Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Stoning of Soraya M.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:19, 28 March 2013 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,303 editsm Signing comment by McCharles - ""← Previous edit Revision as of 02:48, 6 June 2014 edit undoMarmoulak (talk | contribs)2,057 edits FictionNext edit →
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:


There's a legend about a neutrality dispute of this article in the article's page. I see no discussion about this article's neutrality in this talk page. If it's all the same to you I'll go ahead and remove the legend from the article as I don't see any information in the article that is partial to any one point of view. Carlos Tapia 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> There's a legend about a neutrality dispute of this article in the article's page. I see no discussion about this article's neutrality in this talk page. If it's all the same to you I'll go ahead and remove the legend from the article as I don't see any information in the article that is partial to any one point of view. Carlos Tapia 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Fiction ==

This story is fiction and even Western sources agree about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/sensationalist-film-explo_b_220252.html --] (]) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{ping|Qizilbash123}} It seems like that the article should have a section that discusses the nature of the story. ''The Huffington Post'' says "purportedly" in regard to the story and talks more about how this film presents stoning-for-adultery as ongoing. states, "The film is based on the true story of an Iranian woman stoned by her neighbors after refusing to give her husband a divorce. The film is modeled after the 1994 book by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam." We need to assess the reliable sources to see what we can put together per ]. Maybe a "Depiction of stoning" section? That would discuss the story background as well as the sensationalism. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|Erik}} Yes, you can find 100's of articles which says it's based on true story, just because author of novel says so. Regarding his reability about issue you can see English cover of book from 1994 which states "1000 women have been stoned in past 15 years". Amnesty International claimed about 70 in early 2010's, while Iranian judicary official says zero. No matter which estimate you consider as valid, claims made by writter doesn't make any sense. There are many of Persian reviews regarding this movie with detailed description of tens errors in story, but since it's hard to verify for non-Persian speakers you may go for some Western reviews: Amnesty specialist above, , , etc. --] (]) 21:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::P.S. Regarding NPOV: I didn't insert anything about propagandistic nature (which can be pretty well sourced), I just removed POV claims about story being "true". --] (]) 21:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the reply. I'm a little confused about what you're disputing. It looks like the account is from 1986. Are you disputing the validity of that account? I did not see anything that questioned this account before the film was produced, though it looks like some film-related sources are reluctant to validate that account. Now, the film is a dramatization based on the account, so we can reference a source like ''The Huffington Post'' to discuss the actual status of stoning in contemporary Iran. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

::::Yes, because story itself is a fiction. Film is based on book, and book is based on Sahebjam's fiction. I think there are already articles related to Iranian judicary so discussion is irrelevant in article about movie itself. --] (]) 05:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Marmoulak}} You can join our discussion. {{user link|Qizilbash123}}, what reliable sources verify that the story is fiction? Like I mentioned, I did not find anything that disputed the validity of the account. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::], you need to educate yourself about Misplaced Pages rules and policies such as ] and ] before changing articles and reverting other users' contributions. Your changes do not comply with Misplaced Pages's rules. Sources like New york times, Daily Mail and Reuters are neutral and reliable sources that can be used on Misplaced Pages, however Islamist Regimes' propaganda cannot be used as reliable source of information! Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not an outlet for ideological governments. Your efforts to remove any information in the article that doesn't match the Iranian regime's official account of stoning in Iran is against Misplaced Pages's rules and policies - ] (])

::::::Precisely, that's why we don't take monarchist books and neocon movies as "facts". Credibility of story isn't disputed only by Iran but also Western critics and experts (see above). --] (]) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::It's not a matter of "western" vs. "Iranian", it's a matter of reliable vs unreliable! While sources like the NYT or Daily Mail or quite reliable, Iranian regime propaganda websites and blogs are not! take your propaganda elsewhere, Misplaced Pages is not the place for that kind of garbage! - ] (]) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::What does the ahestan.ir source say exactly? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Ahestan.ir disputes plot calling it both "incredible and funny", and speaks about Hollywood propaganda. Basically it says similar to review by Wesley Morris. This is my point: we have many sources calling it both "true story" and "false/propaganda", it's not to us to conclude which side is correct but to keep neutrality by avoiding it both as fact. That's why I inserted criticism inside of article without lead with "false/propaganda" supported by 5-6 links. Marmoulak has tried to do opossite with "true story", so it's pure bias. --] (]) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Ahestan.ir does not comply with either ] or ]. It's an Islamist blog, pure garbage - ] (]) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::It's written by Omid Hosseini, but numerious other Persian sources can be included. You're reverting everything (including three Western sources) so it's pure bias. --] (]) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your lack of comprehension makes it difficult to discuss this rationally! This is not a matter of "Western" vs "Persian", it's a matter of reliable vs unreliable (]). The reliable sources you have inserted don't back your claims and the Islamist blogs you are using as sources do not meet ] and ] - ] (]) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:48, 6 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Stoning of Soraya M. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm: Persian / American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Persian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconIran
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who is the widower?

While reading this Misplaced Pages article, I have a question. The last sentence of paragraph 2 under the Plot heading says, "The mullah, the village's mayor, and Ali ask Zahra to persuade Soraya to care for the widower ..."

Question: Who is the widower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpool913 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the plot section it says "Some days following the incident, a woman dies. The mullah, the village's mayor, and Ali ask Zahra to persuade Soraya to care for the widower. Zahra suggests that Soraya may do the job if she is paid." This is where the widower comes from. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Widower

The. widower, Hashem, is played by Parviz Sayyad, an Iranian actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.208.115 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

There's a legend about a neutrality dispute of this article in the article's page. I see no discussion about this article's neutrality in this talk page. If it's all the same to you I'll go ahead and remove the legend from the article as I don't see any information in the article that is partial to any one point of view. Carlos Tapia 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McCharles (talkcontribs)

Fiction

This story is fiction and even Western sources agree about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/sensationalist-film-explo_b_220252.html --Qizilbash123 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Qizilbash123: It seems like that the article should have a section that discusses the nature of the story. The Huffington Post says "purportedly" in regard to the story and talks more about how this film presents stoning-for-adultery as ongoing. NPR states, "The film is based on the true story of an Iranian woman stoned by her neighbors after refusing to give her husband a divorce. The film is modeled after the 1994 book by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam." We need to assess the reliable sources to see what we can put together per WP:NPOV. Maybe a "Depiction of stoning" section? That would discuss the story background as well as the sensationalism. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@Erik: Yes, you can find 100's of articles which says it's based on true story, just because author of novel says so. Regarding his reability about issue you can see English cover of book from 1994 which states "1000 women have been stoned in past 15 years". Amnesty International claimed about 70 in early 2010's, while Iranian judicary official says zero. No matter which estimate you consider as valid, claims made by writter doesn't make any sense. There are many of Persian reviews regarding this movie with detailed description of tens errors in story, but since it's hard to verify for non-Persian speakers you may go for some Western reviews: Amnesty specialist above, Richard Nilsen from The Arizona Republic, Wesley Morris from Boston Globe, etc. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding NPOV: I didn't insert anything about propagandistic nature (which can be pretty well sourced), I just removed POV claims about story being "true". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm a little confused about what you're disputing. It looks like the account is from 1986. Are you disputing the validity of that account? I did not see anything that questioned this account before the film was produced, though it looks like some film-related sources are reluctant to validate that account. Now, the film is a dramatization based on the account, so we can reference a source like The Huffington Post to discuss the actual status of stoning in contemporary Iran. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because story itself is a fiction. Film is based on book, and book is based on Sahebjam's fiction. I think there are already articles related to Iranian judicary so discussion is irrelevant in article about movie itself. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Marmoulak: You can join our discussion. Qizilbash123, what reliable sources verify that the story is fiction? Like I mentioned, I did not find anything that disputed the validity of the account. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
User Qizilbash123, you need to educate yourself about Misplaced Pages rules and policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS before changing articles and reverting other users' contributions. Your changes do not comply with Misplaced Pages's rules. Sources like New york times, Daily Mail and Reuters are neutral and reliable sources that can be used on Misplaced Pages, however Islamist Regimes' propaganda cannot be used as reliable source of information! Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not an outlet for ideological governments. Your efforts to remove any information in the article that doesn't match the Iranian regime's official account of stoning in Iran is against Misplaced Pages's rules and policies - Marmoulak (talk)
Precisely, that's why we don't take monarchist books and neocon movies as "facts". Credibility of story isn't disputed only by Iran but also Western critics and experts (see above). --Qizilbash123 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "western" vs. "Iranian", it's a matter of reliable vs unreliable! While sources like the NYT or Daily Mail or quite reliable, Iranian regime propaganda websites and blogs are not! take your propaganda elsewhere, Misplaced Pages is not the place for that kind of garbage! - Marmoulak (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What does the ahestan.ir source say exactly? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahestan.ir disputes plot calling it both "incredible and funny", and speaks about Hollywood propaganda. Basically it says similar to review by Wesley Morris. This is my point: we have many sources calling it both "true story" and "false/propaganda", it's not to us to conclude which side is correct but to keep neutrality by avoiding it both as fact. That's why I inserted criticism inside of article without lead with "false/propaganda" supported by 5-6 links. Marmoulak has tried to do opossite with "true story", so it's pure bias. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahestan.ir does not comply with either WP:NPOV or WP:RS. It's an Islamist blog, pure garbage - Marmoulak (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It's written by Omid Hosseini, but numerious other Persian sources can be included. You're reverting everything (including three Western sources) so it's pure bias. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Your lack of comprehension makes it difficult to discuss this rationally! This is not a matter of "Western" vs "Persian", it's a matter of reliable vs unreliable (WP:RS). The reliable sources you have inserted don't back your claims and the Islamist blogs you are using as sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV - Marmoulak (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Categories: