Talk:Innocence of Muslims/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request on 19 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pakistan reaction also include the blocking of youtube website and a warning to google team Pakistan to block all the anti-islamic contents.

119.154.127.38 (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Also, in Bangladesh, they've blocked YouTube until the video is removed.

58.97.210.198 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Salman Rushdie, who was in hiding for nearly a decade..."

In an interview essentially promoting his recent book Joseph Anton: A Memoir broadcast at about 7:45 AM, 18 September 2012 on National Public Radio in the US, Mr. Rushdie mentioned that he had to remain in hiding, protected by police and bulletproof glass, for twelve years. Dick Kimball (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"In the 1990s Nakoula served prison time for manufacturing methamphetamine.[8][52]"

From the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula page on Wikipedia:
"...after being pulled over in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash;[13] he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.[9] He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation." (emphasis added) Dick Kimball (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The film's various titles

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This article has been at "Innocence of Muslims" throughout, but it is not clear to me that this is the most appropriate title. I say that because the only comment on this question from whoever uploaded the two videos to YouTube is 'Part of the movie, "Life of Muhammad".' as the comment on one of the videos. "Life of Muhammad" would make more sense, as that's what it seems to be about. Furthermore, the whole two-hour film, which may not even exist, is emphatically not what is at the centre of the controversy here, because almost no one has even seen it. Muslims getting outraged about this film have seen Arabic dubs of the YouTube videos. So it would make more sense for Wikipedia to name its article according to those videos than a name claimed (in the article it's not clear where and by whom) for the full film which as yet is not in circulation. Credulity (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Life" has about 1% the Google hits of "Innocence". —Cupco 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Think it makes sense to have a separate main article on the "trailer(s)" on Youtube (English "original"), the dubbed, and the versions distributed around September. Then we can leave those who think they can prove it was a full-feature 2-hour film at their work on this page. Proposing a main article with title Life of Muhammad, The Real Life of Muhammad or Muhammad Movie Trailer and start there with what 'we' know: there is a 13-14 minute version and it has been extensively re-worked after the original promotion. 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did the title "Innocence of Muslims" come from? The videos themselves contain no title as a real trailer would. Jmj713 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It's certainly the “common name” used in the media, but the original YouTube video posted in July doesn't use that name. —Kerfuffler squawk
hawk 20:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at news reports around September 11-12, and the earliest mentions of this title seem to appear as common knowledge. This is one of the earliest mentions I could find, though I'm sure earlier articles could be found: http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160987602/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests It states: "The two-hour movie, Innocence of Muslims, cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it." I believe all those claims have been already debunked, so the title too must come under scrutiny. It's certainly the common name for this video now, but there should be some establishment of its origin. This could be a case of initial wrong information being propagated and perpetuated, and in the process becoming reality. Jmj713 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

There seems to be clear bias against the subject in this article, especially in the Content and commentary section, which, logically, should detail the plot or the content of the video, yet doesn't really devote much space, if any, for any narrative description, resorting instead to select quoting from secondary sources. Jmj713 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Secondary sources" aka "reliable sources". The re-dubbed "trailer" has no real narrative to speak of, and the full film didn't even surface (in case if it exists). --Niemti (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The only part of the 14-minute video with any plot coherence is the opening about the Christians, which is described. The rest of it is just a series of short snippets. I think the article does a reasonable job of explaining it, but if you want to propose an actual change, go for it. —Kerfuffler squawk
hawk 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any sources on the content of the "film" apart from the videos shown on youtube? I've been searching the news at least once a day to see if anyone steps forward who's actually seen the full film. I'm starting to suspect that maybe the 14 min video IS the film. This has been brought up in the talks page, albeit in a much more hostile manner. And I agree with Kerfuffler, the current article is doing a very reasonable job of explaining the situation.Isah.abedini (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be reorganized. The 2nd paragraph states the content starting with present day persecutions of Copts followed by a flash-back to the founding of the religion by Muhammad. This paragraph is presented as a pure description of the content of the trailer. The 1st paragraph is evaluative with such phrases as “anti-Muslim”, etc. The 3rd paragraph originally just reported artistic reviews but now ends with a sociological commentary by Rushdie. Perhaps the 2nd paragraph (description of the plot) should be 1st, followed by the artistic criticism. The final paragraph can be the ethnical commentary (now in the 1st plus Rushdie’s comment from the end). In any case, it needs some kind of reorganization. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever "bias against the subject" are you tralking about anyway? Did you some reliable sources descibing the video as having some different plot, or having any artistic merits? --Niemti (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV strikes me as an unsustainable objection. It was just a bit of a mess of content and commentary interspersed. I've separated those out, with some edit conflicts with Niemti that appear to have been resolved, and expanded on the film's content section which had missed out a scene (presumably at the Christian doctors home) between the attacks and the "life" of muhammad section. GDallimore (Talk) 12:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I got bored with the interminable thing after the donkey talking scene so can't expand the content section beyond that. If someone has managed to watch the whole video, perhaps they could continue the summary. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is much improved, better organized, and it flows logically. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I had stuff about the content in there before but it all got censored out.[1] Some people are very committed to making this film look not merely bad but without substantive content whatsoever, and unless you want to spend all day every day debating objections even they don't really believe in, the article comes out censored. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a little better now, thanks. However, the problem still remains to a degree. I think the Content and Commentary sections need to be split up, and Content expanded (and perhaps renamed Summary or Plot). I've watched the entire video, and while it is a mess, as far as narrative, it can still be summarized better than what's currently there. And content and criticism should never be lumped into one section anyway. Jmj713 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It was better until you went back and started mixing up commentary and content again with your own editorial opinions and original research. I can't be bothered, but the whole issue of what was dubbed or not and why needs to be separated out from the plot summary. GDallimore (Talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Public Holiday On 21st September (Friday) In Pakistan

Protest in all over Pakistan has been held against the blasphemous film which has angered all the Muslims around the world. Federal cabinet has announced a public holiday in all over Pakistan on 21st September (Friday). Public holiday has been announced to observe Yaum-e-Ishq-e-Rasool (SAWW). Interior Minister Rehman Malik has also announced that government and ruling party Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) will take part in protest rallies and demonstration on Friday.

Private and government offices, banks, business, universities, colleges, schools all will remain close on Friday and it is expected that large number of protest rallies will be held. Salmanjavaid99 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues for filmmakers stating they were duped

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The original filmmakers involved have stated the film was radically altered from the version they signed on to. Because this is creating a potentially life-threatening situation for the participants, we should not name them unless discussing the original version. I removed the original director and one of the actors from the infobox. They signed on when the film was called Desert Warrior and about a character named Master George. Their unwitting participation in what the film became after "Bacile" overdubbed and recut it and Sadek translated it must be clearly explained per WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not creating this situation we are merely covering the sources in an encyclopedic manner(Hopefully) and we do not censor. Your reasoning is simply not valid.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT appropriate to single out one actor from all others. So I agree with removing the single actor credit given, however Alan Roberts is the confirmed director of this film, regardless of how controversial and will require a consensus of editors to remove. There is no BLP issue with this, but can be excluded if editors agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

She is the only known actor. News stories state "80 cast and crew", but do not name names. If you or anyone know the names of others, please add them to the infobox.--Auric (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But to me, that just reinforces the fact that a cast list is innappropriate at this time as to not give undue weight to a single cast member.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some kind of explanation that Roberts didn't direct the overdubbed version in the infobox, but I don't think censoring will help anyone at this point. —Cupco 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns are valid. If there is no legitimate need to name names, we shouldn't do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no validaty to this being a BLP issue. Please link to the relevant policy or guideline your reasoning is based on. We can add information if it is valid, accurate and sourced But..it appears editors are being VERY free with one name and literaly HIDING others. THAT is a BLP issue. At one point the information was actually made innaccurate for the sole purpose of crediting EVERYTHING to one person. That as well is a Biography of Living Persons issue. Look, I am very sorry that these people were supposedly duped, but we don't make that distiction without secondary sourcing and we do not place blame on Wikipedia. This is a film involving a cast, a crew as well as executive staffing, writers etc. The voices in the overdubbing are not that of one single 56 year old male. Sorry, but editors need to refrain from using this article as a political soapbox. Wikipedia is not the source and removing information with the sole purpose of hiding it serves no purpose but to reduce Wikipedia as an accurate encyclopedia. If there are such concerns the community needs to discussit and collaborate on a compromise everyone can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP should not be used to hide information. However, using the infobox structure for such an unusual situation is highly suspect. The actors starred in Desert Warrior; to say they starred in Innocence of Muslims is probably wrong. To give a parallel example, if I used that video editing software to make an apparent porno flick with a few of my favorite movie stars, and posted it on YouTube, would you say they "starred" in my edited video? Wnt (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly sure if I am following you, but certainly can agree that use of an infobox at this time may not be warrented and has been deleted at least twice I believe. That may well be the best route in this situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who worked on this film have been duped, they basically worked on another film. There name should not readily be avialable on wikipedia. Wikipedia protects some articles so that the person is protected from lies and abuse. In this case people lives are clearly at stake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.139 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Motive

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There has been wide speculation and reporting about the motivation for making this film. Given that the actors were told they were making a film set 2000 years ago (well before Islam) and that their original script was overdubbed, it is clear that the producers were well aware that this would be an inflammatory film. Presumably that was their intention, and so they tried to conceal the final script until after the film was "released".

Also, while Nakoula Basseley Nakoula self identified as a Copt, no Coptic church admits knowing him. Conversely, they disown him and any association with the film. Some of the actors reported that the supposed director spoke Arabic to others who visited the set. It also seems most doubtful that the Coptic church in Egypt would sanction any such film. Some reports have suggested that the idea for producing the film came from Islamic extremists ... precisely to create a pretext for the violent events that have happened. While the motive is speculative at this time, there is a growing body of reports exploring this. Maybe we should have a new section to discuss this? Enquire (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

None of that is relevent or accurate in fact. He is a Coptic Christian. Why would you expect a church to be able to know him and make any difference to the accuracy of the claim. Stick to the sources and try not to interpret them.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether "Sam Bacile" exists as a Israeli American or Egyptian Copt named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula really produced the movie may be relevant, but of secondary importance to the actual motive.

If I had sources on the motive, I would put that in the article. Since I have not been able to find these, I pose the question in the talk page. My question was not an attempt to interpret motives, but rather a search for sources and to stimulate discussion to explain the rationale (if there is one) for the motive to produce this low-budget production film and over-dub the original script with the inflammatory dialogue. Was it their intention to provoke riots and violence, as happend in the Middle East? I am writing this in the talk page, not the article, because this is something that needs further references and sources.

The alleged producer, initially identified as a Israeli Jewish American "Sam Bacile" turns out to be a pseudonym, apparently, for an Egyptian Copt named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula was recently released from prison for identity theft and fraud, apparently with large debts. The supposed producer initially claimed that the film was made with $5 million from Israeli sympathizers, but now it appears that the funding was substantially less, and largely borrowed from Nakoula's son. At the same time, the actors claim that the film was set 2000 years ago, before the emergence of Islam and that no mention of Islam or Mohammad was made during the production. So there is a great deal of intentional misinformation and the facts are hard to pin down. There is undoubtedly more to come.

My point is that while the facts are emerging, the motivation for making this provocative low budget film is unclear. Was it produced on Nakoula's initiative with the script (as acted and/or as overdubbed later) while he was in prison? What was his motive? Was it to provoke riots and violent attacks on US diplomatic posts in the Middle East (as happened), or was it inspired by others and undertaken by Nakoula after his release from prison for fraud and identity theft as another scheme to make money? Or, maybe, a combination? There were others involved and so was it simply an evangelical media project?

I have had difficulty to find reliable sources to shed light on the motive. So, for now it is somewhat speculative ... just hoping someone somewhere has more information. Sooner or later, it would help if we could identify a motive or motives that led to the production of this film. Enquire (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@@@@@@--------- Whever there is a motive there is a gain, people will be motivated to do this for some form of gain. This could simple be a hatred for Islam and the need to insult is the gain or someone or some organisation is seeking violence between muslims and other religions, therefore it is also reasonable that a muslim made this film for some political gain. Although it was released on youtube earlier in the year its rise now as we get near the US presidential elections could also be a gain for right wing christians in the US as they seek to remove Obama from office--------- @@@@@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.139 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation of promo poster: Muslim or anti-Muslim?

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

WP:FRINGEriffic I! —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 01:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

from TYT facebook page comment from Ma'en Al-tamemi Roughly translated top to bottom: "By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan, the holy month, may it always bring bless...etc... We announce the big movie: Innocence of Ben Laden. For the same time in international cinema, see, my Muslim brethren, the real terrorist holding the evidence of his guilt, that terrorist which caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Doesn't Al Queda argue that Bin Laden is innocent? Isn't the claim that "the true terrorist that causes caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq" identified by Al Queda to be the United States? If so, isn't it misleading to call it an anti-Muslim film if it was originally created to support the Islamic struggle? Why would an anti-Muslim refer to them as "my Muslim brothers" and use language "By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan," and then identify himself as an Israeli or a Coptic Christian? Is it possible that the media has been deceived by taking claims of the protesters at face value that this was anti-muslim created by israelis and christians, and that there is some deception going on here? Bachcell (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

--88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)I agree the poster is misleading --88.111.127.3 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

the poster is not misleading, it gives away the original purpose of the film in its original version, and it casts doubt the the film maker is an israeli or christian who does not respect islam. Rather it reveals that the film maker is a muslim who literally believes in the "innocence of bin laden" and blames the US for killings of muslims. This article should include a proper translation of the poster, and some information as to what the meaning is. Does wikipedia need to wait until the obvious appears in the New York Times before it can be noted? Bachcell (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Innocence of Muslims/Archive 2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Innocence of Muslims/Archive 2 at the Reference desk.

and bye. --Niemti (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You too, look at those tags. And, obviously, the posters' purpose was to bait some of Klein's local "suicide bombers". --Niemti (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is LA Times article about the poster LA Times LA Times and they provide this translation: Glad tidings to the Muslim and Arab community, with the occasion of holy Ramadan upon us we would like to announce the movie of the 21st century: "Innocence of Bin Laden". For the first time in the history of international cinema, my Muslim brother you are about to witness the true terrorist [and] contains the evidence of his condemnation.

It is entirely possible that the trying to catch terrorists is a cover story to explain the poster. Clearly the movie was changed into an anti-muslim movie in a later version. Bachcell (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are occupying a fantasy world. The most obvious explanation is that the poster is designed to attract Islamists to see the film, and then to inform them that Muslims are "innocent" because the real guilty party is their homosexual, child-molesting fake-beard-wearing founder. As the Copt Tutor so illuminatingly writes "man + X = BT. BT - x = man", where x is the beardy one. I'm still a bit bemused by that "BT" though. Paul B (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotional Poster proves "Innocence of Bin Laden" was Pro-Muslim, Pro-Al Queda

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

WP:FRINGEriffic II! —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The lede currently states without qualification "Innocence of Muslims is an anti-Islam video"

An editor chose to hide a section of talk because it made references to "FRINGE". However the lede should be changed from "is an anti-Islam video" to "widely reported as an anti-Islam video" or "initially promoted as a pro-islamist video to reflect what we now know of the promotional poster.

This translation is clearly pro-Muslim and is written in the code language of Al Queda, although this has not been directly noted by the mainstream media:

[2] "By the name of Allah almighty, and for the occasion of Ramadan, the holy month, may it always bring bless...etc... We announce the big movie: Innocence of Ben Laden. For the same time in international cinema, see, my Muslim brethren, the real terrorist holding the evidence of his guilt, that terrorist which caused the deaths of our children in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Clearly ADL thought it was pro-jihadist: The advertisements were noted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose Islamic affairs director stated, "When we saw the advertisement in the paper, we were interested in knowing if it was some kind of pro-jihadist movie."

A local Hollywood blogger also was concerned that it supported Bin Laden: John Walsh, attended a June 29 Los Angeles City Council meeting where he raised his concerns about the title of a film to be screened which appeared to support the leader of Al Queda. He said "There is an alarming event occurring in Hollywood on Saturday. A group has rented the Vine Street theater to show a video entitled Innocence of Bin Laden. We have no idea what this group is."

Nothing in the poster indicates any anti-muslim content, but rather content which supports islamism as practiced by Osama bin Laden.

The true terrorist that kills muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan without any doubt points at America. This is supported by this mainstream news story: America is the true terrorist, said Ahmed Rezak Shamasneh, 60, a retired laborer whose house was destroyed when Israeli tanks churned into Ramallah in April to suppress armed militants. It is the ally of Israel, which is killing our people. It is the country that drops bombs on poor Afghans. [3]

There cannot be any doubt that the poster was advertising a film that not anti-Muslim , but rather promoted the variety of Islamism practiced by Osama bin Laden.

One explanation from Steven Klein was "the intent of film was to enrage and flush out suspected terrorists", but another explanation would be that the film was actually intended without the knowledge of the participants to promote Bin Laden and Al Queda. I was only later repurposed with the intent of creating on offensive movie which would be blamed on Israel, the United States and Coptic Christians. If this were the case, then Al Queda may be hijacking Youtube videos instead of airliners to kill Americans as a False flag attack Bachcell (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know your material doesn't belong in Wikipedia when you're complaining about how the Truth hasn't been "directly noted by the mainstream media." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool story. --Niemti (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Petition on White house website.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should we need to mention in the article ? http://wh.gov/ZQKx -- unsigned by 139.190.136.115 09:45, 21 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Given that it has all of one signature at the moment, “fuck no”. Are you the one who created it? —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Only someone who was against free speech would sign that petition. The government can only take action where laws of hatred have been broken. There is a price for freedom and democracy and as much as I dislike the film clip innocence of muslims I support their right to make it 90.221.98.139 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

15 killed in Pakistan

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

15 killed during Pakistan's Day of Love For Mohammad ........ Add it into the article. http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-15-killed-anti-islam-film-protests-150144705.html --85.103.117.31 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Protest map

Latest comment: 11 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

Protest map against the movie around the World

Violent clashes

Major demonstrations

Small protests

Hi,

I have drawn a protest map

Can you please add it into the article?

Thanks

--Camoka5 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly you are missing many of the protests. Please see [4]. Even that one is missing the Philippines and Sydney, Australia. —Cupco 02:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And unfortunatley adding that to this page would be undue weight. it really belongs at 2012 diplomatic missions attacks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Cupco: I will update the smaller protests.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist: The map has major demonstrations caused by the movie, how do you explain countries with peaceful protests in the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks article? You've got to be kidding. Please get more serious.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the map, if it might not be fully complete, but we can put the map into the article and continue updates too.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what scale you're using but the protest in Sydney was certainly not small as around 500 protesters attended the demonstration and violent clashes occurred between protesters and police. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 11:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

TO YUMANUMA: Missing a protest? It's not a valid reason to keep this map off the map. You can discuss this on Talk page [[5]] of the picture.--Camoka5 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic image and I'm not opposing its use on any page but I was just trying to bring light to what I said before. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry for misunderstaing :), btw, Yumanuma, somehow I can't edit the article. Can you put this image into the "Reactions" paragraph? Thank you.--Camoka5 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Done YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And I've removed it. That's the most misleading map I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire country of Australia is protesting? Come on. This is absurd. If you know how to use the push-pins, then use them. I have no objection to accurately pinpointing the protests with push-pin maps, but coloring the entire country? No, that is misleading. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I obviously didn't see that as an issue when I added it to the article but that's a really valid point. I'll restore the image that was replaced when I added the map. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Islamic world"? Yeah, right. As for colorisation of whole nations, the Australian protests, for example, was limited to a few hundred yabberers wandering around looking for a fight. Gross over-exaggeration to paint the entire country. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have an Australia fixation today. It happens on other articles too. :) On a more serious note, Reuters reports there have also been protests in Turkey, not shown on this map. [6]. Probably almost every Islamic country has had something goin' down, not to mention all the ones where there is a migrant Islamic community. I quite like the idea of a map, but it needs to be fairly accurate. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time to draw this map. It's very rude to remove it from the article without asking without consulting. Please install it back. --Camoka5 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the use of maps has to be accurate, which is why someone removed it - rudeness doesn't have much to do with it I'm afraid. Some of the detail is wrong - why is Australia classed as a "major demonstration" country for example - a few hundred people protested outside the US embassy - in the UK it was much the same, as it was in many countries that have Muslim minority populations. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

James, again, you can discuss it no Talk page of the map. But removing it completely from the page is rude and may be considered even as vandalism.--Camoka5 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not rude at all. Removing contested material is totally acceptable. The burden is on the editor adding, not removing material. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I like the map, I felt these protests were the other side of the world until I saw the UK all nice a yellow even my area in leafy Sussex although I cant recall any protests the park was fairly quiet today( friday prayers ) and the muslim population use the cricket pavillion as a mosque ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.139 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course this map is useful. No-one is saying the whole country of "Australia" has taken part in demonstrations. It's clearly showing countries where anti-film protests occured. The title says "countries in which demonstrations occured". Simple and understandable. If the map is not accurate, kindly, discuss it on Talk Page of the file. I'm installing it back to the article.--Camoka5 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion. Consensus is not a vote count. Please resume discussion and gain consensus before re-adding. Removal of content is not vandallism but accusations of such are personal attacks. Please discuss, and accept that this may not be acceptable to all. Is there a compromise you can propose?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The concerns have been responded above. A user from Australia feels offended. Well, muslims are offended and want to remove the whole wikipedia article too. If a muslim contests the whole article, shall we remove the whole article as well? It is a clear, understable, accurate , well accepted map, countries in which the protests occured. The map is being used in more than 14 wikipedia language formats.--Camoka5 (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make the map accurate, try using pins on cities rather than colouring an entire country which was mostly uninvolved. The map suggests these protests are more widespread than World War I. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

An AFD has determined by the consensus of editors that this article not be deleted. There is no consensus to include that map at this time and refusal to accept that is edit warring. Please refrain from edit warrring on this article and continue to make your case, Again, is there a compromise that you can suggest?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, can you answer this question? A user from Australia feels offended. Well, muslims are offended and want to remove the whole wikipedia article too. If a muslim contests the whole article, shall we remove the whole article? Please answer this question. And, as a compromise, I recommend painting Australia yellow, color Australia any color you want, just do not remove my work completely.--Camoka5 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me show you Wikipedia guidelines in this regards from Wikipedia:Offensive material:

Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

If you continue to edit war you will be blocked--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)ed.

This Australian will remain "offended" until this map reports the truth. "Australia" was not engaged in violent protest, only the city of Sydney was. Re-cast the map using pins on cities or similar. Don't create a fiction by not reporting the truth. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Let us focus on the encyclopedic information and not what offends us personally.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, my reference to "offended" was tongue-in-cheek, hence the quotes in response to Camoka5's assertion that I was offended. My only concern is, and continues to be, the gross misrepresentation of the truth by trying to report city-based protests on an inaccurate world map. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My dear Amadscientist and WWGB. I equalized Australia as the UK. Happy now? Please install my work again so you make your compromise now.--Camoka5 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Australia was not engaged in any kind of protest, only one city was. The map is, simply put, a work of fiction at best, or a lie at worst. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What exactly was "Done"? How does this effect the undue weight concerns or the concerns of other editors that this groups by country against an accurate understanding of the situation?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed Australia and painted it as grey, because the protest occured in one city doesn't reflect the mood overall in the country. My dear WWGB, now it's your turn to show good faith. --Camoka5 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been waiting for half an hour. I think no-one is objecting anything anymore. Thank you participation in the chat. Bye. --Camoka5 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion clearly shows several editors against inclusion. There is no consensus at this time to keep it in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: While I generally like the idea of a pin map, in this case I think it's going to be problematic, what with the widespread protests across Pakistan and whatnot. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole map appears to be problamatic to editors. It seems to be making huge leaps. I have no idea what the problems are (in Pakistan), but the map doesn't represent the accurate and encyclopedic information and the editor should not push it when there has yet to be a consensus to include it. Perhaps the editor could spend more time in addressing the concerns of editors instead of ignoring the fact that others don't agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A map like this one is a much more honest representation of the situation. WWGB (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

~~I could live with something like that.~~ I can't support this or any alteration from this user at the moment. A few matters need clearing up first.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit tag at top of article

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed it per WP:TAGGING which says "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." If you can justify having the tag, please give your reasons here. KeptSouth (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What a lot of verbiage about a film no one has seen. No more should be said in this article than that which is known. And virtually nothing is known. Rwflammang (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, the current version of the wikipedia article is about the video posted on youtube, and has all of the relevant information regarding the creators, distribution, and reaction. And that alone, based on the world-wide response, is enough to justify an article on wikipedia over. But yes, it is true that no credible source has stepped forward that has seen the full film, and there doesn't seem to be any proof that a full feature length film was every completed. Based on the things I've seen on youtube so far, it appears that the producer(s) crammed together the only footage they had available in an attempt to establish some sort of narrative, and based on that attempt and failure to establish a proper narrative, it seems that 14 min video is all the usable footage they had. But this would be a personal opinion with no credible source to back it up. So until either the director or crew come forward and clarify things a bit, this article (based on a video by the name of "Innocence of Muslims") is doing a pretty decent job of explaining the situation as it is. Isah.abedini (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is...there is no video entitled "Innocence of Muslim" that was uploaded by anyone associated with the production. In fact, it may be innapropriate to mention the so called full length video in this article as it appears to be a random Youtube user who has done nothing but string the trailer together several times.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The film's various titles...continued.

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

From Wikipedia:Article titles [7]

"By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended . (see Lead section)."

Perhaps this is exactly what we need here and some prose summarizing the best RS as to why there is confusion about the title of the film. I know there are many editors who have concerns about the article title. For the purposes of Wikipedia we use the most common name HOWEVER...WP:COMMONNAME states:

The most common name for a subject, (Where the term "common name" appears in this policy it means a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name) as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Editors should also consider the criteria outlined [ in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA ]. Ambiguous (Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack) or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources . Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, [ is found in WP:POVTITLE ].

After reading through this what do editors think about the actual title being used here? Is this the proper title for the article? Is it accurate? Is it neutral? If we did need to change the title...what would it be?

Now before anyone decides to get bold and move the page...keep the following in mind from WP:TITLECHANGES:

Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case.

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.
In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd (which is the current name of Stalingrad).
While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there seem to be three relevant names (cue T.S. Eliot): “Muhammed movie trailer”, “Innocence of Bin Laden”, and “Innocence of Muslims”. The first doesn't seem very useful as an article name, and the second may or may not even be the same film; jury's still out on that whole dubbing thing. So what else would you call it? —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 10:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I recall another editor saying that this is not the name of the film as there is no actual proof that a fully dubbed version is even available and perhaps only the trailers actualy exist in the form of "innocence of Muslims" and the trailers themselves that were uploaded originaly do not even use this title or the other titles mentioned. So, as editors lets ask ourselves...is this article about a film that we have no reliable source stating exists in a full lngth version or is this an article about the "Video clips"? Is a possible name for this articles actually "Video clips of Sam Bacile" or "Video trailers from sam bacile Youtube channel" (as all lowercase from the primary source as seen here [8]?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Empirically, this article exists because of, and is primarily focused on, the reaction to the “trailer”, which was uploaded as “Muhammed movie trailer” and is now referred to as “Innocence of Muslims”. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 10:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, looking over it, some of the text isn't quite clear on that. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 10:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Just a thought. Also, there are now RS using a sound expert determing that there has been dubbing ( Id don't know if they have been added or not yet). We couldn't really use to much as it has been almost all accusations mentioned in RS that was just opinion or accusation, but now we do have some better sourcing for the overdubbing I believe.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for cleaning it up. I'll get my WP:BOLD on when I wake up. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted a bold rework of the lede, which I think more accurately reflects what we know. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 02:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just adding my own two cents here, but many films will start with a "working title", and won't receive the actual title until the movie is finished. In the end, the ones who decide what the final title of a movie is are the distributors and/or the producer. They absolutely have the final say in what the final title will be. So "Desert Warrior" is and was the working title, and that so far hasn't been disputed by anyone involved with the creation of the film. Since there is no distributor attached to the feature length film that I've been able to find, everything rests on the producer. And the producer posted the trailer, at least the most recent trailer and the one that has made all of the headlines, as "Innocence of Muslims". And so far, this article has been in reference to the world-wide reactions created by a trailer titled "Innocence of Muslims". Every RS referenced in this article, up until this point, has referenced a trailer titled "Innocence of Muslims".Isah.abedini (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues is, whether or not this can be viewed in a professional manner as one would with even the most low budget of films. There is no "Straight to video" release as one would expect from a video of this nature or a theatrical "release". Only two rented "viewings", one of which was canceled. As yet the most direct link to production are two "trailers", I prefer to just call video clips. Videos of this type generally do not use the input of distributers as they are only DVD distribution/publishers. We are less concerned about the RS using the title...IF the title is incorrect. Since there is no actual full length version of a titled video or film, the use of the current title may not meet Wikipedia policy and Guidelines. As stated above, while the title is indeed the most commonly used, it is laso not accurate to the subject in general. If we go by the weight of the reactions section alone, the title of the article would not be the most accurate for us. There is no trailer called "Innocence of Muslims" released by the production company. There appear to be only two trailers and they are not titled with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A YouTube search shows that all use of the title "Innocence of Muslims" are being re-uploaded by the media or other individuals not related to the production [9]. As yet, the only "Official" release are two clips. The title on this article is being taken from the statements of Steve Klein and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. I am not suggesting what title to use...just that Wikipedia should not continue a misinterpretation fostered by the media. This took me some time to understand after another editor brought this up and I am beginning to think that confusion is not just because of the working title (which can be mentioned but would not be the title of the article in my opinion as that film is another version of what was being altered to create the clips on Youtube and do not contain the overdubbing). As Viriditas has stated, there simply is no real full version of "innocence of Mulsims", has never been released and does not apear to exist at all. I have to agree with that. My experiance with film makers who release to video and use Youtube for marketing is...they would use the title being released or it would not be to their advantage as advertising. My opinion is that this article might be more appropriatly titled "Video controversy of..." or "Protests over..." and not use any of the production company/producer's proposed titles...as the film was never completed. The only video on youtube caliming to be a full length version is fake. This is why I think we need to be far more cautious to be sure we are not participating in mass confussion. But again...this is just a thought.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

I agree with Amadscientist in that the current title is wrong and should be changed to something more generic such as "Controversy over Sam Bacile's YouTube videos". Jmj713 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree and think that we should look into the formal steps to begin discussion on that for the general Wikipedia community.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect/outdated information in section Reactions -> Asia -> India

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section, Reactions -> Asia -> India: the page says that the issuing of visa was cancelled for two days, where as in fact, it has been cancelled for at least 5 days (Monday, 17th Sep to Friday 21st Sep). Moreover they are not certain of the operations next week (24th to 28th Sep) either. Source: http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/index.html

The earlier reaction was closing the consulate for two days, they then extended till Friday, one day at a time.

I quote for the consulate site: "Visa Section and Library Closed Friday, Sept. 21 Visa operations at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai have been suspended this week, September 17-21, 2012. Please continue to monitor our website for information about our operating status during the week of September 24 – 28, 2012. If you have a legitimate travel emergency, please contact us at chennaiexp@state.gov, and we will do our best to assist you.

The American Library will be closed Friday, Sept. 21, re-opening to the public Saturday, Sept. 22 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." 122.178.240.215 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The table from Reactions would be better split

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

No idea how to name the split article, though. The whole "Innocence of Muslims" makes everything sound awkward. --Niemti (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We could do as we did with the Occupy Wall Street article by creating Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. Create Reactions to Innocence of Muslims and transfer the enitre "reactions" section to that article and make a smaller summary on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Reactions to Innocence of Muslims" - that's what I said about it sounding awkward. The stuff that is important (a huge rally of allegedly 500,000 people in Beirut, the armed attacks attributed to the film, stuff like that) should remain or even be given their own articles. --Niemti (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Awkward may be what it will remain and I doubt we can do much about that. As for the information itself that you feel should remain-it may still be covered in the article as summary as I said.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another article, whether split or just created, need not use the same name though. Just that I don't know what to suggest. If you think of something logical that would be good as the title for this article is really only being used as the most common name.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, 2012 Anti-Islam film protests has been redirected to "Reactions" section. If you are going to split this section off, please update the redirect as well. TQ. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Zakaria Botros Henein

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

[11] --Niemti (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Biographies of living Persons violation. Newsday article states specificly: "who has not been linked to the film". I will not go further with what this article claims but state that this is not appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As I commented above, I had a version of the article back on the 16th or so which traced the story about the donkey to Father Zakaria's analysis of some book from the 11th century. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a part of this subject and, if I am not mistaken that was removed as original research and BLP violation concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Time linked directly to Zakaria's writings; of course, once certain people get involved, any mention of the original source becomes verboten, after which the secondary source also disappears. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this film exists

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion

I object to the attempt by User:Amadscientist to lend credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to another film called Innocence of bin Laden,[12] a film that nobody, outside of a single consultant who is considered unreliable, has ever seen nor has anyone been able to verify actually exists. Anyone can put a poster in window. Furthermore, this particular film, which is claimed to have been shown "once" in a theater, is not the same film as the heavily edited film seen in the YouTube trailer, so the attempt by Amadscientist to make us connect the two films is also objectionable. One of the primary reasons I claim that this film does not exist is because every single second, minute, hour, and day of the week, independent filmmakers upload their full-length films to YouTube. The fact that a poor quality "trailer" was uploaded instead of the film, tells me that the actual film does not exist. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to attack me personaly with unsubstantiated accusations on this talk page, I have little choice here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not your rubes. This "trailer", quite possibly the worst "trailer" ever made in the history of the art of the moving picture, and worse than any of the home-made trailers made by thousands of teenagers every day using iMovie in under five minutes, tells us everything we need to know. The film does not exist. We've seen this kind of fake bullshit starting wars, leading to violence so many times. The fake babies taken out of their fake incubators started the first Gulf War, followed by the fake WMD claims starting the 2003 Iraq War. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are allegations by at least one person that the "film" was never screened. LA resident John Walsh alleges he attempted to buy a ticket but was told the screening was cancelled.--The lorax (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, you might tone it back a notch. You make it sound like the entire uprising was an evil plot by Amadscientist. (Granted, that sentence does sound odd once you write it down). There isn't a justification to personalize it. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Being incivil isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with this. There isn't actually any real evidence, let alone evidence that could remotely meet Wikipedia standards, that this film exists outside of the trailers. The reactions to it are real, even if sensationalised for bigoted media, all secondary sources talking about the fact they've heard that this film exists are real. However, so far the actors involved have denied they were filming this Anti-Muslim film (thinking it was a Desert Warrior style film set 2000 years ago) and the only place to have physically shown the film did it to an almost empty audience and one of the only people they've managed to find to testify have said the trailers have nothing from the film in them.

All i'm saying is that this should be a serious issue considered in the coming weeks in relation to this article. ALL users should be keeping a lookout and inquiring further until a verifiable source has shown the film, as claimed and shown in trailers, to be factually existing as currently perceived.

Who knows, it may even be a tax scam by the Christian lobby groups that financed it in the first place. 124.169.166.118 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It concerns me because we've seen a number of false claims about this thing repeated widely and then shown to be false. E.g., how many people felt they were righteous for naming Nakoula as the director, supported by the AP article, and now we find out that it's believed to be Alan Roberts? We know a bunch of things that both Nakoula and Klein have said are lies. At this point, everything about this that we haven't actually seen with our own eyes (which is to say, that there's a 14-minute clip on YouTube) has to be taken with many grains of salt. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 09:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"The fake babies taken out of their fake incubators started the first Gulf War" - no, it was Iraqi refusal to remove their tanks from the UN member country of Kuwait that started the first Gulf War. And you can read about the conduct of Iraqi occupation forces here: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,KWT,467fca591e,0.html --Niemti (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. The American people would never have approved going to war with Iraq over Kuwait if it wasn't for the fake testimony from Nayirah, which as it turns out, was a PR campaign scripted by Hill & Knowlton for the government of Kuwait. And, the American people would never have approved the 2003 Iraq War if it wasn't for the fake testimony from Curveball. This "film", of which there isn't the slightest evidence of its existence, stinks just like those fakers. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OH MY GOSH. Btw, this Nayirah (testimony) article treated HRW's Middle East Watch as a separate entity, complete with a red link of "Middle East Watch" and even a sub-section reading "Middle East Watch". Wikipedia's conspiracy experts at work. --~~

Where's the film? Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

How is babby formed? --Niemti (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire film is on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgx1_JVxfZE&feature=related 203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded on September 14 from Baghdad, Iraq. Curiouser and curiouser. Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes. You would think the film would be uploaded from California, no? Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, that “movie” contains 5:02 of preface that may be about the Copts (I don't know Arabic), followed by five repeats of the same 13:50 “trailer” in English. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 07:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that was the first red flag I saw. It ain't 74 minutes like it claims, that's for sure. And why would an alleged 22 year-old kid who lives in Iraq and claims he is anti-Arab upload the film? None of this makes any sense. Can you claim to live in Iraq and be anti-Arab? How is that even possible? Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to pretend to know WTF is going on here, but this is no full-length movie; it's just five copies of the YouTube video we already knew about stitched together with some preface material. Still no evidence of the movie actually existing. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 07:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you claim to live in Iraq and be anti-Arab? How is that even possible? Quite a few of Iraqi Kurds would have a talk with you. Anyway, the video is fake (and gay). --Niemti (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of any fake stories or propaganda the first gulf war was started by Iraq attacking Kuwait. As for Americans not going along with a war without the babies fake story, we cant possibly know for sure but they certainly wouldnt have wished the increase in oil prices which could have resulted over a number of years. It clear that Hussain had a claim on part of Kuwait oil fileds and would have been a treat to Saudia Arabia hence the first gulf war. As for being Iraqui and anti arab, many Iraquis in the south are anti arab, as are some christians and the kurds in the north and they have historical reasons to be and that is definatly not FAKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.98.139 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this forum is NOT to argue about what we think about the movie's existence. It is NOT for us to try to determine the "truth". There are plenty of political forums for this sort of conjecture. We are ONLY to reflect, in due weight and with all other relevent WIKI policy considerations, the RS' reporting on the topic. If the RS say it exists, it exists. We don't need to personally believe that, but it's not up for us to insert our personal beliefs or second-guess the RS. I understand that can be frustrating, and there are a million and three political forums in which you can go to discuss that frustration. This is not one of them.204.65.34.196 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reactive politics will maintain the status quo in the world.

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Violence in response to an act of free speech(no matter how insulting) makes muslims scary to the west. Islamic leaders need to consider how spreading the film and calling for protest bring them closer to their goal, assuming arguendo, that one of their goal is to spread islam all over the world. Instead it once again highlighted to the U.S. that people who believe in islam are different from us. It is ironic that persians(islamic country) created chess, but most of the islamic countries are playing checkers in world politics.

Is it not interesting that this film came out before the u.s. presidential election. But which islamic leader considered this before calling for the heads of innocent u.s. citizens.

But who knows...maybe I am wrong...and blind faith is the right way to go.∑∏ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.105.47 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the puppetmaster behind Morris Sadek, the Basseley's, 'sam bacile'... used this 'thing' as a weapon; i'm strongly opposed to any violence. This 'thing' is of the utmost insanity; i hope and expect it can be avoided in our future. Wakari07 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a political forum. Please feel free to find one and discuss your feelings about this issue there. This forum is ONLY for the discussion of changes to the article, in line with wiki policy.204.65.34.196 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sources of Film Content

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The original Arabic work written by Mohammad Al Ghazoli and later translated into English researched the Quran and Hadith, in the work "Christ, Mohammad and I". The author is no long alive, yet the book can still be found on Amazon.com. He was the Editor in Chief for the Arabic newspaper and press counselor to the former Arab president, Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi. He had written over 2000 articles in Arab and Islamic newspapers and magazines, 1969-1998 also many books on economics, sociology and politics. www.sacred-texts.com/isl/htq/index.htm §

He quotes from Al-Tabari, Imam As-Suheili (great Muslims scholars) also Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings, The Life of the Messenger by Iman Muhammad bin Abd Al-Wahab, Al-Sira Al-Halabia by Burhan El-Deen Al-Hablabi, The Second Phenommenon by Malek bin Nabi, Al-Suyuti, and a host of who's who in Arabic Muslim scholarship, to show from historical Islamic well documented records the following issues:

1. The Islamic Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) while in his 50's took as his wife a 6 year old child named Aisha, a reality that most Muslims will acknowledge as true history, yet will not discuss further due to its moral implications in modern society. The movie tries to point out this issue and that Aisha bint Abu Bakr was a special wife of all his 23 wives/concubines, the daughter of his best friend also called the Mother of the Believers.

2. The Islamic Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh), first wife was Khadija bint Khuwaylid a rich and wealth widow who was forty when he married her at the age of 25. Though she was old enough to be his mother, she died at age 70, and then he married Aisha and his other wives. see Al-Shati in The Wives of the Prophet.

3. The third of his marriages was to his adopted son Zayd's wife, Zainab bint Jahsh, who the Islamic Prophet had a revelation from God, that it was best that he do so to help his adopted son. See Al-Kashaf by Al-Zamkhashri., also the Life of Muhammad by Dr. Haikal.

4. Muhammad's raids on caravans are all a matter of documented history, Al-Iwa, Bawat, Al-Ashira, and Al-Nakhla, also the Battle of Badr, from which the famous quote came "O my Lord, Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth." Sura Nuh (Noah) 71.26..

Conclusion: This book and thousands of similar books written by former Muslim scholars, former Deans and Islamic teachers at Al-Azhar Univerity and around the world could have been used as Source content, yet it seems that since this film was on the Internet and in Arabic, it created the new combination of instant communication with the all the earth in a matter of minutes, and opens up a subject that in many countries is forbidden to even discuss at all. Therefore, this subject is being being nicknamed, "The New Guttenburg Internet Incident of 2012". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh God have Mercy (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question or statement. Could you clarify?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While interesting this is Original Research, and not a relevant basis of changes to this article.204.65.34.196 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have placed the Template:POV tag on the article. The neutrality of the prose and information is being disputed WP:IMPARTIAL. There are problems with encyclopedic tone as well and may have additional problems. The article is undergoing a general edit for clarity, brevity and undue weight issues. I believe the reactions section has crossed into WP:WEIGHT as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Terry Jones, whose burning of copies of the Quran previously led to deadly riots around the world." This is POV and needs to be fixed. 69.80.45.31 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to film in Malta (EU)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unlike other countries, Imam Mohammad El Sadi prohibited Muslims in Malta to hold protests with regards to this film. As far as I know, this is without precedent. More information can be found here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120926/local/Imam-halts-film-protest.438409 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuf6429 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else notices this..

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This came out 9 hrs ago as of the writing of this post (yes, I took about an hour to write this with diffs and links). From "The Nation (Pakistani newspaper)" [13]:

Innocence of Muslims, which has very rightly caused uproar all around the world, is an anti-Islamic video written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. It was initially titled Desert Warrior when it was filmed in 2011. The script was about the “tribal battles” prompted by the arrival of a comet on earth. Though the story had no religious references, anti-Islamic content was added post-production through overdubbing, reportedly, without the knowledge of the actors

Compare that to our current lede:

Innocence of Muslims is an anti-Islam video,[1][2] thought to have been written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, using the pseudonym of "Sam Bacile". The 2011 film's original working title was Desert Warrior, and told the story of "tribal battles prompted by the arrival of a comet on Earth."[3] Though the story had no religious references, anti-Islamic content was added post production by overdubbing, reportedly without the actors' knowledge.

Yes...this is a copyright violation...by this source (it does not attribute Wikipedia). LOL! So in case anyone mistakes this as a copyright violation of the editors...I can verify that this current lead was worked out by editors here. This is the one instance I can remember were we became the source to an article so quickly. I think this is hilarious, but I also didn't want people to assume we took it from this source. They took it from us. The lede on this article looked like this on the 18TH [14] and was edited several times and ended up as this [15]] by the last edit on the 19th at 23:40. The beginning that has close paraphrasing actually uses large chunks from our article as edited by User:Unflavoured at 00:33 [16] and then changed by me to this [17] and then further adapted by me with an edit that did not fully stick (the attribution to Huffington post) but shows where the reference to "script was without any" was changed to "story had no". The line that is exactly the same was worked out by myself and that editor, where I insisted the term "Reportedly" be added [18]. I guess this is a compliment...in a back handed sort of way! LOL! OK "The Nation"...where is our byline for attribution of the editors that helped write this? LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you were right about the spoon. Though I'm pretty sure you've Wikilinked the wrong Nation. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink fixed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is even more of a reason why we need to be really careful with this article, and err on the side of caution whenever anything is in question. A lot of people all over the world see Wikipedia as their first source of information regarding major events. Sure, more devout researchers will look a little further and check all the references and sources, and then decide for themselves. But a lot of people just look here, and then that's it. I live in the Middle East. Northern Iraq to be exact. And all misinformation goes a long way and can get a lot of people killed before anyone figures out it was wrong. I've known journalists here that use Wikipedia as a source, instead of the other way around. And then people read their articles and believe it as they are. So I would really urge those with editorial privileges to exercise the utmost caution with this.Isah.abedini (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that what we're seeing right here is what you could call Wikipedia potentially protecting lives - we have gotten out the main point, to the Pakistani press, that the actors in the movie didn't actually say the lines about Muhammad, which might reduce their odds of being targeted. (Of course, the broader point can be made that Wikipedia, like Sam Bacile himself, neither takes nor protects a life based on the actions of madmen not under our control - no more than Cassie Bernall committed suicide by saying she believed in God) Wnt (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pakistanis have enough problems to worry about, so I'll formally release this and any other contributions I've made to this article to the public domain, and would encourage others involved in the paragraph to do so as well; I have no desire to embarrass them over some debatable borrowing of material I intended to be free, especially when as Wikipedians... many of us have pushed this line ourselves at some point or another. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

While that is indeed very generous, by creating an account and editing on Wikipedia you agree to the following (From terms of service)[19]:

You agree to the following licensing requirements:

a. Text to which you hold the copyright: When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

(Re-users may comply with either license or both.)

The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license. For example, at the publication of this version of the Terms of Use, English Wikinews mandates that all text content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License (CC BY 2.5) and does not require a dual license with GFDL

f. Public domain content: Content that is in the public domain is welcome! It is important however that you confirm the public domain status of the content under the law of the United States of America as well as the laws of any other countries as required by the specific Project edition. When you contribute content that is in the public domain, you warrant that the material is actually in the public domain, and you agree to label it appropriately.

Basicly, part F is stating that content that is already in the pd is welcome, but you must provide proof of such claims. Part A explicitly states that your text is a creative commons release and you may not overide terms of service by the above disclaimer. This protects Wikipedia as well as yourself. You have already agreed to licensing under CC 3.0 unported and may not alter this release. If you own your text, as previously published elsewhere and have released it to PD you must provide proof that this is accurate. You may release media files you contribute differently:

d. Non-text media: Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting well off topic - In brief, I'm afraid I've already lost confidence in your interpretations of copyright policy, and certainly nothing about releasing text under a CC license infringes on my ability to release it as public domain. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Technical information

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A few days ago I added a paragraph describing the technical side of the videos as uploaded to YouTube:

Two videos, sometimes referred to as a trailers, were uploaded to YouTube in July 2012. Neither video, however, has any distinguishing features of a film trailer, such as a studio card, names of the actors, the director, the anticipated release date, or the film's title. The first video, titled "The Real Life of Muhammad", was uploaded on July 1, 2012. It is 13:03 in duration, and in 480p format. The second video, titled "Muhammad Movie Trailer", was uploaded on July 2, 2012. It is 13:51 in duration, and in 1080p format. Both are very similar in content.

I believe this is wholly appropriate to add, because this gives complete technical information regarding when each video was uploaded, exactly how long they are, and in what video format. Plus the fact that, while often referred to as trailers, they don't have any features of trailers. This is general knowledge information that anyone can glean from the videos themselves, and thus doesn't really need a secondary source to cite, such as when summarizing the plot of a novel or a film. However, it was removed, and I'm not sure why this pertinent information cannot remain. For one, I'm constantly seeing the phrase "approximately 14 minutes", but as an encyclopedia, shouldn't we strive to be exact? Jmj713 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps condensing the information and combining it with the introduction would be of benefit? Though I'd be concerned about making the introduction overly long. As of right now, the second paragraph starts The 14 minute video clips were initially uploaded to YouTube in July 2012, under the titles The Real Life of Muhammad and Muhammad Movie Trailer. That could be changed to Two 13:03 minute and 13:51 minute video clips were initially uploaded to YouTube on July 1st and 2nd 2012 under the titles The Real Life of Muhammad and Muhammad Movie Trailer.

That adds the information without adding the question of what is and is not a trailer. JoBaWik (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This I can support! Excellent compromise JoBaWik!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the information. However, it would be acceptable to place it between ref tags where you reference these YouTube videos. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lose most of the prose The prose makes claims that are likely to be disputed. The very most we could use from this primary source is as follows and I support the use in this manner:

The first video, titled "The Real Life of Muhammad", was uploaded on July 1, 2012. It is 13:03 in duration, and in 480p format. The second video, titled "Muhammad Movie Trailer", was uploaded on July 2, 2012. It is 13:51 in duration, and in 1080p format. Both are very similar in content." The rest makes claims that would need secondary sourcing from RS to make.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinstated as per consensus. Jmj713 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...did you forget something? Like....the primary source being discussed. LOL! You added the text as we discussed here (and thank you for collaborating on this by the way) but you forgot to re-add the inline citation of the YouTube video channel.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Death toll

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Has anyone made an attempt to keep a running total of the number of confirmed deaths that have occurred in or as a result of the protests against this thing? Sca (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult indeed to say when deaths are truly a "result" of a writing. For example, our article on Common Sense makes no effort to list a death toll. Though I imagine that secondary sources will chime in with wildly varying figures on this one. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree Wnt. I have have seen AP and CBS reports citing 49 deaths, but they include the deaths at the Libyan embassy that are now reported to have been pre-planned and not a result of the video. IP75 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page where protests are mentioned, as far as pakistan is concerned, the extent to which the protest was carried out was not depicted in a true sense. You can search google etc for a complete list. i am pasting few of the links where it says "BLack Day was observed on Government LEvel" and also the different places and number of ppl participating in the protest

http://dawn.com/2012/09/22/demonstrators-in-pakistan-protest-peacefully-against-anti-islam-film/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/441400/peaceful-protest-black-day-observed-against-anti-islam-film/

Seperate protests were organised by Non Jihadi, normal citizens as well including members of minority community of Pakistan, actors, Politicians, Political Parties etc 110.36.73.221 (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a revolution?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I see that Amadscientist has severely wrung content out of this article yet again. This article reads like one long vitriolic screed against the makers of the movie, devoid of any discussion of the film's content or any serious attempt at interpretation of it. Is there any way we can line up and say enough is enough here? Wnt (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that the article is unbalanced in some way, instead of criticizing other eds, it might be more fruitful if you could suggest specific material (with WP:RS sources of course) which can be inserted to make the article more balanced. I suggest that you should WP:AGF on others and focus on ways to improve the article.

If you think there is something wrong with the edits in the diff which you provided, please point out what. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What I object to is that a lot more information is being taken out. Wnt (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"More information" is not necessarily better. Information has to be encyclopedic. We need not say everything that can be said about a topic. To make an article encyclopedic, information has to be condensed down from secondary sources. I understand that Amadscientist has been giving a copyedit to this article and part of copyediting usually involves paring down some chunks of material. If you think that some material should have been allowed to remain, please copy it here and try to make your case as to why it was necessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OrangesRyellow. Much of what was removed was redundant, too much detail and a lot of BLP issues as well as some misinterpreted information. If there is something you feel strongly should be returned please discuss it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "Prophet"

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Is it correct to refer to the "Prophet Mohammad" in the article text? For comparison, articles which mention Joseph Smith don't call him the "Prophet Joseph Smith." Since "prophet" is essentially a mythical description, it does not seem appropriate to use it without some qualifiers that indicate that this is a belief of Muslims, not an objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

hmmmmmm. hadn't thought of that. Cramyourspam (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest the same scheme as "U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens"? That is, initially refer as "Islamic Prophet Muhammad", and then thereafter as "Muhammad"? — Hasdi Bravo • 20:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Initally the seal of the prophets Muhammed Mustafa

, then just Muhammed (PBUH&HF) Source

A Muslim

--79.69.105.94 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We simply don't do that; please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Muhammad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad is needed in this case, as opposed to Joseph Smith, because Mr Smith is a real person, and can be referred to as such, whereas Muhammad is a mythical figure exclusively known through the books that depict him as a prophet; not through other historical evidence. So "Prophet Muhammad" is the correct description, similarly to Prester John, who cannot be called simply John. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There's actual considerable historical evidence showing that there was a Muhammad, more evidence than for some earlier religions. Whether you want to believe some events associated with him is upto you, but to say there isn't any historical evidence is simply wrong. --Jethro B 21:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of the writings about Muhammad might be considered historic evidence (and of course better than those for other earlier figures, no doubt), but all of them present a "Prophet Muhammad", therefore it is the usual term. We also refer commonly to Buddha, not to Siddharta Gautama. That does not mean that we really think Mr Gautama, if he ever lived, was an enlightened person (the meaning of the word 'Buddha') nor does writing "Prophet Muhammad" imply any position about his factual relation to (a supposed) God. Ilyacadiz (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

This has suddenly shown up on my watch list. I assume that it must have been split from this article at some point but don't see it. I propose to move the section from this artcile to that article and use a summary here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So moved. I am thinking of expanding this page with new sections on the plot, cast, and characters. .____. We'll see. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a plot section, however since we do not have an entire film to gain a full plot summary it has been titled "Plot and description" but could be just plot if there is now enough secondary sources to confirm more information...the only problem is...there seems to be at least two seperate film versions (maybe three)and this may need to be handled in a similar fashion as the film Clue (film). Characters are going to be tougher since they would likely be guessed at or taken from the script, which must be made available in a secondary source to confim it is real.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A problem with a cast section would be BLP concerns. The cast was told one thing and had their work altered without their knowledge. I am concerned that we do not misrepresent characters based on a 14 minute clip that may well be all there is of the controversial version. We know very little about the fully completed version screened at the Vine.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See, I am thinking of using the "Desert Warrior" script as a guide, and possibly mark which sections was shown to in the 14-minute trailer. Even without the dubbing, "Master George" is an allusion of the prophet's life. I am guessing most of the actors did not see the full script and/or do not have a background in Islamic studies to recognize the allusion. — Hasdi Bravo • 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to dispute any synthesis or interpretaion of the script and characters not found in a releiable secondary source. Also, you must first demonstrate the script being used is authentic before you can base any prose in the article on it.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the archived discussion Script for "Desert_Warrior" online. We have at least two WP:SECONDARY sources to cite from. — Hasdi Bravo • 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.vice.com/read/here-is-what-we-believe-to-be-the-final-2011-screenplay-for-innocence-of-muslims (Feb 25 2011 draft)
http://gawker.com/5944290 (May 1 2009 draft)

"What we believe to be" is not demonstrating accurate information that verifies the script is authentic and Gawker isn't exactly the strongest RS you could have for this. This will likely need an RFC to determine consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gawker is a RS!79.69.105.94 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya, considering we are also citing gawker for other stuff in the article. Moreover, the script has been distributed to other news site according to google, but only a few like the above two actually host the script on their site. Besides, I had my doubts on the existence of the movie itself (thinking that it is a riff-raff / parody version of an unreleased low budget movie) but these script drafts made a believer out of me.

— Hasdi Bravo • 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman said one of the people in it was his friend and had no idea what it was really about!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gawker is a blog site. Please review WP:NEWSBLOG and see the archives of RS/N about the site[20]. Not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The above suggestion of "using the "Desert Warrior" script as a guide...", would most likely result in WP:OR. There are sufficient existing reliable sources with descriptions of the video that can be used. IP75 (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It won't be WP:OR any more than editing a synopsis of a widely available book like works of Shakespeare. Reputability is a factor if the authenticity of script is questioned. If the script is accepted as legit, then it is verifiable, i.e., any editor can verify the synopsis matches the script. Even then, the section for summarized script has to be separate from the section for the summarized 14-minute video, as we don't know how much of the script made it to the final cut (assuming that it was indeed screened). Except for some dubbing here and there, the 14-minute video seems to follow the same structure as the script. Sort of like how they summarized season 1 of Once Upon a Time. :P — Hasdi Bravo • 02:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I added the phrase "A video known as" to the beginning of the article before the title, because we really aren't sure where the actual title "Innocence of Muslims" came from. At least I couldn't find a definitive source after some research. This has now been changed to the phrase " is the title given for", which doesn't read better, in my opinion. I'd like the title question to be settled, because even through there are two lengthy notes appended to the title, it's still not clear that this isn't in any way an official title of this video and/or film. Jmj713 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The notes actually do make it clear as does the article, that the title of the article is not the actual title of any known film or project. Not even the title of the videos themselves on YouTube. But the previous prose of "A video known as" is lacking a RS while the phasing "title given for" is referenced and sourced. There is no actual film or clip fromt he production team under this title. This is just the most common name used from interviews with those involved, such as Klien and Nakoula. This has been discussed but I do welcome more discussion. I even believe we have attemoted a possible name change that was rejected.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why phrasing needs sourcing. The phrases "A video known as" and "is the title given for" mean the same thing, but the latter doesn't read as well. Jmj713 (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To me "known as" would require a source to make the claim that it is actually known as such, while the other wording, "title given for" means that is is not the official title. Of course we are talking about our own opinion on this so perhaps a compromise of more specific wording that gives even more clarity. Perhaps something along the lines of "Innocence of Muslims is the title attributed to"...--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I like "attributed to" and prefer the bold title at the beginning of the sentence. However,
"Innocence of Muslims is the known title of"... is very simple and clear. Here is a source if needed. [[21]] IP75 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The source states clearly that the permit uses a different title. Also it only says - "later known as", so it doesn't support the claim, "Is the known title of". Attributed to" seems the best for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The beginning of the page

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Youtube video isn't in my opinion anti-islamic because it isn't against the role ,spread or practice of Islam, however it it has an offensive character for muslim people. The video is an offensive [Parody]] of the Islamic beliefs. Omegangel 16:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have previously disambiguated the term "anti-Islam" with Criticism of Islam, so yeah. If you watch the 14-minute video, it is making very critical points against the religion and the life of the prophet, but more ridicule than conducive to constructive discussion. While it may not be against its followers (i.e., Muslims), the central argument in the video is that, if you remove Islam, you remove the cause of evil, violence, injustice, third world debt, bla, bla — Hasdi Bravo • 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on Dec 4 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Include sources for "over 75 deaths" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.51.177 (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Misspelling in Notes #5 of "Innocence of Muslims" -- "Federal Law Inforcement Agent" should read "Federal Law Enforcement Agent" Freditor (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)freditor

Done Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Refuting that the video caused the demonstration: Statement should be deleted.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10.2.12-Issa-Chaffetz-to-Clinton.pdf

Details previous attacks, most of which occured before the video was uploaded to youtube.

April 6, 2012 - An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.
April 11, 2012 - A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.
April 25, 2012 - A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.
April 26, 2012 - A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.
April 27, 2012 - Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.
May 1, 2012 - Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.
May 22, 2012 - RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.
June 2012 - A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.
June 6, 2012 - An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.
June 10, 2012 - RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi. No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.
Late June, 2012 - Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.
August 6, 2012 - Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.
Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 - Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are "warned by their family members to quit their jobs" because of rumors of a "impending attack."

Hobbe Yonge (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than delete the statement, the statement was important enough to explain Susan Rice/Obama's statement. This can be done later since the Benghazi report is coming. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actors

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the information about Cindy Lee Garcia and the other actors condemnation of the film removed? Is it in the reactions now, or the (stupidly titled, IMHO) reactions to the reactions page? I would think that the response by the actors themselves to what has happened, including attempted legal action, would be suffincient important to mention somewhere in this series of articles.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It really is too much detail to center on a single figure. There is a line that is referenced and notable about the cast dissavowing the film and condemning the whole thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits that removed large amounts

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have returned the content that was just removed. If a link is dead it is the same as no link and does not mean it is not verifiable. (discuss or check for other sources) Redundancy is no reason to remove notes.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Huge intro made shorter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The ïntro of this aarticle was too long and almost solely about the producer, and gossip about him. Who is interested in that? At least not someone who wants a neutral introduction to what this is all about. I moved that down to a separate section, and added a short summary of why the movie was produced, as well as why people protested against it, to the introduction. Mange01 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

List of actors? Removal from IMDB.com

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How many actors were in this ? Cast & crew are missing. IMDb completely removed all traces of this movie despite having it listed with the actors past year.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.235.64.67 (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a mistake at the end of the article: "Google, Inc., owner of YouTube also blocked the video in Pakistan and Egypt citing "the very difficult situation" in those countries.[76] " Pakistan should read Libya, as noted in the citation ([76]). Zythes (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done and thank you, NiciVampireHeart 09:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Availability of the video

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Following the U.S. appeal court ruling,[22], is the film still online for viewers in the USA? I am in the UK, and attempting to access the two original versions of the film uploaded by "sam bacile" in July 2012 produced the message "This video is not available in your country. Learn more. Sorry about that."(screenshot). This was a puzzle, because the article does not mention the video being blocked in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In the USA, the video is producing the message "This content is not available on this country domain due to a legal complaint."(screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request to fix punctuation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could an established editor please fix the following punctuation errors (both in the "Blocking of the YouTube video" section):

'...user "sam bacile", however by September...'
should be
'...user "sam bacile", but by September...'
or
'...user "sam bacile"; however, by September...'

'Google, Inc., the owner of YouTube also blocked...'
should be
'Google, Inc., the owner of YouTube, also blocked...'

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Benghazi

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should mention be made that this video was an initial explanation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack? That page is marked as in dispute, so maybe not. But I imagine that can be mentioned in a neutral way without this page committing to the politics of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theimplord (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that this should be mentioned. It was given as the first explanation for the attack on the US consulate by the POTUS. --Raphael1 16:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Where to Download?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I couldn't find the real version on YouTube, nor is it on KickAss Torrents. Is it available for download somewhere? If so, where? A download location should be mentioned in the article.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The videos were uploaded to sam bacile's YouTube channel in July 2012, but removed on copyright grounds in February 2014 following the court action by Cindy Garcia. The copyright holder is presumably Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, although his exact role remains unclear. The videos are now hard to find online, and if they were on a torrent site, linking to them would violate WP:ELNEVER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia can't link to copyright violations, so if there's no legal download source online, you're out of luck because this article can't do things like link to torrenting sites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Makes Incorrect Conclusion

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"What was perceived as denigrating of the prophet Muhammad caused demonstrations and violent protests against the video to break out on September 11 in Egypt and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and to some western countries. The protests have led to hundreds of injuries and over 50 deaths."

It is true that the video was blamed for attacks and protests in Egypt, Libya and other countries. It is also true that until the Obama Administration blamed the protests in Egypt (that had not yet occurred) on this video, and subsequently blamed the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the CIA Station in Benghazi, no one had seen this video: a total of 12 views had tallied in YouTube up to this point.

2601:0:9880:23C:CC92:4556:BBA7:EB37 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this article does not blame the video for the 2012 Benghazi attack. This is a controversial claim, despite being reported in parts of the media at the time. Various claims of responsibility have been made for the attack, and these are looked at in more detail in the article about the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the OP's claims do not seem to be supported by the facts. As the major contributor I can certainly tell you that by Sept 11 there were much more than just "12" views on the Youtube video.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

While the article does not blame the video for the Benghazi attack, it certainly does not point out that the White House essentially debuted this video to the world by telling the world of its existence. The article needs a timeline, otherwise it is NPOV by omission.

You had A) Video created, then you had B) White House debut, then you had C) protests.

It was not A) then C) then B). The Obama White House is currently treated in the article as if they are innocent bystanders until after everything is settled and the protests have already started, and that's where everybody can see the glaring NPOV. An honest timeline, which this article needs, would place the White House's role front and center. By blaming the video for the Benghazi protests, the Obama White House created every one of the protests that came afterwards, once people did start watching the video.96.59.92.70 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116040641/http://casting.backstage.com/jobseekerx/viewjob.asp?jobid=TXYxNuSgxoQo3eKH2L2DW8iOkP2v to http://casting.backstage.com/jobseekerx/viewjob.asp?jobid=TXYxNuSgxoQo3eKH2L2DW8iOkP2v

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Innocence of Muslims/Archive 2

Edit request on 19 September 2012

Edit request on 19 September 2012

Salman Rushdie

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

The film's various titles

NPOV

Edit request on 20 September 2012

BLP issues for filmmakers stating they were duped

Motive

Translation of promo poster: Muslim or anti-Muslim?

Promotional Poster proves "Innocence of Bin Laden" was Pro-Muslim, Pro-Al Queda

Petition on White house website.

15 killed in Pakistan

Protest map

Copy edit tag at top of article

RfC

Pathetic

The film's various titles...continued.

Rename?

Incorrect/outdated information in section Reactions -> Asia -> India

See also

The table from Reactions would be better split

Zakaria Botros Henein

There is no evidence that this film exists

Reactive politics will maintain the status quo in the world.

Possible Sources of Film Content

Neutrality issues

Reaction to film in Malta (EU)

Just in case anyone else notices this..

Technical information

Death toll

Edit request on 27 September 2012

Can we have a revolution?

Use of the word "Prophet"

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

Title

The beginning of the page

Edit Request on Dec 4 2012

Edit request on 17 October 2012

Refuting that the video caused the demonstration: Statement should be deleted.

Actors

Edits that removed large amounts

Huge intro made shorter

List of actors? Removal from IMDB.com

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

Availability of the video

Semi-protected edit request to fix punctuation

Benghazi

Where to Download?

Article Makes Incorrect Conclusion

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified