Talk:Innocence of Muslims/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

When did you first find out the name of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims"? (It condemns Islam/Mohammad.) For me, it was this Internet-path: [1], [2], and then I found the movie name in the Wall Street Journal article about the 100 Jewish American backers, producer working in Southern California, and picked up by the infamous Karan-burning minister in Gainesville, FL. [3] "The violence that it caused in Egypt is further evidence of how violent the religion and people are and it is evidence that everything in the film is factual," said one movie supporter.— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All of that is POV. One could claim that Roman Catholicism is a faith of violence due to violent events around the world over movies critical to the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope. One can cherry pick tens of thousands of things to support POV without it being a full NPOV article. One could also cherry pick and POV a claim in the KKK article that the KKK is part of and backed by Baptists. It would be NPOV, inflammatory and untrue.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

They could ... if that had ever happened. But since it doesn't ... In any case I agree with the people below. Things that are properly attributed and don't give undue weight are perfectly fine. As for the KKK and Baptists it is a fact that the KKK considers itself Christian, and it is probable that there are a lot of Southern Baptists in the KKK just based on numbers. You are right that that would not necessarily mean that the leadership in the denomination currently support the KKK. But there is a difference between Wikipedia saying something and saying that someone influential said something. Both would be an assertion of facts, but in the latter case the only verification needed is did that person really say it and does including it in the light of the rest of the article give undue weight to one point of view. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a breach of NPOV to include polemical comments about a topic, so long as they are attributed to the person making them so that the reader can place them in their proper context. If some have seen the reaction to this film as evidence of the truth of its premise it is not a breach of NPOV to mention that. Credulity (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Although it's true that comments can be included, they have to be given appropriate weight -- giving WP:UNDUE weight to one position or comment is POV even if the comment is properly-sourced. "Bob from Anchorage thinks this movie sucks!" is not appropriate, say, if Bob is just a random person whose opinions have no reason to be relevant; "Roger Ebert thinks this movie sucks!", on the other hand, would be worth including because he's a respected professional whose opinion influences and reflects something bigger. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the knowledge of Wikipedia to edit this page directly, so I'd like to direct somebody who does know about these things to these two articles indicating that news about this film may not be reliable despite the many newspapers reporting the same exact story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/12/161003427/what-we-know-about-sam-bacile-the-man-behind-the-muhammad-movie

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/

These are "politically opposed" news organizations and I think provide a true Neutral POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.46 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection request

In light of the events of Libya, this page should probably be locked for the time being... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.21.235 (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Its obviously worth monitoring, but I don't think we've reached that point yet. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's weird, I would have thought there would be a much faster response to this page after the attacks in Libya. But all in all, there seems to be an effort to avoid mentioning this film by the media. --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please let's not protect the page unless and until it becomes necessary! Credulity (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no want for links on Google News (which in fact is linking directly to this article) Wnt (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the popularity of this page and the almost unmanageable frequency of edits it is now receiving I'm leaning more toward protecting it in some form now, particularly as we have IP editors removing information that is both sourced and attributed to the person supplying it, as in this edit. Credulity (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Serious discussion of points brought up in the movie

As a person who doesn't know anything about the history of Mohammad, it would be good to know if there is in fact any support for the stuff in the movie in the historical record / Quran (with citations), or if it's just all completely made up. There seems to be a serious lack of NPOV analysis of the content of the film itself in the media at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.134.189 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this movie, but if you want a documentary on Islam, PBS did one as part of their Empires series, called Islam: Empire of Faith — 99.135.197.210 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think referring everyone to a TV documentary is much use. The point is to compare the claims made in the film against scholarly perspectives on Islam. We need to know what is in the film, in detail, and whether the claims it makes stand up to scrutiny. Is there reliable evidence for the claims it makes about Mohammad? This is something the article desperately needs to include, so that readers can determine what kind of film this is from among the following options:

• A pack of lies designed to defame Islam and its founding prophet by dishonest means
• A propaganda piece that presents factual information but in a one-sided way calculated to provoke a particular response, or takes liberties where there is uncertainty about the true history
• An objective documentary presenting well backed-up historical facts, such as an independent scholar of Islam might endorse as factual and presented in a detached manner
• Some combination of the above, or something else

Credulity (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed - this is a huge hole in the article. We need to say what the film is and what it's about and lay out the context before we get to the "Reception" section. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Since the movie is unreleased and there are just a couple of "trailers" on YouTube, it is a little hard to do. But from those trailers, it looks nonsensical and just a farce. --65.51.209.126 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not all nonsense - see Aisha. But it will be best to look for sourced commentary. Hopefully Jones will arrange a way to see this one the Web for free. 8) Wnt (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just what are you referring to when you state see Aisha? You seriously think you can glean the just of the 2+ hour film by what you see in a "trailer"? How many "trailers" have you seen in your life that when viewed in the actual movie, have a completely different context, or was actually not the view of the person stating it but rather the person explaining someone else's comment? Trailers often "skew the view" in order to drum up an audience that would not normally be interested in the subject of the movie. It would also seem the people editing here and on the actual Wikipedia article are almost certainly flying by the seat of their pants and using entirely too much information picked from hearsay or just as bad, people who have neither seen the trailer nor the movie making some mighty bold accusations. A prime example is the very title of this talk "Serious discussion of points brought up in the movie" the title and the subsequent postings are all made by people who admitted they have not seen the movie! --75.17.200.3 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Donotsave Testedits

Read Aisha and tell me whether Muhammad was what we, in modern terms, would call a "pedophile", or not. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason we are having this discussion is that information on the actual content of the full movie is badly lacking. Hardly anyone in the world seems to have actually seen the whole thing. Given that, it is quite difficult to say anything about its accuracy! Credulity (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, every single event portrayed in the film is true, or has a reference in early accounts of the life of Muhammad. Being controversed by later commentators is another issue. For example, he had a conversation with a donkey, that the latter told him his name is Ya’fur, is well documented. The issue with Maria has several versions, of course the reaction of the other wives is exaggerated.--Connection (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just watched the film. I'll cook up a synopsis right now. Oct13 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The film opens with a military man telling a doctor that Mohammad engaged in polygamy. It than jumps to the scene of a mob of Egyptian Muslims attacking neighboring Christians. The film than jumps again to the doctor at home with his daughter, Marina, who asks him why Muslims attack Christians. The doctor explains that "man plus X equals Islamic terrorists" and "Islamic terrorists minus X equals man". Mariana asks what X is, and the doctor explains that it's something she must discover for herself. The film than jumps to a chronicle of Mohammad's life: It starts with Mohammad having fathered two children at the age of six. His father is convinced that, in order to make sure the scandal doesn't break out, Mohammad must be given away. In his early twenties, Mohammad has a wife, who complains that he doesn't wear undergarments, and he is suffering from hallucinations of devils, which he is allegedly cured of by putting his face between his wife's thighs. Mohammad declares a donkey to be the first Muslim animal. He acts as if he can communicate with the donkey, such as saying that it told him its name is Yofar. A Christian priest declares that he will help Mohammad by plagiarizing the Bible, mixing it with false verses to create the Qu'ran. After the priest dies, Mohammad loses his inspiration. He declares that he will commit suicide by jumping off the top of a mountain. But instead of committing suicide, he gets a caravan ready to spread Islam, promising the men that they can do whatever they wish to the people they conqueror. The Muslims cry out that Mohammad is Allah's Messenger and the Qu'ran is their constitution. Mohammad is than shown sitting with some of his followers and a Jewish man, and Mohammad begins to justify various vices using the Qu'ran and the Bible. The Jewish man explains that his justifications are fallacious, because God did not treat the non-Jews of the Old Testament the way that Muslims treat non-Muslims and that many non-Jews were monotheists before he, Mohammad, was born. Mohammad retorts that monotheism is not enough: one must be Muslim, or pay the Jizya. There are than several scenes that tell Mohammad is 53-years-old, a child molester, homosexual, and a murderous thug. His followers torture an old woman who doesn't believe he is a prophet. Mohammad than explains that non-Muslims must either pay the Jizya or die, and those who die must be killed in a cruel manner. He than has a Jew stabbed in the back for not converting to Islam. Later that night, he is caught by his wife having sex with another woman in their bed. Mohammad tries to blackmail his wife, but when it fails, he runs off to battle. The film ends with Mohammad declaring non-Muslims to be infidels and their possessions to be Muslim spoils.

Oct13 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Film itself shows, in many forms, although, from some director's ignorant intellectual side of view, the usual criticism , although, the reason why to riot about a video made full of ignorant trash crap prejudice religious views on Muslims, it seems the director is no better as a political religious terrorist, however, in a studio jesture, compared to the secret terrorist societies who already knew there was a video, just enabling the patient moment to strike a religious "SPRING", making a blame target for the movie, just to make more anarchy in the countries.

As for the calm few or more, I guess lay calm stay safe near the pyramid of sanctuary, and wait until the next good omen awaits in the next few year and maybe always remember the time to share its polarity of positivity, otherwise the short film would be no more than just a bad commercial advertisement bologna at what cost of more than millions of toilet papered MONEY! Almost as grotesque as these commercials, although, yes, the next inquisition, from a hard feeling is religious values if it continues to take away religion for a more stable economy and market from many critics point of opinionated facts.--GoShow (...............) 04:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Availability and screenings

As it stands, the article does not make clear if the full film has been released or shown anywhere. Is it available online, or is the trailer/extract all that can be seen by the general public? Has it been shown privately to the likes of the Qur'an-burning pastor, or has it received limited public screenings by him or others like him? Did the people in Libya and Egypt who reacted violently to news of the film do so on the basis of information from people who had seen it, or just heard rumours about its contents? This all needs to go in the article. Credulity (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? BlueSalix (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't I add what? The information I've said I don't have? Credulity (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The information you apparently think the rest of us have and are hoarding. BlueSalix (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The author posted a trailer on Youtube [4] - also another excerpt [5] (I haven't checked to see how much that overlaps) - it's of course entirely possible that it's copyrighted and not legally available in full length. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the filmmaker, it was shown only once to a nearly empty theater [6] --65.51.209.126 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that to the article! Credulity (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Two videos

I changed the article's external link that pointed to the trailer to point to the video page on Bacile's YouTube channel. I did this because there are two videos:

• "The Real Life of Muhammad", uploaded 1st July 2012.
• "Muhammad Movie Trailer", uploaded 2nd July 2012

Both appear to be extracts from the film and the only parts of the film available on the web at this stage. The article as it stands seems to talk in terms of a single video, perhaps blurring these two together. We probably need a bit more info to tease out the distinction between the two, whether one or both received wide circulation in Egypt and Libya, etc. Credulity (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The two seem very similar. The wide circulation was from a two-minute clip aired on Egyptian TV (!!!) which I've referenced. I don't get why it's OK for an Egyptian TV station to air it but our ambassador can be killed for allowing it - in fact, my feeling at this moment is that these simultaneous September 11th attacks on our embassies were planned by Al Qaida and this July video is just a flimsy excuse, and if it weren't this maybe it would be that the Dallas Public Library kept a Koran on the bottom shelf by people's feet. Alas, I have yet to find a source for that... Wnt (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I also want to know more about the chain of events that led from the creation of an obscure film by an Israeli Jew in the United States to attacks on the US embassies in Egypt and Libya, because it is by no means obvious that the one would lead inevitably to the other. I hope with time we can find out, and make clear in this article:

• Exactly which bits of video were given wide publicity/dubbed into Arabic/shown on Egyptian TV and when all this happened
• What kind of responses/denunciations these clips received from prominent figures there
• Public response in Egypt and Libya, and public impressions about who was behind the film and how many people in the USA or elsewhere have seen it
• Who the embassy attackers were and what precisely they gave as their motivation

I'm not sure speculating about whether the videos were an excuse for something is helpful, nor is talk of "our ambassador" and "our embassies". I hope we can report on this affair as neutrally as possible, giving readers the ability to come to sound judgements about the content of the videos and the nature of the film's connection to the attacks. Thanks for your work along these lines. Credulity (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and the NYT have both stated that Coptic blogger Morris Sadik was (apparently solely?) responsible for bringing the film and its trailer to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world. However, it seems likely to me that it would have happened sooner or later, and many elements of the film shown in the trailers seem deliberately inflammatory. It is, I believe, a form of intentional trolling that is having an effect as such. —Cupco 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The ambassador was killed by a mob, not state action. The trailer is legal in general, except to the extent that disparaging and depicting Muhammed is considered illegal by state religious authorities. If I remember correctly, there is such a wide divergence of opinion on that question even within the Muslim world that it hasn't been codified very often. Also, when the act of disparaging Muhammed is illegal, the resulting media is probably only evidence of that act and not strictly illegal even among those who say producing it was. I am way out of my league here and would welcome opinions from those who have more certain knowledge on these subjects. —Cupco 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps not a mob. The possibility of coordinated attacks is now being investigated.[7] Wrong article to add that here, though. —Cupco 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I opened this section a third video has appeared on the YouTube, channel, namely "مقاطع من دوبلاج فيلم محمد رسول الاسلام", which at 13:51 is the same length as "Muhammad Movie Trailer". This video was apparently uploaded on 4th September and has considerably more views than the other two, but its absence from the channel earlier makes me wonder if either it was hidden temporarily by the owner of the channel, or it was hidden from YouTube altogether pending review under their content guidelines or something (I don't know enough about YouTube's procedures). Credulity (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Conversation with a donkey

I found a reference in Time that leads me all the way back to Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya, which is what Zakaria Botros says has that conversation between Muhammad and the donkey shown in the film. In Arabic Wikisource appears to carry it at [8]. I tried Google translate to search each section for "donkey", and found nothing worth speaking of, but that's an uncertain method. Also Google translate says "50% complete" but I don't know if that's the amount covered or the proofreading quality. Does anyone know Arabic who can find if there's such a narrative in this work or not? (Or, can anyone tell if an English version is available somewhere?) Wnt (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit request: The sentence "Time attributed the scene, depicting Muhammad having a homoerotic, one-sided conversation with a donkey" doesn't make sense to me. Should 'attributed the scene,' be 'characterised the scene as'? Catcollier (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Filmmaker

Sam Bacile may or may not be the filmmakers real name. However he claims to be a 56 year old real estate developer. The comment that there is "no evidence of a Sam Bacile around 50 years old living in California or having a real estate license...or participating in Hollywood filmmaking" is nonsense. How can anyone say that there is no evidence of a 50 year old Sam Bacile living in California? There is no central database of names, and 50 isn't 56. A real estate developer is a property owner, not real estate agent, so of course he would have no real estate license. He is an independent filmmaker, so there wouldn't be any record of Hollywood filmmaking. I suggest that this pointless and inaccurate sentence be removed.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source (The Wall Street Journal) has this article about an interview with "a man identifying himself as Mr. Bacile [who] said he was a 52-year-old Israeli-American real-estate developer". Still hard to say if it is the person producing the video, but let's stick to what sources state and include the content without the unsourced qualifying sentence. 72Dino (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the movie even real?

Several media sources analyzed the film and are reporting that Innocence of Muslims may not exist at all. They state that the trailer appears to be scenes from several films with key words dubbed over. Here are the sources I have so far.

1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real 2. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/ 3. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/383624/20120912/sam-bacile-innocence-muslims-steve-klein-islamic.htm

Perhaps we should add that in? Thanks. --130.108.169.41 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The sooner the better. We should treat the topic as subject to deliberate attempts at deception based on the claims of budget numbers. This trolling has a body count. —Cupco 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about this using the first and third sources (the second is used for what it includes, but I saw nothing about this per se).

I think it is important, in the spirit of BLP, to point out that we have no evidence this film truly caused the deaths. I suspect al-Qaida planned two of its favorite activities, attacking U.S. embassies and attacking on September 11th, and spent a few hours or a day hunting around on the Web for something to pretend to be offended about to use as cover. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also no evidence a Sam Bacile exists, a fact that I point out, also in the spirit of BLP. --KeptSouth (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion closed after 25 minutes

I think this is remarkable, especially considering the fact that deletion discussion ordinarily occurs over a 7-day period. Certainly, there are those who think this movie is deserving of a separate article. However, time was not allowed for contrary opinions by others or further response by me. I was not saying the movie and YouTube should not be mentioned in Wikipedia; I was only saying the movie does not merit a separate article and it does not meet the defined notability criteria for a separate article. (see WP:Notability (films)--no critical reviews, only summary description, no time tested historical value). At this time, the film has only been reportedly shown in its entirety one time to a small audience, has never been thoroughly and critically reviewed, and its writers and producers are unknown. It also appears that the movie may not exist, and may just consist of YouTube clips. Alternative articles for presenting sourced info on the movie, and more aptly, its infamous YouTube trailer, are already in Wikipedia - for example there is an article on the embassy attacks which refers to it , and it is mentioned in another article on the ambassador who was killed. The material could have been moved there. However, it is pointless for me to further discuss how well this article falls within the deletion criteria, because in my opinion, obviously this "speedy keep" was mistakenly done six days and 23 1/2 hours prematurely, or there is some other factor at work here other than reliance on established criteria and guidelines. -- KeptSouth (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No critical reviews? The trailer, which may be the only extant portion (and I am having serious doubts that any more ever existed) has several critical reviews already, to put it mildly. I think the speedy keep close was proper. There are already over 5,000 google news hits. —Cupco 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD, "Notability (films)" and its principles are superseded by GNG, which this clearly meets. Lack of reviews, showings, writers, etc. is irrelevant. I was surprised, though, to see the AfD closed that quickly. AfD's don't need to stay open for a full 7 days in the case of clear consensus, but that might not have been enough time to see if there were any other dissenting views. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an exception can and should be made to the usual film notability criteria here. The film, even if it doesn't actually exist in full, is at the heart of a controversy which has resulted in internationally significant acts of violence. There is a tale to be told here that goes beyond the usual "here is a movie, here is its plot and cast, and here is a summary of its critical reception". This is a different kind of beast. Credulity (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This page was recently trending on Google News (in fact, it's how I got here the first time); it's clearly a candidate for a speedy keep. There's a particularly pressing reason to speedy-close deletion decisions for a page like this (when they're likely to see a suddenly high volume of visitors as a result of international events); it's silly for such visitors to be presented with a deletion notice in a case like that, and we have a clear pressing reason to want to improve (and clean up) the page quickly to keep pace with events. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Youtube channel

This looks like the directors channel

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4DjVszAn4GAyzgsjtkJONg

Odd that the channel leaves comments in arabic, and favorites arabic videos if this fellow claims to be jewish. Is it possible that the film was created by arabs to create a provocation? Also interesting that Iran's PressTV is condemning the film, but not the embassy attacks, along with some conspiracy theories. Bachcell (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Iran's presstv is condemning the movie:

Muslim world enraged by US-made anti-Islam film Iran condemns blasphemous US-made movie

Any other governments joining Iran and the embassy attackers on this? Bachcell (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Story Of The Film That Set Off The Attacks Is Completely Falling Apart

The Story Of The Film That Set Off The Attacks Is Completely Falling Apart

http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bacile-identity-doubted-2012-9#ixzz26IU8DAIi

A trailer for the controversial film that sparked protests and attacks on U.S. diplomatic property and left four Americans dead is now being blocked in Afghanistan and Egypt. YouTube has blocked the video in Egypt, according to the AP, and Reuters is reporting that the government of Afghanistan has banned the entire site.

[copyvio elided —Cupco 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)]

I think the name Sam Bacile is odd, as it is perhaps a reference to a Bacillus, bacteria, then he calls islam a "cancer". --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) --ImBecile,Imbecile (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC) It is a reference to ImBalcile (Imbecile)

Terry Jones

I don't see any mention of the film on any of his affiliated websites. only secondary sources link him to it; granted, sources from the mainstream media, but i would like to find a primary source on this connection.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always preferred to primary. I'm not clear on how good Jones is with keeping his Internet presence up to date. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That policy places certain limits on the use of primary sources, but it does not say to remove primary sources in favor of secondary sources. Rather, primary sources should be backed up by secondary sources when interpretive claims are made. The primary source is often extremely useful for tracking down the origin of a story, and we owe it to the reader to let him find that whenever possible. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sick of coming across bone-headed interpretations of Wikipedia policy like this. It's similar to someone earlier listing this article for deletion because there are specific film notability criteria about whether something gets widespread screenings or whatever that aren't met in this case. One of the great things about the internet is that it often allows us to hear things from the horse's mouth, unmediated by some journalist quoting selectively or putting their spin on things. If Jones had a blog on which he posted a ringing endorsement of this film, it would be madness for someone to come along and replace a reference to that statement with some news article quoting it. This is quite different from the sensible exhortation to avoid relying on primary sources to cover a whole topic. Credulity (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

‘It Makes Me Sick’: Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam

‘It Makes Me Sick’: Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-says-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam

The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.

[copyvio elided —Cupco 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)]

"I called Sam and said, 'Why did you do this?' and he said, 'I'm tired of radical Islamists killing each other. Let other actors know it's not their fault.'"

Garcia isn't satisfied simply knowing it wasn't her fault.

"I'm going to sue his butt off."

Update: The entire 80-member cast and crew of the film have released a statement saying they were misled. Via CNN:

The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-says-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImBecile,Imbecile (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Benghazi incident

The article's lead currently says that Ambassador Hitchens and the other victims of the Benghazi tragedy were killed while in a vehicle. Reports seem to indicate that they died in the consulate or in an adjacent building, but I'm hesitant to change it as I'm not exactly sure what we're going with right now. dci | TALK 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The source I added said that it was uncertain where he died, so it sounded like (at that time, a few hours ago) it was truly unknown even to the journalists. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read (the article in fact states it in one of the last sections), there does seem to be a deal of uncertainty. I'll revise the lead accordingly. dci | TALK 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I read in the news (several sources), it seems that the Benghazi incident was very preplanned, and not a riot in reaction to the video. It was only used as an excuse.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

Real identity of filmmaker Sam Bacile - California Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes

"The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifWYKzUPaqJJsJ5aj-58K0JCL1Fg?docId=91c9d18979f24144ba8ea358237f046f Merrybrit (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2012/09/12/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests is a more reliable link for the same news article. —Cupco 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• More nitty gritty (company name, copy of the casting call) at [9]. Wnt (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Production Content

"The film's self-identified consultant, Steve Klein, reportedly told Bacile: "You're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Klein later told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Bacile is not a real person and is not Israeli or Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is a pseudonym for about fifteen Copts and Evangelical Christians from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt. Goldberg questions the reliability of Klein."

This stuff doesn't seem to have much to do with the film's production. --Herdpress (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to interpret "production" more broadly here than something like "who was the key grip?" The passage you quote is eminently relevant to the film's provenance. Credulity (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Filmmaker's own description

I propose adding the filmmakers own words to the production section. A Facebook account for Sam Bacile boasted of his work, “I recently produced a movie that I believe to be one of the most historically important movie of our times. It is a 2 hour long movie about the entire life of the Prophet Muhammad from start to finish. Everything that is depicted in the movie is very true and well documented in all historical books that are found and taught in all Islamic countries.”(Source: "Who is "Sam Bacile"?". Commentary. 12 September 2012.)

Article protected

This article is about a contentious subject. It has been temporarily full protected due also to the editing by socks; this is done without prejudice to what might be a stable version. If the problem persists when the protect expires please report again, but remember that any editor in good standing with sufficient neutral subject knowledge can revert to a stable version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Lead: take out "the" in front of "attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions." Take out "in the city" after consulate (redundant, ungrammatical). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Depictions of Muhammad template should also be added to the bottom of this article.--Chimino (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 DoneShii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did the ORIGINAL allegation that "these attacks were due to backlash from the movie" come from? This is extremely important to note- so that future generations will be able to attribute The Official Start of World War 3 to that statement. LarchOye (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larchoye (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please change because of protection

Please undo what 184.96.117.212 changed. Ie. "were used as an excuse to perpetuate back" to "triggered." It's clearly a less biased way of saying it.

See [10]

Thanks 69.207.95.235 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's galling when an article viewed by tens of thousands of readers can't be edited. Per this note, please change "perpetuate" to "perpetrate" and consider semi-protection so dumb mistakes like that can be fixed. Articles improve rapidly when many people can view and edit them. Jokestress (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Full protection of articles about major current events makes Wikipedia useless for finding factual and up to date information about them. Having a malapropism in the first paragraph only makes us look worse. – Smyth\^talk 09:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Shii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested

Please remove the following phrase: "as a reference to a conversation with a taqiyya-practicing donkey described by Father Zakaria Botros to have occurred in Ibn Kathir’s book, al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya." The phrase is sourced to an unreliable source. The reliable source in the sentence doesn't make this statement.VR _talk 06:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Shii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction

The article incorrectly reports that "four deaths of U.S. diplomatic personnel" occurred. This is incorrect. At least one of those killed was a Marine, not anyone under the State Department. See: [[11]] Morrowulf (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the article on the attacks, the identity of two of the people killed appears to be disputed. Some say marines, some say not. I recommend it be changed to something neutral until this is resolved. Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on private communication (which I am not proposing to include) at least one of the men killed was both a marine and on assignment to the State Department. —Cupco 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Film infobox

It is a film so it should have a {{infobox film}} template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Shii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not highlighting more data on the film makers?

I wonder why the names of the film makers have not been highlighted in red to start pages on them as

• Sam Bacile
• Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
• Nicola Bacily
• Steve Klein
• Cindy Lee Garcia
• Morris Sadek (already marked red to start).--Ashashyou (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

After putting internal inks to wikipedia i found that the fisrt 4 names already have pages. Please put them linked internaly to this page.--Ashashyou (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bacile is currently a redirect here so should not be linked in this article. Prior to that, it linked to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, but the connection to the two remains unproven so that is inappropriate for BLP reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicola Bacily is currently a redirect to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. This doesn't appear to be disputed or controversial so I won't change it but clearly a link to both of them in this article doesn't make sense as long as that remains the case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve Klein goes to a disambiguation page, the primary target being Steven Klein. It is not clear to me whether this photographer is the guy involved or not, in fact my impression is that it is unlikely that he is the guy involved with this film. Under the circumstances it should not be linked, as being associated with the film incorrectly could have consequences for the person concerned. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the rest of the names? should not they be in red?? Also the original pages on wikipedia should not link to those name as long as they are debateable? I mean as long as the pages on the wikipedia have been approved even with redirects, then we can put them in the article. Or we can put the names in red according to the neutral point of view.--Ashashyou (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In case there is any confusion what I meant was. 1) It doesn't make any sense to link to anything which redirects back to this article. 2) It doesn't make any sense to link to the same article twice in sort succession (i.e. if two links go to the same article, we only need to link to them once). Remember the whole point of links is to direct readers to follow up articles. It doesn't help the reader to follow a link only to end up back here. Similarly if a person has multiple pseudonyms, there's absolutely no reason that each pseudonym should be a link to the same article on the person. Instead, the article should clarify either via a footnote or with text that the names refer to the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As per below, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is now a redirect here not something I was involved with but I agree with the rationale. So the number of possible links is likely down to zero. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For the reason described, I've started a "Personnel" section of the article to talk about the various people (or non-people, as it may be) mentioned in relation to the production of the film. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are these names in bold in the Production section? GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Putting the reaction of UN to the film

Why not putting the reaction of the UN to the filn & the following attacks? as it is put on a wikipedia page.

UN "We condemn in the strongest terms this attack on a diplomatic facility," U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had told the U.N. Security Council in a meeting the day following the attacks.

In a statement, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said "The United Nations rejects defamation of religion in all forms. At the same time, nothing justifies the brutal violence which occurred in Benghazi," --Ashashyou (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the more pointless things Wikipedia does to cover current events is posting a long list of platitudes from world leaders 'giving their reaction' to events, often with a pointless little flag next to each bullet point. I see the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks article already has already been afflicted. When the dust has settled, it will certainly be interesting and worthy of inclusion to have some discussion of who leaned more towards condemning only the violence and who leaned more towards equating the making of an offensive film to actually killing people. But a list of soundbites doesn't do this. Credulity (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Contents of the film? Plot summary?

This article contains a great deal about the making of the film and the reactions to it, but only a sentence or two about the contents of the film itself. Surely we can do better than that? It seems only excerpts of it are publicly available rather than the full film, but this article should contain summaries of them and state what the film's (presumably controversial) allegations are. When lots of people are getting angry about a film, we should be explaining what it says that's making them so angry. Robofish (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I see two "films" (pointless plot) by Sam Bacile on Youtube as available as a patchwork from which to mix, since July 1st and 2nd on Youtube under the names "Muhammad Movie Trailer" (13'51") and "The Real Life of Muhammad" (13'02"), both by user Sam Bacile. Both "films" start with around 2 minutes 15 of "western" scenes and then show "desert" scenes. Can someone in the know recognize if they looks like by the same director? Wakari07 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Adapted from RationalWiki

The movie

This is from here Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Links from Proxima Centauri (talk) link to my userpage here when they originally linked to my userpage at RationalWiki.
I've seen Innocence Of Muslims Original Movie. Does it misrepresent Islam? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking that question? There is not one thing in the movie that is factual. --File:Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The marriage of Mohammed and Aisha at an early age is factual, I'm asking about the rest. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Even that's doubtful. Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest she was 11-14. hardly a child bride given the time. This movie presents her as an actual child. 8ish maybe? As I said, nothing in this movie is factual.--File:Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 16:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia says she was nine. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it would be possible to go through the thing and decide if the claims were true, untrue or of unknown veracity. Wikipedia certainly says nine or ten for the consummation.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'd guess the film mixes truth with falsehood. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Experts on Islam please check the following:-

1. Muhammad's father was known and was called Abdullah.
2. I found no evidence that Muhammad was treated as a slave when young.
3. I found no evidence that a donkey was anointed as the first Muslim animal.
4. The Qu'ran includes elements from the Old and New Testament as stated. I know no evidence that anyone other than Muhammad wrote it for him. Rather I believe Muhammad claimed to receive divine messages and dictated these 'messages' to scribes.
5. I found a test with the title MUHAMMAD'S SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, I haven't got time to read it or asses it.
6. SLAVERY IN ISLAM says Muhammad took slaves and I have read that elsewhere.
7. I found a test claiming Muhammad has special permission to marry any woman who desired to be his wife, All About Muhammad. I don't know if it's reliable.
8. Non Muslims have to pay a special tax called Jizyah in a state of humiliation. Non-Muslims Paying Jizyah In a State of Humiliation
9. Naturally there is speculation that Muhammad was gay, I don't know how reliable.
10. Muhammad forbade adoption when (he wanted/Allah wanted him) to marry someone related to him by adoption. Adoption in Islam and History of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Marriage to Zainab Bint Jahsh.
11. Muhammad enslaved people, I'm uncertain about breaching agreements, Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
12. Non Muslims who weren't people of the book had few or no rights.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, all of this is moot, given that Muhammad is a fictional character with no historical evidence of ever having existed, aside from being the protagonist in the Qu'ran. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right Seth? Cause unlike Jesus, Mo's life is pretty well documented.

Prox - "wikipedia" says, if you read, that there are several versions of aisha's life, and scholars are all in doubt about what it means in the language to be "child bride". Again, i would caution you to do a "see, here is a fact" without being well schooled in the various arguments around. by the way, Mo didn't write any of the Qu'ran. those are saying attributed to him. Unlike Jesus and the NT, however, there are comments in later writings about who preserved the sayings (Aisha and Khadija) and how they were preserved (rote) that make it more likely they are similar to what he said, if not somewhat word for word. Mo had slaves, this is mentioned in the Qu'ran. this was a standard practice of the day. There is no tax for non muslims to pay today, though non-muslims cannot enter Mecca. Jizya was a tax of an empire to tell those conquered, "you belong to us". It had little to do with religion, and everything to do with a State saying "we are the best". There is no actual real reason to think Mo was gay. Depending on the source, he had from 20-200 wives, 40 or 50 the likely number. He had two loves of his life, Aisha and Khadija. Given how he talks of them, and the power he gave to them within his growing band of followers, there's no reason to suspect they were not the love of his life. Prior to Mo, you could have as many wives as you want. However, he put a 4 wife "soft rule" into practice. a rule he, himself did not follow. However, all the wives he took, other than Khadija and Aisha were in fact, widows of his followers who had orphan kids. File:Green mowse.pngGodotBe informed. Vote. 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Godot wrote, "Are you seriously asking that question? There is not one thing in the movie that is factual."
Well I was seriously alking the question and I think the answer is the film mixes truth with falsehood. Parts are factual parts are made up. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012 regarding that the film was probably created in 2011

46.135.72.255 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Cite sources, my IP friend Shii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012 about infobox

Please insert into the article this template:

{{Infobox film
| italic title   = Innocence of Muslims
| name           = Innocence of Muslims
| image          = 
| image_size     = 
| border         = 
| alt            = 
| caption        = 
| director       = Sam Bacile
| producer       = 
| writer         = 
| screenplay     = 
| story          = 
| based on       = <!-- {{based on|title of the original work|writer of the original work}} -->
| narrator       = 
| starring       = 
| music          = 
| cinematography = 
| editing        = 
| studio         = 
| distributor    = 
| released       = <!-- {{Film date|Year|Month|Day|Location}} -->
| runtime        = 
| country        = 
| language       = english
| budget         = 5 000 000 $
| gross          = 
}}

 Done Shii (tock) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Criminal record of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Why is an extensive description of the criminal record for the manager of the film's production relevant to this article? Ankh.Morpork 12:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Diction

In the first paragraph, the word you're looking for is "perpetrate", not "perpetuate". Just thought I'd point that out. Also "excuse" might be better replaced with the less inflammatory "justification". Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.116.170 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The budget $5 million should probably be changed to 'unknown', as it is disputed in the text. Suara Gondang (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to fix refs

Currently the first reference is messed up, I think someone just needs to change <ref name="gawker"/> to :<ref name="gawker" /> (there are two instances). --Runame (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sorry about that, I sometimes forget to use Preview. Hopefully that didn't confuse anyone for the 3 minutes it was there. Shii (tock) 13:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha sorry to pounce and thinks for fixing. I just loaded the page and saw it, didn't know how long it had been that way. --Runame (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim or pro Bin Laden?

The movie is being described by the mainstream media and the lead as anti-Muslim. However, wouldn't the initial title "Innocence of Bin Laden" and the fact that he "blames America for the wars that occurred recently in Iraq and Afghanistan." indicate that the producer has sympathies for Bin Laden and the goals of Al Queda? Could there be connection to the apparent possibility that this movie was created as a cover for an Al Queda operation as some suspect? Why would the producer claim to be an Israeli citizen if he is actually an Arab? The director seems to go out of his way to produce insult and outrage as if that was the purpose of releasing the movie. Bachcell (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is speculation. Write a column for the New York Times about it, and we can put it in the article. Shii (tock) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture: Depicting Muhammad - Is it wise?

"A screenshot from the video, in which Muhammad is portrayed..."

Aren't the major points of controversy a) that an image of Muhammad was made, b) that the portrayal was not only violating the basic hadith against Muhammad images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam) but it portrayed him as a homosexual pedophile, etc...

Considering the dipiction itself was offensive, might it not be worth pixelating the Muhammad part of the image or letting people opt-in to the picture by clicking on it? OTherwise you literally can't read the article on what happened withotu seeing what happened. :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.185.163 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The image shown is no worse than those in Depictions of Muhammad, so I don't think censorship is called for. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot imagine how many times this tiresome debate has been had on Wikipedia, whether it's about letting people opt-in to see genitalia in anatomical articles in order to preserve the sanity of the prudes of the world, or hiding Muhammad from people who might be offended. The overwhelming consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored. Have a look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ if you want to read more. Then if you're a real masochist you could start getting into the endless debates where this has been raised by people like you before. Credulity (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Which currently isn't world news. I also realise that the opening credits of the last few seasons of South Park have had a Muhammad in the intro. I'm merely suggesting that it might not be the best thing to be there unless you're deliberately trying to inflame what is already a fairly tense subject, provoked by some deliberately offensive agitprop. But if the Wikipedians think its fair, I don't much mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.185.163 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to inflame anything. As authors and editors of an encyclopaedia, the overwhelming majority of us have shown ourselves time and time again to favour free exchange of information at the expense of some people being offended. This is different from setting out to offend, it is about taking a principled stance for free expression rather than submitting arbitrarily to the demands of some censors while inevitably ignoring the wishes of some smaller or less vocal group who are offended by something else they see. The precise balance we need to strike here has been argued over again and again and again, and yet we still see people unfamiliar with the debate trying to reopen it. Please do a lot of a reading of earlier discussions about censorship of Muhammad images and other things that offend people in Wikipedia before trying to open this can of worms! I appreciate that you have good intentions here, but the discussion has been had ad nauseam and at present there is little chance of the community changing its mind, for sound reasons outlined at greater length elsewhere. Credulity (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note that this is a screenshot from Egyptian television. Admittedly I might have been somewhat more nuanced in my description - there was a little bit of how the heck did this fly? tinging how I did it. Now that I know that the actor didn't know he was portraying Muhammad, I would agree the description should be reworked to clarify that point in the legend, for his sake. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"bringing this claim into doubt"

... Hollywood Reporter described the film's appearance as unprofessional, bringing this claim into doubt.[11]

This is WP:POV. Hollywood Reporter didn't say that. They did call it "cheaply made."

You can say the same thing more objectively as

... Hollywood Reporter described the film's appearance as "unprofessional" and "cheaply made."

and let the reader come to his/her own conclusions.--Nbauman (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this was a moment of laziness on my part. I found the Hollywood Reporter article from a postscript to another article which summarized it by saying this explicitly; but unfortunately this article itself didn't actually say that. And now I'm having trouble figuring out what the first article was... Wnt (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

an image to put in

File:Innocence of Muslims.jpg

screenshot from the trailer of "Innocence of Muslims"

Hello,

it seems this article is locked

I wanted to put this image into the article. But I dunno how.

Thanks. --85.103.127.39 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the page is locked, you need to make an edit request to implement any changes. I have appended an edit request template to your comments. Ankh.Morpork 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much :)--85.103.127.39 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no point putting that image in as it will shortly be deleted from Commons, having been uploaded there in violation of the copyright policy. There is already an image in the article under a claim of fair use, with the image uploaded to the English Wikipedia where fair use images are permitted. Credulity (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the present image, and chose that because it illustrates a scene from the video as actually aired on Egyptian TV, as we discuss in the article; it was this airing that was given credit for the protests. I was particularly surprised to see an image of someone playing "Muhammad" was aired, while a woman's face was kept heavily pixellated presumably because her hair was showing. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to upload this larger and better quality image under the correct licenses? Ankh.Morpork 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Fair Use tends to encourage the smallest reasonable image, so extra size and quality isn't a selling point. And having two nearly identical Fair Use images would also be a problem. My intuition tells me that the film will likely be released for public use shortly, and then you'll be able to post the whole thing to Commons. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request disabled, as discussion is ongoing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula confirmed by law enforcement as filmmaker

The article should add that Nakoula has been confirmed as the filmmaker, according to the AP. The production company, "Media for Christ" in Duarte, California, should be added to the information box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: "Federal authorities identified a Southern California man who is on federal probation for financial crimes as the key figure behind an anti-Muslim film..." [12]. See also [13], [14], ... Jason from nyc (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Budget

$5,000,000? I know it says allegedly, but there is no way in hell this movie had a budget of $5,000,000 99.246.235.146 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

hi:इन्नोसेंस ऑफ़ मुस्लिम्स Please add 122.172.192.114 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Nas Link

The Link to Al-Nas TV station should be changend to something like Al-Nas (TV station) and not Al-Nas which is a sura.--Sanandros (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to trim that up and then found the article protected. (and we ought to have such an article...) Wnt (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 changed as suggested — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please add pp-protected

It would be helpful if an administrator added the pp-protected template, with a brief explanation for the full protection. Safiel (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the generic pp-protected template. If someone provides the longer answer of "why" I'd be happy to add it, but cannot easily track down a brief explanation of the full protection justification. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The original protecting admin said they suspected sockpuppets with sleeper accounts, but I'm not sure I would say he was able to substantiate that: User talk:Kudpung#A comment you made on RFPP. —Cupco 19:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

The protection makes this awkward, but Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged here as a WP:BLP1E. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I just boldly redirected Nakoula's page here based on BLP1E. Content on him can be added here with an edit request. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect undone. I opened a formal merge discussion below. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I redirected Muhammad Movie Trailer here because of this source. Wakari07 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a simple redirect - a "merge" on Wikipedia means when there was another article with different content before you make it into a redirect. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for instructing me. I also redirected a few common transliterations Wakari07 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

.. which were double redirects apparently Wakari07 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Per above, list Muhammad Movie Trailer as a name under which the film (or nexus of pictures: both start with 2'15" of "modern" scenes to end with "desert" scenes, some overlap) is known. Wakari07 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Update on US Embassy attacks in Yemen and Egypt

US Embassies in Yemen and Egypt were attacked today. Please add these latest news to the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csshaastry (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll need a more specific request (and backed by consensus) in order to make any changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish iw

Can you add Turkish page? --Cemallamec (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Added, though there seemed to be a typo, so I added an "s" to the end of the article name. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ru-iw

Ru-iw (ru:Невинность мусульман) is missing. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is completely locked, so how are people still editing it?

This article is completely locked. So how are people still editing it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins? Ankh.Morpork 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

not an admin here, but you can see WP:Edit requests and request access. meanwhile you can share facts here. the Wikipedia community is still reasonable. Wakari07 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

and include the tag "{{edit protected}}" (without the quotation marks) on your edit request (simply have 2 == signs around the title) for even speedier treatment. Wakari07 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Was there the film?

There are only trailers on youtube, but everybody talks about a whole film. Where is it? Can anybody give a link to download it? Hhhggg (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there is any such film and the claim that 5 million was spent on this production is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. We are dealing with a media who has fired all of their investigative reporters in order to better concentrate on reporting on the size of Kim Kardashian's derriere. Asking for facts from today's journalists is asking too much. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, its been reported that some verison of the film was screened in Hollywood last year (under the title "Innocence of Bin Laden"), but only 13 minutes is available online, in chopped up fashion, and perhaps very edited (overdubs of vocals) etc. from "original."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of those "reports" both of which cannot be verified by anyone and come from less than reliable persons. Nobody has been able to confirm that any film actually exists. I have watched the so-called "trailer" in it's entirety and it's nothing of the sort. The most amateurish YouTube video is 100 times better. This isn't a film and it isn't a trailer, it's a hoax. The word "film" has a definition, and this ridiculous attempt at trolling cannot be defined as a "film" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not going to parse all the news reports right now because the reliable information is developing day by day. But I agree what we've seen of the video is a ridiculous hack job. Apparently, Al-Nas (TV station) is one of a number of Fox-TV-like stations in Egypt, but there's no way this stupid youtube video led to the killing without some other influences. NOTAFORUM, okok.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fistbump to you Viriditas. I have followed this article since it appeared and I think someone would have come along with a link to the film now if it was actually available anywhere. Yet the news I've seen on TV today has spoken of a film circulating on the internet as if it's a full-length feature film. I don't know if it was shown in Hollywood or not but I'm willing to bet that if it does exist in full the number of people who have actually seen it is tiny. The full film, if it exists, has not received the wide circulation on the internet that everyone seems to be assuming. I find a lot of problems with Wikipedia whenever I wade into the swamp, but in many respects the mass media is far worse for fact checking and failure to go into any detail beyond their sentence-long summaries of major stories. Credulity (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree the existence of the full length film seems dubious - actually, I see that a quote I added yesterday about it being a "hoax" has somehow gone missing. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw a version of 13'51" at streamica. all the other extracts i saw can have come from that set of images. i see not much other narrative than muslim-hatred. a 2-hour version is not needed for the effect and highly improbable imo. a litlle less than 14 minutes of this type of images is it i think. Wakari07 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, i'm not off often on numbers... now it's 13'43". Wakari07 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'trailer' on YouTube is 13'51". Credulity (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sam Bacile" put out two versions on YouTube of very nearly the same length and content. (Plus there's an Arabic dubbed version...) I haven't gone over these with a fine toothed comb to see where the difference is. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This link gives some background information on some of the people and organizations behind the YouTube video. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Under Screening, promotion and reactions, change reference to "Sheikh Khaled" to Sheikh Khalad Abdalla. He is a well-known TV pundit in Egypt, with an article on Arabic wikipedia as well, so he can merit an article here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, now that the article is semi-protected. Jesanj (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is as clear a WP:BLP1E violation as I have ever seen. I redirected the article here earlier, but it's been objected to on grounds that it must be discussed first. Fine, let's discuss here how this clear BLP1E cannot remain a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not even known to local Copts

NPR just reported that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula isn't known to Copts in his vicinity, and they have harshly denounced him. "Father Joseph Boules, pastor of a small Coptic church in Anaheim that is part of the diocese, said he had not heard of anyone by the name of the alleged filmmaker."[15] From the Coptic Orthodox Church Diocese of Los Angeles in the same source:

the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California & Hawaii strongly rejects dragging the respectable Copts of the Diaspora in the latest production of an inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam. The producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions. The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives.

Someone else figure out what should go in the editprotected request. I have to run. —Cupco 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

According to Politico, a U.S. law enforcement official has stated that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was part of the production of the movie. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81158.html David O. Johnson (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Please add this film to the see also section.

• Fitna, a 2008 film about Islam, which led to worldwide Muslim protests and a hate speech trial.

192.12.88.146 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, now that the article is semi-protected. Jesanj (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis

Is a synopsis needed, or would it detract from the article? Oct13 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The article badly needs something on the actual content of the film. See this section above, one of the first discussion points arising from this article. Credulity (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis I cooked up:

The film opens with a military man telling a doctor that Mohammad engaged in polygamy. It than jumps to the scene of a mob of Egyptian Muslims attacking neighboring Christians. The film than jumps again to the doctor at home with his daughter, Marina, who asks him why Muslims attack Christians. The doctor explains that "man plus X equals Islamic terrorists" and "Islamic terrorists minus X equals man". Mariana asks what X is, and the doctor explains that it's something she must discover for herself. The film than jumps to a chronicle of Mohammad's life: It starts with Mohammad having fathered two children at the age of six. His father is convinced that, in order to make sure the scandal doesn't break out, Mohammad must be given away. In his early twenties, Mohammad has a wife, who complains that he doesn't wear undergarments, and he is suffering from hallucinations of devils, which he is allegedly cured of by putting his face between his wife's thighs. Mohammad declares a donkey to be the first Muslim animal. He acts as if he can communicate with the donkey, such as saying that it told him its name is Yofar. A Christian priest declares that he will help Mohammad by plagiarizing the Bible, mixing it with false verses to create the Qu'ran. After the priest dies, Mohammad loses his inspiration. He declares that he will commit suicide by jumping off the top of a mountain. But instead of committing suicide, he gets a caravan ready to spread Islam, promising the men that they can do whatever they wish to the people they conqueror. The Muslims cry out that Mohammad is Allah's Messenger and the Qu'ran is their constitution. Mohammad is than shown sitting with some of his followers and a Jewish man, and Mohammad begins to justify various vices using the Qu'ran and the Bible. The Jewish man explains that his justifications are fallacious, because God did not treat the non-Jews of the Old Testament the way that Muslims treat non-Muslims and that many non-Jews were monotheists before he, Mohammad, was born. Mohammad retorts that monotheism is not enough: one must be Muslim, or pay the Jizya. There are than several scenes that tell Mohammad is 53-years-old, a child molester, homosexual, and a murderous thug. His followers torture an old woman who doesn't believe he is a prophet. Mohammad than explains that non-Muslims must either pay the Jizya or die, and those who die must be killed in a cruel manner. He than has a Jew stabbed in the back for not converting to Islam. Later that night, he is caught by his wife having sex with another woman in their bed. Mohammad tries to blackmail his wife, but when it fails, he runs off to battle. The film ends with Mohammad declaring non-Muslims to be infidels and their possessions to be Muslim spoils.

Oct13 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have it that there is a 13'51" and a 13'02" similar version. Correct? Both start with about 2'15" of "western-modern" images, the rest is "archaic-desert". There are overlaps between versions i guess. Still the same base material. Wakari07 (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on September 13 2012

This appears to be the original casting call from Backstage.com. It lists character descriptions and a unique spelling for Sam Bassiel, as well as a synopsis of the film.

http://casting.backstage.com/jobseekerx/viewjob.asp?jobid=TXYxNuSgxoQo3eKH2L2DW8iOkP2v

Powered by the Human Spirit 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhotep (talk • contribs)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Three suggestions for this page:

1. Remove the "Unknown" labels from the infobox.
2. Run Reflinks to format the references.
3. Make the article title display in italics. (remove the |italic title= parameter form the infobox?)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I did 1 and 3. Jesanj (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done...Reflinks complete.--Chimino (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please wikilink Nakoula Basseley Nakoula under personnel and switch this to semi-protected. Jokestress (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That article's a relatively recent creation. Since it's on the deletion block, I'll hold off on linking to it until things settle down. Folks may want to chime in there at the debate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakoula Basseley Nakoula -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the page will be auto unprotected in about 4 hours, so I'll just let it time out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bacile, Israeli Jew,' May Actually Be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Coptic Christian

The search for those behind the provocative, anti-Muslim film implicated in violent protests in Egypt and Libya led Wednesday to a California Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes who acknowledged his role in managing and providing logistics for the production.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Muslims and the prophet Muhammad and may have caused inflamed mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group behind the film.

Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others...

Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his home, he offered his driver's license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found it and other connections to the Bacile persona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.250.167 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Fix this non-sentence (in italics here).

"The embassies in Cairo and Benghazi were both attacked, with the Benghazi attack reported to have resulted in the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens.[33] Including three other American diplomats [34]There is presently some confusion.... "

I also echo requests to reduce this to semi-prot. Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC).

 Fixed -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! De-bold the names of those people

They're not the film's titles, and the woman even wants to not have anything with the film now. --Niemti (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, either un-block the editing or blank it, because the current article is overally total crap. --Niemti (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

HELLO. --Niemti (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

^^ oo ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.84.136 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bacile redirects here

There is already a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula article. I am going to be bold and change the redirect to go to that article. Unflavoured (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with that move. I also think that Nakoula, in this article, should be wikified. Qworty (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bacile is still acting defiant about the film, but the actress who never knew is going against him from what I have heard.--74.34.90.211 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and say "Be bold and unprotect this article for confirmed users." --Niemti (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, could have thought of something better--GoShow (...............) 04:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep Sam Bacile redirect to to this article. Wakari07 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why ?! Particularly when AP (a RS), says this: [16]. This article is about the movie, not the director. Unflavoured (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's pointing at the Nakoula article for now, and it looks like AfD for that will fail; the media definitely seems to be accepting that the two are the same by now. The thing with the AP tracing the cell phone to him is pretty convincing. So for now the redirect should stay pointing at Nakoula... barring further developments. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

AP doesn't trace the call to him, but traces the place where "Sam Bacile"'s cell phone number is registered to the place where Nakoula lives. Is there evidence that Nakoula handled the cellphone, from where the call was made, that he was there alone? It's too obvious that "authorities" suddenly claim they found "the" cultprit. Wakari07 (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can the sentence "Goldberg questions the reliability of Klein" be removed? This is source misrepresentation. Read the source, he never says that he questions Klein's reliability. All Goldberg says is that he takes everything in the entire episode with a grain of salt. He also says he hasn't seen any evidence that Sam Bacile is who he claims to be. So he hasn't actually said that he doubts Klein's reliability. --Activism1234 04:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Should there even be an article?

Since this article is so awkward to edit being edit protected and since it is so new, consider having just a basic stub as an article and have discussion and test edits here in the talk page. I know this sounds weird but those who advocate killing any editor can be easily blocked. Auchansa (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO yes, there should be an article. This movie preview is notable enough...given all these crazy world circumstances. If this was 2 weeks ago, and someone made a WP article about this movie...the answer would have been clearly "no". But there's fame, infamy, and notability with this video drama production. However "awkward" it is maybe at present to edit this article about it. It's blocked from editing right now for some reason. I can only imagine all the crazy hysterics that have been going on in the last 48 hours over this. But yeah, there should be an article about this topic. I don't really think that's so debatable...given the situation. Regards. Watercolor Merger 05:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me "be bold": this article is really shitty, and keeping it protected means no one can fix it. So either open the article for edits or delete it. --Niemti (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Chill out. It's been 24 hours on full protection, so the article has been changed to semi-protected. Edit away. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Niemti (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ARABIC Wikipedia version

The Arabic Wikipedia version effectively just says that it's an American Film 120 minutes long, made by American Sam Bacile. It also mentions calls by religious figures for boycotts of American goods. Given that the massive protests in the Arabic world seem to be made in an information-blackout about the true facts, and are buying into film-maker's deceptions, it would be helpful if some attempt were made to remedy this. Could any Arabic speaker reading this, PLEASE translate the information from the English article.--JBlesder (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true. It also says it was produced by "an Israeli-American". --Niemti (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be addressed as a high priority? Can we ask English-Arabic translation volunteers to get some of the missing details in the Arabic article? —Cupco 21:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going through the users listed Category:Translators ar-en adding the following:

== ''Innocence of Muslims'' film trailer ==
Hi, I'm writing because you are listed in Category:Translators ar-en. It was recently pointed out at Talk:Innocence of Muslims#ARABIC Wikipedia version that the English Wikipedia article on the deliberately inflammatory film trailer Innocence of Muslims contains very much more detailed information about the deliberate deceit on the part of the filmmakers to try to obscure their identity and the nature of the trailers which has not yet been added to the Arabic version at ar:براءة_المسلمين which is getting about 8,000 page views per day presently. Would you please consider adding some of the details which might help Arabic readers understand some of the missing details of the trailers? Thank you for your consideration. —Cupco 22:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done 38 volunteer English-Arabic translators asked to help. —Cupco 22:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So the request is to translate into Arabic, not from Arabic. Wrad (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes; sorry for the confusion. I believe that we only have one category which is shown as bidirectional in its userbox. Thank you very much for your help. I see that there are now very substantial improvements. —Cupco 01:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More info about movie

More info has come out as Basseley has been interrogated by police: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anti-islam-film-producer-wrote-script-prison-authorities/story?id=17230609#.UFLmFK4dWVk

Some of it can be added to the article [who produced the movie; the source of the money behind the production; maybe more info can be added]. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

Is it Wikipedia's role to say some allegations appear true or false ?! That is OR, is it not !? Report the allegation as given by a reliable source, and leave the OR bits out. Unflavoured (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The film's plot needed

Along with a reliable sources. (Maybe separately the film's and the trailer's.) --Niemti (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The intro paragraph can be cleaned up removing the duplicate paragraph and removing, "which is untrue" and replacing with "which in the religion of Islam is deemed as highly offensive." This could also act as a segway into the incidents like Benghazi below. Perhaps it could even we worded stronger such as, "which is so offensive in the religion of Islam that persons in Islamic States can be put to death." It would probably be pretty trivial to find references to enforcement of Sharia Law that kills people who made fun of Mohammad. To note, I am not islamic, but I saw about a minute of this film and I can understand why the Islamic world is so ticked at it's creation. Very inconsiderate. I would not recommend deleting the article because it's important for society to learn from the ignorance of others.Tragicfame (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Check Segway versus segue... Wnt (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find "untrue" - it's true that relevant Sharia can be cited, but I think we'd need a source to actually cite it for us, lest we turn into armchair Internet infidel imams and embarrass ourselves excessively. Wnt (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the "trailer" actually an entire film?

http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/movies/2012/09/14/anti-islam-movie-maker-may-be-a-bank-fraudster apparently says so. --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Blurry arab TV picture

There is a better version "Innocence of Muslims.jpg" in almost ALL OTHER LANGUAGES of wikipedia ! Why do we keep the blurry Arab TV version here ?--Camoka5 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Innocence of Muslims.jpg

Innocence of Muslims

I think the point of showing it with the Arab TV logo is to demonstrate that it had been broadcast on Egyptian TV. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You know very well why. This exact image was discussed above, before you went and put a false licensing tag on it. Credulity (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Background

This section on "Background" Diff seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It has no WP:RS, and is the creation of one editor. Furthermore, there is no reason given for the addition in the comments box. And there was no discussion in talk. I'm surprised it wasn't quickly deleted.

I'm sure the editor was well-meaning WP:AGF, but this is clearly not permitted in WP style.

If anyone wants a section like this, they should be able to find a WP:RS among the thousands of articles on the subject where somebody wrote a paragraph about the background. But this section clearly violates WP:RS and has to go.

I'm going to tag it with and WP:OR and come back later to see if anyone has any justification here for keeping it. If not, I'm going to delete it. --Nbauman (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It does seem less than completely relevant, but on the other hand, there is something helpful about understanding the impact and rage levels generated by the movie by covering previous similar events in brief. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything that generates this kind of trouble should have a section giving some background as to why it creates trouble. An explanation of the religious and political environment is important to understand the issue properly in this case, especially considering that I don't think this article even mentioned the traditional taboo against visually depicting Muhammad before I put it there - how can we expect a reader to understand the riots without that information? Background sections like this, a little off-topic but about the general situation, our common and routine in Wikipedia articles. I don't think of it as synthesis - most of it is taken from other well-cited Wikipedia articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for what, exactly? The linked articles contain hundreds of citations for the events described in them. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I was thinking of mentioning WP:BLUE, but now I don't have to. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula needed, too

Due to the stuff like that. --Niemti (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Definiteness of who is behind the movie

The intro has the text.... "It was written, produced and directed by Egyptian American Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, using the pseudonyms of "Sam Bacile" and "Alan Roberts", and financed by his Egyptian family." .... most sources are using phrases like "evidence points to them" and "it appears to be by so-and-so", should the article be so definite? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a feature film, a short film, or maybe even is the "trailer" an actual movie, or a shortened version or something?

That should be estabilished already. --Niemti (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It'd need to be sourced but a couple of people have posted apparent full versions on YouTube and they clock in at 13-14 minutes. Not sure if this is all that was filmed or if this is a final cut but it might be all that is currently available. (Emperor (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

Further investigation show sam bacille on YouTube has a trailer at 13:51 minutes (more of an excerpt) and the first part of the film at 13:03 minutes, so the full length can't be ascertained from the YouTube uploads. (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

The trailers were posted by "Sam Bacile" and were referenced in the early news sources (they still should be, maybe it's time to check again). I didn't personally see any report about where the Arabic dubbed version came from. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two things being referred to as "the film" in discussion of this topic. Those of us paying attention to this article and knowing details about what was uploaded to YouTube when and the precise versions and timings mean the full film, which may or may not exist, may or may not have been shown to a few people in Hollywood, but as far as anyone can tell has not been circulating on the internet or anywhere else. Then there's what the news media mean when they refer to "the film" without going into detail, and that I think is the c. 13 minute trailer or the other similar extract that has received wide circulation, been dubbed into Arabic and shown in Egypt and Libya, etc. My advice: The article ought to make clear from the outset that the film that has caused the outrage is a video or two videos of a few minutes in length, which may or may not be an extract from a larger feature film. Credulity (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First ref is broken (semi-protect so can't fix)

...as headline. K61824 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Worry not, a bot will fix red links in time. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Crime-related stuff

I see that Dennis Brown removed some stuff as "needlessly inflammatory", but I'm not so sure it's needless. The relevance of the criminal issue is:

a) allegations that the film itself was a hoax that took investment and didn't fully deliver on it. b) intimations (I've seen nothing more than that as of yet) that Bacile was subject to probationary terms that would have prevented him from editing the video on a computer. c) statements that the script was written while the author was imprisoned.

I fully understand the distaste for the people who want to bash Bacile at al-Qaida's say-so, but the facts are relevant, though their presentation could be reworked. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is that such information, if well sourced, is better in the article about the person than at this article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Writing-in-prison is still in the article, as is the freud conviction. Just not in the lead. (Right now.) --Niemti (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Please provide source documentation the "American Egyptian" description highlighted in the first few lines to prove that he is, in fact an American and not an illegal. 167.219.88.140 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC) : Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Note: I am editing the archive page because this is showing up as an unanswered edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Content Section -attribution

All the reports state similar things regarding the depiction of Muhammad. That being the case, can the various reports not be consolidated and stated in the Wiki voice without the stilted attribution? Ankh.Morpork 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Generally speaking, the people asking here if an edit would be good are doing no harm... and the contrapositive. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?

This may explain a lot about the film, so it may be a mistake for the lede to conclude that it is anti-muslim film produced by someone who is anti-muslim.

Political Outcast: Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?Bachcell (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used as a source? If the thesis is correct, then the western media is simply helping to promote the true purpose of the film. The original title "innocence of bin laden" points to the filmmaker having sympathies towards Bin Laden's variety of Islam. Bachcell (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like nothing more than speculation by a blogger. He has no more information than any of us do. Credulity (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Can someone merge references 12 and 13 together? They both seem to point to the same NY Daily News article. Thanks. 31.220.250.69 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks for pointing it out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims Please discuss this at the talkpage indicated to keep all discussion centrally located. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. Please help collaborate on a consensus. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, BLP1E. And edits like this [17] likely need to be reverted, I'm tired of doing it, as the information seems only to inflame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The lede, as it is now, seems innappropriate and may be a BLP concern in that it appears to be mainly a mini biography of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. The lede section should summarize the article and while a mention of the figure in the lead may be appropriate, it is far too prominent at the moment and is given undue weight. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

This needs to be edited back a bit and have the background, content and more production iformation added as well as othe peices of information from the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence for Nakoula's involement does all seem to be fairly tentative and unconfirmed so far, other than sheer weight of sources pointing the finger. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Back-peddling my own assertion, the BBC are known for checking things pretty solidly before going live and they now have this description on the news site [18]:

"US authorities now say they have identified Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian living in California as the man who made the film. Basseley, who was found guilty of fraud in 2010 and ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution, is thought to have used the pseudonym "Sam Bacile" to hide his identity. He denies the allegations."" Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At this time I am not addressing reliable sources, just that the lede is giving far to much information on one subject and has lost the overall summary of this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula being a Coptic Christian

It seems a pretty central fact that the maker of the film is an Egyptian Copt, given the persecution of that minority in Egypt - it was in the Lede, but has been removed - I think we should be mentioning it there, it helps to distance it from being "American" and is a primary point of focus about the motives behind the making of the movie. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No. There is an article for that kind of detail. It doesn't belong in the lede here.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See #Not even known to local Copts above. None of his archdiocese churches had any idea who he was, so it is probably misleading at best to associate him closely with Copts. —Cupco 22:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article in question. That source amounts to a statement by the local Coptic diocese condemning the film. They do not say that he is not a Copt. By contrast, nearly every news source in the world is stating he is one, very prominently - apart from Wikipedia. I'm not saying this out of some desire to take a POV but to reflect accuracy - on the other hand, I am curious if a possible POV is working the other way, eg, pointing at the "Egyptian" and not the "American", may be seen to serve a particular view, that this is something that originates outside of America and inside of Egypt. The hard facts are so far that the producer of the film is a Coptic Christian Egyptian living in California. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Image

For the time being I have removed the screen capture. There are multiple issues including inadequate fair use rational with incorrect information and what appears to be a direct link to the controversial tv show that aired the video. Not sure that should be there as the point of the image would be to show a frame of film and not direct readers to a controversial link. If the need arises to link the actual Youtube channel that this was taken from it would be with a secondary source indicating reasons for link. Also, the fact that one actor was blurred but not others gives the impression that some form of cherry picking is going on. The image has not been nominated for deletion until a discussion can be made to see what improvements (if any) can be made to salvage the image.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with the Fair Use rationale for that image. I want that image to be 100% legitimate. Note that the image I used was from the 2-minute clip broadcast on Egyptian TV, as uploaded to YouTube by what I believe to be the TV channel itself (at least, the other content from that account seems to be consistently from that channel, and it has "TV" in the name, but then again, the site itself is in Arabic).

Note that the pixelation was done BY THE EGYPTIAN TV STATION, not by me, and it was most peculiar to me, with a simplistic outsider's information about Muslim propriety, that they pixelized a woman because her hair was showing but displayed someone playing "Muhammad". Note that throughout the broadcast the woman was pixelized. Wnt (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Give me a moment as I prepare my concerns with links to the appropriate policy and guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the image for editors to view [19] for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(I posted to the talk page - to bring that response here:) The reason why I prefer the Egyptian TV screen capture is that that is the actual presentation that led to the protests, at least according to [20]. Note that the NYT believed it was acceptable commercial Fair Use to include a 2-minute excerpt of the trailer within their own frame, though they at the time had no idea whose film it was (and I doubt they got permission from the Egyptian station either). So I think I'm on pretty darn solid ground with one lousy frame of it. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, uhm...you have to give a fair use rational for OUR use, not the NYTs. Again, give me a moment and I will post my concerns in full.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Image concerns

• First, the image is a screen capture from a TV program and not the actual video or film and violates our external links policy, WP:ELNEVER which states:

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

It is clear that this would not fall under fair use for the channel in question on Youtube (see below for "minimal use"). As a news outlet it could be seen as such for airing, but doubtful as a link on youtube when the original copyright holder still has the video up. If the image was being used to disuss and illustrate the actual program it came from it is possible it might pass fair use but I find it somewhat contentious at best to simply illustrate the film itself. It appears to be undue weight at best and promotional at worst.

• Author or copyright owner - is not accurate. Sam Bacile is a known false persona.

• Source - Again, for fair use on Wikipedia, the source should be the film/video or the Youtube channel it originates on.

• Purpose of use in article - Incorrect reason given. It was not discussing the actor as the actor is not mentioned.

• Not replaceable with free media because - "na" is not acceptable. You must give a reason you belive there is no free equivalent available. Without all points explained "fair use" fails.

• Minimal use - The reasoning given states "This is one frame of the low-resolution YouTube preview of a two-minute clip which was played by an Egyptian TV station without the author of the film's permission, presumably under Fair Use". Presumming it was used by another is not a rational for use on Wikipedia. Presumtion of fair use by this media outlet is a clear indication that this violates our external link policy by linking to a website that has not licensed use. However this should just be kept at "Single, low resolution frame"...but again the screen shot should be from the film and not from another's use.

Respect for commercial opportunities - Again "na" is not acceptable and must be given or "fair use" rational fails.

Per WP:NFCI: "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criteria; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here."

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria:"(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)" It can certainly be argued that no image is required if all it is used for is to discuss a character talking to a donkey.

Per Image use policy[21]: "Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). However, since Wikipedia aims to be a free-content encyclopedia, not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate.

Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Editors who notice correctable errors in fair use tags or fair use rationales are urged to fix them, if able. Voluntarily fixing such problems is helpful to Wikipedia, though many errors may be impossible to fix. Frequent uploading of non-fair use non-free material can be justification for banning a Wikipedia user.

There are actually a few more concerns such as uploading an image with text and copyright concerns with that use but the main concerns are more than strong enough to remove the image from use at the moment. Another concern is the pixilation of one figure and not others, regardless of who and when this was done it shows the screen shot has been manipulated. Another concern is that we are using a specific inflammitory image without good cause. It may actually be a candidate for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• The file is also using an incorrect license.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The New York Times not merely linked to the YouTube source I used, but actually displayed the video inline on their own page. The TV station broadcast is the topic of conversation; it's the direct link between the blogosphere and the Egyptian protesting public. To be extra clear, this is actually a Fair Use of the station's broadcast, not the film itself; it's for discussion of the violent reaction to the film. (Note that the corresponding text about Al-Nas was since moved to a different section, but it's still in the article) Wnt (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be as clear as possible. The fact that any news source has used the image has no bearing on our use. To be even clearer, this is not the article to link an image from any news broadcast of coverage, or an excuse to break external link policy or fair use guidelines. This is the article on the film or video itself, and in such we are not following either the spirit or the letter of any guideline or policy for use. Does the article need this image? I would argue that it does not as the image used has little encyclopedic value except to illustrate why there is a controversy. Again, for our use we would not link to a Youtube channel with no license to use the image. The use of the image is in the context of the controversy, not the film and is completley out of context for use in the article. The image has so many issues it may not stand a nomination for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have listed the image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review to review for policy and guideline compliance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is YouTube listed as distributor?

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

I added it there to make it clear that, as you said, it had no official distributor. But what you have said is right. Shii (tock) 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a better lock would be useful from hackers secretly tag blanking the sections or manipulating the article.--50.122.10.131 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the matter, Shii. I noticed that the sidebar was removed. No complaints here at the moment, as many have come to view the sidebar for films as a summary of established (or official) facts regarding the production of a film, and none of that has been established yet regarding this particular film. I just hope you or someone else puts it back when more established facts become available. Of course by that time, the controversy will have died down enough so that anyone will be able to edit the article again. Either way, thanks to everyone with editing privileges for keeping the article up to date. Isah.abedini (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom sanctions

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

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

I don't think that either is relevant. Despite a one-day cover story, there is no actual connection with Israel (let alone Palestine). And the actors playing the scenes did not know that they were portraying Muhammad while they were being filmed. Calling this, retroactively, a "depiction of Muhammad" is therefore technically invalid, unless you want to accept that an article about, say, a teddy bear falls under these sanctions if someone gets in trouble for calling it by that name. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Don't remove the and tags without resolving the issue

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

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

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

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

Is this wikipedia?!

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

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

Right now, it's more like a political event than a movie article. The article will probably change a lot as more emerges. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been said many times further up the page, it definitely needs a plot summary. Readers need to know what is in the film before they read about reaction to it, or the whole article makes little sense. I know no one has seen the main film, but it is the trailers/extracts/the-videos-that-are-actually-the-whole-film-because-there-is-no-full-version that are the political event here, so we must have a synopsis of them. 77.99.26.23 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the "Critique" section up into "content" and fusing the two. At least as of now, Wikipedia being such as it is about controversial issues, nobody has dared to try a straight primary this-is-what-I-see plot summary except on the talk page, so the two aren't much distinguished. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a pretty good summary of what the independent secondary news sources have been reporting about the content. It does seem to be common to eschew secondary sources for movie plots, but given that this one is swarming with BLP and real-people-being-killed issues, it seems reasonable to keep the summary more terse and based on secondary news sources for now. —Cupco 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT:

"Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.". I am unclear if enough information is avialable on the plot in secondary sources to create a plot section at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As has already been said, the complete film, if it exists, might be unavailable to us, but the 13 minute YouTube videos, which are the videos people in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere have actually seen, and are thus at the centre of the controversy, are very much available. They should therefore be summarised in the usual way seen in film articles. Credulity (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits request to the page on 14 September 2012

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

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

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

The problem is, there are conflicting stories as to exactly what caused the protests. There are secondary sources (official US sources as well, primary i would guess) that state the possiblity that this was a predetermined protest that just used the film as an excuse. not sure if this is actually mentioned in the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial story with events and twists unfolding as the discussions are posted on this page. So while adding "allegedly" to the beginning and ending of each sentence would make for a difficult read, I would highly implore those who have editing privileges to err on the side of "allegedly" or any synonym thereof (bust out that thesaurus guys and gals) for any point that has a reasonable reason to question it. At least until the controversy and speculation dies down a bit, and more solid information comes forth. For example, there are now stories floating around that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was preplanned before the film's controversy began. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201291512714470776.html. This is a reasonable claim, it could be that militants or whatever were planning an attack for the 9/11 anniversary and didn't even hear about the video till after the fact, and it could just as reasonably turn out to be false.Isah.abedini (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Much better than the weasel word "allegedly" is to actually say who is alleging such a thing, otherwise how is the reader meant to assess the validity of the claim? If Western media sources are attributing the violence to the film, we can say that. If there are direct quotes from people involved in the protest saying "I'm here because of that Goddamn blasphemous film!" then we can say that. "Allegedly" and synonyms thereof are not becoming of an encyclopaedia. Credulity (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Production and associated people background investigative reports

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

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

—Cupco 05:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I should mention that there is a company with the exact same name online and should NOT be mistaken for the film company that made this video. It will be obviouse once the site is read. The other site has either been removed or taken down on their own or may never have existed.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason al-Jazeera took that video down but an updated version with much of the same footage is at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/201291514945705109.html The police spokesman at 0:30 is classic. —Cupco 15:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Good post this - I notice on the Al Jaz vid you get a brief flash of the "Egyptian religious show" that first displayed the film - but I can't read Arabic and therefore the name. Has anyone got this yet, this article could do with it. Some Egyptian sources are blaming right-wing Salafist elements for co-ordinating the trouble as a move against the new government, this may be part of that. [22]. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The director should be changed

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

"directed" changed to "produced" in the intro. Roberts is mentioned later on. It would probably be a mistake to mention him in the intro, because the film he directed was very much not what was released. —Cupco 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the deal on this. We have no way to confirm or deny claims being made by subjects involved. We cannot place all credit on one person because of a perception of editors. If this is a concern...then remove the entire info box as was originaly done. It IS a BLP issue to state innacurate information in regards to an individual over claims of fraud or dishonest motivation. We do not know the "truth' we just summarize the reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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

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)~~~~

Anti-Islam film protests

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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 "[Steve] 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)

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)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

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

• I want some of whatever drugs you are taking.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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 Wikipedia "anti-Muslim" for refusing to remove pictures of Muhammed? And even if the director knew the film would offend Muslims, it is still blatant bias to label it "anti-Muslim". Is someone going to label Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ" "anti-Christian" for its less-than-flattering portrayal of Jesus Christ? One suspects that the term anti-Muslim is being used because an editor(s) cares a little too much about what a bunch of hypersensitive zealots think.

• 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: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:50, 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 [Citation needed] 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)

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 ^{> haneʼ} 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)

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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 Wikipedia is used by a global community, that additional implication should either be included or that clause omitted, secondly as WWGB said, specific details or skepticism of whether he did create the film doesn't belong in the lead of the article on the film, it belongs either in the article on him or the production section of this article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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 ^Contrib 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. [23] 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 ^Contrib 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not Wired. [24][25] --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently his probation was reviewed [26]. 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. [27] 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 Wikipedia. We have to know what to look for and how to evaluate it. And we know that the source "I deleted" relies on Steve Klein's recollection. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg calls Klein "unreliable". So why would we add an unreliable source to a supposedly reliable encyclopedia? Have you taken a moment to think this through? We also have other sources who say that the event was cancelled and the film was never shown. So, your claim that my edit was a bit hasty for removing a known unreliable source from a reliable encyclopedia is completely backwards. We evaluate sources for reliability and add them as necessary. Klein can claim that the film was shown to 10 people, but we don't have to state it as fact, nor do we have to add it to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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. [28] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Hutton 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 ^Hutton 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 ^Hutton 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 ^Hutton 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:[29] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.--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

Edit 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)

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 Wikipedia 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.^[30] 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)

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: [31]? 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, [32], is one of the first reports. He notes the “Muslim-Coptic” dynamic as I wrote above.

The New York Times, several days later, [33] 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 [34] 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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia
2. No. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Support, but not this name, 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)
• It looks like this discussion was erroneously archived. Either way, consensus is clear at the moment. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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

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)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

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)

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

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. [35] 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 ^arf_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: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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)

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

WP:FRINGEriffic —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  09:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Something is being misssed. The lede describes the film only as anti-muslim. But the ADL and others have translated the poster, which clear advertises a movie which is not just pro-muslim, but pro-Al Queda [36]The adver­tise­ment described the movie as reveal­ing the true iden­tity of the ter­ror­ists behind the killing of Mus­lims in Pales­tine, Iraq and Afghanistan. The adver­tise­ment also indi­cated that the film would be shown dur­ing Ramadan, Another translation of the TYT photo by a commenter [37] "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." The following are supportive of Islam and / or Al Queda Title of film is "Innocence of bin laden", which led ADL and the LA gadfly to be concerned that it supported Bin Laden and terrorists By the name of Allah almighty for the occasion of Ramadan, the holy month my Muslim brethren Nothing in the poster indicates any anti-muslim content, but rather content which supports islamism as practiced by Osama bin Laden. This is the key code phrase which has not been explained by any reliable source: the real terrorist holding the evidence of his guilt, that terrorist which caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. However these may help identify who the poster is talking about as a "true terrorist" in contrast to the "innocence of bin laden": 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. [38] Osama and Bush - who's the "real" terrorist? [39] Bush's America is the true terrorist, Moore argues, at war with its own people. [40] America, the Real Terrorist? Over the years America has waged war with countries, forcibly occupied territories and murdered millions of men, women and children. Dropped nuclear bombs..[41] Here is Gordon Duff, a writer for Veterans Today who also believes that Bin Laden was innocent. Veterans Today is a source that is critical of US policy towards Israel vs the Arab world and Iran: [42] Osama bin Laden: Closing the Case on an Innocent Man A Bush Era Lie They Made The Whole Thing Up By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor The real Osama bin Laden was someone few Americans knew anything about. He knew nothing of Al Qaeda, never planned 9/11, never advocated terrorism, not once.Bachcell (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) So you're quoting a fringe view from a partisan source? You're not likely to get far with that. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Wait, there is more: "Bin Laden condemns terrorism and says that the US government, Israel and the press are using terrorism against the American people in order to frighten them into going to war" So Duff's view is very similar to the view on that original poster. Duff is also frequently interviewed by PressTV, backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran which considers Duff to be a reliable source on security matters. Bachcell (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, please, let's play that favorite party game: Who's The Real Terrorist? Or not. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  20:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) If the poster is not misleading, but was accurate, then the lede should be changed to reflect a movie that was intially promoted to support Bin Laden's innocence, and charge the United States and / or its allies as the "true terrorist" but was ultimately promoted as an anti-Islam film. Steven Klein claimed that the title was designed to lure potential terorists. Nevertheless, the poster looks was written to appear to be strongly supportive of radical Islamic militants. Bachcell (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. It was designed to bait radical Islamists, then subject them to the crude anti-Islamic propaganda. As part of a provocation. Who was "the true terorrist"? Muhammad was. Now, NOT A FORUM, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, END OF THIS STUPID SECTION. --Niemti (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC ^This was not to you, Kerfuffler. --Niemti (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

--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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Yes, it is apparent your conduct issue of persoanl attacks and name calling is just an attempt to undermine others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 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)

This has worked on other pages. It is a good idea and may work here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)