Talk:Fitna (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note: the following message was, together with the WikiProject templates and the calm talk template, the first to be posted on Talk:Fitna (film). Face 10:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As the above template says: stay cool. This movie is a controversial topic, so be on the look-out for non-neutral content and trolling. Remember that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, which aims at presenting neutral and uncensored informational articles. Wikipedia is not a place for hateful discussions or endless political debates. Cheers, Face 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

Resolved

according to this page (arabic BBC) the movie will last for ten minutes --Osm agha (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This site is in English and according to it the film will last for ten minutes so I think we have to change it in the article --Osm agha (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As the film is finished, the 15 minute estimate can be considered accurate. StaticGull  Talk  12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot?

Resolved

 – Film released, screenshots added.

Does anyone know whether this image is classed as a screenshot or not???? StaticGull (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, couldn't that be a fake? Let's just wait with a screenshot until the movie actually appears. - Face 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The same picture is on http://www.fitnathemovie.com. StaticGull (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a screenshot, but the image seems to be used to represent the movie (like a logo), so we could use it. However I think it's best to wait until the movie comes out. - Face 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's real; the released movie confirms so.84.80.182.78 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

link

Resolved

 – While not prohibited, fitnathemovie.info should preferably not be used as a reference. Find news articles to source information.

I want to add a information site (http://www.fitnathemovie.info/) with timeline. The only english timeline availible. But the links gets removed. why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.118.72 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is because the website is extremely biased, throwing terms like "fascist" around. It would be more helpful if you included the information from that website in this article, using that website as (one of) your reference(s). StaticGull (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty weird site, actually. I wouldn't call it "extremely biased", just biased. On one hand they seem to support freedom of speech and Wilder's right to say what he wants, and they're selling books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is no friend of Muslims. On the other hand they're labeling Wilder as a fascist and putting him down. I'm not really sure what their agenda is. --RenniePet (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also kind of amusing that they have a bunch of Google Ads on their site, and Google tries to select relevant ads by doing a word search, so you get ads promoting Arab marriage agencies. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the good feedback and tip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.171.135 (talk • contribs) at 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That timeline looks pretty accurate to me, but it doesn't seem to say anything that could not be found in other news articles. So the biased website not only makes a doubtful source, we don't actually need it for the article anyway. - Face 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!

Thank you for your contributions, 81.164.53.93. StaticGull (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources Needed and American or British?

I'm seeing a lot of unsourced statements being made in this article. Can the people who added these claims provide some sources? For now I'm adding some citation needed's to the article. Squishycube (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done now. While I was at it I removed some spelling errors. I'd also like to know whether this article is intended to be written in British English or American English. My British spell checker is ok with most words used, but film should be used instead of movie to be correct. Squishycube (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Netherlands is much closer to the UK geographically than to the US, and I believe Europe-related articles are generally written in British English due to the UK being part of Europe, unlike the United States.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Although having said that most European countries are probably more inclined to use American English due to it having a bigger sphere of influence, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

English is one of the official languages of the EU, american english is not. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no, typically europeans learn british english. As for 'sphere of influence' the sphere is european with a shared second language of english, then a third of french, spanish or german. American cultural media while understood is not emulated. - Twobells (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully, the British Isles are closer to the Netherlands than the United States; surely British English would sound far more familiar to the majority of the readers of this article.Storms991 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can the movie be used as reference?

There is a section in the article where there is a claim about the movie declared citation needed. "An unidentified Imam declares: "Islam is (more) superior than the Jews, than the Christians, than the Buddhists, than the Hindus. The only (law) Allah accepts is Islam.citation needed"" however to see that this scene occurs in the film one need only watch the film, should we remove the citation needed or cite the film?

On another article I previously experienced that such referencing constituted original research (see Talk:Zeitgeist, the Movie/Archive 1#America: Freedom to Fascism). There is a slight difference though, as in this case only the film which the article is about is being referenced. __meco (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, everything else we described in the movie was derived from reliable sources. MantisEars (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

Resolved

I'm seeing POV issues in the making here; statements like "In an (sic) brutal attempt" are not NPOV in my opinion EDIT: Resolved. I think it is much better to let issues speak for themselves and leave out 'heavy' words like brutal, especially in an article which will attract a lot of (negative) attention. I'd also like to say thanks to 81.164.53.93 for finding all the sources to the previously unsourced claims - good job and try to keep a NPOV. Squishycube (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Makers of the film

Resolved

For possible future reference, the film was made by "two men and a woman". If you want to delete this, please copy it to my talk page first. StaticGull  Talk  13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That article doesn't say that Fitna was made by two men and a woman, if you mean that. - Face 13:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"[...]Twee mannen en een vrouw die nooit geweld maar alleen het vrije woord gebruiken een kritische verfilmingen van de Islam maken[...]" could be referring to Submission, but I was under the impression that that was only made by Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. StaticGull  Talk  14:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fleur Agema is refering to Wilders (male, maker of Fitna), van Gogh (male, maker of Submission) and Hirsi Ali (female, maker of Submission). She did not mean to say that Fitna was made by these three persons (which, of course, is impossible, as van Gogh is dead). - Face 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, that makes more sense. StaticGull  Talk  14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs alleging Hoax

Resolved

 – Movie is released.

Violation of WP:SELFPUB and WP:RSUE? Edit: Resolved MantisEars (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'll remove the section. StaticGull  Talk  11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date on fitnathemovie.co.uk

Resolved

 – Do not put a link to fitnathemovie.co.uk in the article.

I have changed the Intro and the Planned release paragraph. fitnathemovie.co.uk currently states March 23 as the release date. For now, I say we should use this. EDIT: Site is a fake! See topic below.

The March 28 date was taken from a Wilders interview from this NRC article. It states however:

Perscentrum Nieuwspoort lijkt nu bereid de film te vertonen.
"Dat is voor mij de second best optie. Ik heb ze gevraagd of dat op 28 maart kan gebeuren. Die datum is overigens nog heel onzeker."

Translation:

Presscentrum Nieuwspoort [Newsgate] now seems willing to show the movie.
"For me, that's the second best option. I asked them if that could happen on March 28. That date is still highly uncertain."

Cheers, Face 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't - fitnathemovie.com is owned by Geert Wilders so only a release date on that site is reliable information. If Geert Wilders happens to have registered other domains then information from those domains is reliable too but this domain belongs to some individual/registrant in the UK, see the item below. - Simeon87 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you're right Simeon87! I should have realized that it is indeed a bit weird to have two official websites. Should have done a whois... Fortunately, you acted fast, and removed it within two hours, so few people have seen it. Much appreciated! - Face 08:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

fitnathemovie.co.uk

I've removed all references to this website because this website is owned by some individual/registrant ('Los Bol') in the UK, not by Geert Wilders, see the following whois results:

• http://whois.domaintools.com/fitnathemovie.co.uk
• http://whois.domaintools.com/fitnathemovie.com

Also, when you write two 'almost identical' websites, that should certainly ring a bell: it's likely others will try to gain from the massive traffic to fitnathemovie.com and a similar domain can be used to promote their own material/content. - Simeon87 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious now that the UK 'Fitna' site was anti-Geert Wilders black propaganda content masquerading as legitimate, they even go as far as to suggest that the site 'might be hacked by muslim's' when anyone with the most basic skills can see only the original website authors hand at work.Twobells (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote before, fitnathemovie.co.uk was at first an almost identical copy of the offical .com website, with the exception that it had a release date instead of "coming soon". I see it now contains a message about the movie propably being an April fools joke (no anti-Wilders or anti-Muslim message btw). - Face 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I see losbol has finally put some effort into his website. Or he has really been hacked... - Face 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he realized that there's no point in trying.. in his edit history, there's also this entry and that site also no longer exists; it appears he's tried this before, heh. - Simeon87 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Trailer of Fitna censored on YouTube

Resolved

 – As stated by Geert Wilders here (see my translation below), there is no trailer of Fitna and there won't be one.

Hi all.

It seems relevant to me to include a link to the promotional video that was censored by YouTube to appease Pakistani authorities. I included it in External links section, but the user MantisEars keeps removing it by continuously reverting my edits. He justifies himself alleging he assumes it's a hoax. But I think it's more than reasonable to think the promo is genuine for it is linked to on several sites. So, unless there is a global conspiracy, the clip is not a hoax. At least 5 sites citing this clip are listed bellow the video on the YouTube website. Here they are:

http://www.pi-news.net/2008/01/trailer-zum-geert-wilders-film-forbidden/

http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/59952

http://poligazette.com/2008/01/21/anti-islam-movie-cause-for-great-concern/

http://www.intertet.org/?post_id=242330

http://www.destentor.nl/algemeen/binnenland/2442213/Koranfilm-op-YouTube-niet-van-Wilders.ece

When I wrote "Assume good faith" in the edit summary, I was thinking of the authors' of those sites good faith, not my own good faith. Those sites are well visible in that YouTube page. You could have channeled the effort used on reverting my edits to verifying those sites. Instead of insisting on reverting you could improve the text somehow.

(Feel free to fix my English errors.) Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The reason I reverted your edits was, as I said, because I could not confirm the trailer's legitimacy. The Youtube channel did not appear to be operated by Geert Wilders, and the the news stories that came up when I searched for the Pakistan incident did not link to any mirror. You also did not put inline citations after the link to the websites you claimed had cited the clip so I could not judge the sources — this is the first time I've seen them. MantisEars (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no trailer for Fitna. It even says so in one of LPedroMachado's links. StaticGull  Talk  12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "But I think it's more than reasonable to think the promo is genuine for it is linked to on several sites." - weird reasoning.. it's the Internet, of course it'll spread, regardless of whether it's official or not. - Simeon87 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i think De Stentor is an RS on this issue. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Stentor article says: "Een clip die op de internetsite YouTube wordt gepresenteerd als de Koranfilm van PVV-leider Geert Wilders, is 'fake'. Wilders heeft dat donderdag gezegd naar aanleiding van een bericht in de Volkskrant. (...) Volgens Wilders is zijn film nog niet af en zal er nergens een preview van te zien zijn."
Translation: "A clip presented on the internetsite YouTube as the Qur'an movie of PVV-leader Geert Wilders is 'fake'. Wilders has said this Thursday in reference to an article in the Volkskrant. (...) According to Wilders, his movie is not yet completed, and there will be no preview of it." - Face 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The clip may not be a trailer but what is true is that a video was banned from YouTube. I think it's relevant to include in this WP article a link to it. It is very likely that this one is that banned video. The reason is that the user who posted the video in the first place must have reposted it and publicized the fact. Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is not correct. I think the video on YouTube (uploaded by the user MovieFitna) was "Islam: What the West Needs To Know". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpullar (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Official Website Censored

It seems that the official www.fitnathemovie.com has been suspended after 'complaints' which is rather odd considering the site contained only a title page design. Perhaps someone in the US can contact the host and ask why they censored a page with just a title? Twobells (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I did ask them. They just sent a boilerplate email to me. I'm sure that they are getting lots of heat from Muslims around the world. Nickpullar (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And I thought they would DoS attack the server. But this is an even easier way. - Face 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very important to note what the actual content of the page that was censored was. By saying "Network Solutions took down Fitna's website" implies that there was a certain amount of content on that website. This is a misleading impression. The fact is the site consists of a single image (which had a picture of the Koran and the text "Geert Wilders presents Fitna"). The takedown seems completely OTT in this case, and that should be made clear. Nickpullar (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Thank you for your help. In cases like this, it is more important then ever to present neutral info. - Face 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Can't wait to see the film, eventually. Nickpullar (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Koran or Qur'an

Stale

 – Archived while unresolved.

I think that the name of the Muslim holy book is spelled "Koran" in English. Why has all the spelling been changed to the decidedly non-English "Qur'an" in this article?

The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) says, "For the purposes of this convention, an Arabic word is a name or phrase that is most commonly originally rendered in the Arabic alphabet, and that in English is not usually translated into a common English word." The standard English word is "Koran". On that basis, we should use that word, rather than the transliterated Arabic "Qur'an". There is even doubt that this is the correct translitteration, as on the Talk:Qur'an page, this word is spelled at least five different ways!

I propose to use the standard English spelling unless there is disagreement, in which case there should be a discussion about this.Nickpullar (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed all the alternate spellings to "Koran". StaticGull  Talk  11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I've found about this is a very short mention at WPs style manual. It states:
"Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia."
This seems more like a statement about neutrality then about naming conventions however. Nick, I see you also commented on this at Talk:Qur'an#Spelling. According to User:Mpatel, Koran used to be the standard spelling, but it is Qur'an now. - Face 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gull. Hi Face, I disagree with User:Mpatel, which I will take up with him there. We use English words where they exist, for example we refer to the Danube, rather than the Duna, or Munich rather than Munchen. It seems to me that using an Arabic translitteration instead of a word which already exists in English is foolish. User:Mpatel's point is that there are lots of references on Google to "Qur'an", but many of these will be by non-native English speakers who have a cultural (or religious) preference for Arabic over English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpullar (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to sign! Doh! Nickpullar (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also wrote a message about this at the talk page of WikiProject Islam, see here. - Face 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a thought: in the UK, "Quran" is the preferred method of spelling in all major publications and the news media. Kapowow (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Qur'an is more encyclopedic. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the best illustration I can give to you. It leans in favor of Qur'an over Koran but that's with the bias that 1) it's more popular than academic books and 2) that a few of them are written 50+ years ago when Koran was more prevalent. Also, Qur'an is proper English (as is Koran) and not transliteration which would be more like Qur’ān so as to distinguish the long vowel and the hamza (as opposed to ' which could represent hamza or `ayn). Although, I actually favor the transliteration since it is easily understood by an average reader based on its similarity to Qur'an and it is used in academic sources (unlike Danu for Danube). Academic prevalence is as important as popular usage and it's the reason we can use both "Islamic law" and "Sharī`ah" in our articles. gren グレン 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To abandon Koran for Qur'an to give into Islamic terrorism and imperialism. The media and academics can't be trusted, for their goal is the destruction of the West (though they are too blind to see the horror of Islam). Koran it must be, Qur'an is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.142 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008

I agree with you. As most of the islam-experts are muslims, their views are biased. We should find multiple neutral sources, or, failing to do that, biased sources "from both sides" in an equal amount, to settle this issue. StaticGull  Talk  13:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I see this discussion is no longer active. So far, both here and at Talk:Qur'an#Spelling, 6 users (MP aka Mpatel, Imad marie, Itaqallah, Liam Markham aka Eyeball226, Hypnosadist, gren AKA Grenavitar) seem to be in favor of using the word Qur'an, while 2 users (Nickpullar, StaticGull) prefer the word Koran. I did not include the anon who stated that the goal of media and academics is the destruction of the West.
I think this is too little to justify a decision on such an important topic. If you have not yet stated an opinion on this matter, and you have one, please state it here. Thank you, Face 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it PsyOP?

Resolved

 – Movie is released.

Until today the existence of the movie is not confirmed by any other source than Wilders himself. There is no need to source that. As long nobody else confirms the existence, the movie itself is nothing more than a speculation. Don´t forget that.

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/27/27572/1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.170.125 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would mean that, say, Toy Story 3 could also be a hoax, as it's only been confirmed by one source. StaticGull  Talk  13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous user! It *might* be that Fitna is a spy op, but there's no evidence that it is. If evidence becomes available, then we (or you) will be able to make additions to the page which documents the evidence. The article you linked to (in so far as I could read the Google translation) seemed to be a surmise on the part of the author. They don't have any data either, they are just reporting what they feel might be the case. Cheer Nickpullar (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Context: The author of the heise.de article criticizes this pi-news.net article found on an "anti-Islam website". He then directs the reader to the forum responses to that article which according to him illustrate the mindset of islamophobes on a mission to rescue the world. He calls one of those responses (by "Octavian") "probably much too intelligent for the hate-ideologists" and quotes it verbatim:

"I think that the real reason for the film's delayed release could be the following: There is no Koran film. Wilders is out to document the hysterical reactions in western society and politics and record the frightening degree to which the western world has already humiliated itself in yielding to Islam and its threatening representatives. That would be a much more important film than one about the Koran, as we already know what the latter would say."

Perhaps this helps. I have no opinion on whether or not we should include this tidbit, but see no policy-based reasons to reject it. Speculation is okay in WP articles when attributed to V RS sources and not quoted out of context. Avb 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see this being worth mentioning if we could get an english language RS on this issue. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More sources would be nice. But to me the main problem here is caused by the indirect nature of the quote. We have a reliable, rather mainstream source (albeit a German one) elevating an unreliable blog-type fringe source to something newsworthy by opining it's intelligent. FWIW, the conjecture has been doing the rounds in the blogosphere for a while. If it turns out to be right, we'll have lots of sources to choose from. Maybe we should just wait and see whether or not Fitna has a deadline. We know Wikipedia doesn't have one. Avb 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So much for this theory! Alexwoods (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Marked this as resolved. - Face 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Geert Wilders' photo belong here?

Resolved

 – Geert Wilders' photo will be replaced by a screenshot after the film's release. UPDATE: film is released, photo has been replaced.

This is a page about the movie, not about Geert Wilders. There is already a Wikipedia article on Geert Wilders. What purpouse does his photo serve in an article on the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.118.230 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The film is not released yet, so the article is mostly about the producer's motives, and the threats he got for it. Context is important.
• The article would not look as nice without it. Generally, articles should have one or more pictures when appropriate.

MantisEars (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with mantis. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. But maybe we should replace it with a screenshot when the movie appears? - Face 08:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot would be great if we can get one when it comes out. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

I took the liberty to make some changes to the "Criticism and censorship" section which was heavy in POV and misinformation. First, Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by six countries worldwide. Writing that they're designated as terrorists "by America and the Netherlands being just two of many" is textbook NPOV violation. Then, the Network Solutions debactle is about the hosting company which is a long shot from the registration aspect. Lixy (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Resolved

Sorry, I killed the references by mistake. What did I do so I don't do it again? Cheers Nickpullar (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit fixed it - it appears you didn't close the opening 'ref' tag. - Simeon87 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the "official" website

At the end of the film, there is a link to the "official" website at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fitna. I guess since his domain got suspended he felt Wikipedia was the next best alternative. Interesting. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-27 20:26

Actually that's a pretty clever way for Wilders to solve his dilemma at the last second -- whatever website he has up in a few weeks will eventually have its URL listed at Wikipedia.--76.17.171.199 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad he didn't put "(film)" after it, many viewers will be seeing a disambiguation page. I suspect the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia's Fitna want to see the article about the film, not the word. Should we do like Apple and make this page just Fitna, with {{otheruses}} at the top? MantisEars (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It's going to be getting many times more views than Fitna(word). Alexwoods (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you let him use Wikipedia as his official website? He doesn't dictate this page, the editors do... I trust this page will remain balanced, which is the exact opposite of what Geert would wish for...--Gordon (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to shuffle around pages or renaming them because a movie is released. Probably Wilders deliberately pointed to a disambiguation page in the first place to "find" a link to his movie, and finding can include IMHO following a link on disambiguation page. 89.220.106.101 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (sorry for not logging in)

Or he gave a link to the disamb page so that people could also find out about the meaning of the word Fitna. - Face 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

> Nobody is going to shuffle around pages or renaming them because a movie is released.

Well, actually I'm thinking that is the proper response. Let's face it

• There is at least 1000 times as much interest in the film as in the word. Nobody (well, almost nobody) ever heard of the word before the film became top news.
• Wikipedia policy is that if one usage of a term is significantly greater than all other usage, then the term should be the name of the article.

~ --RenniePet (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that Wilders pointed the people to the disambiguation page (which will continue to have the same name in the future) whereas the Fitna (film) page might be renamed in the future in case someone else also releases a film with the same name (ok I admit, it's far fetched, but the possibility exists that Fitna (film) needs to be renamed someday) - Simeon87 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

@RenniePet: Please be aware that the lemma Fitna, later renamed to Fitna (word) was created already 15 October 2004, or three years before anyone had heard of Fitna (film). Gebruiker:Dedalus (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article about the word has had 100 edits in 3 1/2 years. The article about the film has had 750 edits in one month. I rest my case. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilders pointed to the Dutch version of Wikipedia. (with the link being: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/fitna) So either way, it's not this wiki's problem ;) MaximusBrood (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You propably mean the Dutch version. I haven't seen the Dutch version yet, but the English version states:
find the official FITNA website at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fitna
Cheers, Face 00:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning box

Subsection for discussion about the warning I placed at the top of the article :) —Ruud 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary... but as long as we have a current event it's not a big deal. I don't like the "rejects" or "distances itself" because... it's not even something we should comment on. I think if we have it it should be straight "Geert claimed Wikipedia was the homepage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must be neutral". gren グレン 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe we shouldn't comment on this? For someone the who watched the film and then came here the statment "Geert claimed Wikipedia was the homepage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which must be neutral" doesn't make it very clear that the claim Wilders made if false. —Ruud 01:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I failed to see that the statement "Find the official FITNA website at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fitna" could be interpreted as that the Wikipedia page could be used to find the official page (and not that the Wikipedia page is the official site of the film.) I'm going to AGF and assume the this was the intended meaning :) —Ruud 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The official website was censored, that's why he pointed to Wikipedia as a more stable place where to find a link to a possible new official website. I don't get how this could be so misunderstod. Please remove this from the "Factual errors" section. Wilders never intended to say that Wikipedia is the film's official site.--87.162.19.125 (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we keep that box for now, but it should be removed if this event stops being recent. - Face 09:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't only one who "misread" this message... —Ruud 10:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This morn around 8 on radio 1 in holland a professor of Islam claims Wilders quoted the line (or section ... not sure about sura size) incompletely as it goes on to recommend tieing prisoners and releasing them if they promise to be good .. . but that would not be terrorism now would it? To translate and/or interpret this kind of material is not only frought with a worldwide range of differing possibilities, it distracts from other occasions where the ethics of fair fighting were lost. Today a to me brandnew thought struck me though. What if Mohammed was a bit like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull? I understand the will to remind people of them but it don't work much better 'by any means necessary' than whatever else you attempt in that mode. In the face of the type oppression Islam's opponents are capable of however -- i mean, of course, the state terrorism Obama's preacher is on about (glad that thought poured into meanstream to be pondered for a split second) -- one can readily conceive sympathy for desperate acts. - posted to tryworks in slightly different wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The moment I saw that page at the end of the video I knew what was meant, "Utilize the wikipedia page to locate the official web page". AGF applies given that Network Solutions shut down his web address. 86.212.21.137 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. But, what's wrong with "official sites" on Wikipedia anyway? Having this page as the official site seems like a good idea in keeping with the film's spirit (and Wikipedia's, for that matter). Ruud, why do you conclude Wilders wants that much control over his official page? He says he's advocating free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.132.238 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suras authentic?

Resolved

I entered the wording "alleged" when referring to the verses, as I included the reference, though that word was removed as POV. I did not write "alleged" to express that the suras are necessarily false, but because I did not know either way as I had not verified them and I was the one including the reference. So on that note, is there a way to verfiy that the suras used are indeed correct as well as proper translations? If not, then using the movie's message verbatim would be POV (that of the movie's maker). -Philwiki (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. There's even a nifty wikipedia tool for citing Qur'an suras. The sources that covered the film did not find any inaccuracies, and it's better to go by what they say instead of the film itself (that would be original research). MantisEars (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

check this http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ 132.72.151.98 (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article text now uses phrasing like "The Sura is translated here as" etc. which is a good way to put it and along the lines of what I was getting at (because there is often not "one correct" translation). -Philwiki (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This morn (march 28th) around 8 on radio 1 in holland http://player.nos.nl/index.php/media/play/tcmid/tcm:5-363820/ audio in Dutch 28 maart (Fred Leemhuis, a professor of Islam - 5 minuten) almost 60 other segments, three quarters of them on Fitna.

US banned the film?

Outside of the fact that the cited webpage (which is a blog, IMO itself problematic) says nothing of any of the three governments (the US, Canada and Australia) banning the film, the US has little power to "ban" a film (outside of a few very strict criteria), particularly one on the internet. If we can't even stop filesharing, how is the US going to block people from watching the film online? While the rationale sounds plausible, I doubt that the US has officially made it illegal for US nationals to access the film. I (here in Los Angeles) watched it just fine ten minutes ago. Pat Payne (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The blog didn't even say the countries banned the film. MantisEars (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mirrors

It shouldn't be wikipedia's job to provide access to those who can't access liveleak or don't have the codecs. There was only one official release that could be verified — if unofficial mirrors were allowed to be linked, it could create problems (hidden shock site images etc). MantisEars (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but please keep the YouTube link for now. Liveleak.com is extremely slow at this moment. We can always remove the Tube link later. - Face 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure they're identical in content? The YouTube link is 10 minutes while the Liveleak is 16. MantisEars (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... I'm confused. I can't completely load liveleak, so I'm unable to check. - Face 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can download the avi mirror (same as liveleak just transcoded) here MantisEars (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

YouTube has size limits for most accounts so it might only be in two parts. gren グレン 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Mantis! I wanted to add it to the article instead of a YouTube link, but that .avi file has one major problem: it does not play on Windows Media Player or Realplayer. It did work with VLC, but not everyone has that. If someone could upload the complete movie in a format which everybody can open, I'd be very pleased :-). - Face 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to post that link anyway. It's better to have something than nothing. - Face 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link to theonlinedatastorage.com; that site was very persistent in trying (but failing) to install spyware on my PC. — Edokter • Talk • 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spyware? I didn't see any spyware. Lots of adverts and pop-ups, but no spyware. - Face 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A friend just sended me this link to the English version of the film on Megaupload.com. It is an .avi file which I think everybody can open. It worked with me on both Windows Media Player and Realplayer. Cheers, Face 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another direct Google Video link to the full 16-minute video (in addition to the Google Video link now on the Wikipedia Fitna page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.145.64 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to Fitna at Google Video? I think it's the best place to watch it, so I think keeping it is a good idea, in addition to keeping the Wikileaks link, which permits to download an .avi file. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Multiple IP vandalism" protection?

Um, I see vandalism primarily stemming from registered accounts. The normal procedure is to block those accounts (indefinitely if they are vandalism only accounts) rather than lock up a page. 86.212.21.137 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's been protected from IPs... otherwise it'd be both. Those accounts are being dealt with. Jmlk17 05:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So-called "errors"

It looks like the page is blocked, so I can't do it myself -- but could someone nick off that last POV one concerning genital mutilation? (The fact that only some Islamists practice FGM doesn't mean that a 15mn film is in "error" for not mentioning that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.171.199 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is POV and have removed it. --SRHamilton (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

opposing view: I had an opposing remark here in the Discussion page and someone removed it. why? we are sopposed to talk here and suggest changes to the articale and my remark was a valid contribution to the discussion wether you agree with it or not. Here is what I said and was removed: how is my statement that "female genital mutilation is not islamic" a POV when Islamic Law forbids the practice which is carried out by both muslim and christian populations in parts of Egypt and Sudan regardless of religion. What the film says is indeed a factual errot since it says islam allows or encourages the cruel practice. in most islamic countries the practice is punishable by Sharia law —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libyansamarkand (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For accuracy's sake, it's not as clear cut (pardon the unintentional pun) as that. Islamic scholars encourage male circumcision, and sometimes female excision, although they generally frown upon the more extreme forms practiced in Egypt and the Sudan. Specifically, male circumcision is a duty for all Muslim males, while it is merely a "good deed" for females. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the appearance-wise similarity of Mohammed Bouyeri (the murderer) and Salah Edin (the rapper). In fact, they are dead-ringers for twins-separated-at-birth. (As a pure guess, I'd speculate that Edin said something controversial in public, and Wilders accumulated a photo while gathering materials for "Fitna", and that photo somehow found its way into his stack of Bouyeri photos....or, if not him, then some assistant of his. Seeing as the only release so for is an FLV of dubious "official" status, a "finished" higher-quality version of the film would probably be corrected.)--76.17.171.199 (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems watching the video on LiveLeak

I downloaded the video using a RealPlayer plugin for Firefox, but I cannot watch the video on the website, I do not know why. Is there anyone here having the same problem? - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A friend just sended me this link to the English version of the film on Megaupload.com. It is an .avi file which I think everybody can open. It worked with me on both Windows Media Player and Realplayer. Cheers, Face 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have this problem anymore. Forget it. You may delete this section. Sorry. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

@Face: Within hours of its release, there were dozens of torrents of the FLV and various conversions at the big bittorrent sites.--76.17.171.199 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, MantisEars put in section Mirrors a link to an avi file but much smaller than that from Megaupload (33 MB versus 167 MB)! Why is this? - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I didn't made the file, and I'm not an expert at video codecs. But I thought I'd shared it because it's a file that can be opened by anyone. You never know if something might happen to liveleak, or perhaps some people cannot reach it. And not everybody knows what to do with the available .flv files. As for YouTube, well, I still have to see a good version. Cheers, Face 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You did right, Face. And you were right about LiveLeak too. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pageviews

The 2 and 5 hour time periods seem arbitrary – any idea how many views the movie got after, say, a day? - Schrandit (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

according to liveleak: 4 Million english views 4.5 Million dutch views

Youtube approx: 1 million

Bittorrent: Unknown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.220.141 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related subject, here are the page views of this article. Kelly ^hi! 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Resolved

 – Result of the straw poll: 11 supported, 19 opposed. Democratic conclusion: we will not move this article.

As mentioned in Talk:Fitna (film)# Wikipedia is the "official" website, it might be wise to move this page to Fitna. StaticGull  Talk  10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But this page is apparently locked, so only an administrator can move it, and there should be consensus. Until then, let's stick with the setup that "Fitna" is a disambig page. --RenniePet (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested that the page be moved by an administrator, for now Fitna redirects to Fitna (film). StaticGull  Talk  10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be an act of extreme recentism. Let's discuss this first... —Ruud 11:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that most people had never heard of the word Fitna before this film. StaticGull  Talk  11:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure that in a few monthss time most people (which are mostly non-Dutch) won't associate the word fitna with this film anymore. —Ruud 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think most Muslims would have heard of this word before the film... —Ruud 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It just doesn't feel right with me to let this article have the title Fitna, and the word the title Fitna (word). It almost makes you think that the movie was the first to use the word. But the movie is named after it! I would vote against it, I think. - Face 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead explains the title, referencing the word article, so even if someone was redirected here expecting the word, they would find it fairly quickly. MantisEars (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, firmly oppose renaming the page. There is no possible reason to make the movie override the concept. It is also, as pointed above,recentism. With all due respect, the idea is quite silly. Lixy (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as the film doesn't have major impact in history (and we can't determine that until some years have passed) I do not see why the film should take precedence over the word it has been derived from. We can't neutrally say currently which one is more important. Renaming it to give Wilders his way (just because he links to it) doesn't seem appropriate to me either... effeietsanders 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the suggestion I got from another user:

Then you might want to redirect the Fitna page to the Fitna (film) and create a "Fitna (disambiguation)" page

This is what we should do. Disamb. policy states:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

Now we know that the movie is much more popular than the word and this is what they are expecting to get, so either move the movie to Fitna, or redirect Fitna to the current title (Fitna (film)). This is what policy is saying. Lixy, you might think its silly for now (or recenticism) but this is what probably is going to happen later after some time. Also, I think the policy says it clearly - what is the reader expecting to find? The movie or the word. We can easily say its the movie. Has Fitna the word, made huge headlines and caused protests? Its the film which did this and is more popular and will remain so likely later as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, I think everyone will be happy now. StaticGull  Talk  12:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there is almost no difference between that solution and moving Fitna (film) to Fitna. —Ruud 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As effeietsanders mentions above, we can't really tell right now what the impact of this film on world history would be (anything between no-one remembering it next week to starting WW3 seem to be reasonable options right now). So until we can say something more definite about that let's keep the disambiguation page at Fitna. —Ruud 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll point this out to you and Lixy and Effait again, the wiki policy on disambig:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

If you answer this question, the answer is undeniably, the film - does anyone disagree? We're not doing this to make Geert happy or because it looks silly. We're doing it because policy says so. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect that next month a significant portion of the readers searching for Fitna will not expect to find the film, but the Arabic word. —Ruud 13:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming from WP:RM, I would have to say that the Second Fitna (you know, the one where Husayn was killed, causing the schism between Sunni and Shi'a Islam) is by far more notable than a short film. Fitna should remain a disambig page, with this title remaining as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote

• Oppose. Anyone who has any clue about Islamic history- and seriously I mean any clue- knows that fitna is used by both Muslim and academic historians to refer to the first Muslim civil war (and to a lesser extent the second civil war too). Matt asks which is the one which has been getting the publicity and causing the mass demonstrations; well, again, it's those civil wars, and it's been recurring for a very long time. ITAQALLAH 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt57 has a valid point, (at least around this time) when someone follows the url at the end of the film they're not looking for a description of the word or of a war, but for information about the film. StaticGull  Talk  17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is, however, only one route to the word. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are interested in the civil wars of the early Islamic period. As Itaqallah states, the events, including the martyrdom of Husayn, that created the Sunni/Shi'a schism are far and away more notable than a recent short documentary, regardless of the reactions it has garned. You're talking about one of the most important historical events in the Muslim world. It would be as if we were to dismiss the Great Schism (an equally important event in world history) as irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Under this proposal the wars could still be the first thing you see when you search for "fitna". A mention of the wars and a link to their pages and the disambiguation page could be put on the top of the page like it is on this article. This is not a zero-sum game. MantisEars (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. StaticGull  Talk  18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address my contention. Why should events of great historical impact, with which the word fitna is associated in academic discussion, be secondary to a far-right propaganda film released only a few days ago? Don't you think it should be the other way around? ITAQALLAH 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: If the event were that important then it would have at least had a wiki entry that predated the film. It did not. The Fitna-Film entry predates the other three - which were only seemingly created to obscure this film and it's wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a a patently false statement; the First Fitna article was created in July 2005, and the Second Fitna article has been around since October 2006, while this article was created only a month ago. The article for the word Fitna predates all of them, going back to 15 October 2004. Parsecboy (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see why we should move pages just because someone puts a link at the end of a film. Despite what they say, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna is not, and never will be, the "official Fitna website". If the producers want an official website they can purchase a domain name instead of trying to appropriate a page on a public encyclopedia for themselves. As for the film page being more active right now, the Wikipedia:Recentism essay shows why we should not make such changes when we have no idea of long-term notability. I have also renamed this section, because it is very difficult for users to find this discussion when coming from Wikipedia:Requested moves. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The idea of wikipedia being an "official page" is a misinterpretation of the message, wikipedia was pointed to as a place to find the official website, as google would be for anything else. If he pointed to a new website after the suspension of his old one and that one gets suspended too, he would have had to retract the film. With millions of views and hundreds of mirrors in the first few hours, that simply would not have been possible. Pointing to an encyclopedia that kept to the latest verifiable information about the film is a sensible thing to do. MantisEars (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Despite the pessimism of some editors, I can see the potential of this film to have long-term notability, especially if Geert Wilders is murdered as the producer of Submission was. Fitna has turned a relatively unknown word into a household name, and the word article is clearly featured in the lead. When one searches for Fitna, this is most likely what they want. If they want the war, they could think to append "war" to their query, or use the official name. In any case, it could not hurt those who are searching for the fringe articles, and could only help those interested in the controversy. MantisEars (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, decisions aren't made on the basis of predicting future notability. I personally doubt that this film will possess any long-term notability. "When one searches for Fitna, this is most likely what they want." - Totally unverified claim I feel. Focusing on the film as if it's the primary association of the word fitna is recentism, and the complete opposite is true when one surveys the academic material available about the fitna. ITAQALLAH 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A double standard is being applied to the opposition, their base argument is that they think this film will not have any future notability! I don't know if there are special Wikipedia pages for the traffic individual articles receive, but you can get a taste for this article's popularity by the history, or all of the pages linking here on Google. If there was an ancient poem named "Gilmore Girls", would you oppose the TV series' getting the main page, based on mention in academia?! It's an absurd standard. MantisEars (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • My argument has nothing to do with future notability or lack of it. As for your analogy, if there was an ancient poem named "Gilmore Girls", that had caused a schism of major historical impact that persists up to this day, that was the central topic of masses of discussion and polemic from Muslim and academic scholars; then yes, that topic would get the main page, and the TV series - presuming it was popular but only just released (so as to make this analogy more closely fitting) - would be in the disambig/seealso at the top. That's my argument in a nutshell. ITAQALLAH 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The example mentioned, "submission", is at Submission (film) not Submission. The film might be highly notable. Casablanca (film) is, arguably, far more known in the English-speaking world than the actual city in Morocco. That doesn't mean we make Casablanca refer to the film and have the city be in a top-hatted "For the city, see Casablanca, Morocco".--T. Anthony (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Before the movie came out most English-speakers were not familiar with the term "fitna." Since the film was released, it has created such a big controversy that most users searching for the word "fitna" are actually looking for the article about the movie. (209.7.171.66 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

• Support Echoing the people who came before me, this film is what the vast vast majority of English speakers associate this word with, the tremendous volume of traffic shows people are coming to wikipedia to find out about the film, not the battle. - Schrandit (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support "Fitna" at the resent moment is associated in the minds of almost everyone with the film (we wuldn;t be having this debate if that were not so). Making a decision to keep up with moving events does not set a precendent which will remain unchallenged for all of time. Nickpullar (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - the prominence will fade with recency once the news cycle moves on. Keep things the way they are. Kelly ^hi! 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Read the Disamg, policy: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?". Currently people are looking for the film, not the word, and you can be sure 20 years from now, if people enter Fitna, they'll still expect to see the movie, not the word. I dont know why people are opposing this. This doesnt mean we're supporting Geert so his link will work. We dont care about what the film says, we're following policy. If the popularity goes down to the level of the word, by all means, make the disamb. page. 2 websites have gone down, Liveleak had 3 million views in less than 2 days. Who really thinks everyone will forget about this movie and expect to find the word and not the movie. Looks like a no-consensus as with every democracy.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not a site ment to promote commercial products. Just because the person has chosen to name Wikipedia as "his offical website" does not mean we should start turning the page into one that promotes his movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownForEver (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

1. Fitna is not a commercial product, Wilders does not profit from the film.

2. He did not name Wikipedia as "his official website", he named Wikipedia as a place to find the official website.

3. Were the move enacted, it would not be a promotion of the "product".

MantisEars (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilders most certainly profits from the film. Lixy (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely from the satisfaction he gets from knowing he is a contributor to the artistic and cultural value of the universe. MantisEars (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out, will you? This is not a forum and we're not here to pass judgment or give our opinions on artistic work (no matter how good or bad it might be). Wilders profits from the movie, in the sense that it made him internationally notable and the message he tried to pass in the video is furthering his political agenda. I'll kindly ask you to review WP:TPG. Lixy (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The relevance will fade in time (It's already going to archives in some newspaper sites), Even then I would prefer the disambig page, the articles should not be edited like internet meme's. To those who think No-one's heard of the word before the film, please see False consensus effect thestick (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with what's been said about the movie's importance: the movie won't be that important in the future (mild reactions, nothing new really). It's the hype that makes this movie relevant these weeks but that'll fade away. - Simeon87 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support (I've already indicated that at the top of this section - but a few more points.)
  • Our decision on this has nothing to do with the strange link to Wikipedia at the end of the film. We should make the same decision irrespective of that silly link.
  • Our decison now is not cast in concrete. If the film turns out to be a 7-day wonder and then recedes into oblivion, then we can make a new decision. Our decision now should be in aid of Wikipedia users who want to find out about the film now. Isn't that what we're here for, to make it easy for people to find information and become informed?
  • Some statistics: Prior to 27 March 2008 the Fitna (word) article has had 100 edits in 3 1/2 years. (It's had about 15 edits since then related to the film.) The Fitna (film) article has existed for slightly over one month and has over 1000 edits! 400 edits during the last 24 hours alone! These numbers must indicate the relative level of interest in the two articles.
  • The fact that LiveLeak was forced to remove the video from their site is just the boost Wilders was probably hoping for. This will keep the subject alive in the media, and if there's one thing people just have to see it's a film that someone else is trying to prevent them from seeing. :-)
  • In conclusion, Wikipedia's advantage, compared to traditional encyclopedias, is that it can respond quickly to current events. Today everyone is interested in the film, and we should accept that fact. Two weeks from now, or a month from now, the film may be forgotten, and we can change back to having a disambig page, or making the "word" article the main article. --RenniePet (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very nice objective analysis. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RenniePet, I don't like your second and fifth point. What you actually say is: "I say we rename this article to Fitna because the movie is hot right now. But he, we might as well move it back next week when the hype is over." That's not the way: we have yet another discussion about it then. Your fourth point also sounds iffy. I do agree with your first one however. The fact that Wilders' movie points to WP at the end should not, in any way, influence this discussion. Cheers, Face 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I see Wikipedia differently than many others (and different from the consensus, probably). Many want to see Wikipedia as a modern on-line encyclopedia, but still based on the traditional principles for encyclopedias. I see it as being much more dynamic, and much more a product of today. My comments elsewhere about 1000 articles about The Simpsons is my proof that Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. So to me there is no problem with reorganizing the article structure from one month to the next to be user-friendly. --RenniePet (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment please note that there are two more entries on Fitna, the First Fitna and Second Fitna. Those of us who are opposing the move are generally doing so based on the Second Fitna entry. For those of you who are unaware of what it is, it's the second Islamic civil war, the one responsible for the split between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. If you think something of that importance is somehow less notable than a recent propagandistic short film, then we have some problems. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Those who don't live in Europe, in particular northern Europe, don't realize how important this whole issue of integration / lack of integration is. In today's Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende (one of the largest newspapers in Denmark) there are six whole pages about Fitna (film) and Geert Wilders. --RenniePet (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this comment of yours is relevant to the issue at hand and this section. You may want to clear it up for the rest of us. P.S: I live in Northern Europe. Lixy (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment was due to my (possibly incorrect) idea that some of those who are voting no to the suggested move are North Americans or Australians, etc., and have not the same situation with integration problems and have not been through the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. This film was front-page news in Denmark, i.e., notable here. I doubt most Americans, etc., realize how notable it is for Northern Europe. That's all. --RenniePet (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point is conjectural at best. Even if we disregard the trouble illegal immigration is causing in the US and the fact that they were hit the hardest by radical Islam (i.e: they have more legitimate grievances), your argument is still baseless w/r/t the proposed move. The idea that a front page article in some Danish tabloid should automagically give Wilders' video precedence over the concept of fitna in an encyclopedia fails the test of common sense, undue weight and basic logic. The film maybe notable on an international level (not only in Denmark!) but it has a long way to go before it could trump the original meaning of the word in an encyclopedic entry. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that it's not the video itself that's notable, as much as the carefully crafted hype that surrounded its release. So, the importance of "this whole issue of integration / lack of integration" in Northern Europe or elsewhere is utterly irrelevant when trying to assess if a video (as popular as it might be) should override the historical events. I'm confident that you can see that for yourself. Lixy (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The films title comes from the original arabic, the name of the film is meaningless without the 1000+ year history of the word Fitna and the concepts it encompases. Thus it is secondary to original uses of this word. As for notabilty the idea that a small film compares with outright wars and 1000+ years of internicine violence and emnity caused by the first and second fitnas is very western centric and recentist. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We cannot really know whether this film will be of great importance in the future, and I think renaming the article based on "possibly" temporary public interest is not a good idea. The film was just released at the time of this comment. Why can't we wait and see? KINKKUANANAS 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment about recentism: I think that the argument about recentism is being overly emphasized. Everything about Wikipedia, an invention of the last few years, is almost complete "recentism". Which is more important for human history, the Second Fitna or The Simpsons? Which of these two subjects has thousands of articles and millions of edits, because that's what interests English-speaking users of the English Wikipedia? Should all articles about The Simpsons contain a warning box, "You really should be more interested in the really important things in human history!"? And, as I've pointed out above, we can make one decision today and a different decison in a month or so. --RenniePet (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of an argument from "come on we all know Wikipedia's value is about entertainment stuff anyway" and I'm sympathetic to that. People wanting to look up Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist history should not have Wikipedia in their top 10000 choices. People wanting to look up who drummed for Pearl Jam would be as well to come here as anywhere. Still I always got the sense Wikipedia itself is not yet ready to concede that pop-culture really is more important to them than encyclopedic topics. The sense I've always gotten is that the place believes it's respectable or wants to be so.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand what the problem is, one is a minor short political film the other two are major events in world history whose effects are still seen today in dead people in the war in Iraq. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This short film is not quite 17 minutes long, and was released two days ago. How exactly is it more important or notable than a pair of civil wars that have literally shaped the entire Muslim world for the past 1300 years? The argument is that the film is at the moment more notable in popular media. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, a project that claims to aspire to academic reputability. How are we working towards reaching that goal if we just follow the whims of the public? As has been noted earlier, the usage of "Fitna" in academic sources is used almost exclusively to refer to the two Islamic civil wars. That should be our priority. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Itaqallah's right. Fitna is a term that has long been used by Muslims and academics (Muslims and non-Muslims alike). This film is a temporary buzz and should not take precedence over a 1,400 year old concept.Bless sins (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Please don't get dragged away in the current hype. At this moment, the word is indeed almost exclusively used to refer to the film. But naming this article Fitna, and the other one Fitna (word), also implies that the use of the word as reference to the movie is more important then all other uses. Historically seen, this is simply incorrect and inappropriate. Keep it as it is now. Cheers, Face 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Being neutral includes not judging such a film and not valorise it by moving it to a pagename stated in the film. I don't want to imagine, what the film's opponents could and would say, if we performed this move. --Claaser (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should not move, but what other people outside WP think of it is irrelevant. - Face 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm surprised that this would even be considered. Oore (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree with what RenniePet said. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons that Troy (film) is not at Troy, and any other example you can think of. A momentary blip in movie culture does not supersede centuries of history. Iamaleopard (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Arabic term fitna is the original use of the word, and by far the most notable one. It's true that anyone searching for 'fitna' this week is probably looking for the film, but I agree that popularity is likely to be temporary; in the long run, it's less important than the Arabic term. To redirect fitna to this page would be a clear example of recentism and systemic bias against the Arabic-speaking world. Fitna should remain as it is, a disambiguation page; it's not as if this article is particularly hard to find, anyway. Terraxos (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's amazing to me that this is even debated. That a 15 mns video should take precedence over the traditional use of the term is simply indefensible. Lixy (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I agree completely with the above comment. Since when do minor films have the right to take ownership of a word that has been around for a thousand years or more? Will those supporting the moiton also be wanting to redirect the entry for Paris from the capital city of France to Paris Hilton, because she is more in the news and googled for more often than Paris, France? Meowy 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid your example falls flat. Most people in the English-speaking world have heard of Paris, France, while only a very, very small minority had ever heard of Fitna before the movie was made. Looking at editing statistics, Paris Hilton has been edited 290 times in 2008, while Paris, France has been edited 258 times, an almost equal level of interest. This is totally different from Fitna (film), which has been edited 1245 times in one month, compared to Fitna (word), which until a couple of days ago was edited 100 times in 3 1/2 years. --RenniePet (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton and Paris are both living entities that evolve with time. The meaning of the word Fitna and the historical events surrounding it might as well be carved in stone. Looking at edit stats is utterly irrelevant in this context. Now, here's the kicker: All the people who have seen or heard of the video, know the Arabic word. However, despite being a popular hit in the last couple of days, the people who know about the word don't necessarily know about the short film. Lixy (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

>Looking at edit stats is utterly irrelevant in this context.

That's like saying that giving Wikipedia users what they want is utterly irrelevant, which is a very elitist attitude.

I'm assuming edit statistics give a very good indication of the "customer interest" in articles. (As far as I know there are no hit counters available for Wikipedia pages.) I view Wikipedia as a service, and a good service should give the customers what they want, which right now is to be informed about the film. Part of becoming informed about the film is to become informed about what the name means, and that should be in the article, and links to the relevant articles, of course. But let's face it, what Wikipedia users are looking for now is information about the film, probably on a 1000 to 1 ratio versus those who are looking for information about the concept. --RenniePet (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"which is a very elitist attitude" No this attitude of creating an NPOV encyclopedia, we are here to provide historical information not film reviews. Fitna is an important concept that is over a thousand years old, the other is a minor film. There is no question which of these two concepts is most encyclopedically notable (thats the thousand year old concept). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit stats are skewed for this article, as it has been locked for some time now. MantisEars (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Possibly I can give a better argument. "Fitna" is used to describe periods of civil war in Islamic history hence we have Category:Fitna. The proposed move would require us to delete the category or repurpose it, but it's unlikely this film deserves a category. That the wars mentioned are more obscure to average English speakers than a movie does not necessarily make the movie pre-eminent. For most people Sunset Boulevard means the film, but the actual street in LA takes precedence. The Searchers (film) is much better known than anything in The Searchers (disambiguation). Anyway for this and other reasons I oppose.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize how recent that category was. Still I think Fitna itself should be a disambig, as it essentially is right now, for Fitna (word) and Second Fitna and this film and so forth.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support we should go with what is the most recognized version of the term; the rest can be on a disamb. page. Yahel Guhan 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Again:

When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

I'm quite sure that most people had never heard of "Fitna" before this film. Ask yourself this: Even though Nietzsche's Superman (übermensch) was first, aren't users expecting to go to the "DC-Superman" page???? StaticGull  Talk  11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, if 1.6 billion people say fitna is civil war how many edits/pageviews/google ranks do you need to get up to that level of notability for this minor film. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

StaticGull, your quote has been used a lot in this discussion, but it's actually not a very strong argument. When a visitor searches for "fitna", he/she will find the disamb page. From there, the movie is just one click away. User-friendliness is not the problem here. - Face 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

>User-friendliness is not the problem here.

User-friendliness should be very high on our list of priorities. Either way, the difference is one additional click. But one way 1000 people have to do that extra click, the other way 1 person has to do the extra click. (My conservative estimate - probably a lot more than 1000 to 1.) --RenniePet (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An extra click, the unending horror. Can we get back to writing the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that those supporting the move may be blinded by systemic bias. Yes, this film is important in the Netherlands, but what about all of the English speaking Muslims that are more interested in reading about the civil wars that shaped the history of their religion? Pointing to the disambiguation page in situations like this is best because it doesn't assume what people are looking for. The issue of popularity is very much in question; it might not be in the Netherlands, so go make a similar move on the Dutch Wiki, not this one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.69.228.148 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This film will soon have been mercifully forgotten, while the primary historical use remains as important as it is today.  --Lambiam 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The what-article-would-they-most-likely-be-expecting-to-view-as-a-result? quote was given for several times. I think this is quite weak *at this moment*. Of course right now everyone typing Fitna in the search box wants to read about the film because it is controversial and recent. Even a controversial something named Jesus could attract more people at the time of its release than the traditional spiritual leader. Wait for some time and we will see. --KINKKUANANAS 05:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Film is only popular now and will be forgotten in a few months time. Fitna should remain a disambiguate page, since it refers to multiple things that are all important - A reader should also know that Fitna is not just the name of some random movie, but also refers to a term in Islam and to the civil wars. Cloud02 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Case closed, do not add any more votes.

Result

Does everybody agree with it that we will close this discussion in the evening of April 1? Say, at 20:00, on 1 April, UTC? - Face 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems good to me. I've added the Unresolved template to indicate that this is an important unresolved issue. StaticGull  Talk  12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I forgot to do so myself. Cheers, Face 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should wait that long; the result is a forgone conclusion: No consensus to move. As of right now, there are 17 opposing, 10 in favor (not that voting matters), but that is a clear demonstration to me that there is no consensus to do anything except leave the article where it is. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should close it earlier. Tommorow? 20:00 UTC? - Face 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not now? Nothing's going to change in 24 hours; there's no consensus, and there likely won't ever be. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it now(close the discussion/strawpoll), the inherant POV in Notability (notable to whom?) means this cant be resolved. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it now? Do what now? My understanding is that we're debating moving this article to Fitna, contra the status quo of having a disambig page. Also, I thought an administrator was supposed to make the final decision. --RenniePet (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

With "do it now", Hypnosadist meant closing the discussion/strawpoll now. And a sysop doesn't necessarily have to make that decision. Cheers, Face 14:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, there is no consensus to move the page, and there won't be one on the 1 April, or probably ever, because the notability of this film will eventually fade, negating the only possible justification for the move in the first place. No, admins aren't "technically" required to close anything, non-admins can close XfD's, although admins generally do them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK by me - although I don't presume to speak for the others who supported the move.
What I suddenly got worried about is that when I looked at the Wikipedia:Requested moves page I was reminded that there is actually a parallel request outstanding to move Fitna (word) back to Fitna, replacing the disambig page. Now that I would strongly oppose. --RenniePet (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... right. That's another discussion. But at least we can conclude from this straw poll that Fitna (film) should remain Fitna (film), and that's the end of it. But as RenniePet said, he can't speak for all the other supporters. So maybe we should keep this discussion open untill at least the end of this day, so that everyone has the chance to give his/her opinion and vote. Cheers, Face 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine MantisEars (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I marked this discussion as resolved. I counted the votes, and a total of 11 users voted in favor of the move, and a total of 19 users voted against it. Note that I did not look at the 'quality' of the votes, and have also counted votes with nonsensical or no argumentation like this one. Even without those votes however, the democratic conclusion of the straw poll is that we will not move this article. Case closed. - Face 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in the lead

Resolved

 – Statement deleted

This statement in the lead is wrong and the source does not confirm this, so it should be removed:

Geert Wilders also announced his next project which will offers his view on Christianity and the Bible which was actually scheduled before the Fitna project.[2]

Could someone remove this as I am out of reverts? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I thought I got rid of that when I deleted the section about it. I must have overlooked it. StaticGull  Talk  12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fitna and Hezbollah

The article mentions that Network solutions hosts hezbollah but not Fitna, even though the former is regarded by both the USA and Holland as a terrorist organization. While all of these facts seem to be verifiable, the only sources that are suggesting a hypocrisy in this are blog/opinion sites (EuropeNews falls into this category). Nobody else is mentioning the two in the news together. Is deciding to compare and contrast in this article a breach of WP:SYN? Andjam (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, I think, and I have removed it. Mostly because, of the five sources, all but one had nothing to do with Fitna; and the one that did is pure opinion and does not entail "widespread criticism". -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i added two links to say Hezbollah was designated a terrorist organisation. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-added now its sourced to the washington post [1]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Muslim violence"? What is that?

I edited a line about "Muslim violence" and was reverted. The first line in the paragraph mentions "violent demonstrations". My edit reduced this "Muslim violence" OR and reduced the redundancy but was reverted. Anyone care to explain this?

82.123.245.150 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary was "What is "Muslim violence"? OR", nothing at all related to attempting to reduce redundancy. Clearly, one shouldn't have to provide a source stating that the murder of an innocent woman (among other acts) is "violent". Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that there were violent demonstrations is already mentioned in the first line. There's no disputing that violence occurred. But the words, "Muslim violence" is neither neutral nor a cited concept. It is original research. 82.123.245.150 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It was violence, perpetrated by Muslims. Hence, "Muslim violence". Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As Persecboy said, it's justified. StaticGull  Talk  16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's that justified, but that is my personal opinion. As it stands, the word adds nothing to the sentence as it has already been mentioned that it was done by Muslims in the previous sentence, so I've removed it as both controversial and redundant. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

photo of Iranian gay teenagers

According to the related article the two young men were charged for rape not for being homosexual. Therefore this part of the film is not very accurate(at least it is disputed) and not a very good part to be highlighted with an image in the article. Unless the whole story is mentioned. Arash the Archer (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The film did not stress that they [in that specific case] were being hanged for being homosexual; there were also pictures of women being stoned, and some having guns put to their heads. A different interpretation is that this was a rejection of the death penalty as an aberration of the human rights tradition in Europe. MantisEars (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A/B-class????

Resolved

 – Article has been rated with B class.

In my view this article has surpassed start-class, and should be classed as an A or B class article. StaticGull  Talk  17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The rating was done some time ago when the article could be considered start-class. Once the plot is summarized properly, it should be submitted for re-evaluation. MantisEars (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LiveLeak

Hi, the video is not available anymore under the LiveLeak adress!! Please change that! --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like an IP changed the link. Let me check. Kelly ^hi! 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, fixed. LiveLeaks took it down due to threats, though. Pity. Kelly ^hi! 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is why :

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one. Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."

http://www.liveleak.com/ --Onesbrief (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only current working site is Google video right now, everything else looks like, has been a victim of online terrorism. This is temporary though, many people have downloaded the video and we'll have many mirrors soon, like in all cases of such stuff (like the Mohammed-Danish images issue). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And WikiLeaks too! I am about to put a link to it in the article. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

accomodating image

Resolved

 – The film's title card is now being used in the info-box.

Why isn't the image in the info box, the title? as shown Talk:Fitna_(film)#Screenshot.3F Cloud02 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The Manual of Style for films states that if there is no film poster or DVD cover available, a screenshot of the film's title card should be used. StaticGull  Talk  12:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DVD image

There are rumours of a full-resolution DVD image floating around. Does anyone here have a pointer to such a thing? Frotz (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

liveleak selfcensorship

Resolved

Could someone eleborate on this and insert

File:Liveleak 148620a.jpg

Aleichem (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in a note. MantisEars (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad, sad day. Threats of violence and hatred about a *movie*! Unbelievable. Nickpullar (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to agree with you, please keep in mind the Talk page's guidelines WP:TPG. This is not a forum! Lixy (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

People said the same about Birth of a Nation.--Goon Noot (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Or change note 75 into http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee4_1206625795, where the leaveleak statement can be seen. Aleichem (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No need since there are reliable sources reporting on it. MantisEars (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on the Film

American columnist Ali Eteraz has written about the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.202.102 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What he said about the soundtrack was interesting, can this be confirmed with another source? MantisEars (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. What he says is very different from what it says in this article. Which is correct? --RenniePet (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Both. Most of what he says in the article is opinion: “I could have masturbated in that time.” Some is already in the article (part about Salah El Din) and some (about the soundtrack) is unverifiable with anyone else but him. MantisEars (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just talking about the soundtrack music. Someone who knows classic music should be able to know what it is, right? --RenniePet (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably. MantisEars (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which part of what he says are you referring to? The soundtrack credits show up in the English version of the video at the end: at 15m:46s. - Luís Pedro Machado (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Quran expert analysis of the verses used.

ABC news has spoke to a quran expert to interpret the verses used. Would make an excellent addition to the article considering the movie relies heavily of the verses.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4544952&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseflouse (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I made use of it as a source for the suras listed in the film. Reference name is "ABCInterview" if anyone wants to add a sentence or two in the reactions section. MantisEars (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media"

Does anyone have any info what these ill informed reports are? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary notice

Regarding the notice that the section is too long/detailed for a body of fiction, this film is non-fictional, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Documentaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapowow (talk • contribs) 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an exception can be made because of all the media attention and political firestorm over it. Frotz (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It has a major cultural importance too. StaticGull  Talk  12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Racism

section deleted - Talk pages are not a general discussion forum. Andjam (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which goes on to prove that Wikipedia supports racism. And censors all anti-racism. Thank you Wikipedia for your respect for different-minded people and other cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.152.55 (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you so desire I think you can go to Revision as of 23:33, 29 March 2008 copy what was removed and add it to your own talk page. It's just that it was inappropriate for article talk space as it wasn't about editing this article--T. Anthony (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Andjam and T. Anthony. This section was a waste of space. The talk page exists to discuss how we can improve the quality of the article. It should not be used to start a heated debate about racism, cencorship, Wilders' personality or what else. I understand that the current hype works galvanizing. But that's why every editor should not loose his/her calmness, something I've warned for since the very beginning. By the way, this discussion is not really gone. You can still see it before it was removed here. Cheers, Face 11:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Bouyeri

The article refers to Mohammed Bouyeri as being reported as saying he would murder theo van gogh again if freed from prison, but Fitna plays a recording of Mohammed Bouyeri saying he would murder van gogh again.

Non-chronologic

Parts of this talk page seem to be out of chronological order. The page is still comprehendible, but I would like to ask everyone to refrain from posting in between replies. StaticGull  Talk  13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Typos in the protected article

• speech instead of speach
• adulterous instead of adultereous
• apparent instead of apparant
• remembrance instead of remeberance

217.236.225.41 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed MantisEars (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Availablilty

This video is still and will remain available at http://www.liveprayer.com/fitna It is also available at www.themoviefitna.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrCsTMokTU

Also available on The Pirate Bay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.23.231 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

English version also available via Rapidshare at [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.149.134 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all available at Wikileaks, and I trust it not to cede to threats more than I do any of those sites. MantisEars (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also found at Google Video. [3] --Stormwatch (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Network Solutions shuts down WWW.HISBOLLAH.ORG in response to criticism over it's actions on Fitna Movie

[4] That was written by 13 year Washington Post reporter Brian Krebs. "Brian Krebs joined The Washington Post Company in 1995, and has been writing about technology and computer security since 2000."

WIKI BEING SUBTALLY MANIPULATED AND CENSORED

I have no doubt that this will continue to be censored out of the article as have been most everything. This article is being professionally managed by people who know how to game the system in order to inject a subtle but distinct point of view. It's well organized and has been extraordinarily effective, notice the aggressive removal of this news several times as well as most attempts to, in the traditional Wiki fashion, link to the movie involved in the controversy. No allowance even for the mention of Theo Van Goghs equally controversial film.

Good luck - There are people that are very determined to manage this entry and will GAME every Wiki tradition/convention in order to continue to attempt dominance and control 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk • contribs) at 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be added into Wikipedia somewhere - if not here, then in the Network Solutions article, where it's arguably more relevant. Terraxos (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The blog you mention makes the mistake of confusing "registration" with "hosting". Lixy (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really just a nameless little old "blog" now is it? It's a sourced interview and news story from a thirteen year reporter of the Washington Post published on the reporters electronic Washington Post page.04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk)

I have updated both articles - although I am unaware of the difference Lixy refers to above. Perhaps someone who understands it better could check that these edits are correct. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What lixy is talking about is that NS has the right to decide who gets the name they want for their website ie hizbollah.org and the right to resell those names. NS at some point sold the right to use the name "hizbollah.org" to hizbollah (violating US Fedral law on the supporting of terrorist organisations in the process), that is "registration". NS does not have hizbollah files and does not put them on the net, that would be "hosting". Hope that helps. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I initially raised concerns about the comparison with Hizballah at Talk:Fitna_(film)#Fitna_and_Hezbollah, but now that we've got a reliable source, I'm happy for the comparison to be made. By the way, do the two paragraphs of Washington Post text copied here count as fair use, or should they be removed? Andjam (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed WP quote i posted. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Writer, Director, Producer Credits NOT correct

Resolved

This movie listed the "Scarlet Pimpernel" as sole director and editor and gave the pseudonym equal credit as Co-Writer. No producer credit was given. Why does the listing not correctly reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: The Scarlet Pimpernel

It's a pseudonym, not a real name. MantisEars (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That's why I placed little "quotes" around it and directly referred to it as a pseudonym in my initial post on the subject. It is however as the movie is credited and we have no source that identifies the real identity of the person behind the pseudonym. To state otherwise is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.168.34 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We aim for verifiability, not truth. MantisEars (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Please verify how you know the identity of the Producer, Director and Writer. We all know it's not from the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That can't be a serious question. Nearly every news source that has covered Fitna has verified that Geert Wilders wrote, produced, and directed the film. MantisEars (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please link to one. That is if verifiability isn't too much trouble. Especially when directly contradicting the screen credits which have always been the only source for film accreditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.187.123 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2008

It's never too much trouble. Here's one from Haaretz. ^[1] MantisEars (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've read your linked article twice now. It does not use the words Producer, writer, director or any variation thereof.

Your verification link is utterly useless.

• • • Why does an unverified, unsourced guess, not even original research really - continue to be used as the basis for giving out unearned movie credits? There is NO basis for the current credit listings, it's kind of embarrassing that Wiki can't either source and verify or correct a simple factual detail.23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Stunning. First a cocksure "MantisEars" gives a condescending little lecture on 'pseudonym' and makes it painfully apparent that he never even read the sentence he responded to - then he climbs mightily on the hill of verifiability only to be asked for just such verification, to which he returns a useless empty link utterly devoid of even the hint of being a source.

It's interesting to see such ignorance in control. Too bad that verification and neutral point of view are so embarrassingly meaningless here. It was a fair question met with bullshit and then silence. Stunning.04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of blarg. See IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198399/ Geez....--76.17.171.199 (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to movie

http://allintense.blogspot.com/2008/03/update-another-site-has-hosted-finta.html

Google mirror

Should we include the link to the Google mirror of the film, as the link has now been posted on http://www.pvv.nl???? StaticGull  Talk  12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just keep the link to Wikileaks. In my opinion, it's the best place to find the movie, as it includes both versions, downloadable files, a link to a torrent etc. If it goes down, we could use the Google Video link, which is also stated in the comments in that section. Cheers, Face 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple links are the norm.13:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.42.206 (talk)

Not necessarily. We have one superiour site where people can see and download the movie if they want to. We don't need another one. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and certainly not a place to promote your own website, videos, files etc. Cheers, Face 13:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is no movie at LiveLeaks, only a statement quoted in the article explaining why the video has been removed. __meco (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant WikiLeaks, not LiveLeaks. - Face 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference was apparently too subtle for me. __meco (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Wikileaks cannot deal with the load it currently receives. Shouldn't we then list the Google mirror? __meco (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

who is the reader

Does anybody know who is the reader of the Quran (in arabic) during the film?--Bhzd (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)