Talk:Guity Novin/ Archive 1

Copyright

The Guity Novin article is not copyright infringement. I have emailed Guity Novin herself at guitynovin@hotmail.com for a request to post the article on Wikipedia. The article itself states that the majority of the article is written by herself as it writes, "Guity describes her work". Guity Novin has informed that she indeed submitted the article to Iran Chambers and granted me permission to post it on Wikipedia. Therefore, if you have any doubt or want to confirm what I'm saying I'd imagine the best possible route would be to contact the author of the original article herself, Guity Novin at guitynovin@hotmail.com.

Actually, the artist bio is taken from Guity Novin's website. The site has been under renovation. I have been informed that it will be up and running in the January 2007.

D

NO. The big route is to prove to wikipedia that she ever gave you permission.--Rmky87 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Transpressionism

Please merge any relevant content from Transpressionism per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 05:50Z

I have copied the content from Transpressionism to this article. However, it needs to be heavily edited into a more concise and readable form. Anyone searching for Transpressionism will be automatically redirected to this article and will be able to access the information here. Tyrenius 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up

I have edited this article to conform, hopefully, to wiki standards. Any deleted text can be still found in the history. Please note the article cannot be used as a platform for an essay on Transpressionism. It must state the facts. The Sources section still needs attending to. Some of it can be incorporated into the main text, and some can be used more precisely as a reference for material in the main text. Tyrenius 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mansooreh Hosseini

Can anyone provide verification of the genuineness and accuracy of this text? If so, it should be quoted in Guity Novin. Tyrenius 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the artist, and she has kindly provided the article to her web-master for publication. The web master has now published the article on the artist's website in the articles section.

The second scanned article is the mansooreh hosseini article from Ettellaat, 1971. 140.80.199.91 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be Kayhan circa November, 1971. Perhaps you could put relevant text(s) - not the whole translation, just the bit(s) to be used - and refs in the article (or at least on this page). Tyrenius 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exhibitions have no Viewers? By Mansooreh Hosseini; Kayhan November, 1971

Here is a translation of the second part of the article:

“Expression of Silence” was the poetical designation of the exhibition of Guity Novin at the Negar Gallery. The subject of most paintings was still-lifes and urns. The urns reminded me of the raw urns of Chaloos. They were mostly painted empty, and sometimes with few flowers. “Expression of Silence” I like this title. Not because I see a relationship between the plastic art and poetic art. But, because “still lifes”, things, flowers and so on can, in spite of their lifeless beings project sorrow, peace, melancholy, or serenity.

I asked the lady who was perhaps the warden or the manager of Negar Gallery where’s the painter? “She seldom shows up” She replies…

And those urns, paintings of Guity Novin, hanging on the gallery walls, were expressing the silence. They were painted with under the influence of the Parisian school of Pointillism and Divisionist technique. They reminded me of Signac style. Although in contrast to the practice of the early pointillists , the artist blends pigments on her palette, with a sharp edge in olive color, another wider one in sandy brown, and yet another sharp brush stroke in dark brown to define the shadowy surface of her urns.

In choosing her motifs one could detect a consistency which attested to artist’s enlightened and perspicacious character. The choice of colours, selection of gradation of hue, which explicitly used more-or-less the same tonality in all the works, revealed the story of artist’s unfaltering and inquisitive mind”

But that evening the main story in that gallery was the “The Expresssion of Sillence” and that sole viewr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.80.199.91 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Transpressionists Painters

I have included names of the artists from the Transpressionists' website. I have not included the name of younger Transpressionists such as Marie LaChance, of Quebec, Inke Schultz of Germany, as well as others. Perhaps in future these names should be added. Arteban 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair enough having a brief list of artists who follow Novin, but not making a grand display of it, thanks. Tyrenius 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Freshacconci has said they shouldn't be in because they're not notable. I don't think that quite applies here, as they're not here in their own right, but as aspects of the main subject, which we did agree was notable. Once that has been established, then features of that can be admitted which otherwise wouldn't be — provided it is done proportionately. The original list was OTT. I hope this one proves acceptable to all. Tyrenius 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints here. Freshacconci 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globe and Mail

I removed the mention of the Globe and Mail and the following sections:

The Globe and Mail said, "Guity Novin, hailed as the originator and founder of Transpressionism, a new movement in painting that transcends beyond impressionism and expressionism styles, awakens a sagacious insight bearing on the inner world of appearances."Pieault-Stein, Paula (1997), The Globe and Mail, page A16, 12 February, 1997. A google search of "Paula Pieault-Stein" only comes up with the wiki article on Guity Novin. Page A16 in the first section of the Globe which is usually not arts coverage and I suspect that this reference is from the letters to the editor page. So, saying the Globe and Mail hailed her is a bit much. Freshacconci 13:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I removed a dead link from the second footnote. Also, the Simon Fraser University source was a bit obscure: what was it exactly, a periodical or catalogue? It did not have standard bibliographic information. I will look into Thomas F. Oltmanns, Robert E. Emery, & Steven Taylor, Abnormal Psychology,Canadian Edition, Prentice Hall, Toronto,2002, P. 713, as this isn't an art source and may not be adequate for verifying the statement. Yes it is third party, but a book on Abnormal Psychology mentioning Guity Novin as the founder of Transpressionism (a non-notable art movement might add) is hardly compelling evidence. Freshacconci 16:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd Edit Wars

Recently some editors have questioned the fact that Guity Novin is the founder of transpressionism. This is absurd. The fact that her fame has spread world wide to the extent that the international publisher, Prentice Hall's art editor has purchased the copy right to one of Guity Novin's paintings Pear in Blue, for a chapter opener in a university text book, and in the credit section has published an acknowledgement, has been also questioned. Furthermore, the SFU catalogue which could be easily be accessed online is questioned. The ad in Preview is dismissed and so on. Of course, there are hundreds of comments, ads and other pieces on various media and on internet on this fact, which is after all a positive and not a normative statement.

Mr. Freshacconci's statement against an international movement in paintings is an OR at best and thus not admisible. He should be using his time on improving his own art instead of these types unproductive edit wars. Vazgen 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most that can be verified is that the artist describes her work as transpressionism. The claim that she is the origin of a world-wide art movement needs stronger sources.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting what a contributor should be doing with their time isn't exactly helpful, either.

The bottom line here is this - can we properly source these claims per WP:RS and WP:V? In regards to the claim that Guity Novin is the founder of transpressionism, we can - there are several sources, this being the best among them. The phrase The fact that her fame has spread world wide to the extent that the international publisher, Prentice Hall's art editor has purchased the copy right to one of Guity Novin's paintings Pear in Blue, for a chapter opener in a university text book, and in the credit section has published an acknowledgement, has been also questioned, however, isn't verifiable. We can probably verify that Prentice Hall purchased the copyright to Pear in Blue with a good amount of digging, but that alone wouldn't even come close to justifying the use of such peacock language as her fame has spread world wide - we just can't verify that, since fame is exceedingly relative. I don't know what the issue with the SFU catalog is (or how it's being used as a reference), but ads, being self-published sources that tend to have little in the way of sourceable value, don't really get much validity in regards to being a source.

To sum - the article itself is keepable, but needs a lot of work. Arguing back and forth won't accomplish that objective. Sidatio 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its about time to rewrite the article

A number of fanatic zealots, angry with an artist who dares to paint a nude figure floating over a city, or a nude running with a horse, and who happens to be a woman, have tried in the past and are trying to shut down Guity Novin’s page from Wikipedia as they have done so in a number of forums in some autocratic societies.. Hiding behind their ever-changing user names, and acting as meatpuppets and sockpuppets of some minor artists who appear to suffer from inferiority complexes these zealots have been constantly harassing Guity Novin over the past thirty years.

However, all the sockpuppets should take note that the current version of the article is written by one of the most respected and most experienced editors of Wikipedia, Tyrenius after a considerable debate in which Mr. Freshacconci and a number of zealots had participated. The “supporters of Guity Novin”, in the spirit of compromise have agreed to the current version of article despite their grave misgivings about the article’s relative coyness with respect to the imposing artistic force of Guity Novin on the global art scene of this century see [1].

Of course, like all the great and influential artists who had been ahead of their times Guity Novin was and is confronted by critics who could not and cannot step out of their old and rotten boxes of narrow-mindedness.

But “the supporters of Guity Novin” have been successful in various Western world’s democratic and civil forums, where the spirit of enlightenment rules, and they are assured that time is on their side in the fanatic societies, as sooner rather than later the belligerent opponents will be relegated to the dust beans of the art history.

Anticipating a lot more vigorous ridicules, scorns and cheap shots, we are ready and welcome a rewriting of the Guity Novin page. We will actively participate in it with the hope to open up the great vistas of the future. Be Bold Vazgen 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of any of this? You claim I am "angry with an artist who dares to paint a nude figure floating over a city, or a nude running with a horse, and who happens to be a woman." Are you accusing me of being a misogynist? If so, please provide the proof of this. And you are clearly accusing me of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Again, do you have proof of this? I have been editing on Wikipedia in good faith since October 2006. My editing history is available for anyone to see. If you have evidence that I am violating Wikipedia policies do not make vague accusations on a talk page. Please take it to the proper forum. I have nothing to hide. I questioned the notability of Ms. Novin in previous discussions but I have since changed my mind about this. I never attacked her or her art and in the process of discussing this topic I have never attacked another editor. Again, all my edits and comments are available for anyone to see. I have worked well-within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as is my right. Unless you intend to take this further, I expect a full retraction on this page. I have never been one to take much offense with comments by other editors and I think editors I have worked with will tell you I have usually been an even-tempered editor who (almost) always backed away from edit wars, personal attacks and general disruption. I usually allow things to roll off my back for the greater good of Wikipedia. But I feel Vazgen has crossed a line here. Freshacconci 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic, but slinging accusations and attacking people won't fix the article. If you're looking to write a review of the subject, I'd suggest a forum, a blog, or maybe submitting a review for publication in a magazine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is none of the aforementioned. That's all *I* am trying to tell you. Your issues with other editors are unknown to me, and to be quite honest, I don't really care. I don't even really see what you're getting bent out of shape about - the article looks halfway decent! If it does need any more work, it doesn't need much. The article at present seems to reflect rather well on the subject. What's the big deal? Sidatio 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big deal is that another editor and myself questioned the sources provided for one statement. To Vazgen this equals an edit war (even though we used the edit summaries and talk page to voice our opinions). Everything else is old news. Vazgen seems to be a new editor but is referring to comments made by other editors towards during a previous AfD discussion (which could maybe indicate a possible sockpuppet situation, hmmm...). Freshacconci 00:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, people...

RELAX FOR A SECOND, BOTH OF YOU.

First and foremost, it's just a Wikipedia article. It's nothing to escalate into some kind of fight. From what I can see, Freshacconci was just engaged in article cleanup. Perhaps he could have handled it with a little more civility, but it is what it is. The other editor making recent edits, Ethicoaestheticist, also seems to be engaged in cleanup, and I don't see any issues with his conduct. Vazgen, it seems you might have a few issues with ownership of this article. I'm sure Novin's a great artist, and yes, there's a source that cements the claim that she founded Transpressionism. However (and this is the second time I've said this), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means there's standards to be upheld in regards to article sourcing, verifiability, and writing style. The article is meant to inform the reader of the subject's notability, not glorify it.

I think the both of you would benefit from reading Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Just a personal observation, but it's really not worth it fighting over open-source articles on a fledgling online encyclopedia, is it? Sidatio 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100%. Normally I wouldn't get worked up about these things, but the accusations against me were extreme. I'm not certain where I acted in an uncivil manner, but if it is apparent I did, that wasn't my intention. I was only attempting a clean-up. Having said that, Vazgen clearly has issues with me (why, I have no idea, since this is the first time I've encountered this editor). Since this is the case, I will move on. Ethicoaestheticist and Tyrenius have both worked on this article and hardly require my input. I would still appreciate a retraction from Vazgen since the comments were uncalled for. Either way, I'll move along. I am supposed to be on a wikibreak and I do have other things to do. Freshacconci 00:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to confirm that Freshacconci is an experienced editor in extremely good standing, and the attack on him was quite unwarranted and a violation of WP:NPA. Also my edits are open to review and amendment, as are any other editor's. The article certainly merits attention. Tyrenius 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure he is, as well as yourself. The intention wasn't to label anyone as anything; the intention was to get the involved parties to take a step back. I just hate to see people get worked up over words on a computer screen, you know? :-) Sidatio 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci, please calm down. I am sure if you read his note carefully you will realize that Vazgen was not talking about you. But there are some fanatics, who do not like guity novin and her paintings, and they have fought her for a long time in some very real and important junctures. They have been able to create problems for her which were very real and very serious. Unfortunately, some people take these things very treacherously, and editors like Vazgen have to be very very careful. Please do not blame them for this.

Vazgen, many of us think that you have to make clear to Freshacconci that you did not mean him to be fanatic, and you have to apologize to him. He would probably understand as why are you not retracting. Of course, he has used some very unkind words towards a respected artist whom many of us, who have shared experiences, admire. I am reasonably certain that had he knew her in person he too would have been one of ardent supporters of this brave artist who has kept painting at the most arduous conditions for more than forty years. Some editors like Tyrenius are just and noble who are intuitively supportive of great artists who have been subject to immense injustices. Some others are less so. GreenthumbNick 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accused Freshacconci of fanaticism, and I apologize if sounded as if I was accusing him. Unfortunately, some of us can not be as open as others. Vazgen 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-issue

The text now reads per guitynovin.com:

She classifies her work as Transpressionism, a movement she has introduced.

Anyone can introduce (or found for that matter) a movement called whatever they want. Her own web site is sufficient for that and how she classifies her own work in terms of it. However, if the movement is to be asserted of note, then that requires other references. So far, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism, this has not been demonstrated in terms of wiki requirements. Tyrenius 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry

You might be interested to have a look at this [2]. Shervink 06:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed [3]. Shervink 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppets:

Artaxerex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Arteban (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Artaban (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Vazgen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Arteban1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Posted here by Tyrenius 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom on Artaxerex

This has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Artaxerex. Tyrenius 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to have a look at this ANI request. Shervink 09:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Outside View on the shervink's RFC aginst me here[4]: [5],

Statement by GRBerry in Request_for-Arbitration reads: [6].

The first Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

Decline. RFC shows a lack of community support for this matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Artaxerex 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the most recent message by shervink [7], accusing me of harassing him in his ANI request for my banishment. My response follows his:[8].

Unnecessary Controversy

I'm not quite sure I understand why there is so much controversy going here. I for one have found the article to be useful, and relevant. When it comes to artistic movements, many artists start their own, as Tyrenius says. I think it is a notable movement, as one can see by simply googling the search result. Many results come that are related to Guity Novin, as one would expect being that she started the movement, however I've found other pages related to movement, including other artists who subscribe to the movement, and claim they are artists of transpressionism as well.

After seeing how much arguing is on this page, I found it a little shameful. The articles on wikipedia are here to provide meaningful material and content to the readers. If it has verifiable sources which are credible, I don't see why people are throwing in their opinions of what is suitable or unsuitable. I feel people are starting to take edits and articles far too personal. It starts with someone doing a minor edit, and then the debate turns into a petty argument about the edit itself, and not about the article in question.

Can we all take a moment, take a deep breath, and abstain from any unnecessary controversy that is irrelevant to the (and any other) articles. I wonder what the artist would think if she were to see so much bickering on her article. If your edits are not constructive, let's please keep from posting them. Wikipedia is a useful tool, and it's so counterproductive to be fighting and making silly edits like this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.244.149.125 (talk • contribs).

About Shervink and his motives

Please note that shervink and his group are bringing a dispute about their srtong pro-Aryan views to this page.They should not.
Their views can be acertained from here [9]where he writes to Behnam an editor/(admin?) to explain why he believes "Iranians are Aryans". He writes:

"When I say that Iranians are not semitic, I mean that both their languages and their culture are quite distinct from those of the semitic people."

In other words he means Iranians of different race (Jews, Arabs, Assyrians etc.) are not Iranians (or are Aryans!). This is not my spin as you can see from Behnam's response to him here:[10],I have written to him here [11] which reads; "You wrote: ...it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new." Your statement is False. There are many Semitic Iranians. Jewish Iranians are Semitic, Arab Iranians are Semitic. In fact, anybody who argues that Jews who have lived in Iran for more than 2500 years are not Iranian not only would be wrong, but also anti-Semitic. I am really disgusted by the above statement, and I hope you really wrote it inadvertently.

He and his friends (SG, Mehrshad 123, Rayis, ...) use the fact that about 15 of us share the same IP to accuse us of sockpuppertry. This group and the other group should realize that their tactics will not work in open societies. Cheers Artaxerex 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep talk-page relevant to the article

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds it objectionable that this talk page is being used as a platform for accusing other editors of racism. I'm replacing some of the comments Artaxerex has copied from other forums with links. I'm also removing Shervink's request that links should be provided, and the uncivil accusation in response by Artaxerex.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promo alert

Cross wiki promo try - see here. Already removed on many wikipedia versions. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the Latin Wiki

Quite true. But en:wiki long ago decided to keep her, so maybe we will too? [[12]] --Artaxerex (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. The more interesting response is from the Cymraeg wiki that can be found here [13]--Artaxerex (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of User:Artaxerex

Tiranious (talk · contribs) and Bamshadan (talk · contribs) have been indef blocked as socks of Artaxerex (talk · contribs). Ty 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]