Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donfarberman (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 17 September 2012 (→‎Add terrorism to title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Evidence for coordinated attacks

These all seem to have various support from different perspectives that the attacks were coordinated, i.e., not mob action:

I don't have enough sleep to evaluate them all in detail and try to compose a unified summary, so maybe someone else will I hope. —Cupco 09:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Read also this post. Just FYI Noman Benotman is Libyan, was member of LIFG and has vast array of contacts within the jihadists although he made a split with them a decade ago. Libya seems like AQ coordinated action which used the protests as cover-up (in Tripoli there was protest as well. 40 people attended it and most of the city didnt even know about them). EllsworthSK (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed, now that these better sources are coming up. I'm not sure the best way to fix all of this since the entire Background section is currently about the film...but we can (sanely) change the ascribed motives in the lead, and fill in the background section slowly I suppose. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info on the possible coordination and some U.S. officials saying it wasn't caused by the film to the lead (though the second part may be too speculative, but it is CNN quoting anonymous US government officials, which passes the reliability test for me, and I used "believed" in any case), but the "background" section still needs to be expanded to note all of this. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Man Be Not Man? Thats not a name, it's an existential quandary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.23 (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently starts "On September 11, 2012, a series of protests started in response to a YouTube trailer of a film presented with the title Innocence of Muslims and considered blasphemous by many Muslims." That is looking less and less likely. I would correct to say "perhaps" or "reportedly", but the article is locked and I can't make any corrections. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be plenty of debate still, as of September 16, whether this was a spontaneous or pre-planned attack on the US consulate in Behghazi. Yet the first sentence still claims the attacks began in response to a film. Can this be updated and corrected? See resources below:

US, Libya differ on accounts of Benghazi attack http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grZlSqbDUPOklWk6DdxzsZPDUIig?docId=CNG.fe8e9253b496ea61d57a5b1f8ffb3eee.01

Libyan President: Attack planned by foreigners http://www.washingtonpost.com/libyan-president-attack-planned-by-foreigners/2012/09/16/7be6d8c0-0020-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_video.html

John McCain: Libya Attacks On U.S. Officials Were Planned By Terrorists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/john-mccain-libya_n_1888291.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Libya lawmaker says Benghazi attack planned http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=23366 "I don't want to talk about what happened in other countries but as for Libya, the operation was meticulously executed," Mohammed al-Megaryef [the country's assembly chief] said. "There was planning. It was not a peaceful protest which degenerated into an armed attack or aggression. That's how it was planned," he said.

And from Sept. 13: Consulate attack planned as 2-part militant assault, Libyan official says http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/consulate-attack-planned-as-2-part-militant-assault-libyan-official-says/ Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intifada

The Arab/Muslim world appears to be on fire in protest and violence against Western targets. Should we start calling this an Intifada (or is that reserved for Palestinian vs. Israel conflicts?)

I think this is more like a wave of protests, nothing as big as uprising (intifada), but if it develops we'll carry on. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not jump to conclusions already. It's not World War III yet. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can not call it an intifada if that is not what it is called in RS outlets and the term is used widely. That'd just be attributing our own views to it. --Activism1234 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Map has more up-to-date info

As of right now, this Google Map has far more up to fate information than we do: [1] 71.246.159.216 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to External links as this clearly satisfies everything in WP:EL. —Cupco 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An update to all of the maps are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaskerr1027 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need to change the name of this article

We need to change the title of this article to, say, 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks as German embassy in Sudan was set on fire and British embassy in Sudan was attacked as well. Merrybrit (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. Events appear to have become anti-Western-- German and British embassies, KFC restaurant, etc. I'm also uncertain about using the term "attack" as a blanket for all protests-- it fits well for the Benghazi attack, but not all.
What about September 2012 Anti-Western protests? --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "Western" is the right word to use in the title, since it's a bit subjective, but the suggested 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks, or maybe just 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks to avoid using Western, seems fine with me. Though it seems the idea at the moment is to merge this into the Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" article, and turn this into an article on the apparently pre-planned Benghazi attack specifically. (Though I'm not sure why that wasn't done the other way around.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more death in Lebanon

According to this Al Jazeera English report, 2 people have died in Lebanon altogether. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291482159758224.html David O. Johnson (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated the death count in Lebanon. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is KFC really a diplomatic mission? - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're blanking/moving the protest section...

The best way is not to remove the entire thing. It would be much better to summarize the protests fully, rather than remove all of them with just a vague summary. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain and Germany are not U.S. colonies or subsidiaries

See formal move-request started below Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't treat them as such. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma is simply wrong. It would be silly to treat the attacks against the British and German embassy in a different topic. So 2012 diplomatic missions attacks should be the new lemma. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article's title needs to change, be more generic

Not a single media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The protests and attacks are clearly related and belong in the same article. Something like "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is much better. Take a look at 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to say, section above this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM-rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please indicate which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are alleged to be at issue here. This may be a rant, but it is also a legitimate discussion of the article title. —Cupco 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a patently dishonest renaming of the article to further the false implication that these terrorist attacks were carried out in response to the obscure "anti-Islam" film, when we know that these attacks were premeditated and planned long in advance to coincide with September 11 to garner maximum political and symbolic effect. The film that is continually being dishonestly characterised as being at the centre of these events was used as a false pretext merely to draw out the masses to provide human cover for the terrorists and increase their likelihood of a successful murder operation. Your decision to rename the article as "Anti-Islam film protests" serves the agenda of reinforcing the false narrative of these terrorist attacks being some sort of spontaneous eruption of rage (which somehow included RPGs, AK-47s, and prior warnings from prominent Jihadists/Islamists). One must suspend reality to actually believe that the parallel attacks on American embassies and consulates in different cities was somehow coincidental, moreover coincidentally occurring on September 11. We saw this same strategy implemented many times, including the "Koran-burning protests" in Afghanistan where a Mujahedeen terrorist used to commotion and human traffic as cover from which to murder American soldiers. As expected, the pervasive dishonesty of Wikipedia is inescapable, and we are expected to see good faith in editors who clearly have a dishonest agenda to conform the narrative to their leftist worldview. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bobinisrael's comments here and below are neither original research (they are supported by e.g. the sources at #Evidence for coordinated attacks), nor personal inventions, nor personal essays (they are about improving the title), and they are about improving the article; therefore, the allegations that Bobinisrael has violated WP:FORUM are false. These comments should not be hidden. —Cupco 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 Anti-Islam film protests – As the situation clearly changed with German and British embassies as well as restaurants coming under attack, I suggest moving this article per above. After that we can link split out into a separate article the terrorist attack in Libya. Note that most news media refer to it as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim film protests (BBC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177 AP here http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROPHET_FILM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-14-17-23-47) Merrybrit (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I created an article 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Help me move information on the terrorist attack to that article.Merrybrit (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and split at the same time? There has been no concensus for such a change. Your new title is ambigous and overlaps in scope with the film's article as well. Shoot first and aim later? Skullers (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - was a discussion opened and then an editor decided to just change the name to the proposed name without having consensus or a closed discussion??? I can very well see consensus developing in favor of the name - but while we're discussing it, I don't believe it's wise to simply change the name in the middle. --Activism1234 22:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are multiple other discussions on what this article should be called, how it should be split up, etc. I don't see a problem with the new title (and it's much better than the old one), so I didn't bring it up, but the move process on this does appear to have been done hastily, but in good faith. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did not move the article but I support the move. The situation has significantly changed today with other countries' embassies as well as private businesses having been attacked. It is unsustainable to have an article referring only to the US diplomatic missions. As for split, the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act and should be treated as such. Its investigation and aftermath should be in a separate article. Furthermore, most of the international reactions currently on this page refer to the reactions to the killing of Ambassador Stevens so it makes sense to move them to a separate article dealing with the Benghazi attack. Merrybrit (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated strong oppose. The new title is vague and misleading. Other totally valid interpretations can include:
  • These are anti-islam film protests. e.g. the protests are by people who hate Islam riled up by the film.
  • These are film protests that are against the tenets of Islam - e.g. a bit of soapboxing to say that "These protests aren't really Islamic."

This title is incredibly flawed. Suggest it be moved to Innocence of Muslims protests. SnowFire (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for what it's worth, my preferred name is 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. —Cupco 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are opposed to the move, suggest a better title. Do not just say "I oppose". The previous title mentioning only US facilities became misleading and obsolete, so it has to be replaced. Merrybrit (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did offer a suggested alternative. But this current title is awful. Anyway, if people are fine with identifying this as based on the movie, I will repeat: "Innocence of Muslims protests". This isn't perfect because the Benghazi incident was not really a "protest" but more like an assassination + riot. If we want something very generic to placate those who don't want to play up the movie, then "2012 embassy attacks and protests". SnowFire (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RM was closed prematurely and without consensus so of course the correct action is to move the article back to the original name and let the RM run its course until it can be closed by an admin. —Cupco 23:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally be in full agreement, but the old title was essentially preventing information from being added properly after non-US embassy targets started seeing protests and attacks. I'm not sure the best way to approach the issue of the premature move, but I thought I'd note that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't closed, it was "carried out". This section was tagged as it is, 3 minutes prior. Skullers (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the current title is awful. That's how at the moment BBC is referring to these events (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177) as well as other media organisations. I think it's fine as a working title. Going forward, we might want to downplay the film as a cause of this, then I will support something like "2012 diplomatic missions attacks and protests". Regarding the Benghazi incident, as I wrote above, it's a terrorist attack and as such deserves a separate article. Merrybrit (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now there were also riots in Sydney. This has gone far beyond the U.S. diplomatic missions. A separate article for the attack in Benghazi is probably a good idea because there are currently a lot of rumours about it being preplanned and it is very likely historically relevant on its own (post civil war Libya). Anti-Islam Video Protests seems also be the title given by the media now (e.g., Al Jazeera). We should not invent our own titles! --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per SnowFire. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about the title, 2012 international diplomatic attacks. JC · Talk · Contributions 17:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - it's simply dishonest and a lie. The article itself discusses numerous reports and statements by officials who comment that the attack in Libya, for one, seemed to be planned in advance and was highly sophisticated, and the movie was used as a pretext. The title (which has since been changed) drew a cause-and-effect comparison, which may or may not exist. That said, I propose to rename the current title to indicate that the diplomatic missions were Western embassies, something like "2012 attacks on Western diplomatic missions." --Activism1234 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move

This temporary move was initially withdrawn by me (due to lack of consensus), but then carried out by an admin after more consensus towards removing "U.S." developed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose moving to a temporary title of 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks while the move discussion is in progress. That seems the least controversial interim option to me (compared to the current title), and allows for the attacks on other countries' embassies to be properly included without being off-topic. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If we seem to have a consensus on this proposed temporary title, is it valid to move the page as such with the move discussion open? (Since it's not worth discussing a temporary title if it's not.) But I get the sense that people wouldn't mind dropping "U.S." from the title, so I would hope that if a couple more people chime in with support and nobody objects, we can make that move quickly. The title really is broken right now, since non-US embassies were attacked as part of this sequence. 00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The attacks are against the United States, and the others were targets of opportunity. It's no more against Germany and the UK than an attack against KFC. It wasn't the chicken they were "protesting".Skullers (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, actually. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources contradict this stance; the attacks on the German embassy were deliberate and focused on Germany, not the U.S. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 05:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. In the course of the attack (or violent protest, if you will) against the German embassy, the embassy seal was removed and vandalized (see, for instance, [2] as a source). That is a deliberate attack against a diplomatic symbol of a country and thus, by extension, against the country itself. — Precedingunsigned comment added by FungusFromYuggoth (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of original move discussion

This was moved again, with no clear reason. While it was moved to the name I actually supported as a temporary name, I don't support bypassing the move process when it's clear that we don't have consensus at the moment, even for a change of that nature. Thus, I moved it back, even though I really don't like that we have "U.S." in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I think the proposed name is actually confusing; is it about an “Anti-Islam film” or protesting against an “Islam film”? I'm not sure I have a better suggestion, but maybe “September 2012 pro-Islamic middle eastern protests”. —Kerfuffler  harass
    stalk          02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concern: that it can be misinterpreted as being a protest against an Islamic film. But I think that a better title will probably be long and convoluted, so I think it's worth considering the tradeoff. I'm don't think characterizing the protests as "pro-Islamic" is accurate either. I don't think you can assume that from the protestors being primarily Muslim, and sources are mostly reporting on the anti-whatever nature of the protests and attacks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the construction of a title without US, but oppose whitewashing the "attacks" into merely a "protest." These actions may have been protests reacting to a film, but they became deadly attacks. With a few dozen dead, "protests" is dangerously euphemistic. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I humbly suggest 2012 Anti-Islam film reactions so the term reaction will cover both protests AND attacks? Most of the reactions are protests, with the Benghazi attack using the film as cover of a pre-planned attack. Some attackers are claiming responsibility in response of the film. We need to sort out the protests and attacks and place them in separate sections so facts don't get confused. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WP:Common name?

Has everyone here forgot about WP:common name? Not a single news media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The most common ones usually go something like "Protests over anti-Islam film" or "anti-Islam film protests". Things have changed. This title needs to change too.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reiterate support for the original 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, partially due to this. The Libya attack has a separate page now, and if more than speculation arises on the Egypt attack being coordinated, we can certainly do the same for that or include it with the Libya attack. But the rest of the world is engaged in a protest that started with a reported film, and is being reported as such, even if it has wider implications. It's mostly non-violent, with some violence in places, so "protests" seems better overall (and DOES cover the violent portions just fine; it's not like the proposed title is "peaceful demonstrations".) Using "attacks" in the title seems NPOV against any peaceful protests, whereas "protests" doesn't do the same to including attacks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an ongoing event and there's no established common name. The media have to conserve headline space and use the shortest possible name to identify the story. Such as "mohammed cartoons", "anti-islam film", "mohammed video" etc. And neither do they use "2012". There are other films that are "protested" against, do we cover them by the year? We should use a title that most accurately identifies the event. Skullers (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this helps, but the NYT has decided a name for the topic page regarding these events: ['Innocence of Muslims' Riots] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The attacks on the diplomatic sites are a clearly defined topic which we can cover well. The other protests are probably also such a topic, but not to cover here. That other article will be hard to define - how do you say when an attack in Afghanistan is about the Koran and when it's about there being a war on? Wnt (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the film title "Innocence of Muslims" be included?

Several people have brought this up. Also, the NYT created a topic page for these events and calls it the "'Innocence of Muslims' Riots" [7]. My question is: should the film title be included in this article's title? How about "2012 'Innocence of Muslims' protests and attacks" or something like that? It's definitely less vague than anti-Islam protests -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. The first attack in Benghazi was clearly a planned al-Qaida event having to do with a drone attack on the organization's #2 leader, which follows closely after other attacks that preceded release of the film! Wnt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search of copious anti-muslim content on YouTube proves the fallacy of "opinion-mongers" in the popular media and here in Wikipedia that these attacks were somehow justified in response to a perceived insult from a single film. "Bad old Western culture blasphemed our Prophet with this film. Please ignore all the other examples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.165.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks are not only on diplomatic missions

Apparently, the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion was a response to the film, but it may also be a pretext for an attack on the base. I think the name of the article should be 2012 attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya (which involved al-Qaeda), and the Camp bastion attacks (which involved the Taliban). - M0rphzone (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to 2012 attacks in response to anti-Islam film (or include the actual film title) - The scope of this article is on the protests, riots, and attacks, not only on protests. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya and Afghanistan. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as requested: I would support this over the current title if we can't reach consensus on the proposed title, as it's better than "diplomatic missions attacks". However, I strongly prefer the use of protests over attacks, since most of the countries we're reporting about aren't seeing violence, and "protests" certainly covers violent protests as well. (The pre-planned attack in Benghazi is another matter, and is being covered in its own article as it should be.) Something more succinct like 2012 protests over anti-Islam film would be better I think, and I'd support that version as much as the primary option of 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taliban attacks to US bases in Afghanistan is actually fairly common, one or two per week (maybe more, I lost count). Since Taliban has cited the film for this particular attack in Camp Bastion, we probably should include it, but I highly suspect Taliban will attack the base in spite of the film. :-/ My two cents. — Hasdi Bravo • 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown of article title

I see people shooting random suggestions as usual, but perhaps we should approach it more systematically:

Year: adding "2012" implies that all the "film protests" in 2012 fall within its scope, and that we cover them by the year.
Type of event: [muslim] riots / protests / attacks / reactions / unrest / etc - rather contentious
Motivation: anti-film / anti-US / anti-west / etc... may be improper to attribute in the title
Target: [US] diplomatic missions / anything that looks western and flammable

How specific or how generic should it be to clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the article (and scope of the event for that matter) while remaining neutral and factually accurate? As it is, the 3 articles on this topic (with the film itself and the attack in Libya) overlap in scope for protests, attacks, and reactions. I suggest we figure this instead of causing further confusion. Skullers (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely consensus to keep "2012" (nobody has objected to that), and there are a lot of people who want to remove "diplomatic missions" part, because those are not the only targets. There is strong consensus to not have "US" in the title, and I haven't seen any arguments to have "anti-West" in the title.

The main issues that we need to vote on are (1) type of event (attacks or protests), (2) whether or not to include the film (anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims), and (3) whether to include diplomatic missions or not.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say similar, though I'd add that (2) and (3) are essentially the same (since nobody has really proposed we have both in there, just one or the other, so it can just be treated as three options: anti-Islam film vs Innocence of Muslims vs diplomatic missions, plus whatever else might be suggested, in addition to attacks vs protests separately.) The existing discussion is also a mess, due to the rapidly changing nature of the event, and also the move removing "U.S." (which makes replies before that occurred possibly confusing,since people were objecting to wording that's no longer applicable, but of course the move was necessary); perhaps it would be good to get a newer set of editor opinions to help clarify the existing discussion. Phrasing is also an issue, though more minor in my opinion (and only really applicable if it's "anti-Islam film" I think, and there are some suggestions on longer phrasing to avoid the ambiguous "Anti-Islam film protests/attacks".) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 is redundant if Innocence of Muslims is identified by name, since it wasn't "protested" separately in 2011 or 2013. There are other anti-islam films protested against, and we shouldn't distinguish them by year. Something like "Innocence of Muslims" riots would be more accurate. Skullers (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but I'm not sure we even need to worry about that point, assuming nobody does want to call it the "2012 Innocence of Muslims riots". (Since that goes against article title conventions.) As long as it's clear that that version of the name wouldn't have 2012, but the others would, then I don't think it's a big deal. (And if anyone does strongly prefer that name, it can be suggested as an alternative to just plain "Innocence of Muslims".) I would say considering riots in addition to protests and attacks is likely warranted, though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree. ypnypn (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Islamic anti-West protests (or Muslim, whatever is the correct term). This is neutral and captures the broad scope. The attacks on the German embassy are not related to the film, but are likely inspired by the attack in Benghazi. Further, there was a report that said the attack in Benghazi was planned before the film came out. [8] [9] [10]--Metallurgist (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Shouting "death to america", killing an american diplomat on american soil (an embassy), is a blatant attack on the US, especially considering it started around September 11, and before that, the video itself had less that 1000 views, as well as the fact that the video has been out for 3 months. I don't even see how the video plays a part at all, outside of a scape-goat for rioting. Countered (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm How many more times do we need to discuss this? The attack in Benghazi that killed Stevens is unrelated to these protests, which are ignited by the film.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW - I am confident that the US and/or world media will come up with a common name for the series of events that they all latch on to and will be obliged to use. These aren't always obvious during the events. (ie: We didn't call WWI by that title during the war) I wouldn't suggest anyone get too attached to any name until then, as that will become the common name, although the discussion is always healthy. I suggest leaving the title as it is for a week or two with the full understanding that the current title is purely temporary, as no one likes it nor thinks it will be the final title, but bouncing it around between titles isn't helpful either. Discussing it is fine, but history has shown us that the sources will pick the title, we won't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should search for the most common name used to refer to these events in English reliable sources and use it instead of trying to make one by ourselves. We need someone searching and showing URLs to verify as I've seen done in such situations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources:
  • CNN: No specific name. Titles such as: Anti-U.S. demonstrations worldwide and Attacks on U.S. missions used to refer to specific events, but not the whole events. [11]. This is also true for many other news websites (most websites I visited avoided using a specific term to refer to these events).
  • AJE: Anti-Islam Video Protests [12].
  • RT: Anti-US riots [13].
  • BBC: Anti-Islam film protests [14].
  • Sky News: US Anti-Islam Film Protests [15]
  • Washington Post: Anti-American protests [16]
  • Los Angeles Times: Anti-U.S. protests [17].
Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we look into the quick search results, we'll see "Anti-Islam" vs "Anti-US", for this I think most of us will agree Anti-Islam is better. Is it a film or video? Both seem the same for me. Is it attacks/riots/protests or all (reactions)? It is all, but for the most part it is protests and that the most used term to refer to the events. Therefore I support 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I also don't oppose 2012 Anti Islam film reactions. For those who think the name is "vague and misleading" or "confusing", you might as well tell that to the BBC, AJE, Sky News, etc. We name articles per WP:COMMON. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat in agreement with you. We really need to sort out the protests from the attacks, as I would reserve the word attack for "military" attacks (involve guns and RPG and stuff). Another problem is that the 'Anti-Islam film' (which I took the trouble to watch) is likely IMHO a 14-minute riff-raff version of 'Desert Warrior', overdubbed and all. I don't see any references to Bin Laden in the youtube video AND Desert Warrior, so 'Innocence of Bin Laden' could be another film entirely. This whole thing is one huge cluster-f**k. >:( — Hasdi Bravo • 17:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reactions" is very misleading, because it most reactions to a film consist of printed reviews, not riots or attacks or whatever. I think "protests" is the most accurate, because it include violent protests as well. ypnypn (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do read the first paragraph: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; [...] When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. - WP:UCN. It's a current event and headlines change, there is no "common name". Do we really need to quote policy like scripture and start chery-picking headlines for it? Skullers (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that describing the events as protests is inaccurate, because as indicated above, protests can be violent and turn into riots. Also the attack in Libya has its own article. If you think this is cheery-picking, then please find what other sources are calling it and add them to the table below. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's cherry-picking and that's why i'm not engaging in it. Do you know how many "sources" there are in total? Do you tally every headline you come across, or just the ones that count? Category:Lists of newspapers Category:Television networks, lmk. You might have to re-count again as things develop. Skullers (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the media are calling these events

Let's make this more organized. Here is a chart. Feel free to edit it.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources Name of events Links
NY Times 'Innocence of Muslims' Riots [18]
AJE Anti-Islam Video Protests [19]
RT Anti-US riots [20]
BBC Anti-Islam film protests [21]
Sky News US Anti-Islam Film Protests [22]
Washington Post Anti-American protests [23]
Los Angeles Times Anti-U.S. protests [24]
CBC Attacks at American diplomatic missions/Anti-U.S. outrage [25]
Example Example Example
Example Example Example

Including anniversary of Sep 11 in lede

"The attacks coincided with the 11 year anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks against the US." - this seems silly. Of course they did, and so do many other things. Yes, they're linked. However, just mentioning that without drawing any sort of conclusion is basically just tossing trivia into the lead. More importantly, it ties the attacks to the anniversary, which has NOT been established. I'm not going to edit war and remove it a second time, but it's rather awkward and unneeded. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I will remove it because I agree with you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonestly edited title.

{{hat|[[WP:FORUM]]}} This is a legitimate discussion of improving the article with a more accurate title. Un-hatting. —Cupco 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the title of the article should be renamed to "2012 Anti-American Islamist protests". The editors of this article are willingly parroting the false pretext of these terrorist attacks and murders (which are *still* not identified as such in the body of the article) as being in response to an obscure YouTube movie trailer, rather than actually being premeditated terrorist attacks that utilised political agitation regarding this film to provide human cover as an operational asset to increase the likelihood of the attack's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but we need sources saying it. WP:RM —Cupco 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's a violation of WP:FORUM. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are you referring? I see a discussion about improving the article title, with somewhat overblown language, unless you have been keeping up with the reporting cited in #Evidence for coordinated attacks for example. —Cupco 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user is treating it as a WP:SOAPBOX and has had multiple discussions hidden; while it may be a legitimate point, it's made with the same unconstructive attack-filled language as previous rants have been. We're being accused of editing the title in a "dishonest" manner, but it's just a continuation of all the previous comments. The user does not wish to contribute, but only to comment on a narrow set of talk pages, and has not responded to MANY efforts at reasonable discussion. WP:DNFTT – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the opinions expressed by Bobinisrael reported in reliable news sources, so I disagree that this is soapboxing. I suggest that WP:BITE is of particular relevance here. —Cupco 23:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that his opinions are necessarily incorrect, but how they are presented (which has been discussed at length here and on his talk page, so no need to expand on it here.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because the tone of my unapologetic rejection of blatantly dishonest editing in this article with the intent to propagandise the readership is more concerning to you than, say, the actual quality and accuracy of the content contained therein. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't an Administrator already hide this? Without RS's, it's just WP:FORUM HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provide any constructive suggestions in the relevant section above. Skullers (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, it was closed out of order. Bobinisrael's comments here and above are neither original research (they are supported by e.g. the sources at #Evidence for coordinated attacks), nor personal inventions, nor personal essays (they are about improving the title), and they are about improving the article; therefore, the allegations that Bobinisrael has violated WP:FORUM are false. —Cupco 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence should also say "ostensibly started" when discussing the video, since that's what the sources say. Fast Clear (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Anti-Islam film protests" a factual title?

First, good restructure-- the current title is better than the old one. I see some people questioning the title's literal accuracy-- that is, how important is the film in these protests, really? Is the film the "cause", or just a "trigger" that sets off latent social unrest?

If I could poll the protestors, how many would cite the film? Any guesses or estimates?

In any case, the title seems a fine working title until clarity emerges. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider commenting on the move-request rather opening a new section... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, User:Wikieditoroftoday went ahead and did the move before it could be closed and while it appeared to lack consensus. I feel a request for move protection may be called for, but I'm very much unhappy with the current name and would hate to see it get locked this way for a couple weeks. —Cupco 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with it as a title-- that's what BBC and RT are calling it, for lack of a better name.
I just wonder how "central" the film is to the protestors-- if they were here editing, would they "agree" with the weight we're giving to the film as a cause of the protests. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't relevant, we name articles per WP:Common. To me, the film is nothing more than Mohamed Bouazizi; "the straw that broke the camel's back". Also why is the article title changed back to the one no seems to be agreeing with? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Map

class=notpageimage|
Location of some of the several dozen attacks and protests. More complete interactive map.

The map in 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks#Attacks should be updated to reflect new attacks in Indonesia and the Phillipines as of September 14, 2012.

You may want to make those requests in the comments at [26] which is in the External links here and should probably be cited from the map's caption as we are approximately 41 protests behind at present. —Cupco 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that the the caption to the map in the article section "Attacks", be changed in it's entirety to 'Location of attacks and protests. See also "http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0"'.
As that map seems to be more actively maintained; and as per the suggestion of Cupco.
BTW the complete list of countries given in the article section "Protests" is Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Turkey, Tunisia, and the United States
 Done Per above. —Cupco 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we export the Google Map points?

Here is what we have so far, shown above: 

{{Location map+ |Middle East |width=450 |float=right |caption=Location of some of the attacks and protests.
 [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0 More complete interactive map.]
 |places=
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=32.116667 |long=20.066667 |label=[[Benghazi]]|position=top }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=30.058056 |long=29.50 |label=[[Cairo]]|position=bottom }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=15.348333 |long=44.206389 |label=[[Sana‘a]]|position=right }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=36.8 |long=10.183333 |label=[[Tunis]]|position=left }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=34.433333 |long=35.85 |label=[[Tripoli, Lebanon|Tripoli]]|position=top }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=15.633333 |long=32.533333 |label=[[Khartoum]]|position=bottom }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=13.083889 |long=80.27 |label=[[Chennai]]|position=left }}
 }}

Can we export the Google Map points into that format? —Cupco 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have exported the KML file and I think this is possible.... If only Google Earth would let me out of full screen flight simulator mode.... —Cupco 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions to Innocence of Muslims is located in Afro-Eurasia
Jerusalem[1]
Bangladesh[2]
Sanaa, Yemen[3]
Cairo, Egypt[4]
Tripoli, Libya[5]
Gaza Strip[6]
Jakarta, Indonesia[7]
Khartoum, Sudan[8]
Kashmir[9]
Tripoli, Lebanon[10]
Benghazi, Libya[11]
Tehran, Iran[12]
Baghdad, Iraq[13]
Islamabad, Pakistan[14]
Karachi, Pakistan[15]
Lahore, Pakistan[16]
Jalalabad, Afghanistan[17]
Mogadishu, Somalia[18]
Tunisia[19]
Algeria[20]
London, UK[21]
Kuwait City, Kuwait[22]
Kuwait City, Kuwait[23]
Chennai, India[24]
Amsterdam[25]
Maldives[26]
Sri Lanka[27]
Doha, Qatar[28]
Jos, Nigeria[29]
Sheikh Zuwayed[30]
Sale, Morocco[31]
Casablanca, Morocco[32]
Damascus, Syria[33]
Amman, Jordan[34]
Nouakchott, Mauritania[35]
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysi[36]
Batu Caves, Malaysia[37]
Ipoh, Malaysia[38]
Hyderabad, India[39]
Diraz, Bahrain[40]
Istanbul, Turkey[41]
Nablus, West Bank[42]
Basrah, Iraq[43]
Mombasa, Kenya[44]
Srinagar, India[45]
Kut, Iraq[46]
Tel Aviv, Israel[47]
Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan[48]
Sidon, Lebanon[49]
class=notpageimage|
Location of some of the attacks and protests. More complete interactive map.

Meh. Does someone want to try to mess with the |position={left,right,top,bottom} parameters to see if this is salvageable? I haven't yet added the Philippines per above. The docs are at {{Location map+}} and if you want to try to find a map with a better crop for this, see Category:Location map templates. —Cupco 01:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who "John" is, but every single one of his map points links to a verifiable news story from a mainstream source with a reasonable summary. —Cupco 04:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual source seems to be here: [27]. So "John" is John Hudson of The Atlantic, which I would say is perfectly reputable for this purpose. And the map is apparently being updated (or at least was earlier.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when the guy will update it, because there were, or still are protests in Sydney. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Chennai? The current map features only seven of the largest protests...this seems like the right way to go but one of them is Chennai, in India. Despite this, there is nothing in the body of the article about a protest in Chennai and the section on India (under the 'protests' sub-heading) states only that there was a protest in Kashmir. If something significant did happen in Chennai, it should be mentioned at least once. If not, what is the rationale for including Chennai on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.23 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Protesters in southern India have been arrested on suspicion of throwing rocks at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, the city police commissioner said. As many as 200 protesters were demonstrating in front of the building, but the number arrested was not reported. There were no reported injuries."[28] —Cupco 15:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the September 11 2001 attacks has been removed from the 'See also' section by the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Anti-Islam_film_protests&diff=512504920&oldid=512504506 That link should remain in the 'See also' section as both attacks are connected by that date.--Rpdant767 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." As the September 11, 2011 attacks are referenced in the body, they don't really belong in the See also, since there appears to be no valid reason to ignore that rule. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ULTIMATELY a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Therefore, due to the common sense, the link to the September 11 2001 attacks does belong in the 'See also' section.--Rpdant767 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course inclusion is ultimately a matter of our judgment. But that means ALL of our judgments, not a single editor's if it's contentious. That's why I quoted the entire bit including "as a general rule." What appears to be your personal opinion of "common sense" does not seem to be a reason to ignore the MOS's general rule here. I'm glad you indeed read the MOS as linked, but if there is some reason that we should ignore established practices, I think it needs to be more than that you personally feel it should be included. As in, perhaps seek consensus for having it in a See Also despite being in the body (since again, the MOS tells us generally not to do so), if you think it's truly important enough that being in the article alone is insufficient, with a reason that's going to persuade people more than "common sense." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News and "2012 Anti-Islam film protests"

Google News refers to us @ the lemma 2012 Anti-Islam film protests while we redirect it ~here~. Wakari07 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it'll be updated to whatever the current title is as soon as the page is indexed again. No big deal. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we hurry on this??? Only US interests attacked? Diplomatic interests? Come on... Wakari07 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the move discussion above. There are Wikipedia policies that restrict us from moving the page without a consensus on title, since a move discussion is in progress. I agree, the current title sucks, and the policy doesn't really work well with breaking news articles like this. But they're in place for good reasons to protect articles in general, so we have to follow them. If everyone just moved it to the title they wanted, there would be NO single, consistent title. That would be even worse.
As for the factual content, yeah, it's slanted to the US and needs to be fixed, but keep in mind that this is developing news and the initial attacks were aimed at US targets. Thus the article developed along those lines. I see you're already editing the page (I was going to suggest that), so that's a good start to getting the article to how it should be! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that anyone could possibly object to simply removing "U.S. " from the title? —Cupco 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. But we need more people to chime in on the move discussion to at least do that. I don't feel comfortable moving it under the current contentious conditions without a bit more consensus. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone objected, on what are probably reasonable grounds. —Cupco 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general and a specific. This article covers generally. The information in the article covers not only the attacks on diplomatic missions but protests as a whole, does it not? The responses are varied. In some countries, the protests were less than 100, and a great deal of those protests carried the tone of "shame on you guys". In other places, there were words of violence, but no actual violence. Other places had actual violence. In my opinion "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is the best title, since this article which encompasses Islamic reaction in general as a socio-political phenomenon is just that general. To imply that: 1) Some Muslims reacted in protest to the film 2) Some of those Muslims rioted 3) Some of the rioting Muslims attacked American diplomatic interests, therefore 4) All of the Muslims who reacted to the film in protest attacked embassies is a logical fallacy. And let's face it, in light of events, a little more logic is called for. Shouldn't it come from us? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section Organization

Despite “too many cooks” the article organization has improved immeasurably. The intro concentrates on the “what” - protests and attacks. Logically the “Background” and “Protests against Innocence of Muslims” gives context. This is followed by detailed “Attacks” section with a country by country break-out.

I suggest the “Protests against Innocence” section can be reduced since there is a separate article on Innocence of Muslims. The last two paragraphs should be moved to the film’s article if the info isn’t there already. Also, the “US Embassy in Cairo” statement should be moved into the “Background” section because it happened before the protests. (I previously moved it and was corrected by an astute editor.) Jason from nyc (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took me to write the above, the sections were reorganized. I was hoping to encourage stability. Let me look again and see what's there now! Jason from nyc (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored rough chronological order so that "Background" are events before the protests and attacks. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing breaking news articles can be an exercise in confusion, futility, and lots of edit conflicts. :) (And sometimes fixing things repeatedly as you note.) I think the article, especially given the high volume of editors, is doing fairly well. Not to mention that the protests spread and news changed rather quickly. Definitely need to improve the article in light of developments in the last 24 hours, which aren't included all that well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please organize the "attacks" section chronologically rather than alphabetically

Can someone organize the "attacks" section chronologically rather than alphabetically? It's standard to organize articles about events this way. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

al Jazeera and others' protests live blogs

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701 —Cupco 05:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More live blogs: Foreign Policy, Reuters, The Guardian, al Akhbar English. —Cupco 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

attack on German embassy unlrelated

[29] <der spiegel/google translate-link Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Angry

The section on background has been shifted from the fact that an extraordinarily offensive movie trailer, offensive to every Muslim believer in the World was produced and shown on YouTube, and that as a result of this offence, an excerpt was shown and discussed on Egyptian TV.

So people protested.

But the ground has been shifted on Wikipedia.

The protests are now the fault of the Egyptian TV station that alerted Muslims to the fact that someone had made and broadcast an extraordinarily offensive and provocative film trailer.

The protests are now the fault of Al Quaeda and other terrorists!!

Get real!. The killing of the Ambassador may have been pre-planned and then conveniently undertaken during an opportune moment of unrest.

But the universal offence to Muslim believers was without doubt going to provoke protest, action against those seen as the offenders (the US) and outrage at "the West" once again portraying and insulting the Prophet.

That background section needs URGENT fixing!

Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Don't even go there. Go to some blog or forum where you are free to voice your opinions or "angry" sentiments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate why this is not true, consider that during that period the media was saying that Terry Jones hadn't (yet) burned a Koran, about 20 videos of Koran burning appeared on YouTube. (I actually added the list as a footnote to the article at the time) It wasn't hard to find them, just search "Koran burning". The fact is, America has a pretty near unlimited reservoir of people who love free speech and have a very low opinion of Islam, and there hasn't been a day when there wasn't something that protesters couldn't have cited as a reason. So it is hardly "inevitable" for one more video to cause all this. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting is the natural result of offending people, not the work of terrorists

What editor keeps inserting words like "allegedly", "supposedly" and "purportedly" ... as in "the protests were allegedly started as a result of the broadcast etc etc etc"
Who ever you are, get this, it doesn't take Al Quaeda to tell Egyptian and Lybian Muslims to go out in protest over the fact that someone put a video on YouTube depicting Muhammad as a fraud! The protests were genuine, and in the eyes of the Muslim world, completely justified.
While peaceful Muslim people condemn the killings, they don't condemn protesting.
What do you expect people to do, except protest, when they have been seriously offended?

Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to find or found your own blog. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Incidentally, posting on a blog is a valid response to the question, "What do you expect people to do, except protest, when they have been seriously offended?" Rioting is not my first response when offended. Protesting is not my first response. And unless you doubt that Americans are "seriously offended" by having their ambassador assassinated, the relative lack of protests in the streets of New York should cut somewhat against your thesis. Righteous indignation does not improve this, or any other, encyclopedia article. What do we expect people to do when offended? If we're writing an article, we don't expect anything. We don't anticipate anything. We don't say "X caused Y." We report that "Source S reported that X caused Y." We don't care whether "the protests were genuine" as you suggest; you may be right or you may be wrong, but we only report what our sources say. Don't sympathize with the protestors, don't sympathize with the victims, be objective. DCB4W (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present, we have some very conflicting information about who may or may not be behind the production of the trailer. There are onion-layers of production companies, check fraud, severe illness, and methamphetamine dealing involved, if you can believe that. Please see Talk:Innocence of Muslims#Production and associated people background investigative reports. Furthermore, CNN is obliquely suggesting that the video might have been deliberately produced to stir protests to provide cover for the embassy attacks.[30][31][32] —Cupco 06:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm, the changes you're trying to push make the background-section even more confusing. It doesn't make sense to put the general statements at the end of the section. They are chronologically first. PLlease justify those changes here and wait 'til you hear from others what they think. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What do we know?

  • What we know is that the trailer for the film was made, that it was shown on YouTube.
  • We know the excerpts (someone left that word out) were shown on TV in Egypt.
  • We know that the Embassy responded promptly.
  • We know that people went out in protest in several places.
  • We know that during the protest violence occurred resulting in deaths.
  • We are fairly certain that a group who had pre-planned an attack, took advantage of the protests to act.

What we don't know

  • Whether Al Quaeda was behind the attack in Libya
  • To what extent they have fostered unrest. I put it to you that Muslim people are perfectly capable of protesting, smashing KFCs and burning flags without Al Quaeda telling them to do it! Moreover they don't have to be radicals in order to o it. People can condemn murdering an ambassador, but still protest outside an embassy.


In writing the background we need not lose sight of the facts that we are sure of.

For some reason, people here are choosing to play down the fact that it all started with protest over a movie.

Let me make this clear. I am not Muslim. I am Christian. And as such, I am bound to redress injustice.

  • The fact that an offensive movie was made and put on YouTube has been played down
  • The "background" stated that Reuters said the CAUSE of the unrest was the screening of the movie on TV in Egypt. The paragrph went on to say that the Egyptian authorities periodically suspended al-Nas for “promoting religious or sectarian hatred.
OK What we are actually say hear is that the CAUSE (Wikipedia's word, not Reuters) was the acts of the Egyptian TV station.
We are not acknowledging, in the same paragraph, or the same section, that:
  1. the trailer is inherently provocative
  2. that the pastor who promoted it has previously been accused of "promoting religious or sectarian hatred."
  3. that people involved in the production have issued anti Islamic statements, confirming that they have no regrets at the offence caused.

Warnings.

  • Anybody who uses a word like "caused" needs to triple-think how they use it.
  • Anybody who cites a reference over a very sensitive matter needs to triple-think how they word the sentence they are writing. Don't write that Reuters attributed blame, where they did not.
  • If you do not understand the niceties of the English language, that make a difference between a "cause" and a "flashpoint" then leave sensitive articles alone.
  • You are not writing a "cheap and nasty". you are writing an encyclopedia.
  • You are not composing a "conspiracy theory". You are writing an encyclopedia.
  • The "bad guys" (Al Qaeda and the Illuminati) are not behind everything that happens.

As an elderly ex-college lecturer, I am appalled by the liberties that you take with facts, by your ignorance in your choice of words, and by your disregard for balance in your reporting. A number of you are apparently too blind and stupid to see the possible ramifications of a badly written Wikipedia article.

Trust me! If a movie trailer can cause such outrage, then so can a stupidly-written, biased, unbalance Wikipedia article.

It is up to you to get it 'right

Now, go back to the "background and THINK THINK THINK what you are doing. After you have done it READ READ READ to make sure that you have not written in any idiocy like "The showing of the film on Egyptian TV CAUSED the protests (according to Reuters).

Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err... so you post a wall of text and then just go ahead and continue your war without waiting for any sort of response or input? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dear! we don't have all week! It needs to be fixed ASAP! Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like "I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks." Would that sum up your position in this matter? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is where you are precisely wrong? What I am urging you to do, is think.
I regard some of the recent edits as "thoughtless" and barrow-pushing.
I am deeply concerned about what "others" think.
You cannot afford to plough in, in a thoughtless manner, picturing things as if everything that is going on depends on a particular terrorist organisation.
I don't know, because I haven't checked the history, who it was that put Al Quaeda at the top of the Background section, but who ever it was did not have my consensus to do it.
Amandajm (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Amandajm, I think I can understand where some of your concerns are coming from. Basically, we've had three different events dropped on us all at the same time. Heavily armed militants in Benghazi executed a commando raid killing a US ambassador. Independently (it appears), a mass wave of anti-us/western protests broke out. And among those protests, some have turned towards property violence, breaching embassy walls. Is that more or less correct?

Currently the article title and focus is in flux, and that is probably resulting in some confusion. For example, Al Qaeda is a valid background to the Benghazi attacks, but probably not appropriate background when discussing a non-violent protest in india just condemning the film. It's all smooshed together at present-- have faith, clarity emerges with time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm is completely ignoring the fact that the demonstrations/riots/protests/attacks at the American embassy in Cairo were planned in advance and primarily centred around a demand for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, with the date of of September 11 specifically selected for maximum political and symbolic impact. I found a small portion of the reporting here: CNN's Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik (the title is misleading, the man interviewed is actually Muhamad Al-Zawahiri, brother of the Al-Qaeda's infamous Ayman Al-Zawahiri), where the primary motivations of these events are clearly laid out. I have explained in detail earlier in this page that the YouTube movie trailer dishonestly placed at the centre of these events is being used as a false pretext as well as a strategic rallying tool to provide human cover and commotion. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut'n'paste

A trailer for a movie Innocence of Muslims, described by Reuters as depicting Muhammad "as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake" and showed him having sex, was shown on YouTube.[50] The film was promoted by the U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who had previously angered Muslims by announcing plans to publicly burn the Quran.[51] Reuters cite the broadcast of an excerpt of the trailer for the film, Innocence of Muslims, on Egyptian TV network al-Nas on Saturday 8 September on a show, hosted by Sheikh Khalid Abdallah, as "the flashpoint for the unrest.” Prior to the 2011 revolution, Egyptian authorities periodically suspended al-Nas for “promoting religious or sectarian hatred.”[52]

Just pasting this here so that it doesn't get lost while you are re-thinking a balanced and intelligent approach to writing the Background to the events that are the subject of this article. Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"over and out" as they used to say....Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of the film as a lead to the background to the protests is excellent. I have move the details of the films production to the article on the film Innocence of Muslims. I hope this bold edit finds acceptance as I sense editors have appreciated the need to focus on the protests and attacks in this article while the saga of who did what in the film production is an article in itself. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added this too: 'NBC news described the trailer as depicting Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser."'NBC News.VR talk 16:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Embassy Residence in Iran heavily barricaded

I happened to drive by the Swiss Embassy residence located in the suburb of Elahie in North Tehran on Friday afternoon.

There was a massive presence of Iranian riot police in what is usually a quiet leafy suburb housing the affluent and the wealthy.

Several trailer trucks were parked next to the compound and many high-ranking Iranian police officers were present overseeing the errection of 30 foot high makeshift barriers covered with barbed wire.

Looked like an overkill given the location but it appears that the police were determined not to let the events at the nearby British Embassy compound earlier this year to be repeated again.

You could see pockets of police for several miles around the compound, checking ATM machines, convenience stores and making sure all the nooks and crannies are covered.

Never seen this level of police presence for the protection of foreign embassies

The prominent Embassies in Tehran all have a downtown business location and residential locations in the affluent suburbs in North Tehran.

There were demonstrations and marches but I didn't see anything else.

I am providing my observations on an informational basis. Do with it as you please. I was thinking of adding my observation about the protection levels around the Swiss Embassy compound somewhere in the article under the Iran paragraph which follows the Iranina flag. The main thingto notice is that the Iranian police seem to be very adamant this time to protect the Swiss Embassy and avoid another embarrassment and dimplomatic debacle.

Notice again that in Iran the Swiss Embassy functions as a representative for US interests. The US mission withdrew from Iran following the hostage taking in the early 1980s 188.75.87.132 (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it appears on the news, then we can include it if the articles say it may be in connection with this event 68.84.31.110 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for posting this - As suggested, if there are links to news accounts (and maybe Flickr photos?) about this activity, could you post them here in this talk section? I am sure someone will integrate them into the article as appropriate. Thanks again. KConWiki (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it part of the Arab Spring?

Are these events part of the Arab Spring? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Spring turns against the USA -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an editorial. It's a sound opinion but I don't think there is widespread usage of the term Arab Spring in this case. I've seen some refer to the rise of Islamists as the coming of Arab winter. We'll see what catches on in the future. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled and found all these opinions by journalists.
Arab Spring turns bitter for America
Arab spring turns into Arab rage turns into rage against America
'Arab Spring’ Explodes in Attacks Against America
Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in Libya: Is Arab Spring turning against US?] -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. WP does not use opinions. That source seems unreliable. It's completely unrelated. Arab Spring consist of Arabs protesting their rulers. This is much different. Like the Afghanistan Quran-burning protests, I don't think these protests will last that long. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only one opinion. The last 2 days many articles have written in this direction. I gave links to 5 of them. Moreover, the whole Arab Spring concept is based on opinions, right? I mean, the term Arab Spring was first brought by journalists. Opinions gathered together make facts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your sources above are unreliable. This source that you quote doesn't even have correct grammar. This one says "The flare-up of anti-US violence ... shows how the Arab Spring has unleashed forces in the region that are vehemently opposed to America and its ideals." In other words the anti-US violence maybe a side effect of the Arab Spring, but not a part of it.VR talk 16:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give a taste from four references at the end...

  • "It is no secret that US administrations are captives of the all-powerful Israeli lobby and must, more often than not, bend to the Israeli will." - the Deccan Chronicle
  • "That plan was put together in 1996 for Israel. They were just waiting for an idiot to come along so they could implement their plan for the Middle East." - Before It's News
  • "We are witnessing the stepped process of the Islamization of American domestic and foreign policy unfold before our eyes"
  • However, the fourth is a normal CSM article.

So this perspective, while it definitely exists, is still more limited than the numbers there would suggest. It should be presented, but not as a universal observation. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indirect part of the "Arab Spring" in the sense that the same people the West has been supporting in some of these countries during the past year are the very same who have now turned against them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Define "same people". There were people pro Mubarak, people pro democracy, people pro Al Qaida. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Libya, the people NATO armed and helped are basically using the same arms against the US. FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Libya there were more than 70,000 armed fighters on rebel side. Not counting others who supported war effors from behind the front. Last time I checked embassy wasn´t stormed by 70,000 militiamen. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, no one claimed the embassy was (or had to be) stormed by 70.000 men. The Libyan army can't do much about these guys, because they couldn't have won the war without them (and NATO). The US let them in, armed them, and are now reaping what they have sown. Next, Syria! FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Wikipedians from affected nations

I wish there were a "batsignal" I could turn on to get help from editors familiar with the language and the cultures. It's difficult to synthesize all this without knowing the local language or knowing the local culture and local politics. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't wash. This is the English Wiki, and must use Reliable Sources written in English (since there won't be anything unique in another language on this issue, the media are all over this topic), and there are many editors very familiar with the mideast situation from college professors to anthropologists and historians from non-middle eastern countries. We shouldn't be 'synthesizing' anything - we need to take the relevant facts from the Reliable Sources and utilize them for the betterment of the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Wikipedians from the affected nations can help us with information, such as this person did: [33], which can help guide us to finding the references for what's actually happening. And that's just an IP editor who appears to be somewhat new, not even an experienced Wikipedian, yet still quite informative! (Even if unreferenced for inclusion on the main page at this time.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split "International reactions"

I suggest to split this part to International reactions to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be premature to do that before the move discussion is completed. My reasoning behind this is that we have a 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi article, and most reactions are in response to that attack specifically. So if the move discussion ends up with this page titled "protests", then it would probably make sense to move all the Benghazi-specific reactions to that page, and deal with a possible split there afterwards if needed; the reactions to the protests are currently fewer, though I expect that to change. However, if this page remains with "attacks" in the title, I think it would make sense to split the reactions AND merge with the same information split from 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, since they duplicate each other quite a bit (sometimes rightfully so, because many reactions are to BOTH events), and then can both link to a combined main reactions page. Thus, my suggestion to wait and see what the outcome is, since in my opinion it affects where the reactions should go and whether we should merge the other article's reactions... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

Update

This page needs to be updated as I watched Fox News report that this has spread all over the Middle East and in Sydney, Australia. JC · Talk · Contributions 16:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Reliable Source to cite, then by all means, improve the article. But please be specific, as "all over the Middle East" is a figure of speech and should not be taken literally. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from this reliably sourced map [34], it's spread way past what even the broadest definition of "Middle East" would include. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is not a reliable source. Fast Clear (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How come Fox News is not a reliable source? JC · Talk · Contributions 20:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source, but some opinion articles may not be if the individual is not an expert or notable commentator in the field. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JC lol have you watched Faux News fool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.224.139 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, that was basically my line of thinking. It's not taken seriously as a news organisation. Fast Clear (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to debate whether Fox News is a reliable source, but Wikipedia does generally treat it as one. (This is not an endorsement of Fox News in any way. :) If certain references are included that appear biased, those can certainly be individually challenged. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Fox News Channel controversies, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#Fox News is an unreliable source along with the many discussions just like it in the WP:RSN archives, and e.g. [35] ("The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.") —Cupco 00:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If only Wikipedia had a button that let you "like" a post. Fast Clear (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like perhaps? Ahaha, it exists. Brilliant. Fast Clear (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti vandalism STILL omitted from this article.

After an exhausting three second internet search, I can provide photographs taken at the site of the ravaged Benghazi consulate with the Islamic/ist graffiti. Unsurprisingly, this information is STILL missing from this article, despite it being widely-reported the day the story began to break. Here is graffiti that reads "No God but God", and "Muhammad is the prophet". After Benghazi Consulate Attack What’s Next for U.S. Relations with Libya and Egypt?. Here is an image from the Cairo embassy with the Islamists holding a banner reading "any one but you God's prophet", [http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2012/09/13/10/34/896-1qsZEq.St.55.jpeg EMBASSY VIOLENCE. Here is another image from the vandalised American embassy in Cairo: Welcome To The New Middle East?. There are so many more photos out there, all of them depicting the Islamic/ist graffiti vandalising all the embassies and consulates attacked during these events, and yet there is STILL no mention of these crucial facts in this article, despite the good faith of the committed volunteers. Go figure. Another ten second investment from anyone will yield many more images (and video) of these facts. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, you missed it. Read section "Egypt". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, there is still no mention of this graffiti vandalism with Islamic/ist messaging in reference to the attacks on Benghazi, Tunis, Sana'a, or Khartoum. You realise there were more attacks that just in Cairo, right?Bobinisrael (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's one of those instances where you jump the gun claiming it's nowhere in the article. That claim was patently false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read this post of mine, I *specifically* stated that there is no mention of the vandalism and graffiti in association with the Benghazi attacks. My claim remains patently factual. [personal attack redacted, warning given] Here are my exact words, quoted again for your convenience, "After an exhausting three second internet search, I can provide photographs taken at the site of the ravaged Benghazi consulate with the Islamic/ist graffiti. Unsurprisingly, this information is STILL missing from this article, despite it being widely-reported the day the story began to break." Bobinisrael (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if graffiti is a significant issue. It's just...graffiti.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very significant, because it is a part of a broader series of facts that demonstrate the motivations of the protesters/rioters/demonstrators/attackers/terrorists. The broader series of facts includes but is not limited to: the graffiti, the signs being held, and the slogans being shouted. Beyond that, there should be references to websites that monitor Jihadist/Islamist websites that discuss the motivations of discussion participants. Why is this all relevant? Because it shatters the persistent false narrative that these events amount to a spontaneous eruption of rage due to an obscure YouTube film trailer. Predictably, the title and opening paragraphs of this article make virtually no mention of these events being primarily motivated by Islamism/Islamic extremism/fundamentalism/radicalism or anti-Americanism. The dominant value of (so-called) political correctness continues to reign supreme at Wikipedia, with honesty being the first casualty. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Libyans died in Tuesdays' attack

According to the Libya Herald, no Libyans died in Tuesdays' attack. According to the article,Mustafa Abushagur stated on his Twitter feed that “no Libyans died in the attack”. http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14495

This page should be updated as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi

David O. Johnson (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and adjusted the other page as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is really some weird communication between the Libyan officials. Libyan UN representative and Interior Minister said that up to 10 guards/policemen/SSC died and suddenly it is some injured and no dead. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re additions to background- What I am calling for here is balanced reporting

(I have pasted Bobinisrael's comment from above:

Amandajm is completely ignoring the fact that the demonstrations/riots/protests/attacks at the American embassy in Cairo were planned in advance and primarily centred around a demand for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, with the date of of September 11 specifically selected for maximum political and symbolic impact. I found a small portion of the reporting here: CNN's Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik (the title is misleading, the man interviewed is actually Muhamad Al-Zawahiri, brother of the Al-Qaeda's infamous Ayman Al-Zawahiri), where the primary motivations of these events are clearly laid out. I have explained in detail earlier in this page that the YouTube movie trailer dishonestly placed at the centre of these events is being used as a false pretext as well as a strategic rallying tool to provide human cover and commotion. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ignoring the political agitation that inflames the protests. Those who are bent on destruction of the "West" not only plan, but also opportunely seize occasion for violence.
But you must understand that the Movie alone is enough to provoke violence. This is not to say that the protests are not generated for other political purposes. But this article needs to recognise that a very real offence has been committed, in the eyes of Muslims world-wide, and that rational Muslims, while condemning the killings, also condemn the production of the movie and what they see as deliberate provocation and insult.
In fact, the statements made by the producers have shown no regret whatsoever over the offence caused to Muslim believers. If you look at the history of Muslim objection to "blasphemous" media, which includes fatwas, then it is clear that thousands are going to protest, without the help or motivation of Al Qaeda, and that wherever thousand of people assemble, particularly angry ones, violence is almost certain to occur. The recent incidents London riots by young people across England resulted in a number of deaths, and the burning of numerous premises, along with looting and generally vandalism. This is partly about "mob mentality".
Amandajm (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split up

Right now, I split up the article:

I know that more can be split up, but this is the first. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! well done! Amandajm (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the current article contains entirely too much material for it's more narrow scope: attacks on diplomatic missions. Mere protests, assemblies of people, street parades, etc. are not attacks. And that material should still be split out to some article with another name. N2e (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was rather... spontaneous...? Because of this? Such a drastic changes should not be done without any discussion. :Edit: the The reactions section was also split up. This was previously done and merged back. Can we decide on some actual structure before cutting things up? Skullers (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I retract that? I think if a section needs to be moved, it's the section that lists the widespread protests that appear to be specifically against the film, and which haven't resulted in serious violence against diplomatic missions. That section could be conveniently moved to the Movie's page, because it is specifically related to the movie. In making the move, some material that is most pertinent to this article might be retained.
Amandajm (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just cut and pasted the info re protests against the film over to the page Innocence of Muslims where it seems more pertinent but will not cut from this article without agreement.
Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sydney Islamic Riots

What happened to the article 2012 Sydney Islamic Riots, it used to have its own page but now it only links to here?--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it's because that is only one protest/riot, among many many others, and there's no need for individual articles. We can properly explain it all here. --Activism1234 03:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I redirected the article to this page, because there were only three references. However, if someone can supplement more refs, it can have its own page. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have named it the 2012 Sydney Sand Monkey Riots, has a much better ring to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.45.229 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm NO. Anyone want to place bets on how quickly this IP gets blocked? --Activism1234 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing nice to say its better to not say anything at all...--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the word "Islamic" in the title needlessly stigmatizes Australian Muslims. It's not as if the riots were supported by the Australian Muslim community, or are a part of Islam.VR talk 19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know JC, there are more references that I can find, but all of them are similiar if not the same worded as the references I already put up, so I'm not sure if you want to put it back to its original article, and just add more references? Thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no film only a bad trailer on Utube

Sorry, I have only once attempted to edit a Wikipedia entry, but was annoyed to find the "2012 Diplomatic Missions Attacks" page constantly using the word film to describe what has now been investigated and reported as only a 14 minute utube trailer for a "film" that does not exist. It also appears that it was on utube for some time, and no-one paid any attention even though promoted by a few websites in the US, until it was translated into Arabic and then received wider attention.

So I feel the page should be edited to reflect these new facts (not so new now): -- "protests in response to an alleged film, although there is no evidence there actually is such a film, even one still in production."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/egypt-libya-hollywood-film

Oh and yes, title should be "protests" with the attack in Libya treated separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueacorneater (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to various sources, the full length film was screened on June 23, 2012 in Los Angeles [36][37] so it appears that at least some people have seen the full length version. The length of the film has been quoted as two hours [38] but other sources have been unable to confirm this.[39]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "alleged film" doesn't wash, simply because it is ungrammatical.
  • The only sorts of things that can be "alleged" are those things which may or may not be true, not those things which may or may not exist.
  • It is alleged that the film exists. It is not and cannot be an "alleged film".
Come up with a grammatically correct way of making the statement, or use a word other than "alleged" to describe the film.
Amandajm (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only tiny audiences have been lucky enough to watch the full version of this cinematic non-masterpiece. This is why there is some doubt about how long the full length version is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lucky"? --Activism1234 06:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irony:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a comment, (but I can't recall where) by someone who had seen the trailer, that in fact the trailer appeared to be complete in itself, in that it had a lead-in, (Modern Muslim Egyptians burning the homes of Copts) an introduction (a father telling his daughter that he would explain) a body (a potted "life of Muhammad") and a finale.
This is not the way that trailers are usually done. It would seem to indicate that, in fact, there is no more to the movie than the trailer.
It is said to have taken 5 days to film. I know from practical experience that it can take two days to film a 30 second TV commercial. Of course, quality is an issue here! This film trailer apparently didn't have any. However, I for one am very sceptical about the existence of a two-hour film.
Has anybody claimed to have seen it, in its entirety? What evidence is there that the two-hour production doesn't exist? Is there just media opinion, and a perceptive assessment of the trailer, or is there real evidence?
Amandajm (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you're referring to; I commented on this but didn't go into quite that much detail. The 14-minute “trailer” simply does not fit the format of a trailer in any way. It might be, say, the first 14 minutes of a film—but that would mean the rest of the film is basically all murder, because the usual Christian vs. Muslim talking points are all covered in the 14 minutes. I strongly suspect there is no longer film. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also doubt the existence of a two hour version. It has also been claimed that the film is unfinished and cost $5 million to make, which also has rather wobbly sourcing. The only known version that can be easily verified is the 14 minute "trailer". However, this is more of a subject for Innocence of Muslims as this article is primarily about the protests.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Requested Move

This is a very general article. Not everyone agrees that the film alone caused this unrest. Not all forms of unrest were violent. It seems pretty clear that this particular unrest should be distinguished from that in China against the Japanese. Per the LA Times and NY Times, perhaps Islamic unrest is the right generality to use. Therefore I offer the title of "September 2012 Islamic unrest"

I can anticipate that a few people may feel unease about this particular wording, however, it does seem clear that none of the activism, peaceful or violent, has been initiated by any other religious group, and that the admirable multi-cultural aspect of Islam has caused this phenomenon to transcend any racial or national generalities one may succinctly delineate.

There is a strong possibility that any title which does not include the word "attack" will find some uncompromising disfavor. I am not opposed to an article which devotes itself to the attacks which were the result of this unrest and that article, I think, would be free to pursue much more detail.

One may also note a small potential fallacy I have committed, in not implying that any unrest that may or may not have arisen directly from the film, an exception to the rule, does not disprove the rule. However, "Islamic unrest" is still descriptive, and a far better descriptor than "attacks" as there was a wide range of response and other causes of unrest have been cited in specific situations.

I should admit my own bias and declare that I am American, and an atheist, formerly a Christian. What's important to me is that we reach a compromise which describes the general phenomenon as accurately as possible. I invite all commentary. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like September 2012 Islamic unrest or September 2012 Muslim unrest. It's a step in the right direction-- title improvement is much needed-- only some of the events discussed are 'attacks'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't like being too picky and I must agree that the suggested title is much better than the current one, Muslim or Islamic unrest implies that only this certain demographic was involve which isn't the case in some protests. Also to me, the title somewhat sounds like it's bias against the Islamic people and blame solely lays on them for causing the unrest with no reason given but that's just me. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four points
  • The name leads you are suggesting itself to this becoming an enormous article.
  • I think that a separate article (i.e. this article) on Diplomatic attacks is warranted, and that unfortunately it might become increasingly warranted.
  • A "list of Attacks" has been carved off and used to create a separate article. I suggest that list is returned.
  • I carved off the "list of protests" and placed them on the film page. I suggested that only the relevant (i.e. "attacks") be maintained here. No feedback on that from anyone yet.
I wouldn't rename this. A new article with a broader base might be warranted. If so, it ought to include both the lists of "unrest" protests, and comments from Islamic leaders (specifically).
Amandajm (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the information in the article could be any more general. The lead uses 'protests' six times and 'attacks' just once. The map includes points where only peaceful protests occurred. If you'd like to focus on the attacks, I applaud you. This article is not that article. This is the general article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to do a bit of carving off of my own. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being consolidated into an article about the attacks, specifically.
It is a valid article. If you change it's name, then an article of the same name will promptly need to be created. Star another article.
Amandajm (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split complete

There is now a general article at 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I have copied some of the information which was moved to Innocence of Muslims there. We need to alert the front page editors to wikilink the mention of protests to that page so as not to create an unintentional bias. We need to remove any protests which were not specifically attacks from the map so as not to sensationalize this article. We need to link mention of widespread protests from here to there. Additionally, any other edit which creates a clear impression that this is a specific article and that 2012 Anti-Islam film protests is the general article. Hope that satisfies everyone. Once complete, we should be able to remove the header template and call it good. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I'm also completely open to renaming that article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the split

An editor deleted that split, claiming I did not seek consensus. As you can see above, I did, and this was the solution which presented itself. Mind you, no information has been deleted and no specific objection has been given. Please continue to dialogue if you can present a different solution which doesn't imply the fallacy that all these protests were attacks, which many many editors have already objected to in some form or fashion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted

I reverted that deletion. It's my first. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it in a screwed up state where the article is split but the talk page is still a redirect. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ClaudeReigns, totally independent of the merits of whatever you're attempting to do, you just did a "cut and paste move." (See also Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves) If your plans for "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" are basically a copy of this article, then what you REALLY want is to move the article over there in the requested move discussion above. If you want to sketch out your vision of separate articles... well, no, you haven't really explained what you want, but if you want to do some live editing, you can create articles in your own user space and link to them here on the talk page to show what you think the article should look like. SnowFire (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a less procedural note, if the general Muslim unrest is separated from the diplomatic mission attacks - which I would be fine with - I would strongly, strongly prefer "September 2012 Muslim unrest" or the like, or "Innocence of Muslims protests." As noted above in the RM, "Anti-Islam film protests" is a vague and terrible title. SnowFire (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those titles sound better to my ear, but I don't think my ear counts. I went with what had been suggested by the POV whose concern stood unaddressed by the actual article. I don't really call that consensus, so I made a judgment to favor that argument. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, he's already deleting content from this article, which leaves us currently in a broken state where some of the information is actually missing completely. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think this split is ill conceived. The media and politicians are discussing these mostly together, and much of the stuff like international response cannot be cleanly separated. As such, I don't think it's practical to split the article. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should have been the general article - but not titled as it was. The removal of bias and not sensationalizing wikipedia, however, is an urgent concern. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. There is no other resolution for the multiple biases the article creates unintentionally than to either - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just the attacks by moving to an alternate title - or - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just attacks by creating the more general article. Seeing intractible opposition to the first, I chose the second. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an "alternate request", you've forked the article to the preferred title to bypass the existing RM. By your opinion, there is "no other resolution". Please provide constructive input in the relevant section above before taking the initiative in moving it yourself. Skullers (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of aid

We seem to consider it important enough to mention that some bloodsuckers politicians have called for withholding aid, but apparently everyone missed this piece, in which John McCain speaks out against that. (Note: Anyone who accuses me of political bias here will get laughed off the fucking internet. You've been warned.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other link fodder related to this: [40] [41] [42] [43] —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, nice job

I just noticed that some editors understood what I was looking for and have really run with it. I am going to keep my nose out of it. I started removing pins from the map which were not attacks, but did not finish. You guys are really great! I'll check back in a couple to see how you did. Good luck! ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

This website doesn't show any reason why we should consider it reliable. We don't know the author and anyone can make a website. Also, the website itself doesn't make any connection with the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks so making a connection between these facts looks like OR. I'm removing all material sourced to it.VR talk 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

What is the connection between Satanic Verses, Younus Shaikh, the murder of Salman Taseer and the current wave of attacks? (No, don't answer my questions, please just show me a reliable that answers them.)

I think we can have a see also link to Islam and Blasphemy but connecting much of this material to this article is excessive and original research.VR talk 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protests - Edit request

At the citation of BBC I could not see Turkey. (FYI only 100 people made a protest in the almost 14 million populated Istanbul and another 100 in Rize.) Turkey's population is 74 millions, so these protests are not notable for inclusion. Only in the protests of Anvers, Belgium 120 people were detained by the police; a number larger than the participants of each of the two protests in Turkey. BTW the Anvers protest has not been added to the article yet. --E4024 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population size and protest size is irrelevant here, if there are protests and it's mentioned in an RS outlet, we have a duty to mention it, even if briefly. This is how it's being done with every country, even those where you have 50 people protesting. --Activism1234 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read at some sources that the protests are not as large as those of the Arab Spring, this could be good for the opening paragraph of the section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again. Turkey is not in the citation. Removed reference. --E4024 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say whaaat? Why are deaths from an attack on a military base in Afghanistan listed in the infobox?

This source [44] cited for half of the "39 deaths" talks about an attack on a military base where Prince Harry is serving. I don't think one royal in uniform makes it an embassy! Wnt (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... please join the discussion in the section above to rename it to 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, although I think 2012 Anti-Islam film reactions would cover cases were attacks were claimed to be in response of the film. Most of the reactions are protests and rioting. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one, but I think that this article should stay about the diplomatic missions themselves - there are certainly enough things happening at embassies per se to be notable in their own right. The other article... I don't know. Every time somebody gets killed in Iraq or Afghanistan somebody might say it's about the Koran, but it's also about them simply having longstanding conflicts. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tough call, but where does that information go then? As long as the article is primarily about the protests and aftermath (disregarding the contentious title), I think it makes sense to include it here as related to the whole "diplomatic missions attack" as currently covered. It could go on Innocence of Muslims, but that currently only covers non-violent protests while all the violence is covered here. Better to include it here than nowhere, since it is related. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Benghazi attack is already covered in U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi page, and that was a pre-planned attack that uses the protest also at the Benghazi embassy as a diversion, so we need to refocus this page on the other protests. — Hasdi Bravo • 19:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Regardless of the page title, I think it really should be edited with a focus on the protests and ensuing non-Benghazi attacks, based on how the various related pages are currently split. (Which seems like it could change at any time...) We also need to more clearly state in this article that the primary motivations for the Benghazi attack event and larger protests are separate; this article still conflates the two excessively. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add terrorism to title

This was an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia needs to honestly document events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree, but I think you want to discuss that on a different page: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because there were no Islamist terrorists at this attack. You are ignoring that both articles need to be renamed: 2012 diplomatic missions Islamist Terrorist attacks, because you can't see through your political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Donfarberman is absolutely correct. Welcome to the battle against the pervasive narrative of leftism that infects Wikipedia. There is a DELIBERATE attempt to minimise the association of these events with anything Islamic/ist. Bobinisrael (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct. Any honest editors get scrubbed by the leftists, and it's a deliberate and systemic bias in Wikipedia. How can we solve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, if "Islamist terrorists" is that important to you, then do a move request on the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi page to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi by Islamist terrorists or something. We're trying keep facts straight on this page, specifically about the protests on the film, both peaceful and violent. — Hasdi Bravo • 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE STOP soapboxing about Wikipedia policies on the Talk Pages, Bobinisrael and others - this is NOT the place for pushing your ideas of what is wrong with Wikipedia and is against the Talk Page rules. Confine comments here to the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article(s). Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I can't discuss facts with Donfarberman. Typical leftist silencing. Donfarberman (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong

The map seems to be about protests, but the caption states "attacks". If it is about violent protests, many locations are missing namely Sydney and Paris where there were mass arrests. What a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.135 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only pro Islamist maps can be included.
  1. ^ "Hundreds hurl stones at officers in Jerusalem after Friday prayers at al-Aqsa Mosque while protesters rallied against anti-Islam film," " reports Ynet News.
  2. ^ "About 1,000 Bangladeshi Islamists tried to march on the U.S. embassy in Dhaka on Thursday to protest against a U.S. film that is said to insult the Prophet Mohammad but security forces stopped them reaching the mission," " reports Reuters.
  3. ^ "In Sanaa, Yemen, the U.S. Embassy was overrun Thursday by protesters who stormed a wall, set fire to a building inside the compound, broke windows and carried away office supplies and other souvenirs before being dispersed by local security forces," " reports The Washington Post.
  4. ^ "In Cairo, clouds of tear gas floated through the fortified area around the U.S. Embassy as security forces clashed with protesters for the third straight day," " reports The Washington Post.
  5. ^ "The US dispatched an elite group of Marines to " reports the AP. "Officials were investigating whether the rampage was a backlash to an anti-Islamic video with ties to Coptic Christians or a plot to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11."

  6. ^ "Palestinians on Friday protested an anti-Muslim film, with thousands gathering in the Gaza Strip and hundreds in Jerusalem where there were clashes with Israeli police," " reports Now Lebanon.
  7. ^ "In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, about 200 protesters in Jakarta chanted slogans and held up signs in a largely peaceful protest outside the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy," " reports the Associated Press.
  8. ^ "Britain's Foreign Office says police in Sudan are confronting a protest outside the British embassy in Khartoum," " The Guardian is showing photographs of the German embassy on fire.
  9. ^ "Thousands of angry Kashmiri Muslims protested Friday against an anti-Islam film, burning U.S. flags and calling President Barack Obama a 'terrorist,' while the top government cleric here reportedly demanded Americans leave the volatile Indian-controlled region immediately," " reports the AP. "At least 15,000 people took part in more than two dozen protests across Kashmir, chanting 'Down with America' and 'Down with Israel' in some of the largest anti-American demonstrations against the film in Asia."
  10. ^ "Hundreds of protesters set alight a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli on Friday, witnesses said, chanting against the pope's visit to Lebanon and shouting anti-American slogans," " reports Reuters. The news agency attributed the violence to the papal vist and the controversial film.

  11. ^ "Ansar al Sharia supporters protesting in front of Tibesty Hotel in Benghazi carrying black flags," " reports Al Jazeera via Twitter. "Maximum 50 pple."
  12. ^ "In Tehran, students gathered Thursday outside the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Iran, to protest the video," " style="font-size:15.199999809265137px;line-height:21px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)" The Wall Street Journal reports. "No violence was reported."
  13. ^ "In Iraq, reaction to the video clip has been limited to followers of Shiite groups linked to militias and neighboring Iran," " reports The Wall Street Journal. "Several hundred followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr held brief demonstrations in Baghdad's Sadr City district, the southern oil city of Basra and other predominantly Shiite areas of the country, chanting 'Death to America.'"
  14. ^ "The protesters in Islamabad said that the film should be banned across the world and the filmmakers should be severely punished," " reports Pakistan's The Express Tribune. "They also demanded that the US should apologise for the film."
  15. ^ "JI Chief Munawar Hassan, addressing a protest rally in the Nazimabad area of Karachi, demanded that the US government ban the movie and also demanded the Interior ministry of Pakistan lodge a protest with the US ambassador," reports the " Express Tribune.
  16. ^ "The rally in Lahore was organised by Tehreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool which was taken out from Green Chowk to Sohrab Khan, while the one in Multan was organised by Jamiat Talba Arbia and Shehri Mahaz. Protesters threw shoes at US and Israeli flags and set them on fire," " reports the Express Tribune.
  17. ^ "Hundreds of Afghans – some shouting 'Death to America' – have held a protest against an anti-Islam film in the eastern city of Jalalabad," " reports the AP.
  18. ^ "Thousands of Somali protesters have taken to the streets of capital Mogadishu to express their anger over the anti-Islam movie produced by an Israeli-American in the United States," " reports Iran's Press TV. "The demonstration in the Somali capital is being held to express anger against the film, which insults the holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)."
  19. ^ Protesters in Tunisia have set fire to an American school in the capital Tunis, according to " The New York Post reports that "Anti-American rioting spread yesterday to Tunisia, where police used tear gas to stop hundreds of protesters from storming the United States Embassy in protest over a film mocking the prophet Mohammed."
  20. ^ "In Algeria, the U.S. Embassy cautioned Americans to avoid its building and other official government buildings Wednesday afternoon, sending " reports the Los Angeles Times.
  21. ^ "About 200 protesters are burning USA and Israeli flags outside the US embassy in London," " Al Jazeera reports.
  22. ^ "About 500 demonstrators gathered yesterday near the US embassy in Kuwait waving a black Al-Qaeda flag in protest of a film mocking Islam," " reports AFP. "President Barack 'Obama, we are all Osama,' they chanted referring to Al-Qaeda's former leader Osama bin Laden who was killed by US forces last year, an AFP photographer at the site of the demonstration reported."
  23. ^ "About 500 demonstrators gathered yesterday near the US embassy in Kuwait waving a black Al-Qaeda flag in protest of a film mocking Islam," " reports AFP. "President Barack 'Obama, we are all Osama,' they chanted referring to Al-Qaeda's former leader Osama bin Laden who was killed by US forces last year, an AFP photographer at the site of the demonstration reported."
  24. ^ "Protesters in southern India have been arrested for throwing rocks at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, the city police commissioner said," " reports CNN. "As many as 200 protesters were demonstrating in front of the building, but the number arrested was not reported. There were no reported injuries."
  25. ^ "The American consulate on the Museumplein in Amsterdam is to close earlier than usual on Friday because of a planned demonstration by Muslims in the late afternoon," " reports DutchNews.nl. "Two schools in the neighbourhood are also to close early, Nos television said."
  26. ^ Protests emerged in the Maldives, according to the " BBC, but there are few details on the size of the demonstration.
  27. ^ Protests have erupted in eastern Sri Lanka, according to the " BBC, but details are thin on the size of the demonstration.
  28. ^ "Hundreds of worshippers marched near the US embassy in Qatar on Friday over the anti-Islam video," " reports Al Jazeera. "The protest had been reportedly called for by Doha-based Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and began after his Friday sermon at the Omar bin Khateb mosque."
  29. ^ "Nigerian troops fired live rounds on Friday to disperse Muslims protesting in the volatile central city of Jos against an American film about the Prophet Mohammad that has triggered unrest in several countries across the Islamic world," reports Reuters. "Scores of Muslim demonstrators distributed photographs printed out from the trailer of the film, which Muslims say insults the Prophet, after Friday prayers in Jos."
  30. ^ "Protesters belonging to ultraconservative groups in Sinai have stormed a camp for the UN multinational peacekeepers in the town of Sheikh Zuwayed," " reports Al Jazeera. "They brought down the flag and placed a black Islamic banner with the words 'There's no God but Allah, Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah. The peacekeepers responded with firing on the attackers, said Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh. At least one man is believed to be injured."
  31. ^ "Hundreds of Salafists burned US flags in Morocco after Friday prayers at a mosque in a poor neighbourhood of Sale, twin town to the Moroccan capital Rabat," " reports Al Jazeera. "Around 200 of the hardline Islamists gathered, shouting anti-US slogans including 'American satan', before trampling on two US flags and then ripping them up and setting them ablaze."
  32. ^ "Between 300 and 400 Muslim activists had gathered outside the US consulate in Morocco's largest city Casablanca on Wednesday, amid a heavy police presence, protesting against the film and shouting anti-US slogans," " reports Al Jazeera.
  33. ^ "Sana, Syria's state news agency, said " reports The Guardian. "Protesters held images of beleaguered president Bashar al-Assad and what appeared to be government-organised demonstration." According to photographer Louai Beshara, the purpose of the demonstration was to oppose the anti-Islam film.
  34. ^ "Jordanian protesters burn a US flag in front of the Kurdi Mosque near the USA embassy in Amman," reports the " AP. Iran's Press TV reports that more than 2,000 Jordanians took to the streets to protest the movie. "We sacrifice our soul and blood for the prophet," said demonstrators. "We do not want a US embassy on Jordanian territory."
  35. ^ "Mauritanian youths also went out in a demonstration that covered the streets of Nouakchott condemning the offensive film," " reports Link TV. "Protestors gathered in front of the American embassy, calling for its shutdown and the expulsion of the American ambassador, which is the least that could be done for this criminal act. They also chanted slogans condemning this offensive film."
  36. ^ Muslims held demonstrations across Malaysia on Friday, calling for the United States to prevent distribution of an anti-Islam film they said was part of a plot by 'Christian extremists,'" " reports Ahram Online. "They included a group of about 30 people representing various Islamic organisations who marched to the US embassy in the capital Kuala Lumpur."
  37. ^ "A crowd ... held a demonstration at the Batu Caves, a popular tourist spot outside the capital," " reports Ahram Online.
  38. ^ "Malaysian media reported a... protest in the northern city of Ipoh," reports " Ahram Online.
  39. ^ "A peaceful protest was held here Friday against a blasphemous anti-Islam American movie," reports " News Track India. "Protestors set afire an effigy symbolising the US in the old city of Hyderabad. Police said no untoward incident took place during the protest."
  40. ^ "More than 2,000 protesters chanted against the film and burned American and Israeli flags after Friday prayers in Diraz, outside the capital, Manama. Security forces were absent," " reports the AP.
    "Separately, Bahrain's Interior Ministry ordered media regulators to attempt to block access to the film clip."
  41. ^ "Hundreds of people gathered in Istanbul's Beyazit Square to protest the prophet film," " reports the AP. "The protest was organized by Turkey's main Islamist political party, Saadet."
  42. ^ "In the city of Nablus, about 200 people demonstrated against the film as Muslim clerics throughout the territory preached against it in Friday sermons," " reports the AP.
  43. ^ In the southern city of Basra, about 1,000 took to the streets and burned the American and Israeli flags. One banner said: 'Freedom doesn't mean offending two billion Muslims,'" " reports the AP.
  44. ^ "A group of Kenyan muslims burn[ed] the US flag in protest over the anti-Muslim film that has spawned mob violence against American embassies across the Mideast, following afternoon prayers outside the Sakina Jamia Mosque in the port city of Mombasa, Kenya Friday," " reports the AP.
  45. ^ "A Kashmiri Muslim with his face covered burn[ed] a mock American flag as others shout slogans during a protest Friday in Srinagar, India," " reports the AP.
  46. ^ "Iraqi supporters of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's movement, burn[ed] the Israeli and the US flags during a protest denouncing a film deemed offensive to Islam, on September 13, 2012 in the central Iraqi city of Kut," reports " the AFP.
  47. ^ "Arab-Israeli Muslim men protest against a film mocking Islam, in front of the U.S. embassy in the Mediterranean coastal city of Tel Aviv, on September 13, 2012," " reports AFP.
  48. ^ "Afghans burn the U.S. flag in the Ghanikhel district of Nangarhar province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 14, 2012, during a protest against an anti-Islam film," " reports the AP.
  49. ^ The AP captured photographs of an anti-film protest in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh near Sidon, Lebanon, " here.
  50. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reuters2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  51. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reuters1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  52. ^ "U.S. Agencies Didn't Issue High Alert Over Mideast Threat". Reuters. Sep 14, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims&oldid=513028592"