Talk:Fitna (film)

As the above template says: stay cool. This movie is a controversial topic, so be on the look-out for non-neutral content and trolling. Remember that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, which aims at presenting neutral and uncensored informational articles. Wikipedia is not a place for hateful discussions or endless political debates. Cheers, Face 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

According to YouTube view counters - there has beed more than a million views within 4 days of upload. There are almost 3 thousand clips returned to a query for FITNA http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fitna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.136.79 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that can be used in the article? MantisEars (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Why would the link to YouTubes counters not be considered reliable? Has Google's technology somehow suddenly become questionable? Why such is such a bizarre standard being applied to such a simple and relevant fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the videos 82.80.136.79 linked to are not Fitna, they are cut and edited versions nearly half the time of Wilders'. MantisEars (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How can one verify the claim that "there has beed more than a million views within 4 days of upload"? I rarely use YouTube, so I'm not exactly familiar with the options provided by its counters. Lixy (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no options for the counters. The only way to see how many views a video accumulated in a certain period of time is to use the Internet Archive and that requires a six month waiting period. MantisEars (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • One could easily phrase a reference as: "various youtube user edited versions of the film were viewed over one million times within 4 days of the films release." It should also be possible to find the individual youtube statistics for any one version, but I think the `count on all variations is more comprehensive and is in keeping with the internet environment it was released in.

Short film or Propaganda film?

In the lead it currently says it's a short film but shouldnt it be a propaganda film? Just like with the 1940 The Eternal Jew? Quote: "A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finit universe (talk • contribs) at 22:33, 1 April 2008

The film's stated intent was to open up a dialogue, not to mislead. And if you didn't notice, it has done that job well. Muslims are responding with thoughtful response and imagery instead of violence. MantisEars (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda is a very POV word and should be avoided. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, good one! If a propaganda movie was publically acknowledged as misleading, its creator would better find a new job. Every propaganda material ever produced has been presented as an informative piece. Regardless, this is all OR anyway. Lixy (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it's misleading. I quote again "... that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people ...". Is there a wikipedia policy on the usage of certain words? Finit universe (talk) 5:58, 2 April 2008

In contemporary usage "propaganda" is a pejorative term, much like "brainwashing". It's best to stick to neutral terms. MantisEars (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Propaganda is a very loaded term. Alexwoods (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha the eternal jew looks like the funniest movie ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

when i watched it in the first time i got angry, and almost cried. i vote to call it a propaganda.
if the message of the movie is to (correct) the behaviour of the muslims he wasn't supposed to call for (banning the Qur'an). or to (hate the islam expanding in netherland and europe). i think the muslims doesn't need to be hated to return to their wisedom ;)
i said in another place that iraq needs rebuilding and new projects for the citizens to stop selling their souls for who feed their family after them.
yes i think this video is propaganda --Maam2222 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Maam2222 shows the problem. It is a short movie (that is a fact, as it is short and a movie). However, it is not to Wikipedia to decide it is propagande as that would be original research and the classificaiton would not be verifiable; therefore a vote is irrelevant; and we should shy away from subjective and laden terms like "propaganda". Of course if a thorough analysis is provided (not a newspaper at this stage as those are opinions that differ)/ or if there is recorded and broad consensus outside Wikipedia calling it propaganda (as is the case for the Eternal Jew) we should adopt that name, but in that case we should cite the sources naming it propaganda. Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think ill agree with Arnoutf on this. There wont be any objective source that can be used for a very long time though. So let it just be called a short film. -- Finit universe (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2008

"Short film" is the neutral term. If you want to unequivocally label it "propaganda", you'll need to cite a consensus of reliable sources. - Merzbow (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded... and we will need to wait until the argument is generally settled before we can make a final verdict on this... so until then it's best to use the uncontroversial term. gren グレン 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Quran and English Translation (Audio): http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=175&TitleName=Quran_-_Qari_Waheed_Zafar_Qasmi_with_ENGLISH_translation(Smaller_Size) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.128.132 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to call it a propaganda film would be too hasty without completed information. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Liveleak threat subsection added

FYI for the other poster it's liveleak not livelink apparently.
I have added a relevant section about the threats to them back in. One response to the film being published on their site were death threats against the staff & the families of their staff. This is obviously notable on it's own merits (since it's part of the history of the release), and because at least two google indexed news sites mention Liveleak's statement of defiance against the threats. cbean (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is of course notable. The problem is that the blockquote provides nothing more than what can be said in a sentence or two. In fact, the lead presents the issue quite clearly. For the sake of concision and not cluttering the article, I am removing the section. Take a look in the archive. The topic has been discussed to death. Lixy (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lixy the quote does add info, YOU don't think its relevant, but other people do. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not one of them. Naturally it should be mentioned that LL took the videos down. But providing the whole statement is unnecessary. - Face 13:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A screenshot of the webpage showing the video and threat would be far better, but it's gone now so..--Otterathome (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought screenshots were supposed to be used to convey information not available in text form. MantisEars (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's new information we can derive from the statements (with reliable sources) not already in the release section, you can bring it up. Republishing them is completely unnecessary. MantisEars (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken - is the LiveLeak death threats and removal section deleted by consensus? I think this ian important part of the story as it developed, and should definately be included. Nickpullar (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Before it can be deleted by consensus it must be added by consensus. No one is questioning its importance, but there are questions about if there's enough information for its own section. MantisEars (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's denying that it's an important part of the story. And it seems to be given its due weight. If you don't think that is the case, feel free to elaborate. The point that is garnering a lot of support is that quoting the whole statement of LiveLeak verbatim is overdoing it. The quote doesn't have any added value as far as I can tell. Paraphrasing it preserves neutrality and doesn't let the Wiki turn into a mule for a PR stunt (in case it is one). And once again, if you think the whole statement ought to be included in its entirety, please substantiate that position with some arguments. Lixy (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Credits NOT correct

Resolved

It appears that someone seeks to inject a subtle marginalizing of the film as sole work of an individual. This is a very effective technique and frequent attempts have been made in this entry to do so... "The views of" etc etc..

Here in the credits we see it in it's most blatant and obvious way. No source has been given for these credits, they do NOT appear in the film and have not been claimed by Wilders. Why WIKI continues to publish such blatant falsehoods is troubling. But then this has been far more about the politics of characterizing and marginalizing the item than trying to be a NPOV encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I has to read twice to understand what you meant, I guess you are right. IMDB mentions "scarlet pimpernel" as co-director and co-writer and as sole editor. I fixed the infobox to reflect that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a pseudonym ^[→] for someone who doesn't want to release their name for fear of retribution. If this individual's co-director status could not be verified, why should it be in the infobox? Verifiability, not truth. MantisEars (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, that is a point. However, there is no source naming Wilders as editor, so that should not be in the infobox.

Anyway the only source for production is the credits of the movie; which lists the pseudonym. If that is not trustworthy, then we have no reliable source for Geert Wilders as editor either, in which case all fields should be blanked.

I would attribute something to compensate for the issue. We could either use "pseudonym"; or use IMDB as source for "scarlet pimpernel". In any case we should do something about the sole Wilders mention though. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • "Verifiability, not truth", MantisEars? Last time I asked you to "verify" you produced this worthless link:

It's never too much trouble. Here's one from Haaretz. ^[1] MantisEars (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your garbage link failed to even mention the words Director, Producer or Editor. You're GAMING the system. You throw up any roadblock you can in order to attempt to control this entry and inject bias in to it. You've rejected most any and all links to content, and generally work towards limiting or obscuring access to content while belittling and marginalizing the film and the people involved in it. This should have been a short encyclopedic entry on a 15 min largely non-event - instead it's become a paper intended to shape perspectives, assist in the campaign to sharply limit accessibility and produce distinct POV talking points. This has been a very subtle, professional and successful effort to shape this article for political ends - especially during it's early and high profile hours in the news cycle.18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk • contribs)

• • I should also add that your argument that a screen credit attributed to a pseudonym has no place in wiki is utter nonsense. Pseudonyms have a long history in film and especially in political writing - NOWHERE IN WIKI IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO USE ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO GUESS THE NAME BEHIND A PSEUDONYM! For you to have "chosen" Wilders as the person behind several roles is beyond comprehension. But as you've taken ownership of this article I guess you'll just do as you please while throwing out empty garbage reasons for having chosen as you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • The movie was quite clear - indeed it printed them on the screen at the end. This movie listed the "Scarlet Pimpernel" as sole director and editor and gave the pseudonym equal credit with Wilders as Co-Writer. No producer credit was given.

There is no better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article suggestions to improve it are welcome, but being so aggressive is unlikely to do you any favours.--Otterathome (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

True, it never does. But one should never be roadblocked, gamed and put into a grey area discussion about basic obvious facts. Being thrown a worthless link as verification and watched it continue to be used as justification was simply unacceptable. A source should at the very least mention the very thing it seeks to support. Sometimes the only response is to pull an Émile Zola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Suggestion for infobox credits and article references - follow the screen credits. Director: Scarlet Pimpernel; Writer: Wilders and Pimpernel; Editor: Pimpernel. Delete Producer credit as none was given. There is no better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK. Vitriolic language and assuming bad faith is not helping anyone. Lixy (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use the link you refer to as justification for not including pimpernel, I used it when you challenged the fact that Wilders created the film, as if there were no reliable sources for any credits so we could use the primary source. MantisEars (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Yes, you did. Here is the exchange in it's entirety.

We aim for verifiability, not truth. MantisEars (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Please verify how you know the identity of the Producer, Director and Writer. We all know it's not from the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That can't be a serious question. Nearly every news source that has covered Fitna has verified that Geert Wilders wrote, produced, and directed the film. MantisEars (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please link to one. That is if verifiability isn't too much trouble. Especially when directly contradicting the screen credits which have always been the only source for film accreditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008

It's never too much trouble. Here's one from Haaretz. ^[1] MantisEars (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

♠That leaves no wiggle room, it is very clear and indisputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "guess the name behind the pseudonym", Geert Wilders was credited separately from pimpernel in the film, and is the only person credited for the film outside of the film. I also was not the person to fill the infobox with the different roles attributed to pimpernel, as you have assumed. MantisEars (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not completely true as IMDB credits both Pimpernel and Wilders. Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • NOTE:IMDB gives joint credit to Pimpernel and Wilders for Director and Writer. It offers no credits for Producer (in keeping with the screen credits) and no credit for Editor (Screen credit goes to Pimpernel). So between the three major sources, Wiki, IMDB and the screen credits we have three different versions. The weakest one of course is WIKI, as it must be based on something. Again, I suggest that no better source exists outside the published screen credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a loaded question, because you were disputing the fact that Geert Wilders was involved in the film, but instead of saying "Fine. Please verify how you know Geert Wilders was involved in the film more than you know Scarlet Pimpernel was" you asked "Fine. Please verify how you know Geert Wilders was the producer, writer...". In hindsight, I should have clarified what I was responding to, but I don't believe there is no more evidence that Geert Wilders was involved in the film than a "Scarlet Pimpernel". MantisEars (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check the Geert Wilders and Scarlet Pimpernel pages on IMDB where production-Wilders, editing-Pimpernel are attributed. I agree it is hidden, but it is in the source. That the film is released and commissioned by Wilders, (see all newspaper stuff) could lead to the conclusion (by e.g. IMDB) that it was produced by Wilders. Arnoutf (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The current infobox lists:
Directed by Geert Wilders & Scarlet Pimpernel (pseudonym of unknown person(s))
Produced by Geert Wilders
Written by Geert Wilders & Scarlet Pimpernel
Editing by Scarlet Pimpernel
Source IMDB. Is this acceptable to you, if no, why not and how should it change. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment outside of the wall of attacks against my character to express my intentions. I felt all information about the film should be verifiable, including the names of human beings involved. For example, the wikipedia article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel does not credit the female ghostwriter for the second part in the infobox, because her identity could not be verified.

I do not dispute the idea that a "Scarlet Pimpernel" could be involved, but unless there is reliable third party verification, Wilders could have put that in just for fun. Is this not why we have documented the error in identifying Salah Edin as Mohammed Bouyeri? If we had taken everything in the film as fact the accuracy of Wikipedia would be compromised.

If Scarlet Pimpernel was to be included in the infobox, there should be a clear indicator that this is a pseudonym and that it was taken directly out of the film's credits, not out of independent research. Arnoutf did something like this, and that's why I did not oppose it. MantisEars (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You (MantisEars) pointed that pseudonym thing out to me at the start of the discussion; something I would not have thought of myself, but interpreted as a way of finding consensus. That is the nice thing about Wikipedia, that multiple point of views (in combinaton with some willingness to compromise) may achieve something that is good according to everyone.

So please, keep a clear head. I am sure we are all here to improve the article even if we have different outlooks at the start. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

♠It was not a "loaded question".It was a discussion about why the wiki credits differed from the screen credits and did not include the psuedonym, the question of mine was crystal clear:

Please verify how you know the identity of the Producer, Director and Writer.

Your answer was also crystal clear:

Nearly every news source that has covered Fitna has verified that Geert Wilders wrote, produced, and directed the film.

Just looking at the Wilders part alone your answer is disingenuous at best - Your link makes no mention of the words Writer, Producer, or Director. It does not even credit Wilders for those roles. This is where it gets difficult, your support for your statements is nonexistent, and you twist clear terms and color very explicit communication that directly bears on a fundamental fact as "loaded question".

♠I would first use the screen as the source of credits, pseudonyms are a common and accepted practice from the first works through blacklisting to today. My suggestion though is to seek the standard if it exists, and if not to set one.I would use the screen credits at the moment recognizing that IMDB's source on the matter is unknown at this time. How does one go about opening a discussion on Wiki of how credits should be attributed. IMDB publishes their standard, SAG also has one. Credit disputes are common, what is Wiki policy on this? It really is not a Fitna question, the policy should drive the entry. We really should not be solving how to fill in the Fitna blanks but simply using a predefined formula for this. If you'll point me in the right direction I will join in any discussion to set policy and then come back to correct this when that's been answered elsewhere. Barring a discussion of policy then I'd argue that we adhere to the Screen Credits until IMDB's policy on credit allotments is posted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your question was not crystal clear, and my answer was not crystal clear as a result. You created a false dichotomy -- that either Wilders was the sole producer, director, and editor OR Pimpernel did it with no involvement from Wilders and it was just as verifiable. I chose the first because Wilders WAS verifiably involved, and the fact that you tacked on additional qualifiers is unfortunate but does not detract from my message. I have already explained that I did not think that Geert Wilders did all of this single-handed, and I was not the one to put his name in all of the infobox fields, so why do you keep perpetuating this idea? MantisEars (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop fighting, we are all here to improve the article. At anonymous editor 75.58.62.44. I have some difficulty understanding your written English as your lines are often complex in structure; so yes I can imagine MantisEars did misunderstand you (also see my first comment on this thread). I guess you (like me) are not a native speaker of English, please try to write as simple as possible, as misunderstanding can blow up minor disagreements into big figths. Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

♠ No false Dichotomy. No Grey area. It was recorded fully in the Archives:

This movie listed the "Scarlet Pimpernel" as sole director and editor and gave the pseudonym equal credit as Co-Writer. No producer credit was given. Why does the listing not correctly reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: The Scarlet Pimpernel

It's a pseudonym, not a real name. MantisEars (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That's why I placed little "quotes" around it and directly referred to it as a pseudonym in my initial post on the subject. It is however as the movie is credited and we have no source that identifies the real identity of the person behind the pseudonym. To state otherwise is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We aim for verifiability, not truth. MantisEars (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Please verify how you know the identity of the Producer, Director and Writer. We all know it's not from the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That can't be a serious question. Nearly every news source that has covered Fitna has verified that Geert Wilders wrote, produced, and directed the film. MantisEars (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please link to one. That is if verifiability isn't too much trouble. Especially when directly contradicting the screen credits which have always been the only source for film accreditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008

It's never too much trouble. Here's one from Haaretz. ^[1] MantisEars (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've read your linked article twice now. It does not use the words Producer, writer, director or any variation thereof.

I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions. Little is served by alluding to it and it looks like the debate is being sorted out and moving along in an intelligent, sourced and supportable fashion. It's rapidly becoming inconsequential history but it did contribute to distorting the entry during the heavy and early news cycles. For my views on that please see the initial paragraphs in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What "conclusions" do you want the reader to draw? You started your comment by saying that I wished to "marginalize" the film and shape it for political purposes, can you honestly maintain that after reading my responses? At the time the oft-quoted conversation was written, Wilders was in the infobox credited as Director, Writer, Producer, etc. Not by me, but someone else who drew the same conclusions from the same sources. There was no reason to believe otherwise, except for the film's end credits that mention an anonymous contributor. What extra value would the film have if we credited this anonymous contributor whose identity could not be verified? Little to none.

There was no debate. After both of our first comments, Arnoutf edited the article with a fine compromise. If your goal in all of this was to improve the article, you could have stopped there, but you did not. Instead of trying to work out whatever issues you had with me on my talk page, you decided to make this matter unrelated to the improvement of the article public, trying to rally other editors on your side — trying to get something unverified on Wikipedia by manipulating consensus opinion. Had you edited the article before with your credits and properly sourced them, no one would have disputed it.

I would appreciate it if you could answer this directly (or not at all) without starting another thread with a bunch of quotes we've all seen before. MantisEars (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠The article was edited before and PROPERLY sourced. It used the Fitna Credits as the source. I find it unbelievable that you do not accept a films credits as a reliable source. You also had, at that time, NO other source whatsoever to contradict the films creators as to credits. To me, in my opinion, that is either gross ignorance or obstructionism. Secondly, I did try to engage you in a direct conversation and public debate on this point. You produced a link to support your position that was groundless. It made no mention whatsoever of the very thing (in your words, "Director, Producer, Editor") you proposed that it substantiated. Questioned on this error - you chose to cutoff the discussion. Again, this is either willful obstructionism or gross ignorance. I see no reason to have had a drawn out discussion with you on your personal page on this. This deserves to be read under the light of day and in the open. The issue was here and it was about what's best for the article, not MantisEars ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not. The film is a primary source, and that would be original research. I did not attempt to provide a source to "contradict" the film's credits, I provided a source that said Geert Wilders created the film -- something that YOU contested in your argument that no sources are reliable for the credits so we can use unreliable sources such as the film itself. "Director, Producer, Editor" was YOUR language and I only used it to reply to YOU, though your question was not about those specific positions, just about Wilders' involvement in the film. You took it out of context to accuse me of "willful obstructionism or gross ignorance". On the defensive again, you are using emotional terms like "light of day" to imply I wanted secrecy in this — I made it clear that this is not about the article (else you would have ended this at Arnoutf's edits) but your accusations against one editor. What's best for the article is discussion and consensus, not personal attacks and lies. MantisEars (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠That's quite the Clintonian response there.""Director, Producer, Editor" was YOUR language and I only used it to reply to YOU," But you were talking about something else? I tend to believe that the words we use to communicate with mean something. Here, this should put an end to this right away: [1]

IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR

• Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one)
• Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions
• The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear

The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films.

However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.

There you have it. Wiki policy. The Primary source is preferred for film credits. IMDB is, at best, a tertiary source. Please change the info box to reflect the films credits as they trump IMDB and no secondary reliable source has been offered to override the primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting the policy page you linked to was a rejected proposal, I have done that to put this issue to rest. MantisEars (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠True it was a rejected policy page. The point is why IMDB was rejected as a reliable source with guidelines. This is from the talk page:

• • ... We should be discouraging using IMDb as a source, and encouraging using books by well known authors, and even more importantly, studio documentation as sources! --The Photoplayer 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, that's the straw that has broken this camel's back. I'm withdrawing the proposal unless I hear any objections. Girolamo Savonarola 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I concur, I think a proposed guideline which deprecates use of IMDB is useful. It seems that the consensus is that IMDB is not a reliable source, ... So ... perhaps we need a guideline which clarifies WHY it's not acceptable as a primary or secondary source?

File:Bygeert.png

Geert Wilders claims possessory credit for Fitna

Thank you for correcting the infobox. That's actually quite big of you after our heated debate on the subject. 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Screen credits. Director: Scarlet Pimpernel; Writer: Wilders and Pimpernel; Editor: Pimpernel. Delete Producer credit as none was given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Producer credit deleted MantisEars (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠On a much less contentious note the opening line refers to a "film by" this is a specific film term known as a possessory credit and Wilders is A: Not eligible for it, B:has not claimed it. The proper term would be a "film from". (also as a side note the infobox needs to have Wilders deleted as director) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Geert Wilders has been removed from the director position but the "by" is harder to deem inappropriate... this is how most news sources describe the film.[2][3][4][5][6] and how it appears at the end of the film (see picture) MantisEars (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I am mistaken - he has taken posessory credit for it (Not in keeping with traditional cinema standards). End of debate on that item, he certainly has an arguable claim to it. :)

♠Music by: This is not the proper term for songs that are included in the soundtrack. It is for those people directly involved in the production of the film. I'd suggest "Soundtrack" or perhaps just "Music" in the Infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a limitation of Template:Infobox film. MantisEars (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Then leaving it in is probably best. Pending any technical changes to the Infobox template, I'll let stand my request to correct the term, but NOT place any request to withdraw the minor technically incorrect current usage.20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk)

♠I would add though, that if the template allows it, Music should slide down beneath the screen credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Template has a rigid order, does not allow for it. MantisEars (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

♠So be it, pending any technical changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability Questions

Does this entry really belong here?:

Shaykh Muhammad Imdad Hussain Pirzada, delivered a short lecture in Bradford, England on March 30, 2008 in which he responded to the film from an Islamic persective. The lecture was delivered in Urdu and has been released as a video with English subtitles on Shaykh Pirzada's website.[181]

It appears to be self aggrandizement. I don't believe this individual rises to anywhere near the notability of those mentioned elsewhere in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What if we could get more information on how many people attended this event? That could allow us to better judge its notability. MantisEars (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The event "news" may also be regarded as self-published as it links to the speakers personal web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just watched the lecture and found it was not what the Wikipedia description said it was. (a response to the film from an Islamic perspective). This Shaykh's audience was primary Muslim, and his goal was to quell their doubts about their own religion, instead of providing critical analysis or commentary. He just repeated the catch-all defense for anything offensive in the Qur'an, that it was taken out of context. No context, however, was given.

The Shaykh spoke about Winston Churchill and about how if his comments about the Nazis were taken out of context he would have been seen as a bad man, how the Bible has its own violent verses, and how Islam must be the one true religion because it has the fastest growing number of converts. It ended with the Skaykh urging the Muslim youth to stay steadfast in their religion!

This along with the fact that the link pointed to is a self-published source leads me to believe that this Shaykh's sermon is of little value to the article. Unless someone voices their objection in 24 hours, I will remove it from the article. MantisEars (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolution pending then.00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk)

Scarlet Pimpernel?

Resolved

I have had to revert this out of this article twice now, and another editor keeps adding it in, insisting that its cited repeatedly. I don't see a single citation for the usage, except for noting - incorrectly - that it is a nickname or some such for anonymity. In order for it to be included. The existence of the nom de plume in the film must be cited. No citations, no inclusion. This isn't my rule; its Wikipedia's. Please do not re-add it without also adding the citation say, from a newspaper or some such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • You seem to not even understand the issue, you mention, "The existence of the nom de plume in the film must be cited. No citations, no inclusion."

Other than the film itself, which displays it prominently in the credits, here are another Sixteen Hundred mentions on Google: [7]

I'm sorry that someone chose a pseudonym that upsets you, but they did. It is what it is. The entry is simply an encyclopedic reflection of the work it seeks to describe.

What possible argument could you have for NOT including it? I'll suggest that your Reversions are inappropriate, the onus is now upon you to explain why deletion is necessary. Your actions are inappropriate, violate the spirit of the Revert Rule and verge on Vandalism. The inclusion of Scarlet Pimpernel was not done lightly, it was discussed at length since the inception of this article and was adopted by consensus. Your Reverts have undermined that community consensus - it is you that must show cause for exclusion.23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I would not normally disagree - however Arcayne has been very quick to edit and edit again followed by throwing up a wall of questions here, at the Scarlet Pimpernel Talk page and thirdly on your talk page. He has received lengthy responses to his query's at all three -- But has not responded anywhere yet. This appears to be obstructionism.

I would suggest reverting his edit on the basis that the onus falls on him to show cause not to include mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel in this article. But, as a courtesy, wait a respectable number of hours for a response before reconsideration of applying a resolved tag.01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ♠It was two separate editors so far that have reverted your singular refusal to respect community consensus.00:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Of the 1600 citations [8] which one passes muster? Der Spiegel? Seattle Post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The one Arcayne should be testing is NRC Handelsblad, that's the newspaper that published the source used in the notes section before he removed it. MantisEars (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I move that this be considered resolved.

• • The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel"
  • Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[9]
  • Major media has discussed it and been referenced in the article
  • The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus.
  • There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This is just pseudo-sockpuppetry.

There is no basis upon which to exclude the mention of Scarlet Pimpernel or his role from the Fitna article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this has gone on long enough and consensus has been reached, but we should wait a few more hours for Arcayne to respond before marking this thread resolved, as a courtesy. MantisEars (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not normally disagree - however Arcayne has been very quick to edit and edit again followed by throwing up a wall of questions here, at the Scarlet Pimpernel Talk page and thirdly on your talk page. He has received lengthy responses to his query's at all three -- But has not responded anywhere yet. This appears to be obstructionism.

I would suggest reverting his edit on the basis that the onus falls on him to show cause not to include mention of the Scarlet Pimpernel in this article. But, as a courtesy, wait a respectable number of hours for a response before reconsideration of applying a resolved tag.01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for posting rather late - RL concerns arose.

Also, I think you (and I am referring to the anon poster who is rather fond of using '♠' as some sort of signature) might want to remember to sign your posts with four ~. I know you are new, but it helps to determine who's posting, especially since you aren't indenting properly, either. You would also want to show a lot more good faith, as being snippy just encourages others to be snippy in return. With all that snippy flying around, it's just a matter of time before someone's feeling get hurt, and six months ago, I would be tapping the keyboard putting the hurt on you. Be thankful that I've matured somewhat. Be polite and demonstrate good faith; it will keep your blood pressure even, and we mall might learn something.

That said, I see one reference on the Scarlet Pimpernel article regarding Fitna, and one reference here. The reference in this article doesn't explain the connection to the film, it isn't cited as being the actual moniker the "director" is using. With respect, Google hits have been resoundingly discredited as reliable sources of info. So, let's stay away from using Google as the Big Hammer for inclusion, because it may very well be misleading.

The issue here is that I am saying that we need a solid, reliable and notable source stating that this is the director's fake name, and if you want to connect it to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, that source needs to point out the connection to the novel by the baroness. Simply creating a reference that - mistakenly- defines the term as "... a pseudonym of an unidentified person." is just plain wrong, contextually-speaking. It isn't a matter of what I like or don't like. It's the rules. I seem to remember saying something like that a few times.

And when I say that the matter should be discussed, I do not mean that someone should use up the edit summary space to make their argument - it NEVER works. All it does is breed more reverts, and bad feelings, and the aforementioned weeping in the corner after someone Brings the Large Bag of Harsh. When someone asks you to discuss the matter, be polite and go to the discussion page and do so. It's that simple. It's the essence of AGF.

I've said most of my piece, and am willing to discuss the matter. The crux of my argument is that you need a single reliable, verifiable, notable citation that clearly identifies the director of the film and the connection to the fictional character. Without it, you cannot include it, as it is synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a guess - it is the name used in the films credits. This has been a common practice in film and literature for generations. It has been cited in a variety of reliable sources - as you may know seeing as you chose to delete the citation for NRC Handelsblad. Others include Der Spiegel, Seattle Post etc... Do I understand your position correctly, do you seriously propose that Wiki censor the pseudonym of the Director, Writer and Editor of this film until such time as he/she publicly identifies him or herself? What is your specific proposal for this article?06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk)

Yes, but you cannot be a source of information. Dude, find a source that lists the director's nom de plume (or, more appropriately, nom de guerre), and all is well. Don't make claims you cannot possible cite ("this has been a common practice in film and literature for generations" - really? everyone has been using the Pimpernel for generations?), as it just makes you look silly. I didn't see the source from Handlesblad or the Seattle Post, etc. etc., so no, you do not understand my position correctly. My "proposal", as you put it, is to provide a citation for a reviewer that points out that the S.P. pseudonym is in fact not the director's real name. If it goes further and notes how the fake name is from the novel, even better. Without that, you can be as rude or aggressive as you want - the tantrum won't get you what you want.

Again, is there some bizarre reason you aren't signing your posts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's argument is ridiculous! "Scarlet Pimpernel" is obviously a pseudomyn, but pseudominity does not preclude being credited. This is basic knowledge which does not require a citation.Nickpullar (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:CITE. Thse will walk you through the citation process. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

More from Scarlet Pimpernel:Talk

The reason I have been reverting the shoe-horning of the notation here is that there is no reference that connects the cowardly chump who didn't have the stones to use his own name and decided to use 'Scarlet Pimpernel' to Orczy's fictional character. The only reference there is an observed credit on a screen (uncited), and some notation about it being the pseudonym of an unidentifed person - and any connection without citation to the fictional character is synthesis.

As I said in the post in Talk:Fitna, I am willing to listen. Let's discuss. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While 1,600 sources look impressive at a first glance, the truth is a little different. Judging from the first few pages, most of those 1,600 Google hits are blogs or forum discussions and thus not reliable sources. Now I've seen Fitna, and of course I don't doubt someone called "Scarlet Pimpernel" is credited as director etc. Should the Fitna article mention him? Sure, and it does. Should it link to this article as probable source for the pseudonym? More difficult, but probably not a bad idea. Should the article on the literary character mention the director pseudonym? No, because the pseudonym is not relevant to the character, and we don't even have a source linking the pseudonym to the character. This article already has too many badly sourced (or unsourced) "media references" and doesn't need one more. As a compromise, how about a one-line entry to the Scarlet Pimpernel disambiguation page? We don't have enough stuff for an entire article about the director, but someone looking for him should be able to find something when looking under "Scarlet Pimpernel". -- Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the connection isn't even likely in Fitna, but that's an argument for that article discussion, not here. As for the dab, I think that's a good idea, so long as it links to the Fitna page. Of course, the Fitna page will have to go a bit further in depth in explaining the background of why the director chose the pseudonym (otherwise, it isn't notable, and therefore no reason for inclusion at all). I suggest we hold off on the addition to the dab page until Fitna finds the references it needs to include a reference at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As Arcayne has no specific proposal, found no support and has further chosen not to respond even though currently active [10] and most importantly as the issue has been previously settled by community consensus, I propose that this deletion be Rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still want to know what Arcayne meant in all of this. Does he recognize that Scarlet Pimpernel should appear in the Infobox, with no note that explains to the reader that it is a pseudonym, or does he want Pimpernel to be removed entirely? If he meant the latter, a popular interpretation, I second the motion to close, but the first has not been discussed entirely as much. MantisEars (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, perhaps you missed my comment, right above Huon's? Maybe it occurred while you were hiding your id in the unsigned template (don't do that, btw, it's fairly dumb, and pretty much the mark of someone who's trying rather too hard to stay anonymous, whic begs the question as to why). I am not sure why my previous request for civility was ignored. Allow me to point out that incivility isn't going to help. At all (unless you actually want to be blocked, in which case, you are on the right course).

I said that the usage of a pseudonym is going to have to be cited by an reliable, verifiable and notable source, as it is a false name. Were it an actual person, like Spielberg or Proyas, then citation wouldn't really be necessary (beyond linking their name, of course). As the claim of an anonymous director constitutes an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary citation - in this case, external citation that the director used a moniker.

I think one of the confusing aspects for a newcomer to Wikipedia is the idea that this is run like Student Council or Congress. It is not. Consensus is the rule, unless it violates policy, in which case the larger rule wins. We have here an anonymous director who chose a literary character to mask themselves from (pretty much justified) retaliation. I don't have a problem with that, editorially. However, we do not provide a link to someone saying 'it's, um, like, a fake, name, man'. We point out someone else - a reviewer or whatever - who notes the usage of the false name. That is what we cite as a reference. If the same reviewer (or another legitimate source) notes the connection to the literary figure, then we cite that, and then (and only then) can we add a statement noting this connection.

I should point out that these aren't my rules - they are Wikipedia's. If you want to edit here, you have to follow them. Otherwise, All the Crazy™ is can be found elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What "id" did I have to hide, and why do I want anonymity here after signing all my posts, and even some of 75.57.200.103's when SineBot does not catch them? What was hidden in the unsigned IP template? I looked at your diff and all I could see that you changed was the indentation and the unsigned template comment automatically generated, how does that change the page or unmask me in any significant way?

I looked at the comment you made above Huon's (I did miss it because of the confusing indentation). Mirrored back to you: you want a source that not only tells us that Scarlet Pimpernel is a pseudonym, but one that confirms that Pimpernel was used in relation to Orczy's fictional character. I understand, and agree. That's not why I reverted your first edit, it was more about the inclusion of “Scarlet Pimpernel” in the credits, pseudonym or not, that is what was discussed before.

75.57.200.103 argued from Wikipedia's Citing IMDb page that the only reference needed for film credit is the primary source — the film itself. I am aware that this deviates significantly from usual Wikipedia policy, and that's why you can see I didn't support it at first. Did you remove Scarlet Pimpernel not because of the unverified reference to The Scarlet Pimpernel, but because of Wikipedia policy that states the primary source cannot be used for film credits? If it is, why didn't you link to the specific policy? If it is not explicitly stated, but the policy is universal (and automatically applies to film credits) can you explain what 75.57.200.103 got wrong in his/her interpretation of Wikipedia policy?

Finally, on the "Student Council" comment: That, along with the threat of blocking was offensive, belittling, and incivil. You shouldn't have taken that one revert I made as representative of all my edits on Wikipedia, I acted in good faith as I explained in paragraphs 2 & 3 of this reply. MantisEars (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Your previous request for civility? This was your argument that you typed in the edit summary space on your first deletion of factual information on the subject:

yeah, there's no citation for the existence of the nom de plume

But of course there was. The link was to NRC Handlesblad. Then you typed another argument in the summary box:

there is no citation for thei either here or in the article it links to. Until there is, we don't include it)

But it was YOU that deleted the citation. You then continued to engage in a revert war with the community over an issue that was resolved through consensus AND continued to argue through the summary box:

this is going to need discussion (on the Discussion page). An idiosyncratic (and uncited) definition of a pseudonym doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion)

This goes on of course as you single handedly turn back Wiki editor after wiki editor:

I am sorry, but what part of "use the discussion page, please" was lost on folk? Until it is cited - reliably and verifiably - it cannot remain. It is in contention, so discuss. Period)

You of course don't really discuss or offer specifics you just throw out little pithy comments and allude to some "Rule" that you alone seem to be the master of. I'd suggest you take your own advice, these are your words:

• • I do not mean that someone should use up the edit summary space to make their argument - it NEVER works.

• • I have no problem with () editing in this article, so long as he somehow learns the value and rules of seeking consensus with his edits. Deleting information with but a speculative edit summary does not constitute discussion. Deleting precisely the same information after it has been restored less than two weeks later is another example of seeming contempt for his editors

• • No one is going to get tired of reverting his undiscussed non-consensus edits, so he will either edit his way into either an RfC/UC or AN/I or an eventual topic ban. So long as we follow the protocol for dealing with disruptive editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But of course you just do as you please - don't let us little people stand in your way.

Please cite and link to the Wikipedia rule on Pseudonyms, explain why Pseudonyms of people that wish to remain anonymous like "Deepthroat" or "Sub Commander Marcos" should be banned from Wiki until their real identity is known. Please explain why citing NRC Handlesblad or Der Spiegel fails to meet your personal ArcaynaWiki standards and why you have unilaterally declared them to be Not Reliable sources. Please explain why your personal rules differ from previous community consensus on Movie Credits and Billing and why you feel that you trump community consensus. Please support your position factually and with citations - There has not been not one voice in support of your position, the onus remains on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

♠ Further, if this is the entirety of your position, we are done.

"I said that the usage of a pseudonym is going to have to be cited by an reliable, verifiable and notable source" Arcayne

It was cited by NRC Handlesblad in the article. That is a reliable and notable source. As it was linked it was also verifiable. You deleted it without discussion. This type of undiscussed non-consensus edits and continued reverts to remove a distinguished and reliable source is disruptive editing and grounds for harsh sanction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for the Wikipedians, If an argument can be made that an wiki editor has an extensive documented history on Wiki for reverting followed by discussion stalling , revert wars, disruptive editing:Misrepresents reliable sources, threats, wikilawyering etc, is this the appropriate place to question goodfaith as it pertains to the item at hand? Guidance would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarlet Pimpernel - arbitrary break

Resolved

Okay, since the anon user cannot be encouraged to be polite, I am simply going to ignore him/her. Some lessons are best learned by not encouraging the behavior. MantisEars, my last post addressed your contributions not at all, and you shouldn't have felt it (or my resultant distaste) directed at you at all. Your extensive edit history is clean and you have been pretty polite (whereas the anon has not). You have attempted to engage me in the matter, so I will do so, as well. That said, allow me to address the content of your reply.

There appears to be this idea that I have removed citations from the article. Looking at the actual edits performed in the article (1, 2, 3), all were identical, and none removed a citation, either from Haselblad or anyone else. As its a claim that has been repeatedly levelled at me here: I haven't removed any sources. I have removed - as you noted - the wikilinkage to the main article for the fictional literary character, as well as the endnote reference, "Scarlet Pimpernel is a pseudonym of an unidentified person", as it was not only inaccurate, but uncited.

The anon 75's argument that the rejected proposal Citing IMDb allows him to interpret the film itself as the primary source is inaccurate. As I understand the argument, he is taking the bit about how we can use Imdb for a source of cast/crew information, which would be correct in any other circumstance. What was missed is this little - but vital - nugget from CIMBD is this particular quote:

"However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb"

This means that Imdb isn't a good source; if we are aiming for this article to eventually be an FA (and every editor should have that aim), then we need to cite better sources than Imdb. I would also point out that the use of S.P. isn't even cited as being sourced to Imdb. That the anon wants to significantly reinterpret policy is something that can be taken to either the CIMDB discussion page or the Village Pump. The current rules and guidelines before us do not allow for this interpretation. In fact, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE prevent its interpretation in this way.

Does this mean we cannot use the Scarlet Pimpernel nom de guerre at all? Of course not. We need to cite a source that is rock solid, that can weather the nitpicking that always accompanies FAC. I can guarantee that using CIMDB to defend an uncited cast reference will not fly.

Lastly, the student council comment was - again - not aimed at you, but towards the anon's rush to close out my dissent to the inclusion. WP is not a voting place for the most part. Yes, consensus is valued, but not when it is in conflict with our basic policies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne here. It is fine to credit Scarlet Pimpernel in this article, that is sourced. However it's quite wrong to either wikilink Scarlet Pimpernel or to suggest in the article it is a pseudonym without a reference. While Scarlet Pimpernel is almost definitely a pseudonym, we still need a reference to say it Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. No disagreements with you there. MantisEars (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Your comments occurred after this remark:

"Er, perhaps you missed my comment, right above Huon's? Maybe it occurred while you were hiding your id in the unsigned template (don't do that, btw, it's fairly dumb, and pretty much the mark of someone who's trying rather too hard to stay anonymous, whic begs the question as to why)."

As this is a semi-protected page and I am a public editor they could not have been about me. I may not make any changes to any content, templates or otherwise. Additionally as to this:

What was missed is this little - but vital - nugget from CIMBD is this particular quote:

"However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb"

It was not missed. It was posted by me and formed the heart of my position as well as the basis for community consensus. It states quite clearly: "The Primary source is preferred for film credits. IMDB is, at best, a tertiary source." This was however simply an issue of whether Scarlet Pimpernel received full or partial Director credit - that Scarlet Pimpernel receives Director credit was never in doubt - it is sourced both primarily in the films credits and supported by the tertiary source IMDB.

As everyone is in agreement then, Scarlet Pimpernel should be restored to the entry. I see NO debate on it's presence, the request is simply for a citation. This is a matter that should have been dealt with in the standard Wiki way with tag.12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Scarlet Pimpernel to Director & Co-Writer status (was already editor) MantisEars (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where you arrived at the idea that it was "resolved", MantisEars; it wasn't. We can include it when we have an external source confirming it (confirming that someone didn't actually name their kid Scarlet Pimpernel and that it is likely a pseudonym would be good too). Pending the addition of such confirmation, I am again removing it. I would ask that you not mark an unresolved matter as resolved until everyone has responded in the affirmative that it has in fact been resolved. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of S.P. is fine with me, as long as we are careful not to place Wilders in places we cannot support by ref (i.e. editor). Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Resolution does not require unanimous consent. The Community has been and remains in Consensus. 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

de Volkskrant comment

Resolved

"In one issue of de Volkskrant, it stated that if Wilders had said the things he has said about Muslims, about Jews, he would have been prosecuted for antisemitism."

Isn't the Volkskrant comment in an ad, rather than in an editorially oversighted news or opinion section? (The citation is apparently a third-party reliable source, though) Andjam (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reworded to clarify that it is the opinion of whatever individual or organization published the ad (if the individual or organization is notable) and not of de Volkskrant. MantisEars (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

neutral point of view?

I'm very disappointed by wikipedia not living up to its "Neutral Point of View" in this article. This article reads like just a text version of the film. There is no mention of counter-argument against the film's argument. This is disappointing considering how heavily counter-argument is mentioned in other articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_theories I am sure there are many error or inaccuracies in the film, but none is mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.178.146 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I thik you are misinterpreting our NPOV policy. While the article is fairly unbalanced, it is still less than two months old. A lot of set up is going to occur in the article. The counterpoints to the statements made in the film as reviewers get their hands on it. Until that time, we cannot include some of the "Inaccuracies" section points unless they are connected by citation to the film. For example, in an article about 300, it is inappropriate to cite the historical record to point out how the film is inaccurate. What is appropriate is to cite reviewers, academics or other reputable, notable sources that point out the inaccuracies.

If you find sources that speak to these inaccuracies, please add them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags in Post-Response section

Reversion by Arcayne says: "the usage here fails criteria #1-3, 5, 7 and 8 (legibility? What do u mean??)"

imo the use of flags increased legibility by breaking up the different countries' responses to this film; compare with flags versus without. With regards to the specific criteria mentioned of WP:FLAG summaries 1,2,3,5,7,8:

1: The flag images were useful, as served to inform at a glance the nationality that the criticism originated from;
2: The flags were appropriate as a visual navigational aid as there are a lot of countries responses that frequently ran into one another, and citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand;
3: The flags were not used in the general prose of the article;
5: The flags were not used as stand-ins for images of people or other article topics;
7: Flag use here is not inappropriate;
8: Completely irrelevent, as no "Non-national flags" were used.

The discussion on WP:FLAG, particularly at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#.27Useful.2C_not_decorative.27, inclines me to think that their inclusion is one of overall presentation and relevance, and serves to inform the reader which country said what without confusion. Kapowow (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start out with the criteria for inclusion (from the summary for WP:FLAG):

1. Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative.
2. Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once.
3. Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article.
4. Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality.
5. Flag images should not be used as stand-ins for images of people or other article topics.
6. Flag images should have alt text and/or captions for accessibility (the standardized flag icon templates do this automatically).
7. Flag images should not be used inappropriately, and should explain their applicability in the caption if usage of the flag is limited in some way.
8. Non-national flags should be used only when directly relevant (e.g., articles on a city may include the city flag).

As per #1, if the countries are linked once in the article (which they are), no further identification is needed. As more people are less familiar with the flags of a country than its name, the name serves better. The images take longer to load on machines with slower internet connections or processors. Since wikilinking the country is faster, the inclusion of imagery is unnecessary and therefore decorative.

As per #2, since there are in fact quicklinks to the country articles in question, flags aren't required as an additional navigational aid. Per your argument, if someone doesn't see a flag for a country, they don't know where they come from? That's kinda silly.

As per #3, look at the sentences where these flag icons were used. They were used in the actual sentences (we call that prose, btw) as linkage.

As per #5, the images were placed to act as a replacement (stand-in) for a textual link to another wikilinked article. For example, placing the flag of Pakistan so as to link to the article for Pakistan instead of using textual wikilinkage is doing precisely that.

As per #7, how is the usage of the flag specifically related to the article in a way that a textual wikilink to the article is not? Is the topic abut how the flags of a number of countries are reacting? No, it's about how the various political entities within the country are reacting. Therefore, their usage is not appropriate here.

As per #8, As far as I know, the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. They are part of a group called non-state actors, in that they have no single state, but usually act on the behalf of related states (countries), corporations, and less savory types. Therefore, we do not link flags to NGO's.

With respect, I think that the above reproduction of the rules of WP:FLAG, as well as my specific instances where flag usage is inappropriate in this article clearly indicates why we shouldn't be linking flags to the article like it was. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to be drawn into an accusatory diatribe with you, as you seem to have a very condescending agitated bee in your bonnet; nonetheless, i shall attempt to respond to the points made:

a) The countries are indeed linked in the article - after the the flag, to identify it. duh. The flag does not replace the name of the country; it aids in its identification within a mass/mess of sentences and paragraphs.

Slower to load? let's just remove all images from wikipedia, in that case. An average flag image is .5kb; even on a 56k modem, 14 would be loaded in 1 second. Slower CPUs? you mean on a ZX Spectrum, right? "Since wikilinking the country is faster, the inclusion of imagery is unnecessary and therefore decorative. A Non sequitur (logic) if ever there was one.

b) You seem to be saying that wikilinks negate the need for flag imagery, and as such, are not required for aiding navigation. That is the crux of the discussion. However, you claim that i am arguing that without flags, people will be unable to identify a country's response. That is untrue. What i am saying is that with flags, people will be far more able to distinguish one country's response from another, as the sentences and paragraphs run into one another. A line break would serve just as good a job at seperating each country apart.

c) A sentence does not result in prose. More specifically, an introductory sentence, carrying and conveying information, is not prose. Prose can best be described as the main 'bulk' of a writing in question.

d) The flag images were not used as a replacement for a wikilink. That was not the case for Pakistan, nor any other country. They were all [FLAG] WIKILINK. Wow you just plucked that out of thin air.

e) Your main justification for their removal, as noted in the history page, was: "we don't use flags in articles (unless the article is about flags, of course)". Untrue. See discussion at WP:FLAG. You seem to be misinterpreting the use of flag symbols (remember, this is not an article about flags, but a use of a tiny flag to indicate country of origin). If no small flag symbols are used outside of articles relating to flags, what is their purpose on wikipedia?

Their use is to act as a symbol, indicating relation to a country.

f) The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. it does not 'act on behalf' of any single state; it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE. as for the UN, well, that is just one flag. remove it if you so desire.

With respect, you did not reproduce the 'rules' (actually, guidelines) of WP:FLAG; you merely interpreted them to your own desire. This is not a contest to see whose viewpoint will win. Additionally, please refrain from using derogatory language and tone, as this goes against WP:EQ and Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. ("That's kinda silly" comes to mind).

In summary, it is the close proximity of the flag in relation to a specific country and its official, political and governmental response, within the Subheadings of their regional zone (eg, Central Asia, South Asia, Europe), that would allow for their use. This is not a rock group or a sports team; it is in relation to individual countries themselves and what they say. Also, the cluttered layout is improved, helping to visually break up the sentences, allowing for unambiguous interpretation and ease of reading.Kapowow (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I didn't say anything mean to you, and you being a dick in calling my reasoned, polite response to you an "accusatory diatribe" or "duh" is rather opposite to WP:AGF. If you want to discuss, I am here, ready to discuss with you. If you want an argument, maybe you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?

Now. you insisted that I didn't reproduce the summary for inclusion from WP:FLAG. Er, I did. I really, really did. After I listed them, I pointed out why your interpretation of them was incorrect. Now, let's address those, shall we?

a, b - If the country is linked to the article, then I submit that the flag is not needed. It is actually redundant and in fact decorative to include it. And yes, the are linked - after I did it. And I am not going to get into a tech discussion with you. Some images load better than others, and a 'why not?' argument isn't the best to use when trying to argue for the inclusion of an image, especially an image which can be seen somewhat better in the linked article. As for the your revised argument that readers would be "far more able to distinguish one country's response from another", I rather think that the paragraph breaks really accomplish that all by themselves.

c - My apologies, but you wikilinked to an article on prose, not to WP:MOS, where the wiki usage of prose is explained in greater detail. As the flags were used at the beginnings of sentences (read: prose). A paragraph in wiki articles is written as prose.

d - They were intended as substitute, and were serving as such. My grandpa used to say 'don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining'. I would suggest that that particular phrase has some meaning here.

e - Actually, the idea to look at the discussion page for WP:FLAG was my idea. I kinda wish you had explored the page a bit more, reading some of the sections, like "Overuse of flags" or "ridiculous flagging" or the more recent "Correct Usage of flagicons" - all of which formed my current interpretation of flagicon usage guidelines. Since you asked me what the purpose of the flags were, I will tell you: they are to show the flag of country articles. Period. I personally think the usage of tiny flag icons is going to go the way of the dodo and the extinct policy WP:SPOILER, hich remains as a vestigial reminder of how much we have grown past it. However, what I think is going to eventually happen isn't up for debate now. The correct usage of the icons is.

f - Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? You might want to read up on what an NGO is; I think the actual definition is not what you seem to think it is. If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, having learned through the same trial and errors that you are undergoing right now. If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits. If you want nicer, act nicer yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

wow, what a vitriolic response.

please cease the bickering.

FYI, the only mention of prose in WP:MOS is in the context with which I defined it - as the 'bulk' of an article's writing.

The discussion of "Correct Usage of flagicons" falls under this context and category, as a political article. Not a rock band.

If you are so hung up on the EU as being an NGO, then by all means, remove its flagicon.

As a statement of fact, and in the spirit of declaring my interests, I can say with all verifiability that I do not like you.

The only point that your "discussion" centres on is this: "If the country is linked to the article, then I submit that the flag is not needed".

I submit that the use of flagicons is not prohibited in every article not directly related to flags, and as such can reasonably be used when appropriate and in context. Which it is here.

Threatening, viscous, derogatory and insulting talk may be one way of getting your way, but it is highly inappropriate. Other people's perspective would be highly appreciated here, in order to gain a consensus view. Please avail yourself of Wikipedia:NPA, specifically: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." Kapowow (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I fail to see how language like this:

• • "you being a dick in calling my reasoned, polite response to you an "accusatory diatribe" or "duh" is rather opposite to WP:AGF. If you want to discuss, I am here, ready to discuss with you. If you want an argument, maybe you and the anon 75... can go off somewhere private and beat on each other. I've no time for it. And trust me, getting into an incivility contest with me is a sure way to end up weeping inconsolably in a darkened corner of your closet, so dial down the aggro a notch, okey-doke?"
  • "Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak, having learned through the same trial and errors that you are undergoing right now. If you feel I am being condescending, consider the significant restraint I am displaying in not responding in kind to some of your unpleasant characterizations of my edits."

Is considered even remotely acceptable. Furthermore the EU has lawmaking authority, a parliament, etc - it is not an NGO group. Please correct the Wiki entry to show the EU is an NGO before making such unsupported nonsensical claims here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Before you even try to argue this point let me support my point that the EU is NOT an NGO, using the Wiki entry on the EU:

"EU operation is a hybrid of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. ... able to make decisions without the agreement of members. Important institutions and bodies of the EU include the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. EU citizens elect the Parliament every five years."

This of course calls into doubt this claim of yours:

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,

I trust that based on the Wiki entry you understand why the EU cannot be classed as an NGO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.36.51 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, as all I've quoted so far is what the EU is according to Wiki - Here is the very first sentence from NGO:

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by private persons or organizations with no participation or representation of any government. ... the NGO maintains its non-governmental status insofar as it excludes government representatives from membership in the organization.

I trust that the debate on the EU's status as an NGO is now over. As to this:

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,

You have embarrassed yourself and cast doubt on your competence as this occurs in an area in which you claim core competency, advanced training and education. No one with even a 100 level course background on the subject would have misunderstood the term. 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)