Talk:The Stoning of Soraya M.

Who is the widower?
While reading this Wikipedia 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs)

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)


 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 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)


 * You can join our discussion., 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User Qizilbash123, you need to educate yourself about Wikipedia rules and policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS before changing articles and reverting other users' contributions. Your changes do not comply with Wikipedia's rules. Sources like New york times, Daily Mail and Reuters are neutral and reliable sources that can be used on Wikipedia, however Islamist Regimes' propaganda cannot be used as reliable source of information! Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 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)


 * Mine lack of comprehension? Omid Hosseini isn't an "islamist". Neither is Richard Nilsen, and you want to discredit his statements by calling The Arizona Republic "non-reliable". He calls movie a cheat, as Iranians do, and as Amnesty International expert does. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahestan is a blog filled with ant-western and anti-American garbage which promotes and glorifies terrorism! it has no place in Wikipedia. [siasi.porsemani.ir] is Khamenei's offical propaganda outlet (Called official representative of supreme leader Khamenei!). Richard Nilsen is not denying the fact that the story is true, he is just criticizing the artistic aspects of the film. Seems like you have reading comprehension problem as well! - Marmoulak (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Marmoulak, it's neither a blog and it doesn't support terrorism. Avoid personal defamation. Official government site is of course more reliable source (also very detailed) then propaganda nonsense written by former monarchist ambassador and regime journalist Freidoune Sahebjam. A path from monarchist aristocrat to Middle Eastern immigrant in West is indeed terrible and frustrating, as it can be see from lies in his works which are just political parables (as W. Morris noticed). Critics by Nilsen are quite clear but you see only what you want to see. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahestan is wordpress blog by an Islamist that promotes terrorism, anti-semitism among other forms of racism. Propaganda outlets by Islamist regimes violate WP:NPOV. Your baseless attacks against the book's author does not change the facts! - Marmoulak (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Baseless claims. Btw you want to imply everything anti-Iranian is OK, but anything Iranian isn't? That's not just basic violation of WP:NPOV but extreme form of WP:BIGOTRY. Such rules may work in Nazi Germany, Pahlavi monarchy and similar totalitarian regimes, but not in civilized World. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What is anti-Iranian ? Stoning has been part of Iran's constitution since 1979! As an Iranian, mentioning the fact that stoning women to death is practiced by the Iranian regime makes me anti-Iranian ? Amnesty International, Amnesty, Independent. The blogs you post as "sources" promotes antisemitism other forms of racism, so it's obvious who's violating WP:BIGOTRY - Marmoulak (talk)


 * Comment I tend to agree with Qizilbash123 on this one. The story may have some relation to true events either in a general sense or even in terms of the specifics of the actual story, but ultimately the film-makers just took the book and adapted it. At the end of the day anyone can stick "based on true events" on a movie poster i.e. The Amityville Horror (Satan lives in my basement, really??), Picnic at Hanging Rock (no record of school girls ever disappearing), Fargo (generally accepted to be bullshit despite "This is a true story" appearing at the start of the film) etc. It's just too spurious to include in an enyclopedia since there are no actual facts to tie it to. Even with something like The Amityville Horror we can approach it in an encylopedic fashion by saying the film is based on the account by the Lutz family of their time living at the house. If we can't contextualise what "true events" mean in this instance we should omit the claim IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not analogous to Fargo. Fargo's claim to be based on a "true story" is part of the fiction itself. This is analogous to films like A Beautiful Mind (film), Catch Me If You Can, or The Social Network, where the general story is based on true events and real people but at the same time they are not documentaries. A girl named Soraya was stoned to death in Iran by the government, and this film is based on that story but it's not an exact documentary. Please read: The Guardian, Daily Mail, NPR, Yahoo News, nytimes - Marmoulak (talk)


 * All those reports do is reiterate the "true story" claims made by the author of the book. Are there any factual reports that independently corroborate the essential facts of the film? Has anyone besides the author of the book (such as Amnesty) confirmed the incident took place? Anyone with an axe to grind against Iran could write such a book and pass it off as true. Essentially all we can do as editors is verify the claim that it is based on a true story, not that it is based on a true story. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Newspapers such as NPR, Guardian or Daily Mail, don't just quote another source without corroborating it's validity first. Anyways, as mentioned in the Daily Mail link I have already posted, director of Amnesty International supports the film. Amnesty calls it "based on a true story" as well: The Week, Daily Mail, Amnesty - Marmoulak (talk)


 * The book Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry published by Routledge lists the Sahebjam book as a biography among others; see link. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This mentions that Soraya's aunt told the story to the reporter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This (page 212, which I viewed via Amazon Preview) says, "Consider the 1986 execution in Iran of Soraya M., accused by her husband of adultery. Buried to her neck and shoulders in sand, she was stoned to death by men of her village, starting with her father. She died slowly, as the stones, thrown from a distance, did not always hit or hit squarely. Finally, after determining that she still lived, someone crushed her skull with a stone from above. Her biographer, Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam (kidnapped and tortured by Iranians in 1979 in Paris for an article he published in Le Monde; Sahebjam 1990, pp. viii-ix), reports that over a thousand women were stoned to death in Iran between 1979 and 1994 (p. vii)." I'm finding that there is more that contextualize it as a true story, compared to the other sources that doubt the story in passing without really elaborating why. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Marmoulak first speak strongly against using blogs, and then he uses one from Amnesty as a "proof". He also lack knowledge about book itself because he claims "a girl named Soraya was stoned to death in Iran by the government", which contradict statements from book which claims it was "independant decision by local mullah". Anyone familiar with Iranian judiciary and religion know both are impossible, first claim because of moratorium of such punishment by supreme court in 1981, and second claim because since revolution all capital punishments must be approved by supreme court and also because there's no any stoning in Shia religious literature so Shia cleric (mullah) can't order it. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Erik, as I said earlier - it's not about us to elaborate is story true or false, but accepting either in article is WP:POV considering opossite views exist in sources. The most similar comparison would be Not Without My Daughter: even in Western academic books you can find both "true story" and "racist propaganda". That's why I suggested to avoid accepting both in introduction. However, biased editor still force his POV. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Marmoulak has removed book in which states film received financing by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and he claim there's no such statement in book. Actually, there is and it can be checked by Amazon (and in index preview. Probably WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT reasons. Other thing, he's amassing 6-7 references as "proof" of POV which is fallacy called argumentum ad googlum. I can do the same with amassing 20-30 Persian articles for backing false/propaganda, but I rather stick to WP:NPOV. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Stoning of Soraya M.. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emanuellevy.com/blog/comments.cfm?id=142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)