government as the Publicity Department of the Chinese government or one of its derivative formulations within the context of this movie and I will show you an argument that isn’t tripping over itself because it finally has proper legs to stand on. Until then please stop running in circles with your feigned ignorance by repeatedly asking me pointless questions whose answers you already know Estnot (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well Korea Times refers to it that way, for instance, later mentioning other propaganda organizations, and Daily News Egypt - basically non-American sources. But I'd appreciate if instead of giving me silly answers and talking about my "feigned ignorance" you could for instance address my point regarding WP:PARTISAN. We're discussing a technicality here - I'm not disagreeing with you that the film is propaganda, but it's propaganda in the same way many American war films are. As mentioned by different editors, using the standard and more precise translation of the name of the department seems like a more apt choice. BeŻet (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m giving you silly answers because you’re asking me silly questions. There’s nothing here to really discuss aside from the contradictions and deflections in your argument. If you don’t disagree with me (the reliable sources) that the film is propaganda then there should be no reason why you would not only object to calling the department which commissioned this movie as a propaganda department but object to it in such a strenuous way. Or draw an equivalence to US war films as if that has anything to do with a debate over the naming convention of this commissioning department. The only reason is that you don’t actually think the film is propaganda which is why you want to use the expurgated version of the title of the department. The policy on wp:rs and wp:npov is pellucid. If the plurality of reliable sources describes something in a certain way then that’s the way it has to be described in the article. In this case there is not just a plurality but a unanimity of reliable sources to describe the commissioning department this film as not just a propaganda department, but to do so in the objective voice. So unanimous is the sourcing that even the sources which you produced which you allege supports your position end up supporting mine: the Korea Times article refers to the superiors of the “Beijing municipal publicity department” as “central propaganda organizations” while The Daily News Egypt article is syndicated content from a press release for the Shanghai International Film Festival which is not a reliable source. Estnot (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you didn't try to explain to me what I think. This is a simple matter of deciding whether to use the official name of the department, or to rename it in the wikilink for a specific purpose. I simply don't think there is a reason to have to rename it in the wikilink - this is also because of the translation issues that have been highlighted in the article about the department. The British Ministry of Information and the United States Office of War Information were also responsible for propaganda, for instance. If the consensus is to rename it in the wikilink, so be it. The only reason I brought up US war films is to agree with you that this film is also propaganda, just like plenty of American films. BeŻet (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not explaining to you what you think. I’m explaining to you what I think of your atrocious arguments. The terms propaganda department and publicity department have two very different connotations and to pretend that the difference is just a “technicality” is just lying (it is also the real reason that is driving this debate) Using the expurgated version (publicity department) of the term would violate npov by failing to capture the subtext runnning throughout this article and concealing to the readers the true essence of the film (as reported by the reliable sources). I don’t understand why you are so keen to drag this discussion on and on when the issues are as easy to understand as pie Estnot (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, the issue around the connotation is explained in the article, and the reason it was originally called the "Propaganda Department" was because of translation ambiguity. I also don't understand why you just can't simply accept that I have a different opinion and don't think article names should be piped, "it's as easy to understand as pie". I would also, once again, appreciate if you changed your tone, as talking about "lying" is really crossing a line here. BeŻet (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The policy on wp:rs and wp:npov is pellucid. If the plurality of reliable sources describes something in a certain way then that’s the way it has to be described in the article. In this case there is not just a plurality but a unanimity of reliable sources to describe the commissioning department this film as not just a propaganda department, but to do so in the objective voice. Show me a reliable source that refers to the Propaganda Department of the Chinese government as the Publicity Department of the Chinese government or one of its derivative formulations within the context of this movie and your arguments might have a leg to stand on. But until then you’re really just running around in circles saying the same thing again and again and again Estnot (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That simply does not make sense. This is an issue of translation—the name of the Publicity Department, as it is translated, is its name, even if it does serve as the propaganda department of the Chinese government. This is like if in the lead for PRISM, you insisted on calling the NSA the "American surveillance department." Is that an accurate name? Yes, that's what the NSA does. But it's simply not the department's name! It would be perfectly appropriate to call the NSA a surveillance department in the article for PRISM, but you would still refer to it by the name the government has given it. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This is like if in the lead for PRISM, you insisted on calling the NSA the "American surveillance department. I would if that is what reliable sources were unanimously calling it Estnot (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

...but you are making up your own rule, that if the department is called a specific way when talking about this film, then we somehow have to use that name. While what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong in using the correct, official name, as accepted on Wikipedia. We have enough reliable sources referring to the department by its official name - you're just moving goalposts by arbitrarily requiring the sources which discuss the film to be using your preferred name. BeŻet (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not my rule it’s the encyclopedia’s policy. If my rule is “made up” then so is yours. You are jumping up and down arguing from technicalities because you know no matter how far and wide you search you simply will not be able to find a reliable source that refers to the Propaganda Department of the Chinese government as the Publicity Department of the Chinese government within the context of this movie. Estnot (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not policy. I really don't like your tone and constant personal attacks, so I will not continue talking with you. BeŻet (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• yes - the plethora of sources cited by the FTC opener and the constant references throughout the article to the movie’s propagandistic aspect (particularly in the reception & controversies and criticism sections)makes it abundantly clear that this is information which is important enough to be included in the lead section Estnot (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Because this movie is blatant propaganda and all the non-PRC sources back this up. Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ckruschke: Could you please provide a justification - thank you! BeŻet (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per multiple reliable sources. Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: We should not say "propaganda department" in this article. The standard and more precise translation of 宣传部 is "Publicity Department". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As with the no votes above this appears to be the case of yet another editor who simply does not like what the reliable sources are saying Estnot (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly appropriate for the article to mention that the Party's Publicity Department commissioned the movie. My point is that that information must be conveyed in a neutral way – we should not use the mistranslation "Propaganda Department" to push a point of view. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

describing the department as a propaganda department would be appropriate and neutral because that is the formulation which the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use. What would be npov would be using your formulation simply because editors have a point of view to push Estnot (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• No. Not only is referring to it as a "propaganda department" a needless NPOV violation, it's also an unnecessary violation of WP:EASTEREGG. Piped links shouldn't be used unless they're necessary for context or proper flow. This is an absurd edit war that should not have required full protection. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not npov if that is what the reliable sources are overwhelmingly describing the department as. The terms propaganda department and publicity department have two very different connotations. Using the expurgated version (publicity department) of the term would violate npov by failing to capture subtext runnning throughout this article and concealing to the readers the true essence of the film (as reported by the reliable sources) Estnot (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even disagreeing that the film is propaganda; the PRC has a history of making jingoistic propaganda films like the Wolf Warrior series. What I disagree with is for some reason refusing to name the actual institution that commissioned the movie. If calling it propaganda is necessary in the lead (and hell, it probably is,) just add a sentence saying that the film has been characterized as propaganda, and duplicate the citations from the Controversy section. I have no love for the PRC by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems like this whole argument has come from some kind of anti-China hate-boner more than any commitment to policy. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The title “propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party” is one of the actual names of the institutions which commissioned the movie. That’s how it is referred to by the overwhelming majority of the reliable sources and also in its Wikipedia entry. If you don’t disagree with me (the reliable sources) that the film is propaganda then I don’t see why you would not only object to calling the department which commissioned this movie as such but object to it in such a strenuous way. The only reason i can think of is that you don’t actually think the film is propaganda which is why you want to use the expurgated version of the title of the department. If my arguments seems like they have come from some kind of anti-China hate-boner that’s only because they are countering arguments which seem like they have come from some kind of pro-China love-bonerEstnot (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree that the lockdown is due to a childish edit war, but the lockdown was necessary to cool things off. However, saying that this movie is naked propaganda by the Chinese government is NOT a NPOV violation when many reputable sources state this. If we need to change the text of the proposed lede, to remove a possible WP:EASTEREGG, that's certainly fine. Ckruschke (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Sometimes the truth is biased. This is one of those times. Slywriter (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The truth of the Chinese needs to be exposed. Don't let them attempt to distort and rewrite history as well as whitewash their genocidal regime. 59.12.130.38 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Because Wikipedia is not censored and those voting no are most likely a bunch of Chinese wumaos. 2.91.184.205 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Since RfCs are not a vote, it would be good to hear an actual argument and not just attacks on editors, especially from anonymous editors. BeŻet (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am the creator of Film censorship in China (obviously have no control on the article) and you call me wumao? Interesting. Find somebody else to call. Supermann (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• No I fail to see why we shouldn't use the official name. Where applicable links should go to the name of the article, not the author's interpretation of what the article should be. Sometimes it's not possible to avoid, e.g. to quote from the article China, "The country is administratively divided into 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four direct-controlled municipalities, and two special administrative regions" - direct-controlled municipalities linking to direct-administered municipalities of China makes perfect sense, not only for grammatical reasons but also because direct-controlled municipalities is almost a disambiguation page. But in this case the name of the department & the article we have is "Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party", so that's what we should link to. If one wants to argue that the publicity department is actually the propaganda department (I note the article also says it is "also known as" the propaganda department), then one should start a motion to rename that article to propaganda department. Many of the arguments in favor of "yes" don't make sense to me as well: nobody is disputing that the film is financed by the Chinese government, or that it is propaganda. Sure, a lot of the sources call the department the "propaganda department", but that's an argument for renaming Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, not to rename what we write in this article. Banedon (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many of the editors voting no are in fact disputing that it's a propaganda film. Or at the very least that the Wikipedia article cannot describe it as a propaganda film. That's why it's important that the lead speaks plainly, so that readers aren't misled: by calling this a film by a "publicity department", the lead obscures that it's a propaganda film. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the film is propaganda; it clearly meets the definition. What is in dispute is the need for a piped link that ignores the proper, official translation of the department's name. The film's title is still The Battle at Lake Changjin, even if it is a propaganda film, and the department's name is still the Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, even if it functions as a propaganda department. This should be a dispute about MOS and translation, not the nature of the film or its production.--Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Truly? As of time of writing there are only three "no" votes. Excluding mine, I don't see how either BeZet's vote or Ithinkiplaygames's vote dispute that it's a propaganda film. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally all of us agree that it is a propaganda film. Snooganssnoogans and Estnot are tilting at windmills. (Also there's technically four "no" votes as one of the comments basically makes the same argument) BeŻet (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, my vote is that the proposed sentence be replaced by The film was commissioned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and announced as part of the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, and the underlying reason is MOS:LINKCLARITY. Banedon (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per the sources provided by Snooganssnoogans above. Also less heat, please, all of you. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No Several editors seem to think that because the film is propagandistic in nature, we must state it was made by the "Propaganda Department". It seems several "Yes" voters are here to WP:Right great wrongs, however the official name of the department and the name of our article on the department is "Publicity Department", and in keeping with that is the name we should use. BSMRD (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - "Propaganda" is the correct translation for this term, supported by reliable sources in the English language. This entire dispute comes down to the fact that 宣传 can be translated different ways depending on context. Of course the CCP prefers the one that is less pejorative, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we have to adopt it as an WP:OFFICIALNAME, particularly if reliable sources use the more pejorative translation. The people above saying that "publicity" is more more accurate translation are simply relying on assertion to carry them through - the translation to use depends on the context and the context here is a propaganda film created by the CCP. FOARP (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Compromise

Since we seem to be lacking consensus above, I thought it might be better to separate the proposal into three different versions, as it seems opinions are more detailed. BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "we seem to be lacking consensus"? There is a clear 8 yes to 4 no with 1 unclear. Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There's 5 editors talking about not using the name "propaganda department". Out of the 8 in favour, two are IP votes which do not contain any justification. Since this shows a split in opinion, and consensus is not a majority vote, this shows a clear lack of consensus. BeŻet (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2021 (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.

New RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boldly closing this as a bad RfC. The subject is the exact same as the above, still open, RfC, but in a slightly different format (as pointed by editors here per WP:TALKFORK). While the original RfC does not suggest an alternative sentence, participants are welcome to suggest them during the discussion, and many of those opposing have already suggested using the department's official English name instead. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 14:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Which version of the sentence is most appropriate for the lead of the article?

• A: The film was commissioned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and announced as part of the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party
• B: The film was commissioned by the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party and announced as part of the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party
• C: None of the above – fact should not be mentioned at all

BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• A: per reasoning above. BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• A per MOS:LINKCLARITY. Banedon (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• A: but are we still saying it can't be verified? Thanks. Would like to hear your view on Suicide Attack in the sequel discussion nearby Supermann (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• A Fact is obviously worthy of inclusion, as covered extensively by RS. Publicity Department is the better name for clarity and to avoid POV issues. BSMRD (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• A: per reasoning above conforms to WP:NPOV. Cipher21 (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this is an invalid rfc whose primary aim is to overturn the tentative results of the first rfc simply because the requester has been losing the raw vote count. If he was sincere about wanting a “compromise”, he would have first asked for the original rfc to be closed (as I did [28]), then take part in the post closure deliberations and only after that start, if necessary, a second rfc. Estnot (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAVOTE applies. The RfC above does not consider the fact that some may disagree with the loaded wording present even if they agree with the mention of the fact itself; myself I have had serious opposition to using the word "propaganda" to describe similar US government organizations due to MOS:LABEL. The RfC above regards, in my view, including the fact - I don't see why another shouldn't be held regarding the phrasing. I do think the inclusion of option C is inappropriate and perhaps should be retracted. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wp:vote would apply to the requester who created this flawed rfc, not me. I’m not the one trying desperately to circumvent the normal content dispute resolution procedures and turn the process into a voting contest. The policies on wp:rs, wp:npov and wp:ucrn are pellucid. If the plurality of reliable sources describes something in a certain way then that’s the way it has to be described in the article. In this case there is not just a plurality but a unanimity of reliable sources to describe the commissioning department for this film as not just a propaganda department, but to do so in the objective voice (ie without the need for attribution) Using the expurgated version (publicity department) of the term would violate npov by failing to capture the subtext runnning throughout this article, concealing the essence of the film (as reported by the reliable sources) to the readers and giving undue weight to state media discourse through the unattributed use of the title that it employs. Your complaint about the loaded wording of the request is hardly comprehensible (the “loaded wording” is the same as the “mention of the fact” - the Communist Party of China has a department that not only is called but it itself calls the Propaganda Department or one of its derivative formulations) and is not consequential to the discussion anyway. It makes no functional difference to the outcome of the request (no one thinks the sentence should be removed from the lead section so a defeat for the rfc would simply mean a default to the existing version of the paragraph) and it also makes no material difference to the same (the two terms have the same referent and are used interchangeably as demonstrated by the first line of the lead section of its own entry - Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party - on Wikipedia)

I am notifying User:Snooganssnoogans of this discussion as he is the author of the “loaded wording” and therefore has the right to be apprised of your accusation against him and respond as they see fit Estnot (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• • @Estnot: I would really appreciate if you stopped using your constant accusative tone and stopped ignoring the fundamental principle of assuming good faith. As explained above by myself, and now by EuanHolewicz432, WP:NOTAVOTE applies, and therefore no consensus has been achieved thus far. BeŻet (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with User:Estnot this is invalid. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• A* - A, but "Communist Party of China" in lieu of "Chinese Communist Party" - the official name: MOS:LABEL requests attribution, and using the label in Wikivoice has been denounced before for similar Western organizations (See Radio Free Asia and the BBG/VOA dispute, for instance). The department has a name and it shouldn't be misnamed. I don't see many people calling for the National Endowment for Democracy being referred to as the "propaganda department of the US Congress". If contributors are still pushing for the propaganda label, it has to exist independently of the proper name of the department and has to be attributed ("Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, which has been described as...". EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• If reliable sources characterize NED as a "propaganda department of the US Congress", then it's perfectly fine for Wikipedia to characterize it in the same way. What you and the other "A" voters are saying is that Wikipedia should extend a special courtesy to the authoritarian regime in China by purposely using the regime's own language rather than that of reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• B. That is how reliable sources cover this film and that the department that commissioned the film. It's beyond me why we should use the dictatorship's own lingo rather than that of reliable sources. Is Wikipedia a stenographer for authoritarian regimes or do we actually comply with Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• B although I continue to oppose this invalid !vote Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  What makes it invalid? BeŻet (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been opened whilst the first RFC is still running.

Which rule is this breaking? BeŻet (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RFCOPEN: "There is no technical limit to the number of simultaneous RfCs that may be held on a single talk page, but to avoid discussion forks, they should not overlap significantly in their subject matter."(my emphasis). This clearly overlaps with the first RFC which is still ongoing and not closed. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an attempt to reach consensus, and it seems to be achieving it - remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (nota bene, the previous RfC reached a standstill, so I don't even think your quoted rule applies). BeŻet (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The standstill was your assessment, but you were !voter in that RFC and shouldn't have tried to close it in a matter as contentious as this. FOARP (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• B also Bad RFC - "Publicity" just isn't the correct translation in this case given the context, and the translation of the Chinese term 宣传 is context-dependent. We should not use an WP:OFFICIALNAME-translation, especially one that is basically euphemistic (as is widely covered in reliable sources). As has been pointed out above, reliable sources covering this topic tend to use the term "propaganda department". This RFC should not have been opened whilst the previous RFC was still running. FOARP (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• B also Bad RFC - All non-PRC sources that I can find back this up - its a blatant propoganda campaign. On top of this, I'm not sure why we are continuing this discussion. As Estnot rightly states above, the only reason we didn't meet concensus in the previous survey is BeŻet put his thumb on the scale - he quoted What is concensus? which clearly states that every opinion counts and then he dismisses the votes of two IP editors and the responses of other editors because their answers weren't definitive enough for him. You don't arbitrarily choose to start over simply because you don't like the answer.... Ckruschke (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  We haven't achieved consensus above - there was no "answer" I didn't like. I dismissed the IP votes because they were of no value, unless you think calling people wuamos is input we should consider when establishing consensus. This second RfC gives literally the same chance to express yourself as the previous one did, the difference being that the "No" votes from above have more context now. BeŻet (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet - You were a !voter in that RFC (and in this one) and on something contentious like this should not be trying to assess consensus yourself - ask for an assessment at WP:ANRFC. FOARP (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but unless you can make a convincing case that I'm trying to game the system, when literally my RfC just opens up the vote to more options for clarity, you should just assume I'm trying to help. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2021 (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.

Well, now I would go to Publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party and start a requested move to rename it to Propaganda department, except there is a closed requested move right at the end of that article saying no consensus for renaming. /shrug. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Article Issues Post Lockdown

I have fully protected this article due to continued disruption. Please discuss the issues with this article here. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• To kick it off, several of my changes were reverted by non-NPOV IP editors without me even knowing it - largely because there has been almost 300 edits on this page since 18 Oct. One section I had was as follows - Although billed as "from real history" by the Chinese Global Times the underdog claim of the movie is contrary to the historical Battle of Chosin Reservoir where the 120,000 man Chinese 9th Army completely encircled the much smaller 30,000 man UN force comprised of the 1st Marine Division, 7th Infantry "Task Force Faith, and units of the Republic of Korea and various smaller UN units. Historians have long argued that the "human wall" that the Chinese threw at the UN forces more than overcame the US' air superiority - thus the point that the "underdog" title is not accurate. Ckruschke (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

this will need attribution and further sourcing especially as source is Fox News (Wp:rsp makes it clear that we need to use Fox News's coverage of politics with caution)Estnot (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I used the evil FoxNews as a ref simply as a source stating that the Chinese Global Times states that the movie is "from real history". Clearly nothing to do with politics.... Ckruschke (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Ckruschke I am a bit confused here. What exactly is it that you are proposing? Write out the proposed paragraph and we can discuss it from there.Estnot (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I was going to add an {expand section} tag to the plot section as it is a stub. Maybe some of the sources from the Reception section can be re-used to flesh this section out? Eik Corell (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The movie will premiere in U.S. and Canada on Nov 19 finally. The lockdown should last at least until Nov 19 at the minimum.[29] Supermann (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Isn't it funny how a movie celebrating the 100th year of the communist party has an article talking about how much money it made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AA10:2250:8CAC:DBA8:895A:AA01 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 November 2021

The box office total should be updated from its current figure listed in the article. The film sits at $875M (per Entgroup). AverageLogic (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not gonna surpass Wolf Warrior 2 that soon. No hurry. Supermann (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the Variety article Supermann listed above wrote about its international release, and even gave an updated $877 million box office figure. Better include this information on the article, admins! igordebraga ≠ 03:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @AverageLogic: this page is not protected and may be edited directly as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Lee

Kevin Lee, an Englishman known for his action roles in Chinese cinima, has a few salient observations here about how a script is vetted by the authorities, the production process, and all of the sensitivies and sensibilities therefore. Fascinating read.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/26/chinas-go-to-english-bad-guy-kevin-lee-im-happy-to-play-a-villain

kencf0618 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

About the producer

There's something wrong. The producers of the film are three directors: Chen Kaige, Tsui Hark and Dante Lam, not Yu Dong. Yu Dong just served as an executive producer. Can I edit it? Thank you. DVP Pictures (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Phat

Describing the film as "Historically Inaccurate" in the Description.

A Deutsche Welle article is being used to describe the film as "historically inaccurate" in the initial description of the article. However, that's not what the article actually says.

The movie depicts China holding off US troops against all odds in one of the pivotal battles of the Korean War. That the fighting broke out when North Korean troops invaded the South is rarely explained in China's accounts. North Korea started the three-year conflict by invading the South, then Beijing came to Pyongyang's assistance after UN forces had pushed the North Korean military virtually to the Chinese border, Han said. "If China had not helped the North and attacked the South, then the war would have been over much earlier and hundreds of thousands of people would not have died," she said. "Instead, the fighting went on until 1953, the damage to the South was terrible and we still live on a divided peninsula. "That is the reality of the Chinese attack on Korea, not what they are portraying in this movie," she said.

This is not an historical inaccuracy in the film, just a disagreement with the Chinese framing of the war. For the description of the article to say the film is historically inaccurate we should expect major errors in history from the film. To do otherwise would violate the neutrality of Wikipedia. Istandwiththesilent 19:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what is actually being stated in the lede and also check out WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DW describes the film as being "filled with historical inaccuracies". It's a statement of fact about a WP:RS's description of the film. Amigao (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, that is, all claims should have citations. Having "described as containing historical inaccuracies" in the lede implies that someone qualified to make this claim has done so. A film journalist is not someone who has any authority to declare that a movie is historically inaccurate. I would be perfectly fine with this description if the citation actually sourced an historian, ideally of the Korean War, or at least some examples for why the movie can be described as historically inaccurate. Deutsche Welle is a WP:RS but they are a news network, not a history journal.

Braveheart is described as historically inaccurate in the lede. However, it actually backs up this claim with examples and an historian that users of Wikipedia can look up for additional research.

There's also the issue that because "containing historical inaccuracies" is incredibly vague, it confuses the reader instead of providing context. What historical inaccuracies? Is it small things like using the wrong props or is it major things like changing the order of battle? The citation provides no answers and no hints for researchers. Istandwiththesilent 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, you should check out WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and read the body of the article, especially the section below on inaccuracies. - Amigao (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The lede does not accurately summarize the body. The Controversies and inaccuracies accurately describes the movie as propaganda, but does not show that it is historically inaccurate. The only thing broaching a credible source for this is the VOA source:

US Marine Lieutenant General Richard E. Carey, a veteran of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, criticized the film as propaganda and a distorted depiction of the battle. Carey said that at Chosin Reservoir, despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered, American forces badly defeated, demoralized and so wounded the Chinese forces, that a legion's worth of men had to withdraw to China to completely regroup and reequip. He described the Battle of Chosin Reservoir as a Chinese defeat. Carey also stated that up to 100,000 Korean refugees were evacuated together with UN troops at Hungnam. In addition, Kim Young-kweon of Voice of America noted that during the battle, US and UN forces suffered significantly less casualties than the Chinese.

However, this is does not qualify as a credible source because Richard E. Carey did not watch the movie! According to the source, he only "heard about the movie". His conclusion also disagrees with Wikipedia's own view of the battle, Battle of Chosin Reservoir, which supports the view (from a superior source: official US Army History), that both sides can claim victory.

To accurately summarize the body the lede must read, "The film's depiction of the battle has been described by LT. General Richard E. Carey, a veteran of the battle who did not watch the film, as containing historical inaccuracies." Istandwiththesilent 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. Other WP:RSes have described the film as containing inaccuracies and Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes say as a matter of policy. - Amigao (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the Context Matters section of the Reliable sources policy. Istandwiththesilent 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating that the film has been described as containing inaccuracies vs. it being inaccurate. Only the former is being stated here. That's what the WP:RSes here can back up. - Amigao (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear implication of "has been described as containing inaccuracies". That it has been described as containing inaccuracies by people qualified to make that judgement, i.e. historians. You have not cited any source that is from an historian or cites historians in their article. You have not even cited any source that states a single historical inaccuracy in the film. One of your citations is from someone who did not even watch the movie.

You appear to have an agenda against China that makes me question your neutrality in this matter. That the movie is propaganda is not in dispute, but if you are going to describe it as inaccurate in the lede you need to back that up with real citations. The only statement that your citations currently support is a much less bombastic claim:

"The film's depiction of the battle has been described by news outlets Screen Rant and Deutsche Welle, as containing historical inaccuracies. The Screen Rant article hyperlinks to a reddit thread (that doesn't include the film) to back up this claim, and the Deutsche Welle article doesn't cite anything at all. The movie is also viewed as historically inaccurate by a Lt. General who is a veteran of the depicted battle, but he hasn't seen the movie himself." Istandwiththesilent 22:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You probably should first thoroughly review the edit history of this article. The lede had long pointed out that the film had historically inaccuracies. My edit actually made the lede's wording more neutral and WP:IMPARTIAL in tone. - Amigao (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Plot length, June 2024

I set out the plot in detail so that interested readers could form their own view of the film's historical accuracy and possible bias, both matters which have been debated extensively here. Any attempt to shorten the plot undermines that purpose. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually per Wikipedia guidelines, you are wrong. I have flagged the section. It needs to be cut down. Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke

As I said, given the debate about whether or not the film is propaganda, it is appropriate to set out the plot in detail. Regarding your edit comment, I have actually seen the film, which is why I was able to write out the detailed plot. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. A more detailed plot will have absolutely no impact on whether or not folks will feel that it is is propaganda. Wiki rules cover all content - even those which are in question. In addition, since the entire plot is unsourced, and presumably written by you, its also considered WP:OR since YOU are the source - which we all know goes against Wiki guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disagree, the plot is completely relevant for determining if it is propaganda. I'll find and add RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)