Talk:Fitna (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citations needed in the Release section

One of the few big problems remaining is the cite tags on this section, i'm going to remove the uncited stuff. This info on number of people viewing fitna NEEDS to be in this article but sources must be found. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

These were the only unsourced bits in the whole article, which thanks to everyones hard work is looking like a GOOD article and even the makeings of a featured article. Thats why i took them out, also it should be easy to source some numbers for this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

livelink release statement is unnecessary

Why is the entire livelink statement put up on the page? This page is supposed to be about Fitna the movie and less focused on livelink. We should summarized the statement mentioning "threats" etc. But posting the whole entire statement is way too much. Theres seems to be too much obsession with it. If we are going to start posting full statements, we might as well also do that in the "reaction" section too. But obviously thats way overboard. Nobody will read the page if theres too much clutter. You guys get my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.81.210 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, and I've removed the statement. It is indeed exagerated to highlight the entire statement in the article, as if it is a unique and very significant message. This isn't the first time a video hosting website had to remove a video because of complaints or threats. A simple sentence stating that liveleak removed the video because of threats to their employees wil do. Sorry that you couldn't do this yourself btw, but because of the vandalism, we are forced to keep this article locked from anonymous users. Cheers, Face 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First they were threats not "threats", second given that this film is about the imposition of islamic views by violence/threat of violence (less NPOV of us call this terrorism) and the censorship of this film is imposed by violence/threat of violence, it kind of proves the film right. Third the statement is short and also shows the reader liveleaks views on the film itself and on religious tolerence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Liveleaks POV on the issue is as notable as the other groups. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Category:Anti-Islam sentiment appropriate for this article?

I added Anti-Islam sentiment to the categories, but this was reverted as POV. Let us have a poll about this.  --Lambiam 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support addition of this category

• Support. It appears to me that even for the most neutral observer it would appear that the sentiment expressed by this film is strongly anti-Islam.  --Lambiam 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Even if Wilders' movie isn't intended as criticism of the entirety of Islam, rather than extremist versions of it (which is dubious already), the movie most definitely is perceived as such by a great many observers, and should be included in the category. After all: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims.DDSaeger (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Off course this is appropriate category in this article. The film has expressed anti-Islam sentiment and per the argument of DDSaeger. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Many notable RS's call this film anti-Islam, if it is or not is irrelivent. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is a no brainer, given the number of reliable sources calling it anti-Islam, Islamophobic, "hate speech", and so on. It's a simple issue of WP:V here, I don't see why it should be subject to a poll. Category:Documentaries critical of Islam probably belongs (though I note the argument raised against it below), but so too does Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. For the record, Category:Islam-related controversies is not, and should not be a sub-category to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, as not every controversy listed necessarily involves Anti-Islam sentiment. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, WP:V verifies this. Even EU politicians call this film as hate speech, anti-Islam propaganda. Dekisugi (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose addition of this category

• Oppose. The category is best used for organizations that study anti-Islam sentiment, or those that openly profess their hatred of Islam. Otherwise, it's a POV. MantisEars (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The film is anti-Islam only if it is interpreted that way. You could also categorize it as anti-murder, which is the view that it really seems to be promoting. Logophile (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comments and discussion

• Comment. On the first Support, Lambiam implies that the film's anti-Islam sentiment is an obvious truth. I disagree. The film specifically targets radical Islam, or Islamism. At the end of the film, he calls on moderate Muslims to take action against the extremists, as Obsession does. MantisEars (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Better solution: how about Category:Documentaries critical of Islam? Is that not what this short film is? It's a subcat of Category:Islam-related controversies, itself a subcat of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, overriding my former support for simply adding the first category. A more specific applicable category is always more appropriate, and in this case, less probable to cause a fuss as well. DDSaeger (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, great work by Parsecboy. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suppport - I agree, this category is the best place for this film. (And I see it has been placed in it already.) For those who care, it's a (sub-)sub-category of Anti-Islam Sentiment anyway. Terraxos (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: better and more appropriate proposal than the original, as per nom. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If the film is categorized here as "critical of Islam" then that strongly implies that it is indeed Islam that is responsible for the acts of terror depicted in the film. I don't think that Wikipedia should be taking a position on Islam as a religion. That's more than a bit POV. Logophile (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting argument logophile but i beleave its flawed, wikipedia is not taking a position on islam, wikipedia is taking a position based on sources that say Fitna is critical of islam. Wikipedia is not taking a position on if that criticism is right or even if such criticism is "acceptable" to make, just that many RS's have called it such so we should. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hynosadist, all you've proven is that some people say that the film is anti-Islam. That is not the same thing as it's actually being anti-Islam. It shows terrorist acts and defamatory statements by Muslims. If that is anti-Islam, then one would have to accept that it is Islam that committed those acts and that made those statements. I don't believe that myself. The film is anti-terrorism--not anti-Islam. Sorry that I'm repeating myself a bit. Logophile (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Islam-related controversies shouldn't be a sub-cat to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in the first place, as it requires the erroneous premise that every controversy centres around "Anti-Islam sentiment," which isn't true at all looking at the articles listed. ITAQALLAH 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of a "featured characters" section

We should mention the people featured in the movie. I only recognize ahmadenajad. The other characters are virtually unknown by the muslim world and this is a very difficult task for me to complete on my own. Whose the guy with the sword...etc. Mouseflouse (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The “guy with the sword” is Shiekh Bakr Al-Samarai and I have made note of that in the article. MantisEars (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Loaded question"

Resolved

How does the ref for the child support the term "loaded question"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed incorrect. A loaded question is something like a 'trick question'. Those two sentences were not intirely neutral neither, as they implied that the interview was disturbing. Even though I fully agree with that, WP should not reflect any opinions. I have changed the wording to something more emotionless. Cheers, Face 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes

I feel there are too many quotes in the plot section. Quotes are hard to source without referencing the primary source; most reviews give a general description of what was said. Quotes also require context, more so than descriptions, which lends itself to article bloat.

While the memorable ones likely to be repeated should stay ("Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.") others ("If someone converts to Christianity, he deserves the death penalty,") provide no extra insight into the speaker's thinking and should be reworded. MantisEars (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not really understand what the problem with quotes is. If you insert a qoute directly from the movie into the article, then why should you put a link behind it to an article giving exactly the same quote? Anyone can confirm that the quotes are not bogus: just watch the movie. For the sake of verifiability and completeness, it is of course neat to use sources to proof who said what (like the names of the Sheikhs) and where certain information comes from (like the video clips and the newspaper pieces). But I think it's a bit exaggerated to put three sources about Armstrong's beheading after the sentence "Armstrong's decapitated head is shown held up by Al-Qaeda terrorists." That doesn't really add anything to the article. Cheers, Face 09:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with quotes is that it's sloppy writing. If you can control the flow of a sentence, you can force it to comply to the Manual of Style (expansion of contractions, for example) wikify technical terminology, and frame it in a broader picture. My second example quotation could be reduced to apostasy in a comma delimited list of Sheikh opinions. MantisEars (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong's beheading was a special case. Source number 1 was a newspaper reporting that Eugene Armstrong was beheaded, with information about the group that beheaded him. Source number 2 was an actual full video of the beheading by the group, to compare it to the clip in Fitna. Source number 3 confirmed that the beheading clip was shown in the film. No redundancy, that's the best kind of triple-sourcing. MantisEars (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

....right. And I thought I was a perfectionist. - Face 09:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

Indonesia riots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallerd (talk • contribs) at 08:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

News article? - Face 09:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. MantisEars (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Riot? I think not. There were 40 demonstrators. Let's call it a demonstration. :-)

Looks like world reaction is very muted, and that Wilders is not going to get the violent riots that he was probably hoping for. (Although I'm sure he'd never admit it.) --RenniePet (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Riots are not categorized by the amount of demonstrators present, but by how violent they are. Reuters reported that they were throwing eggs and water bottles at the embassy. Also, they were calling for Geert Wilders' death. I think that's pretty violent. MantisEars (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, everything's relative. During the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy several embassies were torched and there were about 100 deaths among the rioters. 40 guys throwing eggs and water bottles aren't really in the same league. --RenniePet (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not a riot at all. This is what we call "freedom of expression" when people were calling for Wilders' death. It is usual to express something in words. The "riot" was just throwing eggs. Too far if we compare with the real riot. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot Dermushaben (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, the editor is so biased. When throwing eggs and water bottles are called riots, should you also mention a lot of riots in student dorms. I remembered Bill Gates was smashed by waters. Wohoo riots there!! Come on. Please read riots carefully. Dekisugi (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilders is not allowed in Indonesia I don't know if it's the correct translation, but I think this belongs in the notion in the article. Mallerd (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilders is banned to visit Indonesia Indonesian goverment said that Wilders is banned to visit Indonesia since this evening, 31 March 2008. Dermushaben (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have an English language source for this. MantisEars (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apes, pigs and the Koran

The little girl interviewed said that the Koran says that Jews are apes and pigs (muslims hate pigs and dogs). I've read somewhere that that is true and is applied not only to Jews but to "infidels" (i.e. non-muslims) in general. Can you verify this? I notice someone removed the statement that the girl said the Koran states what she answered. Why did you do that? I think that it's very important to include this, since the thesis of the movie is that the Koran is a book that incites to violence and hatred towards non-muslims. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it, unintentionally. At the time, the sentence was split into two: One was what the girl said, and how the Koran justified it. The other was information about the television channel that interviewed her (I thought that was irrelevant).

I put the two back together and the Koran was lost in the process. If it had a reference to the actual “apes and pigs” verses in the Koran or, even better, scholarly text that analyzed the verses I would have noticed and kept it, but it didn't and I didn't. MantisEars (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Koran is back in the sentence. MantisEars (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in referring the girl's name. It's irrelevant and besides it is not her fault that she was intoxicated with those hate thoughts. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The name has been removed. MantisEars (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd and 7th surat speak of "apes". The 2nd speaks of "apes and pigs". That is, the Quran makes the case that God turned the Jews and Christians who sinned into the despicable animals we see around. It is unclear whether the

reference is figurative or literal. Lixy (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

and the prophete Muhammed said "the god didn't give to mutators breeds" how come she says they have breeds?? (in (muslim right) book, copies by Abi Masoud and others)
this girl could say that for 5$ . what does the children know about religions? --Maam2222 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Iqra TV

Resolved

Some editors keep removing the reference to Iqra TV and replace it with just Saudi Arabian TV. That's POV pushing as skipping the name of the station implies it is financed by the government, when in fact, it's a privately run TV channel belonging to the ART group. I'll respectfully ask you to refrain from reverting that in the future. Lixy (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Saudi Arabian TV" does not imply state-owned or subsidized. Do we avoid calling Honda a "Japanese Business" because that would imply a relationship with the state? All "Saudi Arabian" says is that the company is incorporated in Saudi Arabia. MantisEars (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Iqra TV is a redlink but should have a wikipage in my opinion, if someone who knows about it could create a stub then that would be good. It is more encyclopedic to include the name of the station. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Iqraa TV with two 'a's. MantisEars (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Iqraa TV is a redlink, but i'll start a stub. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see i've started the stub, please help. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant section in the Fitna article now links to Iqraa TV. MantisEars (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for the editors who have already edited the new article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MantisEars, by any measure, Iqraa TV is Saudi and that has never been what I disputed. I'm sure even worse stuff is shown on state TV in Saudi Arabia, but it doesn't mean that skipping the station's name does any good to the readability and fairness of the article. If you want to make the case that the name of the channel doesn't need to be included, go ahead. But please use sound arguments, not fallacious analogies.Lixy (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply you disputed Iqraa TV's status as a Saudi Arabian television channel, I disputed your assertion that "Saudi Arabian" implied that the channel was state-financed. I also did not say that skipping the station's name would improve the readability and fairness of the article. If I thought that, I would not have replaced “Saudi Arabian TV” with “Iqraa TV” when Iqraa's stub was created. Now, tell me, which part of my analogy was fallacious? MantisEars (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of tact as displayed above. I was referring to the Honda example, which I consider fallacious because Honda has no other ulterior motives but to make a buck, whereas Iqraa TV is a media outlet dedicated to spreading Wahabi ideology. Anyway, let's not dwell on details as a consensus seems to have been reached already. I removed the contentious bit in my comment above, and back off for the sake of keeping this page clean. Lixy (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New comments made by LiveLeak staff

It would probably be original research for me to include this myself as I authored the blog post, but if anyone thinks some of the statements from LiveLeak are worth being quoted: http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-03-31-n74.html -Philwiki (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Were these new comments made to you, personally? MantisEars (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I inquired with LiveLeak via email and quoted from their emailed responses in the post. Except for the quote which says, "the site announced", which uses a statement that appeared on the site. I am not saying by the way any of the quotes are worth to be integrated into the article, I just wanted to present this information here for other editors to make a choice about it. -Philwiki (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't work. MantisEars (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the usefulness of omitting blogs as sources for the reason that they're blogs, but won't debate it. -Philwiki (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion would violate WP:V. The article is cluttered as it is, and I would support getting rid of that lengthy quote from LiveLeak. Lixy (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with lixy that this blog is not an RS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil i do not dispute what you say but WP:V does, do you know if they have handed the threats over to the police? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be the worst source to convince anyone that my blog is a reliable source, because obviously, if the blog is not reliable than so its editor won't be reliable. The blog has a co-editor and I gave the article draft to 5 people, but I suppose if it's not mainstream media the barrier for proof needs to be higher for Wikipedia to accept it; perhaps that's because blogs are still comparatively new in media; that's OK, I just offered this as angle to be judged for usefulness by others, and it may well be not useful. Due to the unreliable source argument, I will for now not add more information in regards to what LiveLeak told me, as per the current argument it would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia article related discussion, if I understand it right. -Philwiki (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil the place to ask/argue if your blog is an RS is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, i was just asking you personally if you knew if LL was going to let the cops study their computers to get evidence given that i read "local" to mean that some of these threats came from inside the UK to this British based site. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilder's Views

I don't think that one of the sentences in the introductory paragraph is accurate. It says that the film "offers his views." The film never shows Wilders or presents any of his views. It is just lots of other material strung together. Shouldn't we edit that sentence to make it accurate? Logophile (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We should. What do you propose as an alternative? MantisEars (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article called it a propaganda movie. That seemed slightly on the subjective side. However, it also seems false to completely omit references to the film's subjectivity, as the specific selections made in any film are something by its very nature highly subjective. Perhaps there's a word that best balances the situation, offering the highest neutrality. -Philwiki (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "offers his views" a good phrase to describe his subjective selections? MantisEars (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

since he wrote, directed and produced the movie it offer his views, as he has selected what to have in what appearance. Cloud02 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I take the point that a film depicts the views of the writer and director--in one way or another. However, the film Fitna actually depicts the views of various Muslim people more than it does the views of Wilders. Since it's obvious that every film somehow shows what the writer and director think, why does it need to be stated? In the article on Sicko, it doesn't say that the film "offer's Michael Moore's views on health care." It says that the film "investigates the American health care system." Perhaps we can write that Fitna "investigates Islamic-based terrorism." That would be more accurate than saying that it offers Wilder's views on Islam. Logophile (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. MantisEars (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Me to. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead to summarize the three common themes, instead of just the first (terrorism). The lead should be expanded with some of the controversies (protests), motivation (to open up a dialogue), and aftermath (response films). Eventually, it should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. MantisEars (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

well. it's his personal VOP. or a view for what he wants to happen, or a certain diplomatical victory he aims. if islam is a religion of fanacism and underestimating the others there won't be famous christians in the islamic countries. this is simple, check the ministers list of egypt and lebanon for example, and the business men too. --Maam2222 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. There are millions and millions of Christians and Jews that live happily in Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia. They are absolutely never persecuted, murdered, or forced to convert. Alexwoods (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maam2222 and Alexwoods, I appreciate your opinions, but please stick to discussing this article instead of the problems in the world. This is not a forum. - Face 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor Point of accuracy

Resolved

The music used in the Soundtrack to the 'film' is "The Arabian Dance" from "The Nutcracker Suite" by P. Tchaikovsky. Not, as stated "by music from the Peer Gynt suite by Edvard Grieg".

--Jerry Black (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected MantisEars (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

LiveLeak quote

I don't think quoting LiveLeak's official statement serves any purpose other than lengthening and cluttering the page. I suggest it be removed, and the reasons behind the self-censorship appended to the existing paragraph. A link to a page that transcribes the statement may also be added. I'll do it later today, but I'm running it past the community to see if anyone objects. Lixy (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First thanks for going to talk first. Second, i object for the reasons i stated above that i'll move down here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"lengthy quote" Five lines is not lengthy, especially when it provides a lot of information on Liveleaks position on free speach and of course explains clearly they (and by proxie every one in the west) were forced to stop having that right by terrorism. Just a bit notable given this films themes and the world situation. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Many people are quoted that are not directly associated with the film like Mr. Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Liveleaks and what happened to fitna on it is part of the whole story of fitna itself. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quote (the same minute Hypnosadist made the objection; before this was moved into its own section). It really wasn't that informative. Yes, they support free speech to the point where they get threats. We could have gleaned that from their pride in hosting the video early on, and their speedy takedown. Putting these gigantic quotes inside articles could mislead someone into thinking Wikipedia endorses the speaker's point of view, and gives undue weight to their position. MantisEars (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put it back until it's resolved I wouldn't mind. Just don't undo my edit directly, because I did a bunch of other things as well. MantisEars (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"We could have gleaned that" perhaps but we have a perfectly reasonable source to verifiably tell the reader that. The current article gives no indication why a "left wing" free media site would host this film by a "(far) right wing" politician. Given we have no indication of that we can't say what level of threats forced them to withdraw the film. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have a reliable source that covered the takedown, and plenty that quoted Liveleak if the current one does not. Since when was Liveleak a “left-wing” site? The only reason we don't know what level of threat forced them to withdraw the film because they didn't say. To imply that these were deadly threats because of their determination is to push a POV. MantisEars (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If we had the quote in we would know that "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature ... This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else" Insted of the victims words we get "threats". What kind of threats? Legal? Moral? ie you'll burn in hell Cyber terrorism? Their words tell us. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Threats" was one of the victim's words. Again, we do not know much about the nature of the threats, except that they were "serious", and that's subjective. MantisEars (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No they were "very serious (in) nature" about "the safety and well being of our staff" not "threats" and removing that info is very POV.^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job everyone. The page is clearly improved by taking out the LiveLeak quote without taking away anything that is not superficial. Lixy (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"anything that is not superficial" I don't call terroism superficial, and this was a successful attack. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep a cool head. We're not arguing about whether wo should mention the removal or the threats made to Liveleak. Rather, it is the way the imformation is presented that is debated. I don't think we can invoke WP:UNDUE here, but I have little to no doubt that the seven lines the quote constitutes offers nothing more to the reader than what is in the paragraph. I mean, who gives a flying duck about Liveleak's apologies or their commitment to freedom of speech? That does not belong in an encyclopedic entry no matter how you twist it. This really is a common sense issue. If you think including the quote in the article offers any added-value, state why that is the case with rational arguments. Appealing to emotions will get you nowhere around here. Lixy (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course their "apologies or their commitment to freedom of speech" matter, we are here to create an NPOV encyclopedia by adding all notable POV's. The POV of the group that released this film is important especially if they released the film due to their political views (according to them). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. What more information do we get from quoting them? We already mention their "serious" threats. Their commitment to free speech? Sounds like marketing material to me. MantisEars (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! As much as I applaud their commitment to freedom of speech, the whole association with the movie smells like a PR stunt to me. Even if one grants the company the benefit of the doubt and assumes good faith, it is hard to see any added value from including the whole quote verbatim. Lixy (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently anyone can register with LiveLeak to upload media; no special association needed. If LiveLeak comments on this movie then it may be because the threat level was unusual? In any case, I agree that extensive quoting from their reasoning may be too much. E.g. one or two sentences should be enough. -Philwiki (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There does not NEED to be a special association to post on liveleak, but in this case Wilders asked them to host it and they did on the grounds of Freedom of speach (their quote says that). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have still to make an argument with regards to the inclusion of the quote. Liveleak's POV does not matter one bit. The fact that they received threats and (temporarily) removed the video is notable enough. Their exact words, not so much. Lixy (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

LiveLeak vs Liveleak

Resolved

Perhaps it's not important but what spelling of LiveLeak should the article use? As has been pointed out, their legal documents and announcements use "Liveleak" but the majority of news reports covering the site, as well as the site on their homepage and in their logo, says "LiveLeak." I'm sure there's a Wikipedia rule for this. (The entry on LiveLeak itself here on Wikipedia is also using both variants, by the way.) -Philwiki (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks to MantisEars for many good edits! -Philwiki (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The one they use. Look at liveleak.com, see "Liveleak in the news", "Advertise on Liveleak". LiveLeak is only used when referring to "LiveLeak.com", and even then it's not consistently LiveLeak.

Look at their copyright, terms of service and privacy policy pages, where they use "Liveleak" when referring to their company name. If they were incorporated as Liveleak, then we should use Liveleak, because that is the entity making the staff decisions, not the website. MantisEars (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. -Philwiki (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Riot?

When I read the news articles about protesters in front of the Dutch embassy in Indonesia, I don't see any riots. Where does the statement come from? Dekisugi (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the terminology you'd like to use. When referring to Muslims, they're “protesters” or “demonstrators”. When referring to any other religious/ethnic group, they're “rioters”. MantisEars (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please disambiguate your post for us. I am unable to see your point. Lixy (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My point was that riots can be called protests or demonstrations when an organization wishes to be politically correct or if they fear retribution from a dangerous group. By Wikipedia's definition, the event that took place today was a riot. MantisEars (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. By Wiki's definition: Riots are a form of civil disorders characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism or other crime.. Can you point me in those news articles saying violence, vandalism or crimes? Dekisugi (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MantisEars, you should check out your definition about riot. I think your terminology is too hiperbolized. Dermushaben (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to. What they describe is violence, vandalism, and crime. Their choice of weapon, bet it eggs or AK-47s is irrelevant. MantisEars (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Stubborn. Dekisugi (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This stinks of WP:OR. Most established media outlets called what happened "protest" or "demonstration". Surely, a riot should involve more than 40-50 people. This event was localized and containable. If you think the media are being politically correct (whatever that means in this context), take it up with them. A riot, is large scale and entails violence. Throwing eggs and water bottles on the barricaded compound of an embassy is not a riot by any stretch of the imagination. Lixy (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article from the Guardian, written by The Associated Press, does not uses the word 'riot' neither. It just says that "about 40 hard-line Muslims demonstrated outside the Dutch Embassy in Indonesia". I think that's a good way to put it. Cheers, Face 10:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just state the facts and not call it anything ie: "About 40 protestors threw eggs and bottles at the embasy". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilders will make edits

In response to the copyright infringement lawsuit by Kurt Westergaard (muhammad depiction). There may be other “minor edits”. via AP MantisEars (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

More information about the content of the edits at Al Aribya.

“ Wilders told ANP that he planned to substitute Westergaard's cartoon with another caricature of the Prophet.

The deputy will also remove a photo of a Dutch rapper who was wrongly identified as the Muslim radical who shot and stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004.

He will also credit a Dutch journalist for the use of sound bites from an interview he had with Van Gogh shortly before he died.

”

MantisEars (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilders has removed the two videos now. When trying to view them, a message states:

This media item has been removed by the uploader!
Reason from user 'Geert_Wilders': "deleted due to copyright issues...will upload edited version shortly..."

- Face 07:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Are there any third-party sources stating that it has been deleted due to copyright issues, or is it just liveleak? Andjam (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've searched, but haven't found any, unfortunately. I think we just have to wait untill the second version is released. For sure there will be articles about that. Cheers, Face 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I found one earlier and put it in the article. (Cybercast News Service) MantisEars (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Westergaard Wilders cartoon, Jami

In reaction to the film in which his cartoon was used without permission, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has created a cartoon about Mr. Wilders. View it here: [1]. Perhaps something should be added to the article. Also, Ehsan Jami has decided not to release his Muhammad-cartoon, because he fears reprisals. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-31 21:09

Well another victory for the terrorists, does the Ehsan Jami dutch language source about his film mention Fitna? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehsan Jami deciding not "to release his Muhammad-cartoon" has zero relevance to this page. Please refrain from trashing this page. It is NOT a forum. Lixy (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the paragraph about Kurt Westergaard's reaction in the section "In the Netherlands"? --RenniePet (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it shouldn't be. I moved it to Europe MantisEars (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong song link

Resolved

The begining of the article states that the music is Arabian Dance but it links to the nutcracer, instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_Gynt_Suites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.53.215 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it Arabian Dance or is it Aase's Death? Were they both used in the film? MantisEars (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that Arabian Dance from the Nutcracker is one of the pieces in the film. I am almost certain that the other piece is Aase's Death by Grieg. Logophile (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are both credited. MantisEars (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Livelink threats & comments about the threats found online

I don't know if it would be good to create a special heading section for the specific death threats against Livelink staff & the families of their staff. I just made an addition to that end. But if you think it should be under it's own heading either make a good faith accurate non-destructive edit yourself, or tell me what you'd like done with regard to the specific edit I made. cbean (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Livelink? Lixy (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hes talking about liveleak, if you've got some good sources post them here and i'll have a look at them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Release section (protected article)

...could perhaps be tweaked a bit. Perhaps it's enough to quote the liveleak statement, but why feature the blogger so prominently (full URL posted instead of a pipered link etc.)? The inclusion here reads like a POV rant (why not extend ourselves to posting a snippet from a blog which portray the movie in a negative way? (version in question)88.148.193.92 (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag

I suggest the tag be removed. If you think there's something "current" about the video, please state what. Lixy (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyright infringement lawsuits, and the second edition coming out. MantisEars (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Over here in the Netherlands, the hype is clearly fading rapidly. Many Dutch newspapers did not feature any Fitna-related articles yesterday or today. I do not know about other countries though. As for those copyright infringement problems and the second edition, they are pretty minor events. Let's remove the current event tag tommorow. - Face 10:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lixy (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a tenable argument. By your logic, most video articles would need the current event tag. It was appropriate last week, because we needed to update the reactions. Now, there's nothing to justify its presence. Lixy (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if the producers announced that there was going to be a change and told us exactly what they would change. I think the current event tag can be removed, I just told you what I thought was currently happening with regard to the article's subject. MantisEars (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The template has been removed by Lixy[2]. StaticGull  Talk  14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have readded the template as it is not used to describe recent events, but is used to show that there are many edits happening to the article. Please see Template:Current Cloud02 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. Template:Current suggests that number of editors managing the page exceed a hundred for the tag to be relevant. Something which doesn't apply for this page. Lixy (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe that the article should have a section that informs how the verses from the Qur'an are taken out a context and given "their own life" by manipulation. (something that is not done by Wilders alone, but also muslim extremists). A tafsir can be be used to provide a form of "counter" response to the use of the verses. I found one which is available online here, which is credible, since it has been revised by Muhammad Taqi Usmani.
Surah an-nisa: 56 - [3]
Surah an-nisa: 89 - [4]
Surah al-anfal: 39 & 60 - [5]
Surah Muhammad: 4 - [6]
If this could be added to the page it would add tremendously to the article Cloud02 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this would be original research. Fish for a decent rebuttal of Wilders' thesis and we can take it up from there. Lixy (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be promoting this, or any point of view. MantisEars (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the concept of WP:POV. To quote that page "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." The point of view of a billion of people is certainly major. And this subject is as controversial as they come. Lixy (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Wikipedia can document a POV, but not advance a POV. By putting Wikipedian criticism of the film into the article (weasel words or not) the editor is advancing a POV. I was not referring to documenting a notable person or organization's criticism of the film, because Cloud02 was not suggesting that. MantisEars (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Lixy (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an ABC interview (linked elsewhere on the talk page) with a Qur'an expert Mohammed al-Hayek who reviews the verses used in Fitna. I think there's been a lot of criticism present in the reliable sources from a) a political perspective vis-a-vis the issue of hate speech; and b) a content/interpretation perspective pertaining to the actual accuracy of the presentation. I think the article provides very little information about the latter one, despite dedicating a lot of space about the film's contents. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And here we have our source so it's not OR any more. The tafsirs i've linked to could be used to support his claims in a criticism section. Cloud02 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The versus should be explained on the wikipedia page of their Surahs. Or you can start a new wikipedia page for the verses. I dont think this has been done. Mouseflouse (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that the verses are taken partially. The following verses should be quoted to know a better view. Alfarq (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Credits NOT correct

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your empty link failed to even mention the words Director, Producer or Editor. This should have been a short encyclopedic entry on a 15 min largely non-event - instead it's become a paper intended to shape perspectives, assist in the campaign to sharply limit accessibility and produce distinct POV talking points. This has been a very subtle, professional and successful effort to shape this article for political ends - especially during it's early and high profile hours in the news cycle.18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk • contribs)

• • I should also add that your argument that a screen credit attributed to a pseudonym has no place in wiki is incorrect. Pseudonyms have a long history in film and especially in political writing - NOWHERE IN WIKI IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO USE ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO GUESS THE NAME BEHIND A PSEUDONYM! For you to have "chosen" Wilders as the person behind several roles is beyond comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.62.44 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your answer was also crystal clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also: The Scarlet Pimpernel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♠That's quite the Clintonian response there.""Director, Producer, Editor" was YOUR language and I only used it to reply to YOU," But you were talking about something else? I tend to believe that the words we use to communicate with mean something. Here, this should put an end to this right away: [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geert Wilders has been removed from the director position but the "by" is harder to deem inappropriate... this is how most news sources describe the film.[8][9][10][11][12] and how it appears at the end of the film (see picture) MantisEars (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarlet Pimpernel?

Resolved

(see arbitrary break for continuation of the discussion)

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

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

Other than the film itself, which displays it prominently in the credits, here are another Sixteen Hundred mentions on Google: [13]

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

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

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

• • • Of the 1600 citations [14] which one passes muster? Der Spiegel? Seattle Post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

♠I move that this be considered resolved.

• • The film does credit a "Scarlet Pimpernel"
  • Google shows 1600 hits discussing "Scsrlet Pimpernel's" role in Fitna[15]
  • Major media has discussed it and been referenced in the article
  • The community struggled with and adopted an existing position on this issue already. It has achieved community consensus.
  • There are indications of less than good faith here, Arcayne has used the lack of citation as his basis - when he in fact personally removed those same sources. This is just pseudo-sockpuppetry.

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

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

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

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

Sorry for posting rather late - RL concerns arose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Scarlet Pimpernel:Talk

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

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

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

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

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

As Arcayne has no specific proposal, found no support and has further chosen not to respond even though currently active [16] and most importantly as the issue has been previously settled by community consensus, I propose that this deletion be Rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.200.103 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scarlet Pimpernel - arbitrary break

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♠Your comments occurred after this remark:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did I arrive at the idea? Probably from 75.58.36.51's misleading assertion that everyone was in agreement about Pimpernel's presence and my fuzzy memory. If Scarlet Pimpernel were removed from all fields including the editor field I probably would have stopped to think for a while longer, but there's no use crying over spilt milk. The edits have been reverted and I am, as a result more suspicious.

Doing a quick search for Scarlet Pimpernel, I found an opinion piece from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [17]. Would this work as a reliable source at least for the scriptwriting position? MantisEars (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Before my comments stating that the community was in Consensus were the following:

• I agree with Arcayne here. It is fine to credit Scarlet Pimpernel in this article, that is sourced. However it's quite wrong to either wikilink Scarlet Pimpernel or to suggest in the article it is a pseudonym without a reference. While Scarlet Pimpernel is almost definitely a pseudonym, we still need a reference to say it Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for clarifying. No disagreements with you there. MantisEars (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So if I, Huon, Arnoutf, MantisEars, Nil, and Arcayne accept that it is fine to credit Scarlet Pimpernel, I took that as consensus. The matter of citation was also addressed - HRC Handlesblad. I am not certain where you find my assertion misleading. Please correct me if I am missing something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.57.1019:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (talk)

• • • ADD:

Should the Fitna article mention him? Sure, and it does. Should it link to this article as probable source for the pseudonym? More difficult, but probably not a bad idea. ... We don't have enough stuff for an entire article about the director, but someone looking for him should be able to find something when looking under "Scarlet Pimpernel". -- Huon (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Other than Arcayne's Citation request I find no opposition.19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To the above, please sign your posts - we don't need ghost-posts here; it comes across as if you have something to hide. We cannot cite Imdb for the reasons stated above. You don't have to like it, but you still have to follow the guideline, which dovetails with RS, V and NOTE. Find a source that connects Scarlet Pimpernel to the film, and it can be in. Without a citation, the pseudonym cannot be mentioned. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

de Volkskrant comment

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Scarlet Pimpernel, wot a concept!

Resolved

Okay, while we were all busy arguin' and whatnot, it occurred to me that we might have missed the forest for the trees here. I am beginning to suspect that Scarlet Pimpernel is not a person, but rather a production company called Scarlet Pimpernel Productions, a limited production company. I was poking around for cites and came across this blog 1. Of course, the source isn't citable, as it is a blog.
The shortened form of 'Scarlet Pimpernel' was maybe used in the same way that companies are shortened in the credits Icon, WB or like ILM is used in place of Industrial Light and Magic. It's not a person it's code for the entire production company. If there is a way to verify the existence of the Scarlet Pimpernel Production Company (likely in the Netherlands), we've got our citation for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so it is not its real name. Just now I read the following [18] in de Volkskrant:

"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)

Translates into something like:

"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."

Do with it what you like Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we could find that in English, we could note that, and even note a subsection on the development of the film. Wow, good find, Arnoutf. Maybe I should search the Indonesian or Japanese translation news sources for that as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More coincidental find; as I am subscribed to that paper ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So just to be clear, ‘Scarlet Pimpernel' is the "nom de plume" of the production company that made the film NOT wilders himself. We don't need and english language source to say that (would be preferable), de Volkskrant is an RS and i AGF the translation above, so it could go in. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Wilders lawyers stated that Scarlet Pimpernel is the 'pseudonym' for the production company. Please be aware that above is a quick and dirty translation by myself, but it should capture the message reasonably fairly. Arnoutf (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Every Dutch person can confirm that the article more or less says what Arnoutf said. And even then, you can use a translation website (e.g. here or here). Such translations are crappy, but at least it kind of confirms that it contains the information. I have re-added Scarlet Pimpernel to the infobox, and added a footnote clarifying the pseudonym, citing Arnoutf's article as a source. I agree with Arcayne that the information could be put in a subsection one day. But right now, I don't think we have enough material for that. Cheers, Face 14:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need a section for itself, but it could be part of a "Production" section as there are in other film articles. I was already looking for a section to put the etymology of the word Fitna in (the lead section should not have information not in the main article) and this works as a great seed. I have started such a section, if you can find any more information about the production in that article or any related articles, do expand it! MantisEars (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Face, we stll cannot include it, and I will explain why. We are not citable sources. As nifty and cool as Arnoutf undoubtedly is, or as splendidly intelligent as any Dutch visitors might be, they are still primary sources. As per WP:V and WP:RS, our translation of the text is not a suitable for a citable reference. We need to find an English translation (this being the Wiki-en) of that information in order to add that third-party translation. Until then, S.P. is still out, and I will remove it from the article posthaste until such a reference is found. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple translation is allowed. We use foreign language sources all the time. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, per Wikipedia guidelines non-english sources are allowable (although English sources are preferred), my translation was only meant for the talk page discussion (not even to make a case for or against SP inclusion, as we still have only the statement of Wilders lawyer, albeit reported in a newspaper). In any case my translation was never intended for inclusion or referencing on mainpage article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, I understand what you are saying, but the film is less than two months old; lets see if we cannot find a source that doesn't rely on translation skills, and therefore more verifiable. Translating the material ourselves is in fact the definition of synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Just a note. That would be the fourth separate editor and 6th or 7th time Arcayne has engaged in a single handed Revert war against the communities inclusion of the factually based and sourced use of the name Scarlet Pimpernel in the film Fitna. It is listed in the credits, reported in Reliable Sources such as newspapers and magazines and has previously been cited in english as well as reliable translations from multiple users in the Nederlands. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no hurry. Wikipedia isn't in a hurry to be the first with the news, but instead to be the best. We should wait for a source in English, or that a reliable source that has been such. And please use one of your many, many pages to engage in personal attacks, okay, anon? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I've chosen to be bold. I've reverted Arcayne based upon the Wiki policy referred to above, it states and I quote, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." It is not being used as a quotation, only as a reliable source so no translation is required on the title page. My limited Nederlands (Willemstad, {Moerdijk})also agrees with the thrust of the translation presented here. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, it was reverted. Await the conclusions of discussions, anon. With respect, you were up until recently, advocating a rejected interpretation of WP:CIMDB as a point of advocacy; yes, we've all read the policy you parroted here, but that guideline doesn't trump policy. Ever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is pretty simple. If an article is published by a reliable and established source, then we can use it, no matter what language. Indeed, verifying that certain information is present in a non-English source might be difficult. But it is possible, either by using a translation service, or by asking someone. English sources are of course prefered, but in this case, there are none. Cheers, Face 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning, face, but I must reiterate that the burning need for speed isn't necessary here (indeed, anywhere in Wikipedia). Without a second party translation, any translation - be it translation service or asking someone - is synthesis. WP:Synthesis, as it is original research, is not allowed. Who thinks we need to be in a hurry here?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A translation is not synthesis.[19] This is the policy on that:
"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing."
75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... what's up with that link? - Face 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; it was the anon making more snippy remarks at me by searching the instances when I've noted synthesis in Wikipedia, as if it was an argument. Ignore it - I do.

To clarify yet again, every one here is familiar with a given situation where a translation was inaccurate, either personally or professionally. We are not in the translation business; we cite others who do that for us. We cannot o it because the possibility for mistranslation would put the onus of the mistake on us,not the second parties' translation. For crying out loud, for over two weeks, the argument was that the SP reference was a single individual! Let's wait until the translation gets made by a third party source, and remove ourselves from the equation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The onus of the mistake on us? With all the page blanking and *insert profanity here* going on you would think that anyone noticing an incorrect translation would assume good faith and correct it instead of holding the editors responsible. Two Wikipedians have confirmed the translation and the automated translators provided by Google and Babelfish do not disagree. Not every article that uses non-English language sources have second party translators and while ideal, it simply is unrealistic, especially for niche topics. MantisEars (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, but one that refers to a company that seems to have since vanished like a fart in the wind is a fairly extraordinary claim, which requires fairly extra-ordinary sources. Again, I ask what the hurry is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing seems pretty non controversial to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry Arcayne, but I think you're outvoted. Me, Arnoutf, Hypnosadist, Peregrine Fisher and MantisEars have stated that they prefer that interesting bit of information in the article. Btw, Mantis, there's no need to use large fonts or capital letters. Cheers, Face 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

... And a Public Editor...75.57.165.180 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added resolved tag.75.57.165.180 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, perhaps before jumping the gun yet again, anon, maybe wait until all corners are heard of. Thanks, anyway.

I don't think we can translate it, as it is synthesis. Were it the Latin proscription above Carl Jung's door, or an epigram by Aurelius, there would be no issue, as translations exist in the hundreds. More importantly, they weren't performed by Wikipedia editors. We are not allowed to synthesize any information. Cite a reliable source with the translation, and we're good to go. Until then, I don't believe that anyone here is notable enough (in the citable sense) to have their interpretation used. I would also point out that consensus is a fitting tool so long as the results are within the rules and guidelines. This is not. For the nth time, what is the frakkin' hurry? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are misapplying the synthesis rules in this case. They do not apply to translation. A more thorough explanation is above. Sources are not required for translation as also shown above. The consenus is against you, but so are our policies and guidelines. Please quote any P and G sections that you think support your viewpoint. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry, but I don't think anyone will publish a translation of de Volkskrant, except for de Volkskrant (for copyright reasons), and if they haven't already, why would they in the future? I disagree with your interpretation of synthesis that allows any translation to fit. The information in the Wikipedia article does not contradict or stretch the information in de Volkskrant, therefore it is not synthesis by definition. If you believe this particular translation is synthesis, you should be able to point to a specific deviation from the source, and it will be corrected. MantisEars (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia expressly encourages users to translate as needed. English is not the only language on earth and translations of basic facts are hardly controversial. Your sole avenue for obstruction at this point is to object to the translation as not conveying the substance of the original correctly.

it is hoped that polyglots who work in multiple languages will help spread new information around between the articles in different languages.[20]

75.57.165.180 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec)

On translations of quoted/cited sources by editors: no, that is not WP:SYNTH of and by itself. The general idea as made clear in our policies and guidelines is that anyone who is familiar with the language of the source should be able to check the source -- not a problem as long as there are enough editors who can, in fact, read the original. For example, I can read the source translated by Arnoutf above, I am a professional translator (which is not a prerequisite by the way), and would say that Arnout's translation is spot-on.

On Scarlet Pimpernel: Wilders says it's "Scarlet Pimpernel" so if there's any doubt about mentioning this tidbit in the article as a fact, all we have to do to make it a fact is attribute it to the movie's credits.

On WP consensus and rules: consensus does not trump our core principles; but it does determine whether or not proposed or current content meets our policies and guidelines. It's a wiki. Avb 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, I've run this up the flagpole at NOR, and will wait to see what they say. Until then, I would strongly urge that the Pimpernel name be tied to citation. Using a nom de plume is inherently notable and contentious, and needs citation. I am not - and have never been - opposed to the inclusion, but instead the inclusion without sufficient citation. I still do not that leaving it to the vagaries of translation (with respect to Mantis and the AVB, neither of you are citable sources). Lastly, if there is a desire to have consensus trump policy and guidelines, there are places to do it. Here is not one of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing here whether to put Scarlet Pimpernel in without a citation or not. To urge that Pimpernel be tied to a citation as if there weren't but fringe proposals not to is dishonest. What we are deciding here is whether citing de Volkskrant article would be original research/synthesis because of the article not being written in the English language.

There is no battle between consensus and policy, what we have are editors disagreeing on interpretation of policy. Consensus is the best thing for that, barring expert opinion. MantisEars (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(again, ignoring the sock) As I noted before, as the SP is a fake name, it si suspect, and therefore needs citation. I still feel that us translating the foreign language thing is synthesis, but I am willing to wait and get independent confirmation of this.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs citation, not because it's (probably) fake, but because WP should cite anything that is not asserting the obvious, especially when challenged by one or more editors. But citation is not a problem here, as we already have the film itself. (In recent years the use in WP of works of art as primary sources on themselves has become accepted.) And while more sources would be nice, the editors that want to include the tidbit in the article can simply cite the film's credits in response to Arcayne's request for a citation. Obviously, any interpretation of the references to SP need to be based on secondary sources. Avb 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to cite these "policy and guidelines" you so aggressively enforce. Please reference the specific rule. I'll suggest that there is no substance behind your bluster, no rule, no policy, no guideline, no precedent.75.57.165.180 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you may want to read up on WP:CONSENSUS and dispute resolution. Avb 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just come over here from Arcayne's comment over at WT:OR, and I'll add my two cents...

1. Arnoutf's translation is fine. No reading between the lines there, and hence no OR issue.

2. I suspect that Arcayne's problem is not with the name per-se, but with the idea that one might need a pseudonym at all. In which case, I think, it simply reflects Arcayne's not knowing the circumstances under which this film was made. I think a little background info (here on talk) to explain why that pseudonym might have been needed would not hurt, and might help Arcayne (and everyone else) understand the allusion to the Reign of Terror. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I am aware of why they probably chose the pseudonym - violent reprisals tend to be rather significant over there, so I totally get why they wanted to hide behind the shield of anonymity. I am not even upset over the inclusion of SP. I just wanted it cited as it is unusual to have a pseudonym in the credits, and I didn't want the unsuspecting reader to actually thing there is some stimpy running around in the Netherlands with the unfortunate birthname of Scarlet Pimpernel. It's a pseudonym; it needs noting as such.

As for the synthesis, I am not entirely convinced that translations aren't synthesized info, but as two fairly competent, established editors think it isn't, I'll let it go for now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I do hope you realize there are quite a few more than "two fairly competent, established editors" who think your synth interpretation goes against the consensus-based use of foreign-language sources in a great many articles as described in the policy language on the matter. Avb 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne is quite aware. He has extensive edits at the Scarlet Pimpernel article, evidence indicates he may simply be protective of Orczy's legacy and possessive of the SP article.

The reason I have been reverting the shoe-horning of the notation here is that there is no reference that connects the cowardly chump who didn't have the stones to use his own name and decided to use 'Scarlet Pimpernel' to Orczy's fictional character. The only reference there is an observed credit on a screen (uncited), and some notation about it being the pseudonym of an unidentifed person - and any connection without citation to the fictional character is synthesis. ... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this all began when I linked the Fitna article to the SP article.[21] .75.57.165.180 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I meant explain Wilders' notions of his way of life being under siege, whether by the intelligentsia, or by social democrats, or -- as he put it -- "the creeping tyranny of Islamization." The latter being (I think) the most obvious example of the reason for the Scarlet Pimpernel pseudonym. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Bah! Now I've gone ahead and explained it. Shame on me.

No, I got the literary reference, but that exists no more than an English translation of the interview. I was commenting as to why there was the need for the adoption of the pseudonym in the first place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, like the Scarlet Pimpernel, Wilders sees himself as the defender/protector of his way of life against the "Terror." At least thats what immediately came to my mind when I saw the association of Wilders-plus-SP. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or because the production company was paid a lot of money to make the film but did not want to be associated with it. Talking about the motives of S-P is at this time pure speculation and hence original research (and should not be mentioned in the article!)....... Arnoutf (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf, but we should keep an eye out for sources on WHY? SP did not put thier real name to it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course "the reason" doesn't belong in the article. But no one has ever suggested that such an explanation end up in the article, so I can't understand why two editors feel the need to object to it. Apologies in advance if this touches a raw nerve, but this point (again) demonstrates a fundamental problem on this talk page, which is that editors are not listening to (or thinking about) what other editors are saying. In this specific section, y'all need to recognize that what might seem obvious to Europeans is not necessarily obvious to others (and vice-versa), and sometimes just a little explanation on talk can sometimes work wonders towards establishing a collaborative atmosphere. Arcayne clearly said he did not understand why the pseudonym might be necessary, so all that was really needed was someone to explain how the Groep Wilders thinks. Ok, he should not have reverted (and no one should have re-reverted), but was his demand for an explanation really so strange that it did not deserve a response? -- Fullstop (talk)

Would it be inappropriate to note Scarlet Pimpernel Productions in place of simple Scarlet Pimpernel? I mean, the translated source used to justify its inclusion does refer to a company, and not an individual. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" in its place causes "Productions" to spill over into the next line, a big problem because line breaks are how you are supposed to separate items in the infobox. MantisEars (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but identification value outweighs formatting concerns. Additional spacing would ensure that no confusion ensues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How would it? Because the three words do not fit together on one line, would you suggest "Scarlet" on one line and "Pimpernel Productions" on another? Spacing could fix any confusion if the reason it spilled over is because there were other words on the line, but the three are the entries on their respective lines. MantisEars (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*nudge* :) The infobox will resize itself if one writes "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions". -- Fullstop (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I must be doing something wrong because the infobox escaped my  s to  s! MantisEars (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Jeff Jones (portraying Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor in said, 'well, there it is, then.' Can we make that happen? Btw, the actual text reverted to nbsp and whatnot; were you using m-dashes or something? Safari may not be displayng it correctly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We still have the primary and Wiki acceptable source of the Films credits - There may be a production company sharing the name, but a production company did not take the credit and films are not directed by committee.75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The film credit source was from Imdb, and your interpretation of using Imdb was dismissed. Furthermore, using CIMDB's reasoning, the translated source noting that SP was a production company would trump Imdb. Imdb is a pretty crappy source for citation, anon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Please do not say things that are not true. My interpatation of IMDB was accepted, not dismissed. I did not cite IMDB - I pointed out its weaknessess. Here is the record:

Here, this should put an end to this right away:

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

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

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

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

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

That is what I said, and as usual it bears no relationship whatsoever to your charecterization of it. Just another citation, you should try it sometime, it might keep you from continually stating things and having them corrected. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well,   worked. I rv'd myself though to let you folks decide whether it should actually be implemented. I think 75.57.165.180 has a valid point, though perhaps all sides could be made happy by writing it as
  "Scarlet Pimpernel" productions
so as not to avoid implying that the company is called "SP Productions." -- Fullstop (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think just 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions' is what the only citation we are can use (as anything from Imdb gets trumped by an actual source). That the company was code-named Scarlet Pimpernel Prductions is pretty clear, from the foreign-language source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We may cite, and do frequently, a films actual credits. It is the primary source of the films actual credits that state Scarlet Pimpernel, Director. IMDB is not relevant except as a possible tertiary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.165.180 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of good or reviewed articles that used the film's actual credits without any backing from secondary sources? MantisEars (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Secondary sources"? What "secondary sources" might those be? And why aren't any of them cited by this article? -- Fullstop (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can find no Film articles that explicitly cite or reference any source whatsoever for the credits contained in the Infobox. For most credits, especially those below the title, the only mention in the entire article is the listing in the infobox. I'm afraid this is beginning to border on the surreal, a newspaper is now being required to support that the words we see on the screen truly exist? The film could credit Alan Smithee, as many do, and the Infobox correctly reflects the screen credit. The movie is Wiki accepted as it's own Reliable Source.[22][23]75.57.165.180 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is a reliable source for film credits. The user generated part of IMDB doesn't extend to creating or changing the credits sections, that's done by paid employees. The film itself is also a reliable source. Since they both agree, it's a very reliable combo. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited translation:

Just now I read the following [14] in de Volkskrant:

"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)

Translates into something like:

"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."

Does not name "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" as the name of the Director. In keeping with wiki style at all other known film infoboxes and due to there being no source for the editorializing of the unknown persons name - If there is no significant opposition I will strike the "production" appendage from the infobox shortly.75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use the word editorializing, and don't jump out of a thread threatening action if you don't agree with the consensus. Let me remind you that the primary source, which you seem to regard as reliable uses "Scarlet Pimpernel Production" at the end in the credits. You have opposition if you're using the "Director" technicality to argue that if the credits use shorthand we must use the shorthand because the source for the official fake name used a synonym for "Director" instead of "Director". MantisEars (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Credits do not use shorthand - Infoboxes only report the credits and the credits are what the screen shows. It says Director=Scarlet Pimpernel. That is all, no where else does it say anything differant . There is no other source that states that the Director, Writer or Editor is anything but the names as they appear on the screen. We do not replace Alan Smithee nor do we change Spielburg to "Spielburg productions". There appears to be no substantive support for the appendage of "production" and no prior examples of any of these issues with any film infobox on Wiki. Ever as far as I can see. But then it is impossible to prove a negative. Perhaps someone can demonstrate a precedent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scarlet Pimpernel, wot a concept! - arbitrary break

Resolved

Opposition withdrawn, didn't see that Arcayne was asking a question rather than making a suggestion. MantisEars (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

May I change the content of the Infobox to follow accepted Wiki practice and reflect the contents of the film being encyclopediazed? I just want ensure that this is now proper before I step out on this one75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a bump to ask if I'm interpreting this correctly, "Opposition withdrawn" and may change the Infobox to follow accepted Wiki practice and reflect the contents of the film being encyclopediazed?75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend mightily on what change you are planning on making to the article infobox. There is a citation noting Scarlet Pimpernel as a production company, not an individual. It is currently noted as such, and is less ambiguous in listing it as such. If you stumble across info (read: citations) that state to a certainty that SP is some foppish dude (or dudette, for that matter) running around the Netherlands spouting poorly-constructed poetry and sneaking the aristocracy out of the country, I think its fine the way it is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cite and reference this "Citation" you refer to. I know of no source anywhere, except the current WP:OR on Wiki that credits anything other than Scarlet Pimpernel. No credits for Director, Writer or Editor were given to anyone recorded as "Production". 75.57.165.180 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies - I thought you were well aware of the conversation occurring here within the last 48 hours regarding the foreign language translation of the Dutch interview wherein Wilders referred to the Scarlet Pimpernel as a production company. I believe the citation can be found within the expansion-needed Production section, but for convenience' sake, here is the link for your perusal. Please recall that you had no earlier issue with the foreign language translation of that source.

Small point, you don't need to bold text that you want to emphasize; it renders the impression of shouting, and I think the perception of yourself as a crazed, screaming fanatic atop a soapbox is hardly something you would want to perpetuate. Might I suggest that you use italics? It conveys the emphasis of what you are saying without all the shout-y implications. As well, indenting your replies/posts tends to assist others in understanding your posts are part of a conversation. Starting a new line break every time you post implies that your post is not part of a previous conversation and is a new line of inquiry. Just some advice from someone sharing their wisdom with you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to brush up on your klein beetje Nederlands. The article makes no statement that the Director, Writer or Editor were anyone at all, let alone Wilders, Pimpernel or "Production" I'm adding a note here to tie this new IP to my previous one: 75.57.165.180 75.58.46.53 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well, that was what was used to justify including Pimpernel in the infobox in the first place. You might want to ask Arnoutf about it, as the translation was his. As well, I seem to recall a fairly intense discussion about this, in which you were sizably involved.

In point of fact, Dutch is not one of the languages I speak, so I am not a good authority on any translated material from that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the translation presented earlier:

"Katz [lawyer of Wilders] meldde overigens dat niet Wilders zelf, maar de stichting Vrienden van de PVV de opdrachtgever is van de film. Die heeft de opdracht gegund aan ‘Scarlet Pimpernel', de bedachte naam voor de productiemaatschappij die niet met de echte naam naar buiten wil." (Lit. quote of Volkskrant 7-04-2008)

Translates into something like:

"Wilders lawyer Katz reported that not Wlders himself, but the foundation 'Friends of the PVV' has commissioned the film. The foundation has given the assignment to 'Scarlet Pimpernel', de name which was made up for the production company, that does not want to be mentioned by its real name."

75.58.46.53 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you have answered your own concerns, then. The text says it is a production company.  :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your citation makes no mention whatsoever, how do you go from that to creating a Director credit? What does a production company like Desilu or Tom Harris have to do with a Director, Writer or Editor credit? The pseudonym used is Scarlet Pimpernel, Not Alan Smithee or David Agnew or Mr. S.P. Production. The credit is crystal clear, they even printed it on the screen in big letters.75.58.46.53 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, anon, it isn't my citation. Secondly, the production company is unlike Desilu or Icon in that it is not the actual name of the production company. 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions' was a code name, a nom de plume. Now, I think it is important to point out that your personal viewing of the credits constitutes primary sourcing, and is therefore not usable here in Wikipedia. A source that notes the facts of the Pimpernel fake name is far more notable. Trust me, I've been exactly where you are. Observable phenomena sometimes escapes cited reference. In the film, Children of Men, there is a point at the end of the film where observable (audible) phenomena include the laughter of children. In a film about a world without children, I though it pretty important to include, but there wasn't really good citations available for it. Because of that, the observable phenomena remains excluded from the film, and let me tell you, it drives me absolutely batshit. Until something citable comes up (in contrast to this article, where we have a specific citation telling us something that we can see and adding perspective on it), I am out of luck. Be happy - we have a citation that allows us to include that which you argued for for a substantial amount of time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, and most importantly, you can't make stuff up. There is no source to support your Original Research via Synthesis that the name listed in the credits is wrong. There is no reason to believe that your mistranslation says things that it clearly does not. Secondly, it is patently absurd to suggest that an item such as a Movies Credit requires extraordinary citation. There is no precedent on Wiki whatsoever to support this unique and illogical interpretation.75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[24]. There is no basis for your position. A Films credits are an acceptable source. Period. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source notice board has settled this issue. Item is Resolved. Scarlet Pimpernel should have sole credit in InfoBox. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia ban

Resolved

Whoever has the ability to do so, please change the bit about Indonesia blocking websites to reflect the news that they have been unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.175.208.181 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. MantisEars (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Page Protection be lowered to semi-

Resolved

As the edit-war visited upon the article was conducted by two editors who have not posted in the discussion at all since the locking, it would appear that their presence - like a brief storm - has passed us by. As the regular editors to the article have recently arrived at a reasoned compromise for what went from triviality to a multi-page exercise in poor restraint, I would suggest that we seek to apply for a lessening of the page protection to semi-protected. I would not opt for a fully-unprotected article,as the film is new, controversial and has already seen a significant amount of vandalism and cruft added by passing (and not regular) anon contributors. While this would impede the one anon contributor that regularly contributes to this discussion, the benefits outweigh the potential limitation. As an added benefit, it would perhaps inspire the regular anon contributor to sign up for an account, and avoid the recent difficulties and oft-considered suspicions usually related to a multiple-IP identity. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the best thing for the article. Most anonymous' legitimate contributions come in the area of reaction and recent events, and all they need to do is make a request in the talk page for a certain event to be covered, and it will be. MantisEars (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we agreed then, or is there dissent about what we are asking for? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC):::You mean, consensus? Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Which is why I wanted to make sure everyone was clear as to what we were looking to do - no ambiguity. What do you think? Yea or nay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was one of the editors who probably provoked the protection by reverting someone I perceived as a POV-pusher (repeatedly inserting the "Shitna" reference, which was a pretty obvious fringe thing). That person was blocked for violation of WP:3RR after I reported them. I definitely won't be edit-warring. Kelly ^hi! 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We are agreed, you and I. MantisEars (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that as soon as the above proposal is finalized, we submit the RPP from the issuing admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Shitna" was deleted by someone, accusing that the reference provided was just a blog. When I reinserted, it was again deleted because someone did not like it probably. On the other hand, there are pure OR such as "The film explores Qur'anic motivation for terrorism, Islamic universalism, and Islam in the Netherlands" (some other users also agreed with me on this I guess) and unreferenced POVs like "This was due to concerns of the legality of its content and anticipated acts of terrorism" which either lacks references or has probably references in Dutch language..Some users showed dutch courage by trying to block me instead of giving a legitimate reason why they can't see "Shitna". As a whole, the way the article written is an unprofessional way. Suigeneris (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why that discussion will be conducted here, and not in the article. You were part of the reason that caused the article to get locked up in the first place, Zenc/Suigeneris (and why you feel the need to use a display name different from your user name is beyond me). When 'Shitna' was removed, your job then became not to re-add it, but discuss and defend your edit here. As well, when you see "such obvious OR", you can call attention to it, or tag it with a fact tag for verification or a cite tag for citation. Calling the pot blacker than your kettle doesn't make that kettle any less black.

And I can pretty much assure you that statements like

"Some users showed dutch courage by trying to block me instead of giving a legitimate reason why they can't see "Shitna"

is a magnificent way for you to engender a distinctively unpleasant opinion of you. That sort of commentary is repugnant and I am pretty sure that you are not going to find a single friendly ear. I am guessing that if that behavior is adjusted, and drastically, it will probably not be the last time you face the possibility of a block. If the page protection is adjusted, you are going to need to work with editors, and not in spite of them. If yiou see something wrong, talk about it. We use the discussion page to do just that. If you choose not to do that, your edits will not survive long. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It takes two or more people to start an edit war - so don't blame me only for warring.

"is a magnificent way for you to engender a distinctively unpleasant opinion of you.."

oh my, who cares? I added Shitna because of 2 reasons -

1) the movie itself did not generate the kind of reaction that the filmmaker hoped to generate, so even smaller reactions such as a Youtube parody could be noteworthy. After all, these are the kind of reactions you could expect against a 15 min. propaganda video.

2) I thought the hypocrisy of having blatant OR and POV in the article, but then deleting a harmless sentence for lame reasons was worth confronting..

As for edit protect - I am not to be blamed - I guess someone else took the measures for that. Suigeneris (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected, with zero tolerance for future edit warring. Happy‑melon 14:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Um, sure. Let me recap: you don't care about maintaining WP:AGF, one of our core guidelines that make it sane to edit here.

Also, you want to add your own personal speculation as to what the filmmaker "hoped to generate" as well as your personal evaluation that uts a propaganda fim and deserves reaction - not really all that neutral, mon petite frére. Touching that up with a source we don't typically use (per WP:EL) and defending it by pointing to how the rst of the article needs work reminds me of the man who cries about how we live in a world of crap, but is unwilling to start shoveling.

Thanks for your opinion. Perhaps you are going to find your visit here a lot less bumpy if you work within the structure we all do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Resolved

{{editprotected}}

In the reaction section, could an administrator please change

"The Dutch Ministry of Justice are determining"

to

"The Dutch Ministry of Justice is determining"

StaticGull  Talk  13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. StaticGull  Talk  14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short film or Propaganda film?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liveleak threat subsection added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability Questions

Does this entry really belong here?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neutral point of view?

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

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

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

I agree with Arcayne, as reliable accredited sources emerge with criticisms that are notable and significant to the article, then they should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags in Post-Response section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wow, what a vitriolic response.

please cease the bickering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ignoring the anon, who can't be bothered to sign his posts or be polite). As I rather clearly explained on your user talk page, I respond to pleasantness pleasantly, and respond to rudeness or incivility appropriately. Apparently, the request was lost upon you, so don't be all surprised when you don't get the love you refuse to give. Basic rule of karma: the love you put out comes back to you. To be clear, I don't care if you like me. That would be in the category of Your Personal Problem, not mine. Take care of it in your own way, and stop bothering me with it.

Now, enough of the stuff best suited to your user talk page, and back to the article discussion:

If you truly feel that the flag usage is appropriate, please feel free to post in the MoS discussion page at WP:FLAG, or ask an admin to help you out in understanding the current guideline, as you seem unwilling to accept my (correct) interpretation of it. Since your main issue seems to be with me, ask someone else. I have attempted to clearly point out why its usage isn't appropriate here. Seek a Third Opinion. Seek an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I fail to see how language like this:

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

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

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

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

This of course calls into doubt this claim of yours:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I came here from a post at the talk page of NGO. Just as a point of clarification: The EU is absolutely not an NGO. A good example of a non-governmental organization is Doctors Without Borders. The EU and UN are examples of Intergovernmental organizations. Hope that helps. --JayHenry (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that is correct, IGo and not an NGO. My mistake, but the point about flags remains the same. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of flags, 1)When we have long lists of international reaction in articles such as International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto you will notice that ALL the flags are there. 2)Flags naturally provide information on that country or iGO (ie what its flag looks like). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we create a International reaction to Fitna page just like Benazir Bhutto has? The article is getting too long. MantisEars (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a good solution, MantisEars. The reaction is pretty much an article on its own. I am still not convnced of the flagicon usage, and have requested guidance on the discussion page for MoS Flags, but splitting it off from this article was an inspired move. Good job. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though the issue of flag use is leaning towards its acceptance as de rigeur in political articles with many different countries, if Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Is_this_an_example_of_decorative_usage? is anything to go by. :D :D Kapowow (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, well I think that's a pretty optimistic spin on things there, sock. Maybe you should wait until the actual conclusion of matter. We don't really need weather updates. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, a direct link to a discussion concerning this issue you so avidly oppose is helpful; especially as the debate is nearing its conclusion with the outcome all but assured, and its reinstatement alongside the Scarlet Pimpernel pet project of yours all but guaranteed.

Repeated accusations of me being a "sock" are bordering on paranoia. Kapowow (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Strangely, Arcayne did not initially accuse you, he added you later as an afterthought. He accused me of being a Sock Puppet simply because I am a Public Editor - even though I continued to consistently identify and single out myself. The accusation he links to abovesock is informative, it is without merit and a flagrant abuse of the system and peoples time and resources all for the entertainment of one individual. The affair itself a sad commentary on Wikipedia and reflects poorly on Arcayne. Empty and without a single "diff" to support him.75.57.165.180 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Such actions make the new or casual editor - or indeed anyone unable or unwilling to muster considerable force in defending themselves against attack - very skeptical of contributing to Wikipedia. The most stunning aspect of all this is that Arcayne consistently refuses (or is unable) to provide proof for any claims, yet appears to have been given the power to roam freely, doing and saying as he pleases, without consequence, question or reprimand. Kapowow (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some comments were removed, I reverted them and then reverted myself. Here's the diff and some discussion on my talk page. Feel free to have a look and form your own opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the discission on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Is this an example of decorative usage?, I have reinstated flags on International reaction to Fitna. If anyone wants to argue their implementation, please do so on that page. A sour taste has been left in my mouth over this entire debacle, particulary how one individual has been able to cause so much disruption and stalling of the progression of an article's development, and as such I shall be withdrawing from any further discussion or contribution to Wikipedia for at least a couple of weeks. Kapowow (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As that discussion hasn't really concluded (or found a consensus) as of yet, I think the reinstatement is premature. I have this reverted the edit based on the lack of consensus regarding the issue.

I would also point out that if you find the act of discussion too arduous, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right fit for you. I look forward to your return, and I hope you will be more open to adapt to an environment wherein your opinion is not the sole one involved, and participate in good faith discussion. Until then, enjoy your break. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, vacation; a time for relaxation and recouperation. I had one singular and horrid thought disturbing the tranquility: Arcayne. Please, Arcayne, no baseless accusations of "sock puppetry" or other such nonesense. Your very name conjours up unmentionable anguish, unease and unrest; the master of the sly back-hander. The only thing, Arcayne, that I find arduous is you. Unfortunately, the rubbish of which you speak is entirely self-referential: you must surely learn to see that your opinion, especially when entirely debased, "is not the sole one involved", and you must, please sir, "participate in good faith discussion". I shall indeed enjoy my break, moreso knowing that you are disproved in all your contested "contributions" with the thoroughness and firmness it deserves. Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't care how m any Mai-Tai's you've tossed back - another personal attack post like that, and you are going to find out what happens to folk who violate NPA . You've been warned by editors and admons alike, Consider this your last warning. Now go off and recuperate before you say something that will extend your vacation a bit longer than you would like. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, don't you get bored constantly throwing out threats to report people? you fell into a trap laid by only yourself: i merely repeated your post with the exact same words you used in quotations, and the precise meaning you used, only I directed it at you. You personally attacked me, and I mirrored precisely your words and sentiment - and then you threaten to report me for "violating NPA" LOL I find you ever more unbelievable with each passing moon. I have fully considered this my "last warning". Please do not threaten me again with baseless accusation, or it is you who shall have "an extended vacation". See what I did there? I used your own words. Not very pleasent, is it, Arcayne. Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to explain what your comments have to do with the Fitna artcle? Your two previous posts here constitute what we call WP:POINT edits, though, not really good ones, as the language you claimed was never actually used by myself (though I will admit to a fairly liberal use of commas and the word 'the'). If you think this is something you need to discuss, please feel free to do so on your usertalk page. Unless it specifically addresses, Fitna, maybe you could manage to repress the uncivil need to snipe at others.

I think we're done here. DOyou have something about Fitna to discuss? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, once again you are attempting to shift the blame to someone who has dared to cross you. Do not lecture me on stifling debate or discussion: it is you, and you alone who has caused disruption. I have always kept my discussion solely about the topic, Fitna in this case; and it is you who has brought this topic to a standstill. Do not tell me what to do. Do not hurl baseless accusations and call "rules" when things don't go your way. Perhaps, Arcayne, you might want to explain what your comments have to do with the Fitna article, one which you have just jumped aboard and have remain stuck for some unknown reason, causing myriad headaches. I find it utterly flabbergasting that you can deny your own use of words and language when the evidence is but two paragraphs above. I do not need to discuss this, Arcayne; I need you to stop harrassing me and throwing baseless accusations and insults to anyone who tries to contribute to this, the Fitna article, and others.

For the record, here is what you wrote, just a couple of paragraphs above, and then denied having written:

"I would also point out that if you find the act of discussion too arduous, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right fit for you. I look forward to your return, and I hope you will be more open to adapt to an environment wherein your opinion is not the sole one involved, and participate in good faith discussion."

and when I said precisely the same to you, you threatened to report me!

Please dismount your tall equine and allow others to participate without being verbally assaulted, threatened or intimidated. Do not stymie an article's development with your petty fixations. That is why it is relevant to the discussion of this article. Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my language might not have been the most civil to you in the past. I will endeavor to be more pleasant to you in the future. Hopefully, that will resolve your frustration over this matter. Now, do you have something to contribute regarding the improvement of the article?

On a side note, could you be troubled to indent your posts properly? With a multi-user discussion, it makes following the order of the conversation more difficult to follow. We have found that using increasing levels of indenting to be pretty efficient in this regard. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a better source for the nun story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5353850.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.211.7 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would, but I think the nun part of the article should be removed. It was a reaction to a Pope speech, not Fitna. MantisEars (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

♠Just a note to the community, Arcayne has posted the following complaint: [25]

Heya, I am dealing with some rather "interesting edits" in the Fitna article. Some pretty aggressive behavior in the article discussion page, which is translating to some edit-warring in the article. I was going to request semi-protection as there appears to be some sock-farming going on there. Aside from the socking, a lot ofthe folk contributing there are pretty new, and its a bit Wild West-y there. A wikiquette alert report was filed (against me) complaining about my Obtructionist behavior in not allowing flagicons and whatnot, and I am increasingly of the opinion that the tone of the article discussion is being run on caffeine and aggro, and maybe even some good, old-fashioned oversensitivity. Maybe someone with deep boots could one-stop-assist with a semi-protection tag and a bit of that calming balm of an admin post suggesting folk cool their jets? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)e

I'm not certain of the basis for that and fail to see any disruption, however he has also filed a Formal complaint charging me with, and I quote:

• • • "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents"

and

• • • "3RR violation using socks".

The pending action to ban me can be found here:[26].

What becomes of me is no issue - it's your Wiki, it will become whatever your community chooses it to be.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are apparently here to stay, so make a user identity please.

Second, this is not the place to discuss this; this talk page should only be about improving the article

Thirdly, either you are new, and you might have taken a more modest stance to figure out the social culture on Wikipedia before going headlong into fierce debating; or you are not new in which case the report against you may be justified. In both cases, your behaviour is far from blameless. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In point of fact, you have been confirmed as operating numerous IPs. As you call for a resolution with one IP and close the discussion as resolved with another, that makes you a sockpuppeteer. As per WP:SOCK, that's a bannable offense. Sorry. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

♠Just a note - one person, me, has claimed those IP's. No one believes that there is more than a single editor. Indeed I find it a little odd to keep pointing out that I am one. There is no "pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer." And there is also NO evidence of the specific charges: "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE. This does NOT belong on an article talk page. Anon 75.57.... editor, to prevent suspicion; make (and consistently use) a user-account. Arcayne, many providers rotate IP numbers with renewed log-in/modem startup; IP numbers may vary without it being a conscious effort at sockpuppeting. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, could you take a moment and read WP:SOCK? Posting under different IP addresses while specifically concealing your singular identity is kinda the definition of sock-puppeting. Everything else is secondary.

I think we're just about done talking about you. Continue your arguments about your editing status on your user-talk page (whichever one of them you wish to use); this is the article discussion about the Fitna film. Respect that, and stick to the topic, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

♠This section is to discuss Arcaynes Motion to LOCK Fitna_Film, your accusations against me were a directly related matter to your attempt to lock this article. This section is about Fitna and administrative actions to lock it. Please discuss your motion to have the community restrict this page from editing.75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not, it is a dispute between you and Arcayne and should not be on this talk page. Back to topic please. Arnoutf (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sectioning of the article

I was wondering why the article discusses the release before the anorexic plot or (non-existent) development sections. A scanning of relevant FA examples indicates plot, then development, then cast (or narration, in this case) and then release and reaction would be a more consistent arrangement.
Also curious, was the intent to break the plot into only the themes (The Qur'an and Terrorism, The Qur'an as a Means for Islamic Universalism and Islam and the Netherlands)? That is not at all consistent with other FA media (documentary-style programs or films like Meerkat_Manor or more appropriately, Triumph of the Will). I think furhter development is required. Input? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the way the article developed because Geert Wilders hyped up the release for at least one month before we got any details of the plot. The plot section used to be one big blob reiterating the film in text form until it was split it into themes so it would be easy to summarize. The summarization just never happened. Further development is definitely required. MantisEars (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

The lead and the release section read almost identically. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is a problem. MantisEars (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to Fitna does not belong in a separate article.

The "International reaction to Fitna" article should not be separate from this one. It is not even a remotely independent topic, and there are (obviously) no secondary sources on the reaction that would warrant a separate article. There are other ways to deal with article size issues (if that is at all a reason for splitting). -- Fullstop (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the size of that article (64kb) alone is already an argument against merger.Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider a secondary source in this context (a reaction to the reaction?) and why is it obvious that there are no secondary sources? There are many write-ups about the reaction, especially in individual countries, and the line if often blurred between reporting on a specific riot and putting it in the context of other reactions. Article size was an issue but was not the issue, it was compartmentalizing the subjects much as one would for the Netherlands and Politics of the Netherlands. MantisEars (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for having read my previous comment in its entirety, and for having noting that I did say "There are other ways to deal with article size issues (if that is at all a reason for splitting)." Second, I don't follow why geographic compartmentalization is a reason for splitting. All articles can have subsections, this one as well as any other. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because this should be a general overview of the film, and it shouldn't go deep into the specifics about one aspect, whether it be the plot or the reaction (the former is still being worked on). This doesn't mean that the information in International reaction to Fitna is not important, forking it just allows it to stand on its own as a unique subject. MantisEars (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that the two articles being merged would be fine in terms of content, as they are not really seperate issues warranting distinct pages. A suitably succinct and descriptive summary on the main page may suffice if they were to be kept seperate owing to its length, but imo a long article is not grounds in of itself to split an article. Kapowow (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did the split because this article was too long and more space was needed to discuss the accuracy of the content etc. As to why i split not cut it down is simple; Wikipedia can have any number of pages and there is no need to delete accurate, sourced and notable content when it can be split. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As MantisEars observes, "forking it just allows it to stand on its own as a unique subject," which unfortunately it isn't. After all, and as Kapowow notes, the reception of a film (or book or whatever) is not distinct from the product itself. Further, in this particular case, the product has not even yet been the subject of academic discourse ("secondary sources"), so even the idea that it has any "International reaction" at all is really an observation/interpretation by wikipedia editors themselves, and not a summary of what various other people have strung together. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be happening on International reaction to Fitna's talk page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on the subject, but I am pretty sure that we should link the reaction article to this one. Note in the articles Jack the Ripper and Ronald Reagan, there are links to subsidiary articles that discuss in greater detail a facet of the primary subject. Whether the article constitutes forking or not, it should be linked for the time being, and when a decision/consensus comes about, the issue of the wikilink can be revisited/revised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete references please

With a view towards making this article GA or FA, would the editors please take care to provide *complete* citations? In particular, a) author (or editor) name, b) page number when citing from print sources [including newspapers], c) a timecode when citing film material. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for timecodes when citing films? MantisEars (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When using {{citation}} use at=<timecode>. When using {{cite video}} use time=<timecode>. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which are we going the use, the generic {{citation}} or the range of specific {{cite sourcetype}} templates? Assessments favour use of only a single version in an article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When not using (notes+)harvnb+citation, it doesn't matter which scheme you use; the general-purpose {{citation}} is more coherent/cohesive/flexible, while the {{cite stuff}} is better documented. But if there are multiple references to the same source but at different locations within that source, then its (IMO) generally 'cleaner' to use (notes+)harvnb+citation (like this or this, this FA or this FA). But with all its advantages, citation like that is not suitable for everyone. It demands discipline, and is very easily polluted when editors start quick-and-dirty tagging (like this). -- Fullstop (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment

I added this category and another editor simply undid my edit. How is it possible that a film that purposefully offers a distorted view of Islam in order create a sentiment that will support challenging the "creeping tyranny of Islamization" should not be included in such a category? When it is in support of a "culture" that draws specifically from non-Islamic traditions in order to "challenge the Islamic problem?" Of course you don't even have to agree with the implied assessment in those questions to at least agree with the fact that there has been a significant reaction in the Muslim and Arab Worlds to this film--reaction that perceives the film as anti-Islamic. See International reaction to Fitna. I would much appreciate some comments on this. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits you propose are inherent in International reaction to Fitna, additionally there is an extensive body of work here at wiki that discusses how articles deal with so called "equal weight" of ideas - in short, they do not try to as this is not a forum for debate. That there is significant moral opposition to the underlying philosophy of certain hate groups, Nazi's, Klan, etc is not relevant to an encyclopedic record of it. Perhaps the Mein Kampf entry will illustrate. The entry on the film Fitna is simply an encyclopedic entry for the item and seeks to describe that item.75.57.165.180 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing multiple "edits," so there is no issue of "some of the edits" I propose. I'm only asking about a category. I'm also not sure what your response is supposed to prove, since Mein Kampf is specifically categorized in Category:Antisemitic publications. There is no equivalent category for anti-Muslim films, and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, as far as I can tell, is the result of a compromise surrounding debates about having a category with the term "Islamophobia" in it. I also don't think that Category:Documentaries critical of Islam, is specific enough. That's like using Category:Publications critical of Judaism instead of the obviously correct Category:Antisemitic publications, for a book like Mein Kampf.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Documentaries critical of Islam is specific enough. If Mein Kampf primarily criticized Judaism and happened to be a documentary it would probably be in that category if it existed! Presumably, the parts of Mein Kampf that mentioned the Jews were written about the Jewish race and its people, and better belongs in Category:Antisemitic publications. "Publications" would be better than Category:Anti-semitic sentiment anyway since "publication" gives a meaningful description to the article, "sentiment" is just a way to express your feelings about the subject. MantisEars (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So if we create Category:Anti-Islamic documentaries, then you would not oppose placing it here? Why is it OK to identify hatred, or discourses that pray upon and enhance fear and suspicion, with some groups using prefixes that pose these views as "against" those groups, but when it comes to Islam or Muslims we have to use terms derived from words like "criticism" which are at best just neutral. On could make the case that in an academic environment words like "criticism" actual imply something positive. Either way, many Muslims and non-Muslims are clearly quite critical of aspects of Islam, or specific practices associated with Islam, without being against the religion. This documentary, as well as other entries tagged with the category (and ones not so tagged) are clearly more overtly against the religion and its adherents on a more fundamental basis. This is not to mention the fact that they pander to exactly the type of sentiments that in other circumstances garner strong labels such as antisemitic, racist, etc. I find the objection to this label rather troublesome in fact, given Europe's troubled past with discourses levied against minority ethnic groups.PelleSmith (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that criticism no matter how accurate of any muslims or islam (Undercover Mosque, a British documentary on hate-preaching at mosques) is Category:Anti-Islam sentiment what is the point of the category, its just things muslims don't like. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose it less. The word "sentiment" is inflammatory, "sentiment" is an expression of feeling, as opposed to a clear presentation of fact or opinion, as criticism is. MantisEars (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (

The film surmises at the end that Islam is equivalent to Nazism and Totalitarianism and that it must be "defeated." The fact that anyone would be against the categorization is almost laughable. Whether or not you agree with it, it is evident that the film is associated with the category at hand. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My problem with this is that it is analysis of a primary source and therefore original research. (That is my problem with most of the other entries in the category as well). If you find a reliable source that says the Wilders film is a voice of anti islam sentiment, you have convinced me that it can be included in the category. Arnoutf (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The end of the film was speaking about Islamist Idealogy not Islam. Category:Anti-Islamist sentiment maybe, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment absolutely not. MantisEars (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a mistranslation here to the English version which specifically reads "Islamic ideology" and never once uses terms other than "Islam," "Islamic," and or "Islamisation" in the words at the end?PelleSmith (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly OpposeThis really sums it up best:

Given that criticism no matter how accurate of any muslims or islam (Undercover Mosque, a British documentary on hate-preaching at mosques) is Category:Anti-Islam sentiment what is the point of the category, its just things muslims don't like.

Wiki should not be in the business of allowing editorial "Barnstars" in the form of POV category tags to be attached to articles. Indeed I'd move for the removal entirely of all categories that inherently reflect POV. The tags themselves should not exist, and a discussion of the editorial views of the editors with respect to labeling and judging the content can not occur.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, a barnstar for condemnation of a subject you don't like. MantisEars (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Undercover Mosque issue is not pertinent here; if you feel the movie should not be tagged, then go to that article and ask for it to be changed. Or if you feel the category is just an umbrella for anything that "Muslims don't like," then nominate it for deletion. I would disagree that the film is opposed to simply Islamist ideology, considering it mentions the population of Muslims in Europe as if it is a threat, it mistranslates "din" to "law" rather than "faith" (suggesting that political autonomy is structural to Islam), its Qur'anic translations are peculiar and out of their context, among other things. For that reason, to dismiss the analogies made to Nazism and Communism seems like rather wishful thinking, MantisEars. The film also equates pre-Islamic practices that persist in North Africa (e.g. Female genital cutting) and pre-Islamic Mediterranean practices (e.g. honor killings) with Islamic value systems, when such practices are generally not even religious in nature. Honor killings and genital mutiliation can even be seen amongst Middle Eastern Christians and Coptic Christians, respectively.

Obviously these above examples are from my own analysis and therefore could not be used in an article's text, but I don't really see why this conflicts with categorization. The fact that the film is Islamophobic in nature seems incontrovertible, and people just want to make a fuss because there hasn't been a "scholar" to write about the movie that labelled it as such. Whether or not someone feels the film is Anti-Islamic, it is quite obvious that the film is heavily associated with the concept and the only reason it has reached the international spotlight is because of its contentious claims directed towards Islam and the Muslim protests that were launched back at it. I'm sure anyone here could find newspaper articles that claim the film is anti-Islamic or Islamophobic, although, considering the situation, this would even seem like a good case for WP:SNOW, since the perceived anti-Islamic sentiment within the film is the only reason this film has gained notability in the first place. It's like having your cake and eating it too. The film is NOT anti-Islamic, but the only reason its notable enough to be on Wikipedia is because of being perceived as anti-Islamic and provoking protests? -98.209.101.146 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The translations are not peculiar in the way you imply, there are many ways to translate Arabic, or any language into English, there are even three different translations in Wikipedia's own {{cite quran}} template. It is common for Muslims to respond to any discovery of the atrocities committed and the suggested atrocities for Muslims to commit in the Qur'an by saying that either the translation is imperfect (because of the translator's own biases) or it was taken out of context. While this defense is good enough for a Muslim, it doesn't hold up for anyone impartial to the matter.

I am not going to go into the increased population of Muslims in Europe, because then I, like you, would be interpreting Geert Wilders' intent in showing those statistics, and that is not something that should go into the article. The statistics are consistent with the central thesis of the film, which is that Islam is an inherently violent religion and political system, and that Muslims, if given enough political power with implement Sharia law.

Whether female genital cutting and honor killings pre-date Islam or not, Islam prescribes and recommends both for purity, cleanliness and a lawful society. Male genital mutilation may be a Christian practice also, but not all criticism of Islam comes from Christians, and many of us are perfectly capable of recognizing both as barbaric and morally indefensible.

For your last comment, let us imagine a John Doe. He is reasonably young, not noted for anything. A story, and a political scandal breaks when a black woman accuses him of raping her, with a dash of racially charged phrases. If a Wikipedia article was to be created for him, would it be fair to put him in Category:Racially Charged Rapists? There is no shortage of feminists willing to call him nasty names, and this is how he got media attention, but popular opinion does not make things any more truthful. MantisEars (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of your points have been addressed below in the "break" section; as for the John Doe situation, it is a complete Ignoratio elenchi. The situations aren't even analogous. This film is specifically targetting Islam because the director (not the media) believes there to be something perverted and violent about the skeleton and structure of the religion. Under the break section, PelleSmith has given pretty incontrovertible, verbatim quotes by the director that make this an indefensible position for you to take. The perception that this is anti-Islamic and the fact that the movie earned its notability due to the said perception makes this category applicable, even if you "just don't like it." -98.209.101.146 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's goal is to be a record of, and not a report on, the item. This is intended to be simply an encyclopedia, not a contextual history text.75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed edit is not changing the way in which the article is presented. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the existence of the tag and its implied utility, would you agree that the fixing of the tag requires a degree of judgment requiring editors to assess and render an opinion on the content of the work itself? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are suggesting, 75-anon. "Antisemitic," "propaganda," etc. are all POV terms, and therefore require some degree of judgement. Should we delete the antisemitism category, the propaganda publications category, etc. just because there will always be people that disagree with them? The fact of the matter is, this film gained its notability because of the fact that it is perceived as anti-Islamic, so the categorization seems rather appropriate, even if there are those that disagree. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So your argument appears that it might be based upon the notion of implied utility. Utilization and support for your POV opinion and the mechanism for who gets to decide what is or what is not branded and marked is for whom?75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is scholars can look back and agree that Mein Kampf was an anti-semitic publication, so it isn't original research. I have also explained that there are big differences between "Anti-Islam publication", "Anti-Islam sentiment", and "Criticism of Islam". If we continue to argue the anti-semetic analogy it would allow 98.209.101.146 to spin the debate in an unwinnable way, as if we were discussing the merits of a Death tax instead of an Estate tax. MantisEars (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case feel free to answer the question I posed above at any time. I will repeat it for you. If we create Category:Anti-Islamic documentaries, do you support adding it here?PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that you did say you would "oppose it less," but I'm unclear on your problem with "sentiment."PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not. You're playing with words again. Anti Islamic documentary implies disapproval of all things Islamic, which may include Muslims (carrying the same social stigma as racism). Anti-Islam and Anti-Islamic are different things, Anti-Islam is less offensive because it is against a religion, not people or things.

About "sentiment", that word is inflammatory; as sentiment is an expression of feeling rather than fact or opinion as criticism is. Burning a Qur'an would be "anti-Islam sentiment", providing passages of the Qur'an that incite violence is criticism. MantisEars (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So you have an issue with "sentiment" because it implies that this film is espousing a feeling about Islam more so than it a factual criticism of Islam? Your alignment of "opinion" with fact as opposed to "feeling" is entirely suspect. I could burn the Qur'an without any anti-Islamic sentiment whatsoever, but will doing so arouse the interpretation that I have such a sentiment? Absolutely. The same goes for equating Islam in general with the acts of terrorists. You could do so simply for fun, but will others interpret this as an obvious attempt to malign their religion. Absolutely. In the end I agree that the category should be changed simply to Category:Anti-Islamic or something of that sort. But I think this film would make for obvious inclusion. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion is aligned with fact because it is civil in opposition to a raw display of emotion like the burning of a Qur'an (which, by the way, I was speaking about with intent to curse Muslims). He did not try to equate Islam with acts of terrorism subliminally, he went through the Qur'an and found the verses Osama bin Laden and other terrorists used to justify their actions in the name of Islam and presented them neatly.

Do not twist my words, I did not say it should be changed to Anti-Islamic, "Islamic" is similar trick that tries to equate criticism of terrorist with criticism of Muslims, it is already in enough categories (with regard to criticism of Islam, documentary film...) this is not simply a clerical categorization of the article but a handful of Wikipedians' denouncement of the subject. MantisEars (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to assume that equating Islam and Nazism, for example, is not an Islamophobic remark, you are missing the foundation of my argument. This article earned its notability due to the fact that it is perceived as anti-Islamic and sparked protest. That is reason enough for the categorization. Scholars have POVs and Wikipedia is not allowed to simply repeat them as truth without including the scholar's name and using quotes. Notice how the article on Hitler makes almost no references to anti-Semitism in the narrative of the article itself, despite the fact that Hitler is categorized as an anti-Semite. Comparing article structure and categorization is apples and oranges. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - arbitrary break 1

There have been people claiming above that the film is about "Islamist" ideology, and/or extremism and not about Islam in general. I take serious issue with that claim since, at least in the English version, there is no distinction made, nor is there any use of terms like those. Instead the film mixes verses from the Quran, with the deeds of terrorists, the practices of fundementalists (not to mention cultural practices that aren't even pan-Islamic) and then with mainstream images and facts about Islam in the Neatherlands. It then ends with words from the film's creator: "Islam does not make room for you," "Islam has no respect for your," "Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western Civilization." Then after saying how we defeated Nazism and and Communism already it says, in the English version, word for word: "Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated. Stop Islamisation." There is no distinction in this film at all between militant Islam, or Islamism and mainstream Islam. In fact the mix and match of imagery suggests exactly the opposite the intended conflation of the two. I do understand the third party sourcing argument, on principle, but when peer reviewed journals finally get something in print about sentiments espoused by this film I hope you all manage at least a modicum of shame here for denying the obvious.PelleSmith (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose addition of the category to the page. It's far too subjective and open to misinterpretation. Kelly ^hi! 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the distinction between Islam and Islamism is never made in the film, and you have quoted straight from the horse's mouth. This distinction exists only in the imagination of MantisEar. Moreover, translations of the Qur'an that include words like "terror" seem rather dubious; I have never seen a translation like that in my life. Islam does not prescribe Honor killing or the like; in fact, most Muslims probably don't even know what female genital cutting involves, since it's unheard of outside of Northern Africa, Eastern Africa and the Arabian Penninsula (likely due to cultural diffusion from Africa). -98.209.101.146 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamism is Islam in its purest form, where you don't, as a Moderate, pick and choose what to follow and not to follow. Using "Islam" and "Islamism" is acceptable because "Islam" is "Islam". However, using "Muslims" and "Islamists" would be confusing, possibly deceitful, because not all Muslims subscribe to "Islam", many have mixed Islam with their own culture and have diluted it, which they surely need to in order to live in the Western world. However, Wilders can mean "Muslim" when speaking about immigration, as moderates can build the inclusive communities and indoctrinate children so they are ripe for the picking for Islamists.

To say that Islam does not prescribe "honor killings" is an outright lie, you are supposed to put adulterers to death for the honor of your family, whether you want to call it an honor killing or a justice killing, or just plain old murder. That most Muslims do not know what female genital mutilation is outside of certain parts of Africa and the Arabian peninsula is another outright lie, as female genital mutilation happens regularly in the nation with the highest population of Muslims, Indonesia. While you, as you say, may have never read the word "terror" as it appears in the Qur'an, it clearly appears there, the only difference could be in translation; those who translate the Arabic word to "fear" because "terror" has a bad reputation. They mean the same thing and don't detract from the message. MantisEars (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give me a break. There is no more a pure form of Islam than there is a "pure" form of any religion. People always pick and choose what to practice. However, that answer is as besides the point as your claim is. You claimed above that the director's words at the end of the film are not about "Islam" but about Islamism. Then why does he not use the term? If you can make this distinction above you clearly understand it, and your verbal ballet down here makes no sense. If there is no distinction then clearly you have contradicted what you claimed above since the words then are about Islam in general as much as they are about Islamism. How long is this charade going to continue? I'm not opposed to considering arguments against the use of the category here, but it would be nice if they rested on some factual ground.PelleSmith (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone picks and chooses what they want to practice, those that do are called moderates and in some religious communities, they are the majority. There are "pure" forms of many religions, as there is Orthodox Judaism and Christian fundamentalism. They're all dangerous, but Islamic fundamentalism is the most widespread. I did not say they were about Islamism as opposed to Islam but Islamist Ideology, as Islamist Ideology disambiguates Islam as a religion and Islam as a political system. It makes perfect sense when compared to Nazism and Communism as political systems. MantisEars (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean what some orthodox and fundamentalist communities have chosen to practice they also claim is somehow "pure." I didn't mean that individuals within these communities pick and chose practices willy nilly. But there is no more objective purity to their practices or to their restrictiveness in practice than there is to those of moderates or liberals, and the internal claims of the community are not exactly the stuff of historical fact.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not "somehow pure" because they say it, it's pure because it is free of extraneous elements of any kind, as fundamentalists worship only God, not regional spirits, and they do not choose to have thieves a fair trial instead of cutting off their hands because that is a western influence that makes Islam impure. There is plenty of objective purity, and intent of objective purity. MantisEars (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What you have stated ("free of extraneous elements of any kind") is a falsehood that pretty much flies in the face of all scientific and historical scholarship on religion ever penned. Good job.PelleSmith (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In practice, religion may not be able to be free of extraneous elements, but the key here is intent. Scripture is absolute, and Islamists try to follow it as best they can. Moderates don't. That's the difference. It's simple. 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can take your opinion on this particular matter seriously anymore. No offense but you've contradicted yourself again. What you've ended up saying is exactly what I said from the outset. Islamism choses its own path, which it may claim as more pure (it may "intend to practice a supposedly pure form of Islam) but that this purity is not objective.PelleSmith (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it's practiced in Indonesia probably also pertains to some sort of cultural diffusion (as there is a history of genital mutilation in South Asia), but would be worth looking up; the fact is, most Muslims would not know what female genital cutting pertains, since it is, for any practical purpose, nonexistent in Western China, Central Asia, the Levant, Iran, and Turkey (except for Kurdish regions, where it is still practiced to a certain extent). Regardless, the fact that none of these things are pan-Islamic, and are practiced by locals of all religions (Christians included), makes your entire argument poorly founded. I gave these things simply as examples of inaccuracies in the film simply to suggest the film does have a propagandistic character (hence why such categorizations are appropriate), but we clearly are getting off track. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason Christians practice male genital mutilation (notice the lack of "fe") is because they are instructed to in their scriptures, as a covenant between between God and the Hebrew people, not because it is part of some secular culture in the region. It is NOT an inaccuracy to say that Muslims practice female genital mutilation because they do, and it is NOT inaccurate to say that Muslims hang gays because they do, and it NOT inaccurate to say that Muslims subjugate women because they do. These are cold hard facts. It is now clear that the reason for the category is to marginalize the film with others that have blatant inaccuracies. MantisEars (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mantis I would like to thank you for making your POV and your own "sentiments," as others may interpret them, more and more obvious as this discussion drags on. Circumcision did not become common practice in the United States because as a Christian country Americans decided it was a scriptural mandate. Are you referring to some other Christians who hold or held fast and true to the practice of circumcision? Please stop butchering history, both secular and religious. Are you claiming that saying those things without qualifying them is appropriate simply because any number, however small, of people who happen to adhere to the religion have also engaged in that practice? In that case you're proposing opening up a can of worms of epic proportions.PelleSmith (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the topic of this thread. This is about categorisation of this article. Let's not discuss practical (applied) islamism here, or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia as that will not help this project and is opinion and original research at best. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate alone makes it self-evident that the addition of tags representing POV, and giving institutional weight to personal Point of View and interpretation of the work is not a proper encyclopedic addition to the article. An "official" rendering of POV is not a suitable addition.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. The very notability of this film stems from its perceived anti-Islamic message, a point made by the other anon repeatedly that no one has bothered to answer.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and reaction to the film have been fully recorded in the entry. I would also strongly disagree that it was the content alone that made it notable - there are numerous places and media[27] to find similar ideas. It's notability comes from having a very high profile and officially elected member of a national government deeply involved.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The film was made by a politican that is only well known domestically; it would not be notable for an English Wikipedia if it weren't for the film's perceived message. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That such a public figure is engaging in anti-islamic sentiment makes it notable (a homevideo would not spark the response).... Both elements are important.

I do object to the categorisation on other grounds: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Reliable though. Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how those policies apply here. People throw around links to policies all the time, but it should not be up to us to go and read those policies to find the connections that others have made in their own heads. Please elaborate.PelleSmith (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very verifiable and not original research, since one can easily find dozens of newspaper articles and denouncements of the movie that call it Islamophobic. Certainly there is no scholarly journal that refers to it as anti-Islamic, but that's because the film isn't notable enough to even merit such scrutiny by actual scholars. Moreover, there will always be people that disagree with categories like anti-Islamic sentiment. I disagree that Wilders had much to do with the notability; the Danish cartoons were not done by politicans and they, in fact, had greater notability than this film. It is the content of the film, its perceived message, and the Muslim reaction that made this film notable in the English-speaking sphere. Not the fact that a Dutch politician made it. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

- Specific comment to above. Categorisation is a difficult discipline (ask any librarian). My main objection is that when you look at the members of this category, these are highly subjective (actually this one would far from being most subjective). On that ground I am highly sceptical about the verifiability and reliability of the category and hence of the addition of any article to it. In my mind it this whole categorisation is original research (ie in lumping ideas together). However I realise this article is a bit of an innocent bystander to my opinion and while I stick to my worries I will takes these elsewhere. I won't raise these points again. Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The denouncements were made by politicians who need to pander to religious folk to get votes, and journalists that don't want to say anything bad about the religion of peace lest they face violent retribution -- Public relations 101. It is notable for the politician that made it, because the article was made about the film before it was released, there were even denouncements before the film was released! Compare that to the Danish cartoon controversy, there was no article before the newspaper was printed. MantisEars (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well in short, one would say that you have failed to provide a verifiable citation, from a reliable source that has reported, not criticized, not opined on, but reported on the factuality of an items existence.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now just to be sure, what exactly would you require citation of? A third party reporting on the perception of that this film is anti-Islamic or a third party reporting simply that the film is Anti-Islamic?PelleSmith (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this film was made to be broadly anti-Islam and I think people are smart enough to put that together even without a specific warning label being included in the film. - Schrandit (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad "you think" that this film is not broadly anti-Islam and that you also "think people are smart enough to put that together," but the fact remains that the film mixes elements of mainstream Islam and extremism throughout, while quoting from the Quran and then ends with a written message directed not towards Islamism or extremism but quite literally and simply towards "ISLAM." So do you think that what you think trumps the actual text presented by the film?PelleSmith (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to "prove" something is anti-Semitic just as much as it is impossible to prove something is anti-Islamic (or to prove that gravity exists), as they are both abstract ideas that assume the thoughts of another human. According to your rigid standards, the only way we could label someone anti-Semitic is if they explicitly say that they are. Proof in the sense that you are thinking only exists in a true (not colloquial) sense in mathematics and logic, and cannot be applied here. So I will simply use a refrain: the fact that this movie established its notability through its controversy is enough to merit the categorization, as the categorization is inseparable from the controversy. Based on your philosophy 75-anon, I would suggest that you simply propose all of these Anti-Religion sentiment articles for deletion, rather than appearing to hold the anti-Islam sentiment category up to a double standard. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not see how we can certify an item officially as being in a specific class containing a label which is POV. POV has no place in an encyclopedia. Cite that a scholar has written a paper on the films Anti- whatever and the article itself will probably find a place for it. But that same citation doe s not rise to the level of an Institutional Dictation of Fact.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You oppose the use of all and any category of this kind on all and any page of this kind, Category:Antisemitic publications on Mein Kampf as well (to use an example already in circulation above)?PelleSmith (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all a very neat theoretical discussion, I am as I said clearly opposed to an Institutional POV being dictated. But you have failed to present any of the basics necessary to even begin the process of inclusion or placement. What exactly is the citation and source you wish to include? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have asked for clarification that I have yet to get. First and foremost I asked above how exactly one would satisfy you with a citation (as in, what exactly would need to be cited), and I then asked for you to say whether (as it sounded just above) you object in principle to this kind of category. Please clarify those two things, because I cannot even suggest a citation without knowing the answer to the first question and clearly suggesting any citation is pointless should you answer the second question in one of the two possible ways. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) References are not used for categories, since Wikipedia categories cannot be referenced to an outside source (it is simply a Wikipedia navigation tool). Whether or not you believe this article is in fact Anti-Islamic is up to you, but it is quite clear that the subject matter of this topic falls within that realm. The entire controversy that erupted over this film (and generated its notability) had to do with the contentious material within the film. Similar categories have had edit wars over inclusion and the decisions generally favor inclusion if the article's content is pertinent to the category (e.g. whether or not anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism should be tagged onto the Hezbollah article, and the decision was to keep anti-Semitism simply because Hezbollah has often times been equated as such, even if they explicitly denounce violence against "non-Zionist Jews" in their own public broadcasting).-98.209.101.146 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to play games with semantics - simply propose content for inclusion and the community will discuss it. No other course would be possible.75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What semantics? No content is proposed for inclusion, it is proposed to categorize this entry in a certain category. The rationale has been stated above quite clearly. You have both argued against the use of this kind of category seemingly en toto and you have argued that this particular inclusion cannot be verified. It is now being pointed out to you that inclusion in categories is not verified, and it has been asked of you separately to explain what type of verification you desire (and of course if any verification could be had in your opinion in general). Please respond to the simple questions or explain to me what you don't understand. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - arbitrary break 2

I think you are missing the point of the discussion. The proposal has nothing to do with the article's presentation or current content, it has to do with adding a category to the bottom of the page. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which also means adding this article to that category. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis, what is the source and citation for this institutional declaration?75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you are avoiding my questions. If you have a problem with the use of "POV" categories this instance is not the place to argue this. You should try to have the categories themselves deleted. If on the other hand you truly think verification is possible through some sort of citation please clarify what you in fact think, hypothetically needs to be cited. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Basis, source and citation are all Wikipedia foundations. Without them this becomes a chat room dealing with hypothetical what-if's. I am unable to provide those what-if's for us to chat about.75.57.165.180 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for? A list of articles that call this movie Islamophobic? Please read WP:Category, because I think this discussion is becoming disjointed. If you are still asking for "proof," then this discussion is not for you, as there is no way to "prove" this is anti-Islamic anymore than you can "prove" Hitler was an anti-Semite or "prove" that the Goa Inquisition was anti-Hindu, as there are no universally accepted criteria based purely on observation to determine what is and is not anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, or anti-Hindu. If you are simply fundamentally opposed to Anti-X categories, then I will again suggest that you propose all anti-X categories for deletion and see what the greater wikicommunity has to say about the idea, rather than wasting our time here. I have said this enough. Again you have avoided the argument I have proposed; this category is pertinent to the article since the article earned its notability due to the fact that it made controversial and perceived anti-Islamic statements. Consequently, the perceived anti-Islamic character of the film makes such a category equally inseperable from an article that earned its notability for that very reason. In fact, the REACTIONS page is longer than (almost TWICE as long as) the page on the movie itself, and the reaction is the only reason the movie is notable... Do you still not understand this? -98.209.101.146 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand you have a strong, and personal, point of view that the film has offended you. Again this is not a chat room, a request for citation is not a contentious issue, it is a starting point.75.57.165.180 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK how about, Dutch MP says anti-Islamic film set for broadcast in March, 'Fitna': Dutch leader's anti-Islam film brings strife, Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats', YouTubers Say 'Sorry' for Quran-Bashing Film Fitna, Dutch Politican's Anti-Islam Film Goes Live on Web, or Moscow calls anti-Islamic film Fitna provocative. I mean there is an endless list already out there. Should we continue?PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It actually has very little to do with personal opinions so much as your failure to ask what type of citation you are looking for, which is why I bolded portions of my comment that have had to repeat several times already. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose per 75.57.165.180, MantisEars, and others' comments. It's a vacuous category, and this is a vacuous discussion. Yunfeng (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opposition is rather vacuous. You already said you oppose the category itself, and therefore, I would suggest you take your discussion to a different board (or nominate the category for deletion instead of posting a comment that is irrelevant). We already know that if you oppose the category that you would thus oppose its inclusion into an article. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vacuous because nothing could possible express "Anti-Islamic sentiments"? Agree with IP98 that the discussion about the legitimacy of the category itself should go on elsewhere.PelleSmith (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the category is illegitimate then no article should be under its rule. I have not looked at any other article victimized by this category but I'm sure that if I did I would find problems with their categorization. I could not, however, argue against it as well as I did not watch the development of the other subjects. There probably are some persons and texts that could express "Anti-Islam sentiment", even fewer "Anti-Islamic sentiment", but I feel the subject of this article is not one of them. MantisEars (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How does what "[you] feel" trump what major publications have put to print in news articles?PelleSmith (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The link from the category seems to indicate that inclusion require "prejudice[28] or discrimination[29] against Islam or Muslims.[1]". A call for introspection, (To possibly describe it neutrally) does not in and of itself rise to that level. Your links, although provocative, are op-ed with re: coloration as anti- and are not findings of fact or scholarly recognitions of truth. Remember you're not asking for inclusion of criticism and viewpoints, that already exists, you seek an Institutional Declaration. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are actually entirely mistaken on the OP-ED comment. Agence France-Presse news blurbs are never "op-ed" and the Christian Science Monitor's news piece is quite clearly that, news and not editorializing. Please prove otherwise. And BTW, this is why we have asked you to clarify what type of citation you are asking for.PelleSmith (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Interfax link is also a news piece, and the reason why I posted three from Wired (magazine) is to show that editorial style writing from internet industry sources that clearly don't have a particular political point of view about Islam are even comfortable with this type of terminology.PelleSmith (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And your response to the rest of my comments? (The addition of anti- as a prefix is by definition editorializing. But then the daily press is held to a far lighter standard in regards POV than an Encyclopedia.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see while you don't give answers you are in the business of demanding them. How convenient. Pretty clear prejudice against Islam so I'm not sure what you quoting of the inclusion criteria is about. A call for introspection? Where does the film in any way present itself as a "call for introspection?" I have seen this film, while I remember a lot of imagery and language misrepresenting "Islam" I saw no guidelines for the film being simply a "call for introspection." I do want a declaration, that this film is embroiled in and notable for "anti-Islamic sentiment." I think this is rather obvious. So when news agencies and respectable publications use the term in their headlines that's just opinion? What kind of sources are you looking for? Peer reviewed journals haven't exactly had the time to publish on this.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article will change with time. I'm sorry you did not feel the need to address the balance of my concerns.75.57.165.180 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend I have addressed your every concern, you on the other hand, do not have such a great track record. Can you explain to me what is wrong with news articles from major news sources as verification of the notable description of something as Anti-Islamic? Do you in fact insist on peer reviewed journals and academic publications? Do you think similar categories are equally problematic or is it just the this one? Lastly what balance of concerns did I not address?PelleSmith (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A call for "introspection?" The director himself said that his expressed goal for the movie was to "prove the Koran is a fascist book," and the movie makes explicit, unequivocal suggestions that Islam is equivalent or a parallel threat to Nazism. Please don't give your own apologetic, original excuse for the movie's actual intended goals.

Regardless of the movie's goals, you are now completely avoiding the sources provided. News articles for well respected newspapers do pass WP:RS. The New York Times, despite its alleged "liberal bias," even passes WP:RS. Please read Wikipedia's policy before you accuse us of violating it. If you disagree with these sources, then take them to the Reliable Source board to debate whether or not they should be used. If these citations do not properly address your exact concerns, then why have you still not told us what you want a citation for? Accusing "the media" of being biased (even when appropriate news organizations are given) simply leads me to believe that you have nothing left to argue here. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to them in that manner - my objections lie with the fac that the category seems to indicate that inclusion require "prejudice[30] or discrimination[31] against Islam or Muslims.[1]". Your links are not findings of fact or scholarly recognitions of truth. Remember you're not asking for inclusion of criticism and viewpoints, that already exists and your sources are more than appropriate for inclusion to support the body of the entry, what you demand is an Institutional Declaration that the work be officially designated as "prejudice[32] or discrimination[33] against Islam or Muslims.[1]". That is something that is opposed. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a form of discrimination, and to be accused of being Islamophobic is to be accused of discriminating against Muslims or Islam. Similarly, to be Homophobic does not simply mean one possesses "a fear" toward homosexuals, but it also suggests advocacy for exclusive, segregational, or discriminatory social codes (as this movie does in the case of Islam and Islamophobia). I'm sure the article on Islamophobia has a plethora of sources to defend that if you want to check. Moreover, the topic of Islamophobia is not only cited in news articles, but also in scholarly journals. Simply because they use words like "Islamophobic" rather than "discriminational" within the sources does not disqualify the sources or the categorization at hand. That is simply wikilawyering the wording for the category. If there are numerous reliable souces that label the movie as Islamophobic, then it falls within the category. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this is getting a bit heated, so might I suggest a return to the main subject: the inclusion of the anti-Islam sentiment category. Without personal reasoning and whatnot, use policy and guidelines to define why it is an appropriate category to add or why it is not. For example:

Appropriate - the movie's subject matter points out negative Muslim behavior in conjunction with quotations from the Koran. As such, it has incited negative reaction from many corners who consider the content anti-Islam sentiment. Whether this is accurate or not is unimportant. As per, WP:V, the requirement for inclusion is citability, not truth. As we have a subsidiary article that cites the idea that this film is anti-Islam, the category would appear to be an appropriate one to add.

See? That format allows for the tightening of the argument. This is how its done in admin-driven articles, and we might benefit from the cleanliness of this format as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate as this is a doccumentary critical of islam, not one promoting islamophobia. Yahel Guhan 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to substantiate those claims?PelleSmith (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Comment - I think that anti-Islam sentiment is not a synonym for Islamaphobia. The first is a pre-conceived notion, whereas the second is a gear/hatred of Islam itself. They are not the same thing, and any arguments that they are should be accompanied by citations to that effect. Which, after noticing what my edit conflicted with, seems to be exactly what Pelle was asking for as well. Remember, let's not get off-topic. Just present the cites indicating the synonymous definitions.` - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment reads "The main article for this category is Islamophobia." The category is also a subcategory within the Category:Religious discrimination. In addition, every organization listed there is either been labeled as Islamophobic, or an important party in defining what islamophobia is. Whether intentional or not, it is used as a synonym. And that connection is POV, and I object to its inclusion here. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than most that the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is specifically not Category:Islamophobia a category which has been opposed from day one by editors such as yourself. So please don't come here and claim a synonymous equation between the two. A main article does not a category define. Aside from this, you have not substantiated the claim that this film is not Islamophobic, you certainly have not substantiated the claim that it's not against Islam. There has been substantial discussion about just that above, so please show us some respect and weigh in on the issues that underlie your commentary. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose still. I thought Yahel Guhan was also opposed? 75.58.46.53 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thought you had abandoned this discussion. Hey here's another chance to tell me what's wrong with the sources I dug up, now that you understand that they are news pieces from RS sources and not OP-ed pieces. You asked for citations so please tell me what's wrong with the ones I brought you. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, note how I suggested we phrased the comments - appropriate or inappropriate - so as to avoid the contentious and abrasive nature of oppose, or support (or, in your case, strongly oppose). It keeps matters more professional and less confrontational. Maybe I could impose upon you to try and follow the format which causes the least amount of trouble, and not simply oppose any darn thing I do. (I know you don't like me, but you need to find a professional way to deal with that that doesn't interfere with the editing environment here, okay?) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the category is appropriate, per the points given above. Please note that the category doesn't imply that the topic is Islamophobic, no more than the category "Antisemitism" implies that the topic is antisemitic.Bless sins (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) For clarification, I support the addition of the category.Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate - Everything I wanted to say has already been mentioned by other editors. It's very obviously related to the topic. thestick (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate - I feel the issues by the opposing viewpoint have been thoroughly addressed and the inclusion can be justified by Wikipedia policies, as previously mentioned. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am 98.209.101.146, just for transparency :) -Timour Derevenko (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate - The naming of the category uses unnecessarily inflammatory language to promote a certain point of view about the film. "Anti-Islam" could probably be found in sources, but "Anti-Islam Sentiment" [when describing the film] is often left to op-ed pieces. I have already explained how the existing categories are fine, and tell more about the film -- that it is a Documentary, and that it is critical of Islam. I found the arguments of Timour and Pelle, that the Qur'an was poorly translated, and that Muslims simply don't do female genital mutilation and honor killings... to be unsatisfying and deceitful. MantisEars (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the points made. No one said female genital mutilation and honor killings "don't happen" in the Muslim world; however, they are not pan-Islamic ideas (nor were they ever), and they have to do with regional traditions (hence why local Christians also participate in them), not religious ones. The sources that PelleSmith provided are reliable newspaper sources; if you disagree with them, then please give us reasoning why, rather than labelling them without explanation. The mistranslations of the Qur'an (and the honor killings, genital mutiliation, etc.) were simply examples provided to counter your claims that the movie is not hateful and that it only targets "Islamism," which, according to you, is "Islam in its purest form." If you are opposed to the category's title, then that is an entirely different issue; take that to a different board. It is an inappropriate argument for this situation. Calling other users "deceitful" is uncivil. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Second that. The news articles I quoted are very specifically NOT OP-ED, and no one has claimed that these things do not happen in parts of the Islamic world, but simply that they are by no means pan-Islamic.PelleSmith (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I answer the title part well in the third arbitrary break, but I will condense it here: If I believed "Anti-Islam sentiment" was inappropriate for any article, I would request the category's deletion. I do not believe that, I just do not think it is an accurate descriptor for this subject. MantisEars (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Most news article I've laid eyes on in the days following the release have been pretty clear in defining Wilders' work as "anti-Islam". I don't see why any rationale why the category shouldn't be included in this particular entry. The mere fact that Wilders is associated with a video about Islam should, in principle be enough to motivate the inclusion of said category. Lixy (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - arbitrary break 3

Summation-Why Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is clearly appropriate

Since the above commentary is a bit of a mess I thought I would sum up the arguments put forth as to why this entry should obviously be included in the contested category. Please feel free to add to them. En toto these points also substantiate what seems to be the most compelling overarching reason for inclusion--the fact that the very notability of this film is due to the perception of it as anti-Islamic both before and after its release.PelleSmith (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The creator of film himself has been quoted in newspapers calling the Koran a "fascist" book, and saying that he believes the "Islamic theology is a dangerous, retarded one." And while he has publicly claimed that he does not hate "Muslims," that is people adhering to a dangerous, retarded theology, he's pretty emphatic about being against Islam, as a belief system at the very least. As a side not no distinction is made in his commentary, as far as I can see, between the religion in general and any specific extremist ideologies.
2. The film itself does not make any distinctions between Islam and fundamentalist or extremist strands thereof. Its images blend the mainstream with the fringe, and its verbal warnings quite literally use only the terms "Islam," "Islamic," and "Islamisation." Whatever the message of the film is, or whatever its sentiments may be, they are clearly directed towards Islam. Any other reading would require a very significant amount of WP:OR interpretation.
3. Reaction to the film, both before and after its release has been widely to consider it as anti-Islamic, from without and perhaps particularly from within Muslim communities. This is decently documented in International reaction to Fitna, but can also be seen in many standard and reliable news publications.
4. Reliable news sources themselves have resorted to using phrases like "anti-Islamic" to describe the film in their headlines. That is to say not simply in the body of their reportage to describe a limited POV about the film, but emphatically as a descriptor of what the film. Here are but three examples: 1) From Agence France-Presse--Dutch MP says anti-Islamic film set for broadcast in March, 2) from The Christian Science Monitor--'Fitna': Dutch leader's anti-Islam film brings strife, and 3) from Interfax--Moscow calls anti-Islamic film Fitna provocative. Likewise examples were given from a non-partisan (in terms of ethnic politics) Internet industry magazine, Wired (magazine), from its "blog network" site, but they appear to be news pieces all the same. Here is one example: Dutch Politican's Anti-Islam Film Goes Live on Web. It has also been pointed out that this form of verification is unnecessary per WP:Category, but since it was demanded it was presented all the same.
5. It was also argued that if people take general issue with the use of this category, and similar categories, on any Wikipedia page, then making those types of arguments here is inappropriate. If the community sanctions a category then we may use it for its sanctioned purpose, if it does not then we may not. This means recourse is available in other forums like those requesting the deletion of this and similar categories. Comments can also be requested elsewhere as one editor has already done.
6. Most recently it was pointed out that inclusion in the category does not stipulate that the subject of an entry is actually Islamophobic, or necessarily is against Islam or Muslims, but more broadly that the subject refers to the topic Anti-Islamic sentiment. This can be seen at Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. In other words, whatever Wilders intentions were with this film, and or whatever he believes in his heart of hearts, or whatever someone may interpret him to stand for, does not change the fact that his film is embroiled in this topic.

Responses

In response to point number 5, which could be applied to some of my arguments, I will say that "Anti-Islam Sentiment" fits with certain articles, about, say, a protest in response to an honor killing of a respected member of the community, calling for the practice to end. Before adding a category, I think "will this add more information to the article?" A similar proposition was discussed when one editor wanted to put the whole Liveleak takedown quote on the page. We had already summarized the threat, and the response, so there was no need to add the quote. Yes, the film was widely perceived as being anti-Islam but many also consider criticism of the Israeli government to be anti-semitism. Categorizing films according to public opinion would lead to chaos.

If Fitna is known primarily for, as you argue, the strong reactions on the part of the Muslim community, it better belongs on the International reaction to Fitna page where Islamists felt that Islam was being threatened and they had to react, or their actions could be interpreted as purposefully hurting Islam in the eyes of Westerners. MantisEars (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually a very small minority consider criticism of Israeli state policy to equate to Antisemitism. Likewise some Americans may consider international disapproval of the Bush administration as "anti-American," but most of us understand that in order to be anti-American our entire nation, culture, and/or society must be the object of criticism. This is also the case with Islam--being against Islamism, or the policies of the Iranian government for that matter, is not likely to be perceived as anti-Islamic but railing against "Islam" in general certainly is. This particular reaction does not come simply from within the Muslim community, that is a very gross misrepresentation. These strong reactions have come from everywhere, and the categorization of the film as Anti-Islamic has come from non-partisan and reliable news publications. Also Wilders does not even seem to dispute the notion. He seems pretty proudly to be against Islam as a belief system and certainly against its most basic compendium of beliefs, the Qu'ran. I don't think I understand the example you gave for an appropriate inclusion of the category. How is objecting to honor killings "anti-Islamic?" You consider objections to the sexual abuse of alter boys to be "anti-Catholic," or an objection to the killing of abortion doctors to be "Anti-Christian?"PelleSmith (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Objecting to honor killings would be anti-Islam because it disrespects cultures with Islamic influence, it would be like objecting to the practice of tying yourself to a cross on Good Friday. This is not to say that they only happen because of Islam, but those most likely to protest are those who find Muslim immigrants being their culture to their land where the law is quite different, religion discourages integration. MantisEars (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please substantiate the claim that "honor killings are one of the core pillars of Islam." The entry here on honor killing includes the following, contradictory and referenced text: "Islamic religious authorities prohibit extra-legal punishments such as honor killings, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue."PelleSmith (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are going to replace one incendiary and unsubstantiated comment ("honor killing is a core pillar of Islam") with another ("honor killing is a core pillar of what it means to be Islamic")? This second, perhaps even more incendiary wording since now your commenting on the essential nature of a Muslim identity, also requires being substantiated.PelleSmith (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to point number 6, if this was the true intent of the category (to document articles surrounding the controversy instead of articles whos' subjects are perceived to be anti-Islam, then I have no problem with the categorization of Fitna in principle. I went to the category's page to point out the contradiction, but I see that it has changed to say that “Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims.” I withdraw my objections. MantisEars (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what version you saw originally but you can go back rather far in the history of the category and see the same language present. Perhaps you never bothered to visit the category before you started commenting here. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, when I went to point out the contradiction I had a certain revision in mind. I remember visiting it when it was first proposed, and seeing that the category was a typical boilerplate category with a main page, Islamophobia. Using that word gave me a bad sense of what the category was about, trying to lump fear or dread of Muslims (which is quite justified if you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim country or community) with discrimination and hatred against Muslims. That plus the inclusion of mostly extreme articles like the Westboro Baptist Church or Vatican Islam Conspiracy with political parties like National Alliance (Netherlands) made me suspect that Fitna was being added to the category for political reasons. MantisEars (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Here is the first edit moving the category from Category:Islamophobia, in November 2007 [34]. Same language. As far as I know, no related or previous category ever had this name.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Item #1 This item is a criticism of one(certainly the most famous and primary) of the creators and is indirectly trelated to the work itself.75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is more than pertinent since Wilders drummed up publicity for this film through his own public commentary about its subject matter. It also questions commentary about the intent of the film being directed towards Islamism, and not Islam itself more generally. However, it is but one point of many.PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The category is a subset of Islamaphobia, it is by definition a statement that the subject of the article is prejudicial and discriminatory towards Islam or Muslims. The film does not sufficiently meet the standard for discrimination and prejudice necessary for the editors here to place an Institutional finding of Fact on their personal opinions and point of view.75.57.186.159 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a problem with how the category is structured. The category's language clearly states that adding the category does not imply what you claim. Please see point #5 above, and bring this matter up at Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment.PelleSmith (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, as Arcayne pointed out earlier, Wikipedia is not about "truth" or "proof" (and as I pointed out, we cannot "prove" something is anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic); the primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, and the film verifiably expresses anti-Islamic ideas and messages. Numerous reliable sources have since been provided to support this position. Although that does not necessarily mean the film is anti-Islamic, it does mean that the film did touch on hypersensitive issues pertaining to anti-Islam, discrimination against Muslims, Islamophobia, and other related topics. The category doesn't necessarily mean that the film is anti-Islamic, it simply means that the category is very pertinent to the article. In this specific case, there is a very widely held POV that the film was over the top and demanded outright discrimination against Muslim communities in Europe (comparing Islam to Nazism, even), hence why it received such bad press, provoked protests, etc. Geert Wilder's own record speaks for itself (supports banning the Qur'an and making it illegal to own, purchase, or sell them - he has compared it to Mein Kampf). -Timour Derevenko (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The film does not meet the definition of "prejudice[35] or discrimination[36] against Islam or Muslims". It is only a work critical of, not prejudicial or discriminatory, no reliable source has stated otherwise. Whether the public figure is, is really a discussion for the Wilders talk page.75.57.186.159 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how this is pertinant here or cease making this argument. Nowhere does it state that inclusion into this category requires meeting those parameters, taken by you from the definition of Islamophobia and not from Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Mind you also that Category:Islamophobia has been deleted three times and this category is explicitly not called such. Plenty of reliable sources have labeled this film as anti-Islamic and no dispute has been made by you that the film does not refer to Anti-Islam sentiment.PelleSmith (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The category explicitly states: The main article for this category is Islamophobia. As a subset of Islamaphobia this category logically requires the same determination.75.57.186.159 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? thestick (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠My "point" was a direct response to the text directly proceeding mine:

"Please explain how this is pertinant here or cease making this argument. Nowhere does it state that inclusion into this category requires meeting those parameters, taken by you from the definition of Islamophobia and not from Category:Anti-Islam sentiment."

I responded clearly and directly to the assertion that "Nowhere does it state that inclusion into this category requires meeting ... the definition of Islamophobia. " I stated:

"The category explicitly states: The main article for this category is Islamophobia. As a subset of Islamaphobia this category logically requires the same determination."

That was my point, I trust it's clear now. No offense - I just want to ensure that this debate is clear.75.57.186.159 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes its clear but its irrelevant. What policy or guideline do we follow when we take your interpretation of what should "logically" follow into account? In terms of Wikipedia editing you have no point, and that is exactly our point. PelleSmith (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠First and foremost we require a Reliable Source stating unequivocally that the work, not the man, is an act of "prejudice[37] or discrimination[38] against Islam or Muslims". I'll suggest at this point the work is referenced to be simply critical of.75.57.186.159 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No we require no such thing-and that's the point you consistently refuse to address. Please show me the policy or guideline that says we overlook the inclusion criteria stated in the category description for your "logical" interpretation of the main entry and how it should be applied. Perhaps you should start with WP:Categories in your research. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Meeting the definition of the logical subset is a presumed precondition to inclusion in the category. A Reliable Source supporting that assertion is also required.75.57.186.159 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not have to meet the definition; we simply need to have a significant amount of reliable sources that characterize the item as such, which they do. Verifiability, not truth. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠We have no Reliable Source that the work is "prejudice[39] or discrimination[40] against Islam or Muslims". May I suggest that a simple quote of one sentence be introduced to support any assertion that a link presented contains such a finding?75.57.186.159 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your off topic comments should be deleted. That's actually policy.PelleSmith (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment:

Your off topic comments should be deleted. That's actually policy.PelleSmith (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

is inappropriate.75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

75.57.186.159 - "We have no Reliable Source that the work is "prejudice[41] or discrimination[42] against Islam or Muslims" - Please read the article and check the references , you'll find the sources - I found many. It doesn't matter whether it is or not - the category is also for articles in which there is a discussion about it and not what some wikipedia editors think about it. thestick (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are failing to see the point. We are adding it to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and there have been reliable sources that suggest this film is "anti-Islamic" (and even "Islamophobic," which is a form of discrimination according to its scholarly definition); the category of anti-Islam sentiment is very pertinent to this film for reasons previously mentioned. To determine whether or not the film actually meets the criteria is not only subjective, but also original research. The demand for truth is simply not necessary for Wikipedia disputes of this genre, as I have said before. Similarly, it is impossible to "prove" gravitational theory or "prove" that love exists or "prove" that Hitler was antisemitic, since theories, ideas, and abstractions cannot be proven; we just need verifiable sources that will allow us to write about it. There are no fixed, objective criteria to define what is and is not discrimination; consequently, there is no premiss to prove that this film truly did cross the line. However, we have sources that say this film was Islamophobic. We have sources that say it was anti-Islamic. Those are the types of resources that what we need.-Timour Derevenko (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠We have no Reliable Source that the work is "prejudice[43] or discrimination[44] against Islam or Muslims". May I suggest that a simple quote of one sentence be introduced to support any assertion that a link presented contains such a finding?75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into disruption. It has been explained to you several times that this is not on topic since what you are asking for has no bearing on policy or guidelines. You also refuse to show how it does. Repeating the same thing over and over despite the fact that everyone present has explained to you what its inapplicable and simply a subjective demand of yours is disruption. BTW, the last time you asked a similar question, you were finally answered with several sources at which point you simply dismissed those sources to make this claim.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So I think we can conclude - Dont feed the ...... thestick (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠I'm sorry that you feel the request for a single quote to support your assertion is disruptive. You do understand that I cannot read your links and demonstrate a negative. If there is nothing there to support the assertion that this Film is "prejudice[45] or discrimination[46] against Islam or Muslims" I can not show that. You however can demonstrate a positive by quoting a single sentence in support of your claim.75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to make you stop this nonsense: Far-right Dutch MP will fix errors in 'Fitna' - except its Islamophobia. This is from The Nation: "It seeks to affirm Samuel Huntington's pernicious vision of clashing civilizations by inviting violent responses from radicals, by forcing moderate Muslims into unpleasant choices between national loyalties and religious beliefs, and by reinforcing prejudicial views of Islam as unfit for civilized living."--Fitna's Hateful Crusade. PelleSmith (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠The provocative headline was an editorial appendage from the owners of the website - the body of text from Agence France Presse (AFP) makes no such finding. This particular link is not a supporting citation.75.57.186.159 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So what do you call this, the actual text from the AFP under the headline?--"Dutch far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic film has provoked uproar and global condemnation, will amend the movie to prevent lawsuits, the ANP news agency said Monday. The changes are mainly aimed at pre-empting legal action over possible copyright infringements but the news agency said." This is not an editorialized comment from the Star ... the news agency in the report is the ANP, and the news agency that created this blurb is the AFP.PelleSmith (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠The article was obviously not written by AFP - you will never find AFP articles that quote themselves. I've highlighted the part that indicates this:

"Dutch far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic film has provoked uproar and global condemnation, will amend the movie to prevent lawsuits, the ANP news agency said Monday. The changes are mainly aimed at pre-empting legal action over possible copyright infringements but the news agency said."

The person who owns the website may have added an AFP byline - but it does not contain the AFP text.75.57.186.159 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper that runs the website you refer to has added a true to life AFP news blurb. To clarify the AFP, or Agence France-Presse has written a news blurb that quotes the ANP, or Netherlands national news agency. This is 100% entirely clear. The Daily Star would be violating all kinds of laws if they posted their own material claiming it was written by the AFP, not to mention the fact that it would be an absurd coincidence if they misspelled the name with an N, making it sound like it has the same name as the Netherlands national news agency. Please stop disseminating lies.PelleSmith (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

thestick (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all valid points against the categorization have been properly addressed, and we are now going in circles with 75-anon; if I am not mistaken, MantisEars withdrew his opposition after the category was clarified as not necessarily suggesting all pages within the category truly are anti-Islamic. At this point we are going in circles. Is there anything left to say, or should we add it to the category now? Islamophobic and Anti-Islamic labellings both have very high verifiability for this article by the AP and various credible news organizations from Europe and the United States. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The category tag has been here all along this discussion. No need to add it.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I had realized after posting. I had assumed that it was removed during the discussion since it was in contention. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Neither the AFP nor ANP has written the provocative headline you wish to use as your citation. The word Islamaphobia was added by the website. It is this very word, Islamaphobia, that you use as justification. I'm sorry to point out that headlines from website owners attached to text do not make them sourced to the News Agency. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say for sure who wrote the headline, but the text of the blurb is clearly attributed to the AFP and it goes as follows (for the SECOND TIME): ""Dutch far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic film has provoked uproar and global condemnation, will amend the movie to prevent lawsuits, the ANP news agency said Monday. The changes are mainly aimed at pre-empting legal action over possible copyright infringements but the news agency said."PelleSmith (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠Here is the same article [47]. With a different headline and no use of the word Islamaphobia. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No you're right, this news story uses the term "Anti-Islamic" to describe the film which happens to be exactly what the category you are trying to claim is inappropriate is called, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. You are the only one insisting on Islamophobia as opposed to "anti-Islamic," most probably because you realized that the term Islamophobia was much less utilized in the mainstream press than the more pertinent term "anti-Islamic." Here have another WCC Criticizes Islamophobic Film, Calls for Mutual Respect.PelleSmith (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to this news article the UN secretary general called the film "islamophobic"--The film "Fitna" creates scandal among Muslims--"'Fitna' has been condemned by the Dutch government, and the national television channels have preferred not to show it, but the short film continues to spread over the internet. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has declared it 'offensive and Islamophobic.'"PelleSmith (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠No one contends that it has not been attacked - it was condemned before it was even seen. My point is that the category requires that the work, not the man, be an act of "prejudice[48] or discrimination[49] against Islam or Muslims". I've suggested that the work is referenced to be simply critical of. Islam and does not automatically by virtue of offering criticism rise to the level fitting the definition of Islamaphobia and it's subsets. The application of the tag is an Institutional Declaration by Wikipedia condemning the work as Prejudicial [50] and Discriminatory [51] supporting such a finding should not be considered a Herculean task.75.57.186.159 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And you've been answered several times over that this is simply false. The category is used when the entry is relevant to or refers to "Anti-Islam sentiment." You are inserting your own opinion that since Islamophobia is the main entry for the category then any entry in the category has to be about a subject that is verifiably Islamophobic. This is simply not true. Here is the exact text about the category: "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims." Even if you want to treat anti-Islam sentiment and Islamophobia as synonymous your perspective is entirely unsupported, because the entry would then only have to "refer to the topic of Islamophobia." Whether you call it Islamophobia or Anti-Islam sentiment, we have shown repeatedly that the subject of the entry does refer to such a topic. You also refuse to show how any policy or guideline supports your strange understanding of WP:Categories. You are simply trolling.PelleSmith (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this conversation and with your trolling. This film is widely considered as anti-Islamic, and it has been verified time and again above. The Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is therefore clearly appropriate. The idea that something other than verification of this fact is necessary for a category baring the very term that has been so verified is completely absurd. I will now finally stop feeding the troll.PelleSmith (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:V. If sources are discussing this film within the context of Islamophobia, vis-a-vis "anti-Islam sentiment," then there is nothing to debate. We do appear to have sources calling it anti-Islam, Islamophobia, hate-speech and offensive, and PelleSmith has given us a number of them. So what, precisely, are we arguing over? ITAQALLAH 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No one was trolling - if you feel that the headline you presented is better than anybody else's made up headline for the same story that's fine. The citation is weak and fails to even hold up from one website to the next, so what? I'm sorry to have bothered you with a civil request for citation, it's just fine, use anything or nothing at all. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose using the anti-islam sentiment category, as the Documentaries critical of islam category is specific enough. StaticGull  Talk  16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response/Debate?

I see there is a reactions section, but what about creating a section about responses to the claims in the movie? I remember an interview in abcnews.com where someone explained the verses and pointing out the succeeding verses after those cited in the movie, anyone aware of it? thestick (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I propose a restructuring something like this

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Content
• 3. Release
• 4. Reaction >-- moved to other article anyway
• 5. Response / Debate

thestick (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A separate article was created with the intent to focus on responses to the film. You can access that page here. This page focuses primarily on the movie's production, release, and content. I think most editors were opposed to merging all of the material, since the "International reaction to Fitna" page is already almost 70k. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be mainly a collection of quotes/events about the movie in general, what I meant was including a response section which discusses the content in detail, kind of like an allegation / response structure. thestick (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like a rebuttal? 75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A rebuttal or refutation of the short film would violate WP:POV; we can simply list responses by different sources (whether positive or negative). -Timour Derevenko (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So a reaction section?75.57.186.159 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too sure about this idea since there already exists an article for such a thing, and this page does link to it. Perhaps this discussion would be better for the International reaction to Fitna article; that article is already somewhat poorly structured. It is essentially a newspaper archive (timeline of events as they occur). -Timour Derevenko (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section MantisEars (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"we can simply list responses by different sources (whether positive or negative)" yeah kind of like that, but not a single comment or statement about the movie (that would belong in the reaction article) - but specific discussions on the content of the movie. thestick (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We must strive to integrate criticism in the article as best we can, because if we add a debate section it would have to expand to cover every possible argument, eventually ending up like the monster that killed the once featured article Same-sex marriage. I would also like to point out much of the non-blanking vandalism by anons were essays in "criticism" sections about why they thought Wilders misinterpreted certain verses. This would be an all-too-tempting platform. MantisEars (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so how about modelling it after this - The Bell Curve or The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, this movie certainly has more criticism than praise. (from the content to the windows movie maker production values) thestick (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with [the Bell Curve] comparison is that The Bell Curve is a book that deals in the sciences and most of the criticism comes from picky academic journals. Fitna is about religion, and anyone can have an opinion about religion whether they have a title of "Mr" or "Shaykh". MantisEars (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so pick the WP:RS and WP:V ones . thestick (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. After reading through all the (mostly) substantive arguments presented on the category inclusion, I think that there is enough evidence to indicate that the category apparently has enough traction for inclusion. As was mentioned above, Some of these citations need to start making it into the article. Otherwise this is mental masturbation. A response section might need to be included, and we can prosify and then cannibalize the sub-article International reaction to Fitna to present a more rounded reaction (instead of what is essentially a list in the reacton sub-article).

Let's get cracking! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the article I was talking about (turns out it's already used in the article, but for something else) - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4544952&page=1. Furthermore, I suggest the lead,plot etc. be rewritten like how it normally is for articles about movies, ex: Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope thestick (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See 300 (film) for a FA-class article on a much-objected-to film. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ps: List of FA-class film articles is here.

I worked on that article extensively, and can offer insights, if needed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Beyond Fitna' (insulting the Bible) - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997559/posts 195.188.112.2 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates Ban

Fitna_(film) page is the only wiki page which is blocked (among to many other web resources) by both UAE Internet providers (Etisalat and du).91.74.53.210 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is interesting trivia I don't see the relevance for discussing this. Arnoutf (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It could go into the wikipedia signpost. Andjam (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The sentence "The film explores Qur'anic motivation for terrorism, Islamic universalism, and Islam in the Netherlands. " seems to be an OR - otherwise please provide a single reference which has that sentence. Suigeneris (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be OR to me, but a brief summary of the film's subject...the reference for that would be the film itself, I guess. Kelly ^hi! 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't help - no reference , no bon bons - just like articles that puts positive light on Islam need references, this too need them on every sentence Suigeneris (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Do you have an alternative summary for the opening paragraph? Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead section only repeats what is found in the body at a higher level of generality. It should be able to stand alone as a concise view of the article. References can be found in the themes section. See also: WP:LEAD MantisEars (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...also, I don't see any need to include the "Shitna" YouTube parody in reactions, it seems absolutely non-notable. Anyway, the user above who was repeatedly adding it has been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Kelly ^hi! 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zencv on this, it is OR as it now stands. If the film purports to explore these issues maybe we should add something to that effect, and or if there are outside sources that describe it as dealing with these issues in this neutral seeming manner that may also be an acceptable solution. Stating that something explores "Qur'anic motivation for terrorism" accepts, by implication, that there is such a thing as the "Qur'anic motivation for terrorism," on top of accepting that this is actually what the film explores, and/or that the film explores it in manner that isn't extremely prejudicial or distorted. At the very least some qualifiers are needed here.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead need not give references when it summarises the referenced body of the article. However, I am with PelleSmith that the phrase `explores Qur'anic motivation for....´ is no summary of the article. How about `connects the Qu´ran to.....´ or something similar; at least that can be summarised from the rest of the article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, good point. I would rather reword this than simply delete it but a good substitute isn't coming to mind. Kelly ^hi! 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence could be changed to something like "The film features Qur'anic verses used by Islamic terrorists to justify violence". The surrounding paragraph would have to be re-worded for this, which would be a good thing, as it is not as descriptive of the plot as it should be. MantisEars (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm willing to trust this film even with that much, and the film never makes that claim as far as I know. Its a typical propaganda film, not a substantive piece of scholarship. The juxtaposition of images and text does not clearly and unassailably make for the concrete points that are being drawn from them. Though I do agree that the film maker's intention is to make an explicit and general connection between the Qu'ran (and Islam) and terrorist violence.PelleSmith (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the film does not say much, you could even say it lacks a coherent plot. To understand the film, we must look to interviews with Geert Wilders. For example, from the Der Spiegel interview:

“ Wilders: I want to provoke a discussion. Certain Koranic verses have moved their followers to commit the most abhorrent acts. Where is the imam who stands up in the Netherlands and says, for us, homosexuals are entitled to equal rights and everyone has the right to abandon their faith. ”

MantisEars (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then a reference would be nice with a qualifier that it was the film creator's intention to do X, Y and Z.PelleSmith (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's use this respite that the articleis locked to knock out a consensus for the Lead and plot. Essentially the film is broken into surahs and how they have been misinterpreted by the zealotry. Maybe note how the text of the surahs, and then the imagery accompanying it.
I am thinking we should try to keep the article Triumph of the Will close at hand. As this is a propaganda piece as well (a documentary presents the whole problem with potential solutions, whereas propaganda just presents the problem in exaggerated detail). Triumph is FAclass, so we can't really go wrong following it step by step. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not true; a documentary film does not need to present a clear solution, it just needs to document something. This film, like many other political documentaries can be called both a documentary and a propaganda film — It documents something the director feels is distressing and proposes a controversial solution. If not for Triumph of the Will's featured status, we could just as easily keep An Inconvenient Truth at hand.

For the plot: first thing we need to do is cut out the documented newspaper headline list and long quotes, next is to change the prose so instead of regurgitating the plot "this happened, and then this happened" it is summarized, then organized. Then we can focus on the other sections that need attention, like the reaction (cleanup) and development (expansion). MantisEars (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

Okay, I've reverted back to the pre-edit war version of the article. I would like to strongly suggest that the two editors with the differences congregate here and resolve their issues before the dispute-locked. Work out the issues and find a compromise before adding anything to the lead that might possibly be controversial. This edit-warring is stupid, and it destabilizes the article. Please use this page to talk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gahh! Already dispute-locked (though to be fair, I did post about the wild westy-ness going on, so I think I helped it to happen). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many pics?

It appears to me there are too many screenshots in this article for a 15 minute film. I think the first image is enough to give an idea of the contents and style thestick (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the plot line is also to extensive for a 15 minute film. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The film is split into three sections each with its own purpose. The pictures are appropriate for the depth of each theme, and can be removed once the plot is summarized. MantisEars (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protect Requests

{{editprotected}} EDIT: Delete the word "Productions" from the InfoBox listing for Director, Writer and Editor. This will leave Scarlet Pimpernel as the credited pseudonym. Leave all other Credits.

This is the community consensus, a challenge to the source was discussed at WP:OR and WP:RS amongst others and the use of the Films Credits as a WP:RS has been resolved by the Reliable Source Notice Board, "A Films Credits are a Reliable Source and are the preferred citation for the Movies InfoBox." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The topic is still in discussion at both locations (and a few others as well). As well, we have citation that notes that the name is an alias. We are an encyclopedia, not a film review club. If there is a citation that states the contrary - that 'Scarlet Pimpernel' is an individual, please feel free to bring that to oppose the citation that says different. Otherwise, it should not change. Citations always trump Imdb or personal observation, per WP:PSTS. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As an outside editor who has had the misfortune of seeing this argument in several places, can I say that consensus does seem to be emerging. If we are to require secondary sources for this film's credits, then I suggest that must be the case for every film and television show's credits. However, that isn't going to happen. I agree with anonymous user that this has been debated to death, and if anything that a mention in the body of the article and perhaps a footnote are where the "Production" should be listed. AniMate 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we are to mislead the reader and have them actually think that the Scarlet Pimpernel hopped out of a book, put on a mask and made a Dutch documentary? Noting - from a verified source, mind you - that Scarlet Pimpernel is a production company seems rather our specific task. They call it the infobox for that reason, and not inferbox - we put actual info there,not our observations (which lose a fistfight with secondary sources every time). I am sorry you are tired of seeing the topic in other forums. Perhaps if it weren't misrepresented there, the problem would have been solved by now, rather than having to rebuild every time spurious info or flaming posts sideline stuff like policy and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So the IPs observations of the film credits are less credible than your observations of your source? Interesting, because last I checked they both involved reading words, though one is on a movie screen and the other is on a computer screen or newspaper print. Still, both of you observed these in essentially the same way. AniMate 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be the wrong way of looking at it, unless we've in the interim undone how we useWP:PSTS, wherein it states:

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.

As the anon is noting that he has observed the credits of the movie, and is using that as the impetus for exclusion of noting the production company, WP:V says that a reliable citation, written by someone else (thereby making it the primary source, and not Wikipedia), trumps his observation of the credits. The citation is a secondary source:

Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

As well, while the Lead of the article is supposed to summarize the article, the infobox is supposed to have the most concise and abbreviated info about the article. Since the observable info presented by the anon ('I saw it') is subsequently seen to be the short form of a production company, and cited as such, we are supposed to put that in the infobox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. This is a dead issue - you have failed to enlist a single voice in support of your effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[52][53][54][55] [56]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, on numerous user talk pages, it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox and Reverted by you on Ten Separate Occasions and now you've opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[57]

It is Resolved. It is the Community's Consensus. Even you must agree that there is not now, and never has been, any support for your effort. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the use of "Scarlet Pimpernel" in quotations marks so that it is clear this is not someone's legal name, yet we don't add language that isn't present in the films credits. I believe this compromise was offered and supported by Blueboar in one of the forums that this conversation has been ongoing in. I also believe that the main body of the entry is the proper place to explain what is known about the "Scarlet Pimpernel" and the connection it has to "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" and so on. Is this acceptable? Can we be done with this? Arcayne I just don't see anyone rallying behind your insistence and I think this dispute is hurting efforts to continue working on the page since it is currently completely protected. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar said "I agree with listing "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box and discussing the tie to "Friends of the PVV" (cited to the other source) in the text."

I have no problem using "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" where 'Cited, it is not cited as Director, Writer and Editor. The end credit cites the film as a Scarlet Pimpernel Production - but does not use this term in the position credits. Much like we would see a distinction between Alan Smithee and the phrase Alan Smithee Production. It's a real difference - we can not create things independently that do not exist merely as compromise in order to stop someones personal campaign. It just is not so and we can not make it so just to appease.75.58.39.201 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a similar statement he made where the "Productions" was excluded:

• "Actually, in this case my first choice would be to simply omit listing the Director, Writer and Editor completely. But if that is not possible, as a second choice I could see listing 'Scarlet Pimpernel' (including the quotes - to indicate that this is an obvious pseudonym - I might even include a statement to that effect in a foot note or as part of the citation). The point is to make it clear to any readers that the film was made anonymously, and does not actually list the people involved. And, of course, if a reliable source, disclosing the individual(s) involved, is located... that should be discussed and cited in the text.Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC")

Either way, can we please consider "Scarlet Pimpernel" in quotes but without the "Productions" in the infobox and the rest for the main text. Is anyone in favor of this? At the very least in favor of doing so for Director and Editor?PelleSmith (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support that compromise.PelleSmith (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I support that compromise. MantisEars (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source Notice Board Editor Blueboar has clarified his remarks:

The film credits state that the film is "a Scarlet Pimpernel Production"... so including the word "Productions" in the box for producer is correct. For other box categories (director, writer, etc.) the film credits simply list "Scarlet Pimpernel" as if this was a person. So Scarlet Pimpernel (without the word productions) is what should go in the boxes for those categories. Blueboar 15:49, 16 April 2008

75.58.39.201 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you agree to "Scarlet Pimpernel" in quotes for the Editor and Director (with the producer still under debate)? Can we at least nail that down?PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am being quoted so much :>) I think it best that I chime in directly on this page. My comments about adding the word "productions" may have led to some confusion... I now see that the info box does not actually list the producer. So what I said will not apply. I think adding scare quotes around "Scarlet Pimpernel" in the other listings is a good compromise ... it clearly tells the reader that this is an alias, while remaining true to what appears on screen. I would add the following citation to explain the alias: <ref>As taken from the film's Credits. Note: The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is an obvious alias, an allusion to the [[The Scarlet Pimpernel|fictional character]] of the same name created by Emmuska Orczy.</ref> . Hopefully this clarifies my position and my suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does. We are still waiting to hear from the two warring parties as to whether or not they can accept the compromise and move on. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, both work and a desire to remove myself from as a lightning rod for distracting posts dissuaded me from posting before others could have a chance to weigh in without being caught in snipes and snarks (though I would hope them not to be coming from me, or at all). I think the solution (though suggested at least once before on another page) is a well-reasoned substitution and compromise. I will be voting to support this compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought on compromise

(copied here--please only respond directly to the request in this section)

As per Blueboar and my own comments above: Can we please consider "Scarlet Pimpernel" in quotes but without the "Productions" in the infobox and the rest for the main text. Is anyone in favor of this?PelleSmith (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support that compromise.PelleSmith (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I support that compromise with some reservations. (See below) MantisEars (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I support that compromise with, as you propose, Blueboars additional text for the prose. ( I think that the quotes should be reconsidered by future editors {Iwill never engage in the debate again with future ed's} under the broader context of Wiki - as I think our use of quotes here is unusual, unique to the moment, added for the purposes of consensus, without a strong basis and should not set a precedent nor be carved in stone.)75.58.39.201 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: Taking your qualifications into consideration, please do not use them as future license, once the page is unprotected, to remove the scare quotes, because in that case you might as well just oppose them now. I'm not saying you will. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: Why do we need additional text in the body? Do we have a source for the proposed Orczy addition MantisEars (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: It is part of the compromise you just supported ("and the rest for the main text.")- As taken from the film's Credits. Note: The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is an obvious alias, an allusion to the fictional character of the same name created by Emmuska Orczy.75.58.39.201 (talk)

comment: I wasn't clear on what the "rest of the text" meant, that's why I asked. This would be in a note or reference, correct? I'm concerned with the wording of the compromise because "obvious" is a word to avoid. If it is so obvious, why do we need to state it? Can't we use a reference? MantisEars (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: No problem dropping the word "Obvious".75.58.39.201 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

comment: My point was more that since that statement is not obvious it should require a citation. MantisEars (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use this then:

<ref> As taken from the film's Credits. Note: The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a pseudonym, and is the name of a fictional character created by Emmuska Orczy. </ref> .

I believe that preserves the spirit of the compromise.75.58.39.201 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise. MantisEars (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support that compromise, other tangential comments notwithstanding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

''I pledge to never engage in this debate with any future editors. Period. I trust my literary voice is sufficiently distinct to identify me. 75.58.39.201 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that I am fine with this compromise - my signing statement was simply for future generations. It had no other purpose and I have no reason, nor desire, to revisit this. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

{{editprotected}} Please change the info box to read "Scarlet Pimpernel" only in scare quotes. There is now consensus between the editors who were previously arguing. Also how do we officially request to have this page unprotected?PelleSmith (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

. Hopefully this clarifies my position and my suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

75.58.39.201 (talk)

Please do not, as that addition has not been ratified. MantisEars (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section below that addresses the unprotection concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please change the info box, delete word Productions from Director, Editor and Writer credits. Change same credits to read "Scarlet Pimpernel" using scare quotes. Add the following text to the prose:

As taken from the film's Credits. Note: The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a pseudonym, and is the name of a fictional character created by Emmuska Orczy. .

Done. 75.58.39.201 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have agreed to simply scare-quote the pseudonym. The prose you are seeking in addition to that is not part of the consensus. Keep it simple, one thing at a time, one customer per order (or whatever metaphor will clarify what e are doing here). Btw, you will need to find a citation that synthesizes the usage of Scarlet Pimpernel for the production company with the fictional character, as your connecting it is WP:SYN, part of our original research policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the consensus agreed to by you, proposed and agreed to by PelleSmith, based upon Blueboar and given a thumbs up, "Good Compromise" by MantisEars. Are you suggesting that this is not over?75.58.39.201 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Arcayne may have problems with the wording my suggested foot note (correct me if I am misinterpreting). FYI, it was just a suggestion, I am not locked into it. If I understand correctly, we do have complete unanimous consensus for listing: "Scarlet Pimpernel" (with the scare quotes) in the info box. I suggest we impliment that, and work on everything else later. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.PelleSmith (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it to soften it, using the text referred to in the compromise is also acceptable, but placing it in quotes without the text is far too unique - Nowhere else on Wiki do pseudonyms in InfoBoxes have quotes. The language is very Wiki and carries no baggage. It is a critical part of the compromise. We are marking it - explaining why is required.

"The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a pseudonym, and is the name of a fictional character created by Emmuska Orczy." :::

75.58.39.201 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we appreciate your singular efforts in making the statement 'softer', but our compromise is only - I repeat, only - to scare-quote Scarlet Pimpernel, leaving the vagaries of the body-text write-up to another discussion.

As to the "unique" nature of the compromise being different from every other article currently within Wikipedia, I guess asking you for a citation as to this statement would be called for.

Are you making your acceptance of the compromise conditional upon including this additional information. If so, you might wish to consider changing your vote to Not Support. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is False - the text of the compromise is clear.

As per Blueboar and my own comments above: Can we please consider "Scarlet Pimpernel" in quotes but without the "Productions" in the infobox and the rest for the main text.

That is the language agreed to by all. Further I have made a compromise to allow the wording to be changed - I am fine with the original wording from Blueboar if you refuse to allow it to change. Or we can simply do as all other movies on Wiki that use pseudonyms do, and let the credits stand as they were presented. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

I am not sure what part of my statement was false, as I asked a couple of good-faith questions. However, allow to be succinct: are you agreeing to only the infobox italicization of Scarlet Pimpernel, or are you making your agreement conditional upon the inclusion of the information about the fictional literary character? As I noted before, these are two separate issues. Without connecting citation, we cannot synthesize the character with the production company, as per WP:SYN.

At the risk of further being targeted for incivility, am I the only one who thinks we were only agreeing to altering "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" to "Scarlet Pimpernel"? Was there a rider to that? I am re-reading the compromise proposal, and I might be missing something. Maybe comments from someone other than the anon would help clarify matters, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The language of the compromise is actually not clear, "and the rest for the main text" is vague. All I agreed to when signing to the compromise are the scare quotes. If you want that additional text added, start a discussion about it on its own merits, do not attempt to bundle it to something non-controversial. MantisEars (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought on compromise - step-by-step

OK... let's take this a step at a time.

Step one: In the Info box put "Scarlet Pimpernel"... including the the scare quotes... cited to the film credits. (let's forget the footnote about the fictional character for now). Does anyone disagree with doing this? Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• No - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think I worded this poorly... I am not sure if your "No" means you do not disagree, or whether it means you do... so for clarity, let's reply with "Agree' or "Disagree". Let's try again:

Proposal: In the Info box put "Scarlet Pimpernel"... including the the scare quotes... cited to the film credits.

• Agree - Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - PelleSmith (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - MantisEars (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Fullstop (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving on to Step 2

I think that is everyone except our IP editor. Given his comments above, I am going to assume that step one will gain unanimous approval (Just so we have a complete record... if anyone has not yet opined, please state your opinion on the step one proposal anyway). Let's move on discussion on step 2.

Step two involves the idea of adding some explanitory text to the citation mentioned in step one. Essentially combining the citation with a foot note. I am going to outline two proposals in this step... Some readers might not know that the name Scarlet Pimpernel is the name a fictional character (to be pedantic, it is actually the fictional pseudonym used by a fictional character). I think we should mention that, but I don't think it merits discussion in the main text of the article. It is essentially a bit of trivia about the name... but relevant trivia as it further illustrates that the name is being used as an alias in the film credits...

However, I do acknowledge that explicitly stating that there is a connection between the fictional character and the alias, without a citation, might be challenged as Original Research. So....

Proposal 2: Add a brief explanatory note to the citation mentioned above, to explain the name Scarlet Pimpernel... (without explicitly stating the conclusion that this is an alias)... exact wording to be determined, but envisioned as something like: "Note: The Scarlet Pimpernel is the title character appearing in a 1903 adventure novel, written by Emmuska Orczy."

• Agree - Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - If the connection is obvious, it can be inferred. To say it outright would require a citation.MantisEars (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - PelleSmith (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - I think we need to note the alias, and we have a citations that says so, but we cannot include a connection to the novel character without a citation connecting that and the pseudonym, as per WP:SYN. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. As I had noted before, I think the choice of name (and rationale for it) is obvious. But I don't think editors here should explicitly identify A with B. If a reader knows what the "Scarlet Pimpernel" refers to, then thats one thing. But to spoon-feed a reader that conclusion is (IMO) not kosher unless it has already been done before (in a newspaper or whatever). -- Fullstop (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think that mentioning the connection falls under the "Obvious deductions" exemption to NOR. So to give us a second option...

Proposal 3: Add a brief explanitory note to the citation mentioned above, to explain the name Scarlet Pimpernel... (and explicitly stating the conclusion that this is an alias)... exact wording to be determined, but envisioned as something like: "Note: The name "Scarlet Pimpernel" is used in the film credits as an alias, and refers to The Scarlet Pimpernel, the title character appearing in a 1903 adventure novel, written by Emmuska Orczy."

• Agree 75.58.39.201 (talk)
• Agree - Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Does anyone dispute the fact that this is an alias?PelleSmith (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - because we have a citation that says so, but we need to be able to cite the connection between the pseudonym and the fictional character, as per WP:SYN. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - I originally thought we had to choose from one of two proposals, and didn't have to explicitly state our disagreement with the opposite in the opposite section, but this is the way things are now. MantisEars (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Mantis... I did not intend it to be an either/or type proposal... I saw two ways to present the concept, so I simply presented both for an initial !vote to see where we all stand. Sorry if that was not clear. Thank you for clarifying your opinion on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree per disagreement in #2, unless the explanatory note limits itself to "is an alias." [perhaps adding "for a production company that prefers to remain anonymous"]. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stop there, as this will no doubt generate some discussion. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Motion passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.39.201 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Slow down IP ... we have not finished discussing step 2...

The scare quote question does not have to do with "Wiki style", it has to do with how we can disambiguate "Scarlet Pimpernel" from a person actually named "Scarlet Pimpernel", something assumed by default. Appending "Productions" was an inappropriate way of doing that, and as such, we are going forward with the scare quotes. This solution has the added benefit of asserting that Scarlet Pimpernel is an alias, something the reader can verify in the general article. Whether to include speculation on the origins of the "Scarlet Pimpernel" moniker is a separate issue, and while both may contribute to the public understanding of Fitna, you should not bundle both in a common vote. MantisEars (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is first that the 'scare quote' be explained in some manner. It appears that it will be expanded upon, and I am in agreement that #3 is appropriate for the task. I'm in. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

(Mantis, your concern is exactly why I made seperate proposals and did not bundle them into a common vote)... It seems we are close, but do not yet have a full unanimous consensus on the issues in step 2. We all seem to like the basic concept of explaining the name "Scarlet Pimpernel" in a foot note (no one said "disagree" to both proposals), but we can not yet agree on the best way to do this. Arcayne... since you are the one who has the most problems, would you please make a proposal for how you would like to deal with the concept? Blueboar (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, all looks well. The entry will be corrected and any tagging will be expanded upon as you suggest in 3. I don't see any issues and will revisit this around lunch GMT. 75.58.39.201 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP, as much as I would like to agree, I don't think "all looks well". I see both Mantis and Arcayne expressing reservations about Proposal 3. That does not indicate a consensus to me. Again, slow down a bit. At this time we can impliment step 1, but not step 2. Blueboar (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think we need to take a half-step back. I have thought about this overnight and see the stumbling blocks with both of my proposals ...

I want to deal with Proposal 3 first, because my thoughts have come to a conclusion ... Both Arcayne and Mantis have problems with this proposal... The stumbling block here is that we have no source that directly ties Orczy's fictional character to the Alias used by the makers of the film. I think it is a logical, obvious, and reaonable deduction to say that the alias is a reference to the fictional character ... but it is a deduction, and not something stated in a source. Thus, it is Original Research. If we were to impliment this proposal, we would have to invoke WP:IAR. If we had full consensus in favor of the proposal, I would have no problem with invoking IAR... but since there are objections, I think we should take that off the table.

Which takes us to Proposal 2... I am hopeful that the stumbling block here can be overcome. Arcayne feels that we need to include a statement to the effect that the name is an alias in the footnote, since we can cite that. Unfortunately, doing this in the footnote creates some problems. First, I don't think it is technically possible to put a citation within another citation or footnote. Second, doing so would raise problems with WP:SYN (a very subtle form of OR). WP:SYN discusses situations where two bits of unrelated information are placed side by side to reach a unique conclusion (A + B = C). It would be a WP:SYN violation if we stated A (the name is used as an alias) + B (the name is a fictional character) = C (the alias and the fictional character are related in some way). I would even say that we would be into SYN territory by just stating A + B without stating C. However, My suggested language in this proposal is to simply state B)... that the name is the title character of Orczy's book... with no A or C included. As proposed, it is simply an interesting piece of trivia about the name. No SYN violation involved.

My feeling is that we should not discuss the alias in the foot note... instead we should discuss the alias elsewhere... in the main text. ie put the trivia in a footnote, as it does not really have any substantive bearing on the film or its creators; and discuss the alias in more detail in the main text (with its own seperate citation), as that does relate to the film and its creators.

Arcayne, as the sole holdout to Proposal 2, can you live with this approach? If not, why not? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Blueboar, the pesky bastards that pay me in RL insist I actually do work sometimes. I wasn't holding out. As to the proposal, I can live with the background of the pseudonym being discussed in the body of the text. My main issues were with how the pseudonym was going to be noted in the infobox and the necessity of a citation to connect any mention of Orczy's character to it. As I think that Wilders isn't done pushing his agenda, he will eventually provide us the connection we are looking for. Until then, we remember that common knowledge is not all that common. Also, doing so skews our perceived neutrality; we would be making an uncited connection that would seem to lend literary gilt to what is essentially a propaganda film.

So, yes to using the citations about the pseudonym in the article instead of end- or footnotes, and heck no to connecting the pseudonym to the literary figure without suitable citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to put a footnote in a footnote: we could have (as we have had) a notes section and a references section, modeled after the Richard Dawkins article. The fact that "Scarlet Pimpernel" is an alias is already discussed in the development section, which should be reserved for solid reliable facts. All we need to decide is whether to insert, to put it negatively, the "trivia" into a footnote as a compromise, which I support. MantisEars (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I think that we are agreed on the following:

1. Scarlet Pimpernel should be listed in scare quotes in the infobox, denoting its nature as a pseudonym.
2. The citation referring to the pseudonym should be placed next to the discussion of that pseudonym within the text of the article, though it is possible to end- or footnote it.
3. Without citation, we should not offer any connection between the usage of the pseudonym in this article with the fictional character in the Orczy novel and play. When such connection is made by a citable source, we can then discuss and act on it accordingly.

Am I nutshelling it correctly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - (while I disagree with Arcayne's reasoning in above and think we could mention that the name is used in Orczys novel and play in a footnote, I do not insist on it... especially if it will prevent us from moving forward. I am willing to drop the idea) Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - You have nutshelled it correctly, though point 2 is a little unclear and may be more objectionable than 1 and 3. MantisEars (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to collaborate a wording that works for you, Mantis. My main point is that we can discuss the pseudonym in the article; my thoughts of where were to do so were simply a suggestion. As Blueboar's comment, I appreciate that moving ahead, despite your thoughts that we could include it. It would be akin to someone noting the similarities between Mickey Blue Eyes with Analyze This; we usually leave it up to the reader to make the connection, though we can do so if a reviewer or someone citable notes it. For me, it's a 'chewing-the-food' argument against inclusion.

The anon won't be contributing to the discussion for a week, so I think, if we want, we can try to anticipate what s/he might object to and act accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Arcayne's 1-3. Incidentally, it is possible to add a pseudo-ref to the infobox that then "jumps" to the relevant section in the text. For example these^[r] refs^{1} jump to the top of this talk section. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment conclusion?

Archival of the discussion page will likely be performed in the next week or so, to prevent longer scrolling through the discussion. Was a resolution reached> Of those that chose to vote using the format requested, it would appear that folk felt the category pertinent and opted for retaining it. If I have misinterpreted those results, my apologies. However, the matter seemed unresolved,and I wanted to ensure that the sections were not archived without a dénouement to the discussion, in case the subject is revisited later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion should be archived, but the archive is not likely to be useful to anyone with objection to the article's categorization. A resolution was reached, but it was a weak resolution. It should be challenged but it probably won't be challenged. New editors arriving will assume the categorization came out of true consensus and compromise instead of bullying and technicality. MantisEars (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hey, come on now. You cannot have any of my sour grapes, as I don't usually get exactly what I want either. :)

If it gets challenged, it will be dealt with again, and maybe folk will be able to keep their cool better. Consensus is never a static quality, Mantis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)