Talk:Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

Removing "Mainstream exposure" section

This section contains factually inaccurate information. Obsession hasn't been broadcast on any TV network. It's only been shown in its entirety at pre-release screenings (I attended one). The footnote from the statement is merely a Q&A with the film's producer and director, and already included in the External Links section. I'll move the Google video link to that section as well. Nathanm mn 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It sure played on FOX , I saw it myself.--CltFn 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Trailer on YouTube.

How is it a trailer on YouTube when it is linked to Google Video?

---

Because google bought youtube. It's the same thing now. It redirects you.

On the use of the term "notable counterterrorism figures"

Let me put this out there and then ask those more knowledgeable about Wikipedia guidelines to weigh in: some (possibly) most of the people listed as "notable counterterrorism figures" aren't really that. I think, but I guess it's subject to debate that some are notable for other, perhaps related things, but not counterterrorism (Dershowitz). And for people like Pipes, Emerson, and Darwish, a charitable description would be "controversial" a less charitable one would be "self-styled" and an even less charitable one would be "unreliable," "hyperbolic," and "demagogic." -128.139.226.34 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree - if nobody objects I will remove the "counterterrorism" part. --Fridgemagnet (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Movie?

This film is being funded and supported at college campuses around the nation usually by either a Republican group or a pro-Israeli group. It's important to mention these facts because this movie does use a lot of propaganda tools such as appeal to fear and stereotypes (the cover alone shows us a barbaric looking desert man). The people supporting this fim speaks volumes about the purpose of this film and the intentions on the audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.124.228 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Propaganda aspect as I haven't seen the movie yet but I just got an unsolicited copy of the movie in the mail. With the upcoming election... someone is obviously trying to stuff ideas into my head. This sort of thing just doesn't sit well with me. -- BlindWanderer (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I recieved my copy of this movie in the mail today and I am very suspicious of its intent. Who is spending this kind of money to educate me on Radical Islam?? Is this fear mongering gone to a new level? I would like to know the money trail on this one, comming as it does just before the election. Is it truly a documentary or just propaganda?? I would like to know the context before I view it . Andy

This film is being illegaly distributed through newspapers and mailings. This is a purely political tactic designed to scare swing voters into voting for Neo-conservative candidates. --Chip Whitley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.67.72 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Illegally? That's interesting. It would certainly explain how they can afford to send out so many.

Got any sources on that?

This is textbook propaganda. Check out the group behind it: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aish_HaTorah Very fishy indeed.

   I must not fear.
   Fear is the mind-killer.
   Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
   I will face my fear.
   I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
   And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
   Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
   Only I will remain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.151 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 

This film is absolutely propaganda of the extreme Right. I watched my copy sent in the paper tonight and saw nothing but new fear tactics aimed at the American people to sway them to support the Right and vote republican. It uses a comparison of the Islamic radicals to the Nazis in a way that starts out portraying similarities and ends giving an impression that the radicals are Nazis of today. It goes as far as to show Islamic people in photos saluting, followed with Nazis saluting Hitler. Do our soldiers not salute? It shows their people saying kill Americans and follows saying they want us all dead... Do our soldiers not have their superiors telling them over and over, kill the enemy?? This movie demonizes the other half of the war just the same as they demonize our people. We must stop propaganda that instigates more death and find a way to show both sides we are all people. DONT BUY INTO PROPAGANDA AS THE NAZIS DID! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.47.70 (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

America is a land where anyone can say what they want to say, when they want to say it. It is a good foundation on which to build a country. There is propaganda on both sides, and as long as you don't completely ignore one side of an argument, you can always come out with a reasonable result. Whether or not it is "propaganda," it is significant, and deserves mention on Wikipedia. You may want to construct a less narrow view in which you watch the propaganda for both sides of an argument, instead of casting one side off as nonsense before even looking at it. You should also avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum during rhetorical discussions. That being said, it does lean heavily toward the right-wing, but that's the filmmaker's constitutional right, so deal with it. 209.137.182.35 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ObsessionRadicalIslam.jpg

Image:ObsessionRadicalIslam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph moved to Talk:

I've moved the following paragraph here for discussion:

The movie misquotes a Palestinian school book. When the school book correctly explains what racism is (notably institutionalized racism), ending with giving two examples of it (Nazism and Zionism), the English translation instead claims that the text says that Jihad will defeat all other religions[1] Unless they wish to claim that the school book was issued by Muslim extremists, they thus contradict their assertion that the movie is not directed against Islam. Given the inaccuracies and the presentation (starting with a long series of video footage from terrorist attacks carried out by purported extremist Muslims) the impression it leaves is that it is designed expressly to influence the U.S. elections.

The first part is sourced to a website called "obsessionwatch.org", and appears to state an opinion as a fact, in contravention of WP:NPOV. What is it that makes that website a reliable source, or its opinion notable in any way? The second part appears to be some convoluted argument invented by a Wikipedia editor. Is there a reliable source for it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[New user statement:] This section is now back on the main article, and its inclusion is inappropriate commentary. Would someone with more editing experience than I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.86.109 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What article is it in? It's not currently in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this realy compare the July 7 bombings in London to Belson - if so that's incredibly sick exploitation 87.127.97.148 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Muslims in Ohio, a swing state where the "Obsession" DVD was distributed

I don't think this source is adequate for inclusion in the article but it is disturbing none the less. There was a gas attack on a Mosque over the weekend in one of the swing states in which this DVD was distributed.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/28/203016/697/536/613742

--John Bahrain (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that the page be updated with the following news that came to light:

n Friday, September 26, the end of a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West -- the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail -- were distributed by mail in Ohio, a "chemical irritant" was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain's supporters has led to -- Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.

An eyewitness account states:

She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there. The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn't stop sobbing. This didn't happen in some far away place -- but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love. I am hurt and angry. I tell her this is NOT America. She tells me this is not Heaven or Hell -- there are good and bad people everywhere. She tells me that her daughters slept with her last night, the little one in her arms and sobbing throughout the night. She tells me she is afraid, and will never return to the mosque, and I wonder what kind of country is this where people have to fear attending their place of worship? The children come into the room, and tell me they want to leave America and return to Syria, where they had fled to from Iraq. They say they like me, ... , and other American friends -- but they are too afraid and want to leave. Should a 6 and 7 year old even have to contemplate the safety of their living situation? Did the anti-Muslim video circulating in the area have something to do with this incident, or is that just a bizarre coincidence? Who attacks women and children? What am I supposed to say to them? My words can't keep them safe from what is nothing less than terrorism, American style. Isn't losing loved ones, their homes, jobs, possessions and homeland enough? Is there no place where they can be safe? She didn't want me to leave her tonight, but it was after midnight, and I needed to get home and write this to my friends. Tell me -- tell me -- what am I supposed to say to them?"

Hollerme (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent crime has been linked to the DVD in WP:RS:

"within the mosque speculated that the incident was the result of a DVD about Islamic radicalism titled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" that was mailed to area homes by its producers and circulated as a paid advertisement with more than 70 newspapers, including the Dayton Daily News." ( http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/29/ddn092908mosquefoloweb.html )

I think it warrants inclusion. We66er (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose new page-"Ohio hate crime on mosque"

John B-I agree, an important issue. But the relationship to this hate inspiring dvd is, alas, speculation. Warrants a separate page as an ongoing news story and pivotal event though. Will do tomorrow if no one else has. Altairah (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

LRB article

Good backgrounder by Adam Shatz from a publication I'm sure's really popular in the Clarion Fund's offices. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n19/shtz01_.html Colombo Man (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ties to anti-Obama PAC

I'm not sure where this should go. It was considered by NPR to be related to this movie's distribution prior to the November elections:

NPR reported that Joe "Wierzbicki, the movie promoter, also works for two political organizations. He's an organizer for Move America Forward, a political action committee that just produced an ad accusing Obama of playing politics with soldiers' lives. He also is the PAC coordinator for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Its Web site says it has one objective: to defeat Obama."

It was removed from the article by Jayjg here [2]. --John Bahrain (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no thorough argument for it's removal. It's sourced, relevant, content. Like the other content in the controversy section, it illustrates the controversy surrounding the dvd, and it's release. Undid removal by Jayjg. Altairah (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is an article about the movie, not "the controversy". And what does it have to do with the controversy? It's just a conspiracist smear by association. This is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist news story. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this dvd would not have a Wikipedia entry but for the surrounding controversy. "the movie" is not up for box office release, nor has it won any awards. There are hundreds of thousands of documentaries without the distinction of a Wikipedia entry. The majority of the content of this article(sections Screenings, Distribution, Controversy) are not, in fact, about the dvd itself, but rather it's public affect. While we may disagree with the "truth" of any ties to an Anti-Obama PAC, the fact is that this paragraph, like the one on "Pseudonyms", is merely a reiteration of a sourced news item. And therefore equally relevant. Altairah (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This movie quite easily passes notability criteria for its mention in many secondary sources, possibly because of the controversy it aroused. This does not mean that the controversy is the most important thing about the movie. This especially does not mean that personal information about the movie creators' activities outside of this film is relevant to the film itself, and therefore the article. "Other stuff exists", or in this case, "other stuff does not exist", is not a valid argument for inclusion/exclusion from Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The notable controversy stems from the movie and its distribution. The article needs sufficient content to provide context should the article get printed and read without access to wikipedia and the links.[3] Some background on the participants seems appropriate. -- davidz (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Davidzundel wrote: "The notable controversy stems from the movie and its distribution." Partially. But it's notability also derived from the recent distributions' political context. For information on the political angle, see here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/clarion_answers_some_questions.html

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/10/10/obsessions-secret-producer-revealed-republican-jewish-coalition-ties-to-clarion-uncovered/

--John Bahrain (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the controversy is the ONLY notable thing about the movie. It is racist rubbish on it's own and would not warrant an entry without it and the inappropriate distribution. Explaining motivation of the producers, financers and at times also the actors is common in articles on other movies so why should it be excluded here? The only difference I can see is that motivation requires more coverage here than for a real movie because it played a bigger part in it's production than is usual. Wayne (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick look and recommend The Passion of the Christ as an example with a large amount of critism and a second party explanation of the writers/producers motivation. Do we have to cut out half the text there because the article is about the movie, not "the controversy"? Wayne (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Documentaries -- davidz (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good find davidz. That supports the NPR piece being included. Wayne (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Apostrophe in article title

The title of this article contains a curly typographic apostrophe in the word Islam’s: "Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West" (emphasis added).

That can cause problems.

WP:PUNC states: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended."

This article got moved from a title with a straight typewriter apostrophe back in April: "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" (see this revision history [4]). The title with the straight apostrophe redirects to this article.

See the talk page of the editor who moved the article to the current title User_talk:Tobias_Schmidbauer#Apostrophes for a discussion.

Perhaps the article should get moved back to a title using a straight apostrophe, with a redirect from this title.

-- davidz (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be done. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just moved it. As far as I remember, there was a discussion somewhere in the MOS where it was made clear that in article titles, only normal quotation marks would be used. Not going to look for it, but it is clear that WP:NC prohibits the use of characters which complicate search for no good reason. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Specify tags

Names of distributors such as Pulsar etc have had specify tags put on them. This is a problem because the three companies mentioned were all created solely as front companies and only have one employee each. As such they have no information readily available other than that they exist so these tags can't be addressed. They should be removed. Wayne (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations of reliable sources about the companies could replace the {{specify}} tags. -- davidz (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for Pulsar. Not worth cluttering up the references with. Wayne (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pulsar Productions at IMDb provides more information (already cited in the article). -- davidz (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

Here is an article from CNN about the DVD being sent out through one of Denver's local newspapers. Muslim DVD rattles voters in key battleground states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.2 (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Altairah (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit by User:Jayjg at 03:58 and 04:01 on 17 October 2008

This needs discussion before such major changes to structure that was accepted for a number of days.

The Disclaimer has notability other than controversy as indicted by the many citations. It appeared in the article roughly as it appears in the movie. Putting the disclaimer in Controversy seems less neutral.

More after I take a break. -- davidz (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1. As per Wiki standards Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Major_edits, major structural edits like yours should be posted for discussion.

2. How is moving the beginning of the movie to the end of the article logical?

3. Controversy and reaction aren't the same thing. Consult your local dictionary. To put it simply: Reaction is how we all felt after 9/11, Controversy is what happens when Brittney Spears leaves her house. ..... I vote the edits be reverted. Altairah (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Such large charges in a single edit makes a lot of work to follow and respond.

What does "breathless POV original research" in the edit summary refer to?

Does "quotes from 'man in the street'" in the edit summary refer to the quotes in the Reaction section? I originally put two of those quotes in the Controversy section. The next morning I realized those quotes have no controversy, but nonetheless have notability and contribute to the article. So I created the Reaction section with the quotes. The section had a weight problem, so I added a quote for balance. It still needs a couple more quotes from different points of view for balance. Putting the one reaction quote preserved in Jayjg's edit in the Controversy section seem inapt and has a weight problem. (break) -- davidz (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading news articles about the movie, reaction quotes keep coming up. They're notable. This movie affects people. Some react with fear, some with worry, some with anger, or disgust, some with jingoism, some with enthusiasm. It's a difficult section to get right. And difficult to keep neutral. But the article needs it. -- davidz (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interviews

The interviews provide a large part of the notability of the movie. The article needs a short description of each interview and interviewee to provide necessary context, especially if the article gets printed and read without access to wikipedia. The article had some content for Khaleel Mohammed and Walid Shoebat, and needs content for the others.

Khaleel Mohammed's statement belongs with his mention as an interviewee, not relegated to the Controversies section, especially as he addresses the other interviews. His statement has little controversy: it reads as regret, criticism, and an apology. -- davidz (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Jayjg's edits make overly broad changes to structure, including deleting two sections and further confusing the already problematic Controversy section, and delete too much content to deal with piece by piece.

After due consideration (slept on it, and then some), reverting.

Discussion on some disputed sections follows.

Please contribute -- everybody, but please do so in manageable chunks. The article needs a lot of work. A lot of content needs researching and writing.

More than enough writing about writing. Now back to an attempt at building neutral content. -- davidz (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrete specific edits

Discrete specific edits and clear edit summaries make collaborating much easier.

A discrete edit is much easier to understand because the difference between two versions is much easier to read. And it provides the opportunity for a clear edit summary with specific reasons for a edit. -- davidz (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, take your own advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As you did not discuss your large edits in advance, I tried to cover some of the issues I saw. Perhaps I wrote too much. Sorry. In the article, I think most of my edits discrete, specific, and with clear edit summaries. -- davidz (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reaction

Moved here temporarily until we get some consensus. (guideline about doing this somewhere on wikipedia, somebody want to provide a link?) -- davidz (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE policy & Major changes -- davidz (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Content

The movie and distribution of the DVD has lead to fear.

"I must say that this video makes me fear for my safety and the safety of my family since people may not be able to differentiate between Muslims living here in Raleigh and the way Muslims are depicted in this scary film!" said Shadi Sadi, a data analyst in Raleigh.

"I'm fearful for my children that someone might be upset, may become influenced by this documentary and take out the anger against my children," said Altaf Ali, director of the Florida chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"The movie actually confirmed and clearly, intensely depicted what I've been thinking and saying for a while now: I think we are on the verge of a third world war," said Einat Bronstein after the premier screening of the movie to 1,100 people in St. Louis, Missouri. After the same screening, Gulten Ilhan said: "I have never felt this dehumanized. I am so concerned about the perception that people took away. The whole message was hatred. I felt like the Jews must have felt about how they were depicted during the Nazi era."

Proposed additions

The section needs a few more examples from different points-of-view, such as something jingoistic. And it needs a better introductory sentence. -- davidz (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Better examples could replace the current quotes. -- davidz (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

The movie has gotten strong reactions. Notably so. The article should give a few representative examples. Reactions are neither controversy nor criticism, so should be kept separate from those. -- davidz (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "The movie and distribution of the DVD has lead to fear." is emotional POV, that has no place in an encyclopedia. The same goes for the quotations from the "man in the street", whose opinions are not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be consistently happy with edits that make this video appear reasonable and main stream and consistently unhappy with those that highlight it as fearmongering propaganda. Perhaps a little more balance? 31.51.9.181 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Controversy

The Controversy section seems best used for content on general controversy related to the movie, such as groups opposing the movie and its distribution, and related websites. The section already has some of that content.

If the Controversy section were to contain content about everything related to the movie that generated controversy, it would contain most of the article, and would produce a very biased article.

Rather, we need to present the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves, with notable criticism. For example, presenting a fair copy of the notable Disclaimer allows for a balanced presentation of criticism of the Disclaimer.

The following guidelines help: wp:STRUCTURE, {{criticism-section}}, wp:Weight, and wp:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Documentaries. -- davidz (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy section is for controversies related to the movie. The initial part of the article should contain factual information about the movie, its distribution, etc. As an example, the whole point in reproducing the movie's "Disclaimer" is so that you can then quote criticism of the disclaimer. Of course, that kind of presentation of negative opinion disguised as "fact" introduces bias. Thus, the "disclaimer" section belongs with the rest of the controversies. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread me.

The Disclaimer originally got written up for the Clarion Fund article.[5] Then got placed on this article -- without criticism. [6] The Disclaimer got reformatted to make a fair copy. [7] We both removed criticism of the Disclaimer. Then the Disclaimer had criticism added for balance.

The Disclaimer is a highly notable fact of the movie, not a controversy, however much it may generate controversy. -- davidz (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer edit histories

The Disclaimer originally got written up for the Clarion Fund article. [8] Then got placed in this article. [9] Then got reformatted to make a fair copy of the movie. [10] Then had criticism copied in. [11] Then had the JTA quote removed to Interviews. [12] Then had the Khaleel Mohammed quote removed to Controversies. [13] Then had criticism added for neutral balance (see WP:WEIGHT). [14] [15] [16]

The whole point of the Disclaimer section is to include criticism of it, so it belongs in the Controversy section. So do other controversies; the distinction between "general controversies" and other is artificial, and if the Controversy section begins to outweigh the rest of the article, that's a sign that WP:NPOV is being violated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The Disclaimer section exists because the Disclaimer exists.

As Jayjg wrote above: "The initial part of the article should contain factual information about the movie...." The disclaimer is a fact of the movie, not a controversy. A Wikipedia article about a movie normally describes the content of the movie.

Numerous news articles mention the Disclaimer (some cited [17]) but fail to quote the Disclaimer fully or correctly. A reader of those articles should see a fair copy of the Disclaimer when they come to this article. Without labeling the factual content of the movie as a controversy. Putting the Disclaimer in Controversies violates WP:NPOV and makes no sense. -- davidz (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

David, frankly, I don't think your going to win this argument alone because of the dynamics at play and I think the work you are going is fine and the recent changes to the article aren't significant. The information is all still there. --John Bahrain (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

David, the only reason the disclaimer has been noted is because some people insist it is incorrect or misleading. Otherwise there would be no reason for quoting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, supporters of the movie have often mentioned the disclaimer. And we don't reorganize Wikipedia articles based on how someone may have used the information. The disclaimer is content of the movie. Presenting a fair copy of it lets readers judge for themselves. Putting the disclaimer in Controversy introduces bias. -- davidz (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I invoke Jimbo:

" In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." – Jimbo Wales

When I reverted Jayjg's previous "reorganize" edit, I explained that it violated NPOV, was an unannounced major edit, and didn't follow structure guidelines. Nothing has changed. Whether or not you like the reasons you think the disclaimer exists does not constitute a valid argument for moving parts of the article to a section full of unrelated criticisms/controversy. It's just ghastly editing, and bad writing. Altairah (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

However, as has been pointed out already, since it had no impact on NPOV, was no more "major" or "unannounced" than other edits to the page, and did not violate structure guidelines, your complaint was entirely spurious. Regarding the disclaimer, it was merely a coatrack for criticism of the movie. I agree, though, that your reversion was ghastly editing, and bad writing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

<undent> The "reorganization" made NPOV worse. It was a major edit without discussion first. It goes against policespolicies.

I have reread the wp:coatrack essay and the policies it links to and don't see how it really applies. Please elaborate with connections to policies and guidelines. Perhaps the concern about criticism. Coatrack seems to recommend against overly large criticism sections. If that happens we need to consider the WP:WEIGHT section of NPOV, which says an article should represent all significant viewpoints (sourced) in proportion to prominence. Coatrack recommends: "adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources." Perhaps the WP:NOT policy which coatrack links to, which has a good recommendation: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." A reader would not expect to find the disclaimer in Controversy. -- davidz (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit no more goes against policies than your total re-write of the article, and actually improved WP:NPOV. Per WP:COATRACK, A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". In this case the material describing the disclaimer was ostensibly there to provide background on the movie, but actually there to allow for further criticism of it. A reader would not expect to find a disclaimer section in the article at all, so I've removed it. If you feel it must be in the article, then add it where it belongs, in the Controversies section. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Several days ago I wrote a note on Jayjg's talk page, but it was deleted without response. Here is the note:

Jayjg, Despite a consensus in opposition, you have recreated your edits to the Obsession:_Radical_Islam's_War_Against_the_West article. These edits have twice been reverted by other editors.

Interestingly, I see you said:

"Please understand that you do not WP:OWN the article on the synagogue, that the standards for the synagogue's website are not those of Wikipedia, and that removing properly sourced, relevant information is considered vandalism. If you continue to delete this information I will be forced to protect the page. If you have issues with article content, please raise them on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)"

in response to another dispute on your talk page.

That leads me to believe that you do, indeed, understand the value of using a talk page to create consensus. I assume that you are not intentionally Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system, but I do find this discrepancy notable. Please discuss your ideas for major edits on the talk page before undertaking them. Again. Altairah (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If Jayjg considers removing properly sourced, relevant information vandalism, then his deletion of the disclaimer section presents yet another inconsistency of policy use. Frankly, I'm confused. Jayjg, did you mis-state policy above in an attempt to intimidate another editor, or was your deletion of the disclaimer a violation of policy? Altairah (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:UNDUE? Also, please review WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Wikipedia has considered questions of article structure and neutrality before, and has some useful policies and guidelines.

WP:STRUCTURE advises against: "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself."

WP:PACL applies: "pro & con lists are a symptom of unresolved NPOV problems, rather than being a successful strategy for resolving NPOV problems." (emphasis in original) "Pro & con lists fragment the presentation of facts." (emphasis in original)

WP:WEIGHT states: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." -- davidz (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All interesting guidelines, but none actually relevant to this situation. WP:STRUCTURE doesn't apply, since the text in question is not about a particular POV, but about the controversies themselves. There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles with similar structures, including many Featured Articles. WP:PACL is only relevant to Pro and Con lists, which this is not. WP:WEIGHT is obviously irrelevant, since no material was removed or added, merely logically re-organized. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm easy going on this point. I'm fine either way. I have though continued to apply this new organization to the content and moved a bit more of the controversy aspects of the film into the controversy section. I'm not happy with the specific heading I came up with, so feel free to change it. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Content did get removed. The reorganization is not logical. And WP:WEIGHT does apply; it states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added)

WP:STRUCTURE does apply. WP:STRUCTURE gives pro & con lists as an example, and the Controversy section works like a con list. Where we put content matters. Putting a positive statement in Controversy makes it seem doubtful. Putting a neutral statement in Controversy makes it seem biased. Putting a critical statement in Controversy makes it seem discredited. The label we give it matters. The prominence we give it matters. The order, what comes first, what comes last, has meaning.

Policies and guidelines seem especially useful in controversial circumstances, as perhaps the only standards editors could agree on. WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT are part of WP:NPOV, and the NPOV policy is "non-negotiable". -- davidz (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit merely re-organized. Please re-read the rest of my comments, as they are still valid, and in no way countered or refuted by yours. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This is a list of sources removed from the article or as yet unused, as a convenience for editors.

Please check this list and the article's References before adding a citation. And please use the appropriate {{cite xxx}} template such as {{cite news}} (see WP:CITET). (see the code for suggested formatting) -- davidz (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Citation creation tools -- davidz (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, Rory (2008-09-12). "'Obsession' is required viewing". The Times-Gazette. Hillsboro, Ohio: Brown Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-10-29.
• Goldberg, Jeffrey (2008-10-27). "The Jewish Extremists Behind 'Obsession'". The Atlantic. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
• "Terrorism: Looking for context". The Florida Times-Union. Jacksonville, Florida. 2008-09-16. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
• Vaden, Ted (2008-09-21). "Readers obsessed with anti-Islam video". The News & Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina: The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-10-14.

Citation templates are entirely optional and needlessly complex. There's no need to use them, nor encourage their use. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cats

This article inculdes the category, "Category:Documentaries critical of Islam" and "Islam and antisemitism. Do we have a reliable sources that say this documentary directly makes criticism of Islam (the religion)?

As far as I know, many claim that the documentary is not aimed at Islam, but only against "radical Islam".Bless sins (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Who the documentary targets is a source of controversy, with CAIR etc. saying that it targets Islam as a whole, but others (those more supportive of it) saying it is only against the radicals and not Islam as a whole. Do you have a relevant response to that?Bless sins (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here should also determine if the category, "anti-Islam sentiment" belongs here or not.Bless sins (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No response?Bless sins (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You never responded to my posts on 02:11, 31 October 2008, 16:22, 31 October 2008. And in response to my comment on 01:48, 31 October 2008, you posted a link that doesn't at all mention this documentary.Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that many individuals don't properly differentiate between radical streams of Islam and the mainstream Islam. I see this type of stereotyping or prejudicial thinking all the time where various individuals accuse all Jews of being supporters of the occupation or of supporting the Iraq war or of being AIPAC supporters. I think the "Documentaries critical of Islam" category should be further refined to avoid this confusion and lumping together. I would recommend something like a new "Documentaries about radical Islam" category (I know there is enough material to populate such a thing) or something similarly proper. Then this documentary would clearly fit into that new category and that new category will be clearly differentiated from just mainstream Islam. What do you think? --John Bahrain (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that that would be a reasonable solution to this.Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Informative, lengthy article on Aish HaTorah, Clarion Fund and Obsession movie

I strongly recommend reading this article. It makes it clear how out of step Obsession, the Clarion Fund, and Aish HaTorah are with the mainstream Jewish community here in North America.

Sarah Posner. Aish HaTorah’s New ‘Obsession’. The Jewish Week. October 28, 2008.

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Current State of the Article/NPOV Tag

There are is a gross number of reasons to be concerned about the state of the article as a result of major edits in the last several weeks. The article mentions virtually nothing on the movie content itself (something quite reasonable to expect for an encyclopedia entry), and is instead overshadowed by a great deal of criticism and perceived controversy brought upon by CAIR, and other militant pro-islamist groups. Several of the quotes such as the mayor of portland and editors of minor publications are non-notable and their presence should be rexamined very cafefully. The section concerning UF violation of First Amendment rights and the subsequent response by the AG has also been recently vandalized to mischaracterize the controversy. With these matters in mind, the neutrality of this article as it stands is extremely dubious, and has been, therefore, tagged as such. I look forward to feedback in attempt to fix the problem. Thanks.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The criticism and controversy around the movie isn't just coming from CAIR and pro-Islamists. You should read the article I linked to in the section about this on this talk page. It is a lengthy article from the Jewish Week. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Also entries added

• Anti-Arabism
• Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims

travb (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page

I think the persons who make this claim should first assess how 'neutral' they are themselves. Thie documentary is factually a very good example of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.75.193 (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality verses reality

Provide then an example of how to "neutrally" educate or document something this horrific? Yet another slant using name calling. Political correctness is going to kill many more people before those who use this tool come to their senses.

What other side is there to extremists? Robin Saul said: "It didn't meet our advertising standards. We were told its purpose was educational. We didn't see it as educational at all. It was fear-mongering and divisive."

This is an effort (and a clear one) to educate how extremists feel, think and what their objectives are. Never did it insinuate that all or even most Muslims are like this. It portrayed the extremist Islam faction as a threatening religion bent on the destruction of Western civilization and isn't only inflammatory to the EXTREME Muslim faith that they [extremists] reveal themselves to be capable of and why - "promoting a negative stereotype"? The extremists themselves promote this factual persona. So don't even use that train of thought to say it's propaganda when in fact it is using facts.

The Clarion Fund is a tax exempt private company and has every right to promote anyone they wish politically. Why is this even an issue? Hey, how are those art campaigns from the NEA working out or the efforts of the SEIU and Acorn government subsidized forces doing in the name of a political agenda?

The entire basis and premise to our constitutional freedom of speech was literally walked on by the VP of student affairs at the U of F knowingly... all for the sake of political correctness. Which makes me very suspicious even of Wikipedia. They seem to be leaning if you ask me, which is why I felt compelled to add this since ole' Wiki lists 1 out of the 4 things in the controversy section in support of this crazy notion that this is mongering and propaganda. And even then that 1 was more to the point of freedom of speech than it was to the truth about radical Islam. Wiki did everything to display all the discourse against the movie but nearly nothing in support of it or the content being truth or lie. To not be able to site actual lies or battened mistakes of truth tells me that you cannot call it propaganda. Let's just list all the bombing attempts against the U.S.A. as support. Or maybe those that have happened in the UK or within the home countries of the terrorists? Oh wait, they did that already. Must be some people did not see those parts or was just in awe of what they thought were merely "effects" for the movie.

It truly is a shame that the ignorance of others who refuse to deal with the truth are putting the rest of us at risk and in jeopardy for our lives. I cannot begin to understand any other reasons besides stupidity or political agenda, or both.

Mitchina (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Mitchina

Plot description

The article contains no plot description. A short plot summary has its place in the lead. A larger plot discussion can be developed as a subparagraph.69.118.250.184 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation vs. criticism in lead

A short sentence about the main opposing POV's should be kept in the lead since the movie was labeled 'controversial'.69.118.250.184 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced weight given to criticism at the expense of support for the movie, leads to one-sided article

Many public figures have voiced appreciation and / or support for the movie in the media. See TV - Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, CNN, Fox news, radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mancow show, Rice show, etc., and printed articles.

All this support for the movie was however completely ignored in the article as of yesterday, and I thus started adding it in. Parts of this new content is however summarily deleted, edited, misrepresented and trivialized as "this is not a fan site". This is unacceptable. These are all relevant, valid, referenced quotes (many from widely known persons or media outlets) which should be reflected when balancing the overall article (including the lead section).

As it stands now, support for the movie is expressed in a single (miniaturized, compacted and somewhat misrepresented) paragraph in "reception" (despite the extensive provided quotes /articles). On the other hand, each critical review is given wide acknowledgement in its own merit, as an individual paragraph (totaling 10 so far in "reception"), basically taking over, setting the tone and throwing-off the balance of the entire article.

I expect cooperation in improving this article to provide an accurate balance of all available articles/opinions without undue favoritism. The quoted extensive support MUST be allowed to be expanded-on and developed in the article. 69.118.250.184 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add legitimate movie reviews but you cant add every single instance of praise from people who do not normally review movies. The critical responses are more numerous, notable and relevant than the individual praise the film has garnered from supporters of the viewpoint that the film presents. Praise is mentioned as is the critism in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Wayne (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

These arguments are already rebutted in this exchange and in my main post above. Would you say that the "more numerous, notable and relevant" criticism is reflected accurately in the current high (~10:1) ratio of critical:approbatory viewpoint prominence? I find no reliable sources for such a large discrepancy which basically stifles the other point of view. 69.118.250.184 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at google, the praise is primarily from partisan sources while the critism covers a wide range of disciplines and significantly outnumbers what praise there is. If you can find support for your position then discuss changes here.Wayne (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a rather large edit by 188.24.172.104, the controversy is the notability of the movie and it should not be written as a partisan movie review. Without the controversy and inappropriate distribution it would likely not warrant an WP entry on it's own merits. The widespread critical response to the films islamophobic content heavily outranks praise so WP:UNDUE also comes into play. The current layout is the consensus of a number of editors. If 188 believes consensus has changed or that there are still NPOV issues then discussion on this talk page is encouraged. Wayne (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid wholesale deletion of referenced paragraphs (in plot, reception etc) without specific challenge of each of them. In response to your comment above, this entry is about the movie, not about criticism of the movie; there were numerous approbatory responses to the movie.95.76.177.117 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at other entries for similar movies such as Fitna, Iranium, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" to see how movie criticism / controversy is dealt with.95.76.177.117 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interesting in disecting your edits to retain what is acceptable but I will make the attempt. It is you who is challenging current content and are thus required to justify it. Just because the edits are referenced is not validation for their legitimacy. You may have included some good changes but your edits combined significantly changed context. Break the edit down so individual problems you consider NPOV issues can be discussed here. Please do not add potentially POV material without consensus. Those movie examples are only similar in theme not content. Obsession is filled with mistranlations, misinformation and is so extreme it is widely critisized even by Jewish sources. What you have done is turned the article into a partisan review bordering on promotion. Wayne (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Awards for the movie were not mentioned previously. Created new section. 69.118.250.184 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead is quite lacking as it is now and needs additional work.

Per guidelines: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." The fact that the movie was screened in campuses, on cable channels and in Congress is notable and pertinent to the lead and should be included.

WLRoss, Please refrain from edit warring (you reverted 3 times in less than 24 hours); attempt to contribute to the edits positively. N1of2 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who is adding disputed content. "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it...Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" see WP:Consensus. I have invited you to discuss the change here several times but you refused and kept adding the edit which is not contributing to the article positively. If you can gain consensus then it can be added. Please justify your belief that "Segments of the movie were broadcast on CNN Headline News and in several specials on Fox News. The movie was also screened on 30 college campuses and Capitol Hill" is notable enough for the lead. There are two entire sections in the article listing those who aired it so why are those you mentioned more notable than others? Additionally, if the edit is kept, not mentioning in the lead those that refused to air it is giving undue weight, see WP:undue. Wayne (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the entire work several times. Only on the last revert you invited to discussion. The lead section should be able to stand alone as a concise overview so the fact that it is mentioned later is not a problem. Feel free to edit to add those that refused to air if you feel its needed in the lead. N1of2 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the distribution refusal in lead. N1of2 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "strong Israeli bias". Most critical references point out the targeting of swing states in elections and the obscure funding as controversial. There is very little (if any) reference to "strong Israeli bias" in references. Avoid personal research and unverifiable information WP:Verifiability. If there is such reference it shouldn't be given undue weigth WP:undue. N1of2 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The promotion for the DVD stated that it was produced to "counter an anti-Israel bias" and that position has been criticised. What do you think the opposite of anti-Israel bias is? That the video has been funded by pro-Zionist organisations also supports the claim although I will admit that the phrase used by sources is more appropriate, ie "pro-Israeli bias". Regarding the addition of who did or did not air the DVD it is little more than fluff in the lead as it is not particularly notable and is covered in the article body. Wayne (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you identify the specific references for us? The one that stated it was produced to counter an anti-Israel bias and the one that stated the video was criticized for being funded by pro-Zionist organizations? It would help in sorting this out. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The most reliable source would be the NYT which refered to both multiple times. Wayne (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The NYT article mentions "the pro-Israel distribution network". That is different from "the movie holds a pro-Israel bias". Wikipedia should represent opinions expressed in references (with direct links when it is likely to be attacked) NOT personal research. N1of2 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, the NYT article isn't really clear-cut. Are there other sources that make it clear that the film was criticized for "holding a pro-Israeli bias"? What if we were to change those words to "and for being associated with pro-Israeli groups"? A subtle distinction, but it removes the word "bias" in favor of something more neutral and factual. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Azure's wording is more appropriate. Good work. N1of2 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the adjustment, all good.  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Raphael Shore: Why is he singled out in the lead section and why is this sentence in the lead section in the first place? Most if not all references do not mention him as an issue and/or do not make this a main point in their discussion about the movie. This is undue weigth WP:undue. N1of2 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides having co-wrote and produced the film, he's also the founder of The Clarion Fund, which promoted the film and figured prominently in its distribution. Whether or not most of the sources specifically mention him does not make him non-notable for the lede, nor is it undue weight in an article about a film to include him in this way (take a look other articles on motion pictures). If you feel there are other key persons that should be added, please suggest them. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of criticism from the lede

Hello, Keylar25. I've noticed you keep removing criticism from the lede of the article, including the fact that the movie has been criticized as being Islamophobic with a political agenda and that the unusual distribution of free DVDs in swing states right before the 2008 presidential election garnered notable attention. You've done this four times now: 1, 2, 3, 4. Your most recent removal used an edit summary asking that editors use the Talk Page and (ironically) not edit war. So, let's discuss it. Since you made the initial change away from the article's steady state, and have been reverted by two editors (including myself), you should stop reverting and discuss the merits here. What is your justification for removing the content? Note that WP:LEDE states that prominent controversies should be mentioned in an article's lede. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing at all about this film, but I would say the version that AzureCitizen restored is more NPOV than Keylar25's version. In particular, I think it's good to give specific examples (eg Glenn Beck) of people who have expressed support for this film. Ashleyleia (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918163531/http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1217021.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1217021.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923124430/http://www.stltoday.com:80/blogzone/civil-religion/politics/2008/09/post-dispatch-refuses-to-distribute-dvd-offensive-to-american-muslims/ to http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/politics/2008/09/post-dispatch-refuses-to-distribute-dvd-offensive-to-american-muslims/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080920000734/http://cbs4.com:80/local/obsession.muslim.religion.2.818889.html to http://cbs4.com/local/obsession.muslim.religion.2.818889.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080928113802/http://www.jta.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110533.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110533.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919043947/http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS05/809110352 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS05/809110352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913080048/http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com:80/whoweare/index.html to http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/whoweare/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006084813/http://www.jta.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110615.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110615.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. 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/20080708102707/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu:80/~khaleel/ to http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/Clarion2.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sufficiency of category inclusion

The Islamophobia category has been removed three times now and Nightshift36 has requested a rationale for why it should be included; I would say that given that the criticism section contains allegations that the film is Islamophobic, the threshold has been met for category inclusion, even if it's just "some newspapers" reporting it. Wikipedia isn't determinative as to whether or not this film truly is or isn't Islamophobic, it's just a category for a reader's use to explore further based on potentiality and the fact that it has been asserted (that this movie is Islamophobic). As a parallel, what is the rationale for continued inclusion of the category "Islam and antisemitism"? Unlike Islamophobia, content on antisemitism doesn't appear in the article content, and the word "Antisemitism" doesn't even appear in the article text. If there is content in the article on Islamophobia, but no mention in the article of antisemitism, why would we exclude the Islamophobia category while including the Antisemitism category? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Circling back two weeks later and finding no response, I'll restore the category on my next edit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't notice it. I personally don't care about the "Islamn and antisemitism" category, so remove it if you want. That eliminated about half of your response. As for the other part, just because a few orgs got upset and started throwing around the term doesn't make it correct and including it in the category implies that there is Islamophobia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The article content correctly indicates that the film was criticized for being Islamophobic, so the category is sufficiently applicable to the article. Whether or not the film really is Islamophobic is up to the reader to decide. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• A minority said it was. If a minority call a movie a "classic", would we start adding it to a list of classics? I know among BLP's, inclusion in categories is an issue. For example, if someone is accused of a crime, we don't include them in a list of criminals. We don't include BLP's in the LGBT project unless it's verified because the inclusion implies the subject is gay. Seems like the same principle should apply here. Including it in the category implies that the producers are Islamophobes. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That logic would be sound for BLPs because of the defamatory per se implications of alleging someone is a criminal, or unverified claims that they are homosexual (from the examples you've pointed out). This is not a BLP however, so the same principles do not apply here. The article's subject is a controversial anti-Islamic movie with political aspects, far outside the Hollywood mainstream, and certainly fair game for the implications of criticisms like Islamophobia. If, on the other hand, we were having this discussion on the BLPs of the producers themselves, I'd certainly agree that we shouldn't be adding the category "Islamophobes" to their articles. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• BLP may actually apply since the implication does involve living people. If you imply that the film is Islamophobic, you are, by extension, accusing the producers, directors etc of promoting Islamophopia. As far as I am aware, those are still living people. If you know otherwise, please correct me. BLP applies anywhere on Wikipedia (even talk pages), not just in actual biographies. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, but too much of a stretch here to make that policy connection between labeling living persons as Islamophobes (directors/producers/etc) and the film itself being criticized as Islamophobic. If you sincerely think I'm wrong, try making a post to the BLP:Noticeboard regarding the concern; if you find any support there, I'd be happy to reverse my position. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• My main reason for removal isn't BLP. It's that the basis for this is the minority opinion of mainly activist groups. I do, however, think there is possibly a BLP issue as well. I'm curious though how this became a matter of me having to convince you for a removal to happen? That's essentially what I'm hearing. You'll keep restoring it unless I go elsewhere because your POV holds more weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused (not sure I understand what you're trying to say) when you say "unless I go elsewhere because your POV holds more weight," perhaps you could clarify and expand on that(?). But it's obvious that we've taken different positions on the issue; you think it should not be included, while I think it should be. I suggested the BLP:Noticeboard only because you raised BLP and going there to get guidance would be the logical thing to do if you think BLP trumps the issue. How do you think we should resolve this difference of opinion? Request a neutral third opinion from another editor, or request other editors comment on whether or not they think the category should be here? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• You honestly aren't following that? You have decided this category belong here. You keep restoring it. Your answer is that you reject every reason I give and tell me to go to BLPN ( go elsewhere) and gain consensus there, which reinforces my feeling that you aren't listening to what I said. BLP was not my first or only reason. In other words, your POV will be the one here unless I get others to change it. This is taking entirely too much of my time. Advance whatever POV you feel the need to. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only made two edits; the first one was intended as a compromise between you and the IP editor, wherein the two of you appeared to be flipping it back and forth between "Islamophobia" and "Antisemitism" as categories (my edit/suggestion was to include both). You reverted Islamophobia back out again however, and suggested the Talk Page be used, so I posted on the talk page, then after two weeks went by with no response I returned the category (my second edit). In contrast, you've made three reverts of this, so please consider that it's disingenuous to imply I'm pushing my POV here (if that's what you're doing). With regard to BLP, please note that I didn't ask you to go get a consensus, I said that if you found any support there, I would be happy to reverse my position; I said that because I found the BLP policy argument far-fetched and I suspect you know that as well. As far as resolving disputes go, getting commentary from others is a good thing because additional perspectives usually break the impasse. It's what editors are supposed to do when they disagree, when neither side is likely to change their mind. If this isn't worth your time as you've said, however, I won't try to convince you otherwise... investment of time on Wikipedia is definitely a factor in what we're willing to do. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception sourcing

The Reception references the movie's official website, which is certainly not a reliable source in this context. These cites should be replaced with a secondary source that discusses the overall reception, not just cherry-picked positive reviews. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)