Talk:Revolution Muslim

Southpark

Originally stated: Subsequently, the website for the organization was hacked (presumably by the "Anon" group of 4chan), temporarily redirecting web traffic to pictures of Muhammad.
Changed to: Subsequently, the Revolution Muslim website was hacked, temporarily redirecting web traffic to pictures of Muhammad.

Removed unsubstantiated reference to Anon from 4chan. Anonymous can not be stated to be from 4chan. The reference supplied does not mention anon, anonymous or 4chan. Also cleared up ambiguity about which (Revolution Muslim or Comedy Central) website was hacked. --121.210.240.128 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not wiki savoy

Hi Sorry I am not to wiki savoy. Yousef al-Khattab has retired from the position of Amir/CEO of Revolution Muslim on 12/12/09 http://revolutionmuslim.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2117:upwards-a-onwards-yousef-al-khattab&catid=1:yousefalkhattab&Itemid=4 is the link on the RM site confirming this.

Thank you for mentioning this. I have reworded the article to mention that Yousef al-Khattab was the leader, and that the video on the site mentions his retirement and a new leader. I have also fixed the citation and mentioned a news story about a planned protest outside his home. It would be helpful if there is a third-party news story confirming the change of leadership. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

External link

Removed "The site is now deactivated, possibly in response to recent criticism and unwanted attention from the media." It is speculation without a source. The DoS attack might get coverage but until then it isn't necessary or appropriate to add speculation.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This source[1] says it was their host that pulled the plug. If anyone can get a screen shot of the site from their cache we may want to add that to the article in case the site is down for good. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The site has since been suspended by its web host, according to Mr. Muhammad, after complaints about the group promoting bodily harm." Yeah, it switched to a 404 from a 503 several hours ago. Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IP comment 1

The scarriest part about Revolution Muslim isn't the fact that they remind me of a thirteen year old girl with their panties in a wad, but their stance towards the abolition of bears and/or all fury wildlife. It has been rumored, or atleast speculated, Revolution Muslim has declared a beary, beary big Jihad against anything bear related, making me question whether or not they have their bear necessities in order. They have aimed at discrediting Smokey the Bear by teaching robots to prevent forest fires, burned every Berenstain Bears book available on Amazon.com, and have even escalated their bear Jihad against the Charmin Bear! Makes you question whether Allah is a prophet or a gun-toting member of the NRA. I think all red-blooded American's, like myself, know that the Muslim Revolution isn't upset due to the depiction of their prophet in a bear costume, but because Santa never came and visited them:( They aren't mad, they're just still upset about leaving Santa their evening couscous and tomatoes and getting nothing but made fun of beary, beary much in return.

All praise be to Matt Stone and Trey Parker! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.183.109 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IP comment 2

This group is currently no more notable than a house-burglar featured on the local news. They are being discussed in the media solely because of the larger Southpark-Muhammad controversy, and they just happened to be the first "Muslim" group to produce a newsbit blasting them for it. The rest of the stuff about who ran the organization, why they retired, and that they hand out fliers around mosques in NY is not worthy of being in Wikipedia. I say delete.74.92.180.145 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

CAIR Criticism of Group

"This is some extreme—and I would repeat the word extreme two or three times—fringe group that's making a name for itself issuing bizarre statements," Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American-Islam relations, tells me.

"This group that made this statement has no credibility in Muslim community."

Read more: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b177522_there_really_fatwa_against_south_park.html?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_tvnews#ixzz0lo9xb1QD

Revolution Muslim

Why on Earth is a group made up of 5 to 10 individuals as stated in the article, given any attention? They stated that they are against the South Park episode but we are still writing about a group made up of up to 10 persons who have some sort of point of view. Just Afd this. Since when is a 10 person group advocating a position something meaningful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaussianCopula (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... Three Wise Men, Gang of Four, Committee of Five, the Big Zix the Harrisburg Seven... you would have to ask LA Times, New York Times, the Guardian, CNN, UPI, etc., why they consider the group noteworthy. Likely it's the timely confluence of terrorism, pop culture, and provocative extremism. As the article notes, even before the latest issue it raised some much-discussed free speech concerns.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. But going through the list of the groups you mentioned, I can't help but notice that they become famous/notorious after the fact. That was or is my whole point about my previous comment. This group has done nothing other than blah blah. It is not my intention to say that a group that does nothing but talk away into notoriety should start doing what they say they will do, it is just that if one gives attention to groups who are simply talking away then we will have a whole bunch of groups wanting to get their 5 minutes of fame simply based on the fact that they can make an outrageous statement or comment about something in the recent news.

Once again, this has nothing to do with a group having to do something of notoriety in order to be mentioned but more to do with a group knowing that if they say something of notoriety while not doing anything of notoriety they will get mentioned and somehow included in an online encyclopedia. By the way, your examples provided are simply horrible. Just horrible. The three wise men? Chinese insurgents "blamed for the worst excesses of the societal chaos that ensued during the ten years of turmoil"? The Committee of Five, a group named as such because they were the ones which drafted and presented the Constitution? The Big Six or Harrisburg Seven? I mean, I am not against groups pictured or labeled as such, I simply do not see the relevance of this group composed of 10 individuals in the United States having any sort of type of relevance other than that which one attributes to them. I will concede that due to the notoriety that will be accrued based on the South Park episode, that they will very likely remain and likely should remain in Wikipedia, but seriously. You putting out there that there is some sort of relevance between the mention of the Three Wise Men and these folks, is something that definitely, does not make me see your point.GaussianCopula (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly nominate it for deletion if you feel so inclined. I doubt it will happen since they appear to meet the e coverage requirements called for in thgeneral notability guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True, an otherwise powerless group of people with no real prospect to do anything or convince anyone, can become famous just by saying things that anger people. It's not Wikipedia's fault, though. We just go by what the press and other reliable sources find worthy, and they do it because they think people will want to read it. People read about a lot of things that aren't very productive. If you take the group on face value then no, the message and the group aren't too important. What is more interesting is the wider phenomenon of media manipulation, free speech, and oddly, pop culture, the reaction. I think the South Park creators have more to do with creating this issue than the group itself. Anyway, this does pass notability guidelines. I don't think the article does anything to legitimize or encourage the group, at least I hope not. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see and accept both of your arguments. They are out there and have made themselves notable. The press has gone along with it. I believe that these people are nothing more than clowns trying to make shock proclamations in order to gain notoriety but regardless of what I think the fact that they have been successful at being notable is something I can't refute. No sense in nominating this for AfD.GaussianCopula (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Group is widely viewed as cointel

This group is widely seen as being a 'fake' one by many who've looked into them (it was started by Yousef al Khattab/Joseph Cohen who was a settler in the Israeli settlement of Gush Katif and all its members appear to be former orthodox Jews). The 'conversion' of al Khattab occured over the internet and there's a lot of skepticism about it and everything else involving these guys. (Are they for real?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.84.168 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is plausible, but it's also plausible that it's a conspiracy theory. Are there any reliable sources to say that (a) there is a noteworthy belief that they may be fake, or (b) they may actually be fake? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually did come across these snippets from an LA Times story:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-south-park-20100423,0,5940860.story

"The organization, which formed in 2007 and includes about a dozen members, is mostly known for posting inflammatory and often threatening comments on its website, including a poem last October during the Jewish High Holy Days asking God to kill all the Jews. Its members also stage protests in front of New York mosques, advocating a more fundamentalist form of Islam."

"Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based civil rights and advocacy group, called Revolution Muslim "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community.

"In fact, most Muslims suspect they were set up only to make Muslims look bad," Hooper said. "We just have very deep suspicions. They say such outrageous, irresponsible things that it almost seems like they're doing it to smear Islam."

It seems like this notion has been pretty prominent in a few notable sources. [And needless to say, a few less-notable sources have blasted the Daily Show for publicizing this story/group while "conveniently" glossing over the "suspicious" details of their inception] 96.239.56.153 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to think about this, since I personally think they are just a bunch of dopes craving attention. GaussianCopula (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have one or more editors here from time to time who claim / seem to be part of the group. I know it's not a usable source but why not ask? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We should just limit ourselves to what the media writes about these people. Who cares what they personally have to say, let Homeland Security deal with their outrageous statements. Last thing we want to do is create some sort of platform for these attention grabbing crazies. GaussianCopula (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Groups Website

The website the group had, had been shut down by the web-host, should it be included in the article seeing as how it's just basically a dead external link. Deus257 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As of November 1, 2010 the website is still being updated but still redirects from the webhost. However, you can access the website from the cache page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.250.212 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Revolution Muslim, 24 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following:

"A movement to counter the threats of Revolution Muslim was started on April 23, 2010, by the Revolution Muslim Protest 2010 group. The purpose of this group is to start nationwide protests that will deter threats or acts of violence on the part of radical American Muslims."

A link for this is: [[2]]

Revolution Muslim (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable reliable sources, sorry.  Chzz  ►  06:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Link to add to external section

Revolution Muslim is back up to some extent via blogspot.

http://revolutionmuslim.blogspot.com/

Should be added to the External Links section 72.4.83.53 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not until there is some external media source confirming this. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Need sources

"...that advocates the
1. re-establishment of a structured Islamic state
2. terrorism both in the United States and in democratic countries around the world
3. the removal of the current rulers in heavily Muslim populated nations
4. the destruction of Israel
5. an end to what they consider "western imperialism".

These statements need to be sourced IMO, particularly statement number 2. ZeLonewolf (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Regarding my revert[3] of a recent rewrite of the lede, I can't go over them all but there are a number of problems here:

• As a matter of style, ledes generally should have only material that is sourced in the article - they shouldn't be a place to introduce new information.
• Although the organization does indeed appear to be "fringe" and antisemitic, we would need a solid source both for that characterization and to use these as the identifying adjectives in introducing the organization we would need further sourcing to suggest that this is well-accepted standard interpretation. Even at that, these are characterizations of opinions and judgments, whereas "radical" is a more modest, supportable claim.]
• The anti-defamation league is not the most reliable of sources in its calling organizations terrorist or antisemitic. They do great work but they are often partisan and we cannot take sides.
• Similar concerns about "thinly veiled", advocating terrorism, etc. These reflect some judgment, analysis, and opinion, and are better put in the body than the lede. Even if we do include them, we would have to include an attribution in the text as to who said it, for example, something like "the anti-defamation league says that the organization xxxx" [cite to ADL, and ideally, a secondary source reporting on the ADL's response]
• Calling them a "Muslim" organization is unfair and potentially comes off as anti-Muslim given that they are so far outside the mainstream
• In the lede it is better to summarize than to quote what other people have to say, to define something

All in all, as a point-of-view thing, I think it's pretty obvious just what kind of group they are so whether we come out and label them as fringe, antisemitic, etc., or not, doesn't affect the bias of the article. We don't need to hit the reader over the head with it, they'll get the point. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully support all points other than the third and the last bullet points. As to those, I tend to lean the other way, but not so strongly that I would make an issue out of it here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link

• Allen, Nick (May 2, 2010). "Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link - Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted at the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2010-05-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Converts

Aren't most of these guys, if not all, converts? If so, it should be mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting

Duane Reasoner was mentioned by mainstream press as contacting Revolution Muslim for advice as youtube comments with a reply. Since he and Hasan were likely talking about ji-hobbyist topics such as martyrdom operations, and Hasan was consulting with Awlaki as well, this is a connection that has been investigated by the press and various blogs which also believe that Hasan himself likely was also in contact with Revolution Muslim, and may have assisted in making the connection to Awlaki, though so far there is no evidence of a direct connection between Awlaki and RM besides the obvious similarity in positions - both Awlaki and RM were he only web pages noted to issue bold web statements celebrating Hasan as a hero. RM was also featured on a CNN web article just hours before the shooting, the corresponding video was aired only AFTER the shooting that evening. The Jewish Defence organization names Reasoner, Awlaki and RM as co-conspirators, even if the FBI evidently did not interview or seek interviews with any of them in connection with the shootings. Any additional help in sourcing these connections well enough for inclusion would be appreciated. It is not helpful for the number of editors who have simply deleted sourced edits on Reasoner on the basis he has no relevance to the topic of the shootings. Bachcell (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is seemingly no evidence that Reasoner's comments regarding Hasan and the shooting were connected to his membership of Revolution Muslim. As such, I have removed all mention of him from this article. _wjemather^bigissue 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)