Talk:Lawrence of Arabia (film)

Passages to use

On 10 June 1916, Sharif Husayn's tribal warriors attacked the Turkish garrison in Mecca. With him he had the English officer, Thomas E. Lawrence, whose adventures were immortalised in David Lean's film Lawrence of Arabia. Romantic historians have represented the revolt as a general Arab rising after more than 400 years of Turkish despotism. In reality, Husayn's personal ambitions to be king of the Arab world were more decisive, and the tribal warriors he mobilised by no means represented a broad, popular movement. Nonetheless, when these tribal warriors, in cooperation with the British, entered Damascus in 1918, the jubilation was great. Husayn's son, Faysal, rode triumphantly into the city and formed an Arab government.

• Selvik, Kjetil; Stenslie, Stig (2011). Stability and Change in the Modern Middle East. I. B. Tauris. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-84885-589-2. 

For possible use in the "Historical accuracy" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

There are certain film directors like David Lean, Andre Tarkovsky or Chen Kaige who have earned a justifiable reputation as filmmakers preoccupied with the power and specularities of landscapes. Films, such as Dr Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, Yellow Earth exemplify this fact.

• Harper, Graeme; Rayner, Jonathan (2010). Cinema and Landscape. Intellect Ltd. p. 155. ISBN 978-1-84150-309-7. 

For possible use in regarding to the film and the landscape in it. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

One can see the influence of Lawrence of Arabia here, the first film [Siddiq] Barmak ever saw. Just as in David Lean's film, Osama opens the viewer's eye to a desolate panorama of (urban) desert. From the very first sequence, which portrays a demonstration of women clad in blue burqas, the camera's depth of field extends far beyond the protesters to include the hills of mud-brick homes behind them and the mountains beyond.

• Graham, Mark (2010). Afghanistan in the Cinema. University of Illinois Press. pp. 90–91. ISBN 978-0-252-07712-8. 

For possible use in the "Legacy" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot

Today, I used this synopsis published by the British Film Institute to cite the plot summary with a secondary source since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on such sources whenever possible. We only use primary sources with great care, and in articles about film, we often run the risk of including interpretations. The goal of the plot summary is to provide an overview of the film in a concise manner. I was reverted, and I am concerned that we have a lot of interpretations in the primary-sourced revision. We have creative descriptions and a few assumptions about characters' behavior. A few recent Featured Articles about Star Trek films source their plot summaries to similar secondary sources, and there is no risk of interpretation in that approach. Can we not do the same here? The article may not be able to reach Featured status with the interpretations of the primary source, especially when we have a synopsis readily verifiable. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. What you are proposing is not the norm for film plots. I can't recall the last time I ran across a synopsis based on some other group's (other than copyvios), nor do I consider the anonymous BFI writer a reliable source worthy of a reference. If some new consensus has formed, I'm not aware of it. Blade Runner, Casablanca, Dog Day Afternoon, and other feature articles seem to have managed without referencing the plots in this manner.

If you have concerns about interpretations, please go into specifics. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Most films will not have secondary sources providing detail about their plots. That is why the default is to use the film as a primary source, though with great care. If we can use a secondary source, we should. The source I used was the British Film Institute, which is definitely reliable. I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise. As we've seen, plot summaries can fluctuate a great deal because there are too many ways for random editors to explain the events in a film. The synopsis from the British Film Institute is just over 800 words and conveys what happens in the film. By attributing the content to a secondary source that is quickly verifiable as a web page, we do not have to worry about extraneous detail nor inappropriate tone. For example, Star Trek: The Motion Picture references this. The approach provides a concise summary of the work, and it does not prevent providing explanations of scenes elsewhere in the article body when context is needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would consider the BFI reliable as a whole, but not necessarily every aspect of it, until somebody or some prior discussion proves it to my satisfaction. I've looked around the BFI site to try to ascertain who is responsible for their synopses and how reliable they are, without much luck.

Assuming it is a reliable source, is it necessary or even desirable to base the plot summary on it? Where was this decided? All I see is Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed, which, while only an essay, makes sense to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you're saying you trust the anonymous writers of Wikipedia over the anonymous writers of the British Film Institute. WP:NOR says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That kind of language is why I said we should use a secondary source if one exists. We should not be questioning the BFI's content in the first place; we should be able to assume that it is reliable unless indicated otherwise. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Is there any reason to believe that the films' web pages did not go through a reliable publication process under the institute? In addition, are you opposed to using any secondary sources at all? In my research, I think it is likely we will find solid synopses of the film, but they're not going to be as accessible as this one from BFI. I think its use will help ensure overall verifiability. I have seen editors in the past challenge a summary because it is a lot of describing of the primary source and because the summary has typically lacked citations. If we reference the secondary source for the summary and cite it, we can avoid a stink about it. I would like to do a peer review at some point, and I can raise this issue then. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point. References are necessary to support statements that are likely to be challenged. I personally don't recall ever running across anyone who complained because a synopsis wasn't cited. It's not felt necessary in novels, plays, television episodes, etc.

It also makes me very uneasy about co-opting somebody else's writing. What's the point? BFI's version can be externally linked. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Faisal

Although the Article refers to Faisal as a practical joker, according to TEL in Seven Pillars it was Faisal's older brother, the less serious Abdullah, who was an unrepentent practical joker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J52Jarhead (talk • contribs) 13:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for anniversary collaboration

Hello, the film Lawrence of Arabia (film) is one of the candidates for WikiProject Film's anniversary collaboration. Please see the discussion about the collaboration here. Feel free to support this candidate, the other candidates, or even nominate other films as candidates for the anniversary collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)