Talk:Innocence of Muslims: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:25, 16 September 2012 editMark Miller (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →See also ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:27, 16 September 2012 edit undoViriditas (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,794 edits →There is no evidence that this film exists: reNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 273:		Line 273:

	See ]. --] (]) 06:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)		See ]. --] (]) 06:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

			== There is no evidence that this film exists ==

			I object to the attempt by ] to lend credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to ''another'' film called ''Innocence of bin Laden'', 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. ] (]) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:27, 16 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Innocence of Muslims article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and really shouldn't be jumping on this bandwagon. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic Grammar

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Okay,

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't "neither Israeli nor Jewish" be better? --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes it would. Done and closing. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps the discretionary sanctions regarding the depiction of Muhammad are more relevant. Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

What are these sanctions? Oh you mean Arbitration Committee (English Misplaced Pages). Right. Wakari07 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Innocence of Muslims. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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)

I want some of whatever drugs you are taking.--Milowent • 17:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

- 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)

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 Misplaced Pages "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 and 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I took the liberty of moving the "Critique" section up into "content" and fusing the two. At least as of now, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 of an Egyptian political party in a Cairo newspaper."

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/13/anti-islam-trailer-police-california
- "Police also visited a production company called Media for Christ, a Christian non-profit in Duarte, California, after it was identified as the one which obtained a film permit for the shoot."
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_21530557/movie-that-set-off-violence-middle-east-produced
- "Both Media for Christ and The Way TV are run by Joseph Abdelmasih of Arcadia, who is listed as chief executive officer for both entities, and president of Media for Christ, public records show."
- includes photo of studio where the trailer was shot
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=40832
- "Nakoula also pleaded guilty in 1997 to possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine"
http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/401561--federal-probation-department-is-looking-at-controversial-filmmaker
- "His attorney cited Nakoula's poor health in a bid for leniency and home detention, stating his client suffered from Hepatitis C, diabetes that require twice-daily insulin shots...."
- "There are indications that 'Innocence of Muslims' may have already been under way as a film project when Nakoula was arrested. A casting call for actors and crew for a film called 'Desert Warrior' ran in Backstage magazine, based in Los Angeles and New York, in May and June 2009.... One notice identified 'Pharaoh Voice Inc.' as the film's production company. California state records show Pharaoh Voice was incorporated in September 2007 by a 'Youssef M. Basseley.' The principal address for Pharaoh Voice in Hawaiian Gardens, a southern California community, is the same location where Nakoula lived until 2008, according to state records."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/12/embassy-killings-in-libya-the-stench-of-ciamossad-false-flag
- Note: I would not consider this a mainstream source, or reliable, but it serves to include a variety of conspiracy theories and links to some interesting new sources
http://tribune.com.pk/story/437086/anti-islam-movie-producer-faked-identity-duped-cast-crew/
- Mainstream Pakistani source shows how Arabic news outlets are only now realizing that the "Israeli Jew" story was deception

—Cupco 05:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

That was an excellent external link by the way.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. . Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Anti-Islam film protests

A way to get at least some of the protests as a reference in Misplaced Pages 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)

Looking at the talk page and the hundreds of editors active over there, it would appear to be a slur on Misplaced Pages to call it "government-directed" - you are talking nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

If sources aren't available, it doesn't "make sense"; that's OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

That is not appropriate. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages is not the source and removing information with the sole purpose of hiding it serves no purpose but to reduce Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

It is actually there...with a tag. perhaps you can fix that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That sounds reasonable. Use reliable secondary RS of course, but yes.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Hope it's good. --Activism1234 04:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Protest map

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

File:Innocence of muslims protest map.jpg

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

Hi,

I have drawn a protest map

Can you please add it into the article?

Thanks

--Camoka5 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Looks like we have an edit warrior. Alright. We shall deal with it in that manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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, 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. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories: