Riddick Bowe

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)

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 [3]). 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)