Jump to content

Talk:Nakoula Basseley Nakoula/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Should merge

This should be merged to Innocence of Muslims per WP:BLP1E. I don't think the guy is notable for any other newsworthy event than this one (though the bank scheme comes close, and if you have find good sources about it I could be convinced). The article comes close to being a "WP:Attack page". And ultimately, there's not much you'd say here that wouldn't be relevant to the other article. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • My gut would tend to agree with the merger suggestion, though I suspect that it’s still a bit too early to tell how significant the making of the film will prove to have been, as opposed to the events in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen —— all in connection with that third prong of the test in WP:BLP1E. I’m not sure it becomes an attack page. My guess would be that the making of the film, and this man’s role in it, are not, at this point, yet significant, and that the biography, which otherwise has little of notability to it, would be best merged into the film. If subsequent events change things, warranting a separate biography, then of course a biography can always be separated out. My 2¢ Xenophonix (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge. He is not notable outside of this film. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge. He is a meaningless non-entity without this controversy User:Rob Boyter 23:58 16 Sept. 2012 Merge. Agreed that he has no relevance outside the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haody81 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is an AP story in the NY Post removed (NY post, no thanks)?

Why is an AP story in the NY Post removed (NY post, no thanks)?

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the NY post digs up so much shit just to sell their paper, it's not a source for biographies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If the source meets guidelines for reliability it should not be removed. Such actions seem biased and agaisnt Wikipedia policy. Please don't fan flames on the talk page. As long as the claim is referenced per policy to BLPs it may be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The New York Post is a tabloid and generally should not be used for WP:BLPs. However, if they are just reprinting or quoting an AP story, I think it is usable. 72Dino (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Although one wouldn't need to use the NYP, it could be sourced directly to the AP.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The New York Post reference was just reprinting an AP story. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/anti_muslim_film

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The same person removed the AP story from Google. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=512261513&oldid=512261385 --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Coptic an ethnicity?

Is Coptic an ethnicity, a religion, or both? I can't tell from the Copts WP article. Right now it is shown as both in the infobox. 72Dino (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The cited sources clearly put it in contrast to "Arab"; therefore, it is used as an ethnicity in this context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ
Exactly. Both. Copts are an ethnoreligous group. Many members specifically identify as a non-Arab ethnicity. See Arab Christians. Jokestress (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Coptic is generally considered a religion. His ethnicity is Arab, as people born in Egypt are considered Arabs. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Not all of them; read the sources relevant to this case. Other sources do not matter here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Egypt and Egyptians were a distinct group long before the advent of Islam. There were 3.5 millenia of Egyptian Culture pre-the Christian Era. The Orthodox Church was well established there by the 4th Century particularly in Alexandria which was one of the main centres for study of Christian texts and theology. All this was swept away in the Muslim expansion of the 7th Century. Coptic Christians were a separate Egyptian Christian faith from the Orthodox and whose beliefs and writings were partially revealed by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of Gnostic writings and Gospels. Copts may be the only relatively continuous strain of the old Egyptian populace, since Arabs have mixed so freely with the remainder. In depictions of various races on Egyptian Wall paintings and painted reliefs continuously to the Ptolemaic period, Egyptians are normally coloured a deep red, Nubians as black, Palestinians as Yellow, and other races as other colours. Egyptians certainly saw themselves as a separate group, and when the reliefs are examined the bone structures and facial shapes are neither Semitic, nor Hamitic (viz African) nor any other obvious group. To ignore this early evidence is a grave mistake, as is ignoring the persistence of Coptic religious observance. The person in question however is not representative of Coptic belief, or of anything but his own quasi-criminal self. 16 Sept. 1012 Rob Boyter.

Democrat

So... can we get his penis-size, too? That's probably what led him to make the movie. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Nakoula was a registered Democrat. This is relevant as this involves political controversies. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true, but what the fuck does it matter??? You can't just throw every snippet in here just 'cause someone says so. It's called editing not copy-pasting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 your behavior on this page is becoming perilously close to uncivil. While we may not censor at Wikipedia, you show no reason for your choice of words except to possibly create an uncomfortable atmosphere. Please consider treating all members with more respect.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Commenting on users is a personal attack. Do you have anything substantial to contribute? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing in either policy or guidleines that substantiates that claim. Your overwhelming the talkpage could be seen as disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree, political party does not seem very relevant. Jokestress (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Then we should take it out and have Uc-c make his case here before putting it back in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I can agree to removing the mention at this time. If consensus changes it can be returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; but I can't do that (>WP:3RR). Someone else please. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, there does at least appear to be consensus for it's removal once you clear 24 hours and i will support the change by another if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't have 24 hours. I'll take to the BLP noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, but what is the rush?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a living person. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, you mean, as a Biography of a living person, you are concerned about the information? It seems to be pretty harmless if perhaps, more detail than is needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That was in response to "no rush" . BLP is always a rush to get it right and relevant. It's gone now. And DreamFocus's edit summary is perfect. Read it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the info seems irrelevent, but accusing anyone of slander seems pretty harsh for an edit summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:No legal threats[1]:"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording..."--Amadscientist (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If you seriously think DreamFocus made a legal threat, take it to ANI. If not, redact the accusation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it was pretty harsh for an edit summary. The term slander is an accusation of another and could have been made with "less charged" wording.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I will say however, that the editor who made the claim seems to be a perfectly fine editor and many users are simply not aware that sometimes statements of this nature are very contentious.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • My edit summary was "(→‎Criminal cases: irrelevant nonsense, and possible slander by association)" [2] when I removed the bit about what political party he belonged to. There is no possible reason to list the political party of someone famous only for doing something offensive which is unrelated to the political organization you claim they are involved in, unless you wanted to slander that organization. Note that the mention of his political party of choice was listed in the "Criminal cases" section of the article. Why put it there? Dream Focus 07:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that the removal was appropriate, your assumption of why it was there is a little outrageous and lacks any proof whatsoever. But thank you for taking it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the specific date of birth as being irrelevant to his bio, and per WP:DOB. Also removed a "death date" line from the infobox that thankfully was typo'ed and not showing up in the article itself. Smarten up, people. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Bacile

Based on info from these articles: [3] and [4] and [5], I think it is reasonable to redirect Sam Bacile here instead of redirecting to the movie. Unflavoured (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That is going to need extraodinary sources for such an extraodinary claim and redirect.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It may be appropriate, but we should really establish a firm consensus on that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not really an extraordinary claim. Sources given in my comment right above. Unflavoured (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You have now redirected it. If it stands, fine, however there was no consenus for it and should it be removed i will support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I would also rather have a redirect of Sam Bacile to Innocence of Muslims, for obvious reasons. Wakari07 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe even to Innocence of Muslims#Production and Innocence of Muslims#Screening and promotion at the same time, a double redirect if it were possible. Wakari07 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one that sees Sam Bacile as reflating to "Imbecile"? He certainly is. 00:04 17 Sept. 2012, Rob Boyter

Other names

Should be referenced. --Niemti (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Criminal information in infobox

The infobox includes information about criminal charges, penalties and status. While I'm not disputing this information, I don't think it needs to be in the infobox. He is known for the film, not the crimes. The criminal information should just stay in the body of the article. 72Dino (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations

"Self-described" is not consistent with the sources. Someone seriously needs to fix this more than my simple edit, or stub it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

He told the police so (and the actress, too). Technically it's not proven, and it comes from a freaudster, so I don't think it's a 100% sure thing. --Niemti (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From film talk page: Not even known to local Copts

NPR reported that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula isn't known to Copts in his vicinity, and they have harshly denounced him. "Father Joseph Boules, pastor of a small Coptic church in Anaheim that is part of the diocese, said he had not heard of anyone by the name of the alleged filmmaker."[6] From the Diocese of Los Angeles in the same source:

the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California & Hawaii strongly rejects dragging the respectable Copts of the Diaspora in the latest production of an inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam. The producers of this movie should be responsible for their actions. The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives.

NPR has subsequently reported that no church in the Diocese of Los Angeles has any officials who have ever heard of him. —Cupco 22:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, because it explains the whole motive for the film, given the persecution of Copts by Muslims in Egypt in recent years?? Let's also not forget that the Copts will understandably be very afraid for their people in Egypt, so they may have strong motives for this - at the present time, every major news outlet is reporting him to be a Copt, it needs more than this statement that has a particular interest behind it to stop reporting that, surely. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It's understandable that the Copts would want to distance themselves from a fellow Copt who has caused this much trouble. However, Wikipedia cannot be a party to these machinations. Qworty (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct, which is why the article should stick with what the majority of investigators and news organisations are saying, not what a local Coptic Bishop is saying about it, although the latter can be reported. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said, except for reporting the bishop's remarks. That would strike me as WP:UNDUE. Qworty (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It is known that Basseley Nakoula had severe financial and criminal legal problems. Many news sources are not ruling out the possibility that he has been manipulated by those who apparently coordinated the attacks in Benghazi as a "smoke screen." It is too soon to tell for sure so we should remain neutral towards the possibility. —Cupco 00:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
These are arguments for why Wikipedia shouldn't be displaying this article at present - the whole thing is still being investigated and explored, so the material on Nakoula, where well-sourced, should be in the main Innocence article, not in this page - he was completely non-notable before this incident, and the more we dig, the more clear that becomes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More reports

Falsely claiming Israeli nationality and Jewish heritage

It should be mentioned that he allegedly claimed Israeli nationality and Jewish heritage. I think it's an important point but somebody decided to completely erace this. Mr. Nakoula was probably trying to make Muslims and Jews fight. Thanks.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

He considers himself an Arab - Nakoula stated “his fellow Arabs have to learn to demonstrate peacefully"

Under ethnicity it should state Arab. Whats what Nakoula considers himself.

Nakoula stated “his fellow Arabs have to learn to demonstrate peacefully" http://www.voanews.com/content/autorities-interview-man-allegedly-behind-anti-islam-film/1508539.html

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the quote; the only quoted part is about the behavior. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Nakoula was interviewed, his referred to Arabs as my fellow Arabs. ""In an earlier interview with U.S.-government-funded Radio Sawa, the alleged director of the film said his fellow Arabs "have to learn to demonstrate peacefully.""" --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to hear that interview. Or I want to see an exact quote of what he said, not just a snippet of it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In an earlier interview with U.S.-government-funded Radio Sawa, the alleged director of the film said his fellow Arabs “have to learn to demonstrate peacefully.” He said any allegation the U.S. government was involved in the making of the movie is “ridiculous” and that “America has nothing to do with the film.” Radio Sawa says the man refused to confirm his identity, but that a source who provided the contact information identified him as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

[[7]] http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/09/15/u-s-authorities-question-man-allegedly-behind-anti-islam-film-2/ --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself; look at where the quotation-marks are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You can listen for yourself. Nakoula did the interview in Egyptian dialect of Arabic.
http://www.radiosawa.com/content/anti-islam-film-maker-talks-to-radio-sawa/211666.html

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be in English. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
باللغة العربية المصرية يتحدث عن "العرب زملائه". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unindicted co-conspirator (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Claiming as fact an ethnicity from that quote is synthesis. Period. Returning it may constitute disruptive editing. In order to claim a fact a citation must clearly STATE A FACT. This does not do that and is merely synthesizing the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do you need to listen? It's from VOA, they spoke to him, they quoted him, they have it on tape. The fact that you may not understand Arabic, does not mean it can't be used as a reference. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You still don't get it. The quote is “have to learn to demonstrate peacefully.” That's what's quoted as his words, nothing more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis - Where is the reference that says his ethnicity is Coptic? It does not say that specifically anywhere. It mentions his religion. Is it not "Synthesis" to state that is also his ethnicity as a fact when no one really knows? Should it not be removed?

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will look into your claim. If it has indeed been synthesized it will be removed, but this does not alter the fact that the reference you have shown is not supporting the claim of "Arab" as an ethnicity or that the figure is claiming such for himself.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Egypt is officially "The Arab Republic of Egypt", Egyptians by definition, are considered Arabs.--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, everyone in Israel is a Jew. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
From the source being used to reference the claim "Coptic" as an ethnicity[8]:

Nakoula told the AP he was a Coptic Christian.

The claim is supported by the reference. The reference meets all criteria for Reliable Sourcing. It is Michael Isikoff of NBC news, published on their official site, nbcnews.com and the article itself has direct context to the subject and article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That's for "religion." We had a specific source for Copt as ethnicity. It somehow got lost. I don't know what happened... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That is an ethnicity as another editor pointed out. Is being an "Arab' an ethnicity? I believe that is a point of contention with some editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

yeah, well... it becomes more and more difficult to assume that all this comes from someone who's just interested in getting the facts right. "He's an Arab, we all know what they do, he's Egyptian, and, gasp!, he was a Democrat to boot!!!" Just leave the ethnicity-slot blank then. Moving on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't look at me.....I agree with you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I know... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's interview with Voice of America's Radio Sawa in Arabic

If anyone knows Arabic, they should listen to gain insight for the article.

Article:

http://www.radiosawa.com/content/anti-islam-film-maker-talks-to-radio-sawa/211666.html

Audio interview:

http://realaudio.rferl.org/mbn/ENGL/manual/2012/09/14/63266f27-86d2-4aac-8f55-84a418c93e9b.mp3 --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wired details of his various adventures

Including his deal with the FBI in the bank freud case, a PCP making plot, and another conviction back in 1991.[9] --Niemti (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Also "Who is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?": http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/2012915181925528211.html --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo

So can we add a cropped image of [10] photo of him then? - 14:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.144.209 (talk)

I think so, try it. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

HEY GUYS LET'S BREAK COPYRIGHTS. WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG. --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we add this to external links section?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No. If it was taken out, I support that. What information does it help to clarify or inhance? It is only to visualy identify a controverisal figure to be singled out. Give a good reason and perhaps, but just asking to include it...I say no.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree. That's why I posted here first. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Closing as No Consensus. Clearly there is no consensus to merge and it is clear that there will be no consensus to merge, at least in the current discussion. I don't see any reason to prolong this any further, so I am going to be WP:BOLD and close this. Safiel (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD was closed as "keep", but suggested that this article may still be proposed for merger to Innocence of Muslims. Should Nakoula Basseley Nakoula be merged with Innocence of Muslims?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Do not merge - There's plenty of material and notability for a standalone article. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm kinda conflicted on this. Would the film article also describe his background such as his meth lab adventures? If yes, then yeah, I guess. Unless he gets prosecuted again (or killed), that is. --Niemti (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The film article does not need his biographical details, but they are helpful to understand his background and motivation for those interested in further reading. Jokestress (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    What is your opinion of the BLP concerns I've raised below? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    My opinion is that he is a limited public figure who has thrust himself to the forefront of a religious controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. He has therefore given up an expectation of privacy on numerous fronts, and his biography is in the public interest. That's why the attempt to delete it failed overwhelmingly. He fails items 2 and 3 at BLP1E's deletion criteria, as I discussed in the deletion discussion. Jokestress (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I support a merge per WP:BLP1E. I saw WP:ENTERTAINER cited, but I think WP:BLP1E triumphs that. I would not be opposed to paring merged content to what is actually relevant to the film, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NPF. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I'm not sure how much actual material we have on this subject. News sources have demonstrated unreliability here; IMHO they seem to be playing "herd-ball." The subject has zero notability except for alleged involvement with the film. Nothing has been proven, and nothing published prior to the controversy. We have a film that nobody's seen and a biographical subject which no RS has met in person. That both passed AfD says more about us than the page subjects under discussion. In my opinion, only the controversy is notable. BusterD (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    Per the sourcing in the article, the Associated Press had a lengthy in-person conversation with Nakoula at his residence, during which he showed them his ID and said he managed the production. Jokestress (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'll strike through part of my comment; I was aware of the AP story, but I still suspect he was a minor player (as contends the subject). This has smelled funny since the very beginning, and IMHO we're dealing with a lot of disinformation here. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Sole notability arises from the film - article itself is just BLP problem-fodder. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge because I feel it passes the third section of WP:BLP1E, which is what a merge would be based upon. The section reads: "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." The event is significant and his role within it is substantial. As far as I'm concerned, it's readily apparent that conditions are met. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This person is already far beyond BLP1E, not to mention future events that will definitively follow. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Google hits as of this moment are 192,000. Last night they were "only" 90,000. We're probably headed for a million and beyond. Every criterion has been met for WP:N in terms of WP:RS for WP:BIO. The AfD failed spectacularly. BLP1E does not apply because of the Hinckley Test. This must be retained as a separate article. Qworty (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge Notable only because of the film. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge - WP:BLP1E would seem to govern. I don't think the "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" exclusion applies here. The embassy storming might have been somewhat significant, but the movie was more of a footnote. NickCT (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2012 UTC)
  • Oppose merge. A merge at this time is premature. Let the important information come out first prior to considering a merge with the film. IP75 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge We just ended an AFD as Keep, don't go having the same discussion over again and insult those that commented the day before saying what they said is meaningless since we're just having a do-over. Seems like gaming the system to me. Also, they clearly pass WP:CREATIVE number 3, as I stated in the AFD. Dream Focus 23:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Creative-3 relates to a "feature-length film" which this isn't, by any stretch. So no, it doesn't pass that one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You misread it. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." They have made a significant or well-known work. It has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. See? It can be notable because someone wrote a book or a film about what they did, or it just got a lot of coverage in the newspaper as what happened here. Dream Focus 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely that guideline was intended to refer to film reviews and the like? Not reports of riots following distribution via YouTube! What a stretch, using the creative policies to refer to a political controversy about a piece of propaganda. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not know who you are directing your original comment at, but the closing administrator made it clear this may be proposed for merger. This is a new discussion for a completely different consensus to merge or not. Not for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, And thank you for accusing me of "Gaming the system". Kinda makes me understand your earlier comments about slander a little better.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Far too much information about the filmmaker, contextual and unrelated to the film, to include in the article about the film. Wikipedia welcomes articles about "related" topics if each has independent notability. Common practice allows separate articles on notable filmmakers AND articles on their notable films without different, albeit related, topics needing a merge. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's information about the man that is not pertinent to the film article but merits coverage. --JaGatalk 04:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This individual has done something that has affected events in multiple continents. It is one of the top news stories across print and internet media, so it's becoming a little difficult to classify it as a footnote. Anyone interested enough to read the wikipedia article about the film he made, will most likely want to read about the primary driving force behind its creation. That includes who, what, where, and why, and all the other details like religious and political information, criminal background, biography, etc.Isah.abedini (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The notability is borderline WP:BLP1E but there does seem to be an attempt less to create an article about the man and more to rake over criminal convictions. Not very savoury and a (much) shortened version of his prior life could easily fit into the film article. JASpencer (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. This page is about his biography, not about one of his films he has made. 178.84.161.69 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
support his notability is purely off the film. A subsection can add some minor details on his life otherwise.(Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)).
  • Oppose merge The man is getting profiled in papers around the world today (and in all likelihood will continue to be), and merging with the film article means losing a good chunk of what's here. Khazar2 (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - as BLP1E. All the "meth lab" information is irrelevant anyway and bordering on improper as currently done since it is not why he is known. Documenting for the sake of documenting isn't encyclopedic, and we are better off sticking to the relevant facts in a comprehensive yet concise article rather than creating these individual, laundry lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This person apparently has so much going on that he warrants his own biography. __meco (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Merge, In fact support compete deletion of this article based on WP:BLP violations which are rampant throughout the article. WP:BLP1E applies to Low profile individuals who are not seeking media attention. Obviously. See Wikipedia:LOWPROFILE. There is no proof that this person and the film are definitely connected. The individual has denied this several times. This article violates this person individual right to privacy and is a WP:BLP violation of the highest degree.--JOJ Hutton 14:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment. As time goes on, it becomes more apparent that this man Nakoula may just be a bit-player - the facility is owned by a Christian-right organisation in the US and the film appears to have been funded, planned and distributed by extreme-right Christians - possibly Nakoula is little more than a patsy. As so often in these cases, Wikipedia has jumped the gun and in the enthusiastic rush to cover the story, an article has been created that is of highly dubious notability. It may well disappear before too long - all the "oppose merger" votes here being therefore meaningless. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment If the "Hate promoter" warrants a separate page from their "hate product" then it should be so. As most have said, wait and see how things play out. Lastly, one man's "Hate Promoter" is another man's ... PeterWesco (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Merge (for now) if there is nothing more notable that happens with this person. Oppose if more content becomes available on him, and more things of note happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarethedrummer (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Merge. Subject isn't notable enough to get his own page yet. WP:CRYSTAL says the articles should be merged. Shashwat986 → talk 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. I'm good with each of them (movie and person) to have a separate article. Both meet notability requirements. ComputerJA (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Merge. Should everyone associated with this film be outted on Wikipedia? The subject is referred to as the alleged filmmaker... Will Wikipedia be used by the likes of Niemti and others who by their edits and heated statements seem to support the Fatwa against the filmmaker?This episode (the numerous BLP violations at this page) was/is an embarassment to the Wikipedia project.Balzacdeverlain (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)talk19 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments 1. Most minor films are merged into the director's article, not the other way around. 2. Wikipedia didn't "out" this director; it's been widely reported in the news and on blogs; we are just the messenger. 3. People who do notable actions, even the notorious, can still be notable, absent any exception, such as WP:ONEEVENT. 4. I don't object to a merger, I object to the way it's being suggested and debated. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I agree with Jokestress here: "he is a limited public figure who has thrust himself to the forefront of a religious controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. He has therefore given up an expectation of privacy on numerous fronts, and his biography is in the public interest." Bearian (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Two separate subjects, each notable. —Lowellian (reply) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge The creator of a movie is not the movie itself, if anything the article on the movie should not have a biography of its creator which is not part of the movie, his life is not part of the film, thus it wouldn't make sense, however had the movie article not passed GNG, which it does, it could have been merged into this article. I think we should keep these separate. Pluto and Beyond (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm starting to think merge is best. Sure he has references, but nothing more has come up. He's notable only for the film, and we're supposed to have an article on the thing the person is notable for, not the person, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merge One is a person the other a work of . . ..... something. Both article can stand as is, and I suspect that both will expanded as events unroll. Unravel. Whatever. Carptrash (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose Merging would destroy the flow of the bio article, the subject sparked worldwide outrage and deserves its own page. Under the criteria for merge, every criteria for merge falls flat and every criteria to oppose a move is met. The article is long and detailed enough that it needs to stay in its own article and not be referenced in the movie as some 'bio' just slapped on awkwardly. This isn't two paragraphs long after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose merge the video is not just 'Nakoula' and Nakoula is not just entirely the video. Bio of the person has a significance and he is not yet proved to be Sam Bacile (even so there is a significant amount of material that would be better covered in a separate article, than in the film itself). Again, the video has a lot of things on that which do not involve the maker directly. The unrest arose is not even targeting the maker! So, both are entirely different articles. » nafSadh did say 17:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
comment user Jokestress mentioned the notability factor here, and if his bio is notable and shall be kept on Wikipedia, the film's article is not the proper place. » nafSadh did say 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Sufficiently notable event to override WP:BLP1E. Lets make a judgement call people! Don't get hung up on policy. Also, there is sufficient info for a standalone article. Lets try and get this resolved so we don't have one of those ugly banners on a high profile article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nakoula's citizenship

The article lists Nakoula as Eqyptian American saying he immigrated and became a naturalized citizen, yet the source that is posted says nothing of the sort. Please list either real facts that show he is a naturalized citizen or remove that part from the article. 68.33.232.235 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)shiki

Really? That is interesting because I marked that line for [Citation needed] and it was immediatly stated that the info was in other references and the cited. I will check this out. If there is no actual statement I will simply remove the claim this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. The Nagourney piece in the NYTimes originally stated "Mr. Nakoula, who is an American citizen." [11] Then update seems to have removed it without a correction. "Bacile" said he was an American citizen, but he also said he was Jewish. He was born in Egypt according to numerous sources. [12] Jokestress (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There was a reference stating that he was a registered Democrat and then an Independent, so it sounds like he is a citizen. 72Dino (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
When you get a reliable source that makes the claim you may return it. Clearly this is being pushed for whatever reason beyond what sources say. Do not attempt to lift information or assume facts. All claims that are or may be disputed must have a reliable source that supports the claim being made. Thank you and happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Amadscientist. You can't assume he's a citizen. I looked at some of the court filings on the bank fraud, etc., and I don't know if these are deportable crimes like drug crimes are. But if he were a citizen that would explain why he's not been deported. He could also have alien resident status. That won't stop deportation for drug crimes but the other kind, I don't know. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A single convictions of a drug crime, one conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude within 5 years of entry and a sentence of a year or more in custody, or two convictions for CIMTs at any time after entry can all make an alien subject to removal (deportation). Unfortunately, federal probation reports are confidential; I suspect the issue of his citizenship or alien status would have been addressed. I have not seen any definitive statements from a government source as to his current nationality.Aguila (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would have insisted the {{Citation needed}} tag remain, but instead I have added the perhaps milder {{clarify}} with this reason: "none of the four cites at the end of this sentence support this claim as far as this editor could see; we really need qualification, precise quotes from cites, or more precise sources to avoid Synthesis, see Talk:Nakoula Basseley Nakoula#Nakoula's citizenship" - for some reason mediawiki causes a line break when brackets are used in the template. -84user (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
He appear to be a US citizen, as Nakoula was a registered Democrat from 2002-2008 before changing to independent. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is still extrapolating the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Only US citizens can vote, if he registered to vote, he must be a US citizen. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is consenus to exclude party affiliation. Besides that, you cannot lift information in this manner from sources. The source must state it implicitly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the uncited claim of nationality Egyptian-American with "unknown" because I have not found any reliable source for either nationality. However, I am still trawling various sources, including those in German and French, for any more information. -84user (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

One source that labeled Nakoula as American: [13] (German). Apart from that I find nothing. I also read the first 20 pages of this 2009 indictment and found no mention of nationality. I would not object to seeing the German source used as a cite, but other editors may be reluctant. -84user (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the nationality parameter from the infobox for the following reasons:
1. I believe it's clearly misleading to say his nationality is "unknown". Here are just a few of the many media outlets that call him an "Egyptian immigrant" NY Daily News, LA Times, and Wired, and the article now states he was born in Egypt, and now resides in the United States. In addition, the article says he is a Copt, a denomination which is native to Egypt - see, Christianity in Egypt.
2. Template:Infobox person says the nationality parameter, " Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace." I think that it can, birthplace is indicated in the infobox and well-sourced, and this is another reason the nationality parameter shouldn't be used in the infobox.
3. The purpose of an infobox Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Purpose of an infobox is to "summarize key facts in the article". Specific mention of "nationality" does not occur in the article, so it should not be in infobox.
For all these reasons, but mainly the first, ("unknown" is misleading), I'm removing the parameter from the infobox.--KeptSouth (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Federal Sentencing

I did a little chronological clean of the sentencing to release paragraph:

In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution.[3][18] According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams, Nakoula opened bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child,[2] and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs.[19] Nakoula had requested an Arabic interpreter be used during his criminal proceedings.[15] Nakoula was released from prison, on parole, in June 2011 and was ordered not to assume aliases and also not use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.[20][21] At the conclusion of his federal sentence, he was placed on federal probation and released from a halfway house a few weeks before he filmed Innocence of Muslims.[22]

How it was originally edited was not in the proper order of how a federal case plays out.

For lay people, the federal system works (in most cases): indictment -> conviction -> sentencing -> federal prison -> approved parole -> half way house -> sentence ends -> probation -> freedom.

It is a long process and there are stipulations at each step. So what was ordered when he was convicted is different from what comes at parole and then at probation.

Additionally, his indictment should probably be added to complete the entire cycle: "A federal grand jury indictment in February 2009 charged Nakoula in an alleged bank fraud conspiracy." PeterWesco (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the U.S. federal prison system, there is no "parole". Inmates typically may receive a maximum of 15% off the time of the sentence for good behavior. "Parole" is a concept still found in many state criminal justice systems. Article modified accordingly. Famspear (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Place of residence

The article states that he "currently lives in Cerritos, California". Multiple reliable sources have now reported that he is no longer living there, and is now in hiding at an undisclosed location. -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to past tense here. -84user (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Some actual new developments

  • He's a former priest, according to Coptic realigious leaders in the area and an "acolyte of" one Zakaria Botros Henein, a priest now thought to be a behind-the-scenes guy.

[14][15][16][17] etc.

--Niemti (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

I reverted a batch of edits tonight.

Diff: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=514271751&oldid=514143206

A good amount of data was removed, complete sentences reverted to fragments, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The massive revert was completely unjustified and mistaken
1. I did not remove "a good amount of data" -- I moved full cites to the references section per WP: LDR - which does not remove content. In ffact, the file sizes increased from 16,679 bytes to17,892, . Therefore PeterWescco's allegation of removal of "a good amount" of data is blatently false and mistaken.
see this edit
2. The same thing is true for that assertion that I introduced sentence fragments. That allegation is plainly false. The copy was more readable after my edits, and I did not introduce fragments.
see this edit
this edit
this edit
and this edit
3. I removed unused infobox fields (eg. death date, death place, alt), and a tiny bit of content regarding Nakoula's son, "The residence is also linked to Abanoub Basseley, his 21-year-old son, who paid the actors in Innocence of Muslims, that I didn't think was relevant to this bio, that was not sufficiently supported, and that presented BLP issues. That is all that was removed.
4. Because the reversion is unjustified, I will be restoring my edits. I will however, leave the info about the son for now. --KeptSouth (talk)
I am not going to get into an editing dispute. I appreciate the citation/ref cleanup as the refs were a nightmare to work around. PeterWesco (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, PeterWesco, I have added your signature above because you have made a hugely long reply, and I must interpose responses. I disagree completely with your comment about an editing dispute. It seems obvious that from all that you have posted below that you are, indeed, trying to get into an editing dispute. I changed only a few words in the edits that you massively removed with incorrect justification given, and accusations made against me. My edits mainly involved reformatting to list defined references - i.e. moving the full citations into the references section. You reverted all of those edits. If you "appreciate" the clean up, then your massive revert makes no sense. If you are interested in article improvement, then we should consider this matter settled. You made a mistake with the reverts. You made a mistake in characterizing my edits as removing "a good amount of data removed" and introducing "sentence fragments". We all make mistakes, and that should be the end of the matter. KeptSouth (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Continuing with PeterWesco's remarks ...
As to my particular concerns:
From the source: "Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County."
Article before your edit: "According to Associated Press, "Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems," including a $106,000 lien filed against him in 1997 and a $191,000 tax lien in 2006."
Your edit: According to Associated Press, "Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems"[1] The California State Board of Equalization put a lien on Nakoula's gas station, stating that he owed taxes, interest and penalties dating from 1989 to 1992.[2] A $106,000 lien was filed against him in 1997.[1] He filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 29, 2000.[8][5] The bankruptcy case was converted from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 on July 18, 2000, but was dismissed on October 27, 2000, for failure to make payments under the Chapter 13 plan.[9] A $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in 2006.[1] The Daily Beast reported that Nakoula was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1997 after being pulled over in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash;[2] he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.[3] He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation. According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney he violated probation in 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail.[7]
While your first sentence did initially strike me as sanitization, I can see where removing it could be justified by the fact that the article had yet to speak of the bank fraud charges. I do believe the original edit was better as it was in chronological order except for the grouping of the tax liens. Your edit moved the meth arrest (1997) to after the bankruptcy (2000).
Something like:
According to Associated Press, "Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems," which included a $106,000 lien filed against him in 1997 and a $191,000 tax lien in 2006.[1] Nakoula owned a gas station, against which the California State Board of Equalization put a lien, stating that he owed taxes, interest and penalties dating from 1989 to 1992.[2] The Daily Beast reported that Nakoula was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1997 after being pulled over in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash;[2] he was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.[3] He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation. He filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 29, 2000.[4][5] The bankruptcy case was converted from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 on July 18, 2000, but was dismissed on October 27, 2000, for failure to make payments under the Chapter 13 plan.[6] According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney he violated probation in 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail.[7]

PeterWesco (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, these unnecessary excerpts mischaracterize the changes I made. see this diff. Basically I put the civil issues (financial problems including liens and bankruptcies) in one paragraph in chronological order, the criminal convictions in another paragraph, each in chronological order. There is a sense in doing it this way--it makes it easier for the reader to understand. KeptSouth (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Continuing with PeterWesco's remarks ...
Revision #2

For much of the same reasons stated above:

Article before edit:
In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution.[10][11] According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams, Nakoula opened bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child,[12] and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs.[13] Nakoula had requested an Arabic interpreter be used during his criminal proceedings.[5] Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript for fraud shows that, after being arrested, he testified against alleged ring leader Eiad Salameh in exchange for a lighter sentence.[14][15][16][17] Nakoula was released from prison in June 2011 and was ordered not to assume aliases and also not use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.[18][19] At the conclusion of his federal sentence, he was placed on federal probation and released from a halfway house a few weeks before he filmed Innocence of Muslims.[20]
Your edit:
In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams, Nakoula had opened bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child,[2] and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs.[17] Nakoula requested an Arabic interpreter be used during his criminal proceedings.[18] Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript for fraud shows that, after being arrested, he testified against alleged ring leader Eiad Salameh in exchange for a lighter sentence.[19][20][21][22] He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution.[3][23] He was sent to federal prison then to a halfway house.[24] He was released from detention in June 2011, and placed on probation and ordered not to assume aliases or use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.[25][26] A few weeks later, he filmed Innocence of Muslims.[24]
I will agree it was not perfect before the edit... I think this might be better: (EDITED ON 22:40, 24 September 2012 BY PETER WESCO - I PASTED THE WRONG COPY)
In 2010, Nakoula pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California. He and was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, 5 years of probation, and ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution.[10][11] According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams, Nakoula had opened bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a 6-year-old child,[12] and deposited checks from those accounts to withdraw at ATMs.[21] Nakoula requested an Arabic interpreter be used during his criminal proceedings.[5] Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript for fraud shows that, after being arrested, he testified against alleged ring leader Eiad Salameh in exchange for a lighter sentence.[22][23][24][25] He was release from prison in September 2010 and, as stipulated in his sentence, was sent to a community corrections center|halfway house for the first 6 months of his probation. While on probation, Nakoula was ordered not to assume aliases and also not use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.[18][19] He was released from detention in June 2011 and, a few weeks later, he filmed Innocence of Muslims.

PeterWesco (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, PeterWesco. It seems to me you are proposing another reversion. Regarding the change I made:
What I did was simply to arrange the sentences in this order:
1. the type of crime he pleaded to (bank fraud)
2. the specific charges (identity theft, check kiting)
3. how he got a lighter sentence
4. what his sentence consisted of (fine, jail time, etc.
What you are saying is that you think this order is preferable
1. the type of crime he pleaded to (bank fraud)
4. what his sentence consisted of (fine, jail time, etc.
2. the specific charges (identity theft, check kiting)
3. how he got a lighter sentence
plus additional details on exactly when he went to the halfway house, and a synonym for halfway house.
I don't know what to say, except it's basically a reversion to the earlier version, and doesn't seem to flow as well. It is not the kind of change I would insist on, so it puzzles me that you are so intent on these reversions and seemingly so intent on resisting changes to the article. But one thing is clear, I have been unable to use my time to continue improving the article, but rather, have had to counter baseless claims here on the talk page, and manually restore unjustified reversions. Of course, maybe that's the point of it all.KeptSouth (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula's partner in crime

Nakoula testified against an alleged ring leader of the fraud scheme, Eiad Salameh. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/nakoula-cooperation-756920

Eiad Salameh is a Palestinian Muslim from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. He is also Walid Shoebat's first cousin. This gives a lot of insight on who Nakoula is.

http://nation.foxnews.com/muslim-video/2012/09/26/analyst-innocence-muslims-film-actually-made-terrorists#ixzz27iUh27cB http://frontpagemag.com/2012/walid-shoebat/the-film-innocence-of-muslims-made-by-terrorists/

http://www.shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Anti_Muhammad_Film_Terrorism_092412.pdf

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding this info to the article, including the name, is a violation of BLP. Many arguments can be made other than the BLP violations, and several BLP violations can be cited, but I will just highlight a few because it is clear this material should be removed immediately. First, he is at most an "alleged ring leader", and there is no evidence he was ever prosecuted. Second, there are relevancy and cherry picking issues. Third, Shoebat's blog and his opinion column are not RSs. To quote the very strong and definite BLP policy: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to... Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR)." I could argue that none of the 3 core requirements are met, but it is most clear that V is not met. The material is poorly sourced and requires removal. In addition, the Wikipedia Presumption in favor of privacy is violated-- in general and also in particular, seeWP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLPNAME. I have only touched on some of the many reasons to remove and keep this info out of the article; but WP:BLP violation of V is more than enough.--KeptSouth (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am also refactoring the heading here for violation of BLP policies which apply to article TALK pages also.--KeptSouth (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It is all in the public record about Salameh from Nakoula’s Federal Government June 2010 sentencing transcript.
Since it is released from the US goverment I would argue that it is a Neutral point of view (NPOV), It is Verified (V) and it is not original research (NOR)
As a result of Nakoula’s cooperation, Henderson told Judge Christina Snyder, “We all know what's gonna happen. Salameh is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over, he is gonna enter a guilty plea or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is gonna be called on to testify at trial.” http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/nakoula-transcript?page=5 --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
There are about a dozen reasons to keep this material out. I've already listed sufficient reasons above. Here are a few more: Context matters. Per WP:RS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made". Statements made by Nakoula's lawyer aren't RSs in this context -- i.e. to determine whether someone else was a ring leader. Better yet, WP:BLPPRIMARY, says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Therefore, it is misuse of a primary source to use the sentencing transcript. --KeptSouth (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above issues outlined by KeptSouth. I am also opposed to the inclusion of information or names of any other living persons based on statements or testimony by Nakoula due to his complete lack of credibility. His record of criminal convictions, history of making false statements and the following quotes from his probation hearing support my position:

"In arguing that Nakoula is a possible flight risk, Dugdale said Nakoula couldn't even reveal something as fundamental as his real name." "Procecutors told Segal Nakoula was a man who “simply cannot be trusted” and whose deceptions had caused “real harm.”

"Citing a lengthy pattern of deception and the potential to flee, U.S. Central District Chief Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal ordered Nakoula to remain in prison without bond..." "Segal said Nakoula posed "some danger to the community" and had lied to probation officials." "The court has a lack of trust in this defendant at this time."

The Wall Street Journal's initial article which included false statements by Nakoula, outraged and offended many people and they later published the following correction:

"Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this article included claims by the person who identified himself as Sam Bacile that he is an Israeli-American and that he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors to fund the film. Those claims weren't confirmed and should not have been included in the article. In addition, the article has been updated to note that the name used by the person appears to be a pseudonym, based on subsequent reporting."

I also feel that statments Nakoula has made about himself should be viewed with skepticism and treated conservatively IP75 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Shoebat: The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists

Shoebat appeared on the America Morning radio newscast which is pretty much a RS mainstream news source as well as Frontpage. To leave this out is just an attempt to censor this information to maintain the definitely unreliable information provided by the filmmaker about his intent. Shoebat is a much more reliable source than anybody in the mainstream media who do not touch the notion that the video was merely a setup by Arabs and muslim sympathizers to create an artificial fake outrage. He has a pdf Bachcell (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC

Daily Mail

.02 cents I saw that a Daily Mail ref was removed and stated as an unreliable source. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_85#Unite_Against_Fascism_and_The_Times_et_al WP:NEWSORG No such, official, determination has ever been made... that I can find. I see Daily Mail cited frequently and if it has been determined to be unreliable I would like to know. PeterWesco (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at external links, dailymail.co.uk is ref'd 10's of thousands of times. Possibly, 100's of thousands of times, but I don't think it is necessary to click through all of the pages. PeterWesco (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is apparently the reference to the Daily Mail that is of concern to you. [18] My edit summaries state: "Daily Mail is not a Reliable Source, and the article does not say this --> removed Daily Mail, rephrased per what RSs say, summary style)", and "update, replace Daily Mail info w/ RS, remove outdated qualification of "anonymous" source)" In this case, there were factual errors - the DM's portrayal of the story contained errors and the DM article did not support what the Wikipedia text was saying, so I made appropriate corrections.
I agree that from the link you give, it seems there hasn't been an "official, determination" that DM is not a RS. However, the preponderance of the discussions you reference do agree that it's not reliable. So to sum up, I am surprised that you are objecting to the edits because they were justified for other reasons and Daily Mail article itself contains factual errors. Would a different term, one other than "RS" be more acceptable to you? Perhaps you could propose a category or term for such sources, such as DS for dubious sources? Or, how about FBNAURS, for frequently-but-not-always-unreliable sources. The place for such sources is frequently the EL section, by the way, but I don't think there is a term for them yet...--KeptSouth (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the edit, I was curious about Daily Mail in general. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not entirely up-to-date on what is (today) an RS or not. I have seen a lot of "DS" sources used, consistently, in other articles and the process for identifying DS/FBNAURS seems to subjective/good faith/non-inclusive/non-official/etc. Thanks for the explanation. PeterWesco (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article should be moved to Mark Basseley Youssef, with redirect

Today the U.S. Attorney requested that the name of the criminal case be changed from U.S.A. v. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to U.S.A. v. Mark Basseley Youssef, because the latter is his true legal name. Here's an excerpt from the request (docket No. 63):

As alleged by the United States Probation Office, on or about October 1, 2002, defendant filed a motion in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, case number A215011, in which he requested that his true legal name be changed from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to Mark Basseley Youssef, and an order changing defendant's name to Mark Basseley Youssef was issued as a result of this motion. Notwithstanding this fact, defendant represented to this Court in connection with his underlying criminal case that his true legal name was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula; to date, he has used the Nakoula identity on all documentation provided to this Court and to the Probation during the entirety of his term on supervised release; and he simultaneously possessed identification in this name, as well as the Youssef identity, while on supervised release, in violation of his conditions of supervised release.
... Chief Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered the government to file this request ... Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that future pleadings in this case be captioned to refer to defendant by his true legal name, Mark Basseley Youssef ...

I expect that in the next couple weeks, the major news media will follow the court's lead and switch to primarily referring to him as Youssef (while still frequently mentioning the Bacile and Nakoula aliases). 173.228.127.23 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles are titled by their common or known name. Currently, a google search of "Nakoula Basseley Nakoula" yields 27,000,000 results. Until "Mark Basseley Youssef" becomes more known, the name should be directed here. IP75 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with IP 23 and IP75 that title should remain in the commonly known name, which in my view will likely always be NBN. There is already a redirect from Mark Basseley Youssef, so readers will not have any trouble finding this article. Also of note: the court actually ordered another hearing on what his legal name should be. KeptSouth (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula/Archive_1&oldid=1142772232"