Talk:Unruled Paper

Urgent proposal

I urgently propose that those detested tags be removed from the main page of this entry; they only represent the opinion of one individual (at most two individuals) who must not be able to wield so much influence as to damn an article in less than five minutes of its creation. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia whose contents are written by people and for people; the principle that one individual can bring damnation on a content is alien to this fundamental principle underlying Wikipedia. I had never known User:Triwbe and neither had ever voted for him. How can this person single-handedly lower the credibility of a content written by me? No doubt, within a dictatorship User:Triwbe would have served the system very well (he would have even be paraded as a hero of the nation - we must have heard of Stalinism and many other similarly despicable isms), but this is not the system for which I and countless other people work for and spend their precious times on. Let the people decide whether the article at issue is appropriate or deserving of being nastily tagged.

Several technical remarks are in order.

Firstly, one of the tags states that the entry is in need of "reference and sources for verification". This is an entry concerning a film! People can buy its DVD recording and watch it! There is nothing that the public cannot readily verify! The entry is not about some historical event, neither about some decision taken behind closed doors, to name an example. What document better than the film itself?! Moreover, as I have stated earlier (I have been fruitlessly campaigning for the removal of these detested tags since five minutes after creating the entry on Unruled Paper), a search on the Internet shows that there is no publicly-available documentation concerning this particular film. To my best knowledge, no one has ever written a review on this film, including in Persian. For instance, the Persian Wikipedia has the following entry on this film: [1]. As those who can read Persian can testify, the single-sentence plot description in this entry is erroneous. The only other reference known to me is the following, which I have cited in the "External links" section: [2]. Here again the plot description consists of a single sentence. Given these unambiguous facts, is it not nonsensical to ask for "documents", that do not exist, for "verification"?

Secondly, another tag states that the entry contained "peacock terms". The person who has inserted this tag clearly does not know anything about Cinema in general and about Iranian Cinema in particular. If I have said, e.g., that the cast is "stellar", this cannot be interpreted as the entry containing "peacock terms"! The cast truly consists of the very best, the crème de la crème of the Iranian actors: the late Khosrow Shakibai, Hadyeh Tehrani, Jamshid Mashayekhi, Nikoo Kheradmand, the late Jamileh Sheikhi, Akbar Moazzezi and Soghra Obeysi. If these individuals are not the very best actors on the universal level, then I do not know who are. In fact calling these artists stars (from which "stellar" is derived) is a disservice to them; they just define perfect acting. Nasser Taghvai does not need my mentioning his name here.

Thirdly, as for "original research", as I mentioned above, any person can get hold of a DVD recording of this film and watch it. The term "original research" is misplaced here. Moreover, let it be "original research". So what? What should one do when no one has ever written a single article on this film? Let this entry serve as the foundation on which the future articles on this film will be based - there must always be a first (the first is not necessarily the best, I hasten to add).

To summarise, I ask any person who has a genuine interest in the arts to raise her/his voice in protest and get those hated tags removed from the entry on Unruled Paper. Naturally, those who can write better, should not hesitate to improve the present article. Those who cannot, should present their views and critical remarks on this talk page; they can in this way make a genuinely positive contribution to the improvement of this article. It is my considered opinion that tagging must not have a place in Wikipedia; stigmatization it is an instrument of dictatorships with which I am not able to cohabit, neither am I willing even to contemplate to cohabit.

With kind regards, --BF 20:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

RFC: Are the issue tags placed on this article appropriate?

Let me start by responding to this statement:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia whose contents are written by people and for people; the principle that one individual can bring damnation on a content is alien to this fundamental principle underlying Wikipedia.

This is an unfair way to look at this dispute. There have been three editors to edit the article. Only two have made more than one edit. Before my comment, two were involved (one more involved than the other) in this dispute. That's 50% of the involved parties. I wonder if you've been involved in edit disputes before? If you've browsed Wikipedia enough, you know that even in mundane articles, it is a common sight to see pages with neutrality disputes, citation issues, etc. If one editor is willing to take the time to put up a NPOV tag, it is likely that others feel the same. If no other editor feels the same, it can just as easily be deleted. You do realize that if you wanted to, you could simply delete the tag? That is highly frowned upon though. Similarly frowned upon is Triwbe's wordless tagging of the article. Typically editors tag it and then explain why they tagged it. I would call this biting the newbie, but looking at your profile tells me you've been editting for at least 8 months. You should know Wiki's policies and similarly you should have known that eventually someone would call you out on this. Let me continue responding to each of your points...

You say that anyone who wants to verify statements you made in the article can simply watch the film. That is true of statements about the content of the film, but not about reactions to it, including award nominations and quotes about the film. Currently you don't even have the film listed as a reference!

You say that you are forced to do original research because no research exists. The non-existence of previous research is unfortunate but beside the point. Wiki's policy on original research is clear on the matter. We only repeat what other people have said.

In adddition, the fact that it is so difficult to find sources for this film leads me to believe that it is not notable. Really, Triwbe was generous in not nominating this article for deletion. You say yourself that not even Persian sources can be found on the film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What notable impact has the film had? That is what the article should cover.

You say that the actors in the film are the best and anyone who disagrees simply doesn't know anything about cinema (is this an accurate paraphrasing?). I hope by my repeating it back to you, you hear the lack of objectivity. Perhaps these are the most amazing actors ever seen on the face of the Earth, but how do you verify that? What you could do is find some list published by someone rating them at the top, but this would of course have to be attributed to that someone. Short of that, though, these POV terms (regardless of how accurate) must be removed to meet the Wiki's guidelines.

The article, if considered as a review or an essay, is written well. The problem is that Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedic entries. We're not trying to insult your writing here, or debate about the magnificence of the film. Your article is subject to the same scrutiny as every other article in Wikipedia. If we let you rave about how awesome the movie was, then other people are going to demand to be able to express their fringe and/or biased opinions as well. I hope you see that we are simply trying to maintain the standards of an encyclopedia. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury, let me be brief. Firstly, my essential point was that tags must not have any place within Wikipedia: those who know better, should modify any given entry to their best ability; those who think they know better and cannot or do not wish to edit an entry, should leave a relevant message on the pertinent talk page. And that is all (mind you, those who at present tag need not have necessarily obtained their tagging position on account of their professional expertise outside Wikipedia that might be deemed as relevant for the task - they are by all available accounts just people trusted with some power, exactly like in dictatorships which by definition are not meritocratic). As I indicated earlier, tagging amounts to stigmatization, and that is an abhorrent practice that in my opinion must not have any place within any democratic society. In democratic societies people call a spade a spade and do not go around a subject matter by attaching tags to it. I assume that the majority of us here are against, for instance, racial profiling. If so, then how could we in our right minds condone the practice of roaming Wikipedia and topping entries by such nondescript tags as "it may contain original research". Does it contain, or does it not contain?! In an open and healthy society there is no place for condemnation by insinuation, and I consider such statement as "it may contain original research" as a condemnation in disguise, an act of utter cowardice to my best judgement. The person who takes on himself or herself to place such a tag on top of an entry, should have the courage to stand for his or her opinion and unequivocally say "this article contains original research", and subsequently set out to improve the contents of the entry. "Its neutrality is disputed", is another hateful passive sentence! Who disputed its neutrality? And if there have been some individuals who have disputed the neutrality of the entry, why have they not undertaken to make it neutral? At the very least, they could have left a note in the pertinent talk page, setting out what in their opinion was so biased in the article? Why are we so actively promoting cowardice? Those who have detected some bias in an article and have done nothing about it (tagging is worse than doing nothing, I hasten to add), have forfeited their right to say any thing at all!

None of my statements in the entry is subjective! If you wish to dispute this statement, then you are morally obliged first to see the film and then to come back to me and tell me where precisely I have been unobjective. I do not accept that for instance use of such words as "stellar cast" necessary makes a text subjective. To deny this fact, is to deny the existence of inherent value, in sciences as well as in the arts and the literature. Such statement as 1+1 = 2 amounts to a mathematical fact concerning a set of mathematical objects, called numbers, with certain axiomatic properties. When I call a cast consisting of the late Khosrow Shakibai, Hadyeh Tehrani, Jamshid Mashayekhi, Nikoo Kheradmand, the late Jamileh Sheikhi, Akbar Moazzezi and Soghra Obeysi as "stellar", your accusation that I were biased in my statement is on a par with saying that 1+1 = 2 were a biased statement. As I have written above (in my previous message), some of these people have for at least two generations defined the notion of good acting. At any rate, calling such a cast an "stellar cast" is by no means controversial. Moreover, if you have any reasoned argument for this cast not being a "stellar cast", then please enlighten us, and I shall be the first to modify the "stellar cast". I am as opposed to profiling words as "biased" and "unbiased", or "pov" ore "non-pov", as I am to the racial profiling of people in our society.

One point is in order. No one who dares to opine on music in general, and on the classical music in particular, can be excused for not knowing e.g. Beethoven and Bach. Please note that this does not imply that one should necessarily like the music by these composers. In like manner, those who do not know the above-mentioned actors are in no position to consider "stellar cast", as applied to them, as subjective. Take Jamileh Sheikhi, who is mostly known to the Western audience for her role in Dariush Mehrjui's film Leila ([3]). Almost all reviewers of this film have called the role that she has played as the woman from hell. You cannot have seen Leila and not have been frightened by her character, but that is only a very small part of what she has done in this film; she gave her character an unfathomable depth that is not comprehensible by those who do not know the cultural background relevant to the film (to be sure, if I get the necessary time, I shall review Leila - I have played no role in the writing of the Wikipedia entry concerning Leila). To appreciate her, one will have to know Persian (the English subtitles of this film is absolutely substandard), since even the things that she does not say are heavily loaded with meaning. Khosrow Shakibai defined for an entire generation a personality in the form of Hamoun ([4]); that personality has become part of the Iranian folklore.

As for the absence of reviews of the film under discussion, it must be due to the political situation in Iran. The film is too critical, and I am not even certain that this film has ever been screened for any length of time inside Iran (i.e. outside the Fajr Festival). In one of the footnotes of the entry I refer to the Chain murders of Iran, which took place less than two years before this film came out. I can imagine that many people may have considered it unwise to appear to side with this film and its message (terror often does "wonders" to the overwhelming majority of people). Incidentally, my approach to this film is not political at all (not least because I am not political, and if I were, I would not allow my politics to influence my work on Wikipedia); as my text should have made evident, I have looked at this work purely for its artistic merits.

Lastly, I abhor clichés, generalisations, etc. I know that, for instance, Wikipedia is not "a collection of information". For the case at hand, the best way forward is for those who wish to contribute to the discussion to see the film first {[5]). Incidentally, I have been here since 2006, if not earlier, and not since six months ago. Kind regards, --BF 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

ps) Just realised that you must have misunderstood a fundamental fact. To my best knowledge (and this can be easily verified) not a single word of the present entry (i.e. "Unruled Paper") is due any other person but me. Please check the history of the entry; the edits by others (i.e. by User:Triwbe and User:Stifle) have all concerned tagging and un-tagging, which I do not consider as editing in the proper sense of the word (User:Stifle combined five tags into a single tag carrying the contents of the five, this in response to my earlier protest that within five minutes of its creation, the entry had been topped by all negative tags at the disposal of User:triwbe). I emphasise, I am not against editing (after all the entry is now part of Wikipedia and I cannot claim ownership over it - it belongs to public), I am against editing by means of tagging, using detested passive sentences, for which no one takes real responsibility (passive sentences, since long not acceptable in scientific publications, are just cowardice incarnate). As I have repeatedly said, any individual, including you, who believes to have a valid point, should not hesitate and edit the entry. --BF 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whew ok, let's start from the top. You said this:

Dear AzureFury, let me be brief.

1300 words is not brief. lol ;) Then you said...

Tags must not have any place within Wikipedia: those who know better, should modify any given entry to their best ability; those who think they know better and cannot or do not wish to edit an entry, should leave a relevant message on the pertinent talk page.

That is a loaded statement so let me start at the beginning. There are a number of reasons we use tags in Wikipedia. Frequently editors are editting outside their field of expertise. Even so, usually it is fairly easy to see something that might be original research or at least requires citation. That is where a tag comes in handy. You leave it as a (arguably) polite nudge to the author of the page indicating that you have an issue with the article, and then leave it to them to resolve it. Let me give you an example. I was reading a page on human rights violations in China. I found a statement without citation that used weasel words. I didn't want to delete it because it sounded true, but it clealy couldn't stand as it was. I threw up some tags here, and left it for the author of the page, or someone very interested in the page, to fix these issues. Sure enough, they more than fixed it, they significantly editted the section.

That being said, I think Triwbe was lazy in putting up the tags without a word as to why he put up the tags. The actual template page says to add the tag and describe why you added it. If you wanted to delete the tags after he did that without a word on the talk page, you would have been justified. Now that we have a discussion going though, we have to resolve these issues before we remove them.

You seem to think that only admins can add tags to pages? I'm not an admin and I added a tag. You can delete the tags (but again, this is frowned upon). Any user can throw up and delete tags. Even IP users. See WP:User access levels for more information. This is not the authoritarian iron curtain coming down on you. People have a great deal of freedom in Wikipedia, both for constructive editting and dickish editting. If we wanted to be dicks with your article, we could have gone through and deleted every sentence without citation or objectivity. There wouldn't be much left :p

You said this about the passiveness of the tags...

I assume that the majority of us here are against, for instance, racial profiling. If so, then how could we in our right minds condone the practice of roaming Wikipedia and topping entries by such nondescript tags as "it may contain original research". Does it contain, or does it not contain?!

It is passive because anyone can put up tags. Sometimes people will be wrong (that is not the case here). Have you checked the high profile articles like the Iraq war or President Bush? Those almost always have NPOV flags because anyone with a minor complaint can put one up. Maybe there is an issue, maybe there isn't, but for the outsider's benefit, we add the tag as a warning and allow them to make up their mind. If the dispute is resolved, we remove the tag. You implied that users who don't add a message on the talk page are cowards. That may be true, but most likely they're just lazy. I think you're taking this too personally. This isn't a pistol duel at dawn.

Let me just commend you on your next series of points. As a mathematician, I appreciated the complexity of your axiom based argument. You say these actors defined good acting such that all other actors were measured in comparison. That may be true, but currently it's just something you have said, and that is not appropriate Wikipedia content. It is original research. Find someone else saying they define good acting, and quote them. This is a frequent trick editors use to include a POV that is popular, but still a POV.

I read the leads in the articles on Beethoven and Bach. I noticed they also lacked citation and were laced with POV language such as "brought it to its ultimate maturity" and "unrivaled control". It seems to me artists are not very concerned with objectivity, no surprise there.

If the film hasn't been screened significantly even in Iran, how can it have had an impact worthy of mention in an Encyclopedia?

What I listed was a policy that editors are expected to follow within reason. Wikipedia is not a collective of every bit of information that can concievably be verified.

You repeatedly challenge us to see the film. For one, I doubt it is available in the US. For two, you say that english subtitles simply don't do it credit. For three, according to the original research policy, when information is very close to the source, or in this case, the source itself, we should "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..." For four, and this is a personal point, artsy films bore me. That's why tags are necessary in this case. As I've explained, I can see that something is wrong, but I don't have the knowledge to fix it. Thus I leave it to you to fix it and then remove the tags. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

However I havnt seen the movie (I have heard the name before), but as now I searched in Persian pages, it seems that it is of the most notable movies and also I checked the given data in the article with Persian sources, I'm assuring that it is correct. --Wayiran (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that sources exist out there is not enough, they have to be cited in the article so the reader can verify claims in the article. If you've found these sources then include them in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wayiran, if you have any reliable sources, even in Persian, please do not hesitate and add them to the External-links section of the main entry. As I have said above, I have not been able to trace any relevant sources, in any language, with the exception of the Persian Wikipeia and IranAct.com (the latter I have cited in the External-links section of the main entry - the plot description of the Persian Wikipedia [6] consists of one sentence, and the description in this one sentence is erroneous). Yesterday I discovered that the script of the film has apparently been released as a book; I have not seen this script myself, however (I have seen references to it on a page of a Persian website dedicated to discussing books and other written material). Kind regards, --BF 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

BF, are you counting your external links as sources? Right now, the only sources I see are an intervew with Tahmineh Milani and a verse of the Hebrew Bible. The idea with sources is that they're inserted in-line for easy verification. Maybe use the external links as sources in-line? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury, I am well aware of the distinction between references and external links. The IranActor.com does not provide any information relevant to the main text; as you can verify (since the Persian language uses the same punctuation system as the English language), the plot description as provided by this site consists of one sentence (almost identical to that given by the Persian Wikipedia) - the text has also a footnote, consisting of two sentences, which concerns Nasser Taghvai, the director, and not the film (one thing that this footnote says and I may include into the main text of Unruled Paper, is that Unruled Paper is the first work of Nasser Taghvai in twelve years - these people invest say two years of their lives for preparing a film, and often on the last moment get to hear that their production permission has been revoked; I know certainly that this was the case with Bahram Bayzai; it is heart-rending to hear the stories of these people [in my opinion, which is shared by some major academic figures, Bahram Bayzai is without exaggeration the Wolfgan von Goethe or Shakespeare of Iran; Iran has not had such a major figure for a very very long time, yet he never gets a proper location to stage his works; the future generations will not forgive us for treating these universal treasures the way we do]). I gave this particular external link solely for providing a source confirming the existence of this film. The dearth of information on this film is just beyond belief; apparently, it is too hot to handle.

If you can manage, try to see Death of Yazdgerd III by Bahram Bayzai; without exaggeration, it rivals with the best tragedies of Shakespeare (at this moment I do not remember how good the subtitles of this film are - it was originally a work for stage, but later turned into a feature film - but the Persian text is absolutely a masterpiece in the entire corpus of the Persian literature). Try also to see his other film "Bashu, the little stranger" or "Travellers" (the camera work in the latter film is one of the best ever, just breathtaking - it takes the viewer into the film and makes him/her a living witness of a sequence of highly dramatic events). Lastly, please do not refer to me with my real name, as it gets into Google; BF is best (please kindly change my name here-above accordingly). Kind regards, --BF 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

I appreciate your attempts to culturually enlighten me with an array of sophisticated movies. However, I must respectfully explain that your effort is probably wasted. I've never watched Shakespeare willingly, so I don't think I'll be seeing those movies either.

I've changed my usage of your name, but do you realize that your user page is also going to be on google? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A pity that you do not appreciate Shakespeare as much as you perhaps should; Shakespeare holds a mirror to us human beings through which we can see inside our own souls. He is perhaps the greatest psychologist ever. As for my username, yes I do realise that, but let those who search for it find it, I do not mind. Kind regards, --BF 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

I was asked for an opinion. i don't think it matters much what tags are placed on the article; what matters is that the article be improved. The introductory section on the critical reception of the film absolutely must be sourced considerably better One cannot include in a WP article things like "The film, with its stellar cast of Iranian actors," one must attribute them to a particular critic in a particular reliable source. If one does that, one must also include references to other critical reviews. Was every commentator quite so enthusiastic about the film. If so, give some references to this. If they are not in English, includes translations of the key phrases. The section on the plot can be sourced from the film itself. I am unable to tell clearly from the discussion above whether there is controversy about whether it is accurate. If there are points whose accuracy is disputed, they must be sourced either by specific quotations from th film or from critical commentaries. I assume the film like most is available on DVD. If so, then specific frames can be cited. Otherwise, at least the approximate timing can be given. It is not necessary to have a photoplay.--in general, the film as actually released will be more accurate than the printed text. But if they are not controverted, there is really no need for specific references. The plot section seems a little on the long side--it is usually best for an encyclopedia to to write it a if one is watching the film recording everything that happens, but as would would describe it to someone who asked: what is this film about. There's another [problem, more serious than all of these, and not mentioned in the tagging--the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source. If it's in english it might be possible to find the source of the copyright violation; if it is is a direct translation, it might be harder to demonstrate. I would very strongly advise putting such questions to rest by rewriting it in a slightly more concise tone. In particular, it is not advisable to explain the motivations f the characters unless it is really obvious--such a description can be OR. A critic can do it in a published source, and then you can quote him for that part. Take care of the article and the tags will take care of themselves. DGG (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear DGG, you are the second person who has insulted my dignity on the present subject matter (the first one was User:Stifle, and I am as yet awaiting his apology): on which ground is your judgement "reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source" based? What are the characteristics of a "copy-pasted" text? Do you believe that I cannot have the ability to write what to you appears like a "copypaste"? Are in your opinion all those who sacrifice their precious times on Wikipedia morons? Why this hubristic presumption? You could have at least made a Google search on "Unruled Paper" and tested your baseless assumption before accusing me of "copypasting"; if there was something that I would have copy-pasted, that would not have remained unknown to you (you could have searched on strings of words looking to you as copy-pasted strings --- I have also given the title of the film in Persian; you could even have made a search on this Persian title and informed yourself of the possible existence of any review in Persian that I might have been so unprincipled as to have translated and passed on as my own). I must disappoint you: I am an academic with a wide horizon (film and literary criticism are merely two of my several hobbies), and have tens of works in refereed journals on my name. In my academic decipline it is considered criminal to use texts by others without presenting the pertinent sources. I therefore hereby explicitly demand from you to retract your insulting words and apologise! I am not here to tolerate abuse of my dignity! If you are in the habit of copypasting the works by others without citing your sources, which is your business insofar as I am concerned, you should be careful and not project your habit onto others.

Secondly, if you had read what I have so extensively written here above, you would have known that there is simply no review of this film in any language known me (and I know a multitude of languages, should you wish to know).

I am awaiting to see your unequivocal apology here below. My working assumption is that we live in a civilised world. --BF 06:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

BF, the internet is not the place to expect a lot of formality and respect :p This is not a university, your writing is not being reviewed by PhDs. Anyone who can click and type can edit on Wikipedia. That being said, I don't think DGG meant any disrespect. He probably didn't know that you are the only author of the page. Thus you should take his comments as a compliment. He couldn't believe that a Wikipedia editor could write so well. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury, please let DGG speak for himself. He undeniably wrote that "the plot section reads to me like a direct copypaste of some other source." DGG's remark is that of a racist; this person is implicitly saying that I, an Iranian, cannot have written this text. The remark not only accuses me of ignorance, but also of theft of someone else's intellectual property. Perhaps you have never suffered from racism, for if you had, you would not have been so insensitive to such a blatant insult addressed at me. I strongly believe, and this has been clearly corroborated by the racist slur of DGG, that if I had written an entry on a Western film, or if my name were a Western name, I would not have been in the present situation, i.e. my entry had not been tagged by almost all negative tags available to an editor, and forced to write thousands of words in defence of my text. That is as racist as things can get. Mind you, none of the people who have been crying havoc has even seen the film; in particular DGG, who has had the temerity to lecture me on how to wrote an entry for Wikipedia. Please note that the things that he is asking about the opening paragraphs of the entry are all recorded and documented in the entries concerning Khosrow Shakibai and Hadyeh Tehrani (as can be verified, both of these names have been linked to their pertinent Wikipedia entries). No, the person is full of himself, and cannot imagine that an Iranian can have read Nietzsche, Shakespeare or the Old and New Testaments; the thing must have been "copypasted". As I wrote previously, he could have at least tested his recist hypothesis before hurling it at my face. --BF 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)