Talk:Islam: What the West Needs to Know

NPOV

Right now this sounds more like an advertisement for the film than an encyclopedia article. The sentence about the film taking "an unflinching, sober look at Islamism" is clearly problematic. And considering that this is a highly controversial film, where is the explanation of the controversy? Kaldari 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked on the web for a critique of the movie, but I haven't really found anything good yet. I was hoping some notable Islamic scholar would have excoriated it by now. Nortonew 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, really, someone, anyone else other than a neoconservative. It doesn't have to be a notable Islamic scholar, and it doesn't even have to be a Muslim. Huh. Any way anyone else can get this movie? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 08:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

let's get this straight: 1) none of you have seen the movie. 2) some of you doubt the film actually even exists, yet 3) you know that you hate the film, and have come here to smear it. you in fact want to hunt the movie down so you can attack it. in light of this, i vote that the funniest line of the day goes to kaldari, who was first to this fray and is eager to delete this entry untill there is a formal excoriating of its content which can be posted in lieu of an encyclopedic article. he alleges that copying and pasting the film's synopsys constitutes advocacy of the film, and heatedly disputes the word "controversy": "considering that this is a highly controversial film, where is the explanation of the controversy?" lollers!14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the version of the article from when I posted that, it was clearly advocating the film. The language the article uses now is far more neutral. And I don't understand what you are trying to say about the film's controversy. In this video clip, the subjects (who are promoting the film) spend half the interview talking about the controversy surrounding the film, yet this article mentions nothing about any controversy. Do you think it's funny that I would suggest adding such content? Why? Kaldari 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a controversial topic[1]

it seemed to me that you felt the desciption of the film as "controversial" was one of those words you considered to be meant as advertising or an enticement, and so your reaction was to contradict, questioning whether there in fact was any controversy surrounding the film. this would be funny because you yourself are completely bent out of shape over the film in advance of having seen it, or even anyone aside fom maybe 100 people at an obscure film fest held a year ago having seen it.

if your question was really meant to inquire whether the controversy of whether there aren't irreconcilable differences between the west and islam should be included in this article, then i don't think i'll be alone in reminding you that there's a whole article on this already for you to take your rebuttles of spenser and shoebat's points to and deal with encyclopedicly.[[2]] 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the film can be accurately characterized as controversial. My main problem with this article isn't its content (which is now adequately NPOV), but rather the notability, verifiability, and encyclopedicness of the subject. Most articles on films this obcsure have been deleted with little discussion, but this article has defied precedent despite its continued lack of publicity, no doubt due to political sympathies. That's fine with me, however. If the community wants to keep the article, I'm not going to defy that (although as an administrator I could theoretically delete the article myself). I find it strange however that you come into the discussion long after it has run its course and choose to jump in at the beginning rather than the end of the discussion. But maybe your comments weren't really meant to be constructive. I also find it ironic that you're assumptions about my political opinions are completely off base. Unlike yourself I'm not a Wikipedia tourist who comes here to inject partisan opinions and squabble over ideological turf. My interest here is in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Kaldari 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

please reference whatever assumptions you believe i made about your politics. the reason i was looking the film up is because it's in limited distribution now and i had just attended a screening. i clicke over here expecting to see a dispoportionately long and contentious dispute on the talk page. when i saw that i was correct, i registered my thoughts at the top of the page. makes sense, no? i find it interesting that you apparently have some flashing red phone in your apartment which goes off whenever somebody comments on this allegedly obscure an irrelivant item. don't you?66.209.214.23 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah that's about accurate :) Actually it's a flashing red phone that goes off for any of 225 articles. Your assumptions about the protracted debate are certainly true, although it has a lot more to do with whether or not the film is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article than whether or not we "hate the film". Now that the movie is finally getting a broader screening, hopefully the problems with the film's notability will be a moot point. Where did you see the film? Do you know if any reviews were written? Kaldari 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

its advertised on their site. i cought it in chicago. the tribune slagged it sloppily, the sun-times gave it mixed reviews. the big, legacy alternative weekly said simply, "This 2006 " documentary " contends that Islam is a violent religion bent on world domination."

i think it was a smart decision on their part to keep it clean and avoid artiness. from my reading of the reviews, the staid presentation focused the audience on the content, and the content was compelling. i'm not altogether unfamiliar with shoebat's and spencer's writings, and i felt i had walked away with new information.

"Your assumptions about the protracted debate are certainly true, although it has a lot more to do with whether or not the film is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article..."

well, yes. that was what was written.

The word "claims"

Why is the word "claims" not used in Wikipedia? Where does it say that? I'm just curious because I never heard anyone claim that claim cannot be used before. Nortonew 00:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See here for acceptable and unacceptable uses.--Pecher 08:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As per that reference, I'm reverting to my version that uses "claims". It is an entirely appropriate word where someone makes highly controversial assertions. --Lee Hunter 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It is only your POV that the assertions are "controversial." The Wikipedia policy states that we should not imply doubt or smear a viewpoint.--Pecher 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly my POV. Read the Taqiyya and Jihad articles and you'll see that they are taking highly contentious positions. --Lee Hunter 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's original research. Anyway, we are supposed not to smear an opinion.--Pecher 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research? I'm afraid I don't understand. The Jihad WP article, in particular, has been exhaustively discussed, annotated and sourced. The link you yourself provided gives an example of acceptable use ("George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks") which is similar to what is in this article. --Lee Hunter 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the jihad article have to do with this one? If you want to use it as source, then please recall that other Wikipedia articles should not be sources. The George Bush example is about a statement by a public person; here we quote opinions of experts on a certain issue.--Pecher 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, using the term "experts" for the people in the film may be inappropriate. I looked at the Wikipages on them and none of them had a PhD in Islamic studies, history of the Middle East, or anything else as far as I could tell. One of them had a masters degree, but considering that there are plenty of PhDs in the world, it seems as if a mere masters would make him a rather poor "expert". It looked like most of them could be better described as "activists" than "experts".Nortonew 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. the Jihad article, I was drawing your attention to the fact that the opinions expressed in the film (or at least as they are described in this article) are not necessarily shared by mainstream writers, therefore using the word "claims" is certainly appropriate. --Lee Hunter 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "claim" certainly isn't appropriate, especially its irritating repetition, as if there were no other synonyms in English. You seem to be trying to make two contradictory arguments at the same time. First, you say that the usage of the word claim need not imply doubt, citing an example of George Bush's statement. And then you say that the commentators' viewpoints are out of mainstream, so it's appropriate to use the word "claim" because it implies doubt. So, may I draw your attention once again to the fatc that Wikipedia policy does not allow to smear a viewpoint by using words that imply doubt, including the word "claim".--Pecher 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks old

The film only premiered 13 days ago. I suggest adding {Template:Current} while you wait for more information and reviews to become available, which they surely will soon enough. IMDB hasn't even got around to listing it yet. Anyway, another [news article] has emerged that you may be able to gather information from. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Better say... I included the above link here 'cos google says it's news, not 'cos I endorse the article. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the link , thanks.--CltFn 15:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been 3 weeks now, and this movie still hasn't garnered any real press or even a single critical review. This currently leaves us with two problems:

• Verifiability: Is there enough information from reliable published sources to write an NPOV article? Right now we just have the movie's web site and a handful of right-wing blogs to go by.
• Notability: Is the movie really notable enough to be encyclopedic?

Kaldari 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally Disputed Tag

This article has had some type of POV tag on it on the following days: Jan 20, Jan 23, Jan 24, Jan 25, Jan 26, Jan 27, Jan 28, Jan 30, Jan 31, and Feb 1. There is clearly something that needs to be addressed. Whoever has an issue with this article, please present them again. Whoever feels that the POV tag is innappropriate, please leave it for 48 hours, and if anyone fails to comment on it, remove it. I hope this can work as some sort of compromise. Pepsidrinka 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here are the points that I believe are disputed:

• Disputed point: "In the second part, Walid Shoebat discusses the meaning of Jihad as holy war against the non-Muslim world to bring it under the rule of Islam."
• Why it's a problem: This sentence explicitly states that Jihad has the literal meaning of subjugating the non-Muslim world. According to our own Jihad article "In much of the English speaking world, jihad is associated with the phrase "holy war"; however, the concept of jihad encompasses more than just warfare, and a more accurate translation probably would be "holy struggle", "righteous struggle" or "holy endeavour". The denotation is of a challenging or difficult, (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or resistance."
• Proposed compromise: "In the second part, Walid Shoebat discusses the meaning of Jihad which, he interpets as holy war against the non-Muslim world to bring it under the rule of Islam. It should be note that for most scholars of Islam, jihad simply means "righteous struggle" or "holy endeavour". "
• Disputed point: "In the fourth part, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic discuss the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, Islamic dissimulation, which the lecturers argue, enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam."
• Why it's a problem I'm not an expert on Islam, let alone Taqiyya but here's what our own article says on the subject "In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger." There is such a ridiculous gulf between these two statements that it absolutely requires some kind of indication that what is being proposed is a highly unorthodox interpretation.
• Proposed compromise: "In the fourth part, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic discuss the principle of Taqiyya, the Arabic word for dissimulation. The lecturers claim that Taqiyya enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam. It should be noted, however, that their view is not shared by religious scholars. Taqiyya is generally seen as a carefully limited permission to deny being a Muslim if one's life is in imminent danger.
• There are probably other problems (I think the bit about Muslim expansion needs some work) and probably other editors could come up with better compromises, but at least we have something to start with. Comments? Suggestions? --Lee Hunter 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with on the disputed points. The article does not do enough to distinguish these assertions made by the film's commemtators as just that - assertions. However, I disagree with your proposed comproise. I don't think that adding what scholars of Islam say on a certain topic has any relevence to the statement. If you can find criticisms of the movie, perhaps we can add another section. But in the current section, for example in your contention with part two, I think it is neccessary to drill the point that these are the opinions of the commentators, and not the views of a significant majority of Muslims. I suggest we use a stronger term than "discusses", perhaps using the first sentence of your version, which allows the reader to understand that it is the commentator's interpretation. I suggest we wikilink jihad and taqiyya, and furthermore, we add them to a list at the bottom of the page under a "See also" section. Pepsidrinka 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute here makes no sense to me. No amount of orginal research on jihad and taqiyya provides a sufficient basis for disparaging viewpoints expressed in the film. In addition, I see no specific dispute on facts, so the "totallydisputed" tag is not appropriate here anyway.--Pecher 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for your assertion that the articles on jihad and taqiyya are pure orginal research. The jihad article, in particular, contains a massive number of quotes of recognized scholars and texts. Some of these references are hundreds of years old and have been considered authoritative for centuries. I feel LeeHunter pointed out some areas that are definitely disputable. The article really needs to note somewhere that the film's commentators are expressing ideas that are contentious. - Nortonew 14:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

These are assertions that "the film's commentators are expressing ideas that are contentious" that are orginal research.Pecher^Talk 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. There is no "original research" whatsoever. It's no more original research for me to say that the concept of Taqqiya in this article is not standard than it is for you to claim the opposite. The only difference is that you offer absolutely nothing to support your point. I've shown you the WP article which offers a radically different view. Here's another source [3] --Lee Hunter 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually claim the opposite; that's the difference. I merely insist that the views of commenters in the film must be presented without disparagement. If there is any serious criticism of the film, it can be cited; however, to say that the views expressed in the film differ from those expressed in a Wikipedia article is original research. And please read WP:CIVIL.Pecher^Talk 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear what facts are being disputed. Pecher^Talk 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that their views differ from orthodox interpretation is simply being helpful and informative (i.e. adding important context) It is in no sense disparaging.

This is precisely what we call original research. Pecher^Talk 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding disputed facts. Please reread the above comments. The views of the commentators are being presented as if they were based on an accepted meaning of Jihad and Taqqiya. As we've shown above, they are offering only a highly contentious interpretation and one that is not based on mainstream thinking. --Lee Hunter 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Which means that the dispute is about POV, not facts. Pecher^Talk 18:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the tag from totally disputed to POV. Pepsidrinka 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, please stop removing the POV tag. It is there because other editors are disputing the neutrality of the article. Disputes cannot be resolved by one side arbitrarily deciding that "I'm right and you're wrong". --Lee Hunter 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to dispute anything for three days. Does your recent spike in activity indicate that you have come up with some arguments? Pecher ^Talk 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether anyone has posted or not in recent days is irrelevant. Nothing has changed. The dispute still exists. I've laid out a detailed explanation of why the content is POV which could be fixed with some minor changes in wording. To this, you simply respond that by adding factual information to the article I am doing "original research". If this is original research, then 100% of the content of this encyclopedia is "original research" including every word of the existing article. Frankly, I can't see that you have made any effort to respond to these concerns. --Lee Hunter 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's the other way around: the article is NPOV now, you want to make it POV. In the process you want us to violate WP:NOR. Reading a Wikipedia article on jihad and then coming back to say that an expert's view of jihad contradicts the established view is original research. You cannot put into an article an idea that is your own, and the idea that certain views expressed in the film are marginal is your own idea. If it were not, you would be able to cite your source, e.g. "Upon viewing the film, Karen Armstrong said..." Because you cannot cite your source, your conclusions are original research. Pecher ^Talk 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a highly original conception of original research. If this article quotes someone in the film as saying "Mohamad was born in Brooklyn" another editor would rightly add that the established view is that he was born in Saudi Arabia. Adding this information isn't original research, nor is it inserting one's own viewpoint. It's simply adding authoritative context to a statement that otherwise would grossly mislead the reader. This article represents the opinions of the film's self-proclaimed "experts" as simple facts. I'm simply trying to include the entirely verifiable information that mainstream authorities (i.e. people who have actual credentials beyond running an anti-Islamic website) have a quite different view. This is not my interpretation. It's not my "original research" as you like to describe it. It is a simple fact. --Lee Hunter 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That "Mohammad was born in Saudi Arabia" is not only original, but also highly innovative research because Saudi Arabia was established only in 1927. You are not "to include the entirely verifiable information that mainstream authorities" because you're not trying to include something verifiable; you're just trying to make the wording more negative towards the views of the people interviewed in the film. Pecher ^Talk 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it more negative. I'm trying to make it more useful, accurate and informative. You, on the other hand, are trying to exclude anything that doesn't show them in the best possible light. --Lee Hunter 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, my English fails me. As a native speaker, you should distinguish the connotations better than I can, but I never thought that words "say", "describe", or "discuss" show something "the best possible light". I thought they were neutral. Pecher ^Talk 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wrote "Pecher discusses Lee Hunter's staggering ignorance" or "Pecher describes Lee Hunter's utter incompetence" it is not a neutral statement even though they're using these supposedly neutral words. On the other hand, one could write "Pecher believes that Lee Hunter is a complete moron" or "Pecher claims ..." etc and it would be a little better. Of course, a well-rounded article would have some kind of balancing opinion "...but Hunter's mother says that he's smarter than he looks". --Lee Hunter 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your example is misplaced because it uses an ad hominem attack, like "Lee Hunter is a moron". If someone writes "Pecher says that Lee Hunter incorrectly put Muhammad's birthplace in Saudi Arabia", converting this statement to "Pecher claims..." would amount to disparaging a person's viewpoint. Pecher ^Talk 08:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether its used in an ad hominem attack or not is irrelevant. The use of the word "claims" in the English language does not IN ANY WAY disparage a person's viewpoint. It DOES suggest that what the person is saying is not a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED fact. This is not disparagement. It is simply adding relevant information. In other words "This person is saying something that others would dispute". Look through Wikipedia and you'll find the word "claims" used everywhere. It is a simple, standard, neutral term. It boggles my mind that you have such a problem with it. You do need to study English a little more. --Lee Hunter 12:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the word "claim", as you say, "DOES suggest that what the person is saying is not a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED fact", then you're simply adding some negative undertones without "adding relevant information." Tell me what it is if not disparagement. Also, you contradict yourself. First, you say that the word "claim" suggests that the views espounded by the person who "claims" are disputable, and then you say that it is "a simple, standard, neutral term". A really neutral term, like "say", does not carry any additional negative semantic load. Finally, you still cannot prove that your opinion regarding the views of those interviewed in the film is not original research. Pecher ^Talk 13:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fully support the POV tag and indeed all of LeeHunter's concerns and proposed compromises. The article as it stands is a joke Dogville 11:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Movie is STILL not notable or verifiable

It's been a month now and no press has been published about this movie. No controversy, no debate, not even a critical review or a listing on IMBD. This is a movie that apparently played at a film festival and was mentioned by some bloggers. It fails every test of notability and verifiability. As WP:V says "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Show me one well-known reputable source mentioning this movie, or I'm renominating it for deletion. From the sources I've seen so far, this movie could be nothing but an internet hoax. Kaldari 06:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

and yet many have rushed here to kill its tiny voice and smear it. the absolutist zeal evidenced by this talk page is breathtaking66.209.214.23 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The page already survived a vote for deletion with a vote for keep less than a month ago. There are referenced links at the bottom of the page. The movie is notable as a joint project of four of the world's most well known and highly respected experts on Islam. --CltFn 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's review the listed sources:

1. Michnews.com: political/religious newsblog
2. WorldNetDaily: political/religious newsblog
3. andrewmarcus.com: political blog
4. whatthewestneedstoknow.com: the film's own site

Now let's review Wikipedia's guidelines for reputable sources:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie weblogs (blogs) which are not acceptable as sources."

Just give me one reputable source, that's all I ask. Kaldari 06:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to argue that the film's website is not a reliable source for the film itself. Pecher ^Talk 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. Fot all I know, the site could have been put up by someone as a joke. Why isn't there a trailer or even a screenshot on it? Someone could have set that entire site up in half an hour and emailed it to a bunch of Christian blogs as a prank. Assuming the site is legit, it would certainly be biased at the least. We should have at least one reputable unbiased source for this article, otherwise it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Just because something has a website doesn't mean its notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the film is a hoax. I think we can safely say that the existence of the film is verifiable. Whether it's notable or not is another question. It sounds like some sort of ultra-low budget production comprising nothing more than edited video footage from a single conference. Normally this kind of film wouldn't be considered notable, but since the speakers are notable (at least within their own domain) I would give it the benefit of the doubt. --Lee Hunter 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that there have been no published criticism of this movie due to the fact that it was only shown once, and there doesn't appear to be any way for anyone to see it again. The producers of the movie don't seem to be selling copies of it, or anything. Most reputable commentators would be hesitant to criticize a film they haven't seen. I'm beginning to think that the movie's one showing, followed by absolutely no access thereafter, may put this film in the non-notable category after all. If this film remains inaccessible to the public any longer, I'm going to be forced to vote for deletion if this article is set AfD again. -- Nortonew 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The DVD of this movie is sold on Amazon and is available from Netflix as a physical DVD and by their streaming service. 67.164.109.123 (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagline

Do you really believe that the tagline is part of the title? I'm certianly not going to get in an edit war over such a trivial matter, but this seems like a pretty obvious call to me. Kaldari 07:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Book making same points

I'm reading a review now by Andrew McCarthy on NRO which indicates that Spencer makes pretty much the same points in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades). [4]

Perhaps we should move the "points" section in the West Needs to Know into the "views" section of Robert Spencer. We could then merge the West into the author article or even reduce it to a redirect.

The main thing about Spencer, his documentary and his book is that he blames Islam itself (i.e., the religion, its scriptures, etc.) for the violence of latter-day terrorists. Now he may be wrong or me may be right, but those are his views. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not Robert Spencer documentary. It is Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly 's documentary. Thus your points are not applicable. And I fixed your link, its a superb book , have you read it?--CltFn 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Six points from web site

This web page [5] looks very similar to our Wikipedia article.

• Are we doing a copy vio?
• Should we summarize Spencer's views? --Uncle Ed 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The movie is in six parts, that's why there is six points. Other than that, the actual content seems different enough. --Lee Hunter 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

...different enough to still remain acceptable as a promotional blurb.--Kitrus 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please revert Mr. Anonymous. I'm already at my three-revert limit for the day. CJCurrie 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Download

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7044941037235756025&hl=nl
French subtitles (english audio): http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7524727529706125858

Correct Translation

I think the term Dar-el-Harb is correctly translated as house of war. It's opposit is imo Dar-el-Salam, which means house of peace. 203.82.60.209 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

current problem/warring about links/reviews

i see both a problem with the links/reviews being inserted and also a problem with those links/reviews being removed... i think we should try to sort the review box in a more arranged manner as done with other films that have mixed statements about them... i also feel that we should try to establish the notability of reviews done by movie selling websites and the person making the review... for example this disputed review seems like a serious publication hosted by a registerd incorperation. the reviewer has a response email and a fairly impressive biography regardless of the ridiculous photograph... seems like a legit review.. i'm not saying it should be at the top of the reviews, but i don't see why it should be automatically deleted. Jaakobou 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

apparently we have an issue of how to arrange the reviews, i don't think that the chicago tribune review which is more of an attack on ideaology than a serious review (imho) has it's place among the other reviews, but i see no reason to give it special dominance over the others... personally, i think the charlotte observer's review does a good job as far as treating the film properly by noting that the movie doesn't try to hide it's POV and the rest of the review fits well as the intro review... at least until we resolve something else. Jaakobou 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'm aware i made a mistake when i said the sorting is alphabetical, an honest mistake. Jaakobou 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

note: i tend to agree with the latest change made by IP 76.167.86.63 here, i feel that "reviews" which insult populations or just review the title of a film are, in general, not a good contribution to any movie "review list", they make more of a commentary on the reviewers inability to talk about the film without shoving his/her's prejudice about parts of society he/she disagree with. Jaakobou 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Daily Herald review wasn't just reviewing the title of the film. The anon's decision to remove it smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CJCurrie 02:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All i see there is "This movie doesn't want viewers to be educated. Just scared enough to act on intolerance." I'm afraid i can't find the link to this ref to check what else is written there that might be worth registering. Jaakobou 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The line you've quoted is significant to the writer's opinions, and should be retained. (And do you honestly think that we should avoid the inclusion of strongly worded negative reviews on the project?) CJCurrie 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no point include the Richard Knight review when he begins his piece by saying, "I don’t pretend to have more than a modicum of knowledge about it". For a documentary film, such an admission of ignorance of the topic would seem to rule out the value of his review. Bondegezou 09:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou was unhappy with some of my recent edits. I put a note here about one of these (see preceding paragraph). Some of the edits were around shortening quotes so they don't repeat what's in the synopsis, and I've been trying to turn a list of quotes into an actual article. Wikipedia should never be a list of quotes, so I don't think we should be getting side-tracked by arguments around the order the quotes are given in. We need to turn this into a proper article.Bondegezou 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bondegezou,

1. you have some type of point about richard knight, however, he does not judge the validity of the claims and only describes what the film reports.
2. your general idea of shortening the volume of quotations is good, however you've changed the order of the refrences in a POV manner, giving more value to the ones that are against the movie than the other quotations... my objection stated that as the reason for my objection.
3. i also happen to disagree to some extent with the way the removal synopsis repetitions was applied.

please consider reverting back to the "almost fully agreed" upon version and work on keeping the new version with less quotations as NPOV as possible without giving more value to anti reports than they deserve. doing this alphabetically was a reasonable solution we came up with. Jaakobou 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No section of any Wikipedia article should consist of an unannotated list of lengthy quotations, so I don't think it's viable to have the Reviews section remain in that format, regardless of what order the quotations are in. We need to move to a summary of what the reviews said, with citations and appropriate, short quotations. By all means, edit what I put to ensure NPOV, but I don't see what you describe as "the "almost fully agreed" upon version" as being anything like what a Wikipedia article should be. Bondegezou 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

wanted reviews

ok, room for quick debates on what sources to add and how. Jaakobou 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

status: closed discussion.

DVD Movie Central

the source - dvd movie Central

Islam: What the West Needs to Know is a quiet, unassuming affront to all the values the West holds most dear, and suggests that those values may prevent us from recognizing what we face until it’s too late. Whatever the future holds, we can no longer say we were never warned. DVD Movie Central http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/islam.htm

the debate - dvd movie Central

leave your comments here:

• this page here, doesn't make me overly comfortable about using this review. considering there's no bio on the person, and i have no information on the company, i'd rather we not use it. unless we make a "independent reviews" section or some other type of subsection compromize... and i suggest this only because this film has been banned on mainstream, best i'm aware of it. Jaakobou 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, DVD Movie Central is a gloried blog. There's nothing to suggest that this review is notable, in any way. CJCurrie 00:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, i think it's fair to say we've decided not to use this source (i'm closing this subsection). Jaakobou 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD Talk

the source - dvd talk

I found Islam: What the West Needs to Know to be very informative. It doesn't try to over-dramatize or sensationalize its material; it doesn't need to in the least. I had always held to the idea that Islam is peaceful and that terrorist Muslims were fanatics, not representative of their faith. Certainly that's a much happier idea than the idea that a major religion in the world is fundamentally violent. But I'm not one to shy away from re-evaluating my ideas... especially when I recognize that my previous opinion wasn't based on any facts. While I'm still interested in reading more about Islam from other sources, I found this documentary to go a long way in challenging my preconceived ideas, by presenting material directly from the Koran and experts on Islam. Highly recommended. DVD Talk http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review.php?ID=28654

the debate - dvd talk

leave your comments here:

• source seems fine to me, reviewer has a bio page, and seems like a proper reviewer - in general my eyes are a tad tired, so i haven't read the review (again) to remember what it actually said, so if there's anything special that should be noted on why it should be left out. i'm all ears. anyway, my "vote" is to keep it in once we get consensus. Jaakobou 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't worth keeping. "DVD talk" appears to be nothing more than an online collection of reviews from private individuals. It's not peer-reviewed, and not in any way notable. CJCurrie 00:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Considering these points i think this source should stay:

1. our film is banned in mainstream and we are left with semi-mainstream reviews.
2. source "can be heard on 2 Oregon Radio stations in the morning" and also has it's own "adio/podcast called DVD Talk Radio"; and claims it's the "most widely read DVD publication of its kind" on it's proper about page.
3. article is properly signed by a reviewer who seems to have also done some reaserch on the subject.^[6] and this reviewer has a bio page stating she's an English literature professor, which makes her pretty much more qualified than most movie reviewer journalists i know of. -- Jaakobou 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, (i) the film is not "banned in mainstream" (whatever that means ...), (ii) "is featured on 2 Oregon Radio stations" and "operates own podcast" does not equal "notable", (iii) being an English Lit professor does not make one's opinions inherently important. I still can't see why we're even considering returning this. CJCurrie 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, explain to me why the other reviews are more notable than the "most widely read DVD publication of its kind". Jaakobou 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, in case it was not clear, i'm still waiting for your reply here. Jaakobou 10:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The most widely read DVD publication of its kind" is a vacuous, meaningless slogan. CJCurrie 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

you really avoided talking about the other reviews. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the other reviews currently listed in the article are from credible publications (unless "Knight at the Movies" has been returned ...). CJCurrie 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Daily Herald

the source - chicago daily herald

"The title of the shameless, alarmist documentary "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" isn't complete without the phrase "Before It's Too Late!" [...] This movie doesn't want viewers to be educated. Just scared enough to act on intolerance. "What the West Needs to Know" opens today at the Century Centre Cinema in Chicago. No MPAA rating, but suitable for narrow-minded paranoids. 98 minutes."

the debate - chicago daily herald

leave your comments here:

• note 1: i mentioned a general concern about this link here.
• note 2: i can't see the link. Jaakobou 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be the essence of Jaakobou's objection: "i feel that "reviews" which insult populations or just review the title of a film are, in general, not a good contribution to any movie "review list", they make more of a commentary on the reviewers inability to talk about the film without shoving his/her's prejudice about parts of society he/she disagree with."

The review does not "insult populations" or "just review the title of a film". The rest is personal opinion. I cannot regard this objection as sufficient grounds for removing the reference. CJCurrie 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) the "insulting populations" note i've made is reffering to the segment taken out of the knightatthemovies.com review. Jaakobou 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) a review consisting only of a title suggestion and a claim regarding violence, is not really a review.. please find the link to the entire article. Jaakobou 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, Jaakobou ... I just posted the entire review. I'm not certain it was ever made available online, and I'm not certain what practical difference it would make given that you have the entire thing before you at present.

To your concerns: (i) if you think Gire's comment is simply a "title suggestion", you're missing the point, (ii) his review is far more than simply "a claim regarding violence".

I maintain that there is no valid reason for removing this review, and I plan to return at the earliest possible moment. CJCurrie 02:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full review:

The title of the shameless, alarmist documentary "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" isn't complete without the phrase "Before It's Too Late!"

After seeing this, Jews and Christians will want to round up all the Muslims in America, put them on a ship and sink it in the Atlantic. This film warns us about how Muslims come from a heritage of violence, seek world-domination, and will lie to infidels until they get enough of their kind into America to take it over.

Several authors, academics and a former Islamic terrorist- turned- Christian point to the words from the holy Koran to prove that Islam isn't a religion of peace but of domination and control. Every piece of evidence in this fear-mongering movie might well be factual, but its creators miss the broader truth of religious texts.

If non-Christians stumble over the Bible and read a history of Christianity, what would they make of the Inquisition, the same campaign of "convert or be destroyed" that the Koran advocates here? The Koran possesses contradictory passages about peace and war. Filmmakers warn us that destruction outweighs peace on the Muslim agenda. Again, no mention of the seemingly contradictory Christian passages about "turning the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye."

This movie doesn't want viewers to be educated. Just scared enough to act on intolerance. "What the West Needs to Know" opens today at the Century Centre Cinema in Chicago. No MPAA rating, but suitable for narrow-minded paranoids. 98 minutes. @*

("War and terrorism: What more could moviegoers want?", Dann Gire, Chicago Daily Herald)

I do not believe that Jaakabou has provided a valid reason for removing the reference to this review, and I plan to return the reference at the earliest possible opportunity. CJCurrie 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

give it a moment, don't force the issue. Jaakobou 02:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In some circumstances, I'd be willing to take a step back and wait for others to provide their views. In this case, the decision to remove the review was so obviously misguided that I don't see what the point of waiting would be. CJCurrie 02:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

seems like this text can/should be used if written properly (not like before). i'll make some type of compromise suggestion soon (probably tomorrow since it's 5:30am here), you can make a compromise suggestion also and post it here under ====Chicago daily herald - CJCurrie suggestion 1==== and i'll go over it asap. i'd like to note that (1) in our quoting of this review, there should at least be a mention to the movie itself. and (2) missing a reference link, makes me a tad unhappy because of WP:RS rules, but i don't feel it's detrimental to the use of this review in the article. (3) my reason to remove the review was because it was ⁽ⁱ⁾a tendentious editing on the original review and ⁽ⁱⁱ⁾seemed to only angrily make suggestions to extend the title of the film ⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾and to state the film promotes violence (^(iv)without explaining why). if you consider that "so obviously misguided", then i'm afraid i disagree. Jaakobou 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, (i) I think the reviewer's position on the film was quite clear from the excerpt provided, (ii) the material was properly sourced, (iii) the edited summary of the review was representative of its content, (iv) I believe that your statement relating to the film title was based on a misinterpretation, (v)/(vi) again, I think the reviewer's position on the film is made very clear. I still plan to return the review summary. CJCurrie 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the change you've made with this review. Jaakobou 11:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, so are we at an agreement that if "chicago daily herald" is quoted, then we use the more complete version you presented? Jaakobou 10:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

References

force editing

i am a bit concerned with the lack of respect i am receiving, from both non anon. editors, as a fellow editor by what could be regarded as a POV attempt to push reviews that are against the film to lead the article. to make my statment clear i'm noting the current intro to the reviews section:

"Many reviews criticised the film as being inaccurate, simplistic and biased against Islam. It has also been critiqued as being boring."^[7]

this type of editing is very much a non neutral way of starting off a review of any film regardless of how terrible it may be... please, help make this article encyclopedic and work for consensus rather than tag-revert to the way you prefer it to be and please help make the work on this article less confrontational so that we can get it over with and move on to other projects. Jaakobou 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the film is being re-released on DVD on July 17, 2007 i presume more reviews will be forthcoming. So to much re-editing of these reviews may be fruitless. For now it should be simple and clear. Presently its a mess. Whosewho 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A recent Hartford Advocate review concludes with "The film is worth seeing, if one-sided. And certainly we of the why-can't-we-all-just-get along school of liberalism might need to wake up a little bit." http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=1701 i expect more reviews will come soon.

intro to article

The intro is poor and adding the opinion of movie critics, as if they are scholars is misleading. the intro should be clean and factual. needs improvement. Additionally, the word "nature" after Islam adds nothing to the sentence, " Islam's nature using passages from the religious texts." and the mention of "using passages from religious texts" is superfluous because it is stated in the Synopsis, where it belongs. As written, the intro gives the appearance of adding a sentence to set up a rebuttal. Any rebuttal to the content should be in its own section, a Response section, as one would fine in other articles. The Fahrenheit 911 entry is a good example because its intro, properly. does not contain any negative critcism of the controversial film Whosewho 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Response section

i suggest making this article much cleaner and less opinionated by formating the article like other documentary film entries.

this can be done by having a straight description of the project and adding a "Response" section to the article. i.e. like Greenwald's Iraq for sale.

Also the film has a new cover art that needs to be added and a new dvd distributor. Whosewho 05:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The model used for other documentary films seems very useful. I also remain keen to see this article move away from being a quotefarm. I fail to see any explanation for Jaakobou's continued reversion of the article's Review section back to an unannotated list of lengthy quotations. Jaakobou, would you be so kind as to put forth your reasoning, taking into account standard Wikipedia guidelines? Bondegezou 12:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"i stand by my decision."

considering no effort for consensus was being made and editors use such logic as "you can't be serious" and "I stand by my previous decision.", i am forced to revert^[8],[9] what could be considered as WP:OWN/POV pushing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand edits which ignore both the concern raised on the talk page and also revert back improvements to the article intro (and delete added images)^[10]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

User:Bondegezou, please try to rework your "reviews" section to be a tad more balanced to better display the range of reviews and not sound like wiki is against this movie. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i will not go along with an attempt to keep the intro to the reviews as

"Many reviews criticised the film as being inaccurate, simplistic and biased against Islam...."

1. the provided sources do not constitute the usage of the word "many".
2. an opening like this is a fairly obvious attack on the movie and not an NPOV review section.

- either we fix it to be NPOV or we reinstate the alphabetical quote system from before, or if you have better suggestions to reach consensus, i'm open to hear them out.. however, insisting on this soapbox version is not something that you should continue pursuing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording has already been changed to "Some reviews criticized [...]", although this doesn't seem to be sufficient for some people. CJCurrie 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) please refrain from uncivil comments as "some people" when you're obviously referring to me^[11].

(2) the problem was not the word "many", but the definitively biased way the review is presented against the film by starting the review section by talking about "inaccurate, simplistic and biased against Islam....", even if the film is biased against Islam (and it is), that is their prerogative and their main point in the film. adding the "inaccurate" and "simplistic" into the head paragraph makes it seem as though wikipedia has a personal POV against the film.

--Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)'

Is it your contention that the "reviews" section should not begin with criticisms of the film? This seems unnecessarily restrictive. I'd be willing to accept an expansion of the section dealing with favourable reviews, but I don't believe that the present wording is unfairly slanted.

Perhaps we should solicit the opinions of others, rather than continuing this revert war. (We should certainly refrain from reposting an extended series of quotes, which no one else in this discussion currently supports.) CJCurrie 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

there'd been favorable and unfavorable reviews, wiki must present this with neutrality. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

btw, "For the love of god ..." is a very uncivil way to adrress a conflict dispute^[12].

User:CJCurrie, continuing to ignore the dispute and reinserting the material is no way to resolve content dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jaakobou is continuing to prolong the dispute and re-insert excessive quotes for no valid reason. The current summary review section is fine; any difficulties Jaakaobou has could be resolved by minor adjustments. CJCurrie 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou writes: "there'd been favorable and unfavorable reviews, wiki must present this with neutrality". Could he please explain (i) why he believes the current version fails to do this, and (ii) what steps should be taken to resolve the matter? CJCurrie 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, please just adress the disputed point rather than being uncivil by making allegations that i'm trying to prolong this dispute. i've allready stated the problem with the was the short version is written, and the steps to resolve this matter should be a proper NPOV re-write. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote-farming

No section of any Wikipedia article should consist of an unannotated list of lengthy quotations. I still fail to see any explanation for Jaakobou's continued reversion of the article's Review section back to an unannotated list of lengthy quotations. Jaakobou, as I've asked before, would you be so kind as to put forth your reasoning, taking into account standard Wikipedia guidelines? If you have NPOV concerns, then by all means edit the section to take these into account, but you should be able to do that without reverting to an unannotated list of lengthy quotations. Bondegezou 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i intend on expanding and cleanning up the aggressive tone of the review segment, i've started some rephrasing, but will finish it at another date - meantime, i submit it here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm happy to see the current Reviews section improved, I don't see it as being "aggressive" in tone. The film got some very critical reviews. Bondegezou 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

starting a rephrase

The film recieved some mixed reviews as Directors Bryan Daly and Gregory Davis do not pretend to be neutral ...

-- rephrase in the works, median version, by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

commentary on rephrasing

"Received some mixed reviews" comes across to me as weasel words -- I think the article needs to be specific and detailed about the nature of the reviews (both praiseworthy and critical). That Daly & Davis don't pretend to be neutral seems rather beside the point -- if that's relevant, it should go in a description of the film. If that's a comment by a reviewer, that needs to be made clearer. (The URL you give didn't take me to a review of this film.) Bondegezou 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1) which part of "some mixed reviews" falls under weasel?

2) i generally agree with the rest, albeit i don't think it's necessary with the "don't pretend to be neutral" claim since it's pretty much uncontested.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and stop the current edit-warring. Jaakobou, why don't you present a suggested revision of the reviews section here for discussion? You started on something before, but seem to have run out of steam. As for the phrase "some mixed reviews", I think the section needs to give specific examples of the good and the bad reviews the film has received, as it currently does. Bondegezou 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Came here from the AN/I. THe quoe farm that Jaakabou has tried inserting is a poor way to handle things. I like hte current reviews section, but would like to see it expanded with specific criticisms and compliments, as appropriate by source. As for leading with criticism, it looks like there's more poor reviews than good, so lead with the strongest, then balance with counter-reviews, which is what I see done here. ThuranX 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i think we should have it balanced with, "received mixed reviews that range from ... to ..." - i disagree that most sources are against the film. the sources gave their likes and dislikes of the film, and regardless if everyone found it boring. we cannot start an encyclopedia article by saying "boring movie". p.s. i gave plenty of time to editors to attempts at NPOVing their change from the quote filled version, howver, no one seemed interested and the quote version was fairly neutral and accepted before the newer unbalanced version appeared. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Unsourced content

Jaakobou is adding unsourced content to the article.[13]

I'll assume he/she hasn't heard of WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:V. Jaakobou, WP:V says that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Currently I'm challenging the material Jaakobou is adding. THus it needs a source.

Jaakobou wikipedia isn't complicated, infact its quite simple. You find a reliable source for the material, it stays (with appropriate modifications). You don't find a reliable source, and the material will be deleted. It's that simple.

Now, the material being added is regarding living persons. To be specific Jaakobou is making claims about Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or and Serge Trifkovic. Now one may not like these people, but that is no reason to insert unsourced contentious content about them. WP:BLP says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced".

Finally, I'd like to quote Mr. Wales:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

As you can see Jaakobou, unsourced information is not be tolerated, particularly if it can be viewed as negative information about a living person. I hope I have cleared up your misconception about wikipedia, and I expect you to follow the wiki policies now that you are aware of them.Bless sins (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins,

which part of the material do you believe is unsourced? the one about the people participating in the video, or the storyline? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire section called synopsis (version) is unsourced. HTis is a BLP violation as explained above.Bless sins (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) if the issue is the synopsis, then you will refrain from mixing it with the intro issue.

(2) i disagree that the synopsis section represents BLP, and i would appreciate an explanation to this somewhat odd claim.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) The intro is another, less serious, issue.

(2) The section makes various claims about the opinions of Walid Shoebat, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer and Serge Trifkovic, as well as the producers of the film. All these claims are quite contentious. You are violating WP:BLP. Please also know that I'm not bound by WP:3RR when reverting your violations.Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

to a person familiar with the film (and the article) it would seem that you (1) have not seen the film. and (2) make strange claims regarding BLP. i have ZERO idea as to what part of the text, spoken from the mouths of the films participants represent a WP:BLP breach.

if you still believe a certain portion of the text to violate BLP, please quote that text here so that i can maybe understand your position. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. please go over this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

copied from my talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This means that you must provide reliable sources for content you add to wikipedia. No, its not optional. I have said this to you again and again. Why do you keep ignoring this fundamental policy by re-inserting unsourced content? The above policy applies to all content, not just content about living persons. However, it applies more strictly to content about living persons.

The content you re-insert is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons. For example you accuse Walid Shoebat of defining the word Jihad to mean "the struggle to impose Allah's will over the earth, resulting in holy war against the non-Muslim world in order to bring it under the rule of Islam." This is a contentious claim. You need a source for this claim.

Again read over WP:V and WP:BLP and you should understand why you need to provide sources for all content related to living people.Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins,

walid is in the movie explaining the term jihad. please watch the film and feel free to raise your concerns afterwards if you still have them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable and published source that says what you claim Walid is explaining?Bless sins (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

just watch the movie, this is getting boring real fast. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to entertain you, but only tell you to follow wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if you've watched the movie, or you made it. You need sources for all content, particularly contentious content about living persons.Bless sins (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

new comment:

"is a BLP vio. How? Because it is talking about living persons...you accuse Walid Shoebat" - User:Bless sins, 02:58, 30 December 2007

Walid Shoebat is featured in the film giving commentaries... even for a moment, assuming "i accused him" of something he had not said in the film (watch starting minute 31), it does not justify a complete blanking of the film's synopsis. p.s. it is not a sign of good faith now that your friend, Eleland, is repeating your justification after you've reached 3 reverts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your unsourced accusation do justify their removal. Whenever you make a contentious allegation against a living person (without sources), WP:BLP tells me to revert your additions.Bless sins (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this source [14] acceptable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as...it is not contentious".

The source provided above would be "self-published". Some of the content at least would be contentious. Is there any non-contentious content that you feel you can source from [15] this source]?Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - while I agree that the film's own website might not satisfy WP:RS, quoting Shoebat's own words from the film is definitely not a WP:BLP violation. Watch the film, it's a primary source which satisfies WP:RS in this case. If a video recording is good enough to be presented in court as evidence, there's no reason why it can't be on Wikipedia. If you have not seen the film, then you probably shouldn't talk about its content as a BLP violation - many if not most sources on Wikipedia are not easily accessible to all Wikipedians (especially if non-English), but that does not mean that they are null and void. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwinnett Daily Post

I am glad we include their review in this article. It is really important to know what the local papers in Duluth, Minnesota are saying about this film. Especially when most biased liberal encyclopedias would be telling you what the Chicago Tribune or some other discredited rag has to say. No, I am glad that we stick with good patriotic 'murrikan fair and balanced news. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deadlink http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/15746693.htm

This review is cited as [6]:

Others considered the film to be important[6][7]

I would like a quote from the source to verify that is taken in context and reflective of the review, but it has gone offline and I can find no caches or reprints. If somebody has a copy, please send it to me. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the archived version of that dead link, Jaakobou. However, the story does not say that the film is important. It says (well, implies) that the film raises important questions. Not the same thing. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't write that version. anyways, fixed now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think other editors should be aware that in the midst of the latest series of edits Jaakobou has made to this page, inserting highly POV phrasing, he has requested page protection for this article. This seems to me an abuse of the page protection process, since it means that barring any edits from other editors, his version of the page will be the one to be protected if the request is accepted. Tiamut 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, the request has been declined [16]. I would note however, that is disturbing to see an editor make a series of edits that others have repeatedly disapproved of, and that in anticipation of having those edits once again removed, resort to pre-emptively calling in the cavalry, so to speak. I hope that this kind of misunderstanding and/or manipulation of Wiki safeguards will be avoided in the future. Tiamut 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

This is, of course, based primarily on the primary source, the film itself. Arguing that the film itself isn't an acceptable source to describe what the film is about is downright silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you haven't seen WP:SELFPUB. According to the policy self-published material that is contentious may not be used.Bless sins (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BS Bs. A plot summary, or synopsis, draws from the primary source. The film itself is a reliable source in regards to the contents of what it presents. If your claim of WP:SELFPUB holds any water, I challenge you to go to Star Wars and remove the plot overview section which is sourced directly to the film(s) themselves. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And selfpub doesn't even come into play here, this movie had a THEATRICAL release. It was produced and distributed by a movie studio, not simply posted to youtube or google video. You could buy a copy of the dvd from Amazon.com. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the Star wars film isn't contentious. It doesn't make any blanket claims about 1.2 billion people and their faith. Please obey WP:SELFPUB which says that you can't use the something published by source itself for contentious content.Bless sins (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

we have a reviews section in the article that includes some criticism on the film's contentious claims. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And that seems ok, since the reviews are not published by producers of the movie. Is ther any problem with it?Bless sins (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A plot summary is completely normal for this type of article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Summaries are generally completely normal - only if they are properly sourced. This includes that they don't violate WP:SELFPUB.Bless sins (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The film itself is a primary source and meets the verifiability criteria. How many times do we need to point this out before you get it? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"and meets the verifiability criteria" No it doesn't!

• The verifiability criteria is at the Wikipedia:Verifiability article. Right?
• That article has a section: Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, right?
• That section says self-published material may not be used if it is contentious. Do you see that sentence?

I hope this clears it up.Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has objected, I will remove the poorly sourced material in question.Bless sins (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I object - the source is valid enough to report about his own film's synopsis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if you insist on this issue, you can follow some form of WP:DR. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) This must be the first time I can recall when I've ever agreed with Jaakobou about anything (even if only in part), but film articles should have a "plot" or "synopsis" section, according to WP:FILMS guidelines. The film itself may well be mendacious, make grossly exaggerated claims, be full of inaccuracies and so on, but the way to deal with that is to use the "reviews" section (or possibly a "response" or "criticism" section). There must surely be some critical reviews and rebuttals out there that can be used. NSH001 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a (brief) synopsis and a more lengthy discussion of the film's notable points. However, all of this should come from reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

tv interviews

is there any reason to suspect these tv interviews to be non reliable? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was BlessSins at work as usual, removing valid content due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This says there's no ban on linking videos. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically I can link any video I like - no matter how unreliable - to this article?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, i would appreciate some justification for [17], removing the links to the trailer and to both TV interviews (we'll discuss other issues once we solve this one). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The TV interviews might be copyrighted. If thats true, we might have to keep the links off, although they're real good links. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland just said that yesterday.[18] Ofcourse, he/she was ignored, and reverted.Bless sins (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The copyright situation here is 'fair use' of a film related interview -- placed as an external video link. please go over WP:YOUTUBE. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use does not encompass such uses, Jaakobou. We may use small portions of the film for commentary on the film. We may not use copyrighted material about the film for commentary on the film (unless that material was itself somehow highly significant to understanding the film). <eleland/talkedits> 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm actually addressing this question to CJCurrie, and it also includes all the other adjustments of the 'minor' revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The videos are blatant copyright violations (by the look of it, made by someone using a video camera to record a TV screen). Our rules on copyright are very clear on this - we don't link to copyright violations, period. I've removed the links and if anyone restores them I'm quite willing to block them for persistently violating copyrights, per WP:BLOCK. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

don't you think this is an example of fair use? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Emphatically not. It's a facilitation of a copyright infringement on another website - such links present legal risks for Wikipedia and can't be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Boring quote dead source

Both references are dead for the quote. I couldn't find another source verifying such claim. Shall I delete? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning behind Islamophobia external link

Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims

After viewing the film I can't honestly say there is anything truly discriminate other than the fact that it criticizes Islam. And right below the Islamophobia link sits Criticisms of Islam, a far cry from such a pejorative link. According to this article, its source material is cited directly from the Quran and Islamic scripture. While there might be disagreements with the way they interpreted these verses/ideas/etc..., it was hardly Islamophobic. If this is the standard for Islamophobia, then there are plenty of more articles where we can insert this link. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

Hi I find the following to be useful information about Muslim scholars on extremism and terrorism in general. PLease consider adding the section with follwoing links:

Islamic scholars on Extremism and Terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrryds (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You've already been given a final warning to stop spamming. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)