Jump to content

Talk:Innocence of Muslims

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.191.144.209 (talk) at 14:02, 16 September 2012 (→Why censor the filmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Obviously shouldn't exist

If the film is notable only for the impact it's had (e.g. inciting violence) then it only warrants a section in the page devoted to the violence, not its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.3.223 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This whole hubbub is ass backwards. "Gee, this film is pissing people off to the point of senseless extreme violence. Let's pluck it from obscurity and hype it like it's fucking Twilight!". If newspapers want to stir up war, that's fine. That's their job, I guess. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper and really shouldn't be jumping on this bandwagon. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic Grammar

I believe 'not Israeli nor Jewish' is more accurate than the current 'not Israeli or Jewish'. Lklundin (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "neither Israeli nor Jewish" be better? --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes it would. Done and closing. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is YouTube listed as distributor?

First of all, thanks for locking this article. Something is insanely controversial as this should not be edited without intense debate. So here's my first contribution; "distribution" and "distributor" have very specific meanings in the film industry, and as this is a standard article pertaining to a film, it should follow the standards for other "mainstream" film articles. Youtube is NOT the "distributor", as defined by the film industry, and as far as I can tell, by the standards established by previous film entries in Wikipedia. I believe that whoever put youtube as the distributor may be implying or have taken the meaning of "distributor" in the standard definition of the word, but again, previous film related articles have established the use in the "official" and "industry" use of the term for distribution. So far, I haven't found any news articles that mention any company as the official distributor of the film. So unless someone comes up with one, perhaps it would be best to label it as "none" or "no distributor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isah.abedini (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it there to make it clear that, as you said, it had no official distributor. But what you have said is right. Shii (tock) 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a better lock would be useful from hackers secretly tag blanking the sections or manipulating the article.--50.122.10.131 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to the matter, Shii. I noticed that the sidebar was removed. No complaints here at the moment, as many have come to view the sidebar for films as a summary of established (or official) facts regarding the production of a film, and none of that has been established yet regarding this particular film. I just hope you or someone else puts it back when more established facts become available. Of course by that time, the controversy will have died down enough so that anyone will be able to edit the article again. Either way, thanks to everyone with editing privileges for keeping the article up to date. Isah.abedini (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom sanctions

Should this article be considered to fall under the general Arbcom Israel/Palestine area sanctions? - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the discretionary sanctions regarding the depiction of Muhammad are more relevant. Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that either is relevant. Despite a one-day cover story, there is no actual connection with Israel (let alone Palestine). And the actors playing the scenes did not know that they were portraying Muhammad while they were being filmed. Calling this, retroactively, a "depiction of Muhammad" is therefore technically invalid, unless you want to accept that an article about, say, a teddy bear falls under these sanctions if someone gets in trouble for calling it by that name. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are these sanctions? Oh you mean Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia). Right. Wakari07 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Get rid of the Phrase "Anti-Muslim", this film is anti-nothing it is just entertainment; to show a lighter side of life. Watch it with an open mind and enjoy it. Do not allow 'your merits' to be judgemental of others work. The movie is fictional and should be treated as such. Those that do not excerise an open mind should be educated to do this. The "Life of Brian", has made many bible pounders the world over laugh with joy, they/we did not view it an insult to anyone, did we? So report fact not fiction and do not participate in the spreading of 'HATE!!!!!! 142.167.186.180 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a question of the intention of the makers of the film, rather than how it is received by different audiences. If there is evidence that it was calculated to offend, then it can be described as "anti-Muslim". If not, then we shouldn't call it anti-Muslim, regardless of the offence it had evidently caused to many Muslims. Credulity (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sambe being true of the movie Dogma. This should be treated as the cheap public access budget version of Dogma. A film with critical tones towards religion. Does it make it anti-relgigious? 66.87.2.89 (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "offending Muslims" was part of the criteria in determining if something is anti-Muslim then half of everything produced in the world could be considered "anti-Muslim". Is Wikipedia "anti-Muslim" for refusing to remove pictures of Muhammed? And even if the director knew the film would offend Muslims, it is still blatant bias to label it "anti-Muslim". Is someone going to label Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ" "anti-Christian" for its less-than-flattering portrayal of Jesus Christ? One suspects that the term anti-Muslim is being used because an editor(s) cares a little too much about what a bunch of hypersensitive zealots think.

Don't remove the [who?] and [which?] tags without resolving the issue

That is, by writing whatever "leader" of which "Egyptian party" in which "Cairo newspaper". --Niemti (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times gave that very general description, citing an Arabic source. Someone who could read the Arabic could probably fill in these details. Unfortunately, the response these tags actually got was that someone deleted the whole section, to avoid those untidy-looking loose ends. Hence my removal of the tags when I put it back. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all the other protestes and official statements should be reported on. There was quite a lot of them. I even heard about the Muslim Brotherhood planning a "million" rally event related to this. --Niemti (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an electronic newspaper called "Al-Yaum as-Sabi'" ("The Seventh Day"). The article quotes representatives of several Egyptian political parties as well as of the Coptic community denouncing the film, including Karim Radwan of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Imadaddin of the Freedom and Justice Party (affiliated to the Brotherhood), and Afat as-Sadat of the Egyptian National Party. The thrust of all their statements is that the film is despicable, but does not reflect the view of the Coptic mainstream.--66.108.95.136 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this wikipedia?!

This is a FILM. Take note! look at other FILM categories in wiki. What is the plot? what is the relation between the historical writings and the movie? OK, I get it. Muslims don't like it. It is disrespectful to, arr, Muslims. BFD! Compare this to the film Dogma.

This whole article smells apologetic, as if the writers in wiki wrote the script. Move the "events related to the film" some place else, and let the main entry describe the movie, like any other movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.222.1 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's more like a political event than a movie article. The article will probably change a lot as more emerges. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said many times further up the page, it definitely needs a plot summary. Readers need to know what is in the film before they read about reaction to it, or the whole article makes little sense. I know no one has seen the main film, but it is the trailers/extracts/the-videos-that-are-actually-the-whole-film-because-there-is-no-full-version that are the political event here, so we must have a synopsis of them. 77.99.26.23 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of moving the "Critique" section up into "content" and fusing the two. At least as of now, Wikipedia being such as it is about controversial issues, nobody has dared to try a straight primary this-is-what-I-see plot summary except on the talk page, so the two aren't much distinguished. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a pretty good summary of what the independent secondary news sources have been reporting about the content. It does seem to be common to eschew secondary sources for movie plots, but given that this one is swarming with BLP and real-people-being-killed issues, it seems reasonable to keep the summary more terse and based on secondary news sources for now. —Cupco 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FILMPLOT:
"Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.". I am unclear if enough information is avialable on the plot in secondary sources to create a plot section at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been said, the complete film, if it exists, might be unavailable to us, but the 13 minute YouTube videos, which are the videos people in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere have actually seen, and are thus at the centre of the controversy, are very much available. They should therefore be summarised in the usual way seen in film articles. Credulity (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits request to the page on 14 September 2012

I was wondering if the following sentence could be reworded for clarity and accuracy: "The film has allegedly sparked protests around the world." Since there are protest going on right now, including an image near the bottom of the page with the wording: "Men protesting against the film in Bahrain," it seems a bit off to say that the film has only allegedly sparked protests.

The other edit is if Reference #45 "Original news article (Arabic) cited by New York Times" could be used to clear up the marks in the following sentence in the Reactions section: "The Times reported that the same day the film was denounced by the leader[who?] of an Egyptian political party[which?] in a Cairo newspaper[which?].[45]"

In any case, thank you for you time in reading this. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there are conflicting stories as to exactly what caused the protests. There are secondary sources (official US sources as well, primary i would guess) that state the possiblity that this was a predetermined protest that just used the film as an excuse. not sure if this is actually mentioned in the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a highly controversial story with events and twists unfolding as the discussions are posted on this page. So while adding "allegedly" to the beginning and ending of each sentence would make for a difficult read, I would highly implore those who have editing privileges to err on the side of "allegedly" or any synonym thereof (bust out that thesaurus guys and gals) for any point that has a reasonable reason to question it. At least until the controversy and speculation dies down a bit, and more solid information comes forth. For example, there are now stories floating around that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was preplanned before the film's controversy began. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201291512714470776.html. This is a reasonable claim, it could be that militants or whatever were planning an attack for the 9/11 anniversary and didn't even hear about the video till after the fact, and it could just as reasonably turn out to be false.Isah.abedini (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than the weasel word "allegedly" is to actually say who is alleging such a thing, otherwise how is the reader meant to assess the validity of the claim? If Western media sources are attributing the violence to the film, we can say that. If there are direct quotes from people involved in the protest saying "I'm here because of that Goddamn blasphemous film!" then we can say that. "Allegedly" and synonyms thereof are not becoming of an encyclopaedia. Credulity (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production and associated people background investigative reports

These are some current stories unearthing more information about the production of the film and the people associated with it which have a great deal of information which is not yet in the article:

—Cupco 05:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to conclude that a lot of this is not relevant for this article, but the production company info (good job finding that. I wondered how long it would take for someelse to find that...or even look) . Most of these references are about a single person, and the one about the news outlets just now figuring out that they were duped could be used but is more for the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks‎ article, However, that really is just my take.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here also is "A look at who made the anti-Islam video and why?" (video) from al Jazeera's protests live blog. —Cupco 05:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent external link by the way.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that there is a company with the exact same name online and should NOT be mistaken for the film company that made this video. It will be obviouse once the site is read. The other site has either been removed or taken down on their own or may never have existed.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason al-Jazeera took that video down but an updated version with much of the same footage is at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/201291514945705109.html The police spokesman at 0:30 is classic. —Cupco 15:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good post this - I notice on the Al Jaz vid you get a brief flash of the "Egyptian religious show" that first displayed the film - but I can't read Arabic and therefore the name. Has anyone got this yet, this article could do with it. Some Egyptian sources are blaming right-wing Salafist elements for co-ordinating the trouble as a move against the new government, this may be part of that. [1]. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To someone who's asked "what to expand" while removing my original expansion tag

And to everyone else who didn't either expand or update,

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&source=embed&ll=32.10119,42.1875&spn=57.886601,105.46875&z=3 - here's the list of protests.

That's not including all the statements and other actions. --Niemti (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film's various titles

This article has been at "Innocence of Muslims" throughout, but it is not clear to me that this is the most appropriate title. I say that because the only comment on this question from whoever uploaded the two videos to YouTube is 'Part of the movie, "Life of Muhammad".' as the comment on one of the videos. "Life of Muhammad" would make more sense, as that's what it seems to be about. Furthermore, the whole two-hour film, which may not even exist, is emphatically not what is at the centre of the controversy here, because almost no one has even seen it. Muslims getting outraged about this film have seen Arabic dubs of the YouTube videos. So it would make more sense for Wikipedia to name its article according to those videos than a name claimed (in the article it's not clear where and by whom) for the full film which as yet is not in circulation. Credulity (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Life" has about 1% the Google hits of "Innocence". —Cupco 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Islam film protests

A way to get at least some of the protests as a reference in Wikipedia is maybe through this article i guess. I create a section "Protests" separate from the section "Innocence of Muslims#Diplomatic missions attacks". Unfortunately, all the rest points to the 'government-directed' 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks. Wakari07 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page and the hundreds of editors active over there, it would appear to be a slur on Wikipedia to call it "government-directed" - you are talking nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The protests are being given undue weight in this artcle. It should be mentioned but does not need to be given an entire section devoted to a complete chronology.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The director should be changed

http://gawker.com/5943427/confirmed-the-director-of-innocence-of-muslims-is-a-schlocky-softcore-porn-director-named-alan-roberts Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"directed" changed to "produced" in the intro. Roberts is mentioned later on. It would probably be a mistake to mention him in the intro, because the film he directed was very much not what was released. —Cupco 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deal on this. We have no way to confirm or deny claims being made by subjects involved. We cannot place all credit on one person because of a perception of editors. If this is a concern...then remove the entire info box as was originaly done. It IS a BLP issue to state innacurate information in regards to an individual over claims of fraud or dishonest motivation. We do not know the "truth' we just summarize the reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "background" section

The only relevant citation in that section explicitly says that the prohibition on images does not explain the reaction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably better sources out there, I looked for basically ten seconds. It makes sense to note the way the Muslim world views depictions of Muhammad as background for the reactions to this depiction. The cartoons had similar reactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If sources aren't available, it doesn't "make sense"; that's OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues for filmmakers stating they were duped

The original filmmakers involved have stated the film was radically altered from the version they signed on to. Because this is creating a potentially life-threatening situation for the participants, we should not name them unless discussing the original version. I removed the original director and one of the actors from the infobox. They signed on when the film was called Desert Warrior and about a character named Master George. Their unwitting participation in what the film became after "Bacile" overdubbed and recut it and Sadek translated it must be clearly explained per WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not creating this situation we are merely covering the sources in an encyclopedic manner(Hopefully) and we do not censor. Your reasoning is simply not valid.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT appropriate to single out one actor from all others. So I agree with removing the single actor credit given, however Alan Roberts is the confirmed director of this film, regardless of how controversial and will require a consensus of editors to remove. There is no BLP issue with this, but can be excluded if editors agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is the only known actor. News stories state "80 cast and crew", but do not name names. If you or anyone know the names of others, please add them to the infobox.--Auric (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But to me, that just reinforces the fact that a cast list is innappropriate at this time as to not give undue weight to a single cast member.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be some kind of explanation that Roberts didn't direct the overdubbed version in the infobox, but I don't think censoring will help anyone at this point. —Cupco 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP concerns are valid. If there is no legitimate need to name names, we shouldn't do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no validaty to this being a BLP issue. Please link to the relevant policy or guideline your reasoning is based on. We can add information if it is valid, accurate and sourced But..it appears editors are being VERY free with one name and literaly HIDING others. THAT is a BLP issue. At one point the information was actually made innaccurate for the sole purpose of crediting EVERYTHING to one person. That as well is a Biography of Living Persons issue. Look, I am very sorry that these people were supposedly duped, but we don't make that distiction without secondary sourcing and we do not place blame on Wikipedia. This is a film involving a cast, a crew as well as executive staffing, writers etc. The voices in the overdubbing are not that of one single 56 year old male. Sorry, but editors need to refrain from using this article as a political soapbox. Wikipedia is not the source and removing information with the sole purpose of hiding it serves no purpose but to reduce Wikipedia as an accurate encyclopedia. If there are such concerns the community needs to discussit and collaborate on a compromise everyone can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP should not be used to hide information. However, using the infobox structure for such an unusual situation is highly suspect. The actors starred in Desert Warrior; to say they starred in Innocence of Muslims is probably wrong. To give a parallel example, if I used that video editing software to make an apparent porno flick with a few of my favorite movie stars, and posted it on YouTube, would you say they "starred" in my edited video? Wnt (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure if I am following you, but certainly can agree that use of an infobox at this time may not be warrented and has been deleted at least twice I believe. That may well be the best route in this situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause-and-effect being created when refs say otherwise

This article is drawing a cause-and-effect between the movie and the attacks, notably the one in Libya. Numerous officials and RS refs have noted that the attack seemed to be planned in advance and was highly sophisticated, and this movie was used as a pretext for the attack. While I don't think we should remove that there was an attack in Libya, we should explain that it's also possible it was only used as a pretext for the attack. This represents all possible scenarios. --Activism1234 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually there...with a [Citation needed] tag. perhaps you can fix that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead:

The protests spread to Libya, Yemen and other Arab and Muslim nations over the following days, included the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, incorporating an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The lead seems to draw this cause-and-effect. --Activism1234 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, but I am just not understanding what your point is or what you feel should be done. Could you elaborate?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be saying that the attack on the US consulate in Libya was a result of the trailer for the movie. We should be explaining that some officials and media have noted that it was a sophisticated attack and was likely planned. We should further note that al-Qaeda has indicated resposnibility for it as revenge for a June drone strike (see here, Qaeda calls for more attacks here, here, Libyans see Qaedas role here). Simply put - it is completely wrong to write that the attack in Libya was in response to this movie. That is not known for sure. --Activism1234 04:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - there are some people who have been heard here who seem emotionally committed to a cause-and-effect basis (and blaming the filmmakers). Of course, some of those of us with the other opinion also have some strong emotions on the topic. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should stay in the article, just that it should be explained it's very possible the attack was not because of the film. --Activism1234 04:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Use reliable secondary RS of course, but yes.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this edit. Hope it's good. --Activism1234 04:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the content you added back with that edit that was removed before by Seb az86556. That was NOT a part of the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world??? This whole discussion was about how we can't write that the attack was in response to the movie - which was exactly what my edit did... I don't see the issue???? --Activism1234 05:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted, but that's really plain silly... If you want to edit part of what I included, that's fine, go ahead, I only wrote that as a basis, but I felt we agreed here article should adequately reflect all views. --Activism1234 05:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You some how inadvertantly readded "See Also" content that was not a part of the discussion and had just been removed by another editor. Please be more careful with your edits. Look at the dif you supplied.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. No problem. These things happen.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India article about Alan Roberts

The director, Alan Roberts, has been described as a "soft-porn filmmaker" in at least one article about the movie. Ironic considering who paid for the film. Roberts reportedly was duped about the film's actual subject just like the actors. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roberts (filmmaker) is mentioned under "Production". —Cupco 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protest section ... deleted?

It appears that the protest section, mentioning the dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, has been deleted. It need not be long, but it is a major part of the story. It should be re-inserted, with proper linking to the main article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Story? You do know what article you are on....right? This is the article about the film. It is undue weight to add an entire section about the protests at this time as we are in the middle of a contextual discussion about whether it can even be said that the film DID spark the protests!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have an edit warrior. Alright. We shall deal with it in that manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, what are you doing? have you read the above post? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choy -- which one? I read disagreement with over-long, full chronology discussion of the protests. I agree with that. What we do need however is mention of them, in summary form, with a link to the proper article. That's the norm. I have no problem with the Protest section not being other than summary, and see no need for the chronology formerly embedded. But the deletion of the section in toto -- again -- seems to suggest either a lack of familiarity with our rules, or an effort at blatant censorship.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The norm is not something we must do or are required to do, especially with such a controversial subject. At the moment the consensus of involved editors is to exclude an entire section, which you are ignoring.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also

...is getting too long. Throwing all sorts of somehow-related stuff into a list is inappropriate. ~~

  • Seems OK, though I'm happy to hear if there are one or two that you feel are not related. Seems to fit squarely within the strictures of wp:seealso. Specifically,

    "internal links to related Wikipedia articles. ... Consider using {{Columns-list}} if the list is lengthy. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent ... The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.... The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant."

    --Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't OK. Seriously? Draw Muhammad Day? You have got to be kidding with this crap. This is an article about a film, not your personal political soap box.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is no need to list every work of literature, film, or art in the Western World that has sparked outrage or opposition in the Muslim World; that list would get too long. Right now, you don't even have all of them. I could be convinced of a navbox maybe, but it;s not for "see also". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether someone want to replace it with a navbox. Or alternatively discuss whether there are specific items that would be appropriately deleted. But the censoring here by the ad hoc deletion of all the items that reflect -- as called for by wp:seealso -- why they are appropriate for inclusion in a see also page it rank censorship. Nobody replaced it with a navbox, and nobody explained why each such deletion was in their subjective view appropriate, and the prior discussion had to do with deletion of entries for which there was no explanation. These generally relate to similar incidents of the controversy caused by representations of Muhammad, and reactions thereto.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship. I think you've lost it there for a moment. Now what are your reasons for including an in-exhaustive list of randomly picked events that pissed off Muslims? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It need not be exhaustive. The few that are most relevant, relating to depictions or reference to Muhammad, are what are called for.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I told you I disagree; picking some that you randomly come up with won't cut it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing some of the "see also," but I can understand including Fitna and Submission, since both of those were films. Any "see alsos" that aren't films should be removed, as they are more appropriate on the article about the diplomatic attacks. Fitna was certainly prominent, I don't know that much about Submission, but my view is that we should definitely include similar films that caused similar reactions, but only those that are the most prominent. That will require some discussion. --Activism1234 06:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that as being a logical conclusion and can agree with it. (also, thank you for adding to the discussion!)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, limiting it to films would at least not be as random. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just as an advisory, all editors should be aware of WP:3RR here. No one has violated yet, as far as I can tell, but two editors have made a # of reverts (not self-reverts) that approach it, and this is just a note so it's not violated. [I'm bringing this up here because the reverts concern this section]. Just be aware of this when making a future edit soon. --Activism1234 06:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken and always a consideration, although some exceptions are made. (not many...but some).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So back to the point: seems like we want those two films... but I don't think the long commentary is needed, is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary is needed in "See also". We should probably add films like The Last Temptation of Christ (film), The Da Vinci Code (film) and The Passion of the Christ.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You wanna make this about religiously offensive movies in general... I'm skeptical... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the ones that created protests. Unless of course the purpose of this section is to simply bash the Muslim films in particular.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you know, it doesn't fucking matter what we talk about here anyways, since no-one gives shit and just keeps warring. I'm out. ~~
  • I think that all similar and notable cases when publication of something incited the "outrage" of Muslims must be included in "See also" for convenience of reader. The length of the list is less important than convenience of reader. There are no limits here. Five to ten similar cases are perfectly justifiable. No, we should not add link to The Last Temptation of Christ (film). If there is an article about Muslim outrage with regard to this film, that can be added.My very best wishes (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proper version in my opinion: [2] --Niemti (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it...just bashing the Muslim reaction...not the Christian reactions of a similar nature. Got it. Very disturbed by it, but got it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "bashing" (I'm quite pro-Muslim actually), it's reporting. --Niemti (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is article about anti-Muslim film and Muslim reaction. Christian reaction is not really relevant. I also suggest to ease with reverts. If anyone started making a series of changes, let him do it without interruption. Fix later whatever really needs be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia. And I don' care if you are pro anything. Either you are trying to slant this article or you are trying to create a neutral article. There doesn't appear to be an inbetween here. I am suggesting that this page be locked for 24 hrs. It may not happen but admin may need to get involved at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And "I don' care" about "Got it...just bashing the Muslim reaction..." feelings, while I'm "trying to create a neutral article" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying much to contribute to consensus, seems pretty much to say far more. I am only impressed with the fact that you seem to have some concern...what that concern is for I don't think is clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that this is a Christian made film that attempted to blame the Jewish community for its making, excluding similar films from a Christian perspective clearly indicates this article IS BEING USED to propagate a continued violent reaction. Extremely inaproppriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there were in fact any "similar films from a Christian perspective" produced by Muslims attempting to blame the Jewish community for their making, you can add them. --Niemti (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your style of parroting. Its actual very humorous. Deflective and aimed at cementing your own POV here, but humorous nonetheless.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To someone who removed my expansion and update tags

See #To someone who's asked "what to expand" while removing my original expansion tag. --Niemti (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this film exists

I object to the attempt by User:Amadscientist to lend credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to another film called Innocence of bin Laden,[3] a film that nobody, outside of a single consultant who is considered unreliable, has ever seen nor has anyone been able to verify actually exists. Anyone can put a poster in window. Furthermore, this particular film, which is claimed to have been shown "once" in a theater, is not the same film as the heavily edited film seen in the YouTube trailer, so the attempt by Amadscientist to make us connect the two films is also objectionable. One of the primary reasons I claim that this film does not exist is because every single second, minute, hour, and day of the week, independent filmmakers upload their full-length films to YouTube. The fact that a poor quality "trailer" was uploaded instead of the film, tells me that the actual film does not exist. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to attack me personaly with unsubstantiated accusations on this talk page, I have little choice here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not your rubes. This "trailer", quite possibly the worst "trailer" ever made in the history of the art of the moving picture, and worse than any of the home-made trailers made by thousands of teenagers every day using iMovie in under five minutes, tells us everything we need to know. The film does not exist. We've seen this kind of fake bullshit starting wars, leading to violence so many times. The fake babies taken out of their fake incubators started the first Gulf War, followed by the fake WMD claims starting the 2003 Iraq War. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are allegations by at least one person that the "film" was never screened. LA resident John Walsh alleges he attempted to buy a ticket but was told the screening was cancelled.--The lorax (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, you might tone it back a notch. You make it sound like the entire uprising was an evil plot by Amadscientist. (Granted, that sentence does sound odd once you write it down). There isn't a justification to personalize it. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Being incivil isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The fake babies taken out of their fake incubators started the first Gulf War" - no, it was Iraqi refusal to remove their tanks from the UN member country of Kuwait that started the first Gulf War. And you can read about the conduct of Iraqi occupation forces here: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,KWT,467fca591e,0.html --Niemti (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong. The American people would never have approved going to war with Iraq over Kuwait if it wasn't for the fake testimony from Nayirah, which as it turns out, was a PR campaign scripted by Hill & Knowlton for the government of Kuwait. And, the American people would never have approved the 2003 Iraq War if it wasn't for the fake testimony from Curveball. This "film", of which there isn't the slightest evidence of its existence, stinks just like those fakers. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY GOSH. Btw, this Nayirah (testimony) article treated HRW's Middle East Watch as a separate entity, complete with a red link of "Middle East Watch" and even a sub-section reading "Middle East Watch". Wikipedia's conspiracy experts at work. --~~
Where's the film? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is babby formed? --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved questions

Here's things I'm uncertain about, in light of the unusual circumstance of the creators not being reliable sources. About 2-3 minutes of footage exists on Youtube. Do we know for a fact that more footage exists? Is the "trailer" shown on egyptian TV the same video as the youtube clip (but with arabic voices dubbed over?) Did the 'screening' actually occur? --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original "trailer" on YT was 13 minutes or so long. Seen it. --Niemti (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why censor the filmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo?

Why censor the filmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203900/First-picture-film-maker-enraged-Muslim-world-controversial-movie--terrified-actress-dumped-taking-starring-role.html --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why show the filmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo?

Why show the filmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203900/First-picture-film-maker-enraged-Muslim-world-controversial-movie--terrified-actress-dumped-taking-starring-role.html --Niemti (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add a still from the movie if anything. Add Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's photo to the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula article. - 14:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Protest map

Protest map against the movie around the Islamic World
  Violent clashes
  Major demonstrations
  Small protests

Hi,

I have drawn a protest map
Can you please add it into the article?
Thanks
--Camoka5 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly you are missing many of the protests. Please see [4]. Even that one is missing the Philippines and Sydney, Australia. —Cupco 02:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And unfortunatley adding that to this page would be undue weight. it really belongs at 2012 diplomatic missions attacks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cupco: I will update the smaller protests.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amadscientist: The map has major demonstrations caused by the movie, how do you explain countries with peaceful protests in the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks article? You've got to be kidding. Please get more serious.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the map, if it might not be fully complete, but we can put the map into the article and continue updates too.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what scale you're using but the protest in Sydney was certainly not small as around 500 protesters attended the demonstration and violent clashes occurred between protesters and police. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TO YUMANUMA: Missing a protest? It's not a valid reason to keep this map off the map. You can discuss this on Talk page [[5]] of the picture.--Camoka5 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fantastic image and I'm not opposing its use on any page but I was just trying to bring light to what I said before. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Sorry for misunderstaing :), btw, Yumanuma, somehow I can't edit the article. Can you put this image into the "Reactions" paragraph? Thank you.--Camoka5 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed it. That's the most misleading map I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire country of Australia is protesting? Come on. This is absurd. If you know how to use the push-pins, then use them. I have no objection to accurately pinpointing the protests with push-pin maps, but coloring the entire country? No, that is misleading. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously didn't see that as an issue when I added it to the article but that's a really valid point. I'll restore the image that was replaced when I added the map. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic world"? Yeah, right. As for colorisation of whole nations, the Australian protests, for example, was limited to a few hundred yabberers wandering around looking for a fight. Gross over-exaggeration to paint the entire country. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have an Australia fixation today. It happens on other articles too. :) On a more serious note, Reuters reports there have also been protests in Turkey, not shown on this map. [6]. Probably almost every Islamic country has had something goin' down, not to mention all the ones where there is a migrant Islamic community. I quite like the idea of a map, but it needs to be fairly accurate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant

"..who is on probation for bank fraud". So what is the relevance of this - especially in the lead? Nothing! There is precisely no relevance to this point in an article about the film! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.127.23 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article on the producer is merged, that statement would be somewhat relevant in his bio, it displays his character and ideology to some extent however you're correct, it currently has no relevance in this article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.127.23 (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was not allowed to use pseudonyms nor the Internet. I.e: commited an illegal act. --Niemti (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't belong in the lead, if you really want to introduce the character of the producer, you may as well just simply state that he was previously charged with or committed a crime instead of going into the details of his sentence. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand? He was on probation. He was not allowed to use pseudonyms nor the Internet. I.e: commited an illegal act. Also, he claimed to the police that he wrote the film (titled "Innocence", ironically) while in prison (sentenced for a freud, not for his previous meth lab adventure conviction). --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still not leadworthy, WP:UNDUE. WWGB (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand, he was on probation, firstly that does not automatically imply that his internet usage is restricted, not in Australia anyway and as Wikipedia is used by a global community, that additional implication should either be included or that clause omitted, secondly as WWGB said, specific details or skepticism of whether he did create the film doesn't belong in the lead of the article on the film, it belongs either in the article on him or the production section of this article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent few seconds googling instead of talking about "Australia anyways", you would learn that he is not allowed to access computers or any device that can access the Internet without approval from his probation officer. And you would also learn how he was lying to the film crew, while making the film that he says he wrote in prison, and how at least some of them might sue him for that. Which is probably also "UNDUE", I guess. --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed the point of my post, I said that if you wanted to added that he was on probation, you have to at least state why that's significant so the rest of world including myself understand why him being on probation is notable enough to be in the lead. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And did you completely miss the point of my posts, about this "film" being a scam by a convicted freudster who wrote it in prison and then apparently broke the terms of his probation, as well as a group of right-wing apocaliptic-minded Christians? Which had nothing to do with "Australia anyways", I'm afraid. And is "UNDUE", I guess. There's nothing in the lead about any of it. --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the emphasis on "Australia anyways", we all make grammatical errors here and there. Anyways, all I'm saying is that if you feel the need to add the clause about him being on probation, you should elaborate on why it's significant or readers from countries with different legal systems will not understand the implications of it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you shouldn't be talking about Australia. Or Antarctica, or Shangri-La. Tagged for lead too short, aka "DUE". --Niemti (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I'm from there, I used it as an example of how even supposedly similar countries such Australia and the United States have different legal system and what you're attempting to imply may not be received or understood by people from the "rest of the world". 4th attempt. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not from the USA neither. So what's then difference between two of us? I've done my (quick) research before speaking out about it. And the point is: the current lead is crap and needs some "UNDUE" content regarding the production, and the people behind it (Mr. "Bacile the Jew" and Klein in particular, the director was apparently also duped into it, according to Wired). --Niemti (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which Wired source are you referencing? Their latest story doesn't say anything like that. [7] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't expect all readers to be as acquainted as you, I was aware that he had a criminal history and committed fraud and other offenses but had no idea that probation meant that internet access is restricted. And yes I agree, the lead is inadequate at the moment. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not Wired. [8][9] --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus claims repeated without verification

shown only once in June 2012 to an audience of about ten people at a rented theater in Hollywood, California

There is no evidence this film was ever shown, nor is there any evidence that a single person ever saw it, let alone 10 people. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you deleted does say so - LA Times. [10] I don't know if there's any additional sources to back it up, but your edit seems a bit hasty given that it does have a valid source. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say a great deal. Just the other day, the sources said the film was made by an Israeli with backing from Jewish donors. Today we know that isn't true. We don't just add anything that is sourced to Wikipedia. We have to know what to look for and how to evaluate it. And we know that the source "I deleted" relies on Steve Klein's recollection. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg calls Klein "unreliable". So why would we add an unreliable source to a supposedly reliable encyclopedia? Have you taken a moment to think this through? We also have other sources who say that the event was cancelled and the film was never shown. So, your claim that my edit was a bit hasty for removing a known unreliable source from a reliable encyclopedia is completely backwards. We evaluate sources for reliability and add them as necessary. Klein can claim that the film was shown to 10 people, but we don't have to state it as fact, nor do we have to add it to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources need to be evaluated for quality, etc, obviously. The LA Times quotes "a source" - the link to Klein comes from elsewhere? As Klein may be a participant, obviously his testimony has to be treated with reservations, but do we know he is the source the LA Times refers to? At the moment, the LAT article is the only one we have that seems to be reporting the Vine St showing, but most outlets are calling the YT movie a "trailer", does that not implicitly suggest they believe a full movie exists? I agree this is a tricky area, but at present at least one QS is saying they have a source that says, etc... therefore it's OK for the article to report that? Maybe not in the intro though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I see CNN is also covering the Klein allegations. [11] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And whilst we're on bogus claims, how do we know the image of the movie poster we are proudly displaying at the top of the article is genuine? It's from a Facebook account. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Innocence_of_Muslims&oldid=512897586"