Talk:The Siege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

11:16, 23 October 2005 Predator capitalism (de-link) was only a fake - there was no german article about this film at that time. I have removed this phantom interwiki. Yopohari 10:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) it also be included in the article that the siege was released three years before 9/11.

Is this pc of trivia really notable? [November 6th can be written as 11-6 and if you turn that 180 degrees around you get 9-11] I would say that is not notable in any way, or any "connection". --ACBluto 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Internment 2 Anti-Arab sentiment 3 Most-rented film after 9/11? 4 Translations? 5 Rewrite of plot summary 6 Analysis: citation needed, citation needed, citation needed

[edit] Internment

Mass internment of Arabs is STILL regarded as an unlikely scenario after 9/11.

That's true, so you are probably justified in removing any mention of 9/11 in that sentence in the article. (The situation depicted in The Siege, with on-going terrorist attacks that the FBI and police are unable to stop, is different from what happened on 9/11, as that attack was a one-time event.)

I think that the internment of young Arab men depicted in The Siege is (unfortunately) a not-so-farfetched possibility under the (hypothetical) circumstances presented, and therefore worth mentioning in the "Analysis" section. So I've restored the sentence along with a link to what happened to the Japanese on the West Coast during WW II. --RenniePet 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arab sentiment

There is no proof that there was ever any "...anti-Arab sentiment among some segments of the public" after the 9/11 attacks.

I've restored the mention of this fact that was recently removed from the article. As source for the accuracy of this just do a Google search for "anti-arab backlash 9/11" and you'll get hundreds of hits. It is also talked about on this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism and in an FBI report http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01hate.pdf (The FBI report brings my PCs to their knees - you need to be patient before it becomes browseable.)

"That distribution changed in 2001, presumably as a result of the heinous incidents that occurred on September 11. For many offenders, the preformed negative opinion, or bias, was directed toward ethnicity/national origin. Consistent with past data, by bias type, law enforcement reported that most incidents in 2001 were motivated by bias against race. However, crime incidents motivated by bias against ethnicity/national origin were the second most frequently reported bias in 2001, more than doubling the number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders from 2000 data. Additionally, the anti-other ethnicity/national origin category quadrupled in incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders.

Another noticeable increase in 2001 was among religious-bias incidents. Anti-Islamic religion incidents were previously the second least reported, but in 2001, they became the second highest reported among religious-bias incidents (anti-Jewish religion incidents were the highest), growing by more than 1,600 percent over the 2000 volume. In 2001, reported data showed there were 481 incidents made up of 546 offenses having 554 victims of crimes motivated by bias toward the Islamic religion."

If you want to contest this, wouldn't it be better to do it on the Anti-Arabism page instead of this page for a semi-obscure movie? --RenniePet 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted an edit by 198.77.206.228, where that person claims that there was no anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment in New York after 9/11-2001. I did the revert because the evidence (for example the FBI report referenced) seems to indicate that there was some discrimination after the attack, and because 198.77.206.228 has a history of being warned about vandalism and counter-productive edits.

I was not in the USA myself at the time, and don't really have any strong personal opinion, but unless someone can find evidence to the contrary I think the statement should remain. --RenniePet 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most-rented film after 9/11?

I remember hearing that the film became one of the most rented films in the U.S. the weeks after September 11, 2001, but I can't find any source for that right now... If anyone can find one, I think it's a quite interesting fact and should be in the article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is now mentioned via a statement made by Lawrence Wright that is quoted in the article. --RenniePet 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translations?

Near the end, marchers carry signs in various languages, "No Fear," "Sin temor," something in Chinese, and a few banners in Arabic. What do they say? (I got the Spanish, it's mostly the Arabic I'm curous about.) 72.248.65.168 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of plot summary

I have rewritten the plot summary, attempting to improve its clarity. I have placed a spoiler tag at the beginning. I think I understood the instructions, but if my use of the spoiler tag does not conform to guidelines, please do remove it. Mordant Kitten 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until after I edited just now. Actually, we used to have spoiler tags everywhere but the trend (and the current guideline) is now to not have them without a compelling reason. Here the spoiler tag followed directly after the appropriate section heading, which was self-explanatory, so I removed it. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Mordant Kitten 04:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis: citation needed, citation needed, citation needed

The user with IP address 76.172.42.154 added three "citation needed" tags to the "Analysis" section yesterday. I'll try to add the necessary documentation for the first two items one of these days. (I'm really too busy for Wikipedia activities right now.)

The third "citation needed" tag has me mystified. The sentence is "Interestingly, the script for The Siege was written by Lawrence Wright, who later, several years after 9/11, wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Looming Tower about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attack." Could the person behind 76.172.42.154 please advise what he/she finds controversial or non-documented about this statement? Thanks. (Maybe that paragraph doesn't belong in the "Analysis" section, but if that's the problem please move it to a better location.)

Until then I've simply removed this third "citation needed" tag. --RenniePet 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)