Talk:The Black Tulip (2010 film)

Change in the title of the article

I moved the page to a new title (old title: "Black Tulip (film)". There are two old movies with the same name, so "(film)" didn't adequately distinguish this article subject. I can't seem to get rid of the italics, but it doesn't seem to matter if you type in the title in the search box, so maybe that's a good thing. (Also, the full title of the film includes the word "The".) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. All film titles are in italics now. Lugnuts (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Tulip

The film's title is "Black Tulip" not "The Black Tulip" according to imdb. It's also American film set in Afghanistan, not generated from citizens or residents of Afghanistan. Cole is an American and the main crew were largely Americans. -- Nomasmentiras (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what I saw in the sources:

• Reuters in the text of this story names it without the "The" -- but the picture shows a "the". [1]
• The New York Times uses "The" [2]
• Sonia Nassery Cole's Afghanistan World Foundation website uses "The". [3]
• This ABC News segment has "The" in the subheadline and in the video seems to show part of a preview, which shows the title with a "The".

I think it's "The Black Tulip" and IMDB and Reuters are wrong. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's contributions - I've raised a query to ask for more help on the project's talk page here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The official website lists it as The Black Tulip. A Google search for "the black tulip" + "Sonia Nassery Cole" yields approximately 2,000 hits whereas "black tulip" + "Sonia Nassery Cole" yields approximately 1,400. Since the second search will inevitably duplicate many hits of the first search (the search string "the black tulip" contains the string "black tulip"), I conducted a modified search where Google returned only the results where "black tulip" appears in the text but "the black tulip" does not. That search yielded 542 results. IMDb is not a reliable source and JohnWBarber has presented several reliable sources that refer to it as The Black Tulip. I think we can safely proceed with referring to the film as The Black Tulip, it seems to be the most common English language name of the film. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

set designer mentioned in the article.

I am the set designer mentioned in the article. Even though originally characterized by the New York Times as leaving in the middle of production because of safety concerns, I stayed in Afghanistan for the amount of time I had agreed to with the producers. I stayed through a bombing, a machine gun and rocket attack and a sniper, only leaving because of a prior commitment. The Times only called the Director of Photography to reference the story initially. Emcee carney (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something you're not going to forget in a hurry! If you have any online resources around the production of this film, please provide links on this talkpage, and we can build up the article. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of the Times material about the mistatements and egregious mischaracterizations that Cole made about the crew and the obviously fabricated and salacious story Cole concoted about the "actress having her legs chopped off by the Taliban", in my opinion, a sick and convenient excuse for a socialite to cast herself as the star of her own vanity film. I also did some clean up/revisions.

If the NY Times is calling those mischaracterizations and basically a bunch of gratuitous "lies", obviously used by the director to get more attention and to promote the movie and herself, then it should also be reflected as such in Wikipedia. Although it may be questionable if this movie even deserves a wiki page, and not just an imdb entry, since it is made by a non-filmmaker who is previously unknown with no track record. The film hasn't even been screened and/or reviewed and was rejected from consideration for the one place it was submitted. Hardly wiki material. Nomasmentiras (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to nominate the page for deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Nomasmentiras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an agenda account whose sole purpose here seems to be attacking a single individual and her work. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re this page

At Wikipedia:Help desk#Preventing Libel on Wikipedia. —Half Price 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
(below copied from the help desk):
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been fighting desperately and tirelessly to simply remove the slander and libel that plagues the Wikipedia page The Black Tulip (2010 film).
The article is completely unjust and there is a very obvious vindictive effort being made to damage the film's reputation when considering the lack of objective information provided. Since we do not have the time or ability to properly edit this page repeatedly, I am going to outline several facts with credible sources that I hope you will add to the page instead of ignore and delete, like whoever has for the past several months. Wikipedia should stand for providing objective information and I am going to provide it to you now. If whoever controls the page does not heed and update the page with this information, we will have to pursue you legally on the grounds of defamation and libel.
If you stand for justice and believe that Wikipedia is about providing objective information, you will help make the changes necessary to remove the below slander.
Thank You,
Chris A. Cole
Co-Producer, Black Tulip
Breadwinner Productions
www.breadwinnerfilms.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.12.122 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I'm sorry to read about the troubles you are having. It is clear to me that someone is misusing Wikipedia to mis-characterize the film during the very important and usually too short marketing phase of any film. Wikipedia is a long-term project and most matters get resolved over time. However, you are correct in that actions needs to be stepped up to protect the efforts that have gone into the film and not let the film's reputation be degraded as part of an effort to hurt sales in the short run and instill consternation in the lives of those involved in the film in the long run.
I broke up your 12 December 2010 into subsections below to make it easier for people to respond. Each of the below points are valid and since they were not supported in the article by reliable sources and you have challenged them, these matters cannot be entered back into the article until there is a consensus below to do so. A Wikipedia consensus is a general agreement by several Wikipedia's typically over seven days (but can take months or never occur in the case of low traffic discussion areas such as this talk page), where that general agreement is the conclusion of a closer of the discussion (usually an administrator). If you see any future trouble with the article, post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You can see where discussion on this article has already taken place within Wikipedia via this link and this link. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Black Tulip is a 2010 Afghan film, not a 2010 American film

The film is not American. It has an entirely Afghan cast with an Afghan Director, Writer, Producer and a sparse American crew. Sonia Cole is a dual-citizen of Afghanistan and the USA. Since she directed, produced, co-wrote, acted and financed the film and is an Afghan citizen, while you have no proof of the contrary, creative control of the motion picture was, is and has been largely in the hands of citizens or residents of Afghanistan. It was Afghanistan's official entry, making it an Afghan film. The source you provide to the contrary "TheWrap.com" is not an official or legitimate source and the link provided: "http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/academy%27s-foreign-language-field-sports-65-entries-21680" is dead and leads to nowhere, thus further discrediting it as a source since no source even exists. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

2. The term "Beverly Hills socialite" is degrading

The term "Beverly Hills socialite" is degrading and an inaccurate representation of Sonia Cole, who directed, produced, co-wrote, acted and financed the film, is an Afghan citizen, and spent several months in Afghanistan risking her life to make a film, as evidenced by several of the articles already cited on the page. The source used for this statement is also irrelevant and does not concern the film. She is a filmmaker and philanthropist, which is not a statement that glorifies her, it simply states the truth. "Beverly Hills socialite" is a term more conducive to a housewife who attends glamorous parties in Los Angeles, not someone who makes films in war zones where several sources clearly indicate her life being in danger. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

3. The film was not rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

The film was not rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a possible submission for the 83rd Academy Awards in the category of "Foreign Language Film" and there is no source provided to prove it. The film was accepted as a late submission which can be verified by calling the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at (310) 247-3000. A screening date is set for the Foreign Language Film committee on January 10th, 2010. The source provided to the contrary "TheWrap.com" is not an official or legitimate source and the link provided: "http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/academy%27s-foreign-language-field-sports-65-entries-21680" is dead and leads to nowhere, thus further discrediting it as a source since no source even exists. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

4. The plot is inaccurate

The plot is inaccurate, in that it avoids what is indicated on IMDb and the official website, which are both listed as sources on the page already. Citing two articles does not adequately capture the plot or due it justice. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

5. The production paragraph is malicious

The production paragraph makes absolutely no effort to present both sides and takes a very malicious stance. One of the statements ""the women ran off somewhere in "Pakistan," never to be seen again."" is nowhere to be found in the cited article. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

6. There was no production abandonment

The following statement is also false: ""As reported by the Times, according to Cole, the film's cinematographer, a producer and a set designer had all abandoned her "in the middle of production." The New York Times corrected the item noting that Cole had made that statement and not the Times and that in fact the crew had remained through most of the dangerous film shoot"". The underlined last sentence is false and even the article and further statements on the page indicate it is. It was only the set designer who left 4 days before the end of the shoot, while one of the producers and the initial cinematographer DID leave in the middle of the shoot. No attribution in the article or anywhere else indicates anything else, so this claim cannot be made credibly. The cinematographer is quoted himself in the article confirming that he did leave in the middle of production. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

7. Claiming the film was not released is false

In the release section it indicates "The film has not been released anywhere in the world" is another completely false statement. Even the Wikipedia page itself says the release date was "September 23rd, 2010" which is correct. Another obvious indication of libel. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

8. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences accepted the film as a late submission.

In the release section it indicates, ""However, the film was submitted for and rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a possible submission for the long list of foreign films to qualify for consideration for the 83rd Academy Awards in the category of "Foreign Language Film"" is another completely false statement. It was Afghanistan's official entry, making it an Afghan film. The film was not rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a possible submission for the 83rd Academy Awards in the category of "Foreign Language Film" and there is no source provided to prove it. The film was accepted as a late submission which can be verified by calling the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at (310) 247-3000. The source you provide to the contrary "TheWrap.com" is not an official or legitimate source and the link provided: "http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/academy%27s-foreign-language-field-sports-65-entries-21680" is dead and leads to nowhere, thus further discrediting it as a source since no source even exists. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

9. Falsely claiming director Cole is American was used to support the false claim that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences rejected the film because of the lack of Afghan connection

In the release section it indicates, ""Among other qualifications regarding eligibility, the Academy's rules governing the foreign language field state that "creative control of the motion picture must be largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." Cole, an Afghan expatriate, has been a citizen and resident of the United States for more than three decades. Financing of the film came from Cole, and the majority of the film's core crew were Americans"" is another slanderous and misleading statement considering that Sonia Cole is a dual-citizen of Afghanistan and the USA. Since she directed, produced, co-wrote, acted and financed the film and is an Afghan citizen, while you have no proof of the contrary, creative control of the motion picture was, is and has been largely in the hands of citizens or residents of Afghanistan. It was also Afghanistan's official entry, making it an Afghan film. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

10. Selective inclusion and exclusion of sources is biast

In the reception section, the statement ""Afghan attendees at the film's premiere in Kabul told a New York Times reporter that the film departed from Afghan mores and realities when it depicted an Afghan man kissing a woman's face through her head-to-toe burqa, and Coalition forces and Taliban fighters spending time in an Afghan cafe (either at the same time or separately). Afghan attendees at the movie's premier in Kabul told a New York Times reporter that the film didn't depict the Afghanistan that they know and are familiar with. Amin Mokhtar, an employee of the Afghan Film Organization, balked at a funeral scene, in which mourners threw handfuls of earth into the graves, not an Afghan practice, he said. “The director and workers grew up in America and don’t know much about Afghan culture, that is the point,” Mr. Mokhtar said."" is only using one article as a source, which is not an adequate or fair method of indicating reception. Considering that the journalist is disgruntled for not getting the Black Tulip story initially, and the individual quoted was an actor who was refused a part in the movie, the sources become even less credible and more biased. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

11. See Also section

The See Also section lists the following Wikipedia articles:

• List of submissions to the 83rd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#cite note-the wrap-4
• List of Afghan submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

The statements made about Black Tulip in these articles are also false. The film was not rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a possible submission for the 83rd Academy Awards in the category of "Foreign Language Film" and there is no source provided to prove it. The film was accepted as a late submission which can be verified by calling the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at (310) 247-3000. A screening date is set for the Foreign Language Film committee on January 10th, 2010. The source you provide to the contrary "TheWrap.com" is not an official or legitimate source. -- Chris A. Cole (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• We do not phone people, that is forbidden by our No Original research policy. I already told Sonia that by email. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Production portion

Deleted section because it seemed less factual and more gossip, even if it came from press. If there is some news worth reporting, someone should rewrite to give both sides an even shake. This is not a film critic forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.59.26 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your change and posted a warning on your Talk page. More discussion is needed before removing an entire section. I agree the section needs work, but removal is not the answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reversion is incorrect. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material. In particular, the Wikipedia:Verifiability "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Per Burden of evidence, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material and any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Until these matters are resolved via consensus, the poorly sourced content is not to be added back into the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia may not be used for

Wikipedia may not be used for the following purposes:

• Fighting external battles
• Correcting reliable sources who have got things wrong, other than by reference to other, equally reliable sources
• Promoting your film, your career or anything else
• Attacking living individuals
• Bringing The Truth™ to the world

I am struck by how little we know about this film, other than what is brought here by those tryign to do one or more of the above. It has no reviews on Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes or any of the other review aggregators. I wonder if this is a case of "not yet". Guy (Help!) 15:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of foreign films and other independent films that get little traction on RT or MC. I reverted your removal of the material about the screening. I'm not sure why you removed that stuff. Now, I'm not sure if the sentence is worded precisely enough to match the source, but you're welcome to look at that. However, removing sourced material about a film's screening by the Academy doesn't seem warranted, particularly in the foreign film category. Please respond here rather than reverting again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence draws an inference (that this is the Afghanistan entry) from existence in a list, a primary source. That is WP:OR. Feel free to cite coverage in Screen International or similar, that would be uncontentious. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your reasoning. One question, though. Take a look at List of Afghan submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The article cites the same source for the Black Tulip submission as the Black Tulip article. However, above the table, it also explains the process a little more with another source (#2). If you were looking at the article, would you remove the Black Tulip from the table, or do you think the combo of the two sources is sufficient?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oscar site lists it as the Afghan entry in its screening schedule. Lugnuts (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is getting very hard to pick apart the competing primary and secondary sources here. This is, in the end, a very minor film, a fiction misunderstood as an attempt at documentary. I think that until we have much more complete sources, less is more. There has been some pretty concerted pushing of the anti view, and some equally concerted pushing "battling long and hard" I seem to recall - from the promoters. Is calling it "Afghanistan's entry" WP:UNDUE? How many films were made in Afghanistan this year? Who selected it? Was it, in fact, the only Afghan entry submitted, and submitted by the producers, or was it submitted by someone else? The Oscar long lists are loooooooong lists, saying that songs have been submitted is definitely WP:UNDUE - an "Oscar nominated" film / actor / song is generally understood to be one that makes the short list. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess no more UNDUE than the Greenlandic or Ethoipan entry. Being entered in this category is essentially all this film is notable for. Lugnuts (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple more refs (well, stole one that was already in the article)... Lugnuts (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor leaving in the Academy award info. With respect to the best foreign film, now that Lugnuts has found a reliable source nailing down that the film has been submitted as Afghanistan's entry, it should remain. With respect to the songs, and partly also relevant to the best foreign film, I agree with Lugnuts that the film's relatively low profile in most parts of the world makes these sorts of things more notable than in a better-known film. Although I understand Guy's points, on balance, I believe the information is relevant, sufficiently notable, and should remain. I also don't believe the controversy surrounding the film and the making of the film should have anything to do with the Academy award information. In fact, it's a welcome sane counterpart to some of the other stuff that swirls around, with accusations and counter accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of the "Production" section

I think the Production section actually violates WP:BLP. Here's a suggested rewrite to remove the anti-Cole bias (suggested additions in italics, suggested deletions have a line through them):

According to a story allegedly fabricated by the film's director, Sonia Nassery Cole, a few weeks before the movie was to begin filming in Afghanistan, Taliban militants caught Zarifa Jahon, an actress Cole said she had allegedly wanted to cast in the film, and (according to Cole) cut off her feet as punishment. Cole then claimed she was forced to cast herself in the lead role instead. However, Latif Ahmadi, the current head of the Afghan Film Organization, said he thought Cole's statement was "propaganda for the film" and he didn't believe it had happened. According to an article in The New York Times, many others in the film industry in Kabul had said they had never heard of such an actress nor of such an episode. When questioned about the lack of evidence about the event, Cole later claimed that the actress had "told her in a telephone call" about the amputations, and said that the woman begged asked her to leave her alone for her own safety.

Sonia Cole was also caught colorfully mischaracterizing events concerning her production crew and a previous New York Times piece had to be appended with a post script correction. As reported by the Times, according According to Cole, the film's cinematographer, a producer and a set designer had all abandoned her "in the middle of production." The New York Times corrected the item noting that Cole had made that statement and not the Times and that in fact the crew had remained through most of the dangerous film shoot, "An article on Wednesday about an Afghan-American film director’s efforts to shoot a feature film in Afghanistan omitted attribution for the statement that a producer and a set designer on the film had abandoned the director, Sonia Nassery Cole, in the middle of production. That was Ms. Cole’s characterization. The article also omitted responses from the two, who were not named. Michael Carney, the set designer, says that he left four days before the end of the shoot, after working on the film in Afghanistan for two months. "I could feel death," said Keith Smith, the original cinematographer. "I didn't sign up for that."

The film was largely financed by Cole.

Other than as an attempt to attack Cole, I see no reason to include the information I crossed out. It delves into details that don't help to understand the subject of this article, which is in fact the film. Looking over the talk page and what I've seen of the history of the article since I was editing it a while back, I think there's a consensus to remove this information. Even if there weren't, it's clearly a BLP violation, and I'm pretty sure it would be recognized as one by just about every unbiased observer. Maybe someone else would like to make the change in the article. What defense is there for the passages I've crossed out? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this section. It was on my list of things to do, but I still hadn't gotten around to it. I agree with all of your changes except I slightly favor changing the sentence about Carney because it is a direct lift from the article, maybe: "Michael Carney, the set designer, who had worked on the film in Afghanistan for two months, said he left four days before the film completed shooting."

I have no problem making the changes, but is there a reason why you don't wish to? You did the work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. With the change you suggested. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, looks good.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of NY Times retraction

I'm going to move one sentence in the PRODUCTION section back to the order as it appeared in the source article. The retraction and statement by the Afghan who refuted the kidnapping story will be now last as below and as it was in the NY TIMES retraction at the end of the article. The kidnapping story is untrue (via the retraction) and therefore any new statements Cole is making are likely just to cover up the first dubious story.

When questioned about the lack of evidence about the event, Cole later claimed that the actress had told her in a telephone call about the amputations, and said that the woman asked her to leave her alone for her own safety. However, Latif Ahmadi, the head of the Afghan Film Organization, said he thought Cole's statement was "propaganda for the film" and he didn't believe it had happened. According to an article in The New York Times, many others in the film industry in Kabul had said they had never heard of such an actress nor of such an episode. - Dunforget (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)