Talk:The Siege

Untitled

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)

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)

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)

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)

Social Impact?

I'm somewhat surprised that this controversial film has no section dealing with its social impact. The United States is shown as flawed but ultimately ruled by law. The persecution of Muslims by the declaration of martial law is shown in harsh realism. This is a fictional situation that reflects real world problems. The issues raised before 9/11 were sadly prophetic. Possibly this subject is dealt with at length elsewhere in wikipedia. ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I just changed plot summary a little.Are there different versions seen outside the U.S.A.?Missing is the scenes involving agent Kraft nude in bed with the informant,I didn't add it because unsure of exact sequence.Also missing is Kraft /Hubbard confronting the informant to get address of cell in car repair shop, conversation "bugged" by the army intelligence.Also bugged is Hubbards phone calls.

Analysis of Kraft/CIA involvement

The CIA agent played by Benning displays a bizarre range of behaviours and "spycraft" in the film. There are always compromises when Hollywood condenses the activities of an entire agency into one character."Kraft" represents both knowledge of the Middle East, Islam, terrorism, etc and complete stupidity in many instances.The film in this regard has a hasty cobbled together feel.Being a female "James Bond" sleeping with the enemy,in this instance a Muslim, is dubious. The film asks the audience to believe there is only one CIA acting alone in New York without support. Yeah,right!Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

minor changes

i have made some minor adjustments to the page in the plot summary and added a line in the controversy section

I realise that this film has caused arguments in the past and was the subject of much debate but feel that the whole point of the film was missed in some of those comments

It is my view that as the film portrays kafan alongside Wudu correctly showing takfeen (Islamic_funeral) some criticisms were raised at the time of its release which may be incorrect. It does not in my opinion portray Muslims as "the Muslims have total disregard for human life" as it clearly states that only 20 people are suspected - not the whole Muslim population. It does not in my opinion show a "very strong equation between Muslim religious practices and terrorism" apart from those 20 suspects

similarly here in the UK we have had IRA, Muslims, French and Spanish as well as many other terrorists letting off bombs, shooting and poisoning people and I am against all forms of radical doctrine which promote hate and terror - this film clearly shows that the army is just as capable of such practices.

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed from controversy section

An editor has removed this from the section "Controversy"

"However it should be noted that as of 1980 over 90% of all terrorist related bombing attacks (suicide or conventional) are carried out by people of Muslim or Islamic faith or culture."

It would seem that this is not really related to the film itself, but has been there a very long time

I will check Wiki policy and see if it should be left out or replaced--Chaosdruid (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been passed on and dealt with by a more experienced editor - please see history for any info--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, thank you for informing me on the decision to submit this particular aspect of the article to further revision. When I came upon the article I was simply reading on films, and was very surprised to find that in the controversy section there was a completely unverifiable statistic that seemed to support (without anybody actually requesting it, or the article demanding it in any way for encyclopedic knowledge to be assured) one side of the controversy. That is why I proceeded to delete it, because I found that it was neither relevant nor substantiated, and that additionally it could also be interpreted as prejudiced and/or intolerant of Islam. Had the article been any other, I wouldn't have bother to do anything else than to point out the lack of citation. In any case, I hope that whoever is reviewing it will consider what I had to say on the matter also. Thank you for your notice, and for your hard work.

220.41.26.175 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)