Talk:A Prophet

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance). Film: French This article is supported by the French cinema task force. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Other four films in the category were Ajami, El secreto de sus ojos, The Milk of Sorrow and The White Ribbon.[7]" -- Is this supposed to be "The Other four films in the category were Ajami, El secreto de sus ojos, The Milk of Sorrow and The White Ribbon.[7]"? Kdammers (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This plot summary is too long but according to wp:plot it is better to have summary that is too long than a version that is missing information. Remember wikipedia requires a plot section not an overview69.253.185.154 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one. Excessively detailed plot summaries may also infringe on copyright and fair-use concerns. from

WP:PLOTSUM. Geoff B (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Response While I do feel that this plot section is WAY to detailed. Initially, I was confused regarding several plot elements in the film and was looking for a full Plot Summary of the film. I was unable to since wikipedia is practically the only source on the internet that gives complete plot summaries. Confused, I literally watched the movie 3 times and wrote this summary which took over 5 hours to help others who were confused. This does not meet WP:PLOTSUM, however WP:PLOTSUM also emphasizes that there should be a plot summary for every article. The version you reverted to was not a summary it is merely an overview.

What I am proposing is that in we should work to cut out the cruft in this summary without leaving details vital to the story. We can easily bring this version down to the 700 word requirement. However, I do feel that this version, in its current form, is still more proper than simply removing the summary entirely. Please help me write a better version, I was hoping you could reduce the text this week. If not ill do it next week, but I've already spent 5 hours on this and was hoping someone else could take the helm. Valoem ^talk 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary is an overview. See the definition. Per WP:PLOTSUM, the shorter version is better. Your confusion over the film is no reason to have an overlong summary. Geoff B (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct length of a summary is 400 to 700 words. 135 words is inadequate. In this case, I've got it at about 500 words by focusing on the three main characters. It's a good summary and touches on the main plot points. The film is not intricately plotted so I don't see the need to go beyond this level of detail. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Cinema I do thank you for you hard work in this article, however the current version (a revised version of your sumary) is better due to incorrect information.

Firstly, Ryed was NOT kidnapped that is incorrect. Secondly per WP:Plotsum summary should contain just the key details and spoilers. The vision Malik has is the most important aspect of the movie hence the title A Prophet. Also this version contains key details of the relationship between Luciani and the Lingharris which should also be included. Lastly, it needs to be stated that Malik is illiterate in the beginning. Valoem ^talk 14:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version I wrote contains all the key details (including his growing literacy). In this case, I think 500 words is about right. No need to push the limit for a relatively simple story. Of course it's always possible to add more details, but that's what I'm trying to avoid by sticking to the three main characters. Sorry to disappoint, Valoem, but your version is cluttered, bloated, and sometimes inaccurate. If the version I wrote contains an error, please correct that. Let's leave out the extraneous bits and stick to the three main characters. Thanks for your interest. I'm sure you share with me an admiration for the film and a desire that the article be a good one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, I don't think you have support for your extended summary. Please be kind enough to honor the sentiment expressed that your plot summary is too long and detailed. And again I thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT DISCUSSION I highly recommend rewatching the film again it seems you have a huge misunderstanding of the film, which is ironic because you stated that the plot is fairly striaght forward when in fact it is not. I watched the film 3 times. Your verions is incorrect. The boss is not Vettori this is a huge mistake on your part on top of other things in your version. The boss is Jacky Marcaggi. Please do not revert since your version has incorrect information and missed details please lets put our egos behind. I know everyone like to promote their version, but if you are to revert please contact Geoff B as he is a neutral third party. We are both experienced editors no need to engage in edit war. Valoem ^talk 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Is it essential that the plot summary include the prophetic incident? Good topic for discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, I'd like to invite you to start the discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem suggests that the plot summary is incomplete without "key details of the relationship between Luciani and the Lingharris." I don't agree because Malik's story can be told without it, but I'm open to a discussion of the point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentenced to six years in a

. Malik attempts to survive by remaining invisible to all sides.

Luciani along with his right hand man, Vettori, thinks little of

, is now fluent, along with fluency in Arabic and French, making him useful to Luciani. Good behavior allows Malik furloughs, day long leaves from prison, so Malik can conduct business for Luciani on the outside. Malik becomes more reliable than even the gang’s longtime attorney, Sampierro.

Ryad, a Muslim friend, teaches Malik to read and write and is the only friend Malik can trust. Ryad exposes Malik to his own heritage allowing him to meet two other Muslims, Tarik and Hassan, and increase his power within the prison. Through Ryad, Malik also becomes entwined with the prison drug dealer, Jordi. Jordi's men were able to hide 25 kilos of hashish prior to their arrest and along with Ryad's early release the three are given the chance to run drugs into the prison together.

However, things are complicated when Ryad is robbed and kidnapped by a drug dealer known as Latif. Malik threatens Latif's family and Ryed is returned, but is dying when his testicular cancer returns from remission. Malik becomes an intimate of the family, dining at home with his wife and playing with his infant son.

Although Luciani tries to rule Malik by intimidation, he loses his sway. When Luciani learns that Malik is using his day leaves and prison protection to supply drugs he attacks him, despite Malik loyalty to the Corsican. Along with constant harassment by other members of the Corsican mafia, Malik decides on revenge.

Prior to Malik's second furlough, he has a vision of deer crossing a road in his dreams. Malik is sent to meet Brahim Lattrache in Marseille, another Muslim, who is involved in the secret deal between Luciani and the Lingherris, an

group. Here it is discovered that there is a mole the Corsican mafia and that Lattrache is bitter over the death of his friend Reyeb. Malik is held at gunpoint when his vision comes true and their vehicle collides with a deer, causing Lattrache to believe Malik is a prophet. Malik makes a deal with Lattrache and discovers that he can intimidate Latif, allowing the drugs to be returned to Ryad.

Sampierro informs Luciani that Jacky Marcaggi, the Don of the Corsican mafia, is secretly dealing with the Lingherris as well and is attempting to uncover the mole himself. With no one to turn to Luciani sends Malik to meet Vettori in order to assassinate Marcaggi and eventually the Lingherris. Ryad is an eager accomplice, since he sees no other way to leave something for his family.

The drug runners refuse to be involved, so the two friends have to go ahead on their own. Malik doublecrosses Vettori on the day of the hit and knocks him unconscious. Malik attacks and kills Marcaggi’s bodyguards when he sees an opening, drags the boss back to his car, and finally leaves him in the care of Vettori.

Upon Malik’s next appearance in the prison yard, he takes his place among the Muslim group he has cultivated and stands under their protection. When Luciani tries to approach him for an explanation, he is violently refused.

Ryad is dead when Malik's sentence ends, but his wife and son meet him. She invites him to take her son’s bedroom and he walks with them to the bus stop, followed by a coterie of Arab protectors.

Reverting to this version I believe that when it comes to this film, I am more knowledgable and I mean this in no offense Ring Cinema, I am sure there are many other films that you understand better than me. Your version contained many errors, I also feel that my more detail version also passes WP:PLOTSUM. Please discuss why your version is better.

I also believe there is a conflict of interest here as the self-promotion of each editor's own version. I believe we should revert to my version until otherwise please discuss.Valoem ^talk 14:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version has already been rejected by other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the current version of the plot summary has plot holes. For example:

Although Luciani tries to rule Malik by intimidation, he loses his sway. Even when the chief learns that his subordinate is using his day leave and prison protection to supply drugs, the punishment is temporary. Luciani has no one else he can trust to carry out a hit on his own boss, Jacki Marcaggi. Ryad becomes Malik's eager accomplice, since he sees no other way to leave something for his family.

Why does Luciani order a hit on his own boss? This needs to be explained and only the version above explains it.

A summary is not going to explain all motivations. This perhaps explains why you can't get the summary right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly

Malik doublecrosses Luciani’s henchman on the day of the hit, but the operation turns into a chase when Vettori’s car changes its routine.

That is incorrect.

No, that is correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vettori’s car you mean Marcaggi. Valoem ^talk 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly you wrote

Undid revision 382480122 by Valoem (talk) if you'd like to change this version, please take it to discussion. Thanks.

Why does your version stand? Since your version has inconsistencies it should be my version that stands you must justify your version. Valoem ^talk 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious grammar weirdness in that. Millahnna (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that, I am working on it right now before the restore.Valoem ^talk 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Check for sentence fragments and run on sentences; those are the two biggest things that catch my eye and, in my experience, sometimes the hardest to fix easily. Trying to cobble a whole sentence together out of a fragment can be weird if you're not sure what the intent of the writer was. Since what you have isn't too terribly long, I'm holding off judgment on which I prefer until you're done. I figure, worst case scenario, we can kind of merge the current text with your text if we need to. I agree with Ring that some of your details aren't strictly needed but since you say our current text might be confusing I'm willing to take a look see as long as we can keep the length manageable. Millahnna (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem is seriously mistaken. Don't believe his criticism, since it's hopelessly misplaced. In fact, he didn't even read my summary before he jumped in with his self serving accusations. For the record, there are NO inconsistencies. My edit is a complete summary of the film's main points, without the unfortunate bloat and inferior style of Valoem's already rejected edit. We'll stick with mine for now and let Valoem make his case here on the discussion page where he can make a good contribution. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's bad faith there. Here is your original version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Prophet&oldid=382412980

Why are hiding the fact that I contributed heavily to your incorrect version. You stated that Ryed was kidnapped when in fact he was not. You do not make mention of Malik's illiteracy, there is no set up as to why Luciani wants to kill Marcaggi. In fact you did not even mention Marcaggi, you incorrectly stated him as Vettori. Therefore I havent proven myself more knowledgable on this topic. This is clearly a case of ego with you, I am the one actually trying to create a stronger article. Valoem ^talk 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bad faith on my part. If there's an error in my version, please feel free to correct it. I'm grateful to you for your effort to make the article as good as possible. Please continue in that spirit. It just so happens my idea of how to organize the plot summary happens to work a little better to keep the clutter out and I'd like your support on that, too. Not really such a big deal. I'm just looking for a good way to narrow the plot to its essentials. It seems that a focus on the three main characters and their evolving relationship is the best way. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your version has already been rejected, and for good reason. I've simplified the summary so it fits nicely within the guidelines. That's what we're trying to do. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something incorrect in my version, please feel free to correct it. I don't think you're correct about all your objections and I have to observe that you didn't read the current edit very well. However, I'm interested in nothing but making the article as good as possible.

Your version has already been rejected. We are not going to be able to explain everyone's motives for everything they do in the film. That's unreasonable and probably explains why your edit was rejected by more than one editor for length, bloat, excess detail.

I am offering a way to organize the material properly for a summary. Let's do our best to make it as good as possible. If you think your expertise on the film itself is of a high order, please share that. But that doesn't mean you'll have the best idea about how to organize the material in the summary, and there I think I have offered a good place to start. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I'm trying to do. Who has rejected my version? That kind of talk is the egocentric behavior that destroys Wikipedia. It seems you are bent on maintain your version due to ego. There is nothing wrong with my version and you have not point out one error. We should included as much detail as long as it is within 700 words.

Also I have updated the grammical errors. Please advise. Valoem ^talk 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we know, Valoem, your version was taken down for length. I think it's very dishonest of you to attempt to deny that. I think it would be best if you simply accept that my organization of the material works better than yours. However, I would value your contribution to an edit of the current version. If we stick to the three main characters we will have an excellent summary of the film's main action. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No actually its very dishonest of you to accuse me of that. My version is within 700 character there are no problems here. If you are talking about my original version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Prophet&oldid=379978615

That is a different story. I was editing this article long before you were. That version is too long and I made no attempts to revert it when Geoff stated correctly that it does not meet WP:PLOTSUM. However I since my current version, which is based off your version, is within the limits, its details are appropriate and necessary to the summary. I believe the general consensus favors my current version now. I will restore if there are no objections. Valoem ^talk 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am doing the revert now since there are no objections. Also please see Manual of Style:

Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section.

According to this my version is stronger because it includes key points vital to the story such motives for Malik's betray (the key point of the movie) which is not explained in the current version. I have updated the grammical please correct any issues. Thanks for the help:) Valoem ^talk 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there are objections now and there have been in the past. I strongly advise you to edit the current version. You're letting something cloud your judgment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting to your version and I retain the right to revert if no other editors reject my version. You and I are in a edit dispute so you opinion is obviously bias. Therefore only a third party member can object to my version. Thank you. Valoem ^talk 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I was going to ask both Ring and V; would you two mind if I played with both versions of the text to see if I could make a nice seemless merge? I have a little bit of professional experience doing that sort of thing (e.g. "take these two training documents written ten years apart and mix them together") so I feel like I might be able to pull it off. If neither of you is opposed to that idea, I have some questions and observations. I already know from reading above what each of you doesn't like about the other version, so I want to make sure I understand what you are each attached to about the version you are advocating.

• Ring, it seems that the most critical element of the current plot for you is the structure and limiting the character focus (as this helps limit length). Would you say that is correct? Are there any other main issues about the current plot that you want to see kept? I'm also gathering that your assessment of this particular story is that it is not complicated enough to warrant using the full 700 words we're given in the guidelines.

• V, what are the plot elements that you feel are being glossed over the most? I understand the reason for the betrayal is a big one for you; are there any others? In particular I'm interested in anything you think is confusing because it is left out. We frequently have to leave side plot stuff out of film plots to get the gist of the main story across, but sometimes this causes more confusion and I'm getting that this is what you feel is happening here.

There's a good chance that when I re-read both versions I'll guess these answers for myself. But I'd rather hear it from each of you directly to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. Then, if you're both amenable to me trying this, I'll dump both versions in my sandbox and see what I can come up with. I think both of you are advocating some valid points so it seems to me that a hybrid of your efforts is the way to go. Since the site is, at large, about collaborative writing, that only makes sense. Let me know if you're both down for this and give me some brief feedback to go on and I'll take a whack at it. Millahnna (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have anyone edit who offers good edits. The betrayal is a side issue, though, not the main thread of the plot. You can tell the story without it. If we stick to Malik's relationship to Luciani and Ryad we'll have a good summary. I'm sure there are other ways to get the job done and I'm good with all the good edits, but I haven't seen anything to suggest the current draft is missing something essential. I asked for discussion above on the other issues and I haven't seen any reasons offered that suggest this approach is wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your vastly misunderstanding PLOTSUM. You can include as much detail as you want as long as it doesnt go over the length and doesnt undermine the meaning of the film. If my version went over the 700 char limit then you win, however my version is still short and leaves a lot of detail out. I dont see what your problem is. Valoem ^talk 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a bit of a misunderstanding itself. It's not that we can include as much detail as we want as long as it stays under 700. It's more that for most films, 400 - 700 is going to be about right. There are exceptions where you need to go over that 700 and there are exceptions where 500 is way too many. I tend to think of the plot section not being so much about "how many details can I get in under the word limit" so much as "how many details do I need to give the best overall view of the story." Personally, I've worked on plots that have gone to both extremes and everything in between. The Crazies needed 500 tops; anything more is way too much detail even if it comes under 700, because there just isn't really lot to that storyline. Shutter Island was much trickier and came out longer because the storyline had twists and turns and hints leading up to them (and picking which twists we needed was a lot of head bashing, let me tell ya). Right now I don't have a solid estimate on how long this one will be; instinct tells me it's going to be a hair longer than Ring's and shorter than V's but I'm only guessing. I do see some sentences that can be cleaned up a smidge for readability that will probably free up some length. But I'm about to go plug away at it so I'll get back to you both. Millahnna (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response That's what confuses me. Both are version pass WP:PLOTSUM and Manual of Style. The thing is my version is his version as well. My version is merely an updated version based on what he wrote. It passes the 700 word summary and is slightly longer after I added information regarding the kidnap. What I want is pulled directly from plotsum. There is nothing wrong with my version if you look at it. I think his version is missing key details vital to the summary. Motives are hugely important to the summary, according to PLOTSUM the summary should not cut anything vital to understanding the ending. His version leaves people guessing the character of Malik and excatly why everything happened.

Malik loyal and trustworthy yet in Ring's version Malik is portrayed as a traitor. There is no information regarding the prophic version (This movie is title A Prophet), it doesnt explain why Luciani needs Malik to kill Jacky, and it doesnt explain the reason for the betrayal. This is a story about an innocent boy creating his own network to overthrow a vicious and brutal boss. How does he do it?

He creates a network through drug smuggling, he sees an opening when he discovers that Luciani is the mole, his prophic vision causes to strike. All these are vital scenes in the film that allow for interpretations of the film. The question isn't what Ring or I want, it's whats wrong with my version. It includes all the necessary details and isnt too long. I think Ring's version is missing key detail to understanding change and growth in the character. I've explain what I feel is wrong about his version, now what is wrong with mine? Ring keeps saying that my version is too long, but it is not. Valoem ^talk 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have a response from both of you. I'm going review the previous discussion and start poking around at what I put in my sandbox. I think that since V based his (her?) version on Ring's version it should be pretty easy to make something that's as concise as Ring is looking for and includes the elements that V finds lacking. When I have something completed I'll drop it in and see what you guys think. Millahnna (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for mediating, question, do you see anything particularly wrong with my version? If not there is no harm if you actually agree with my version without any need to edit. It seem Ring will not stop reverting ill let him have this one, since he is showing a tremendous bias. Valoem ^talk 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective both versions have some issues purely in terms of how the text flows. I think that if we can clean that up a bit, there will be more room to get the details you feel are critical in there while still addressing Ring's length concerns and without going into original research or unneeded detail territory. In the meantime, I personally don't have a preference for which is in there. Honestly, my suggestion would be for both of you to take a step back and go edit some other articles for a bit and then come back to this one when I update it (give me 12-24 hours); we'll see where we all want to go from there. I'll drop a tag on the article about the section getting a revamp and then we can all revisit it tomorrow. You're both very passionate and it's getting heated which means neither of you is communicating at your best, most likely (and I ramble which doesn't help at all). I think this summary will be at its best when we can all plug away at it tomorrow. Of all of the summaries I've worked on, the one I'm proudest of is Shutter Island; it is a serious hybrid of text between myself, uKer, and a third party (who's name I'm blanking on), in addition to many smaller additions by a handful of other editors. It took a metric crapload of communication and nearly broke out in some serious sore feelings with uKer and I (which was totally my fault). There's a few plots floating around the site that are predominantly my own text. But when a real life friend wants to see what I've been up to on Wiki, Shutter Island is the one I point them to. It's what Wiki is all about. Millahnna (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if you have seen the film it is apparent that the film is quite complicated around the same complexity of The Secret in Their Eyes which IMO is a very strong and solid plot summary. Many sub plots lead up to the plot in A Prophet many of which I did not include in my version. I believe that the prophetic vision and the deal with Lattrache is key to understanding the conclusion of the film. Luciani's vicious behavior toward Malik motivates Malik's betrayal I think as along as those three things are included in the plot then we have a strong summary. Valoem ^talk 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second Millahnna's suggestion. Ring Cinema and Valoem (and myself) forgo editing the article for a few days, see what Millahnna does with it, come back, and make suggestions and definitely not resume the edit war. Geoff B (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see Millahanna's suggestions, as I've asked repeatedly for meaningful discussion on the issues involved. Unfortunately, the view that we know what motivates Malik's betrayal is dubious. We should stay away from that kind of OR, since it's a disputed topic. The prophetic vision is not an important plot point, so that should be taken up in analysis of the film. The deal with Lattrache is, again, of questionable importance, and I note that no one has responded to my invitation to explain why it's essential to an understanding of the plot. So those issues will have to be discussed without prejudging them. I've tried to invite that discussion several times and look forward to it in the future with anyone who is ready for it. A good plot summary tells what happens in the film. Let's stick to that and leave the analysis to the analysts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's coming along but real life reared its ugly head and I didn't finish on the time table I'd originally anticipated. I have a sudden business trip that sort of sprung up on me so I'm in the middle of preparations to leave early next week. I'll have my efforts completed and drop them in place before I leave so that you guys can pick over them. Millahnna (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM, as the kids on the internet say. I suggest when Milahnna's edit happens, we look at it and talk over any edits first, rather than get into the back and forth again. Pick out a particular sentence/piece of text, suggest the change you want to make, and then explain why here on the talk page. That keeps everything cool and civilised. Geoff B (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gah...I'm sorry guys. I finished it and dropped it into the plot section back in September before my trip and must have closed the tab without saving. Totally didn't mean to leave you guys hanging. I didn't save the work but it shouldn't take me too long to work it back up again. For whatever it's worth, I was able to do quite a trim on the existing plot by cleaning up some awkward grammar bits, which allowed the inclusion of more details. I haven't seen the film itself in a while though so I do have a question; North African or Arab? I tried verifying this through reviews but I noticed that critics vacillated between the two. My inclination is to go with North African since I do remember that but don't remember if Arab was specifically noted for the lead. Anyone have a better recollection than me on this one? Millahnna (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to drop a reminder on your talk page and then thought, no, it takes as long as it takes.  :-) IIRC France has a significant Algerian minority (hence the North African) but Algerians are mostly Arabic in ethnicity and language. It's never stated in the film what ethnicity/nationality most of the characters are, apart from the Egyptian. Geoff B (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a new draft any more. If you have any ideas about how to improve the current draft, naturally they're welcome. This summary seems to do the job rather well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering restoring my text due to better detail and approval from Millahnna who suggested that both version look good. I have been very patient. The current unchange version is lacking in vital details such as character names and can lead to confusion especially in regard to drug running. Valoem ^talk 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt to see your and/or Milahnna's version here on the talk page. I think it would be nice to put our heads otgether and get the best possible section. Geoff B (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been trying really hard to redo this for this page but time constraints (I've had a metric crap-ton of job interviews) have me stuck being unable to complete the larger wiki projects I've been wanting to work on. So I'm just going to be blunt, in the hopes that being more direct about what's wrong with the plots will prod someone to fix what I don't seem to have time to. I'd like to say in advance that if I sound rude it is not at all my intention. I know tone can be hard to interpret in print. So without further ado...

Both versions of the plot proposed right now are plagued with really bad grammar problems and that is where the bulk of the length is coming from. Take the first sentence for example:

Malik El Djebena (Tahar Rahim), nineteen years old, French of North African descent, is sentenced to six years in prison for attacking police officers.

His specific age is unimportant. That he is French is, to my mind, assumed given the French locale of the film (but I'm not super picky about this point). And that series of clauses separated by commas is really, really awkward. I know when I rewrote this sentence it came out something like:

Malik El Djebena, a young petty criminal of North African descent, is sentenced to six years in prison for attacking police officers.

Stuff like this is rampant throughout both versions of the plot. If it's cleaned up, there is plenty of room for the details that V wants that aren't POV/interpretative. When I did this before and lost my changes due to being an idiot who closed the browser before the page was done reloading, I was able to get all of V's details in (again, minus one or two that I felt were interpretative) and keep the whole thing to about 600 words. There are also plenty of details that are unimportant:

and enlists him to make coffee and play cards with his gang Who cares? That he's under their protection is the point. A hostage swap, a casino negotiation – he becomes more reliable than even the gang’s longtime attorney. The previous sentences explained that Malik helps are more than sufficient. I can see keeping the bit about the attorney but that's it.

I hope this helps and I hope that I will be able to get to this item on my to do list at some point. Millahnna (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question about Malik's reasons for turning on Luciani. The film itself does not offer anything unambiguous here. Since it's unclear, we shouldn't speculate on it. Does anyone have a different thought on this question? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's complete clear why Malik turns on Luciani. He confides in Luciani that he is smuggling drugs in because it is not the big deal. Then Luciani attacks him with a spoon scarring his eye. Afterwords he responds I'll kill you in his room at night and has a prophic vision. I think that its pretty clear. I really do not understand what the problem is with my version in your eyes. It is an updated version based on what you wrote. Valoem ^talk 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI i never wrote in my summary that the reason Malik betrayed Luciani is because of that scene, I merely included it in the plot to leave it to the view to interpret because that scene was vital to the film. I can express my opinion regarding that scene on the talk page. I never stated it in the Plot summary. That scene is important because of what it represents. If you disagree that is also your opinion. You seem to constantly forgot who you are, you do not own this page. I have the right to edit the page just as you do. Valoem ^talk 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation is inadequate. He doesn't kill him but he says he's going to kill him. So his actions are not based on his words. Speculation about his motives is OR so has to be rejected. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even looking at the situation anymore? I only stated my OR on the talk page which is allowed. Now you are taking what I'm saying out of context and twisting it. My summary only contains direct uninterpreted events my explanati ... nevermind you're just an

ostrich. I find it quite hilarious at the same time though, too proud to let some else edit your work? It seems you have a history of doing this. Wikipedia is not a place for this you should consider writing a book. Valoem ^talk 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Other Issues

Also just to inform anyone else. Ring Cinema has been repeatedly making person attacks on my talk page, also made baseless accusation calling me a liar etc.

I highly recommend you refrain from this. Also since you are so confident in your version let someone else revert. Valoem ^talk 21:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentenced to six years in a

group, led by Cesar Luciani, who enforces a brutal rule.

Luciani along with his right hand man, Vettori, thinks little of

, is now fluent, along with fluency in Arabic and French, making him useful to Luciani. Good behavior allows Malik furloughs, day long leaves from prison, so Malik can conduct business for Luciani on the outside. Malik becomes more reliable than even the gang’s longtime attorney, Sampierro.

Ryad, a Muslim friend, teaches Malik to read and write and is the only friend Malik can trust. Ryad exposes Malik to his own heritage allowing him to meet two other Muslims, Tarik and Hassan, increasing his power within the prison. Through Ryad, Malik also becomes entwined with the prison drug dealer, Jordi. Jordi's men were able to hide 25 kilos of hashish prior to their arrest and along with Ryad's early release the three are given the chance to run drugs into the prison together.

However, things are complicated when Ryad is robbed and kidnapped by a drug dealer known as Latif. Malik threatens Latif's family and Ryed is returned, but is dying when his testicular cancer returns from remission. Through his repeated outside interactions with Ryad, Malik becomes an intimate of Ryad's family.

Although Luciani tries to rule Malik by intimidation, he loses his sway. When Luciani learns that Malik is using his day leaves and prison protection to supply drugs he attacks him, despite Malik loyalty to the Corsicans. Along with constant harassment by other members of the Corsican mafia, Malik decides on revenge.

Prior to Malik's second furlough, he has a vision of deer crossing a road in his dreams. Malik is sent to meet Brahim Lattrache in Marseille, another Muslim, who is involved in the secret casino deal between Luciani and the Lingherris, an

group. Here it is discovered that there is a mole the Corsican mafia and that Lattrache is bitter over the death of his friend, Reyeb. Malik is held at gunpoint when his vision comes true and their vehicle collides with a deer, causing Lattrache to believe Malik is a prophet. Malik makes a deal with Lattrache and discovers that he can intimidate Latif, allowing the drugs to be returned to Ryad.

Sampierro informs Luciani that Jacky Marcaggi, the Don of the Corsican mafia, is secretly dealing with the Lingherris as well and is attempting to uncover the mole himself. With no one to turn to, Luciani sends Malik to meet Vettori in order to assassinate Marcaggi and eventually the Lingherris. Ryad is an eager accomplice, since he sees no other way to leave something for his family.

The drug runners refuse to be involved, so the two friends have to go ahead on their own. Malik doublecrosses Vettori on the day of the hit and knocks him unconscious. Malik attacks and kills Marcaggi’s bodyguards when he sees an opening, drags the boss back to his car, and finally leaves him with an unconscious Vettori as evidence of Luciani's involvement.

Upon Malik’s next appearance in the prison yard, he takes his place among the Muslim group he has cultivated and stands under their protection. When Luciani tries to approach him for an explanation, he is violently refused.

Ryad is dead when Malik's sentence ends, but his wife and son meet him. She invites him to take her son’s bedroom and he walks with them to the bus stop, followed by a coterie of protectors.Valoem ^talk 19:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several vital details including the Lattrache deal and clarified the drug running sub plot in this plot summary all while maintaining the 700 word limit. Valoem ^talk 19:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Righty ho, under 700, good work. Let me have a comb through it.

Had a quick scour through, you can see it here. Geoff B (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great!! Thanks I'll update your version! Valoem ^talk 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any significant editorial objection to the current summary. The draft above is poorly written and badly organized. Before making changes, please offer some good reason why we should change a summary that already does the job and contains no semi-literate grammatical mistakes. Many thanks for your interest in improving the article, but please don't post material that is so poorly written. I'm very interested in making the article as good as it can be. Use this forum to explain what you think is wrong with the current draft. I'll be happy to work with anyone. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have and there have been serious objections, the version I posted has been edited and approved by Geoff B. You have been repeatly warned in the past regarding your obstructive behavior, not only with this article but others. If you want to revert the current version please have a thrid party editor do so. There have been multiple complaints regarding your version. It lacks details and misses key elements in the plot. I have been very civil with you and did not revert your edits for a whole month. The consensus is against you now, please respect the works of others. Valoem ^talk 14:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and your interest in improving the article. I'm unaware of any serious objections or complaints to the current draft. Perhaps you could mention a few of them. I agree that my draft does a good job excluding unnecessary details. As far as I can tell, the current summary covers all the important events in the plot. If you'd like to include others, that would be a good subject for discussion and I'd be happy to enter into that. I haven't been warned about anything and I've invited your input, Valoem, repeatedly. If you have problems with the current draft, we need to discuss it. What are your primary complaints? Again, thanks for your efforts and your interest in improving the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note on the Film Project talk page about this, to hopefully get some extra hands & eyes involved. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of people who haven't studied the film trying to rush the process, Lugnuts. How will that be helpful? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether they've 'studied' or even seen the film. Having done so does not qualify an editor to edit the article. I think getting more editors involved is always a good thing. Geoff B (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who hasn't seen the film should edit the plot summary? How would they do that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about the plot summary? I said 'article'. And yes, they could easily edit the plot summary, if they wanted to. Geoff B (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could easily edit the summary but they'd be inept and incompetent. On that score, you're right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's about enough of that. Perhaps someone who hasn't seen the film will not know the details but they'll hopefully be able to construct a sentence. I've cleaned up the text on plenty of plots to films I haven't seen. I trust those who have "studied the film" to check the factual errors and myself to make text flow in a way that's not a grammatic nightmare. Millahnna (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some interest in explaining why the film is called A Prophet. I don't think the plot summary is the place to do that. In fact, the incident in the movie where it comes up is not central to the main action of the film. I would suggest a separate section to explain its importance and relevance. That would offer an opportunity to bring out the significance without cluttering the plot summary with side issues and unnecessary details. Would that meet with everyone's approval? Thanks very much. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet everyone's approval. The key element is the film involves the deal with Lattrache and the Lingharris which is completely unmentioned. Also for any readers who have seen the film the paragragh below can be ambiguious:

As his clout in the prison fades, so too does Luciani's control of Malik. Even when the chief learns that his subordinate is using his day leave and prison protection to run drugs, the punishment is short-lived. Luciani has no one else he can trust to carry out a hit on his own boss, Jacki Marcaggi, and turns to Malik. Ryad becomes Malik's eager accomplice, since he sees no other way to leave something for his family.

Thank you. Valoem ^talk 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the deal with Lattrache and Lingharris as a key element. They are not major characters and without them the film would be almost unchanged. The main action of the film is Malik's transformation. Or do you see it differently? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph seems completely wrong:

Luciani believes there is a mole in his organization. He decides to use Malik to assassinate Jacky Marcaggi, the Don of the Corsican mafia, for secretly dealing with the Lingherris. Outside the prison, Malik and Ryad betray Luciani's accomplice Vettori and kill Marcaggi’s bodyguards. Rather than kill Marcaggi, they dump him in a vehicle with Vettori. Malik takes refuge at Ryad's house with his wife and young son; Ryad reveals that his cancer has returned.

According to my memory, Luciani is the mole. Jacky's organization is openly dealing with the Lingherris. Luciani is secretly dealing with the Lingherris and was about to be compromised, with no one to turn to, he had to turn to Malik. Valoem ^talk 18:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luciani is the prison boss, and my memory is that Luciani tells Malik that he has been told that there is a mole. However, I think the film leaves open who is telling the truth (i.e. is there really a mole?) Can anyone cite some evidence on that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched it again. Luciani is in fact lying to Malik. Luciani is the mole, which is why he asked Malik to take care of the situation and not his own men. His deal with Lattrache is the back deal against his own boss Jacky. Valoem ^talk 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that Luciani is lying about who is the mole. It makes no sense that he would be the mole, either, since the mole was his problem and interfering with his business. If Luciani was the mole, who was he squealing to and about what? Why is Malik supposed to kill the guy then? I don't think that theory stands up to scrutiny but if you have some evidence please share it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From From Script Magazine:

What is the significance of the movie’s title?

Audiard: Well, I’m not crazy about the title to tell you the truth. The title imposes something on the viewers, like where is the prophet, when is he going to arrive? And I don’t like that. We saw that title with a lot more irony. Simply, Malik announces a new type of gangster, a new type of man.

So, based on Audiard's words, perhaps it would be worthwhile to deemphasize the bit about the prophet. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100608224440/http://www.cinemotions.com:80/modules/Interviews/interview/72081 to http://www.cinemotions.com/modules/Interviews/interview/72081

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

]