Talk:Syriana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry for what just happened[edit]

Just got a little overzealous here. I'll try not to let it happen again. →Dyl@n620 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You know if you didn't mention it I wouldn't have noticed it since you reverted your reversion almost immediately. To other editors who are wondering what Dylan620 is referring to, he accidentally reverted me archiving the talk page. - kollision (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

-to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Storyline[edit]

Anent this sentence: "Barnes, however, learns from Stan Goff that Whiting is responsible and, through his powerful political connections, threatens him and his family unless he halts the investigation and releases Barnes' passports."


I don't like "...through his powerful political connections..." as it doesn't seem clear in the film that this is the case. Isn't Barnes politically bankrupt at this point? All he has left is brute force, highlighted by the suspenseful home invasion scene. I would re-write it: "Barnes, however, learns from Stan Goff that Whiting is responsible. Barnes then threatens Whiting and his family unless he halts the investigation and releases Barnes' passports." Unless there is evidence that Barnes does threaten "through powerful political connections" Ovid962 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR[edit]

"The audience confusion mimics the confusion of the characters, who are enmeshed in the events around them without a clear understanding of what precisely is going on." This seems like OR. I'm not sure what "audience confusion" is referring to and the inference doesn't have a citation. Anyone object to me striking it? 75.100.94.22 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's referring directly to the discussion of the confusion cited by critics caused by the multiple story lines in the previous sentences. Do you always read one sentence out of context? You have a strange way of reading articles. The fact that there is an explanation for the confusion is not OR. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Amr Waked's character as a cleric[edit]

On the 10th of January 2015, I made an edit to the Wasim plot line to remove the word cleric since there is no mention or hint that the man is a cleric in the movie. Aside from the fact that there is no traditional clergy in Islam, there isn't even a suggestion that the character is a learned scholar from an institution such as Al-Azhar or similar.

This edit was reverted soon after by Viriditas stating that all the secondary sources refer to him as a cleric.

What secondary sources are these? Could you please point me in their direction? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The new mr (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about every RS on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked every reference (a lot of 404s by the way) and absolutely none of them refer to him as a cleric. The credits at the end of the movie and on imdb don't mention that he is a cleric. The only reference to a cleric anywhere in any of the sources was an interview with the writer and director Stephen Gaghan [1] where he refers to another character in the film as a cleric where he says "You can cut from a radical cleric addressing disaffected young people to a massive yacht in the Mediterranean. There is a lot of power in those juxtapositions." Even in this case, it shows a misunderstanding on the part of the director of what a cleric is in the Muslim world. Just because the director refers to someone as a cleric, that doesn't make them one. If I made a movie about a tomato and called it in an orange in the movie, would that make it an orange or it would be a tomato that the director refers to as an orange? Anyway, that's all besides the point. The point is that Amr Waked's character is not a cleric and is not referred to as such in any source. Therefore, this reference in the Wikipedia article should be removed (there isn't even a citation next to it) --The new mr (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at many different sources on the subject of the film that refer to the character as a cleric. I'm curious why you object to the word "cleric". Clearly it's not because it's unsourced, as it took me ten seconds to find sources supporting it. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well could you please point me in the direction of at least one of them? I could not find one in all the sources referenced by the article. Either that or agree that the word cleric should be removed please.
And my objection to the word cleric is two fold. First, there is no concept of clergy in Islam. Second, even if there was, referring to this man as a cleric seems to endorse his terrorist opinions as valid ones held in Islam which, needless to say, they aren't. The new mr (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your arguments don't make any sense and it seems like you are trolling. The majority of RS literature calls the man a cleric. You don't seem to have a legitimate argument against it. Do I need to stop doing my job to pull up a list of sources that show you are wrong, or will you do the necessary research? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to stay civilised during the discussion but you are bringing it down. I refuse to do the same. I am not trolling and I think my arguments make perfect sense. As I have said, I did not find any reference to him being a cleric in all the sources referenced by the article. If I have missed one then please do point out where I went wrong. I believe the onus is on you to bring forward at least one reference that shows he's referred to as a cleric from a reliable source. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then it should be removed. Perhaps we should get a moderator involved. --The new mr (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see there hasn't been a reply since. I shall ask for moderator involvement.
Summary for Third Opinion Editor: There is a dispute regarding Amr Waked's character's status as a cleric. The New Mr believes he should not be considered a cleric for two reasons:
1. None of the sources refer to him as a cleric.
2. Nothing in the film itself indicates that he might be.
Viriditas disagrees stating that there are sources that indicate he is a cleric but has not presented a source to date. --The new mr (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting third opinion. --The new mr (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Thank you for providing a summary. (It may be a biased summary, but is better than none.) I infer that Amr Waked is a real person who is portrayed in the movie. If he is a real person, he should only be referred to as a cleric if reliable sources refer to him as a cleric. I will add that if he is a real person, he should be linked in the article, whether redlinked or bluelinked. Being a character in a movie is a sort of notability for a real person that justifies an article. I am not closing the Third Opinion request because maybe another editor will provide a more definitive answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Muhammad Sheikh Agiza is a cleric. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the question is whether to refer to the person (played by Waked) as a cleric. Does the character represent a real person? If so, what do reliable sources say about the real person? If the person isn't real, this question is about abstract nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your third opinion Robert. As far I know, the character is entirely fictional. I still feel it's important to be accurate though. --The new mr (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second third opinion[edit]

I do think it's strange to say that "many different sources on the subject" say something, and not give any hint of what those sources are; stranger still to label a request to name those sources as "trolling". I can also confirm that a simple Google search does not turn up any sources. But I don't give up easily, and by playing with search terms I turned up:

  • Beyond Hollywood – "side plots involving the CIA, a radical Islamic cleric and a Geneva-based energy trader"
  • Time Out – "where extremist Muslim clerics bend the ears of impressionable foreign oil workers looking for some purpose to their lives of drudgery"
  • Spiked "an Islamic cleric is addressing a crowd of pupils sitting around him on the floor, preaching them a fundamentalist view of Islam." This review is by Karl Sharro, who is Lebanese.

So, from a WP:V point of view, the word "cleric" may be used. Whether it needs to be used is another question. I personally don't think that removing the word makes the article any less informative. Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/movies/a-halfdozen-ways-to-watch-the-same-movie.html


Thank you for your second third opinion Scolaire. Apologies for my delay in responding to this. Thank you first of all for validating my position as not trolling. I do appreciate it. Regarding the links you turned up. The first one is now a 404 (domain expired). The second two don't refer to Amr Waked's character but rather another character seen in the film for a few minutes. Even the quote from the first, now 404ed, Beyond Hollywood link is really a misinterpretation of what a cleric is. Just because a link from a now defunct entertainment news website states that a character in a movie is a cleric, this does not make them a cleric. I would like to propose removal of this word from the page. As Scolaire mentions, removing it does not make it any less informative. The new mr (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declining third third opinion[edit]

Good afternoon from the UK, and thank you for requesting another third opinion, however I am declining it as you have had two already, and it is in the nature of the 3O process that in such a case another is unlikely to help. If this issue is worth the candle (and since we are dealing with a fictional character search for a "true" answer may be futile) then perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Otherwise maybe it would be appropriate to WP:DISENGAGE for a while.

With all respect to you both, Springnuts (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair enough. Thank you for your comment and suggestion The new mr (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the status of Amr Waked's character as a cleric[edit]

Should Amr Waked's character be defined a cleric? The new mr (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Waked's character in the film Syriana is listed as a cleric on the Wikipedia page. However, absolutely no reliable sources refer to him as such. The credits at the end of the film don't. The cast list on IMDb doesn't. He is not referred to as a cleric at any time in the movie. Stephen Gaghan, the film's writer and director, does not refer to him as a cleric etc etc. There are one or two articles from (now 404ed) entertainment websites that refer to him as a cleric. But this could easily have happened as a result of Citogenesis [1] as defined by the XKCD comic strip on the subject. Or just a misunderstanding on the part of the authors of these articles. I have no problem with the character being defined as either (in order of preference) a) a terrorist, b) a fanatic or c) an Islamic fundamentalist. However, listing him as a cleric seems to me to be both a) wholly incorrect (as per the sources) and b) at best, misinformed and, at worst, mischievous. Islam does not even have a concept of clergy [2]. Some of the references that mention a cleric are referring to an entirely different character. This seems to have been misunderstood by a few folks.

I would love to get some comments from people who a) understand that there are no clergy in Islam, b) have seen the movie to get the context and c) understand the significance of defining such a character as clergy. But of course welcome comments from everyone. Thanks for your time and comment. The new mr (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://xkcd.com/978/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy#Islam

Discussion[edit]

  • I changed "cleric" to "Islamic fundamentalist" per your original edit. I don't think this dispute is necessary. Viriditas (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
I'm glad you finally agreed. I agree that this dispute wasn't necessary. Thanks for making the edit on my behalf. The new mr (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriana&oldid=1205542456"