Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Finally! "Summary of opinions" for the title move request

Here is the results of the move request discussion: [1] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Proposal to split off 2012 Anti-Islam film protests

No consensus (on the move request). Great. I move motion to fork 2012 Anti-Islam film protests from 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Any seconds? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I second. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Me too. At least for now. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As I stated earlier, that name is terrible and confusing. I also don't see that the articles can be cleanly separated that way; it will at best result in duplicating information. And there is still widespread confusion over which events were merely “protests” and which were organized “attacks”. —Kerfuffler  harass
    stalk          03:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per Kerfuffler - and surely that should be 'anti-Islam' with a small 'a' :) But I agree the present title is very problematic. 193.150.8.162 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
There may be some overlap but I estimate about 80% of the content in 2012 diplomatic missions attacks will be gone (and can be re-expand to include other attacks to diplomatic missions that are unrelated to the film). We can start by nuking the "Protest" section. — Hasdi Bravo • 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have no prob

lem with duplicate information. That may be trimmed down as the phenomenon becomes clearer. There should be no problem with including information about protests of all kinds there since some protests were violent and some were not. A fork of some type is the only practical solution to intractible opposition to having an all inclusive article here under a name which does not create apparent bias that all this activity is an attack on an embassy. Further I certainly declare that any opinion which does not immediately address this glaring sensationalization should not even be considered "consensus". It makes no observable effort as such. Continuing to offer "September 2012 Islamic/Muslim unrest" as a more general alternative that takes into account observations that not all unrest had the film as a motive. Also offering "September 2012 global unrest" to include nationalist Chinese protests and riots as well and to avoid any appearance of anti-Muslim bias. The measure on the table, however, seems an acceptable and workable compromise. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If choosing September 2012 global unrest, add 2012 Catalan independence demonstration

Oppose, strongly!

Comment on the content, not the contributor WP:Personal
  • No, Hasdi Bravo, despite your choice of bold case, you are a very minor contributor. In fact, your major contribution since you joined Wikipedia is to push for the moves of contentious articles.
  • No, DavidK93, you have added not one single jot to this article that I can find, to indicate that you know anything about the subject. You have just popped up out of nowhere to second something.

The proposed title is misleading. Not simply wrong in having a capital A for anti, but wrong in the implications that it carries.

It is not clear in the proposed title that the expression "anti-Islam" is being used in the sense of an adjective to describe the film itself.
Neither is it clear that the three words "anti-Islam film" are being used to define the words "protest" .
It is simply horribly bad, jargonist, journalistic abbreviated writing. Like the heading in a really badly written rag of a newspaper, not like the heading in an encyclopaedia. We are writing an encyclopedia.
Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this may be moot, since some other editor has decided to ignore the talk page discussion and move all the information to the Innocence of Muslims page. Where they're actively talking about removing all protest information on the talk page. *headdesk* —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  10:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Did the attack occur during the protests? or did the protests occur during the attack? The title tells me the later (i.e. that the attack is the main purpose of the article and protest are part of it, developed due to it or were reactions to it). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments Oh, here it goes... someone calling me a single-purpose account. The last time, somebody accused me of being on M. Night Shyamalan's payroll. I don't see the problem here, the proposed title complies with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. The current title "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" does not, and also fails on two technical counts: a) it is not no longer about "diplomatic missions" and b) it is turning all instances of protests into attacks, including non-violent ones. And now, some people are trying to scrub the protest section from Innocence of Muslims page too? You think *I* have issues. If you disagree with the proposed title, at least give something better than "I don't like it", and cite actual wikipedia policies on WP:TITLE. — Hasdi Bravo • 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support moving to anything that's broader than "diplomatic missions" or "attacks" at this point. (But oppose this fork.) I'll also note that this is probably doomed to fail if drama ensues or it veers off topic again. Minor issues with contributors really don't need to be here; if there's truly a separate issue with users !voting in bad faith, that can be brought up in another section or on another page. Otherwise we end up with a mess like last time (which I've ended up contributing to further myself, now!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No comments on many of the points that Amandajm raises, but the name is confusing in that it sounds as if it refers to protests made against Islam by means of a film. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be "2012 Anti-Islam protest film" instead, but I tell you what: if the move is successful, we can open a discussion for the new page on other similar names including "protests over Anti-Islam film" and "protests over 'Innocence of Muslims' film". Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
      • "Anti-Islam protest film" must mean "film protesting against Islam", but "film protesting against Islam" does not necessarily result in "Anti-Islam protest film". It's like the "Cannes film festival" — we know that it's the film festival at Cannes, but grammatically it could be the festival of films about Cannes; were it neither official nor clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this festival, we'd confuse readers by using that name. In the same way, "Anti-Islam film protest" could be a protest against an anti-Islamic film, or it could be an anti-Islam protest that uses one or more films. Because there's no official or clear WP:COMMONNAME for the topics covered in this article, we have to use a descriptive title that's not going to confuse readers. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose .... you move to fork? What? And Object to voting on... whatever that's supposed to mean... before the current (identically titled) MR is closed, firsted with the words "No consensus. Great." in a section titled "Finally! "Summary of opinions" for the title move request". Skullers (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No. But firsting an actual "Proposal" would be a start. Skullers (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to describe how you propose to divide the content, as there's a blurry line in some cases between "protest" and "attack", and some instances are arbitrarily included in one location or the other, of the two we have. Besides, most of the non-violent protests are on Innocence of Muslims at the moment, so it seems you should be proposing a fork there, not here. Clarified above that I oppose this somewhat vague fork; my support is for moving this page to anything that lets it be more inclusive of the general unrest. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Now THAT is an elegant solution. Instead of renaming or splitting this page, we can just update "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" to redirect to "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" section instead. If that section gets bigger later, we can spin that section off as its own article. We can then refocus this page on actual attacks on diplomatic missions in 2012. Everyone is happy, yes? — Hasdi Bravo • 15:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - While some protesters and attackers make a mention of this film, our more reliable sources, those who have actually explored the issues and provided analysis, have told us that the film is being used more as a pretense, that there are actual substantive issues involved beyond just this film, and the initial timing of these various attacks and protests was impossible to mistake for a random response to a film that had been floating around the internet for some time. As Hasdi mentions above, we have a film page and the kind of information can be included in a "reactions" section. Like User:2001:db8, I believe that this page could be renamed in such a way to cover more of the overall unrest and actions, if we can reliably cover what is going on. Most of the media is into very simplistic and shallow explanations or very black vs white type analysis. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With the title as it is, we could potentially include this? No attacks so far, but France is beefing up embassy security after magazine caricatures Prophet Muhammad, to avoid a repeat of U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. FYI. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Eyewitnesses to the event and intelligence sources indicate the attack in Benghazi was a premeditated and coordinated assault, possibly with the collusion of Libyan security guards. Not simply a protest about a 15-minute clip of a film posted on YouTube. Also, there is new information from a DHS report indicating that there may have been a call to attack the embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Cirrus Editor (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I see this as a dubious way to skirt around the outcome of the move request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It's becoming more obvious that many/most of the protests have much more behind them than a cheesy youtube trailer. There is no need to attribute a motive for the protests in the title of this article, or bypassing the previous no consensus and making a POV fork. First Light (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose All the events are somewhat related. It's too difficult to split and differentiate the catalyst for each, without mentioning the other. The proposed title would be misleading.PoizonMyst (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Updating redirect for 2012 Anti-Islam film protests

Per earlier discussions (and to keep the renaming discussions of this page as sane as possible) I can withdraw my split proposal IF I can update "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" to redirect to "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" instead of this page. No objections, yes? — Hasdi Bravo • 04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. If there isn't already a {{for}} link there pointing to this page, that would also be a good idea. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirect successful. Split proposal is withdrawn. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not NPOV under American views

This article is extremely swung to the white house narrative and is not so much as even mentioning the fact that for 10 days many mainstream and Fox news programs have run on the basis that the Libyan attack was a planned measure and even went as far as to cite Al Qaeda as the attack was retribution for killing their senior leader. This article seems to be pushing the 'verifiability' aspect selectively and not dealing with a sizable portion of the populace which believes this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. I'm not going to say one view or the other view is the 'truth', but in light of the White House's formal declaration, the view consistently held by many conservative and objective media outlets have some presence here. Even the Vatican called it as such on Sept 13. See here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether I agree with you or not, I don't quite see how Wikipedia can avoid being biased. The U.S. government has the power of law, which essentially controls what types of media and news come to light. Gag orders and whatnot. It's seemingly impossible to get an ultra-logical view of almost anything unless you witness it firsthand -- which is, of course, "original research." I suppose you could always attempt to find alternative news companies that share your views (ironic, no?) and attempt to have them listed here as "reliable sources." LogicalCreator (talk)
That would be fine if it were true. Though I can take a look about the film itself and draw such conclusions from the text: " Some U.S. officials, speaking under anonymity, said that they believed the Benghazi attack was coordinated and planned in advance, and not prompted by the film.[82] Al-Qaeda has indicated responsibility and said it was in revenge for a U.S. drone strike which killed Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader.[83]" Which cites the refs 82 and83. We don't even discuss the fact that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and gave a reason for it. As for the other side of the American response here's an article from Sept 14th. Here Its not even a stretch to find these, just set google with a parameter from Sept 11 to Sept 18th and search for 'Libyan terrorist attack' and you get a bunch of easy cites and opinions which are just now being recognized by the White House. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Additionally, initial reports state it may have been The Green Resistance who carried out the attacks[2][3] - TGR never really went away and have most certainly been very active over the last 12 months. It's not like the USG and media have provided a consistent account of events overall, and TGR angle makes a lot of sense too. In both this and the focus article of the Benghazi attack, TGR possibility is only mentioned in connection to accusations by the militia toward the protesters on Friday.PoizonMyst (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

LogicalCreator, it sounds like you are claiming that the US Executive Branch has complete control over freedom of speech and press in the United States. -- Avanu (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Avanu's observation. The U.S. executive branch's power over the media is very limited---that's been the law since New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). In fact, a lot of Hollywood action movies like the Bourne Legacy are based on the fact that the government cannot control the media directly, and has to resort to covert means to limit the discovery or dissemination of classified information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "complete control" but when it comes to political matters/statements, we cannot ignore the fact the govt does have some sphere of influence and control[4] - not to mention corporate influence of mainstream media as well. This older link isn't RS, but it cites all it's sources: [5] And here's Hillary herself talking about how the US is losing the information war and needs to improve it's propaganda efforts [6] It happens. Be wary. We must be careful not to become complicit in manipulation of the public. I believe that is what NPOV is ultimately protecting. Greater effort is needed on wiki overall, to present a world view.PoizonMyst (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's quite reasonable to reflect (based on the reputable sources listed, not the sketchy political blogs...) that there is a beleif that these may have been planned incidents. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use these references to say the events WERE planned. It's the difference between wiki reflecting what RS say about dissenting opinions, and wiki actually voicing a dissenting opinion. The latter is NPOV. Personally, I think FOX tends to run a little loose with facts, and conjecture is not the same thing as facts in general. Al Queda takes responsibility for anything it can. We can certainly cite an RS indicating that they claimed responsibility; however we can't use that source to say they WERE responsible. "NPOV" doesn't mean "I don't agree with this article". It means that the article reflects, in DUE WEIGHT, the preponderance of RS.204.65.34.196 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Substantially evolving White House narrative: now it's certainly coordinated

Please see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html for the details of how the U.S. official position has transitioned from initially explaining the attacks as solely an outgrowth of the film trailer protests, and now as a coordinated effort involving a Libyan politician. —Cupco 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As an event unfolds, and more information becomes aware, narratives naturally reflect the changes in known information. A quick look at the page for any current event on wiki is a prime example of this. I'm unsure what your point is here... 204.65.34.196 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I was merely trying to point out the noteworthy fact that the U.S. authorities initially blamed the attacks as well as the protests on the film, but no longer blame the attacks on the film. —Cupco 03:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Both the White House and the Pentagon are now unequivocally calling the attacks "terrorism." The Washington Post has a timeline of the evolving positions, saying, "For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi. Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation. Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly. On Wednesday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged also that Obama himself believes the attack was terrorism...."

I'm not sure I agree with the cynical explanation that it was strictly political cover, primarily because everyone was confused about what was going on, and that confusion multiplied because the Copts were blaming the film on Jews. The real question is how much the attackers had anything to do with fomenting the protests. Some of the people who promoted the video in the weeks before the attacks have been associated with radical Sufism. —Cupco 21:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: discussion archived by User:Hasdi [7] on 2 October. DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks – Clarity. WikiSkeptic (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose This article is a hodgepodge of every news story mentioning the trailer. Some aren't attacks, some aren't on embassies, some involve non-American embassies. This article really shouldn't exist at all (though most of its content should be on Wikipedia in separate articles), but if it must, it should settle on an all-inclusive title. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per InedibleHulk, but there's nothing wrong with capturing the coincident events in a single article and people will expect that anyway, even if they know the U.S. missions attacks were planned independent of the film protests (if they were....) —Cupco 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • comment since:
1) the cited cause has moved away from mere spontaneous reaction to the web movie trailers, and
2) since the site struck was not the embassy, consulate, or mission per se (it was a state dept rented house where the US ambassador died) and,
3) since the initial main attack involving the military grade weapons was against US sites,
i'd therefore suggest 2012 Anti-USA Riots in Libya
or something like that. Cramyourspam (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a few concerns:
1) Not all of the "protests" qualify as "attacks". I would prefer terminology that accurately includes both the violent and nonviolent incidents under one title. eg "WHATEVER attacks and protests"
2) At this early date, it seems weird to put a single "cause" on such a diverse phenomenon. I'd prefer a more basic descriptor. We know the when, the where, the who-- but the why is always harder. So, I'd suggest a title like "Sept 2012" and then some geographic descriptor ("global? Islamic nations? something else ).
You get my point-- let's go for a bland title that is very flexible and doesn't take a stand on gray facts or over-simplifying a diverse group of peoples into simple causes.
I'd throw out September 2012 protests and attacks , but I'd hope some someone else with more knowledge of the movement could improve on that by adding good specific descriptors that are absolutely WP:Verifiable. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I could go for September 2012 diplomatic mission attacks and Muslim protests. —Cupco 11:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
But what if something "related" happens five days or more from now? I think we'd be best to give notable attacks and protests their standalone articles, and list (or broadly mention) the non-notable (by Wiki article standards) in the Reaction section of whatever topic a reliable source says they're reacting to. And then don't title this article at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Then Fall 2012 diplomatic mission attacks and Muslim protests? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's clearly better. The date doesn't matter nearly as much as separating the attacks from the protests. —Cupco 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to ask: is there a compelling reason we should lump two unrelated events (the diplomatic mission attack in Benghazi and worldwide protest of Innocence of Muslims) into a single page? — Hasdi Bravo • 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
They were not only simultaneous, but partially co-located to the extent that the latter provided cover for the former, which alone would be sufficient to cover both in the same article. Can you imagine trying to describe the attacks without reference to the protests? But more importantly, the jury is still out as to whether the attackers anticipated or were even involved in provoking the protests. —Cupco 15:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be easy to explain the cover theory in the Benghazi attack article, with a Wikilink to the Reaction section of the video article. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:


Every other wiki is currently identifying this phenomenon, correctly, as anti-American in scope. Any cursory review of the talk history shows consensus developing for the above topic, followed by one (1) kneejerk Brit response, 'hey, I'm not American,' leading to subsequent kneejerk bleeding heart US American liberals shedding tears that oh god, this must be an 'international' attack, which is BS. The Japanese agree this is anti-American. The Chinese agree this is anti-US. The French, the Russians, the Spanish, the Simpler English speakers, so on and so on. It's time to the face the tough truth. This was an anti-American phenomenon.WikiSkeptic (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree it's anti-something-US-related. But Is it anti-US or anti-Westernism? e.g. KFC? non-US embassies). --08:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Would Anti Islamic film protests and attacks be a reasonably-sufficiently all inclusive title?OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a better than even chance that the initial attacks had virtually nothing to do with the film, unless its publicity was intended to provoke the protests to give cover for the attacks, which seems to be getting more exploration in the "unnamed administration sources" press. —Cupco 11:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Benghazi attack is definitely anti-American. The worldwide protest against the Anti-Islamic film (which started at the US Embassy in Cairo) is against the American-made film itself, NOT Americans in general. Both coincided on the same day, September 11 2012, which probably lead this mass media confusion. Does that help? :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's any media confusion. They seem to be linking and sensationalizing these events with a clear purpose. I won't get into what that purpose is here, but it's not much different than the usual vague "linked to al-Qaeda", "linked to Iran" or "inspired by Tunisia and Facebook". This does lead to confusion among media consumers, however. Which is why Wikipedia shouldn't follow their lead; it serves an entirely different purpose (straightforward education, not shaping opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter whether the initial attacks were in fact about the film or not. Although I agree that the nature of the initial attacks is subject to debate, we may never find out the real **HARD FACTS**. But an inability to pin down facts does not prevent us from having articles about events? There are a gazillion news sources which discuss the initial attacks/protests in relation to the anti islamic film. So, we can do the same? Of course we can and should note the disputed nature of the initial attacks within the article. Does that solve our problem? Can we now try to find a new title for the material in the article?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you checked the latest news? The word from administration now is that the Benghazi mission is a terrorist attack from a "militia friendly to Al-Qaeda," not prompted from the film. So, can anyone tell me what this page is supposed to be about that is not already in "U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi" or "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions"? Anyone? — Hasdi Bravo • 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of "Other related attacks"?

Apparently some editors don't want to include the "Other related attacks" section, which included info about the attacks in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Israeli border, all of which were reported to be inspired by the video. I know what the current title of this article is, but it's disputed. These non-diplomatic missions attacks are clearly related to the other attacks. They are all part of the larger reaction to the Anti-Islam video, fueled by various reasons. Until we get a consensus here, the status quo remains.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed or not, the article is currently about a string of protests (or "attacks") on diplomatic missions, not the perceived cause of it. The perceived cause is mentioned in the article, yes, but it is a detail, not the topic. A section titled "related attacks" should mean "related to the topic of the article". This is more of a "Attacks that have things in common with the topic". It's like saying Barack Obama and Road Warrior Hawk are related because they're from Chicago. This section belongs in the Reaction section of Innocence of Muslims, if anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In simpler terms, there is no direct connection between Point A (the embassy attacks) and Point C (routine warzone activity), only through the intermediary Point B (a YouTube video). If we decide the Benghazi attack was caused by al-Qaeda (or whoever), should we then consider other shit caused by al-Qaeda (or whoever) to be significantly related to the topic here? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It is easy to see that this article has developed far beyond the limitations of it's scope, as per it's title. Instead of paring down the material, this could mean that we should simply use a broader title. Deleting material from a well developed article would be a retrograde step. Another issue is that there is considerable overlap/duplication between this article and Innocence of Muslims#Reactions. So, to avoid unnecessary duplication, we would probably either have to merge this article with the Innocence of Muslims#Reactions or merge Innocence of Muslims#Reactions into this article. In either case, we should not delete material without making sure that it has been inserted into the other article. If we delete material without inserting it in the other article, some material may be lost. As such, I think we should allow the section to stay until we decide what to do. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, merging is the way to go. This article is at least three existing articles (and several potential) rolled into one, bound by some imaginary "phenomenon" some editors feel obliged to try and adequately define. Split this whole thing into nice compartmentalized articles (or sections) and the naming and inclusion problems are solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What about the clearly-related protests in Bangkok that missed the mass media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.137 (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Protest map

The large map refers to protests not even mentioned in this article. Batu Caves? There is no argument to retain material that is not part of the article. I have removed places not mentioned in the article. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Anti Islamic film protests and attacks despite the current title. Please let the material stay until we decide what to do. Instead of deleting material, changing the title or merging with another article may be better options. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal

I propose that contents to be reorganized into 3 major pages:

  1. Innocence of Muslims. The anti-Islamic film that cause such a ruckus in 2012.
  2. U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. The terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic X in Benghazi, Libya. "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" can be redirected here.
  3. Worldwide reactions of anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims. The word "Worldwide" can suggest the global scope of the reactions. I am using the word "reactions" as it covers both protests and attacks, as well death threats like from the Pakistani minister, and possibly pretexts in routine warzone activity like in Afghanistan. The term "anti-Islamic film" may seem redundant but "Innocence of Muslims" was intentionally titled to be misleading, to suggest a film that is favorable to Muslims when it is not. Contents of Innocence of Muslims#Reactions can be moved here."Reactions to Innocence of Muslims" per consensus below. — Hasdi Bravo • 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts welcome. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Support -Separating the peaceful protests (which are now in the Innocence of Muslims article) and violent protests (which are now in the diplomatic missions attacks article) when both the peaceful and violent protests are related is nonsense. However, I'd suggest to name the new article "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims", with the reactions section in the IoM article redirecting to that. That long title you suggested is unnecessary. Take a look at Reaction to On the Origin of Species. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm cool with "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims." I just thought some might appreciate a bombastic title as significantly more notable. o.0 All that sound and fury over a pathetic film and its director, IMNSHO. I suggest we note the major protests initiated in U.S. Embassy in Egypt, which coincided with the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. — Hasdi Bravo • 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Support merging into all existing relevant Main/Further Information articles. Oppose creating new reactions article; the section in Innocence of Muslims should suffice. If we must split for size reasons, "Worldwide" and "anti-Islamic film" are unnecessary in title. And it'd be "Reactions to", not "of". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am also open to keep the section Innocence of Muslims#Reactions if the size can be contained, otherwise "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims" it is. — Hasdi Bravo • 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think this title should redirect to the potential reactions article instead of Benghazi. Sad as it is, "attack" and "protest involving fire, anger or throwing things at a wall" have become commonly synonymous in news lately. I think more people searching for 2012 diplomatic attacks will be looking for the whole hubbub. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... it would suggest that the reactions article be as its own article rather than merely a section under Innocence of Muslims. BTW, will that article be titled "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims" or "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims"? Also, we might want to merge "Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks" into that article under "Condemnation of violence" section instead of renaming it to "Reactions to Reactions to Innocence of Muslims". @____@ — Hasdi Bravo • 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. If we go with a separate article for reactions, it should get the redirect. And if that article is created, we should merge this Reactions to the Diplomatic Attacks article. Each country can have its own section where we list the protests/attacks/whatever, followed by the official reactions of that country's spokespeople. Much neater that way. I think "reactions" would be better for the title. They may be similar ("We do not condone this!") but they're still technically separate reactions, not a global joint statement. "Reaction" isn't so terrible, though. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC) That reactions article is going to be tough to merge, after looking at it. I didn't realize how much fat we'd have to trim. I'd figured it was just reactions from the countries affected, not the entire political world. That'll be a doozy of a debate, I can tell. But yeah, we'll see how it goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That been the case, I suggest we just rename this page to "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims", trim out the Libya attack, replace the profile image with a picture of the Cairo "attack", and THEN discuss potential split / merger on "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" talk page, and also discuss merger on "Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks" talk page. Otherwise, the next move is to delete / merge of this page instead, which I sense some editors are not ready for yet. — Hasdi Bravo • 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So, do we need to formally propose a Page Move to retitle this? Or did we just establish consensus here? Any objectors out there? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We typically hold a formal discussion if there is a potential for edit-war. We can wait around for a few more hours just to make sure no one else objects. In light of agreement with the US administration and mainstream news regarding the Benghazi attack, I can't think of any good reason to reconsider the new title. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox title

The current type of infobox being used is an attack infobox. Not all reactions to the film were violent attacks, which is why I wanted to name the title of the infobox "Attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims". That title more accurate describes the infobox. The title of the infobox and the article don't have to match. If we want to title it the same as the article title, then we should use a different infobox template, specifically the one designed for protests. See the one used for 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The norm is to have infobox's title in the lede to match the article's title. If you prefer, you can have that infobox moved a different section like "attacks in response of the film" or something. Otherwise, I made sure the infobox caption itself also stated "mob attacks in response of the film", but yeah, I think {{Infobox civil conflict}} is a better template to use. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • On the second thought, maybe we should move this infobox down to the section "Protest at diplomatic missions". If so, you can change the title back. I think a better image to use for a different infobox in the lede is the protest in Cairo, e.g., like this. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The infobox should definitely be kept at the top of the page, where's it's more accessible. What I'm saying is the infobox needs to incorporate the protests as well as the attacks. Right now it only discusses the attacks. I suggest we keep the title of the infobox as it is now, but replace the current "attack" infobox the "protest" infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, a protest infobox makes more sense. Only a very small percentage of the events here can reasonably be called attacks. Of the death toll, most are protesters killed by security guards in suppression of the protests. This infobox suggests the protesters attacked and killed 75 people, in retaliation for the video. Pretty misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we change the infobox image to one from the Cairo protest (e.g., see this article from Voice of America) and this the Yemen protest started two days after that. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No that image came from Reuters. If you enlarge it and look at the bottom right corner, you'll see it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Overall title

There are arguments made that the protests on September 11, 2012 were related to more than the Innocence of Muslims video. For example, here: [8]

I propose to make the title to this article more general: Protests on September 11, 2012. Myster Black (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No. This isn't an article about the single protest on that day. It is an article on the reaction of the video.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, there is no individual page for the protests at all. If I search for the Cairo protest, the number 1 recommendation is this page. Further, "September 11 2012 attacks" redirects to this page. That is very disingenuous. As for your single purpose account charge, I find it a bit accusatory. My goal is to accurately help Wikipedia with its encyclopedic endeavor. Myster Black (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I made no charge. I suggested that you may wish to review that page. The above argument has nothing to do with your POV to alter the name of this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that we have that cleared up, what say you about my other questions? Do you believe that if someone types in "September 11 2012 attacks" that they should be redirected to this page? There is significant evidence that planning for the protests (at least in the case of Cairo) as well as the attack in Benghazi was performed independently of any outrage about Innocence of Muslims. While there is much controversy about these issues, that is all the more reason that linking all of these things back to a page titled Reactions to Innocence of Muslims is at best a gross simplification of the events, and at worst an inaccurate portrayal. Myster Black (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I think what you may be looking for is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If I understand you correctly, you object to the redirect to this article. I could understand that and even support the redirect being removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with this point. I will look into the technicalities of this. If you would be willing to help, I would appreciate it. However, I need to return to my original point. There is evidence that the Cairo protest was planned before the trailer to the movie started circulating (in fact this is mentioned in the page itself). Therefore, I still propose that placing this protest (which appears to be the driver of the rest of them) squarely in a "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims" page is inaccurate. As I said before a broader title would be less controversial. My initial proposal was too narrow, as this page does include events that span more than just September 11, 2012, however I stand by the point that the title of the page is too controversial. What about "September 2012 Anti-American Protests"? Myster Black (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't agree that "some evidence" is a strong argument for your proposed alterations and note that your statement that you feel that the protest appears to be the driver of the rest of them, is inaccurate at best. This article was split from its main article. The change you are attempting would be inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the main article? "Inaccurate at best" is your opinion. The article itself states Cairo was the origin of the events. Is it not relevant that this most prominent protest of all was potentially planned before the trailer to the movie was released? Myster Black (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 108.233.89.73 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing changes by (seemingly) a single-purpose user

Someone created a user named "Helen Celeste" and apparently used that username to make changes just to this article. There is currently no user page or talk page available for that user.

I have reverted those changes, because they substantially changed the lede to be about the Benghazi attacks. There is a separate article on that subject. The version which I reverted to mentions the Benghazi attacks and addresses the disputed question of the role of the Innocence of Muslims video in that attack, using reliable sources. Some additional detail on that question could arguably be added to the lede, but it should not distract from the main purpose of this article, which is to describe the various reactions to the video that occurred over a period of weeks following its release. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing Benghazi

Even the mainstream (including the White House Press) is now in general agreement that this was a separate, coincidental event which has virtually nothing to do with Innocence of Muslims (which has become the de facto common thread tying this article together). It has its own separate enormous article, and is no longer relevant here, in light of multiple reliable sources since it was added. So I'm getting rid of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We may want to have small section to say that the Benghazi attack was initially attributed to the film but was later retracted. Everything else must go. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
A brief mention of that would be fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think one third of the lead is a bit much emphasis on something we're trying to explain isn't related to the article's topic. Undue weight, for sure. It'd be like explaining in Bill Clinton's lead how he didn't murder anyone. I suggest this goes in a "Libya" subsection of Diplomatic Missions. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I could probably cut it down further, but the undue weight can be alleviated by expanding the lede (third paragraph and beyond) to cover other protests and also the events the lead up to the mob attack in Cairo. Even though Benghazi attack is unrelated, the incident is heavily cited as a response to the film in early news reporting. Right or wrong, mob attacks and demonstration at other diplomatic facilities used the incident in both Egypt and Libya to evangelize the protestors. In reality, Cairo is the point of origin of the major protests, not Benghazi. What do you think? — Hasdi Bravo • 16:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Cairo (and to a slightly lesser extent, Sana'a) was certainly the spark that got the story buzzing, so should be in the lead. No other events strike me as leadworthy. Benghazi certainly was heavily cited, but that information is now outdated and contradicted (like Saddam Hussein's "links" to dead newborns, 9/11 and WMD). The article is largely based on news reports, but it's not about them. Perhaps we could have a "Media Reaction" section and move it there? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Under the Benghazi article, there is already a section "Investigation (government, intelligence, and news sources)" for this. For this article, we need a brief mention of the initial mass reporting that both Cairo and Benghazi were prompted by the film on 9/11. The protest in Sana'a and others happened two days later. Hindsight being 20/20, we now know better that the Benghazi attack is unrelated, but back then it didn't stop the protests to snowball from both incidents. The main thing is a lot of people still think otherwise, so we at least have to mention this in lede for the next few weeks or so. After that, it can be a footnote. — Hasdi Bravo • 02:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, we can remove the second paragraph if we can briefly mention the Benghazi in the first. Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cairo, Egypt was mobbed by protestors; a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag. This incident (and the coinciding armed attack in Benghazi that was later determined by U.S. intelligence as not prompted by the film) marked the beginning of a series of violent and non-violent protests outside U.S. and other Western diplomatic facilities across the world, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic online video known as Innocence of Muslims. However, other underlying issues of discontent have fueled both protest and violence in some countries, and expanded to other Western-related locations. The protests that continued in the ensuing weeks resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries.

That's much better, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, I did something that I believe will accomplish the above with less words AND have the additional explanation in a footnote. Check out the article now and let me know what you think. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cairo, Egypt was mobbed by protestors, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic online video known as Innocence of Muslims. A group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag. This incident, and the coinciding heavily armed attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that was widely misreported[note 1] as a similar reaction to the film, launched a series of demonstrations outside U.S. and other Western diplomatic facilities across the world. Although, other underlying issues of discontent have fueled the protests in some countries. The protests that continued in the ensuing weeks also expanded to other Western-related locations, some of which turned violent, resulting in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries.

Even better. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly made a change to how the Benghazi attack is presented in the lead, too make it conform better to current knowledge. There are actually three separate elements of the controversy over how the Benghazi attack was initially characterized. Was the attack (1) spontaneous or was the attack (2) premeditated, and was the attack (3) motivated by the video. The concepts of "spontaneous attack" and "motivated by video" seem to have become conflated to such an extent that they are viewed as synonymous in some people's minds and it would be helpful if the article could parse this out a bit (without doing OR or POV). Evidence from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times) indicates that the attackers stated to eyewitnesses that they were acting in response to the video, and also that advance planning for the attack most likely occurred and that there were no spontaneous protests taking place immediately prior to the attack. There are at least a couple of New York Times articles that support these facts, and there also may be other reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored info about Benghazi to the lead, based on info from reliable sources, e.g. The New York Times. Made some minor modifications to what had been there previously. Apparently someone removed this info, but did not explain why on the Talk page. Since numerous eyewitnesses reported that the attackers said they were acting in response to the video and since the spokesman for the attacking group stated the following day that it was in response to the video, it seems to make sense to at least mention the attack here in the lead. I also included a sentence about the political controversy in the US over the role of the video in the attack. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Restoring info in the lede about the Benghazi attack. The info is based on highly reliable sources which are cited properly. Yet another more recent reliable source article (an in depth analysis by the New York Times) supports that the video did play a role in the initial attack: "The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras." http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 15, 2014 took 16 months, and the bi-partisan finding on this matter clearly states that the video played no part in the Benghazi attack. See p. 32 ff of the report.[9] Chairman Issa (R-CA) states that many administration career professionals stated under oath that "there was no evidence of any kind of reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That's the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath."[10] The ARB Report from State Department released Dec. 20, 2012 found: "The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks...."[11] In sum: there is no dispute from U.S. government sources. There was no protest about a video prior to the attack. Based on this information, I'm reverting the edits made by PeaceLoveHarmony to the lede. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There are two separate issues that are not mutually exclusive:
(1) Anger over the video and the extent to which it motivated both the initial attackers and the mob of looters and arsonists who showed up later and
(2) whether or not protesters were present at the scene prior to when the militia first attacked.
The links you provide (with the exception of Issa's TV interview) only address the second question; there was no protest prior to the attack. This is not contradicted by the text which you reverted. There are reliable sources that state the attack was motivated by anger over the video. This is an ongoing dispute and we should present a balanced view of what reliable sources are saying. The YouTube video that you linked (of the highly-partisan Mr. Issa on a TV talk show expressing his own characterization of the committee's investigation) is a reliable source that documents his opinion, but multiple articles from the New York Times that cite interviews with eyewitnesses are also reliable sources.
I have not reverted your edit, but have modified it to reflect what is in the official government sources you provided (i.e. investigations concluded no protest was present) and incorporated it into the previous version. I reviewed these sources and they do not address the issue of the extent to which anger over the video motivated the initial attackers, nor if such anger motivated the mob that arrived later. So, the statement, "Later investigations by the U.S. government confirmed that this attack was not in reaction to the video", is not supported by the sources that were provided.
Thank you for your input and I look forward to continue working with you to improve this article to reflect the current information that is available from reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/Archive_4&oldid=1136376253"