Talk:Syriana

message: Just got a little overzealous here. I'll try not to let it happen again. →Dyl@n620 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sorry for what just happened 

message: *Hollywood Has a New Hot Agency
*A Half-Dozen Ways to Watch the Same Movie
*"So, You Ever Kill Anybody?"
*Tracks of Terrorism
*Syriana, Staccato Style
*Syriana under fire over plagiarism
*Syriana plagiarism case dismissed
*Interview: Stephen Gaghan, director and writer of Syriana
*Interview: Stephen Gaghan, Writer-Director of Syriana, Part Two.
-to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assassination Storyline 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible OR 

message: 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)
replies: text: The question is whether Muhammad Sheikh Agiza is a cleric.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Second third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, that's fair enough.  Thank you for your comment and suggestion The new mr (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Declining third third opinion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Syriana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121200016/http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/turan/cl-et-syriana23nov23,0,7214793.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/turan/cl-et-syriana23nov23,0,7214793.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929110442/http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2006/03/04/story247617.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2006/03/04/story247617.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should Amr Waked's character be defined a cleric? The new mr (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC about the status of Amr Waked's character as a cleric 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion