Talk:Fitna (film)/Archive 3

Removed from Liveleak again?

Resolved

content

Anybody noticed that the second versions are not available on Liveleak anymore? They are still listed on Wilders' profile, but if you click one of them, a message states: "This media item has been removed by the uploader". - Face 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he posted the links to the new videos here. StaticGull  Talk  11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Take note of this too. StaticGull  Talk  13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I was actually referring to those new videos. They are not on Liveleak anymore, and they have vanished from Wilders' profile now as well. I'm sure they were still there a few days ago. It's logical to assume that those legal actions are related. But I did a google search, and found nothing about this, and pvv.nl or geertwilders.nl do not mention it neither. Cheers, Face 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That text on FOK, how old is that? - Face 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. I only found the text on FOK yesterday. I think we should mention the removal of the videos from Liveleak in the article, and provide a mirror to the videos. StaticGull  Talk  11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as we provide a citation from a source that notes the removal/move to another location. It isn't our habit to engage in recentism. Let's wait for things to settle down a little bit. There is no hurry to be first with the news. If anything, such is contrary to our role as encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Arcayne is right, but I also agree with Gull that we should have a working link. It's difficult though to find a copy of the second version which is complete (not cut in half or something) and of good quality. Perhaps the second edition should be uploaded to Wikileaks as well? Anyway, I've added this copy of the English version to the article. I haven't found a qualitative Dutch mirror yet. I am also uncertain about adding the original edition. Cheers, Face 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a Dutch mirror of the original version to be found here, although it seems as though all the links to original versions have been deleted. StaticGull  Talk  15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gull, but as for the first versions, I like the Wikileaks page best. In fact, I think the first versions are relevant enough to be included, so I added a link to Wikileaks in the EL section. Cheers, Face 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I had this unprotected a few days ago. I would appreciate it if you would keep this article and its sister page into your watchlists. Cheers, Face 22:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... the Liveleak videos seem to be back. I wish I had checked that earlier. Re-added the links. - Face 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaction: Moaned?

Resolved

Can we have either an attribution or a less charged word than moaned please?

Hcobb (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done StaticGull  Talk  15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting

Currently there are disagreements over whether Female genital cutting should be considered "female genital cutting" or "female circumcision" or even sometimes "female genital mutilation". The Wikipedia article uses "Female genital cutting", which sounds to me like a neutral term between the both extremes, although there may be specific criteria for the use of the word "mutilation" that have been passed — the sources used in this article do use the word. Since this article should not be written from a religious POV, I do not believe religious language should be used. Thoughts? MantisEars (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements? I don't know if we had disagreements about that word. But it's an interesting question nevertheless. I changed it to "in preparation for female genital cutting" per the title of the WP article. I think "cutting" is the most general and NPOVish term, as multiple types of the practice are defined. I do not think we should use "mutilation". Much to heavy. "circumcision" is possible, but is more often related to male genital cutting. Cheers, Face 22:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Islam" >> "islam" and "Muslim" >> "muslim"

I would like to reach consensus here before editing the article — as to prevent edit-warring — to change "Islam" to "islam" and "Muslim(s)" to "muslim(s)". Doing so would be perfectly NPOV, as these are the correct spellings of these words. However, "islam" and "muslim(s)" are widely capitalised in other articles, which is why I'd like to be assured that my edit won't be reverted. StaticGull  Talk  15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, as both are proper names for something, like Bob, or Christian, or Mormon, we have to capitalize each instance of their mentioning. Also, MOS:CAPS seems to agree with this interpretation, which can be found here. Btw, its good that you took the time to discuss the matter first. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I searched on other articles too and it seems to be rather inconsistent, so I didn't want to waste time editing. We'll leave it like it is, then. StaticGull  Talk  16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I've largely rewrote/expanded the lead, and removed that fact tag while I was at it (that thing had been there for ages even though there was nothing unsourced). I think the general message that the film wants to convey is that the Islamic religion incites its followers to hate those who do not live according to the Islamic teachings, and esspecially those who criticizes, threatens or attacks the Islam. I tried to put it the best way I could, here is the diff. Any suggestions? Cheers, Face 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

This movie is clearly a Propaganda Film. Anti Muslim polemics are normally justified by western press and politicians, by arguing that Islam is not a race(hence no protection from bigotry as offered to Jews). However, Propaganda can be made against the followers of a religion as well and there is nothing that implies that only propaganda against a race can be called so Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question to the people constantly reverting, so what are the reasons for not marking this a propaganda film? Tesivon 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an isue with reliably citing it as such. Your (or another editor's) opinion isn't citable as a source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess with a reliable source it should be OK to call it a propaganda. We cannot wait for Wilders himself to agree on this. Meanwhile The Eternal Jew has easily qualified as one even without source Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Institutionally defining the film officially as "Propaganda" is an editorial pejorative. The film is editorial criticism on the level of Michael Moore not Leni Riefenstahl. Comparison to the The Eternal Jew, and its intimations that the physicist Albert Einstein for example was related to the pornographic industry is inappropriate. The film may be offensive, but it is opinion and does not meet the standard for Propaganda. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article should be changed without a reliable source, such main facts should be backed up my multiple non-bias reliable sources.--Otterathome (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, anon 75. When we have reliable citation that says the film is propaganda, it moves our of the purview of "editorial pejorative" or speculation. It is cited. Reliably, verifiably and neutrally cited, it should be pointed out. It was reverted without citation. Now, we have one (as per this edit). Now, if you take issue with it, find a source that directly, specifically contraverts or rebuffs it. Otherwise, I think the matter is resolved for now: a source was requested, and one was provided. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing neutral, reliable or verifiable about an anonymous editorial opinion piece from a non-neutral politically active internet site.75.49.223.52 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you are (presumably) new, so I will direct you to actually read the wikilinks that were provided. Simply saying the source doesn't meet these criteria is not sufficient; you are not a citable source of refutation. I will ask you, politely, to refrain from edit-warring your personal opinion into the article - it smacks of edit-warring.

In fact, re-read the entirety of my previous post. It seems, in your hurry to revert for the second time (under this IP address, anyway), you apparently missed the actual discussion. If you are having difficulty understanding the policies and guidelines the rest of us choose to follow as contributors, take the time to swallow your pride and ask. If you don't want to ask anyone here, there is an entire list of administrators who can assist you in the search for wiki-knowledge. That list of admins is here: WP:LOA.

Please respect Community consensus. This issue has been clearly discussed, overturning community consensus can not be done lightly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.223.52 (talk • contribs)

(←dent) ECx2 I am sorry, but we don't import entire swaths of discussions from six months ago, anon. You should know this, seeing as you have been here, under one sock-puppet or another since at least March. I've removed it; if you wish to provide a link to the section from the archives, you may do so, but perhaps you missed that bit in Consensus where it notes that consensus can change. In six months, it isn't unusual for it to do so. Now, you can attempt to create a consensus that the film is not propaganda, but I think it is fair to warn you that you are at your 3RR limit for the day (as I've provided you notice on your usertalk page); please use the discussion page only to argue for a new consensus or, as you have intimated, a return to the prior consensus which changed. Any further reverts of the article will result in yet another block for you for 3RR, edit-warring, stalking and gaming the system.

I certainly hope your past blocks, AN/I's and wikiquette alerts have served to reform your behavior, but I do not hold out grand hopes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Labeling this film as "propoganda" is a clear POV statement. The label should be removed. Frotz (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Frotz, it would indeed be a POV statement, were any of us editors/contributors to add it ourselves. As it is, we have a reliable, verifiable and notable citation stating such, and we do not exclude pov from cited sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It could have been a POV, had it been provided without a reliable source. Doubting the reliability of Spiegel, the largest and one of the most respected weekly magazine in continental europe is ridiculous. I see that we sometimes even have blogs as sources in the article. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 22:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an anonymous opinion piece. From a single highly partisan source.75.49.223.52 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It is written and endorsed by the staff at NRC (hence the sig of "NRC editorial staff" at the end of it), and it is but your opinion that it is "highly partisan". Perhaps use the weekend to seek out counterweight sources. Otherwise, your opinion isn't a litmus for inclusion. Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

One should keep in mind that editorials are opinions. Our own article on the subject is quite clear about this. As they are opinions and not statements of fact, the statement "Fitna is a propoganda film" should be taken as the opinion of the editorial staff. Therefore, Fitna should not be described as though it factually is a propoganda film. Let's look for some other evidence that this film really is propoganda. This film could more accurately be labeled as the product of a muckraker. Frotz (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(linked discussion from archive II dated April, 2008)

I've left a note for those editors that were a party to the existing Community Consensus that the issue is under debate.75.49.223.52 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You were advised that the better course of action would be to link the material, instead of pasting it from archive. The material is over six months old; a new consensus has formed. You are allowed to seek a return to the prior consensus (even though your soliciting these folk amounts to canvassing), but you are not allowed to disrupt the article discussion page by continually adding in large chunks of info from the archives. Consider this your final warning to not do that. If it occurs again, you will not enjoy the consequences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, a single editorial (even from an undisputed quality paper like NRC) would not provide sufficient evidence to label it propaganda. Among others since the media have played an active role in this debate, and can therefore not be considered neutral secondary sources (especially not in an editorial which is a primary source on the opinion of the editor). If you had editorials of the the three largest newspapers (incl Telegraaf) in the Netherlands calling it propaganda I would consider this evidence of majority view in the press. A single editorial should not be taken as conclusive evidence for anything but: "Some people consider the movie to be propaganda (ref NCR)". Please do not over interpret sources.

In brief I think the single NRC opinion piece is not sufficient sourcing for a claim this strong. Arnoutf (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf and Frotz, I see and understand your point. I am not sure I agree with it, for reasons I have previously explained. Wikipedia is not concerned with the bias of its sources, so long as they are not given undue weight for the size of the folk espousing such an opinion. It is important to note that it is not any one of us editors who are calling the film propaganda - it is numerous news sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) - quite literally, the only folk not calling it propaganda are a few skinheads in Manchester too busy jacking off to Birth of a Nation to speak up. I've only given seven sources, I am sure I could fill this page up with sources that call the film for what it is.

I don't mind adding additional sources, or even specifically noting where sources call it such within the article (in fact, I would heartily endorse such); I only stipulate that we cannot call it propaganda without citing a reliable, verifiable and notable source outside of Wiki-en who called it such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start stating that I have no very strong feelings about this. What worries me here is that the opinion of a, or even a number of, involved newspapers is adopted as the relevant judgement of the movie. (there are probably also newspapers calling it a 1st cass documentary, although many who hold this opinion may have been afraid to print it). There is apparently no thorough media analysis trying to find all opinions around. That leaves us with a selection of primary sources (i.e. no analysis, but opinion of the editor). I would really prefer a (media) analysis in a scientific journal that based on the movy and all these opinion pieces in an (as objective as possible way) analyses whether this movie should be labelled propaganda or not. Such a source should have preference over all opinions in newspapers. For now, however, Arcaynes sources state what he claims they do. So to offset it some sources disputing the propaganda claim need to be found to offset Arcaynes internpretation. (as I said I have no strong feeling, I will not engage in this exercise myself) Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Categorically, and selectively, labeling a film as "Propaganda" harms Wikipedia. Noting critics opinions in the body is one thing, opening the first sentence with a pejoritive statement of fact quite another. This should be a neutral entry in the encyclopedia, to lend ourselves to such POV bias is to defeat the aims of the encyclopedia to be neutral. One can find numerous mainstream "opinion" pieces calling many controversial films propaganda, Michael Moore's films are a fine example - yet, we do not, and should not, present an institutional finding of fact pronouncing the film as such in the first descriptive sentence. These controversial listings are the true litmus test of Wikipedia's, and our own, abilities to rise above and truly remain neutral when writing an entry. To label this as propaganda based upon a liberal, and politically active magazine's anonymous editorial is a violation of Wiki's ideals and policy, and is not consistent with the equal treatment of other controversial entries on film. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

75.49.223.52 - Do I smell something bad here? You say that calling a film as "Propaganda" harms Wikipedia, but your own edit just a day ago shows that you were keen on doing the same thing using very dubious sources like http://www.workingpsychology.com (all the while calling NRC as highly partisan). Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ip 75.49.223.52. Lead sentences should be non-controversial and NPOV. See WP:Lead. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Again, the Lead is not only an introduction to the article but summary of the article itself. As we have no criticisms that note the film being a splendid feel-good feature film perfect for the holidays or a stocking stuffer, we have to note those criticisms which have been presented. Thus far, those critiques have been almost universally negative, and more than a few have categorized Fitna as anti-Muslim propaganda. We are failing to be objectively neutral by failing to note it in the Lead. Those seeking a Lead statement which doesn't address the film as such, I urge you to find a number of sources that contradict the film as propaganda. Our various opinions on what the film is or is not count for precisely squat. We use sources here; that's how we roll. Noting where someone (or in this case, a mountain of citable someones) has categorically labeled the film as propaganda is indeed categorical and selective, but the process isn't being completed by us; we are merely noting the overview of the article in the Lead, as per WP:LEAD.

Okay, let's look at getting some mediation of the problem. Whoever lists it, please provide the link here, so we can all contribute - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Zencv, my edit from a day ago that you reference was a clear demonstration of how ludicrous, and simple, it was to label Fahrenheit 9/11 as propaganda. In addition to the Working Psychology reference you deride, there were also citations from Slate[1] and the [[BBC][2]] finding the film to be Propaganda. The only way that one can argue that a different standard exists for these articles is if one is pushing a non-neutral POV. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, if you feel the need for mediation, it's incumbent on you to list it. There is existing Community Consensus from a large number of editors on multiple occasions to deny the pejorative use of the label "Propaganda" in the lead sentence of this article. You and Zencv have not established a new Community Consensus. 75.49.223.52 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry anon. You are in the minority opinion here, so please, if you wish to have the matter opined by some other folk than the same majority which still oppose it, then I'd head on over to mediation. That is, unless you'd prefer to simply argue for yet another week about how you are right, despite wiki policy and guidelines. Please provide a link when you've listed the matter with Mediation or whatever. Until then, the majority from 6 months ago is not current. If you need an admin to explain it to you, you can find one at WP:LOA. A number of people have corrected you on this matter, and I for one am tired of you refusing to get the point. Until you are prepared t bring something new to the table in terms of reasoning, I think we're done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda - arbitrary break I

Not actually correct. Of the seven editors who have commented. Four have been against calling the film propaganda in the lead, and three have been for it. Make mine the fifth. Opinions should not be in the lead. WP:ASF states:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

and

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

Properly cited in the body would be OK but, Five editors have voiced concern with this in the lead, compared to three. The anon is not in the minority.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect (but thanks for making the ANI to be filed for stalking that much easier to prove). Again, as has been pointed out to you no less than a half-dozen times by four other editors, you are not clearly understanding our policies; a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Look at the very first line, Joj (or anon, or whoever you are calling yourself today): "Assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not assert the opinions themselves". I've italicized the vital bit that seems to keep eluding you, here and elsewhere. We are not the ones stating that the film is propaganda. The cited source is. Guess what? They can do that. We cannot. So, your argument (like so others of yours comprised of a less-than functional knowledge of our policies and guidelines) is off-point. Information that is cited doesn't get watered down; that's kind of a rule here, too. We cite content precisely as it is given. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[PA removed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)] 75.49.223.52 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anony - what is your real intention? I see that you have been making very disruptive edits to Fahrenheit 9/11 and adding very suspicious sources, while posing here as champion of WP:NPOV. The fact is that you could barely come up with any reasonable argument to say why this movie is not a propaganda. As Arcayne said, just because you think that a source is highly partisan, that doesn't make it and nobody is going to believe you. For now you may be able to succeed in keeping the article biased(especially when some of the supposedly neutral editors are self confessed fans of the Dutch MP), but this issue will definitely be brought up again by many editors Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Wouldn't it be appropriate to tag the article as WP:NPOV, as we are divisive about the WP:LEAD itself and article clearly is written in an way that makes anti-Islamic opinions of the director seems like a universal truth? Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we, as editors, cannot be concerned with the truth or falsehood of the claims that Fitna - or Geert Wilders - makes. Our job is to provide citable references to anything within the article. If the arguments the film makes that are utter crap (which I personally believe them to be), we should be able to find citable references that pointedly say such. As the Lead is an overview of the article (and not just an introduction to the material), if there is enough info in the body of the article addressing the falsehood of the film, we can note it as such. We must stay objectively neutral in this matter: we add what is cited and excise that which is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

umm..

Did really scarlet pimpernel edited, directed and wrote Fitna? cause the info box says so... :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not the fictional literary character from Orcszy's novels about revolutionary France. It was a pseudonym used to "protect" the identity of the production company who assembled the film. Sorta like Spider-Man is not really the person's name (like Schlomo Spiderman). :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)