Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 19 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days

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 multiple 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 Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge 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 A news item involving Innocence of Muslims was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 September 2012. A news item involving Innocence of Muslims was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2012.

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

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Thailand reference?

Can anyone clarify what this closing ref tag was supposed to go with?

On 17 September 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Thailand indicated on its website that Royal Thai Police had informed it that an anti-film demonstration was scheduled to take place in front of the Embassy on 18 September 2012 from 13:00-14:00 hrs. The Embassy indicated it would close its offices that day from noon on. Violence was not expected but the Embassy is closing for precautionary purposes }}</ref>

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

There's a few names in the article already about who (imo criminally) "hyped" the film. Wakari07 (talk) 18:20, 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)

~~~~ lol Wakari07 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)~~~~

Edit request on 14 September 2012

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

• Is Life of Brian portrayed as an anti-Christian movie in its article? If not, then why should this movie be portrayed as anti-Muslim? 200.175.79.153 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep Do not remove "anti-Islam" or "anti-Muslim" (whatever) from basic descriptor: this film(s) is perceived as "designed to provocate" Muslims/Islam. Wakari07 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:50, 16 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)

Think it makes sense to have a separate main article on the "trailer(s)" on Youtube (English "original"), the dubbed, and the versions distributed around September. Then we can leave those who think they can prove it was a full-feature 2-hour film at their work on this page. Proposing a main article with title Life of Muhammad, The Real Life of Muhammad or Muhammad Movie Trailer and start there with what 'we' know: there is a 13-14 minute version and it has been extensively re-worked after the original promotion. 18:36, 16 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)

There needs to be a place somewhere. Please point to another place where this is treated objectively and not as an attack on US Diplomacy only. There are protests that were triggered by this Youtube artifact. Wakari07 (talk) 18:39, 16 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)

Ditto the stuff about how bad Copts have it in Egypt. The NYT cite is the only one from during or after the incident and it doesn't talk about the purported "background"; this is clearly original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 16 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)

I added the word "Some" to the U.S. officials comment. There are other U.S. officials (UN Ambassador Rice, for example) who state that the Libian attack was triggered by the film. Personally, I think she's full of it, but ignoring whether she's right or not, here statement changes the fact from all to some.--Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:10, 17 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)

And where is that consensus stated? I don't read this. The deletionists are politicising the whole thing. It's sickening. They're persecuting ontologies these days. Wakari07 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are now two for and two against. No consensus. The addition of the protest section should not yet be added.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I say keep them here for now, at until we have a place to put them. I can't place them in 2012 Anti-Islam film protests because of a naming and semantic dispute. :-( — Hasdi Bravo • 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

(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 05:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

And I told you I disagree; picking some that you randomly come up with won't cut it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yeah, limiting it to films would at least not be as random. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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. . Just be aware of this when making a future edit soon. --Activism1234 06:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken and always a consideration, although some exceptions are made. (not many...but some).--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Hmm. You wanna make this about religiously offensive movies in general... I'm skeptical... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

There's no "bashing" (I'm quite pro-Muslim actually), it's reporting. --Niemti (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm more inclined to accept the thesis that this video was originally a porn flick, since recast as something designed to stir up publicity. If so, the porn version will likely be a huge hit. Santamoly (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm crazy, but wouldn't a new category "Films that piss off Muslims" or the more expansive "Films that piss off the religious" or even "Films that piss someone off for any reason whatsoever" fix this issue? People who want can just go around tagging articles into the new category, and the actual article won't need the section at all. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:14, 17 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to have to agree with this. There isn't actually any real evidence, let alone evidence that could remotely meet Misplaced Pages standards, that this film exists outside of the trailers. The reactions to it are real, even if sensationalised for bigoted media, all secondary sources talking about the fact they've heard that this film exists are real. However, so far the actors involved have denied they were filming this Anti-Muslim film (thinking it was a Desert Warrior style film set 2000 years ago) and the only place to have physically shown the film did it to an almost empty audience and one of the only people they've managed to find to testify have said the trailers have nothing from the film in them.

All i'm saying is that this should be a serious issue considered in the coming weeks in relation to this article. ALL users should be keeping a lookout and inquiring further until a verifiable source has shown the film, as claimed and shown in trailers, to be factually existing as currently perceived.

Who knows, it may even be a tax scam by the Christian lobby groups that financed it in the first place. 124.169.166.118 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It concerns me because we've seen a number of false claims about this thing repeated widely and then shown to be false. E.g., how many people felt they were righteous for naming Nakoula as the director, supported by the AP article, and now we find out that it's believed to be Alan Roberts? We know a bunch of things that both Nakoula and Klein have said are lies. At this point, everything about this that we haven't actually seen with our own eyes (which is to say, that there's a 14-minute clip on YouTube) has to be taken with many grains of salt. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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". Misplaced Pages's conspiracy experts at work. --~~

Where's the film? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How is babby formed? --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire film is on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgx1_JVxfZE&feature=related 203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded on September 14 from Baghdad, Iraq. Curiouser and curiouser. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. You would think the film would be uploaded from California, no? Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, that “movie” contains 5:02 of preface that may be about the Copts (I don't know Arabic), followed by five repeats of the same 13:50 “trailer” in English. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that was the first red flag I saw. It ain't 74 minutes like it claims, that's for sure. And why would an alleged 22 year-old kid who lives in Iraq and claims he is anti-Arab upload the film? None of this makes any sense. Can you claim to live in Iraq and be anti-Arab? How is that even possible? Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to pretend to know WTF is going on here, but this is no full-length movie; it's just five copies of the YouTube video we already knew about stitched together with some preface material. Still no evidence of the movie actually existing. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you claim to live in Iraq and be anti-Arab? How is that even possible? Quite a few of Iraqi Kurds would have a talk with you. Anyway, the video is fake (and gay). --Niemti (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

Again claim 13'02" and 13'50" for the two clips by sam bacile on YouTube. You can simply click on them. At least one editor has confirmed (almost) total overlap between the two clips, but otherwise their unicity. Is this not understood yet? Wakari07 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.144.209 (talk)

Protest map

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)

Cupco: I will update the smaller protests.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 11:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 ] of the picture.--Camoka5 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

 Done YuMaNuMa 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And I've removed it. That's the most misleading map I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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. . 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)

I have spent a lot of time to draw this map. It's very rude to remove it from the article without asking without consulting. Please install it back. --Camoka5 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the use of maps has to be accurate, which is why someone removed it - rudeness doesn't have much to do with it I'm afraid. Some of the detail is wrong - why is Australia classed as a "major demonstration" country for example - a few hundred people protested outside the US embassy - in the UK it was much the same, as it was in many countries that have Muslim minority populations. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

James, again, you can discuss it no Talk page of the map. But removing it completely from the page is rude and may be considered even as vandalism.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not rude at all. Removing contested material is totally acceptable. The burden is on the editor adding, not removing material. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 10:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Still not leadworthy, WP:UNDUE. WWGB (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 12:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 13:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Which Wired source are you referencing? Their latest story doesn't say anything like that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not Wired. --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently his probation was reviewed . However, I would not assume that he did this without permission. I'm no expert, but I would think that probation officers, presented with a request for an exemption for purposes of gainful employment, tend to say "yes" to this sort of thing. I mean, how many jobs can a person take nowadays where he literally never touches a computer? Wnt (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

The source you deleted does say so - LA Times. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

Further to this, I see CNN is also covering the Klein allegations. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

We really need to go on the facts and only the facts. This article is not about any putative "feature film". It's about a so-called "trailer", a 14-minute video and the cast and crew of Desert Warriors who are the victims of what appears to be fraud. There appears to be a small group of editors on Misplaced Pages with the same shared political interests who are trying instead to get us to believe that this article is about a feature film that nobody has ever seen. Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen the far side of the moon, but there are sources saying it exists. Go with the sources and stop trying to use original research to push some trivial claim. If a source is revealed later that says it doesn't exist, then we can change it accordingly. JOJ 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, there isn't a single available source that indicates that a "feature film" exists, nor is there any reliable source about such a feature film. I've seen one source claiming a Hindu group is going to show the full film, yet they claim it is less then 60 minutes. Do you know any feature films that are 60 minutes long? There is no feature film. We only have evidence for a 14 minute YouTube video cut up and pasted from the original production for Desert Warriors, that's it. Steve Klein and all his ridiculous, contradictory claims are not reliable nor would we in any event represent Klein's opinion as "fact". And there is no original research here, nor do you evidently know what it means. We don't assume something exists without evidence, and there is no evidence for any feature film by this name. All we have is evidence for an original desert adventure production whose cast and crew are the victims of fraud, and the only film viewable by the public is a 14 minute video pastiche taken from that production. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a source explicitly saying that the film does not exist, you are committing original research by making a claim that is not expressly written in the citations. JOJ 14:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no single source that says the film actually exists, only that others claim it exists, so you've got the burden backwards. Furthermore, you are stating an opinion by Klein as a fact, which is the opposite of how we cite sources. We don't prove a negative, we only prove a positive. Does the film exist? Prove it! Has anyone come forward and said they have seen it? The entire topic of this article is about a 14 minute YouTube video and the cast and crew of Desert Warriors who are victims of fraud. It is not about a film that nobody has ever seen or cannot prove actually exists. You are the one misusing sources, taking unreliable opinions from Klein and attributing them as fact. That's extremely poor editing and it should not be tolerated. All of the people you are citing have been declared unreliable and their word cannot be trusted. Viriditas (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Says you. Prove itJOJ 15:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got the burden backwards. You claim the film exists? Then you need to prove it exists. So far, we have the word of a fraudster and that of a consultant to the fraudster. That's your best evidence? A liar and his buddy? Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm done debating with tendentious editors, who constantly dismiss the reliability of sources and continually accuse others of misconduct. JOJ 15:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the sources a bit closer. When they talk about a "film", the majority are actually talking about the 14 minute video, not the putative feature film. Here is CNN as an example: Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So we can conclude the film exists. It is a patchwork, a mix, a nexus if you wish, (at least) 13 minutes 50 seconds long? Don't quit. Wakari07 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. The "film" in this context refers to the "video", not to the putative "feature film", which does not appear to exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the only source besides Klein (who's been proven unreliable) who claims that the film was ever shown also claims that it had nothing to do with Muhammed. So at best we have a claim by a single unknown source claiming there was a film with a different soundtrack shown once. However, we also have multiple known sources claiming that the film was never shown. On balance, I don't think we can assert that the film was shown, and if we did, we would have to note that it apparently was not the same film. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  22:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't worth noting since it is only your assumption. In fact there are several sources that can actually be used that do not source Klien. Look, this is pretty simple. If it occured there will be RS for the claims. There are and I will add them. As for the image. Being from a "Facebook: account means nothing. It isn't being used as a RS for referencing. And that account is the official page of The Young Turks. It is as legitimate as an official Youtube video and can be assumed as accurate as it gives all copyright and authorship infor...but i have also referenced it with a reliable secondary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And all of those sources that I've seen are using the Klein claim as a basis. They are not reliable in context. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what sources you are looking at. And it doesn't matter as the sources I added are RS and not based on Klien Period.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Then why does the second specifically cite Klein as the source of that information? And the first one repeats the claim from the theater person that the movie he saw (part of) wasn't about Muhammed. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Really? Show it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a showing of the full length film at the Vine Theatre and Fox news has confimed that. (Hey, say what you want, it is RS) An employee of the theatre has confirmed it. Ads were placed and they have been confirmed and noted by various individuals and groups. And the poster at the theatre has been confirmed by witness accounts and the image from a Current TV producer, who took the photo and is confirmed by RS. There is more actually, but i have not added them yet. I believe the LA police department was called to keep watch over the theatre and from one source supposedly to watch over the producer as he waited across the street in a restaurant. But I need to get those RS together. This is not a released film. It has not, and should not be treated as such. Howver the film has been confirmed as being over an hour long (and some sources say close to two hours). I will get those together as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Go to www.latimes.com and search for Vine Theater Innocence of Muslims. You'll find a number of articles from the Los Angeles Times about the film showing in June. 72Dino (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence any film ever screened, only an unreliable source associated with the film claiming it screened, an anonymous source claiming it screened, and another man claiming it never screened. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can scream and kick and cry all you want but what you said above is innacurate. The source which states:

(Mention of Kliens AP story then)...which has since been pinpointed as L.A’s Vine Theater. A worker at the theater told FoxNews.com:“The film we screened was titled ‘The Innocence of Bin Laden’,” adding that the film was in English without any subtitles or Arabic. The worker said it was a “small viewing.”

--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 72Dino. I have purposely excluded all of the LA times stories as I wanted to use all different sources as editors are questioning the LA times for some odd reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"A worker at the theater told FoxNews..." BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Do not pass go, do not collect a single dime. This is about as unreliable as it gets. Fox News hasn't reported anything "factual" for about a decade. Might as well say this was made up, because when you read "X told Fox News" we know it is completely and totally worthless. As we are all aware, Fox News went to court arguing that they have an exclusive right to lie when they report the news. Nothing they report can be considered "reliable" for Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Fox news is still considered to be a reliable source. You can say anything and we are all supposed to lap it up. Please. You are not the authority or the RS "Decider" Huff post and Guardian are to be used as opinion by the consensus of the editing comminyt but as yet no consensus has excluded either Fox or MSNBC.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm the one who is sorry, because Fox News is not automatically reliable for any encyclopedia article; it must be evaluated for every article and topic. And we know that Fox News has a history of unreliable reporting involving "anonymous" sources who can never be tracked down, and we know Fox News is inherently biased when it comes to politics, terrorism, issues involving religion, etc. So, no, we can't trust Fox News here, and we have no reason to trust Fox News here at all. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, that's surprising about using the LA Times as a source. I haven't been following this talk page very much lately, but even a fairly liberal paper like the L.A. Times would seem like a reliable source, particularly with their local access to information about the screening. 72Dino (talk)`

The LA Times isn't the source for the claim, Klein is, and he talked to the Times. That's a big difference, and Klein is an unreliable source no matter who covers the story. In other words, claims made by Klein reported by the LA Times need to evaluated for accuracy, not claims by the LA Times. Are you getting it yet? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see there are editors who are arguing all sources are not RS...without any substance to their argument. I just wanted to prove that they would scream their freaking heads off over Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Fox News. They have excluded the Associated Press just because they claim the person interviewed was not reliable himself. So....it makes little difference if they sacrafice a goat at this point. It is all worthless because it goes against their own original research and synthesis.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again, Amadscientist. Reliable sources report stories every day of the week. That doesn't mean Misplaced Pages automatically reports whatever reliable sources say. And in this case, a reliable source has reported that an unreliable source, namely Klein, has made a claim about a film. We don't automatically report that unreliable claim as fact, we attribute it to the source with due weight, and avoid repeating it if it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. You may want to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines again before repeating such nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see the editors do not even understand the basics of what a source is.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You must be describing yourself, Amadscientist, as the source is Klein, whose claim was reported by LA Times. We don't automatically repeat claims without evaluating them, and Klein is, according to journalists and analysts, an unreliable source. Is this making sense yet? We don't automatically report claims made by unreliable sources as "facts" just because they are covered by the news media. Do you get it? BTW, can you give me the name of a single person who has viewed this "feature film"? Anyone at all? Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry again for not going through this entire thread, but this article from the LA Times does not even mention Klein. 72Dino (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, talk about not getting it. The subject of that article, John Walsh, says that the film never screened, contradicting Klein. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the snarky comment about "not getting it" was not necessary. I came into the discussion in good faith because LA Times articles do not always show up on Google. You two can continue your back-and-forth private discussion here. 72Dino (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The second screening on June 30 did not occur, but the article refers to a June 23 screening. 72Dino (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and they are referring specifically to the claim made by Klein ("Some involved with the movie") without mentioning his name in that particular article. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And? So what. Seriously. You have demonstrated nothing but your ablitity to be demonstrably inaccurate with your knowledge of Reliable Sources. In fact...you just helped clear up another issue with that very reference. I could kiss you right now! LOL! Thanks!!!!!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how we use RS, how we attribute claims, and how we evaluate claims. Klein is not a reliable source, and his claim about the showing—repeated over and over again in many RS—needs to be given the appropriate weight, not stated as a fact in the lead. It doesn't matter how many sources repeat the same claim, claims change and inaccurate and unreliable sources are published every day. As Wikipedians, our job is to be aware of what the sources say and how we use them—not to simply parrot or repeat them. You should know this by now. We aren't transcription monkeys. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WOW, I didn't recognize a single thing you stated as anything within guidelines, policy or the spirit of Misplaced Pages.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you didn't recognize anything, that's the problem! Start with WP:UNDUE, move on to WP:VALID, and end up with WP:BALANCE. Take baby steps... Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a problem for you. Now try explaining what those links have to do with what you claim. Try it. It should be amusing for a few minutes of entertainment.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, I just did. Read it again. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BRB guys, some old guy on the evening news said he is God and I have to go to the Christianity article and edit the entire thing to accommodate this verified, reliable source. 124.169.166.118 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Organized efforts to the protests

I inserted background statements for organizations like Al-Nas. From the Reuters link there is important information about the history of “promoting religious or sectarian hatred."U.S. Agencies Didn't Issue High Alert Over Mideast Threat". Reuters. Sep 14, 2012.. It is notable to cite the nature of the organizations pushing the protests. Also, in the same sentence there is a BBC citation that explains the exploitation of such productions (like this video clip) by radicals within the Islamic community. This is clearly understood by several writers. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the movie even exists?

I actually took the trouble to watch the 14-minute youtube clip. I noticed the overdubbing of religious references and tried to lip-read as much as I can. From what I can surmise, the actual movie is called Desert Warriors, about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago. Somebody loser just made a riff-raff version of it. There is nothing about Bin Laden in the 14-minute clip or the premise of Desert Warriors, so "Innocence of Bin Laden" could be a separate film entirely. I would put a notice on this page, but I don't what it should be, e.g., the title of the movie is disputed? — Hasdi Bravo • 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have a copy of the 1950's Omar Sharif film 'Devil of the Sahara?'. I've heard comments that the film (as originally shot) looks like a clumsy attempt at a storyboard for a remake, but I've no way of comparing the plots. 86.171.62.154 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are interests at work that want to spread doubt. There is a 13-14 minutes version on Youtube. There are no reliable sources on a "full-length feature" film being distributed in the Muslim world. Wakari07 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...what does it matter if it was distributed in the Muslim world. The full film is reliably sourced as having been shown at least once. Now, whether or not a full version is available with the full overdubbing or not....IS in question. But the previousely titled and fully completed film has been shown and verified by RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Such RS stated that a full film have been seen by several people, which may or may not be identical excerpts in the 14-minute "trailer". Even then, the vast majority of reaction is in response to the trailer, not the film itself. For the middle eastern folks, a reaction to a 2-minute trailer subtitled in Arabic, which we presume to be accurate subtitling. I still like to see this full film to be reviewed by RS staff themselves rather than a quote random witnesses. >:( — Hasdi Bravo • 16:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Accurate subtitling"? What are you basing this on? So far all available English versions relate nothing to what the Arabic versions state, lip readings have confirmed it relates nothing to what it spoken in the Arabic dubs and the actors stating they were not speaking what is said in the Arabic version. 203.59.113.248 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Protests in Istanbul

Protests were "peaceful". Source here. Saadet Party has received around 1 percent of votes in all the recent major elections and is a conservative (not "islamist") party per self definition. Has no representatives in the 550 member parliament. Made minor changes in the article text. --E4024 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

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

I have 2 problems.

1.I can't put my image into the article.

2.I can't edit my map (coloring Turkey yellow where protests occured)

Can anyone help me?--Camoka5 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This is a repeat request, which has been discussed above. I also removed the image, which is also above.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

'Full-length' film

The first sentence of the lead says "Innocence of Muslims...is an anti-Islamic full-length feature film..." In fact, the cited source, The LA Times, only says " Klein said the movie was a full feature film that, when screened in Hollywood, failed to attract an audience." The LA Times is therefore only a reliable source for the fact that Klein said it was full-length, not that it was. The source goes on to say there were less than ten in the audience, but AFAICS none of the single-digit audience members has come forward to confirm that they saw a full-length feature film. I suggest changing the opening to something like:

• Innocence of Muslims, previously called Innocence of Bn Laden (working title Desert Warrior), is an anti-Islamic film, "extracts" of which were posted on Youtube. One of the consultants on the film has said it was a full-length feature film that was shown only once to the public—to an audience of about ten people at a rented theater in Hollywood, California.

Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Put the {{Citation needed}} tag at the synonyms "full-length feature". Wakari07 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please talk here before reverting. What is the issue? Wakari07 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the user who removed the template: "This information is in the citation at the end of the sentence. We don't need citations after every word, as long as the citation at the end confirms it." 'Click here' to undo his edit... Wakari07 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Onion

This article is very heavily censored now (anything positive about the film or discussing its content seriously gets deleted) so I'll repost my comment here. I know it will appear no where in the article ever, and I wash my hands of that.

The Onion responded with a comic drawing of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish figures engaging in an orgy scene, titled "No One Murdered Because Of This Image".

"'The Onion:' 'No One Murdered Because Of This Image' Satirizes U.S. Embassy Attacks By Islamic Protesters". Huffington Post. 2012-09-14.

"No one murdered because of this image". The Onion. 2012-09-13.

Wnt (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Pixels don't kill (yet). But their dissemination now does. Wakari07 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it was reported in an RS outlet, I think it'd be acceptable to briefly mention it. --Activism1234 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code was extremely offending to Christians, but they seem to have turned the other cheek...

Except, that's entirely incorrect. Most Christians were inspired by the fictional novel to investigate the origins of their religion and the genesis of its tenets and practices. So the novel had a positive influence on Christians. However, Christian authorities, Churches, and leaders were very negative in reaction to the fictional novel, because it encouraged their followers to question their religious assumptions and question the Church itself. For example, the novel led some Christians to look outside the biblical canon, to texts like the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip, both of which highlight the special relationship between Jesus and Mary, a relationship that has been either invented, revised, or rewritten, depending on whom you believe. It's very easy for Christian institutions to dismiss these texts as heresy, but they are a part of the Christian tradition. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a better comparison would be The Last Temptation of Christ, which caused some very spirited protests in the US, but no violence that I can recall. This is probably not the place for this kind of discussion, though...--Chimino (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Excellent comparison. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have a Misplaced Pages article on that film and it does show protests and violence. The Last Temptation of Christ (film)#Protests--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The parallel there is close - Marcel Lefebvre, whose followers committed the crime you mention, was the sort of person who would hide France's most notorious Nazi collaborator in his priory. We need to understand that the way this works isn't that people see a film and get enraged - we are talking about people who already are depraved by the love of violence, looking for any excuse. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Motive

There has been wide speculation and reporting about the motivation for making this film. Given that the actors were told they were making a film set 2000 years ago (well before Islam) and that their original script was overdubbed, it is clear that the producers were well aware that this would be an inflammatory film. Presumably that was their intention, and so they tried to conceal the final script until after the film was "released".

Also, while Nakoula Basseley Nakoula self identified as a Copt, no Coptic church admits knowing him. Conversely, they disown him and any association with the film. Some of the actors reported that the supposed director spoke Arabic to others who visited the set. It also seems most doubtful that the Coptic church in Egypt would sanction any such film. Some reports have suggested that the idea for producing the film came from Islamic extremists ... precisely to create a pretext for the violent events that have happened. While the motive is speculative at this time, there is a growing body of reports exploring this. Maybe we should have a new section to discuss this? Enquire (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

None of that is relevent or accurate in fact. He is a Coptic Christian. Why would you expect a church to be able to know him and make any difference to the accuracy of the claim. Stick to the sources and try not to interpret them.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether "Sam Bacile" exists as a Israeli American or Egyptian Copt named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula really produced the movie may be relevant, but of secondary importance to the actual motive.

If I had sources on the motive, I would put that in the article. Since I have not been able to find these, I pose the question in the talk page. My question was not an attempt to interpret motives, but rather a search for sources and to stimulate discussion to explain the rationale (if there is one) for the motive to produce this low-budget production film and over-dub the original script with the inflammatory dialogue. Was it their intention to provoke riots and violence, as happend in the Middle East? I am writing this in the talk page, not the article, because this is something that needs further references and sources.

The alleged producer, initially identified as a Israeli Jewish American "Sam Bacile" turns out to be a pseudonym, apparently, for an Egyptian Copt named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula was recently released from prison for identity theft and fraud, apparently with large debts. The supposed producer initially claimed that the film was made with $5 million from Israeli sympathizers, but now it appears that the funding was substantially less, and largely borrowed from Nakoula's son. At the same time, the actors claim that the film was set 2000 years ago, before the emergence of Islam and that no mention of Islam or Mohammad was made during the production. So there is a great deal of intentional misinformation and the facts are hard to pin down. There is undoubtedly more to come.

My point is that while the facts are emerging, the motivation for making this provocative low budget film is unclear. Was it produced on Nakoula's initiative with the script (as acted and/or as overdubbed later) while he was in prison? What was his motive? Was it to provoke riots and violent attacks on US diplomatic posts in the Middle East (as happened), or was it inspired by others and undertaken by Nakoula after his release from prison for fraud and identity theft as another scheme to make money? Or, maybe, a combination? There were others involved and so was it simply an evangelical media project?

I have had difficulty to find reliable sources to shed light on the motive. So, for now it is somewhat speculative ... just hoping someone somewhere has more information. Sooner or later, it would help if we could identify a motive or motives that led to the production of this film. Enquire (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Background

The following has been added to the Background section:

The plight of present day Copts in Egypt, as portrayed in the opening scenes of the film, is an increasing concern in recent years. Once a majority in Egypt, their community is still the largest Coptic Christian community in the Middle East and 10% of Egypt's population. The last few years has seen a rise in riots, church burnings, and attacks on homes and businesses of the Coptic population with complaints that authorities have failed to protect the Christian population.

Given that the film was written by a Coptic Christian and given that the opening scene shows persecution of Copts in present day Egypt, the above gives some background to the current state of affairs to help the reader understand the context in which the film was made. I welcome comment. Jason from nyc (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed above; as I stated, I removed it because no one provided any sources demonstrating that it was relevant. If we decide to throw WP policy out the window and just include things because we personally find them interesting, there's tons of material that we could potentially decide was "background," but let's not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn’t this reference talk about the Coptic aspect: ? A few quotes: “controversial TV host Sheikh Khaled Abdallah ... hypes the film as an American-Coptic plot and introduces what he says is its opening scene.” and “That damage is apparently limited to one American flag (CNN at one point reported that it had been torn, rumors continue to circulate that it was burned) and presumably the evenings of the U.S. embassy staff, but the U.S.-Egypt relationship is tense enough, and Muslim-Coptic mistrust has already produced scant but horrifying violence against the Christian minority.” Additional sources note that the Sheikh, known for anti-Copt incitement, brought this trailer to the attention of his viewers on Sept 8th. Other sources point out that he had been suspended in the past for anti-Copt hatred. Don’t you think this background is important to understand the context the film was made, viewed, and attacked? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that anything we introduce as background or context should be that which reliable sources introduce as background or context. Because of the way in which the Atlantic cite was used (and the fact that it wasn't in the previous version I'd removed, which was otherwise identical), I missed that it did actually refer to the Copt situation in a context other than "content of the film" (which was how the NYT cite was brought in), but I don't think sources have yet been presented that demonstrate that it merits being included as context or background. I would also recommend that if context/background is to be included, we discuss it on the talkpage before adding anything so as to avoid presenting a skewed perspective (eg. even assuming sources are available, writing about "Muslims hate people who depict Mohammed! And they kill Christians!" while not writing about Islamophobia in the US.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer a source that explored the dynamics within the Egyptian context. I admit these sources mention the difficulty of the Copts only in passing. Perhaps a whole "background" section is premature. There may still warrant mention in the Content and Commentary section. Since this article is about the film, its production, and its reception, citing explanatory commentary on the opening scene should help our readers. I'm not sure of the best way to do it. I don't want to misrepresent sources or introduce original research. I'd appreciate suggestions. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think putting the information in existing sections is a good start. However, I'm not sure why you're suggesting that only material on Egypt is important, when the film is American? (unless you have sources which all care about the former and not the latter?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

By “film is American” I assume you mean made by an individual residing in the United States and not some broad-brush categorization. It’s true most articles avoid mention of Egypt’s internal social dynamics. For my fellow Americans this generally stems from a conceit that “it’s all about us.” Egypt has a vibrant and often tremulous diversity with a dynamic internal to this unique culture. I believe our audience can gain an understanding of the broader context of these events as, of course, good sources allow.

The film was made by an expat Egyptian Copt with a lead portraying present day concerns of a minority within a nation undergoing a major transformation. The Fisher article, , is one of the first reports. He notes the “Muslim-Coptic” dynamic as I wrote above.

The New York Times, several days later, note “U.S. officials believe that al-Nas' Saturday broadcast of a talk show hosted by Sheikh Khalid Abdallah was the flashpoint for the unrest.” It notes the Sheikh is “controversial Islamist host of a TV show that specialized in criticizing liberals, often inviting firebrand commentators to mock secular Egyptians. His show tends to be popular with Salafi Muslims,” It notes the “hosts of al-Nas' program alleged the material had been uploaded by "migrant Coptics" ..."

Reuters describes that al-Nas has periodically been suspected “for allegedly violating broadcasting licenses by promoting religious or sectarian hatred ...” It also cites al-Nas as the flashpoint for the unrest. It also repeats much of the Times story.

Thus, I believe this info provides much of the story concerning who, what, and why. Of course, it doesn’t explain the vilification and insults of the producer. And, by the way, in the articles above (Fisher, for example) there are important condemnations of the film by Coptic officials that are needed to insure the act of an individual isn’t being portrayed as the viewpoint of the group. However, I’ll take your advice and wait for further articles that tell us more about the story in Egypt. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a Rename

It has been proposed in this section that Innocence of Muslims be renamed and moved to International Reactions to ''Innocence of Muslims'' Clip. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Innocence of Muslims → International Reactions to ''Innocence of Muslims'' Clip – Hey folks,
'read through the talk page, read the article as it currently stands (1:35pm UTC 09-17). Might the encyclopedia be better served were this renamed to emphasize it focuses on the reaction? I suggest "International Reactions to Innocence of Muslims Clip" or some such. Reasoning:

• Most documented reactions are to the clip, not the full-length film and
• Hearsay rules the sources. Most talk about reactions, few, if any (LA Times?) sources state direct contact with a feature-length film entitled "Innocence of Muslims", and
• Sources listed in this article are by and large documenting the reaction. So

Let's rename the article and move the leading sections (Production, Screening, Promotion) to subsections/divisions of "Background". In this way Misplaced Pages captures the information our editors have recorded, the article is still easily found by those looking for information, and we as a community prevent hearsay reporting from damaging wikipedia's factual undertaking. JoBaWik (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• • (updated 14:23, same day)

• Also consider that the reactions are to the ~14 minutes of footage on youtube, not a full-length film. That may factor in to the rename.
  And on the main page, as a note, the link to this article is "a short film". JoBaWik (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1. We Don't Have Articles Titled Like That And Welcome to Misplaced Pages
2. No. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming, however, see below on Reactions.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article should be titled as the common name of the subject. When this article grows past 40K of main text, you can create spin off articles about international reaction and whatnot. Kauffner (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Bn Laden or Innocence of Bin Laden

Innocence of Bn Laden or Innocence of Bin Laden

Is it the Innocence of Bin Laden as it is Osama Bin Laden and not Osama Bn --88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bump--88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Can someone please answer?!--88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The poster has the title "Innocence of Bn Laden", but others including several RS spelled it out as "Innocence of Bin Laden". — Hasdi Bravo • 17:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So Bin Laden is the correct spelling but it is wrong on the poster?--88.111.127.3 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Bin" (بن) means "son of" in Arabic. "Bn" is as "correct" as "Mr" is a shorten spelling for "Mister". o.0 — Hasdi Bravo • 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that Ibn for son of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.101.118 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an explanation under "Patronymic#Arabic". :-) — Hasdi Bravo • 18:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In Arabic, the word "ibn" (ابن) (or بن: "bin", "ben" and sometimes "ibni" and "ibnu" to show the final declension of the noun) is the equivalent of the "-son" suffix discussed above (The prefix ben- is used similarly in Hebrew). In addition, "bint" (بنت) means "daughter of". Thus, for example, "Ali ibn `Amr" means "Ali son of `Amr". In Classical Arabic, the word ibn is written as bn between two names, since the case ending of the first name then supplies a vowel. Consequently, ibn is often written as "b.", as bint is often written as "bt.," in name formulas rendered from Arabic into Roman characters. Thus Hisham ibn al-Kalbi is alternatively written as Hisham b. al-Kalbi. However, the pronunciation "bin" is dialectal and has nothing to do with either the spelling or pronunciation in Classical Arabic.

This is why the Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him and his family) is called Muhammed Ibn Abdullah and Ali is called Ali ibn Abu Talib? --79.69.101.118 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation of promo poster: Muslim or anti-Muslim?

from TYT facebook page comment from Ma'en Al-tamemi Roughly translated top to bottom: "By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan, the holy month, may it always bring bless...etc... We announce the big movie: Innocence of Ben Laden. For the same time in international cinema, see, my Muslim brethren, the real terrorist holding the evidence of his guilt, that terrorist which caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Doesn't Al Queda argue that Bin Laden is innocent? Isn't the claim that "the true terrorist that causes caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq" identified by Al Queda to be the United States? If so, isn't it misleading to call it an anti-Muslim film if it was originally created to support the Islamic struggle? Why would an anti-Muslim refer to them as "my Muslim brothers" and use language "By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan," and then identify himself as an Israeli or a Coptic Christian? Is it possible that the media has been deceived by taking claims of the protesters at face value that this was anti-muslim created by israelis and christians, and that there is some deception going on here? Bachcell (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

--88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)I agree the poster is misleading --88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

the poster is not misleading, it gives away the original purpose of the film in its original version, and it casts doubt the the film maker is an israeli or christian who does not respect islam. Rather it reveals that the film maker is a muslim who literally believes in the "innocence of bin laden" and blames the US for killings of muslims. This article should include a proper translation of the poster, and some information as to what the meaning is. Does wikipedia need to wait until the obvious appears in the New York Times before it can be noted? Bachcell (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Innocence of Muslims. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Innocence of Muslims at the Reference desk.

and bye. --Niemti (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You too, look at those tags. And, obviously, the posters' purpose was to bait some of Klein's local "suicide bombers". --Niemti (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is LA Times article about the poster LA Times LA Times and they provide this translation: Glad tidings to the Muslim and Arab community, with the occasion of holy Ramadan upon us we would like to announce the movie of the 21st century: "Innocence of Bin Laden". For the first time in the history of international cinema, my Muslim brother you are about to witness the true terrorist contains the evidence of his condemnation.

It is entirely possible that the trying to catch terrorists is a cover story to explain the poster. Clearly the movie was changed into an anti-muslim movie in a later version. Bachcell (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are occupying a fantasy world. The most obvious explanation is that the poster is designed to attract Islamists to see the film, and then to inform them that Muslims are "innocent" because the real guilty party is their homosexual, child-molesting fake-beard-wearing founder. As the Copt Tutor so illuminatingly writes "man + X = BT. BT - x = man", where x is the beardy one. I'm still a bit bemused by that "BT" though. Paul B (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reactions might contain copyrighted material

Some sentences appear to be copy-pasted from the original articles without quotations. --Niemti (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)--88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)--88.111.127.3 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This section has become a huge battle ground and taken this article away from a forming consensus about "cause and effect" another editor has brought up and others had agreed with. I feel it might be best if the entire section was checked over for paraphrasing and then split off to its own article space so that this article can resume some assemblance of neutrality.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of movie poster

LOL, Theoretically right, but in practise absolutely wrong to show this poster on top. The movie itself has nothing to do with the poster shown. Bin Laden poster was just a thought a few years ago, but not today... oh my God, Misplaced Pages is getting screwed up day by day.--Camoka5 (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the poster used with the previous title, has been verified with RS and is being properly used. I don't see your point.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Poster used in the previous title doesn't reflect this movie. (Have you watched the youtube trailer?) "Innocence of Bin Laden", not even the title is correct. If you are so desperate to use the Bin Laden poster, (I don't understand the purpose of installing the poster of a cancelled project anyway), then you should put it to another section, I don't know, but not definetely on top. It's clearly confusing and wrong.--Camoka5 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't confusing and it isn't wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The owner of wikipedia has decided it's not wrong. sigh.--Camoka5 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Film articles don't have section "History of the movie", they have "Production" and "Release". --Niemti (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I am going to take a leap of faith (ha!) that "Innocence of Muslims" the same movie as "Innocence of Bn Laden". If this "Sam Bacille" character is legit, I strongly suggest the movie poster is moved under "Release" section, as Osama bin Laden did not show up or mentioned once in the 14-minute clip or in the revealed storylines for "Desert Warrior". The poster is very misleading, which was intentional, so it may confuse people reading this page. In its place, we can use good snapshot of the video, though probably not a picture of the prophet bloodied with the sword as that will probably inflame other wikipedians. Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that and believe the image should remain. This is the poster of the this film and the confusion that may be there is encyclopedic in nature. You do understand this was a purposeful misleading image. Bn Laden NEVER apeared in or was a part of that version of the film either. Sorry, but there is no reason to remove the image...HOWEVER Moving it down is NOT a horrible idea...just adding any image from the video to replace it IS. It has already been established that an image from the video is not needed to inhance the reader understanding of hte article. Let me try something and see how it goes. But no further images are required that I can see.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved that image to "Production", but would most certainly be innapropriate in a release section. This looks really good to me, However not everyone may agree. No image from the video should be used as it requires adherence to Misplaced Pages image use policy an non-free content policy which has been established does not pass (WP:NFCC#8).--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that NFCC#8 is otherwise known as "he doesn't like it". But I fully expect that the Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review#File:Innocence_of_Muslims.png will continue without resolution for a week and the image will be deleted for being out of use. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say the image should go, but moved to a different section, i.e., "Release", but "Production" works too. It's all good. :-) — Hasdi Bravo • 01:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actors tricked?

This may need checking out, but a blog by Neil Gaiman carries a letter from an actress claiming she was tricked into taking part in a movie purportedly about ancient Egypt, which was then overdubbed into becoming an anti-Muslim movie.

A letter from a scared actress.

If this can be verified, it should feature prominently in the article. Koro Neil (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Neil Gaiman is a well-known celebrity (at least in comic book circles), we can cite him but need to qualify his statements carefully, e.g., "Neil Gaiman published a letter from an actress who claimed that..." — Hasdi Bravo • 02:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits don't generally last on this page, but I've tried to make it clearer here. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of the cast have said they did not know!--79.69.101.118 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 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.

Redsgems (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC) pakistan has blocke youtube in response of anti islam movie release.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced lede

Nakoula has been convicted and jailed for previous crimes (according to his wikipage), but this is not mentioned. Morris Sadek is an anti-Islam activist who citizenship has been revoked for attacking Islam and promoting peace with Israel(also according to his wikipage), but this is also not mentioned. Al-Nas TV has been suspended previously for promoting hatred, even though that info is not on its wikipage, and yet that is mentioned. Is there a reason for this imbalance !? Treat all the actors equally in the lede, otherwise it is a clear case of undue weight. Unflavoured (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead is real bad, and that's why I tagged it it so. --Niemti (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The mention was added and removed twice. I have added it back twice. I think it is a legitimate note in the lede.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You are one revert away from 3RR. This sort of thing should be discussed here first. As I mentioned earlier, it is unbalanced, because the TV station is (was, before my edit) clearly mentioned as promoting hatred. Both Morris and Nakoula are anti-Islam, and Nakoula has a criminal history. If this aspect is worth noting in the lede, then it is worth noting for everyone, instead of pointing out the TV station's past and leaving out Nakoula's. Unflavoured (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Two reverts is not enough to make that claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors are not required to discuss the changes BEFORE hand when the discussion has begun and there is no consensus to remove.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am one revert away from 3 reverts. 3RR is a violation of the 3 revert rule meaning it is 4 reverts.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring can involve as little as 1 revert. 3RR is not a free pass to edit war. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If the edit was intended to war. There is yet no consesus for the removal either.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from keeping score, you have failed to explain why it is so important to mention Nakoula's criminal record in the lead. No direct relationship is established between his "film" and his past record. It is no more relevant than George Bush's drunk driving, also not mentioned in his lead. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to second WWGB (talk · contribs)'s comment above. It may be true and it may be about the guy who made the film but how exactly is it pertinent to the film? (pertinent to the level that it needs to be in the lede?) It strikes me that this is being used to unnecessarily attack the character of the film maker. OSborn _contribs. 04:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is pertinent to the film because he was immediatly taken back into custody due to the making of the film and questioned about the use of Cell phone or Computers to make the production, which was a term of his release. It is infact VERY pertinent. Why do you both feel a need to "Hide" this?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that influenced the nature of the film or how it was made, or is it just more idiocy on his part? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think it influenced the making of the film in that it limited his ability to work on it himself. So, the youtube account being listed as one of his aliases becomes an issue. But in order to use this in the lead I would say it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional references. May not be that difficult to add but seems important to the making of the film in my view and worth mentioning in the lede as it is clearly a part of the subject and important.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious question: Why the hell do any of you care so much about this? He's known to have a criminal history, it's in his article, etc. What difference does it make here? It seems like you're fighting over absolutely nothing.—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because Nakoula made the movie, then Morris publicized the movie, then Al-Nas showed the movie on TV. Only the TV station's history was on display in the lede. Unflavoured (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." No-one has yet explained why an article about a film should include a past conviction of the producer as a "most important aspect". WWGB (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am for the mention in the lede as relevent and needed, but consensus rules. Whatever we come up with is best. Either way, the lede needs work.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so why mention Nakoula at all in the lead? Is the most important characteristic of the film that it was made by him? You can dig a very large rathole with that line of thought.

But more importantly, it seems to me that the notion that the actors and director were duped is pretty f***ing important, and it's not in the lede. Never mind, I skimmed right over that. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The most important part of the movie is that it was intended to provoke and antagonize, as mentioned by Nakoula himself. Another important point is that it was advertised as Innocence of bin Laden in order to lure people into watching it, but that failed, so it was re-titled and re-purposed. IMO, the whole lede should be re-written, since it is now a mess. The paragraph about the reactions is larger than the intro about the movie itself, and the lede has had so many sentences added and removed that it does not flow at all. Flatten and rebuild. Unflavoured (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I support your giving it a bold re-write and see what you come up with to go from there.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried a minor cleanup of the first paragraph. Unflavoured (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made some adaptions. Please check to see if these work well.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point about including info on Nakoula's criminal past in the lead. It really seems there is a consensus here that this is important. I agree with the persuasive reasons already mentioned (explains his being taken in for probation violation, balances the lead's mention of Sadak as an anti-Islamist and the Egyptian TV station as provocateurs). However, another reason to include this info that oddly has not been mentioned yet is that the whole story around the making of the "film" and YouTube trailers involves deception. Actors duped, AP and WSJ duped, aliases used. And, Nakoula has previously been convicted of crimes involving massive deception and multiple aliases So it's important to mention in the lead because it explains as much about the movie and the YouTubes as his identity as a Coptic Christian—a fact which is persistently in the lead. Though the discussion here in this section has turned into general talk about lead improvement, it began with a general consensus that his convictions are important to mention in the lead, and I think this fact should be added, asap. KeptSouth (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An actually good lead should use no references (all the references should be in the article) and be composed of several paragraphs, each about telling about different aspects of the work. For an example you can see this GA that I helped to bring to A (and possibly FA), Final Fantasy VII.

In this case it would be:

1. general introduction (what, when and by whom)
2. plot/theme
3. production/release
4. outrage and riots. --Niemti (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that I am aware of that specificly states that a good lede requires no references. I am not even sure that is in MOS. I do believe there is mention that some , more controversial articles contain contentious material and may be immediatly referenced in the lede as a conviniance to the reader. Let me check on that. Will say, however that information that is added to the lede does need to be added to the body of the article. It need not be removed if it is accurate, but simply added. I would aslo add that describing the meteor story line is not needed in the lede.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We need not stick precisely to guideline. Should consensus here determine that we do not wish to clutter the lede with references, as long as the information is in the body of the article and it isn't a direct quote or contentious material about a living person, it can be acceptable HOWEVER, MOS for this is clear, WP:CITELEAD:

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

--Amadscientist (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

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

United Arab Emirates Telecom Regulatory Authority imposed a censorship through Etisalat and Du, on any sites showcasing the film online.

Source:- http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/general/telecommunication-authority-orders-to-block-anti-islam-video-1.1077828

2.51.197.248 (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Read it in the paper this morning.  Doing... A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Difference between the 2 YouTube videos

Muhammad Movie Trailer (13:51) has an extra scene at 04:00 of 00:50 in which the lead character's head is between a female character's legs, the rest of The Real Life of Muhammad (13:03) is identical, shot for shot. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The full film?

Not sure but this is maybe the full film...

VIPERON 17:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIPERON (talk • contribs)

We already discussed this at Talk:Innocence of Muslims#There is no evidence that this film exists. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

True iden­tity of the ter­ror­ists behind the killing of Mus­lims in Pales­tine

--Activism1234 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)== Script for "Desert Warrior" online ==

Check it out HERE. It's 105 pages and dated May 2009. The article on that link gives a good overview, followed by the full 105 page script. This need to be incorporated on this page. Adios, amigos. — Hasdi Bravo • 03:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

N.B. This text can be rescued from the Java reader at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/433737/pages/desert-warrior-p{page}.txt (replace {page} with a number). Wnt (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• UPDATE: There a later draft of the script (Feb 2011) that has 5 more pages, but be sure to check out he May 2009 draft first. — Hasdi Bravo • 04:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I will continue recommending that this entire article be moved to Desert Warrior as that is the only full film that we know about and that was actually in production by the cast and crew. Anything else is a fraudulent copy of that film. In other words, Desert Warrior is the primary topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• What? So now its Desert warrior? I thought the film didn't exist at all to you? Merge proposals and AFD consensus/recommendations mean nothing to you as long as you get your "truth"? OOOOOKay, --Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside your continuing reading comprehension problems and repeated attempts to disrupt every thread you have ever participated in in your entire life, it is clear that there is still no evidence for any film by the name of Innocence of Muslims or what have you. On the other hand, we do have evidence for the production of a film by the name of Desert Warrior which has nothing to do with terrorists. The fact that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula allegedly created a 14 minute trailer that altered the original production amounts to an alleged fraud of a creative work; it does not automatically create a new work. In other words, we only have evidence for the orignal work of art, Desert Warrior, and that is where the focus of this article should start. I realize you won't understand or comprehend a single word of what I've said, so please insert your disruptive reply right after this signature. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are your references for anything you claim? My entire life? BWAHAHAHA! 5 years on Misplaced Pages is not my entire life, but the there is some good evidence with references for the things you seem so reluctant to accept...consensus being just one. I know it is such a pain for you to work with others...but try it. Who knows...you may like it.

References? We don't use references for talk page discussions. Your interpretation of basic policies and guidelines is so off the mark, it would funny if it wasn't disrupting multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, that's odd, because when you make a claim you want in the article and others dispute that...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TALK PAGE IS FOR!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Something's fishy here. Although most of the (second) script attributes the dialog to “MO”, there are at least two instances early on where it says “MOHAMMED” (p. 31). Either this isn't the script that was used to film it, or the actors were lying. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Also ends with “A FILM BY SAM BASSIL”. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is something I do agree with. There are many problems with the script to bother calling it the real thing for now. And there are some problems with the claims the actors are making. One good reason to edit the article for brevity and keep the lede short, precise and to the most important issues, such as the criminal record of the film maker.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more strongly. The idea that we keep lead sections short in controversial articles is one that I see popping up about once a week, and it has no basis in any policy or guideline. The fact that an article is controversial or requires hard work to get the facts right does not justify throwing out WP:LEAD and refusing to summarize the main points. This ridiculous notion showed its ugly face on 2012 Aurora shooting, where the lead section still does not represent the entire topic. Whomever keeps spreading this erroneous meme about keeping lead sections short needs to put in their place. It isn't a recommended guideline or policy, and actually violates quite a number of them. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, its not policy or guideline. Its that darn consensus thing again! LOL! Many articles that are controversial have edit wars over the lede and by reducing it to the shortest version generally keeps disruption to a minimum and consenus determines that sort of thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Local consensus" if it exists at all (it does not), never overrides our polices. Guidelines are essentially best practices. The entire "keep the lead short to avoid problems" mantra is not just wrong, it is, in fact, a violation of NPOV. Once again, you're mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no local consensus to keep the lede short here at this time (that can change). However there has been MANY such discussions on several articles that have come to that conclusion and there is no guideline or policy that is set in stone and cannot be "Ignored" to improve the article and encyclopedia. Aside from your misinterpretation of what a short lede is and how that relates to NPOV, you seem to simply interprete each of our guidelines to suit whatever you or those you are "working with" support. Ain't that strange? Is sure is to me and some other editors. Lets see where this leads. (no pun intended)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"There has been many such discussions on several articles that have come to that conclusion". This is like the tenth time you have completely ignored what I have written and gone off on the same tangent. Yes, those discussions are precisely the problem. No matter how many people say "keep the lead short to avoid problems", that is not the correct nor the recommended approach. It needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure...and you get to stop these things because you are....King of Misplaced Pages? All Hail Viriditas, KING of the Encyclopedia. Jimbo is going to be so disapointed he wasn't nominated.LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, you just don't get it. If ten people on this article and ten people on that article and another ten people on another article all decided to ignore our policies on copyright and BLP, it would still be wrong. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus determines these issues unless they are "blatant". Everything is discussed and determined by consensus, Just because someone claims something is a violation, doesn't mean it is. That is why there are very few "office actions".--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way...that's "local consensus" cannot overide a larger "community wide consensus" not policy or guideline as I have said, are not set in stone.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What you have said is wrong. Community wide consensus is policy. Forcing the lead section to be shorter than is recommended and to eliminate summarizing the main points, is not recommended practice and actually violates NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, community wide consensus represents policy, but is not always written as policy or guideline.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Give me a single example. Not something you just invented (which is what you are going to do anyway) but an example that actually exists outside of your head. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Try reading through RS/N archives sometime. There are a number of community wide consensus discussions about The guadian UK, and Huffington Post. Many are aware of these discussions and many still have to ask when this is pointed out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are doing it again. That is, you are misinterpreting common words and phrases and twisting them to suit your agenda. The term "community wide consensus" does not refer to a discussion on RS/N. In the context of this thread, it refers to policy. The outcome of a discussion on RS/N refers to a local consensus /based/ on guidelines and policy. In other words, you will not find a closed discussion on RS/N that does not reflect policy and guidelines. Your comment about specific sources refers to the interpretation of policies and guidelines not to the creation of a new community wide consensus. Huge difference. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Doing it again" is something of a projection with you. When you say that I am ready to see a complete misunderstanding of how things work here, substituted with how you want things to work. RS/N has indeed created a number of "Community wide" consensus discussions. These are not formed by a single discussion but several over many years. Local consensus refers to what a group of editors want on a given article for whatever reason. That local consensus cannot override a larger community wide consensus.....but oddly enough it certainly can ignore a guidleine if it improves the artcile. It wouldn't be improving a GA article to ignore MOS. So that is the cut off for such local consensus. Shortening a lede in a GA can't be done without the article suffering and the criteria of GA being lowered and dropping out of a GA rating. You are simply incorrect about community wide consensus sometimes closing and not reflecting polciy or guideline. It happens. And when it does, it stands as long as it is reasonable. NO consensus can over ride an office action. But please argue away. I know you actualy know better. You just like the conflict with me. Hey...you make far too many personal attacks and have even been warned by admin on this page. I did note the humerous "...not an evil plot by Amadscientist" comment by one Admin. Yes...that does look hilarious written out by the way!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a projection, it's a demonstrable fact, like the time you claimed (and continue to claim) that involved contributors can review a GA nom. You have a unique way of seeing things, however, your view often comes into conflict with how most people see things which causes problems. For example, noticeboard discussions like those that occur on RS/N, interpret existing policies and guidelines. They don't create or establish a new community wide consensus. That's fairly obvious. However, you would have us believe that these interpretations (for example, how to best use sources) can't be found in those policies and guidelines. That's just wrong. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but that is innacurate at best and an outright lie and personal attack at worst. I never claimed that "involved contributors can review a GA" I claimed that my involment was NOT enough to make me an involved editor. I also am not continueing to argue that. It wasn't even the consensus of editors. Consensus was never reached as someone just took it upon themselves to alter the review mid process. There were editors that agreed my contributions were not enough to claim involvement enough for a review, HOWEVER I agree that the amount of edits is, at minimum, the starting place for future situations. As I recall you began a rambling, stalking and hugly disruptive and threatening set of demands on my talkpage over it. Hardly having "Clean hands" to bring that up...but PLEASE do attempt to "Demonstrate" this as you claim. Yes, RS/N does have long discussions that have created community wide consensus over a period of time. You just don't like it! LOL! If you wish to question my abilites as a regular volunteer on that noticeboard you may take that up with an administrator.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it would seem this is what began your love affair with me. It is so sweet to have my own personal Misplaced Pages stalker! Ain't it grand!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"I claimed that my involment was NOT enough to make me an involved editor...It wasn't even the consensus of editors." You had made more than 50 edits to the article, and more than 200 edits to the talk page. That doesn't make you involved enough? As for consensus, you were asked to withdraw by everyone. Sorry, Amadscientist, but you are discussing things in a world you've created in your own head, not in reality. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you are just arguing for the sake of character assination in an attempt to undermine my ability to work on Misplaced Pages. As I said, I was not arguing that I was an involved editor. You are just restating a lie.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't any particular guideline that requires keeping leads short. I don't think this article is so contentious either, compared to others. That said, if there are specific issues with the lead that violate policies, bring them up here for discussion, and we can look at them individually. On the subject of keeping the lead short, the inclusion of the filmmaker having a criminal record, which is just a few words, really doesn't make that much of a difference in the overall scheme. --Activism1234 07:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rating an article above a certain degree (GA and FA) will require that articles adhere to MOS. Until then there is no reason that Lede length must be 4 paragraphs long. In fact...you can't do that with a stub or start article until expanded. There simply is no requirement that any policy or guideline cannot be ignored if it improves the article. It really is as simple as that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no such requirements. GAN only ask that the nominator be mindful of 5 out of more than 50 MOS guidelines, and not all 5 apply to very article. FAC asks that articles "follow" the style guidelines, and this is open to interpretation. However, more to the point, both GAN and FAC ask that articles have lead sections that summarize the topic. This does not mean as you so blatantly wikilawyer, that anything less than GAN and FAC does not have to include a lead that summarizes the topic. It means that we should strive to write good articles at every article regardless of assessment, which means writing lead sections that summarize the topic. This really has nothing to do with adhering to a guideline like the MOS, but to a policy like NPOV, which is covered by WP:STRUCTURE. So in reality, MOS is supplemental. If you are arguing that you should be allowed to ignore all rules, you really haven't made a good argument why we should have a short lead. The funny thing is, we keep seeing the same people pushing the same set of POV arguing for a short lead, so the pattern here is quite apparent. You're trying to do a run-around of the policies, not improve an article. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, all I said was that we can ignore the lede MOS guideline until GA.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said that that the NPOV policy for WP:STRUCTURE is at stake here, not the MOS for the lead, which is entirely supplemental to the policy. We don't ignore anything, and we certainly don't ignore policies or guidelines simply because of the current assessment level. It's actually quite disruptive to argue that "we don't have to improve this article because the assessment level is x". Our number one goal is improving all articles regardless of assessment. At this point, I'm convinced you are a troll. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

God I love your tenacity! Seriously! Ya gotta respect the way you just don't give up. But...WP:STRUCTURE States right at the top, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." See. It doesn't say MUST follow. It does't say ARE REQUIRED to follow. Guidelines and policy at Misplaced Pages are not absolute. That is why it says "should normally follow".--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Troll? LOL! Personal attack and name calling is not a good idea, something of a policy and guideline I see you constantly.....ignore. It is going to catch up with you eventually.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no other way of describing your behavior. How about purposeful misdirection? Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a rewrite of the lede. Perhaps Viriditas will attempt it. But anyone may do so boldy.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If the lead is as contentious as it seems, I highly recommend that first that person put their version of the lead on the talk page for discussion and any necessary tweaks. Only when there is consensus should we use it on the main article. This will create the least amount of problems for everyone. --Activism1234 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 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.

Pakistan reaction also include the blocking of youtube website and a warning to google team Pakistan to block all the anti-islamic contents.

119.154.127.38 (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 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.

Also, in Bangladesh, they've blocked YouTube until the video is removed.

58.97.210.198 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie

"Salman Rushdie, who was in hiding for nearly a decade..."

In an interview essentially promoting his recent book Joseph Anton: A Memoir broadcast at about 7:45 AM, 18 September 2012 on National Public Radio in the US, Mr. Rushdie mentioned that he had to remain in hiding, protected by police and bulletproof glass, for twelve years. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotional Poster proves "Innocence of Bin Laden" was Pro-Muslim, Pro-Al Queda

The lede currently states without qualification "Innocence of Muslims is an anti-Islam video"

An editor chose to hide a section of talk because it made references to "FRINGE". However the lede should be changed from "is an anti-Islam video" to "widely reported as an anti-Islam video" or "initially promoted as a pro-islamist video to reflect what we now know of the promotional poster.

This translation is clearly pro-Muslim and is written in the code language of Al Queda, although this has not been directly noted by the mainstream media:

"By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan, the holy month, may it always bring bless...etc... We announce the big movie: Innocence of Ben Laden. For the same time in international cinema, see, my Muslim brethren, the real terrorist holding the evidence of his guilt, that terrorist which caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Clearly ADL thought it was pro-jihadist: The advertisements were noted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose Islamic affairs director stated, "When we saw the advertisement in the paper, we were interested in knowing if it was some kind of pro-jihadist movie."

A local Hollywood blogger also was concerned that it supported Bin Laden: John Walsh, attended a June 29 Los Angeles City Council meeting where he raised his concerns about the title of a film to be screened which appeared to support the leader of Al Queda. He said "There is an alarming event occurring in Hollywood on Saturday. A group has rented the Vine Street theater to show a video entitled Innocence of Bin Laden. We have no idea what this group is."

Nothing in the poster indicates any anti-muslim content, but rather content which supports islamism as practiced by Osama bin Laden.

The true terrorist that kills muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan without any doubt points at America. This is supported by this mainstream news story: America is the true terrorist, said Ahmed Rezak Shamasneh, 60, a retired laborer whose house was destroyed when Israeli tanks churned into Ramallah in April to suppress armed militants. It is the ally of Israel, which is killing our people. It is the country that drops bombs on poor Afghans.

There cannot be any doubt that the poster was advertising a film that not anti-Muslim , but rather promoted the variety of Islamism practiced by Osama bin Laden.

One explanation from Steven Klein was "the intent of film was to enrage and flush out suspected terrorists", but another explanation would be that the film was actually intended without the knowledge of the participants to promote Bin Laden and Al Queda. I was only later repurposed with the intent of creating on offensive movie which would be blamed on Israel, the United States and Coptic Christians. If this were the case, then Al Queda may be hijacking Youtube videos instead of airliners to kill Americans as a False flag attack Bachcell (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know your material doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages when you're complaining about how the Truth hasn't been "directly noted by the mainstream media." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. --Niemti (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

"In the 1990s Nakoula served prison time for manufacturing methamphetamine."

From the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula page on Misplaced Pages:
"...after being pulled over in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash; he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation." (emphasis added) Dick Kimball (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference NYC20120912b was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Raymond Ibrahim (Sep 6, 2012). "The Collective Punishment of Egypt's Christian Copts". Middle East Forum.
3. ^ Maggie Michael (Oct 10, 2011). "Egypt: Coptic Christians See Sectarian Violence". Huffington Post.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Requested moves
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests