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

message: 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)
replies: text: It sure played on FOX , I saw it myself.--CltFn 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "Mainstream exposure" section

message: 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)
thread_title:  On the use of the term "notable counterterrorism figures" 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:ObsessionRadicalIslam.jpg 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph moved to Talk: 

message: 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)
thread_title: Propose new page-"Ohio hate crime on mosque"

message: 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)
thread_title:  LRB article 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Apostrophe in article title 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! Altairah (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: 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)
thread_title: Interviews

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, then, take your own advice. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discrete specific edits 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed additions 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Commentary

message: 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  template such as  (see WP:CITET). (see the code for suggested formatting) -- davidz (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Citation creation tools -- davidz (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: No response?Bless sins (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already responded. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Informative, lengthy article on Aish HaTorah, Clarion Fund and Obsession movie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current State of the Article/NPOV Tag 

message: * Anti-Arabism
* Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims
travb (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also entries added

message: 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)
thread_title:  The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality verses reality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot description

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appreciation vs. criticism in lead  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced weight given to criticism at the expense of support for the movie, leads to one-sided article

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: I agree that Azure's wording is more appropriate. Good work. N1of2 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made the adjustment, all good.  :) AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of criticism from the lede

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sufficiency of category inclusion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reception sourcing