Talk:Fitna (film)

As the above template says: stay cool. This movie is a controversial topic, so be on the look-out for non-neutral content and trolling. Remember that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, which aims at presenting neutral and uncensored informational articles. Wikipedia is not a place for hateful discussions or endless political debates. Cheers, Face 17:51, 29 February 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)

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: [1]

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:[2].

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[3] 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[4] or discrimination[5] 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[6] or discrimination[7] 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[8] or discrimination[9] 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 [10]. 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[11] or discrimination[12] 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[13] or discrimination[14] 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[15] or discrimination[16] 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[17] or discrimination[18] 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[19] or discrimination[20] 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[21] or discrimination[22] 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 [23]. 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[24] or discrimination[25] 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 [26] and Discriminatory [27] 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

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[28][29][30][31] [32]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[33]

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)

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. MantisEars (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I support that compromise with Blueboars additional text for the prose. ( I think that the quotes should be reconsidered by future editors under the broader context of Wiki - as I think our use of quotes here is unusual and should not set a precedent.)75.58.39.201 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

{{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)