Talk:Morteza Avini

File:Avini Statue in Kish Island.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Avini Statue in Kish Island.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Avini Statue in Kish Island.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

Dear GAB! Some points are missing after this edit which I think would better be restored; point-a: He aimed to join the revolution via film making, point-b: By staying long at scenes he could "thwart the postures combatants had adopted when filmed by television," point-c: the effect of Avini's Ravayat-e Fath on the "spiritual prospect toward the war." I'd like to know your opinion regarding these points. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Alright, thanks very much for letting me know. I will reinsert A, but I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what the B and C quotes mean. Is there any way you could clarify? I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GAB^gab 20:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted B as meaning, "the habits that combatants had adopted..." in other words, he wanted to get them to act naturally, as if they weren't being filmed. And I read C as something along the lines of, "depicting the war in a spiritual manner" or "infusing the war with a sense of spirituality." Again, sorry if I misunderstand. GAB^gab 20:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you've well understood A & B, while I failed to clarify the point C; It was written that Ravayat-e Fath "had a significant role on making a spiritual prospect toward the war" which you omitted. Can we restore it? I think it needs to be attributed, am I right? Mhhossein (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Sure. I will re-add B and C and finish the copy-edit. Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding. GAB^gab 00:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad Please note that in this edit, "before" does not mean prior to, rather it means "in front of" or "in present of". Mhhossein (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad Thanks for all the efforts done by you. Are you finished with this article? Mhhossein (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More or less, I think. GAB^gab 10:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad I don't know if I can ask you to take care of my recent edits to this page. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll go over it shortly. GAB^gab 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a look and it looks decent, although I have made some (hopefully positive) copyedits. As usual, please let me know if I possibly misread something. Thanks - GAB^gab 22:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

numerous issues

I see numerous issues with the article:

• language is at times unencyclopedic, uses weird terms without quotation marks. some sentences are wrongly constructed.
• WP:NPOV: I dont think the article is neutral. It has a slant towards glorifying the subject. Part of this may be the one-sided sources.
• WP:UNDUE: section Style appears unbalanced. 3/4 is referenced to one work by an Agnes Devictor, with a source that is deadlinked.
• There are unsourced claims that appear to be very important.( US stay, studies)
• plain unclear: there are facts alluded to, that actually need expansion. (US stay, studies)
• Half the references are to Bookroom.ir in Persian.
• almost all references are undated, and no pages given, ie incomplete referencing

--Wuerzele (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I found much of your points unacceptable because:

• Bookroom.ir, as a source for introducing Persian books, is almost only used in 'Bibliography' to introduce Avini's books. What's wrong with this?
• As far as I'm concerned, Agnes Devictor has done his Ph.D regarding Avini professional film career and some parts of his life. Devictor's work is an academic third party and hence reliable source, why not use it? By the way, I have no idea how you found this link dead!
• Whether the sources are dated or not is not something to be retarding article's progress in DYK. Nothing requires us to have the sources date.
• All the points, including Avini's studying in US, is well referenced and I found no sources going through the details.
• As you see, thanks to GeneralizationsAreBad, the article has undergone almost 2 rounds of copy edits and I don't think your claim is acceptable, unless you can show us specifically what you mean!
• Can you please show us what sections have "a slant towards glorifying the subject"? Mhhossein (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I agree that the prose is uneven in parts, and I was unable to correct all of it through copyediting (I was not always able to understand what it meant). Some of the phrasing is hard to understand, although I tried to work with it to the best of my ability. I could give it another round of copyediting, although I didn't focus on content and tone while copyediting for GOCE. No comment on the sourcing, for now, but the page could certainly be written in a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. Here are some particular areas/phrases that I think could be improved:

• "According to Agnes Devictor Avini invented original cinematography methods, depicting the esoteric side of the Iran-Iraq conflict in a Shia mystical style." I am not sure if I have conveyed the latter part of the sentence correctly ("depicting... style.")
• "Most of his work was devoted to reflecting how bassijis perceived the war and their role in it." There must be a better way of rewording this.
• "Avini believed that secular Western techniques could be employed in the service of spiritual art, but the artist should subdue their profane nature." Not sure what's bothering me about this sentence, but it doesn't sound quite right.
• "Avini tried to maintain realism by minimizing the use of cinematic effects, and worked to thwart the habits the combatants had adopted when being filmed." Another unclear sentence that needs clarification.
• The style section in general could be written in a somewhat more encyclopedic manner.
• "Using his own methods of filming and editing, Avini sought to capture both the visible (military operations) and the esoteric (the internal or moral frontline) elements of battle, which he overlaid with Shi'a mystic philosophy." Too complex a sentence.
• In the theorist section, the "According to Devictor..." sentence could probably be improved.
• In general, some of the quotes do seem "off," and paraphrasing them would work better (with the exception of quotes from Avini himself). Quotes would help if we could supplement them with sourced analysis and interpretation.
• Also, some of the phrases and sentences are repeated pretty much verbatim, and it would be better if we could paraphrase them or expand on them further to avoid mere repetition.

I can help out in the prose area, if need be. I hope to go over this again tomorrow and make some more fixes. GAB^gab 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As before, I'm ready to help you if the sentences need to be clarified. --Mhhossein (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

GAB: Are you willing to keep on editing the article? --Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I can probably edit this week, although I will be away next week. GAB^gab 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification of the 4th bulletpoint: He is taking issue with the artificial postures and cliche slogans that the combatants had to (or were made to) put on subconsciously during typical recordings by the disinterested filmmakers and reporters. And this pretentiousness, according to Avini, was implicitly dictated to them by the formal and soulless filming settings created by reporters who couldn't identify and sympathize with the spiritual/psychological motivations of the combatants who were mostly shy and modest in expressing them by their own inclination. Hence they would easily conform to the forms and settings imposed by the filmmakers, something that Avini believed disguised and falsified this intimate and esoteric aspect of the war and combatants' motivations. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, as far as I see, most of the quotes are supported by well sourced interpretation and/or analysis. However, I'll paraphrase them if one could specifically determine one. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tags

@Wuerzele: Do you think your tagging was valid here, considering that the mentioned conclusion does not need attribution. You can note that the cited source reads:"Alors qu’il aurait pu embrasser une carrière politique comme nombre de ses collègues, il s’engage dans la Révolution par le cinéma documentaire."[1] Also, please say the reasoning behind this tag. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for Wuerzele's feedback. --Mhhossein (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your edits. However, I made some edits which you might wan to see. Also, I'd like to know why you removed this well sourced paragraph containing his own description of his style, and how can we restore it do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I should add that I'm not done yet, but perhaps it would be best to resolve this before I proceed. I'm looking at this diff of the combined changes you have made, and I have concerns with both quotes. First, it is in general not a good idea to use quotes from person X in an article about person X. Aside from frequently being taken out of context, there are issues of neutrality (people promote themselves) and reliability (even if reproduced in a secondary source, a quote is not reliable for anything except the quote itself. What larger implications it has needs to come from the secondary source. This applies also to the quote about his style, which you have not re-added. Second, neither quote is easy to understand.

Then, with respect to the first quote: the text in the source is actually interesting, but it is rather complex, and I'm not certain about all of the theory behind it myself. Avini is not simply discussing inspiration, he is discussing authorship. And the full quote is much more interesting, and neutrally worded, than what you originally had in the article. The full quote, with perhaps the qualifier "In discussing the nature of authorship in his films..." but in my personal view the topic is too complex to include.

The second quote, as well as the third one (which you have not restored) about his style, come from what seems to be a website dedicated to him. It is not an independent source, and therefore cannot be seen as neutral. Quotes taken from there are likely to be promotional in nature: it is also difficult to establish context for them. For this reason, those quotes should remain out. It does not help that the second quote is not really relevant: he believed angels descended there at some point, which is tangential at best to his biography. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you removed it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde for spending time on the issue and for the comprehensive explaining. I'm OK with removing the quote from the "website dedicated to him," because of the potential sourcing problem. However, I would like to see how his interesting and meaningful quote regarding "the nature of authorship" will be used accompanied by suitable qualifications. Moreover, looking at other bio articles, you'll see that views of the person X is included in his article, sometimes in a separate section dedicated to his/her view. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the other quote. With respect to this one, I would suggest the following: say "In discussing the nature of authorship in his films, Avini says: " and then follow it with the whole quote. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, I added the full quote. You may see it for reassurance. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: The term "promotional films" in the artistic work section needs to be clarified: what exactly were they promoting? Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've cut this sentence fragment " and perceive the esoteric, mystical side of the conflict, although considered his films promotional, decisive, and modern" as being absolutely incomprehensible, and I don't understand French. I suspect" Devictor is calling his films "promotional, decisive, and modern" and if so, we should say exactly that, in a separate sentence, for preference. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think the last fragment, i.e. "although considered..." is not found in the original text verbatim. However, I can see that the text is verifying "he considered his films promotional." I think he meant promoting Shia belief, ideology or something like this. I agree, we can have a separate sentence, omitting "decisive, and modern". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fine, go ahead and write it, and I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Some points regarding your recent edits:

1. Regarding this edit; You have changed "enemy's national identity" into "national identity of the combatants". Do they have the same meaning?

• When I read that phrase, I assumed it was a misplaced apostrophe over "enemy's". If I was wrong, then no, the meaning is not the same: but it does make the original sentence more of a POV issue.

1. Regarding this edit; This source describe him "the most influential war documentarist,"(p 26) and "prominent writer."(p 21) He's also described as "[one of] the most prominent official cinema film-makers," here (p 185).

• That's fine, but the content needs to a) be in the article, and b) be cited inline in the article.

1. Regarding this edit; "Seyyed" is not an honorific, it's a part of his name. However, these two sources have written his complete name, i.e. Seyyed Morteza Avini. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, but in the infobox it was a) linked to the honorific, and b) formatted as an honorific. If these issues are fixed you're more than welcome to readd it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• done this last myself.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Morteza Avini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I want to review this article. seyyed (talk · contribs) 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  On hold

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  On hold

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  Done

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  Done

   C. It contains no original research:  Done

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  On hold

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  On hold

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  On hold

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  On hold

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  Done

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  On hold

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  On hold

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  On hold

What should be added:

1. The article says almost nothing about Avini's writing after revolution. It just mentions their names in Bibliography. While he has written most of his theories in his works.
2. The article just mention the name of "Sureh magazine" which was an important critical magazine regarding art and culture of its time.
3. The article says nothing about Avini's objection towards Akbar Hashemi's development plan and censorship of his voice in that era.
4. The article should pay attention to critical dialogue between Avini and revolutionary hardliners as well as Avini and modernists.

--Seyyed(t-c) 07:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Query

seyyed, Mhhossein, it has been over four weeks, and there haven't been any edits to the article or other acknowledgement of this review. Perhaps it is time to close the review if the additions that were requested are not going to be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree to close this review and renominate the article after solving the major problems.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Thanks for reminding. I don't insist on having it unclosed. I'll address the raised issues perhaps in few weeks. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Failed Because there are several issues which should be covered by the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morteza Avini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307224644/http://www.pnushafagh.ir/index.aspx?siteid=446&fkeyid=&siteid=446&pageid=56933&newsview=241835 to http://www.pnushafagh.ir/index.aspx?siteid=446&fkeyid=&siteid=446&pageid=56933&newsview=241835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)