Talk:Unruled Paper/Archive 1

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 write 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)

ps) Dear AzureFury, I have one foot in my grave; I am therefore not here for receiving compliments; for instance, I neither accept nor display Barnstars on my talk page. I am solely doing a public service, making the elements of one culture accessible to several other cultures. As I have said repeatedly, those who have reasoned objections to my text should not hesitate to improve it; those who cannot effect improvement, should spend their attention on other entries, rather than tagging my text. For completeness, already on last Sunday I sent an e-mail to Ms Hadyeh Tehrani, asking her to correct the possible errors in the text at hand and further bring this text to the attention of Mr Nasser Taghvai and Ms Minoo Farsh'chi so that they also are given the opportunity to inspect the text for accuracy and fairness. (No, these people are not my personal friends.) --BF 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed speak for myself; you deserve a full answer. I have taken a while to write it, over almsot a whole day, to give a considered expression. When I am asked for an opinion, i give it, but nobody is required to agree with it. Sometimes I am correct, sometimes not. But Stifle and I frequently disagree about articles, and if we both see a problem, there might actually be one. I tend to work here sometimes at what is the middle of the night in the Eastern US, and consequently I see quite a lot of material from Asia, and have taken use of this opportunity to enrich my knowledge of aspects of their culture that I otherwise would never have known about. I saw this article, and by now I knew enough to recognize immediately that it is certainly an important film, and that the article should be helped if at all possible, and was with serious attention. I think you have misunderstood the way we look at articles.

I have a good deal of experience with academic writing, both at the student and professional level. I am not a specialist on film, though I do read both popular and academic criticism. I am certainly not an expert of the iranian cinema, though I am not unaware of it. Almost as much by now as academic writing, I also have a good deal of experience with the desired style of wikipedia articles, and the various ways in which they get written. What I am dedicated to, and I think my record shows it, is in improving and keeping every article that can be kept and improved. Now, this article does not have the appropriate tone of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. It resembles an academic essay about the film--a rather good high-level academic essay, almost certainly on its face good enough to be not student writing, but rather professional level writing by an experienced writer on the subject. True, I have not seen the film, or read criticism about it elsewhere. So though I cannot tell is whether it is accurate, the level of writing is certainly sufficient that I have no serious doubt about it. Academic essays, both student and professional, are frequently submitted as Wikipedia articles--occasionally they are copies of someone else's essay--published or unpublished; much more usually they are the writer's own essay from a course, or from another publication; sometimes they are written specifically for Wikipedia, but in the same style, whether student or fully professional. From what you say above, and from a careful reading of the article, I think it probably was written specifically for publication in Wikipedia, and I apologize for having suggested otherwise. But there are some of the specific characteristics which make it not suitable in style for an encyclopedia article. Please do not treat this as a reflection on your academic credentials, but rather on the specific style of this encyclopedia.

The basic problem is that we are a neutral encyclopedia, presenting verifiable facts, and citing published opinion. We do not provide opinion of our own, no matter how well founded. For articles about fiction, the description of the basic facts of the plot can be taken directly from the work. For non-controversial factual information, it can be taken from any responsible source. For everything else, it must be taken from 3rd party published sources.

A few specific problems:

• Some of the sentences are what we call [WP:Peacock| Peacock Terms]], praise without specifics. For example, from the first part: "Hadyeh Tehrani's acting in this film is equally superb and laudable. " The sentence that follows, that she was nominated for an award for it, is sufficient by itself. " The film, with its stellar cast of Iranian actors, is in many respects an extraordinary one:" Stellar cast is unnecessary--the principal actors have articles here linked to this one which explains their fame. "extraordinary" is an empty word, saying nothing at all. The article will describe what is extraordinary about it: the purpose of the article is to describe it in objective terms so people will see that it is extraordinarily, and why. If a critic should have used that term in an article about it, then it can be quoted, given the full reference and if necessary the translation into English. "the actors act to perfection and the directing is outstanding;" similarly, unless someone has said it for the article to quote, you cannot say it--that constitutes your own judgment. Right you may be, but it is still what we call Original Research. Evaluative conclusions have their place in critical writing, but not in Wikipedia. One often starts an essay that way
• The plot section goes systematically through the film, instead of first explaining the main line of the action. For people ufamiliar with a work of fiction, it helps very much to first read a sentence of orientation, so that they can follow and appreciate the details. This is not necessaril the case when writing for people who already know the film. It is heee, where you ust assume you are writing for those who dont know it.
• " The motionless pendulum seems to suggest that the events in the intervening period must have taken place out of time, or only in imagination. " This is interpretation of the film, not description of it. It must be sourced. It makes sense, its normal film criticism, but that's not enough. This is one of the many elements that resemble an essay--the plot section should simply describe the plot. The way to get this sort of information in is either to have a separate section on interpretation, with sources, or to include it within the plot section as specific quotations from sources.
• The comparison to Hamlet is more than even just interpretation of the film--unless someone in the film makes this specific reference, it is an analogy of the writer;s own, used to discuss the film. This goes very appropriately into a piece of writing elsewhere about the film, not a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, unless it was explictedly sourced.
• Some of the material in the footnotes duplicates the material in the main text.
• I could go more into detail, but I think I give the general idea, and further discussion of the detailed writing would probably only annoy you.

Now, about our interaction, "copypaste" is a term of art here--I did not say it was plagiaised, just that it might be, and the easiest course would be to rewrite it. I give here some further reasons for rewriting. Second, any text can be challenged at any time, see the general disclaimer at the end of the edit box. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it" When he comes to searching out sources in Persian, i have enough sense of my limitations to suggest that those who know Persian might do better with it. Further, i do not assume that critical writing in Persian, English, or any other language, is necessarily on the internet. You talk about the standards for your academic discipline. Perhaps for some critical writing in it, the authority of the writer is taken as a sufficient source for making judgments. It is not so here, regardless of how great your authority is. when I see complicated material representing much thought and effort written that way, it is not unreasonable to think it might have been originally intended elsewhere. Everyone here is equal. I expect no special treatment in my academic specialty, and I give none to those in others. Where I want academic respect for what I write, I publish elsewhere. As for the article, I doubt very much any help from the producers or directors or actors will improve it. A careful reading of our guide to writing Wikipedia articles is what is needed. True, a great many other Wikipedia articles need similar improvement. I urge you to use what you learn about rewriting this to rewrite some of the others. If you wish to carry on this discussion at a personal level, feel free to email me from my user page. Anything said on email, including your email address, is confidential. DGG (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall be very brief, as I just came here to see what was going on without intending to stay for long. Firstly, I can assure you that I had not written my text for any other place; I wrote it exclusively for Wikipedia, and in doing so I was fully aware of the attributes required of texts intended for Wikipedia. Secondly, as I have said already for a number of times, I am not aware of any review of this film in any language known to me, neither of any publication in any specialised academic journal dealing with film criticism (I am professionally not a film or a literary critic, even though I watch movies primarily for what they tell us about us and our societies rather than for entertainment). Thirdly, I have very intentionally not written very systematically about the plot of the film (I merely sketched it), since I strongly believe that the film is of such a high artistic value that I had no right to disclose its plot here, or elsewhere for that matter; all people must have the opportunity to see the film for themselves and experience the emotional and intellectual tension that the viewing of it causes. On the other hand, I was very explicit about the nature of the film, because the one-line plot description of e.g. the Persian Wikipedia portrays the wife (i.e. Royā) as a somehow problematic person; this is just the opposite of the truth: the family is just somewhat Bohemian, with all its members, from the youngest to the oldest (the oldest being Aziz Khanom, the mother of Royā) bubbling with artistic creativity (in one scene, for instance, the seven-year old daughter, Mangul, looks into the fridge when searching for her mother - reporting to her father, who is shaving in the bathroom, that mother was not to be found anywhere, the father instructs her to look into the waste basket, which she subsequently dutifully does; all these not because they were deluded or unintelligent; they enjoy life to the fullest and nothing is too serious for them).

Realising that I was writing for Wikipedia, I did not go into any details of for instance the language used in the film. If you know any person who knows Persian well, I recommend you to watch this film with this person: the language is so pure and honest that already listening to the dialogues without visual contact with the film is an undiluted pleasure (you may not be aware, but Nasser Taghvai is a serious literary person in Iran and a respected editor of literary magazines - in a recent interview he has said that if he were to be born again, he would not touch film directing and suffice with writing). As I have said it earlier (whether on this page or elsewhere), one can write a book on the manifold aspects of the spoken part of this film. In particular, one of the dialogues is so intimate and fresh (there where Royā says to Jahāngir that "Tonight I want to tell you something that I have not told you before" - the couple has been married for 12 years!) that I had the greatest reservation to listen to it; it was as though I were secretly listening to the most intimate conversations of a couple in their bedroom (and to be sure, the couple conduct this conversation in their bedroom, each sitting on the opposite sides of their bed). This scene is one of the most powerful scenes that I have ever seen in any film; were it not for the occasional interruptions of Jahāngir (using his dry humour to which I have referred in my Wikipedia text), I would not have been able to watch through this particular scene. And this due to a combination of the text being spoken by Royā and the way Hadyeh Tehrani plays her role; she is just totally and absolutely absorbed into her role. The scene is so powerful that every time that I have watched it, I did it with real trepidation, both physically and mentally: the sense that one may be eavesdropping on a couple's most intimate conversations in the privacy of their bedroom, is just disturbing, and overwhelming. I have not mentioned any of these things in my Wikipedia text, which very likely would be interpreted as subjective. I remind you that in the Iranian films made after 1979, men and women have no physical contacts, whatever. Paradoxically, however, this makes the whole atmosphere more tense emotionally than would be the case otherwise.

If I had written the Wikipedia entry as a film review, most certainly I had devoted some considerable space to the above-mentioned scene, as well as some of the other remarkable scenes of this film (like the one in which we are shown the consequences of Shangul and Mangul having played the story that they had heard from their mother the previous night on their father - Taghvai does not show us the actual event, but the consequences of it; the film overwhelms in creative ambiguity, such as here where the viewers are made to use their imagination and imagine the children doing what we are told that they had done to their father).

The writing of the text at hand was difficult as I had no intention of spoiling the film for those who have not seen it; my intention throughout was to make a minimalist sketch of the plot, extensive enough to make sense, but brief enough not to give the plot away. If this film were not as extraordinary as it is, I would not have had any problem writing an entry for Wikipedia fitting the tight mould of Wikipedia articles. I sincerely believe that Unruled Paper is absolutely a masterpiece of a work; despite its abstract nature, it does not look abstract; it is sufficiently broad to be viewed entirely for its entertainment value (it is a very entertaining film; it is two hours of undiluted pleasure just to watch the film without thinking). I am actually willing to prepare the English subtitles of this film for making it accessible to the English-speaking part of the world. Without any reservation, this is one of the best films ever made.

Lastly, please note that almost seven long years have passed since this film was screened to general public and to my best knowledge not a single person has undertaken to spend some words on it; from this perspective, I believe that my present contribution, and in its present form (imperfect as it may be), has a rightful place in Wikipedia (without being stigmatized with nonsensical tags, I hasten to add - I viscerally hate passive sentences, as they represent to me the most dishonest expressions of human beings) until such time as a qualified person writes something serious about this film. I may myself undertake and publish an extended version of the present text in some film magazine (that will not happen any time soon, as I have absolutely no time to spend on this task right now). Incidentally, the main poster of the entry, shows a real wall of the family home; I think, but am not certain, that the face of the statue protruding from the wall represents that of Baruch Spinoza. --BF 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BF, you have a strange definition of "brief." I see two main arguments in your message. The first is, "because there is no research on this film, therefore I am entitled to perform original research in creating the article." The original research policy is specifically worded to deny this. It can't be any clearer. No original research. Ever. Perhaps after you write up a review and get it published, you can quote yourself, though this may be a conflict of interests.

The second argument is, "this film is good enough to justify the inclusion of unencyclopedic material to an encyclopedia." It doesn't matter how good the film is. No editor gets to choose to not apply Wiki policies to their article because what they write about is special. If you disagree, there are plenty other forums to write in, such as the Internet Movie Database. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with fundamentalism, in any form, size or shape. Taking a set of fixed rules and uniformly applying them to all things is against human spirit and specifically will ultimately bring Wikipedia down; no one who respects his or her dignity will be willing to subject himself/herself to an Spanish-type inquisition, of the kind that I have been subjected to in the course of the past week by a group of people who have not even felt necessary to see the film before taking up their pens against me and my text (mind you, I have even been accused of copy-pasting someone else's text). If you are truly concerned about the present entry, please do something constructive, instead of trying to prove yourself right (e.g. spend USD 20, purchase a DVD of the film and watch it). That is all I had to say on the subject matter. Incidentally, no one is obliged to read my comments here, so that I cannot quite comprehend why you feel compelled to criticise my text for its length. Please note that the same spirit that has guided you to criticise my main text (i.e. that on Unruled Paper) seems to have guided you to criticise the length of my text on this talk page (to my best knowledge, there is no Wikipedia rule against the extent of one's texts on talk pages). To my experience, fundamentalism is like cancer which permeates all aspects of the lives of those who suffer from it; nothing in the eyes of a fundamentalist is good; a fundamentalist condemns everything that does not conform to a narrow set of rules. I sincerely ask your indulgence, for I have had enough by now; playing the fool for an entire week has been quite beyond what I can normally sustain. THE END. --BF 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, how silly of us to adhere to a fixed set of rules. All rules can be broken when we really want. Brb, murder. Brb, 1+1=3. By asking you to remove words like "stellar" and "laudable" we are exactly as bad as Osama Bin Laden. He is an Islamic Fundamentalist, we are Wiki Fundamentalists. EXACTLY THE SAME. Next thing you know we'll be ramming our planes into Iran in protest of your opinionated language. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever looked into the dictionary definition of the word "fundamentalist"? I doubt it, for otherwise you would not have used the debased Fox-News language in response to my comment. Further, you could have changed the words that you said I should have changed - the problem is of course that you have not even seen the film. Please before referring to Iran and that maniac mass murderer Usama Bin Laden in one sentence (which goes a long way in showing the kind of thoughts people must secretly entertain - there is no shortage of ill feelings against all things middle-eastern, excluding middle-eastern oil of course; to wit, the accusation that I could not have written the text of the entry; that I must have copy-pasted it, and a host of other insults that I have had to suffer on this page), take the trouble and read what my "Urgent proposal" was all about. Briefly, I said that one should not use those tags; instead, one should either improve a text, or put one's opinions and suggestions on the talk page of the pertinent entry. That was all. Simple and unequivocal as this proposal is, in a week time, and after having spent thousands of words on explaining it, it has given rise to "Usama Bin Ladan", "1+1=3", "ramming planes into Iran" - AzureFury, you should realise that these are mighty Freudian slips on your part! You must know full well that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, so that unless you are watching Fox News 24 hours per day, I do not know how you have managed to contrive your venomous sentences addressed to me. Above all, even though Unruled Paper is an Iranian film, we have not been discussing Iran, or even politics, at all.

Let us end this unholy business, here and now. I wasted one week of my time and failed to get the contents of my message through; now I am being presented with "Usama Bin Ladan", "ramming planes into Iran" and a host of other insults and utter irrelevancies (for your information, "fundamentalism" in its most popular sense today was first used in 1923 [according to OED], long before Usama Bin Laden was born, referring to a religious movement within Protestant Christianity which became active in the USA, and not in Saudi Arabia, or even Iran for that matter; in general, however, it refers to the strict maintenance of orthodox doctrines). --BF 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

I wonder how you say this stuff with a straight face. Let's go through some of your comments shall we? You called someone a racist because they suggested something might have been copy/pasted. You've called everyone agreeing that the tags are appropriate dictators. You've called the people who maintain the tags cowards. You've accused me of bias against the Middle-East. Are you seriously trying to play the victim here?

Have you ever read WP:OR? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to write the thousands of words on this talk page defending your use of original research. You don't even dispute it, you try to justify it. Yet you say that the problem is that I haven't seen the film. You are hopeless if you don't see your own bias there.

You said this:

Please before referring to Iran and that maniac mass murderer Usama Bin Laden in one sentence (which goes a long way in showing the kind of thoughts people must secretly entertain - there is no shortage of ill feelings against all things middle-eastern, excluding middle-eastern oil of course

Are you saying that any two things included in the same sentence, no matter how directly mentioned, are being implicitly linked? Note that I was talking about an Iranian film, not Iran. I used Osama Bin Laden as a high profile, undisputed fundamentalist (I considered saying, "or President Bush" but worried that the connection to fundamentalism would've been made more hazey). But that's not what you want to hear is it? You want to hear an accusation that Iran is responsible for 9/11.

I read your Urgent Proposal, how do you think I knew how to respond to all of your points in my first post? I ask you to read all of my posts before you attempt to tell me the posts I need to read.

I've explained repeatedly why the tags are necessary, please review my comments. It may be faster for you to do a text search for "tag" and skip down until the highlighted word is within one of my posts.

Please review Freudian Slip. Note that a key component of a Freudian Slip is that it is unintentional. Please copy and paste for me the comment I made that implied Iran was responsible for 9/11. If it is not present, I ask you to not make wild, insulting, and racist accusations. Note that I do not watch Fox News. I use Wikipedia as my primary source for information on hot topics, such as Iran. I have made a significant number of contributions to Nuclear program of Iran as well as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, on both sides of the issue. I do not believe a conflict is necessary. I know this may be unbelievable, a westerner that is not a war monger, nor racist, nor slave to the mainstream media. It's rare, but people such as myself do exist.

Perhaps you should consider how your behavior reflects on Iranians? Do they all accuse people of racism and authoritarianism as readily as you do? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take you up on that offer to edit the article instead of including tags. I may not have seen the film, but I am an expert on what does not belong in Wikipedia. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This has become like an interminable nightmare. Already several days ago I explicitly announced that I had said what I had to say, but for some mysterious reason you keep writing, on matters that have absolutely nothing to do with my original proposal. No, I did not play a victim (you are inquisitive, and you apparently do not realise it - please count the number of questions that you have posed on this page); I merely defended my dignity, as you would also do. I did not bring up Usama Bin Laden, made no political remarks, did not refer to any specific nationality, did not accuse people of copy-pasting other people's texts, and I did not suggest ramming planes into buildings. As one can readily verify, even my 1+1 = 2 was strangely turned, by you, into 1+1 = 3. If you wish to interpret things differently, please feel free and do so. It is absolutely not my business to know which news channels you watch, or which political parties you support. There is a life going on outside these pages and I cannot spend hours each day to carry on with writing back and forth on matters that no longer are transparent to me. --BF 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've improved the article. I ask you not to restore information that you admit to be original research and POV. I don't want to request a comment on you, but you have a history of personal attacks and incivility that has continued in this discussion and is now threatening to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia if you continue to revert my improvements. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No one asked you to do any thing! You are not qualified to edit this entry: you have not seen the film, do not know the artists, have not studied a single original source, etc. You have taken my text and plagiarized it! This is not the way encyclopaedias are written? Which history are you talking about? You know what, I delete the entire entry. Write your own text based on your own research. You are not permitted to use a single word of my text. I warn you in no uncertain terms that should you go against my will, I will settle the matter legally and will sue Wikipedia for violation of my legal rights on my text. --BF 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't studied any sources either, by your own admission. This is from the editting template:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Sue away. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page due to the recent edit war. Upon looking at the recent discussion, it appears that some mediation is necessary as well. I'd be willing to help resolve this dispute if people want, it appears that this conflict is about some of the word choices in this article. This is just my two cents, but instead of "with its stellar cast of Iranian actors", why not say something like "with a strong cast of Iranian actors"? And instead of "an extraordinary one", how about "an acclaimed one"? From looking at the talk page, it seems that this discussion has gone far off-topic. Personal remarks/attacks are unacceptable, and I see this from both sides. Please stick to discussing only the actual content of this article and avoid making such comments. If the two users are interested in some sort of informal mediation, please let me know. Khoikhoi 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your compromise doesn't resolve the issue. You've gone from "great" to "good." This is still POV. My deletions left verifiable information that indicated that they were good actors (though this was not sourced so I was being very forgiving in this case). BF has said he couldn't find a single review in any language about the film. Therefore, it's not acclaimed in anyway, good or bad. Any mention of public opinion would be original research. The issues mentioned in the tags (NPOV, original research, citation, etc) were present throughout the article, which is why we tagged the entire article. Several people including myself asked BF to use his expertise on the film to edit constructively within the limits of Wiki policies. He chose not to. He also called tagging the page a sign of a dictatorship and totally contrary to the values of democracy (rough paraphrasing) and said that editors should either edit constructively or leave the page alone, without tags. Thus I editted the page, removing blatant original research and POV language. BF hasn't even tried to dispute my deletions with a policy-based argument. He has repeatedly challenged me to watch the film, as if that was necessary to see that "The film is an extraordinary one" is a POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AzureFury, have you even seen this movie? Do you even know anything about Iranian cinema, or you're just here to argue for the sake of arguing? I see nothing wrong with KhoiKhoi's proposal, this is indeed an acclaimed Iranian movie which has won many awards in Iran and elsewhere in Asia. You can't find reviews in English, because the movie was never released in the United States, and as shocking as it maybe to you, the world doesn't revolve around America, and Wikipedia is an international website. Another reason why there are not many reviews of this movie available online in any language, is because online reviews weren't as common as they're now, back in 2000 when this movie came out. Otherwise, I've seen plenty of reviews of this movie in print in Kurdish and, Persian. So my suggestion to you is to stick to your own areas of expertise, and stop creating distress for other editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia here. --CreazySuit (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a review in a magazine and quote it, attributing the POV language to the source. WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia that no article, no matter how mundane, gets to violate. My lack of seeing the film has nothing to do with my ability to recognize POV language and notice the absence of citation. Note that calling the film "acclaimed" was one of many issues with the article that I corrected upon the request of BF. Wiki's policy on citation says that information without citation may be challenged and removed. That is what happened here. The response was simply to revert the removal, rather than finding citation. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Khoikhoi to restore a version of the article with the issue tags still in place. This issue has not been resolved and the current version is in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:PEACOCK and needs a WP:CONSENSUS to resolve in a civilised fashion. I am commenting on contents and policies. This is a high quality piece of work and I do not want this article deleted, but I do want it to be encyclopedic. --triwbe (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been harassed for the past nearly ten days! You have just no idea of what you are doing. I have sent ten e-mails to various people in Iran, asking them for documents. You may not be aware, but sending e-mails to Iran is like sending e-mails to a black hole! My estimation is that Iranians fearing to be accused of having "secret" dealings with some "foreign agent" (organising some "velvet revolution"), do not respond to e-mails by strangers. You are just sitting there and demanding, without realising that I also care to have a good encyclopaedic article out there. I do not live in Iran and cannot just walk across the street to a library and consult things in the media printed in Iran. At the same time, this limitation should not be misconstrued as implying that some one who has not even seen the film can take his hands into the article at issue; frankly, I consider such act as constituting cultural imperialism. As I have written elsewhere (on the talk page of User:Khoikhoi), I personally do not interfere with the contents of the Wikipedia articles pertaining to countries and cultures that I know only through secondary sources; I expect the same respect and consideration on the part of those who are not familiar with things Iranian. America may be a military superpower, but American citizens here on Wikipedia should not see it as their birth right to torpedo their ways through Iran-related Wikipedia articles; I say this because someone here above suggested that he would ram planes through Iranian buildings and associated Iranians with Usama Bin Laden, a mass murderer of the first order. Let us live together in a spirit of fraternity and equality, rather than one based on one party's desire for domination. It is insulting to my dignity that someone who by his own admission knowns nothing about Iranian films, actors, language, culture, folklore, etc., allows himself to write for the world on an Iranian film - nationality is not relevant to me, knowledge and understanding of a culture is the all-important thing in the present context. --BF 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just read the very first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability and understand what it says. Then it continues:

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.

Now 4 editors have agreed that the article fails all these criteria. We do not doubt the truth of what you say, we do not question your dignity or integrity. We don't even know who you are. But I believe that the policies of Wikipedia are explicitly formulated to deal with such situations as fairly as possible without prejudice to one side or another. I also believe that these policies must be respected and when there is contention the consensus of the community is to be used. Therefor the RFC.

These tags serve 3 purposes IMO: 1. to alert the contributor that the information is in violation of policies and to encourage improvements; 2) to alert other potential and knowledgeable editors of the problems and encourage them to improve the article and 3 to inform non-informed readers that the information is not supported by attribution and that they can choose whether or not to accept it as fact.

Knowledge of the film, the culture or the country is not an issue here, what do I know about Iran or the film is not at issue here. If I (or anyone else) wants to learn about the film, the culture and the country I want to be able to verify what is written here and not just take one person's interpretation (how ever much learned and wise).

In fact my friends and colleagues were in Iran at the end of last year and we still have good contacts with Tehran. But under WP policies this is also irrelevant.

I will repeat, I think this is a well written and interesting article, but it is not encyclopedic and it has only been left here this long as a sign of extreme good faith by all of us and because we all want it to remain here. --triwbe (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC - Hi, I've had a look at the article and I do not really understand why the debate has continued this long. I feel the tags are highly inappropriate, purely on the basis that the film is entirely not notable. A quick 'google' turns up 2 results related to the film, the article and its talk page!! Surely this makes the article a clear candidate for deletion? Tachyon502 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One editor opposing the tags says it is "highly acclaimed" in Persian. I don't speak Persian so even if he cited sources, I couldn't confirm if they were about the film. The other editor opposing the tags doesn't really care how notable it is, and just wants his writing reflected in Wikipedia. I think a lot more could be deleted than I did in my edit, but I'm not going to edit war over WP:WEIGHT. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury i can confirm all are about the movie.please feel free to ask me whenever you need to my review about the Persian sources--Mardetanha ^talk 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tachyon502, thanks for your comments. Sure the final solution is afd, but we are all assuming GF and understanding the difficulty in finding Refs out side of its target audience. I assume that an Afd it would be SNOWBALL but that is not what any editor has said that they want. I just wish we could get the OR toned down, but now it is protected so that no mortal user, not even by some one who was not a participant in the "edit war" can contribute and thus the process of consensus-building is blocked. This is not the way I understand wikipedia should work. --triwbe (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• It almost gets half a million hits in Persian. Just because there aren't a lot of English sources doesn't mean that it's not notable. Anyways the solution is to trim down the OR as Triwbe said, not to delete it. Khoikhoi 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Khoikhoi, how do I know these hits are not just pages for stationary supplies and paper manufacturers ? (Just joking :-). --triwbe (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Check images baba. ;-) Khoikhoi 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ummmmm, Khoikhoi, you've just justified the entire point. I don't have to be able to speak Persian to see that the number 1 on google for the film in Persian is someone's blog!!! And I see no images of the film on the images page. Khoikhoi, please delete this entire article - even in Persian, there are clearly no reliable sources. It is an unnoteworthy film, and wikipedia is not a vanity press. Assuming good faith is all very well, and I am sure that the contributor does intend to contribute good information to wiki, but unfortunately this article has no valid sources and as such should be deleted. I'm sorry, someone must really like the film, but no-one else appears to have ever heard of it Tachyon502 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just because you "haven't heard if it" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Here you can find numerous reviews of the film (dozens) from some of the most well-known Iranian film critics. Here's another review, and here is yet another. As for the images, I guess you're not looking hard enough: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. You don't get to determine what is and what isn't unnoteworthy. Khoikhoi 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the joy of google is such that the search term, monkeys eat cheese sticks [[16]] generates 1.3 million hits. Although that does not suggest that 'monkeys eat cheese sticks' is actually a notable famous film!! If in fact it is, it's clearly far more notable than Unruled Paper!!!Tachyon502 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Argument from ignorance. Khoikhoi 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wishful thinking. Tachyon502 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already provided sources above. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Khoikhoi 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if the film is notable in Iran or other Farsi speaking countries. However, the lack of hits for it in Persian suggests that it is not. The film is clearly not notable in Western countries, probably, I expect, on the basis that the film is in Persian. As the english speaking Wikipedia does not use non-English references, the article should be removed.

What I am trying to accomplish, is to have this unnotable film (at least definately in Western countries), deleted from the English speaking wikipedia - as the article is not neutral and, I suspect, takes the role of a vanity press, alongside its clear notability issues. The article would however be very appropriate at [[17]]. I would thus highly recommend the article be moved there. Tachyon502 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a policy or guideline that supports your statements. I've already explained to you that it is notable in Iran, and I don't know of any policy that says "if it's not notable in the Western world, it should be deleted." This is simply your own belief of how Wikipedia should work. "Article is not neutral" is also not an argument for deletion. To quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias:

"Bias is not only manifested in article creation – deletion is a source of intellectual bias; affected articles more likely to suffer deletions, i.e. "I don't like it", "I don't know it", and "I don't care" comments in deletion discussions. Similarly, systemic bias may cause articles of local interest to places (from where few Wikipedians come), to be nominated for deletion for lacking notability, because they are obscure to the majority of Northern Hemisphere Anglophone editors."

Khoikhoi 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Establishment of Notability: Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to wind up going through the deletion process of Wikipedia."

• I also suggest you read these Wikipedia policies. [[18]], [[19]], [[20]] - Particularly the Advertising section, also [[21]] which states that: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unruled Paper fails miserably on that count.

You do not appear to know what a reliable source is, your 'explanation that it is notable' does not serve as reason to keep it in the Wikipedia. I suggest you provide a reliable source in English or find an independent admin who can speak Farsi and confirm your claims of notability. Tachyon502 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE says "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". But in this case there aren't any English sources of an equal quality, so we're allowed to use Persian sources. To say WP:COI and WP:SOAP you have to prove that the author of this article is associated with the creation of the film, which I highly doubt. This is from a notable magazine, and I fail to see how it isn't a reliable source. And this is from a well-known newspaper in Iran as well. I'll go ahead an ask an admin who can confirm that the film is notable. Khoikhoi 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To all users above this discussion. i would like Yes this movie is notable.I myself as person in the view of the user from Iran i have to say most of the cast of this movie are notable .and the movie it self says this.another issue is we shouldn't look for many sources in English.Most our best movie suffer a lack of good sources and it back's to lack activity in this field in English side of the sources .and this is imdb section for this moive.If you come to any other questin please feel free to ask --Mardetanha ^talk 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this article because there are no english sources is trivially an example of WP:systemic bias. If there are enough reliable persian sources, it passes the notability test. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected and accept the article should not be deleted. But please work on that neutrality! The article can't just say the film is extraordinary!!! And really needs a neutrality banner. All the best Tachyon502 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tachyon502 i have seen the movie it is not really extraordinary maybe even less than good.but i buy your word on work on the neutrality of this article.--Mardetanha ^talk 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit has already suggested at User talk:Khoikhoi/Unruled Paper that we change "The film, with its stellar cast of Iranian actors, is in many respects an extraordinary one" to "The film, with a strong cast of Iranian actors, received critical acclaim in Iran." Khoikhoi 23:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)