Talk:Miral

Citing sources

There seems to be a group of individuals who seem to want to avoid including the reference of the Deir Yessin Massacre despite the fact that was one of the reason why the orphanage in the film was instituted. It is explicitly mentioned by the film director as well. I realize that this film is turning out to be contrevesial to many. But readers are entitled to know the background and reference of the film that they are watching. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not jump to conspiratorial conclusions and make collective references to editors that imply WP:CABAL. Wikipedia policy at WP:BOP states clearly: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." When adding the Deir Yassin text, it was necessary to include a reference making it possible for other editors to verify the source of the claim. Please note that saying "It is explicitly mentioned by the film director" does not meet the criteria of WP:BOP unless there is a WP:RS to go along with it. I am examining the sources you referenced to evaluate their validity.—Biosketch (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch: No conspiracy implied, it quite clear to me what is occurring on this page, as I am sure others can also see. GoetheFromm (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I lack your perspicacity: "what is occurring on this page" is not clear to me at all. Remember that it was you who added information to the page without citing a source. As a Wikipedia contributor you have to accept that other contributors will challenge your edits. I didn't revert your edit. I left a message on your Talk page requesting a source, per WP:BOP. You have provided sources, which is all I wanted. Now your sources are being reviewed. This is how good-faith collaboration works.—Biosketch (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, of course it is useful to questions edits, and as you will see: when you asked me for a source, I provided more than one. You will see that "Plot Spoiler" seems to want to say that no of the sources are reliable. What are your thoughts about that? GoetheFromm (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I also want to emphasize the point that if actually follow the wiki links to Hind Husseini you will see that it makes direct reference to the Deir Yessin Massacre and setting up of an orphanage that Miral is fictionally associated to. This is how it became first evident to me that it was necessary to add the Deir Yessin Massacre. It was only afterwards, have done a google search that I discovered the film's, the director's, and others' direct reference to the Deir Yessin Massacre in reference to the film. To me, that is good wikipediying. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You make a valid point that I should probably have followed the wikilink to Hind Husseini. So that's what I'm doing now...but there are problems. For one thing, the first reference at Hind Husseini has rotted. Secondly, the second time Deir Yassin is mentioned in the Hind Husseini article, the reference leads to palestine-family.net, which appears to be a user-edited website and therefore a source of questionable reliability. It should not be considered a WP:RS either at the Hind Husseini page or here at Miral.

The second reference is to a huffingtonpost.com page that doesn't mention Hind Husseini anywhere in the article, only in the reader comments. Needless to say, that is not a reliable source either.

The third reference is mandoweiss.net. That is a blog and therefore not a WP:RS.

The fourth reference is globalindigo.com, which is hosting an interview from The Electronic Intifada. Electric Intifada is not a WP:RS.

There fifth reference is tinymixtapes.com. It appears to be an entertainment website and cannot count as a WP:RS owing to its promotional nature vis-a-vis the film it's discussing.

Basically the same goes for the sixth reference: cinemaaonline.com – it is a promotional entertainment website and cannot be considered a credible source of historical information.

What that means is that none of the sources withstand critical analysis and until a more reliable source can be found, you should revert your edit.—Biosketch (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, because the issue isn't "historical," it is whether the film and the main character is actually set in the context of the Deir Yassin Massacre. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Huffington Post reference (it had more before) and added two more references.

@Biosketch: Listen I know that you are pro-zionist, and I sympathize with you, but you are going to have to allow relevant information to be on wikipage, even if the unsavory material doesn't conform to your viewpoint on life. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) In that case, you will have to place the name "Hind Husseini" within quotation marks to distinguish it from the real-world Hind Husseini. Also, her name will have to be dewikilinked so readers are not misled into following the link to the Hind Husseini article, which purports to be about a real person rather than the fictional persona in the film. And that sill does not validate the sources that are user-generated or that refer to reader comments.

What are you talking about, BioSketch? It is very common to link the real character with fictional characters on page related to films. That's the point of the link! GoetheFromm (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My involvement with the Zionist movement is of no concern to this article. What is of concern is abiding by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. There are criteria for establishing what can be considered a WP:RS, and we must function within those criteria regardless of our political orientations.—Biosketch (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It pleases me BioSketch that you understand the difference between political orientation and wikipedia standards. That was my point. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A citable source that relates the movie to Deir Yassin is here. Astarabadi (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected: "In real life, as in the movie, children fleeing Dir Yassin were adopted by Husseini.".—Biosketch (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Another is here. These are both mainsteam Israel newspapers which are RSs by long practice here. Astarabadi (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't quite work for us: "Schnabel recruited Indian actress Freida Pinto, who played Latika in "Slumdog Millionnaire," for the role of Miral and Hiam Abass of Israel ("The Syrian Bride," "Lemon Tree") for the elegant orphanage director Hind Husseini in the French-Israeli-Italian-Indian production." It doesn't relate Husseini to Deir Yassin. And regarding the Ha'aretz article, it is not a source for the number 55 that's on the page.—Biosketch (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are totally deflecting the issue. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Goethe, you are acting completely out of line. While BioSketch is actually trying to comply with WP:RS, you are just flaming everybody else with your accusations, which clearly violate WP:Assume good faith. By adding more unreliable sources, it doesn't make you any more correct. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please point how I am flaming everybody else (considering that there has been only you, me, BioSketch, and Astrabadi)? Astarbadi and I both offered sources that indicate the background of the film is in reference, among other incidents, to the Deir Yassin Massacre. There is more than sufficient evidence to support that point. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks, keep it civil please. Now we have two citable sources stating clearly that Deir Yassin was the origin of at least some of the orphans both in real life and in the movie. (Biosketch, you seem to have missed this ynet paragraph: "Like Jebreal, Miral grew up in an orphanage in east Jerusalem set up by a Jerusalem socialite from a wealthy Palestinian family, who one morning in 1948 came across a group of children who escaped the massacre of Dir Yassin, a nearby village, committed by radical Jewish militants.") This should be reflected in the article. Most of the other sources given for this point can be removed now. The number 55 appears in the following paragraph and is a separate issue. Astarabadi (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Astarbadi, will you please remove the appropriate sources? Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Goethe, would you mind formatting your references. Don't want to have linkrot. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its been done, never mind Astarabadi. GoetheFromm (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rearranging without introducing new material

The two paragraphs at the start of the plot section... 1) the backdrop (first paragraph) is the 47-48 war and the establishment of Israel. 2) the orphans that Hind encounters are from Deir Yassein (in the movie she asks: where are you from? answer: Deir Yassein). Deir Yassein needs to be moved to the second paragraph, but given the discussion that has already occurred, I wanted to open discussion here and listen for other ideas before acting. Jd2718 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Role of Hani

It is problematic to call Hani a "terrorist", see WP:TERRORIST. How is he actually described in the movie? Astarabadi (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question.... GoetheFromm (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that it's problematic, certainly if there's no WP:RS to support it.—Biosketch (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I say remove, then, or replace with less loaded term, until more support is provided for one way or another. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We can use "militant" for now. Astarabadi (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Balance in reporting of sources

Folks, we are required to report the contents of sources in a balanced fashion. That means examples like the following are not acceptable:

• The source [1]: "most of the hard questions are glossed over or touched on ever so lightly: terrorism, the colonies on the West Bank, the Israeli army's wholesale destruction of Palestinian property."
• The article: "despite the film's glossing over of issues such as terrorism".

Anyone can see that this is not a balanced report. If quoting the whole sentence from the source is too much, a way has to be found to summarize it correctly. Astarabadi (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. Consider rephrasing the sentence:

• Deborah Young of the Hollywood Reporter described Miral as "a political film with a message of hope, on the obvious side," though she was also critical of it for glossing over "hard questions" such as terrorism and Israeli settlements.—Biosketch (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I included that (I assume that you know that, already)...pray tell, inform me how it is unbalanced. GoetheFromm (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I I like the revised version offered by Biosketch. GoetheFromm (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna include a segment of material to the critics section stating:

According to reports by the Hollywood Reporter, Harvey Weinstein, the distributor of the film, believes that "'Miral' Critics Are 'Crazy and Wrong,'" and that those who watch the film will "see something that's a pathway to peace and a beautiful coming-of-age story." GoetheFromm (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just listening to an interview on NPR with the author and the person about whom the film is based. I think it would be great to include some material on it. Will provide my thoughts as I find written material on the interview. Let me know if you all find anything. GoetheFromm (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Heard another NPR interview this mornings with Julian Schnabel, the director, we should include material from that as well. GoetheFromm (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Miral the flower

Is it a variety of of the chrysanthemum gene as per this source ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I asked the question to possibly put a reference in the article about the meaning of the name. --Robertiki (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722001345/http://www.pathedistribution.com/accueil/filmavenir.php?IDFilm=1748 to http://www.pathedistribution.com/accueil/filmavenir.php?IDFilm=1748

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)