Talk:Farha (film)/Archive 1

Category:2020s Swedish films
may i ask, why this page is related to Category:2020s Swedish films? מי-נהר (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * added the category here. Maybe they can explain.  It is not evident from the article text why it is so categorized.  -- Jayron 32 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how categories work for films, but several sources list the country of origin of the film as primarily Jordan and also list Sweden and Saudi Arabia. Co-producing companies include Laika Film & Television and Chimney, both based in Sweden.
 * Added a citation in the infobox. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment

 * This is an odd hook to fixate on. The line you added in this diff to support it (I accidentally removed this in an edit clash btw) also doesn't make sense - no connection is made in the overall sentence between the line about what the film depicts and why politicians are complaining about it - the reaction isn't just a 'given', and the added first part adds nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a source that says: "The focus of the backlash is almost entirely on the one short scene in Fahra in which Israeli soldiers are shown murdering a civilian family."
 * I will add it. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Mistake
Mistake in the opening paragraph

"The film is directed by Darin J. Sallam, who also wrote it based on a story that he was told as a child about a girl named Radiyyeh."

The director is female, as stated elsewhere in this very article Izzy991 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This has now been fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Standalone section
In my experience, when a film touches on a larger societal topic, it can warrant a standalone section focusing on that. To start with banal examples, films based on history or science tend to have "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" sections (with "accuracy" having a neutral meaning here). Other films have had "Political commentary" and "Social commentary" sections that reference people beyond the standard film critics' reviews. Perhaps something like that could be done here to cover the debates and fold them into the narrative, per WP:STRUCTURE? Another possible neutrally-titled section heading could be "Portrayal of Israel-Palestinian conflict" under which the various commentary can be summarized. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am generally in support. However, I believe the section should be titled "Portrayal of the Nakba". ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site as source
Please do not remove legitimate sources from the box quote. I established the box quote, and wish to offer the article by film critic Joanne Laurier as an informative article on the subject. Note: You are welcome to ADD a source. I retained the source you offered. CerroFerro (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:WSWS, "There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting." Its use here is unnecessary and replacing it is the correct editorial decision.
 * Also, what do you mean "I established the box quote". Are you saying you own it? The source you used is sub-par. This is a very sensitive page. Please remove the unnecessary weak source. @CerroFerro.---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear CoffeeCrumb: Thank you for thoughtfully moving the discussion to the article's talk page.

I agree with you that "there is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting" and that goes as well for The Hollywood Reporter, a virulent red-baiting McCarthyite publication during 1940s and 50s that destroyed the careers of many talented figures in American filmmaking: all this, according to Wikipedia.

I am not questioning your decision to use a publication with such an unsavory history in the article. But before you call the WSWS source "weak", and start summarily removing footnotes, kindly tell us what is amiss with the article by Joanne Laurier entitled "Farha: Film about Israeli atrocities in 1948 comes under attack"? --CerroFerro (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You statements are not based on established consensus on en.wiki. Please see WP:THR. I will again remove WSWS from the article for the reasons stated as you have provided no basis for its inclusion on this article when better substitutes are available. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with C&C that the comparison to The Hollywood Reporter of the 1950s is a very weak one. Why, by that logic, would we consider The New York Times or other publications greatly respected in the U.S. today RS, considering that they were hotbeds of yellow journalism during the Gilded Age and equally virulent in their red-baiting during the Red Scares? For one, almost definitely, no one at THR now also worked there in the 1950s. And this is total WP:OTHERSTUFF since the WSWS RS discussion was last held in 2021, not the 1950s. Heavy Water (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a Third Party examination of this issue--CerroFerro (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure. I will ping every registered user that has ever edited the article or the talk page. That should be fair per @,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Hey everyone, can you help us settle a disagreement? Should this citation to the World Socialist Web Site be removed? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't trust WSWS. I've found them to spread disinformation and promote Russian interests. But this is a ref for a quote from the filmmakers. Now, those of you very skeptical of WSWS might think they're making it up. But why the hell are we having this discussion when we can just delete the WSWS ref and leave the THR ref? Heavy Water (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will now be bold and delete the WSWS ref in favor of the THR ref. Heavy Water (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your politically motivated delete. Let's move forward to Dispute Resolution, and stop the accusations of "promoting Russian interests."--CerroFerro (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Why did my one edit (to revert an IP's vandalism) back on Dec 2nd, warrant a ping for this conversation? I have no knowledge of, or interest in, the subject of this. One edit is not enough to indicate any user is interested in any subject. Feel free to remove me from this conversation. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WSWS as far as I know is incendiary in its reporting language and has the tendency to always blame the West and its allies for everything without proof. Yes it's biased. Its use for factual reporting should be avoided. However I don't see anything wrong in using it to cite an opinion on a film. See WP:RSOPINION. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * But the quote can be obtained from any number of sources we generally accept. Why do we have to us it here when better options are available for the exact same information? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being the first person to see the obvious solution here. Heavy Water (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's a better source for the quote, then that one should be preferred. Reliable sites over unreliable ones. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP, WSWS is reliable with attribution to its authors. But since its just confirmation that the filmmakers said something in a statement and you already have a source for that and which can anyway be verified directly with the statement, then I don't see why you need two sources for that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup. I don't see a problem using WSWS for this uncontroversial quote from the film-makers. The instructions at the Perennial Sources list allow this type of usage. For those who are disagree with WSWS' viewpoint, there is the HR. Burrobert (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed. There is already another cite, so this is all a moot point and it does not matter if the WSWS cite stays or not - since the content does not rely upon it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is anything but "a tempest in a teapot" - a general principle must be addressed by the Wikipedia Establishment: Are accusations of disloyalty to the United States advanced by Heavy Water going to be sanctioned? "Teapot" indeed! --CerroFerro (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a different question to the one posed. If you have a problem with another editor, then raise it first with them on their talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are also now in breach of the 1RR rule for IP articles. Kindly self revert or risk a report. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me take that step by step. I agree with the "tempest in a teapot" thing. This is a pointless debate because this a ref for information covered by the other ref, whose reliability is not generally in dispute. But there's no need to make a "tempest in a teapot" over someone's usage of the phrase "tempest in a teapot". I find your use of "Wikipedia Establishment" rather vague. But anyway, saying I have made implies I made them against you. I simply said  That is a comment on the reliability of a source. I didn't accuse them of  either. (I then went on to explain why this discussion was irrelevant).
 * Then there's your other comment, more troubling: You accuse me of political motivations. That can be seen as a personal attack and certainly is a violation of AGF. It seems kind of premature to go to DR, don't you think? This discussion's barely been open for 24 hours, although once C&C pinged everyone, the flow of the discussion turned against your argument. And you take my "promoting Russian interests" thing out of context, and make it seem like you're the victim of a Russophobic personal attack here.
 * Selfstudier has given you a D/S notice after you breached 1RR; you made that revert with the explanation that it was . That sounds very much like a WP:OWN violation. Instead of explaining why you think we should keep the WSWS ref, you have violated policy and assumed bad faith of me.
 * Thus, with my original explanation, I am using my alloted one revert per 24 hours to revert you. If you revert me again within 24 hours, I will report you at WP:AN/EW. Heavy Water (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As to "explaining why" the WSWS ref should be honored, recall that I was not the editor who deleted the ref in the first place. I requested an explanation. None is forthcoming. Now you demand that I defend my totally justifiable revert. Talk about "The pot calling the kettle black" --CerroFerro (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The explanations were given above by multiple participants, including myself. That this discussion is not going your way is not a reason for your revert. Heavy Water (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I am re-posting the following from my Talk Page --CerroFerro (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC):

You are currently in breach of the 1R rule for these articles at Farha (film). Since you have not in the past received an awareness notification, I have filed one above. Edit warring against consensus is not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict per se, and I think you know it. The question is whether a simple citation from the WSWS can be deleted for unstated reasons based on "consensus". This is a fundamental question of principle, not opinion.
 * If you wish to find a forum that believes that Trump won the 2020 presidential election, no doubt you can find "consensus" on the matter.
 * Joanne Laurier of WSWS has in effect stated that "2 + 2 = 4" The quote she cited in her article has been retained as a suitable box quote, but the Wikipedia Establishment refuses to allow her to be the messenger for a statement from film director Darin J. Sallam. Instead, you defend deleting the ref and replacing it with a ref that has a history of red-baiting and anti-communism during the McCarthyite witch hunts. The Hollywood Reporter. You falsely claimed that the WSWS was "additional" - you know it was not.
 * As usual, the tactic is to issue a threat that an editor is in "breach", and liable to being censored i.e., blocked from Wikipedia. Utterly unprincipled and, I regret to say, rather cowardly. CerroFerro (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I refer you once again to your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comrade, if you only knew how many avowed communists you are yelling at and are in the en.wiki community. Please heed replies above in good faith. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you fighting for here? The quote is in the article. Who gives a rat's arse which source came first? How does banal conspiratorial rambling serve the project in any way? What a complete and utter waste of your time and the community's. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If no one gives a "rat's arse" as you so eloquently put it, that the source for the quote is irrelevant, why was the Joanne Laurier ref repeatedly removed from the article, and remains so? --CerroFerro (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked for dispute resolution, you have had it, there are multiple editors against your position and no-one supporting it. Now please do everyone the courtesy of self reverting. If you are not satisfied with this outcome, then by all means start an RFC but atm you have no consensus for your position. Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The "offending" WSWS source has been reverted, so as to effect a Dispute Resolution proceeding. That was the price exacted by the Wiki Establishment. My principles have not altered, I assure you. Now in "good faith", let's see if this matter can be examined honestly on the DR forum.--CerroFerro (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have notified CerroFerro on their talk page, I have filed a report about this on WP:AN/EW as it constitutes edit warring. Y'all can expect some sort of decision by an admin soon. Heavy Water (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @CerroFerro: thank you for self-reverting. Heavy Water (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Not sure what you mean by the DR forum? Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As Selfstuder stated on my Talk Page: "You asked for dispute resolution, you have had it." My understanding is that the DR is not merely a ghastly Star Chamber (though it may descend into one), but an opportunity to clarify one's position. Even the Inquisition offered Joan of Arc that much. I requested a DR and I "have it." Are you telling me that you are going to proceed with a determination on this matter without offering a detailed response to my objections as to the suppression of the WSWS ref? To date, no one has provided a basis for the removal of the Joanne Laurier source. What is this much vaunted "consensus"? If that is not taken into consideration, the whole exercise is a fraud.--CerroFerro (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * DR (about content not conduct) is a process, if it were just two editors, one could just get a WP:3PO. That's passed by because the discussion now involves multiple editors. You could try the WP:DRN or you can get more eyes on an issue via a WP:RFC with this discussion being the WP:RFCBEFORE although I am not sure what (neutral) question you would be asking? I am not really that clear exactly what the issue is that you want resolved. If all you want is the WSWS source included somewhere in the article, then why not include it (with attribution per WP:RSP) for something they reported other than the particular quote in the box (apropos of nothing at all, I don't actually like the boxed quote, that wasn't all that the filmmakers said). Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Responding to the ping: I see no reason for the quote box to exist at all. It has no informational content, and is basically promotional. "We are overwhelmed by the amount of support the film is receiving globally and are grateful to everyone who is doing their part to stand up against this attack and ensure the film is spoken about and seen … The film exists, we exist, and we will not be silenced." Let's see - can anyone imagine the filmmakers would not be grateful for support? Does anyone doubt the film exists or the filmmakers exist? The rest - that the film got support, and the filmmakers continued to try to show it, are already cited in the section. I think the quote box should be deleted completely. --GRuban (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I personally would not have included the quote at all. The other large quote in the same section is very substative and notable. This snippet from their statement, however, is like you said completely unnecessary. ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was WSWS ref by Joanne Laurier deleted repeatedly?
Dear Selfstudier- Let's get this issue back on track regarding the article posted on the World Socialist Web Site: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/20/pkmm-d20.html

You wrote: "I am not really that clear exactly what the issue is that you want resolved." As Jack Nicholson said in Five Easy Pieces (1970) "I'll make this as easy for you as I can." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIXrF34Bz0

On what basis has the reference from WSWS in the Joanne Laurier article not only been replaced, but repeatedly deleted from the article? You're played a major role in presiding over this issue. Try to focus: no answer to this question has been provided by any of the editors - editors you've collaborated closely on this matter. Kindly eschew issuing disciplinary threats in lieu of an apropos statement. CerroFerro (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not presiding over this, but per WP:RSP (look at the entries in the table), the WSWS source is reliable with attribution to their authors ie you say something like according to (author), (some statement). There is no consensus as to whether WSWS itself is reliable for facts. Per the same RSP, Hollywood Reporter is considered reliable for facts. Since two sources for the same statement are unnecessary it is better to use the reliable one rather than the one that requires attribution. Separately, I would also say at this point, there is an emerging consensus that the box quote ought to go in any case, it seems undue. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I was correct. You dare not answer the question. A pity.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That you don't like the answer, I cannot help with that, sorry. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been answered: when two sources exist and one is better than the other; it is redundant to keep the poorer, less trusted source. If you think WP:WSWS has been done a historic injustice in terms of its measure of WSWS as a source, go to WP:RSN and relitigate the source's characterization. This page, however, is the wrong forum for going about that. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. The reference from Joanne Laurier has been deleted from the article question, and shall remain so until "consensus" has shifted. Now let's get back to improving this online encyclopedia, our paramount goal.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * WSWS is a very poor source. I support its removal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It said that the movie is based on a TRUE story, and its a LIE.
the movie is based on a story that elegedlly was told to someone. there is no verification of this story. you need to erase the word "true". 147.236.119.150 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is incorrect as the film is largely fiction
PLEASE edit this article to reflect that the film is not in fact based on true events. You are correct that it’s a contentious topic, and the current content can absolutely spread antisemitic hate. The plot is based on Anne frank, not this woman’s story. Per the director:

“The only thing that we really took from her [Radieh’s] story was that she was locked up in a room.”[3]

Though the opening and closing credits emphasize that Farha is based on a true story, the director has repeatedly stated that the majority of the film’s plot is fictional. The horrific events Farha witnesses from that room, which form the crux of the plot, are fiction. The only “true” element of the story is that a girl was locked in a room during the 1948 War and later went to Syria. See a more detailed analysis: https://www.standwithus.com/farha-fictional-not-factual#:~:text=Though%20the%20opening%20and%20closing,of%20the%20plot%2C%20are%20fiction. 207.229.179.121 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)