Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 19 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Format the article as a battle

It seems that because of the involvement of security forces, American military and officials, and organized militant groups, this article could be formatted as a battle (or skirmish) with opposing sides rather than an attack with perpetrators. There have been reports that Libyan police may have been killed by the militants, which would additionally support this event as a skirmish between militants, security forces, and Americans in the broader context of the aftermath of the Arab Spring and Libyan civil war. Z.graber (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Z.Graber, why not go one step further and simply describe these events as a defensive measure carried out by indigenous Muslims liberating their lands from oppressive imperialists represented by the United States diplomatic missions? In all seriousness, Z.Graber is another *perfect* example of the pervasiveness of dishonest (or delusional) leftists who carry out Orwellian editing to conform history with their agenda. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and have reverted your infobox change. In the Egyptian case, riots aren't really the same thing as battles. In the Libyan case, even if we grant this was organized, it was something closer to an assassination / arson then a battle. The US troops sent are security forces sent long after the fact; otherwise it was vanilla police vs. civil unrest. Note that September 11 attacks isn't formatted as a military battle either despite lots of US forces being involved. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This wasn't a battle, or a terrorist attack. It was mob violence, nothing more. I would question whether it needs a separate article. These types of events are not uncommon.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course it was a terrorist attack, it was orchestrated in tandem with other riots and attacks on other embassies, most notably in Cairo (which is still going on). Perhaps all of these terrorist attacks in different cities (or "mob violence", as you wish to sanitise it) coincidently took place on the same date, September 11? Thank you for putting on display why Wikipedia is such a horrible place for objective information on political events.Bobinisrael (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? An ambassador dying? How often is that, then?Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The new information released by the State Department this evening does describe an actual firefight between Libyan and American security personnel and the militants, it seems they were both organized and engaged the multiple rounds of battle in the four hours the attack lasted. Maybe a new article should be created, especially if reports come out specifying to a planned, coordinated attack, as many news outlets have suggested.

Arnold Raphel Pakistan 1988 is the last US Amb killed/who died mysteriously in the line of duty.

Meros Felsenmaus (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Source?Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Should a distinction be drawn between Raphel and Adolph Dubs, the last US Ambassador to be killed during a hostile action(he was kidnapped)? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence not clear

What is the intended meaning of this sentence?

"In Benghazi, Libya, RPGs were fired at the consulate from a nearby far result in the death of the visiting Ambassador Christopher Stevens from smoke inhalation, two US Marines,[1] an additional unknown staff member and injuries to two others."

KConWiki (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

fixed,  Done(Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).

Blowback

I believe this is relevant as a see also (obviously not in the article as that could be OR/Synthesis). Based on the discussion at ITNC as the "unintended consequences" of the civil war.(Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).

It's obvious, but of course, there should be sources for it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's obvious, FunkMonk, this was not a terrorist multiple murder, it was an understandable reaction from an oppressed Libyan people defending their sovereignty and self-determination from Western/American hegemony. In fact, these killings should not be described as murders, but as self-defence. The blame for these deaths? Arrogant American foreign policy and uncompromising support of the Zionist regime in "Israel". Now let's go find a source for these self-evident truths. It shouldn't take longer than a few moments of perusing the BBC, The Guardian, or Al-Jazeera, right? Bobinisrael (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
true, but thats why "see also" and not cited as fact of itself. no?Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I wouldn't be surprised is someone tried to remove it afterwards, and we wouldn't be able to defend inclusion then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mobs

Not sure the word is pov. Its defined as an unruly crowd and it did get violent. Per thisLihaas (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mob action or coordinated attacks?

The possibility of coordinated attacks is now being investigated per.[1] As I have some issues with Politico as a reliable source, I don't intend to add this to the article unless it is confirmed. —Cupco 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC) ...and... the paragraph I was referring to has apparently been deleted without mention. Nevermind. —Cupco 19:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand see #Evidence for coordinated attacks below. —Cupco 09:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Name (drop the date)

I think we should drop the date (but not the year) from the name. Including the date makes it seem like this was planned for the anniversary of 9/11. What I've read about it instead says that this film was translated into Arabic just a few days ago. I think Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions also supports using just the year.--Chaser (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the date should be dropped, unless/until there are other attacks on other dates that this event could be confused with.
Relating to the name, should there be a double plural in the title? ("missions attacks") Shouldn't it just be "missions attack" or mission attacks"? 331dot (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
there are 2 missions and thus 2 attacks.
Though, as somoene having created other such articles, WP convention would be okey in removing the date without the year
 Done(Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).
I realize that, but I'm not sure if both words need to be plural, I think only one does. Could be wrong, but it seems awkward the way it is now.331dot (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It is awkward, but correct. "Diplomatic mission attacks" would suggest one mission was attacked multiple times, and "diplomatic missions attack" would suggest that it was a single coordinated assault, which it doesn't appear to have been (other than the same film causing both initial protests.) I guess "diplomatic mission attacks" would be okay, but it's less accurate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How about something like "2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions"? I'm no expert on article naming but to me this seems to be less awkward while conveying the same meaning.--Philpill691 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Libyan Dead

Apparently, there was a news conference in Libya recently that stated that 10 police were also killed in the attacks. This should be noted. This would raise the death toll to 14. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

source?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Trying to get it. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: I found an article noting the dead security officers in Benghazi. The link is here. The Pertinent Quote: "Three other American diplomats and several Libyan security officers were also killed in the attack Tuesday night." I will try to get a hard number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart Omega (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have found an Agence France-Presse Article. We definitly need to raise the death toll to account for this. Any ideas? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The dead U.S. citizens have the privilege of being named here, but the Libyan citizens don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.246.5 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, not all the U.S. citizens are named here and second, the names of the Libyans are simply not known. Alandeus (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues

  1. [2] is not from the wikilink, but a quote from the source
  2. [3] notable enough for a wikipage is notable. Further a prospective candidate influences decision makigng via popular opinion
  3. [4] not notable? really? if you want to change reaction lists across WP, then get a wider consenssu.
  4. [5] needs copyedit as in quotation marks closed and then repened without anything in th emiddle.
  5. [6] per above, removes consistent format
  6. [7] "spome" is vague
  7. [8] not sur e why..
  8. [9] ditto
  9. [10] censoreD? its in the source.
  10. [11] GOOD, but wrong place.
  11. [12] original is more neutral than "american" flag.
  12. [13] verification to ource.
  13. [14] context per the others in the "background section"
  14. [15] minor grammar
  15. [16] still a 9/11 attack
  16. [17] engvar
  17. [18] minor but to remove with other readdition as then overlink.
  18. [19] copyvio, hence i changed wording.
  19. [20] colon after "Scrawled"
  20. [21] 110% relevant to the context of the new ME.
  21. [22] umm, the article already says/said there has not been a screening.
  22. [23] minor ", and"
  23. ][24] sourced removal for speculation. We have a susperps in the infobocx
  24. [25] engvar and removal
  25. p[26] believed by who is vague.
  26. [27] npov with summary and removed source
  27. [28] then reword dont remove it. Nothign wrong ther either.
  28. [29] and the user follows with this????
  29. [30] vague and engvar
  30. [31] minor, not arabic
  31. [32] notable in terms of where us operations are based. For researchers thats adding to AFRICOM.
  32. [33] VANDALISM
  33. [34] you cant change a QUOTE
  34. [35]restored to mine, but other was better.
  35. [36] reflinks and single sentence para
  36. [37] OR, he clearly did not AMAKE the movie
  37. [38] inclined to clear vandalism, but agf. What does games have to do with this?
  38. [39] quotes not in italics for UNDUE
  39. [40] ol for redirect
  40. [41] true, but others said too (al jaz) so can remove "according to nyt"
  41. [42] no comma with "and"
  42. [43] ???
  43. [44] engvar
  44. [45] unsoured
  45. [46] look, you cant censor what you deem inappropriate, its appropriate and related to this. Same user has arbitrarily removed massive parts from the section
  46. [47] thats hy reaction sections have organisation
  47. [48] same user then tevmoed?
  48. [49] consistent reflinks
  49. [50] ditto, inexplicable?, see p[51]. And user is now warring [52]
  50. [53] agreed, same to infobox.
  51. [54] "american" is wrong and pov
  52. [55] reaction? with diff subsection
  53. [56] not in source?
  54. [57] sources now changd.
  55. [58] wrong lplace reactions is better.
  56. [59] and replicated...
  57. [60] nice, kudos.
  58. [61] redundant
  59. [62] ??? was perfectly in sync before the section muckabout by said user.
  60. [63] engvar and the what-the-heck is he doing?
  61. [64] check quotes
  62. [65] ref reomoval
  63. [66] nice
  64. [67] vague
  65. [68] reflinks (and need to chck all)
  66. [69] calrify why van gogh
  67. [70] restore needed per (edit conflict)
  68. [71] dub ious but passable
  69. [72] per aove van gogh
  70. [73] no unsourced, see wikilinks
  71. [74] nice but [minor copyedit
  72. [75] died, wasnt killed
  73. torching of US embassy in islamabad in 1979, see also
  74. [76] wikify
  75. [77] dubious discuss
  76. [78] cease and desist, if you hae a problem with established wiki practice then get wide consensus. Do not remove per IDONTLIKEIT.
  77. [79] sourced to aljaz, before butchering.
  78. [80] --> [81]
  79. [82] why one not the other?
  80. [83] UNDUE italics
  81. [84] vague
Sorry to interrupt your in-progress listing of diffs, but I'm confused what scouring through diffs that often *don't even apply to the article anymore* accomplishes. If there are specific issues, they should be brought up. If something's broken, you can always edit it rather than pasting a diff that may have been further edited. Obviously there will be issues in the process of editing an article, particularly a breaking news article. The current version is what's important. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, these are issues and i dont want to edit war.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss any edits, I'm just confused because many of these are minor edits and often don't exist on the page anymore. It's just hard to discuss them when it's a long list of slow-loading diffs, many of which are obsolete, and many of which seem to be over trivial issues. I'm sure you have valid points in there, it's just hard to find them because it's a decent bit of effort to load every diff then check the page to see if it's still valid...and I suspect most other people aren't going to do that either. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Aove all your unilateral rmovals of virtually the entire section of reaction in line with consistency needs wider consensus. Get that first and dont reove per IDONTLIKEIT.Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. As nobody commented on or reverted any removals of the previous non-notable reactions (other than the Romney reaction, which was quickly added back in in a more-notable fashion, and which I agree I should have edited and not removed) and nobody brought the issue up anywhere (until now), I've just been going by what I've seen in other breaking news articles, which is that lots of random reactions get added, and inevitably get removed in a similar fashion. I'll start a discussion on what is and isn't notable as a reaction. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Time of the attack

There is still no information in the article about when both attacks took place, if some when has some information about the local time during which they took place, please add the information.--Kimdime (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

article says/said Libya was in the evening.Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable reactions

So there's been some question of what constitutes a notable reaction. Here's my view: if the person/country/whatever isn't connected to the incident (e.g., to Egypt, Libya, the US, the film, etc), then the reaction isn't notable. E.g., the UK or Argentina issuing a generic statement that they condemn the attacks and stand with the American people does not seem notable. I removed a couple that have been added like that (though as noted above, I should have edited the Romney one in place rather than removing it initially, since his reaction does seem notable.) But including random countries that have no ties to the incident? If we included every one, the page would mainly be generic reactions to the tragedy. This isn't the "Global reactions to the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks" article... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Per precedence it is notable and its notale here as well. This is an encyclopaedia, hence for researchers t o find data which is why we keep it an ddont revert BEFORE discussion. As for "this is not...", we only split of reaction pages when the main page gets too long, which this is no where near. And currently it horrendously organised.Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll note that I was editing in line with what I've seen on other breaking news articles, and following WP:BRD somewhat. (It's hard not to on breaking news articles, and I expect and see many other editors doing the same.) If someone had left a comment here, or on my talk page, or in the page change history, I'd have been happy to go to the "revert" and "discuss" phases of BRD at any time. Nobody did, until you decided to list out the edits you disagree with, and I started a discussion since a couple of the first ones were my edits in the reactions section. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I’m not really familiar with Wiki guidelines, so, let’s see if I got this one right.

Unlike what I might have been lead to believe, “notable” - in this context - does not mean “something you would probably find of interest” or “something you should know to help increase your understanding”, but rather “something 2001:db8 feels you would probably find of interest/you should know to help increase your understanding”. Am I correct?

Because, frankly, I wouldn’t give a blessed second’s care for what Joe Blow or Jean Machin think about such events, but the official reactions of national governments does seem a tad pertinent to me. The United Kingdom’s reaction, for example, is not irrelevant, as they have had a similar experience not too long ago. I’m sure Israel had something to say, and that would certainly be relevant. In light of Canada’s recent decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran and of the reasons given for said decision, I’d say both countries’ reactions would be useful to know.

So please do not impose your own view of what constitutes a relevant reaction: follow what Wiki editors have been doing for some time now, separate governmental reactions from other noteworthy ones, and ask for consensus before removing them.

Thank you. Erjyx (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of nations. That's a lot of reactions, and there has to be some reasonable way to prune them down. I'm using "notable" here to mean "connected to the event in some way other than having offered condolences". Also, if you're interpreting this as "2001:db8 feels", I could say the exact same about your criteria: "Erjyx feels Joe Blow or Jean Machin are not notable, but feels official national governments are notable." Obviously it's hard to define notability without indeed having some personal opinion of a defining line.
But in the case of international reactions, it seems reasonable to not list standard condolences offered by countries unconnected to the incident...because there would be far too many of them, and it feels WP:UNDUE to just include a few random unconnected countries, despite the fact that many other nations have offered similar condolences. Instead, we can simply say that many countries offered their condolences, or something like that. (Except that's kinda implicit, but it seems more NPOV to me than including a few random countries that just happened to be added.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, Erjyx is not trying to impose his own view that “Joe Blow or Jean Machin are not notable, but […] official national governments are notable”, nor is he removing entries which do not support his point of view.

All I said was that you should follow the established practice of Wikipedia.

For example, this article has links to “2011 attack on the Israeli Embassy in Egypt;” “2008 Serbia protests”; and “2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran”. If you visit any of these pages, you will see that the Reactions section is NOT limited to “persons/countries/whatever” which are directly connected to the incident.

Same thing if you go to the page on Ramil Safarov (whose extradition and subsequent pardon raised some international eyebrows, to say the least).

If you are worried that the list might become too long, summarise it: that’s what was done with the International Reactions section for the Oklahoma City bombing article, for example. But my point is that you should not assume the heavy burden of having to decide, all by yourself, what constitutes a notable reaction and what doesn’t.

Erjyx (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I based my decision partially on what I have seen happen on other breaking news articles: more and more generic reactions get added, other editors remove them, eventually good ones that are relevant get added. (So comparing to older, more-stable articles isn't the best comparison.) Maybe I have less experience editing breaking news articles than you, but I've found WP:BRD to be much better than the often impossible task of reaching consensus beforehand quickly, when facts are constantly changing.
And assuming the burden of what constitutes notability? Why not? If someone does not agree, they are free to revert and bring the topic up, and I am happy to stop that type of editing and discuss it. Nobody did, so I assumed people were fine with that type of trimming (since, again, I've seen it done by multiple others with few complaints) until it was quietly listed in another user's long list of edits he or she didn't like. Being WP:BOLD does not mean I am making binding decisions for others, since you are free to revert those edits, and I'm not one to edit war if someone reverts me rather than discussing it. (Like I'm trying to do here. It would've been helpful if the other editor simply reverted my first edit with a helpful message or whatnot, rather than expressing disagreement through a cryptic list of diffs.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you are editing this news article, that means you have more, not less, experience than I do in the matter, as I’ve personally never attempted the task.

I accept (albeit reluctantly in some cases) most of your arguments: indeed, I could “revert and bring the topic up”, if I but knew how and, more importantly, had the time to do so intelligently; your criticism of the “long list of edits” (a.k.a. the “cryptic list of diffs”), doubtless one of the most impressive exercises in futility I’ve seen this month (the list, not your comments, I hasten to add) agrees perfectly with my own opinion; and I’m heartened both by your willingness to discuss and by your reluctance to enter into an edit war.

I shouldn’t want to take up more of your time, but I would restate one point: the idea that “more and more generic reactions get added, other editors remove them, eventually good ones that are relevant get added” is indeed a valid one, but unless one is quite familiar with the process, one can’t decide whether a specific reaction is “generic” or “good”, because they appear and disappear too fast. Wasn’t there something about some statement issued by Argentina’s Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto? I refreshed the screen accidentally before I could read it, and voilà! Blessed thing was gone.

That’s what I mean when I say these edits should not be done so quickly, and that no one person should take it upon himself to decide what stays and what goes without allowing at least some chance for consensus.

But I do appreciate the time you’ve taken to explain your position. Thank you. Erjyx (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree that I was hasty in my removal of the Argentinian statement you mentioned, in particular. Even if it seemed undue and generic to me, I agree removing it rather quickly was unreasonable; other editors should at least see that type of material on the page, if I'm making edits that I know someone might object to and removing material. Sorry about that one, and I'll keep it in mind. :) And no need to revert either; a note on this talk page or on my own page works just as well, or just in an edit summary in the changelog. (I try to pay extra attention to the change summary if I'm making rapid edits that might be questioned, to catch any comments or reversions there.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Authenticity of Innocence of Muslims and "Sam Bacile" is in very serious question

See Innocence of Muslims#Production and

  1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real
  2. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/
  3. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/383624/20120912/sam-bacile-innocence-muslims-steve-klein-islamic.htm

I do not believe anything more than the trailers ever existed, I don't believe "Sam Bacile" ever existed, and I think it is much more likely that the film is either a deliberate attempt at trolling or an intentional incitement to violence. —Cupco 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And there's more: "Steve Klein, who the AP describes as an associate ... was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which describes him as an 'extremist' who has led anti-Muslim protests." -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/12/161003427/what-we-know-about-sam-bacile-the-man-behind-the-muhammad-movie ("Update at 2:17 p.m. ET. Bacile Not His Real Name?") —Cupco 21:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can not pretend to understand the full relevance until the deception is unraveled, if it can be, but for now the fact that there was apparently deception involved is highly relevant to any discussion of motivations. —Cupco 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source that the motivations were other than as reflected in the article, please provide it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently has summaries of conflicting hypotheses regarding motivations. —Cupco 01:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I watched the 14 minute version on YouTube, and there's no question it's a troll. The question remains: by whom? And given that it starts with Muhammed being a slave and ends with a proclamation of killing all the non-believers, I really don't see any reason to believe it was cut from a larger piece. —Kerfuffler 01:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reaction-protests against the attack by Libyans should be added

We should add to aftermath demonstrations by Libyan people against the murder http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.93.120 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

While it would be very useful to add pictures like that, we can't use those (and most available) because of copyright issues; see Wikipedia:Image use policy. I'd be surprised if there weren't freely licensed pictures of the embassy and consulate floating around somewhere, but finding pictures we can legally use of the actual events will likely be much harder. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly include a summary of the story with a reference linking to it. —Cupco 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean the pictures, I meant only adding info about this protest in wake of the tragedy.
checkY Done. Please see {{edit semiprotected}} for future suggestions. —Cupco 00:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Strike back?

CNN is reporting that warships are moving towards Libya at 7:00 PM Eastern Time --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think protection of remaining U.S. diplomats and citizens is much more likely than retaliation. —Cupco 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney diatribe

As I said in my edit summary, Mitt Romney is not even a player in this event. Mentioned his reaction at all is likely WP:UNDUE, but mentioning it three four times and quoting his entire diatribe is just beyond the pail. I have removed it, leaving just the one line, which is more than enough. —Kerfuffler 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd normally say Romney isn't notable, except for his widely publicized comments following the event, which were followed by further notable comments... If he had just offered condolences, I wouldn't think that to be notable. Though I agree we don't need to go and include ridiculously long quotes from him. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth noting as part of an aftermath?

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrkidding17 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that questions about it were directed to Obama (a "player in this event", in your words) seems enough to believe that inclusion is warranted. Just like inclusion of the whole movie stuff (are they "players"?) - which may have been merely a cover operation (or excuse) for the attacks. Do rational people attack embassies and kill people over a maybe movie in which they had no part? If so, we'll need a big source for that, as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The president (no matter which one it is) also regularly gets questions about why we faked the moon landings. I trust you see the connection. As for the motives, we know what the press is reporting that people on the ground said. Are you challenging that, and if so, on what basis? —Kerfuffler 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Please see {{edit semi-protected}} for future suggestions. —Cupco 00:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alleged identity of filmmaker Sam Bacile - California Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes

"The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifWYKzUPaqJJsJ5aj-58K0JCL1Fg?docId=91c9d18979f24144ba8ea358237f046f Merrybrit (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More reliable URL for the same story. Well, that's great. Is it enough to attribute the Benghazi incident to deliberate Coptic incitement? —Cupco 01:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is unproven, and potentially provocative against the person named, I think you should remove this section immediately. WP rules may require me to do it myself, actually. —Kerfuffler 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely because it is unproven and can be considered slanderous against the person named, I refrained from including this information into the article. However, I believe that editors should be aware of this information - that's why I posted it here. Merrybrit (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's still a WP:BLP violation, even on a talk page. (Having run into that myself, and been scolded for such.) I think that's what Kerfuffler was getting at. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not see how it's a WP:BLP violation. This information is sourced to a report by the Associated Press.(http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EGYPT_FILMMAKER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-12-23-08-03) In my view, the AP is a reliable, trusted source. Merrybrit (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There are now multiple sources on this in Innocence of Muslims#Production 2nd paragraph. —Cupco 03:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was a BLP violation either, and I'm pretty sure it isn't anymore even if the title was before. There's more sourcing on this now and it's not a big deal in any case; I was just trying to explain something that confused me the first time I ran into it. (That BLP extends to everything, main article or not.) :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sources must always be interpreted in context. In this case, the AP reporter is making inferences with no proof. It's absolutely irresponsible for us to be copying that “information” at this stage. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As expected, someone actually put this in the article. I have now reverted it per BLP. Since this is no ordinary BLP violation and could actually get someone killed, I will escalate immediately if it's put back. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 04:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here's something I can get behind quoting:
Mr. Palmor also called Mr. Bacile 'a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot.'"[85] —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 04:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation allegations

Kerfuffler, are there any parts of the text you removed that you do not object to? I'm seeing confirmations from vast numbers of reliable sources, perhaps more than 1,000 on Google News at this point. E.g., The Guardian, International Business Times, New York Magazine, Voice of America, Washington Post/AP, Talking Points Memo (scroll down to "Late Update"), and at least a dozen other sources that I've actually read from the several hundred which contain each of the various sets of keywords involved all say the same thing. To which "inferences with no proof" do you refer?
[86] makes the point that "The story that 'Sam Bacile' is an Israeli Jew, with '100 Jewish donors,' has spread across the Middle East. It is not possible to withdraw such a story. The onus for violence is on the people who commit violence, of course. But if true, this fiction that the anti-Muhammad movie was a Jewish production is cowardly and despicable. Alas, 'Sam Bacile' could not have spread the apparent fiction that Jews were behind this film without the help of the Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal, which both reported, without independently checking, 'Sam Bacile's claim to be Israeli."
Do you really want Wikipedia to be complicit in that, too? I ask that you and others replace the text unless you can identify specific BLP violations. —Cupco 05:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler has been editing for hours including on this talk page without responding. As others have pointed out above, there are no actual BLP issues. I am replacing the deleted text. If there are any actual "inferences with no proof" or actual violations of the BLP policy, then they should be stated. —Cupco 08:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The specific issue is that the text as written strong implies that a specific real person is Sam Bacile. That claim is only supported by an inference made by an AP reporter, with no hard data. All those references you found all point to the same AP reporter. Posting that information is irresponsible, and it must be removed per policy (and common sense!). —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of those stories describe at least two reasons, usually that the cell phone everyone has for Bacile is Basseley Nakoula's and that Nakoula has used similar aliases in the past. But there are also actors and actresses in some of the story. I'm going to bed. —Cupco 10:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another terribly written article scrubbed by leftists.

Why is this event not categorised with Islamic/Islamist terror attacks? Why is there NO mention of Islamism (aside from the link on the bottom of the page) as the motivation behind these murders? Why is the word murder omitted from the entire article? Why are terms like "fundamentalism/ist(s)", "extremism/ist(s)", or "radical(s)" omitted from the article? Why does the article not SPECIFICALLY identify these murders as terrorist attacks? For the answer to all the above questions, read the heading of this new section I've written. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because reliable sources haven't said that yet. If you have reliable sources that do say so, please edit the article. The media wasn't even reporting that this was possibly a coordinated attack until well after it happened, so the article has developed along those lines. The article DOES clearly point out the possible al-Qaeda links, etc, more than once. But it's still an investigation, and that is the fact we report, until an authoritative source calls it terrorism. There's a good chance that will happen, and if it does, I'm sure someone will update the article appropriately. But we're not ones to declare it terrorism ourselves. Nobody is "scrubbing" the article of mentions to terror. If anything, I've seen more details go in about the investigation into it being a planned attack. But again, that's what it is at the moment: an investigation into terrorism. There are very scant details at this point, which I believe is the cause of the issue, rather than what you suggest. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you if I was a newcomer to Wikipedia. This is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, and trying to hide the blatantly dishonest language in this article (mostly by omission) behind it being a breaking story isn't a compelling argument. I don't feel inclined to edit the article, because I know it will be subsequently editied to comply with the narrative of the left that dominates Wikipedia. I simply felt like recording the views of many who see Wikipedia for what it is.Bobinisrael (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written with NPOV in mind. The facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you would be happier posting in a forum or on a blog to stress your feelings. Can't be done here, tho'. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, HammerFilmFan, I suppose that's why the most frequently used sources on Wikipedia are the bastions of honest and objective reporting: the NYT and the BBC. The systemic leftist bias of Wikipedia that is evident to any initiated observer is, predictably, plastered across this article. Wikipedia isn't any better than the majority of political forums, anyways, although pretentious contributors hiding behind anonymous surnames (such as yourself, perhaps?) yield some sense of self-important by deluding themselves into thinking they're participating in some higher level of discourse that is Wikipedia. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think half the "omission" in this article at the moment is people being more interested in the supposed film. Perhaps there is a systemic bias due to the general population of editors, but on any high-traffic article like this, I feel that there are plenty of editors on both "sides" to keep things balanced; you only need a small minority to be vocal against any issues, after all. I imagine that systemic bias is more likely to show up in less popular articles. And really, the best way to eliminate any perceived bias you see is indeed to *edit it yourself*, then if you do see people reverting or changing your words in a biased manner, call them out on it. Sorry, but even though I'll agree that Wikipedia's population is probably left-leaning, you haven't mentioned any specific bias...other than vaguely pointing at omission (which I agree is an issue, likely just due to a lack of editors interested in updating those bits at the moment), and us not calling it terrorism (which we can't do yet.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is objectivity on Wikipedia, you're wrong. I've already explained in detail how this article exemplifies the leftist bias of Wikipedia by indicating the omission of honest language that is unpalatable to the left. Terms like murder, terror(ist/ism), Islam(ic/ist), and so forth. Moreover, the multiple murders are described as a "disturbance" by one of the editors of this article. There is also no mention of the Islam(is/ist) graffiti that was found on the the property of the consulate. Photos of this graffiti, which in Arabic wrote "God is Greater" (Allahu Akbhar) are given no mention in this article, and probably never will be given any mention. Any honest observer knows why.Bobinisrael (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What? Do we need to put "attacked during protests over ... blasphemy against the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" in extra-large blinking bold red type? There aren't any reliable sources calling it murder or terrorism yet as far as I can tell, but I'm sure there will be. The vast majority, including the BBC just as I write this, say "attacks" and so are Obama and Hillary Clinton. Presumably this is because we do not yet know whether the attacks were terrorist or coordinated military assassinations yet. Or just mobs from Islamist groups. —Cupco 03:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't exactly use more hyperbolic language than the articles cited themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes FunkMonk, because terms like "murder", "terrorism", and "Islamist" are hyperbolic, right?

There are plenty of reliable sources which make it clear that this was an act of terrorism and murder. It is quite telling, by the way, that you would think that what occurred during these terrorist attack was anything BUT murder. Perhaps nothing can be understood until the NYT or BBC explain it to us? There was an orchestrated attack on two America governmental interests, on sovereign American soil, in Cairo and in Benghazi. Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhammad and other Islamist/Jihadist organisations made explicit warnings about such attacks that would be carried out on September 11 days earlier. I suppose you think there were two impromptu or spontaneous terrorist attacks on an embassy and a consulate that just coincidentally occurred on September 11 without any premeditations. Perhaps the killers of Christopher Stevens and the three others did so in self-defence? We'll never know until the NYT or BBC tell us what to think, right? Bobinisrael (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any concept, Bobinisrael, of the practical reason that Wikipedia requires reliable sources? Case in point: It's fairly obvious that if "the truth" -- as you see it -- were contained in this article, we would soon have many many folks of opposing view down our throats. Perhaps as the story develops, and as the reported facts accumulate, the picture that emerges will look very much like what you believe to have happened. But possibly not. Because there are multiple ways to view objective reality, each of them highly subjective, we need to wait -- not for anyone to tell us what to think, but for a reliable source to offer undeniable fact.

Scrubbed by leftists? No, it's just that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) 

Bustter (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS - this whole discussion has gone on far too long and violates Talk Page rules about using them for Soapboxing or a Forum, and I submit this section should be "hid." HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible perpetrators

This CNN page claims that it was a group named the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades that carried out the attack. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/

Reuters reports that another group ,named Ansar al-Sharia, was involved instead. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912 David O. Johnson (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reuters also says "Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" was possibly involved. Perhaps best to just go back to not naming a specific group and include both refs, since we have at least three apparent factions possibly responsible now. (Edit: Which I did in the article, not naming a single group for the moment and including both refs.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There's also a weird theory that says Gadaffi supporters did it (who are non-existent in Benghazi), which is of course complete bogus, but it has even been repeated by some Libyan politicians. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we conflating the Libyan terrorist attack with the Egyptian protest?

A murderous assault on the consulate in Libya is quite different from vandalizing flags at the Egyptian embassy. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because both happened at same time and involved attacking an embassy... "Vandalizing flag" - do you even realize how significant it is to grab the flag of an embassy and replace it?? --Activism1234 02:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe they should be split once more info comes along. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? There are currently two sections - Egypt and Libya. Both are separate. --Activism1234 04:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Split articles. At the moment, it isn't even clear if they're linked. FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, then both articles would pretty much have an idential background section and similar reaction sections... Only "attack" section would be different. Feel free to open up a new discussion on this, but I disagree with splitting it. --Activism1234 04:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, because not even the background seems to be identical now. The Libya attack was apparently planned beforehand, but the Egypt demonstrations were more spontaneous. No one has reported if they are even linked directly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with user Activism1234, keep the article combined at this time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
One was spontaneous protest. The other was a pre-planned al-Qaeda terrorist attack. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the A-Q terrorist attack implications in Libya, all three embassy riots in Yemen, Libya and Egypt are tied together over protests about the faux-troll YouTube anti-Islamic video (the protests) and for that reason grouping them, with subsections in the article, is the best way to go for ease of access. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"The" embassy statement and it's ripples.

It's referred to twice. It was the occasion for political commentary, and it's content and tone (flirting with sadness for the first-amendment, and only then expressing "outrage," or whatever, is and may stay as a major point of contention. But unless I read toO fast, the original cable and twitter--was not supplied. It also should be noted that the whole matter of sending/disavowal is being cited to question the State Dept.'s operations in this case.I don't think these points are politically partisan for inclusion in Wiki. They are just what I see in the air now.Shlishke (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said about this “debate”, but remember WP:NOTFORUM. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 05:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More clashes

More clashes, more fun. See here, here. Should be added to article and clarified this is a different day.

--Activism1234 03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Death Toll Again

How do we deal with the Death Toll issue regarding the Libyan Police, as shown in the Agence France-Presse Article up the page? Also, I would recommend splitting this Article. They are separate incidents with vastly different outcomes and repercussions. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, keep it as a combined article. The media is mostly doing so, also. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Numerous news agencies are reporting that this was a planned attack due to 9/11 "Standing outside the fire-gutted compound, Mohammad al Bishari denied the attack began as a protest against an amateurish U.S.-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic faith."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/12/3812183/they-attacked-right-away.html#storylink=cpy 24.98.139.66 (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Andybinga

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Libya and Cairo Embassy Attacks

The planning for these events as it was described preceded the showing of the controversial film. It is important to keep in the article the date of the attack since it was on the anniversary of 911. Also the killing or removing heads of state has angered a lot of people and misrepresentation of the American media of the unpopularity of the governments with the people hides the fact that supporters of the former regime are larger than estimated an will continue to try to reclaim their country.The movie was so as to speak the straw that broke the camel’s back.

My source I have lived in the Mideast and worked in US missions for the last 20 years.

78.52.71.181 (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia only utilizes Reliable Sources for the betterment of the articles. Personal experiences do not follow under that category. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Document security?

Is anything known about whether embassy records were compromised? I'm wondering both whether information was taken away, and whether anyone would have had access to add something (such as a clean bill of health for some terrorist(s) they want to get into the U.S.). Wnt (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They may have gotten minor information, but likely not anything significant. There's no chance they could have tampered with anything. But this is getting a bit WP:NOTFORUMy. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 06:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Not if you provide your source and we mention it in the article. :) Wnt (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Alas, it looks like you're wrong on the first point (no information about the second...) [87] Wnt (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Other US reactions

The section "Other US reactions" does not seem objective to me, because it quotes Romney without quoting anyone who disagreed with him. I think the section is political soapboxing and should therefore be removed. 06:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Romney situation as reported in the NYT is somewhat unusual and I don't particularly care to sort it out, but someone else should. —Cupco 08:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Cairo Embassy statement should be quoted in full, rather than the abbreviated summary now provided. "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/ Jross10 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll note this is still an issue, though I currently have neither the time nor energy to edit it and deal with possible NPOV debates and the like, when the current version has been stable on the page. It could definitely be improved, both to expand on the quote (but perhaps not fully), and to note WHY Romney's reaction was relevant: the media and many politicians criticized his comments. Right now the link between the quote and Romney's reply is vague. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

International Reactions

Please add Argentine reaction: An communique by the Argentinean [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship signed by the President Cristina Fernández express: "The Argentine people expressed its strongest condemnation of the attack perpetrated yesterday against the U.S. Consulate in the city of Benghazi. We deeply regrets the death of that country's Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, and other Americans and Libyans citizens".

Sourse: http://www.infobae.com/notas/670158-La-Argentina-condeno-el-atentado-en-el-Consulado.htm.html (Infobae.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepaja1941 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please add Pakistan reaction source : PAKISTAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF US AMBASSADOR IN LIBYA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaqibQ (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Pakistan also condemned the film [88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.202.250 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Argentina and Pakistan. —Cupco 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yemen

The embassy was freakin' stormed!--150.216.78.78 (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just the courtyard, not inside, but there are reports of casualties on BBC. —Cupco 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags

What is up with all the flags? Are they really necessary?--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style says something somewhere about when you have one line each from a bunch of different countries. —Cupco 09:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Error

As I'm not a user, I don't seem to be able to edit the article. However, under Reaction: US: Other US reactions, it reads "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."[38][39].[34][40][41] Cuba has been enemies with the US since the Cold War."

Wait, what? What does Cuba have to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.40.40 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Someone fixed it before I could get to it. Thanks.Jonathanfu (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Security officer's name released

The Boston Globe is reporting that one of the four American's killed in Benghazi was Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL working at the consulate as a security officer for a private company.[89] The lede currently states that the other two Americans killed, besides Stevens and Smith were US Marines. This statement is sourced to a CBS report but CBS appears to be incorrect here since the Globe has an interview with Doherty's family and they clearly identify him as a private contractor. GabrielF (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

worth citing?

http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat gives additional background text about one of the people killed in benghazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.57.129 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NO. The site is not a Reliable Source, and is just a private blog for all practical purposes. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What about official response from CCP (maker of the game EVE Online) where Sean Smith (aka Vile Rat) was a player elected counsel member? [90], or a NBC News article about it? [91], there's PLENTY of reputable 3rd party sources to identify this person... — raekyt 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Protests reported in Gaza and Tel Aviv

It is being reported that protesters are burning American flags in Gaza, and Arab-Israelis are protesting outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. I think these should be noted. Also, due to the spreading of the protests, and the uncommon events in Libya, a new separate article should be considered for the Benghazi attack since it was less of a protest than an organized attack/raid.ItsGrrreat (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a section titled Related Protests or something along those lines that includes the incidents in Israel, Iran and elsewhere. We should distinguish between peaceful protests and attacks but these protests help to form the context for the attacks and they are relevant to this article. GabrielF (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No attacks in Iran

I am a Canadian Citizen living in Iran. This incident is regrettable. However, in the intrest of accuracy and for the record 

i) There is no US embassy in Iran

ii) There were protests in front of the Swiss 

   Embassy which acts to represent US
   interests in Iran. I repeat protests
   no attacks no entry intio the embassy
   compound which in any case is the Swiss
   Embassy

When I saw the flag of Iran, I searched the entire article to find out about any incidents in Iran regarding this.

Apart from demonstrations nothing happened here.

I suggest to remove the flag implying that the attacks have spread here. Again there is no US embassy here. Put the reference in again when it is at least confirmed that some other missions were actually attacked in connection with this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.75.87.132 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I removed this, both because of there indeed being no US embassy or consulate in Iran, and there just being protests with no attacks or general violence reported at this time. It may be worth mentioning in the body, but putting it in the infobox is misleading with the current information we have. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

State Department sources on the attacks and the death of Christopher Stevens

This is for the purposes of documenting English sources used here and on other Wikipedias, and on coordinating activities on this subject on other related Wikipedias.

English:

Arabic:

Persian:

Chinese:

Spanish:

French:

Russian:

Portuguese:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Add the following to the "International reactions" section: * {{flag|China}} – Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said that the Chinese government was "shocked" by the attacks and that it "strongly condemn[s] the violent deeds". It further reminded the Libyan government about its obligation to protect foreign ambassadors under the [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]].<ref>[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/13/c_123708330.htm China condemns U.S. diplomatic compound attack]. Beijing: Xinhua. September 13, 2012.</ref> 192.12.88.159 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 DoneMerrybrit (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

The category is apt, removal of it is vandalism. The Libyan president acknowledged that it was terrorism: after acknowledging Muslim anger at the "film", he said "use of force to terrorise innocent people and the killing of innocent people" (emphasis added). Even the Libyan leader connects the two. Let's document what has happened - in the views of those on the scene - and not editorialize to be politically correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course this is an example of Islamic/ist terrorism, but the editors of this article do not want the reader to know that lest he or she scroll to the bottom of the article to find a hyperlink associating this story with this category. The entire article makes no mention of these terrorist (a word not used in the entire article to describe these attacks, outside of quoting individuals like the Libyan President) attacks being coordinated in order to occur on September 11. Nevermind the fact that prominent Islamist/Jihadist terrorists like Muhamad Al-Zawahiri have openly stated that these attacks were "in retaliation" to American assassination of prominent terrorists such as Abu Yahya Al-Libi. Remember, on Wikipedia one is not allowed to report the truth until the NYT or BBC allows us to do so. Bobinisrael (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"Remember, on Wikipedia one is not allowed to report the truth until the NYT or BBC allows us to do so." Considering encyclopedias are tertiary sources so we have to wait until not just those papers, but also APF, Der Speigel, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, Yomiuri, Xinhua/etc report it. "Nevermind the fact that prominent Islamist/Jihadist terrorists like Muhamad Al-Zawahiri have openly stated that these attacks were "in retaliation" to American assassination of prominent terrorists such as Abu Yahya Al-Libi." - Firstly that can be inserted in the article (with citations!) secondly terrorists have made false claims of responsibility for disasters that were merely accidents. So one has to have patience. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
CarlosSuarez, after using ctrl-F to search the article for keywords, there is still NO direct association indicated in this article connecting these terrorist attacks and murders to Islamic/ist terrorism, outside of the category link at the bottom of the page. As I've been stating for a few days on this talk page, now, the message is clear: the Wikipedia editors are committing to scrubbing this article of politically inconvenient truths. Despite these attacks clearly being planned and coordinated to inflict maximum political and symbolic effect on September 11, the article STILL draws a largely false connection between between these events and an obscure YouTube film. Nevermind the fact that everything I've stated has been widely reported from "reliable sources". The commitment around here to "political correctness" is clear. Bobinisrael (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Leftist absurdity continues with false blame of the terrorist attacks on an obscure film.

Specific ideas for improvement are welcome, accusations against groups of editors are unproductive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So, The Jerusalem Post reports that the obscure YouTube film trailer lampooning Islam and its prophet Muhammad "sparked protests" in Cairo and Benghazi without any evidence is accepted at face value?Rather than acknowledge the truth that these were coordinated attacks planned in advance coincidently occurring on September 11? Of course, the truth doesn't exist on Wikipedia until the NYT or BBC tells us what we're allowed to know. So until a "credible" source tells us ignorant masses the truth, the dishonest narrative of these terrorist attacks (which are not identified as such as per pervasive Wikipedia leftist sanitised lexicon) will remain: these were "protests" and "disturbances" that were spontaneous in reaction to a YouTube film trailer that none of the terrorists/"protesters" had even seen. Again, this all coincidentally occurred on September 11, in several cities, and the terrorist/"protesters" (or should we call them "participants" in order not to ruffle any feathers?) just coincidentally remembered to bring along their AK-47s and RPGs. Not only is the narrative of this article completely dishonest, the language used is perfectly Orwellian. We might as well refer to these murderers as "freedom fighters" and just indulge the political sensibilities of 90% of the Wikipedia "editor" community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, Bob. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The top guiding principle is that Wikipedia gets its information from secondary sources (such as newspapers), with some info from primary sources. If you pay attention to the coverage, in the beginning all of the news outlets did say that the film sparked protests. The article may change rapidly in the coming days as news sources post updates. Wikipedia:Original research analysis is not allowed, Bob, so we have to wait until the media sources agree that it was a coordinated terrorist attack, before saying so. One more thing: please don't misinterpret Wikipedia as being "leftist" - it is international and accepts those of all political orientations, so we use US, Canadian, British, Japanese, Chinese, and other sources in determining consensus and information. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not new to Wikipedia, I've been reading it since it came online. I'm sharing observations about a persistent and dishonest bias that permeates virtually every article of a political and/or historical nature. Some forgiveness can be extended to this article considering it is about a currently developing story, however this dishonest leaning of Wikipedia extends to well researched events. Moreover, blatant omissions I have mentioned *have* been covered in contemporary news sources, and have been ignored not through negligence, but by design. As I've stated, there is plenty of video and photos from the terrorist (another term that Wikipedia is rarely able to appropriately use) attacks themselves which clearly demonstrate the Islam(is/ist) motivations of the terrorists, and none of it makes an appearance in this article. Any honest observer knows why this is the case, and why the introductory article dishonestly parrots the false narrative of these terrorist attacks amounting to some sort of spontaneous "demonstration" reacting to an obscure YouTube movie trailer lampooning Islam and its prophet Muhammad. The truth, of course, is that these were coordinated attacks by terrorist organisations carried out for maximum political effect on September 11. Carry on doing everything you can to mislead the uninitiated readership of Wikipedia while purporting to be honest. Bobinisrael (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Bob, repeatedly opening and replying to discussions about some left-wing conspiracy isn't going to accomplish much. This isn't a WP:SOAPBOX, and others have tried to patiently explain the use of sources, but your repeated insistence on continuing is honestly starting to become a bit disruptive to this talk page. I think everyone would appreciate it if you'd cool down a bit, and not repeatedly make the same point.
I'll also note that, despite the fact that I'm apparently part of this left-wing conspiracy, I just edited the lead to add significant information on the al-Qaeda link and the film likely being unrelated, now that reliable sources are actually saying that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You can try all you want to discredit me by falsely accusing me of engaging in soapbox complaining, but I am raising valid points about critical omissions in this article that reinforce the well-established theme of leftist dishonesty that permeates Wikipedia. Perhaps you view yourself as some sort of vanguard for a non-existent Wikipedia reputation of integrity? Things I've mentioned were available within hours of the attacks, and some of them days before: most notably, public declarations from prominent Jihadist/Islamist terrorists that they wanted to strike American interests (primarily embassies and consulates) on September 11. These facts have been omitted in this article. These terrorist attacks were not predicated on any response to hurt feelings over a YouTube video deemed an egregious offence to certain Muslims, contrary to the dishonest narrative being parroted in the opening paragraph ("the movie made them do it"). What actually happened was that certain individuals were enticed to participate in less violent components of the demonstrations/protests on this pretext (the "offensive" film trailer), in order to provide a sufficient volume of people to create the necessary chaos to increase chances of a successful attack murdering the ambassador and others. In other words, the true motivations for those that carried out this terrorist operation were Islamic/ist, and would have occurred with or without this film trailer that is still being dishonestly placed at the centre of these events, while other participants who had no foreknowledge of the terrorist plans merely believed they were attending a political demonstration/protest, unwittingly acting as accessories to the terrorist attack by providing a certain degree of cover to the violent actors. More people at the scene means more chaos and a higher likelihood of a successful terrorist attack. This is not an uncommon methodology implemented by contemporary Islamic/ist terrorists, and it was used during the so-called "Quran burning protests" with similar successes in murdering Americans and other Westerners. Predictably, the Islamist/Jihadist agenda is being carried out here in Wikipedia in order to dishonestly characterise these terrorist attacks as being in response to an obscure YouTube film.Bobinisrael (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This must be a false flag account. Israelis usually aren't that obtuse. But yet again, if you've got reliable sources for it, please add whatever you want. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit requested on September 13

Please add the Norwegian reaction to the international reactions section:

Minister of foreign affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre strongly condemned the attacks saying “We condemn the attack on the US consulate in Bengazi and the killing of diplomats and ordinary civilians in the strongest terms. Such acts of violence are indefensible. We will raise this matter with the Libyan authorities. Under international law, the receiving state has full responsibility for the security of diplomatic and consular missions and their staff”

Source: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/press/news/2012/attack_benghazi.html?id=698989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.106.129.103 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I just added it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

International reaction: Mexico

Is it relevant to include the reaction of Mexico? I have a couple of sources for it. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not to include any soverign legitimate country with an official reaction. --Activism1234 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Four suspects in custody

Do we have this yet? NPR is saying that US officials are presently interrogating the men. —Cupco 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney response

Its easy for the opposition candidate to just mindless criticize. The fact is that if he was just Governor Jones of the state of Foo, we wouldn't post his comments. If Romney is elected, his comments have no value because he didn't have the authority to act when it happened, and if he is defeated, this paragraph will just appear as a strange and unnecessary footnote. It's election year politics, nothing more. --IP98 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

But his views are representative of the republican party of the U.S. even if it election year drama, it provides a significant viewpoint that represents something other than the current president's one. The reason the viewpoint matters is not because he may become elected, but because he is a major public figure representing differing values on something exclusively American. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't get why we have any comments by world leaders. If they were just Governor Smith of the state of Doo, we wouldn't post their comments. Do you see why that argument doesn't work? "If" is fun, but isn't reality. --Activism1234 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've already commented on this. Romney is not a player here at all, and giving him air time is WP:UNDUE. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Also commented, so don't want to over-repeat, but I find Romney notable here because his response ended up being a major news issue in the US and helped politicize the issue. Even 3 days later, the front pages of sites like CNN, Al Jazeera, and Fox News still have articles discussing Romney's response. It doesn't need to be a giant section, and I think the current version really does need improvement (but again, don't want to walk into a possible minefield changing it, since it is factual.) Other responses and reactions (e.g., the congressmen calling for foreign aid to be withdrawn) have apparently occurred partly as a result of Romney's comments as well, so those comments add context to things like other people being angry at Obama for "apologizing" to the attackers, since Romney widely publicized that incorrect account. Normally I'd say, yes, leave him out since he's just a candidate, but I think he's simply too connected to other US political reactions to do so here. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The thing is the coverage is only because he is a presidential candidate in an election year. He's a man on the street who went straight to the head of the line for press coverage of non-administration US reactions. He's technically nobody, basing his opinion on the same news reports as everyone else. --IP98 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I think it's silly it even became relevant. But even though he's technically nobody, his comments contributed to reactions from many people, including current elected officials. For example, from [92]: "The conservative lawmakers calling for cutting funds also strongly backed Mitt Romney’s criticism of President Obama, repeating the GOP nominee’s charge that the U.S. embassy in Egypt initially apologized for an amateur anti-Islam video by an American filmmaker that sparked the protests at the American compound." And we do cover that congressmen have proposed cutting aid, so Romney's reaction adds context. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Football fans

Can somebody please explain what football fans were doing protesting an embassy? Did a game just finish nearby without incident, so they decided to join in a sociopolitical protest? Any explanation is sorely needed, because the sentence "Salafists and football fans" definitely gave pause. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

These are a particular type of football fans, known as "ultras" in Egypt, who are hardliners. I don't know if there was a game nearby, but that wasn't the reason they protested. Simply put, many of the protestors were these "ultras." --Activism1234 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This means nothing to me in any way. It's like if I were to refer to a Syrian government soldier as a "40m Long Rifle competitor." It says nothing about their background, their motivation, how they are different from Salafists, or even why they are protesting. From your explanation, it does not even imply that they watch football. Is there something I am missing? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Simply put, these footbal fans who protested are football fans with hardline views. --Activism1234 01:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well we could simply call them that.... it seems obvious that being football fans is not the salient characteristic. After all, the Arabs as a whole are huge football fans, so by itself it doesn't say much. --Yalens (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually changed it from "ultras" because "football fans" was what was in the ref at the time, and the ultras article seemed a bit confusing without context. However, searching again, here's one newer ref that specifically mentions "Ultras Ahlawy" as the group in question (and as "violent football fans"): [93]. Someone should be able to update it better based on that. Edit: That's the *only* ref I can find naming that group, and the source seems possibly biased. So that particular group's name likely shouldn't be included unless other sources corroborate it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Why can't we just say "Salafists and hooligans" or something like that? They are hooligans, after all. --Yalens (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Ultras may be more accurate, as the article specifically mentions political acts and the like, whereas football hooligans are more about the team. The "ultras" article also says they tend not to be violent (which seems to be the case with the actual protestors), in contrast to football hooligans. (But seemingly more likely to keep their demonstrations at the game than "hooligans" are. So I dunno.) I'm no expert on degrees of football fan political involvement. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Should the Libyan section be spun off into its own article?

The Libyan attack seemed to be much more serious, and was the only one that resulted in a loss of life. It seemed to be planned and executed by some armed group. It is also the one that is getting the most press. Should it be spun off into its own article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Report from The Independent

The Independent posted a lengthy article accusing President Obama of being warned about the forthcoming attack but doing nothing. The Obama Administration denied this. I think this needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page 50.74.2.12 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Given absolutely no substantiation of it, no, it does not belong in the article. WP is not a rumor mill. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is the article if it's used. I'd say that a little info on it should be fine, as it's reliably referenced. --Activism1234 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this one article, or two?

As the article exists on 2012-09-14:T03:10, the title is about the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks, but the article is seeming to become an appendage to collect links to much more widespread protests about a controversial film. That is to say, the protests are occuring in more countries, but without any "attacks" on diplomatic missions. Not clear they all belong in this article, unless this article were to be retitled. What do others think on this question? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic. It is getting long for one article. I'd argue the whole Background section, which outlines the saga of the film, should be reduced to a paragraph with the saga told in the page for the film: Innocence of Muslims. The various reported names of the producer is not important to the attacks. Perhaps we can shorted this section and insure that important detailed information is in the article on the film. That's my suggestion. Any others? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the title and scope definitely need to be reevaluated, though I'm not sure it's quite time to do that yet, since facts are still rapidly changing. (E.g., splitting off the Libya incident perhaps, and making the article focus on the protests in general.) But that's hard since the incidents are quite intertwined, though Libya does seem to be a special case as an apparent planned attack. Definitely agree that the current Background section really needs to be condensed, since the film has a detailed article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly split these into two articles. One for the most serious attacks, which was the attack on the Libyan embassy. And then another article detailing protests about the film. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted some edits

I just reverted some of Vice regent's edits re the film "Innocence of Muslims". You had deleted a specific quote from a highly reliable world wide source, Reuters, in favour of a long list of adjectives from a number of sources, with a waffly introduction like "recent media sources..." or some such.

I want to point out to you than in successful reporting, sometimes "less is more". The more sensational newspapers are naturally going to emphasise what the Western World's readers are going to buy: sex, paedophilia, homosexuality.

Reuters, on the other hand, put their finger precisely upon those things that are offensive to Muslim men. Homosexuality and what the Western World would regard as paedophilia are widely practised and unofficially condoned in many Muslim countries. Muhammad taking a 10 yr old bride would not be offensive in those parts of Africa where girls mature young and are married at puberty.

The impact of the Reuters statement is that it summed up in three words those things that were really offensive.

Amandajm (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a little correction. Aisha was not "10 years old" when Mohammad first had sex with her. But was 9. (Betrothed at 6!). And I have news for you. Child rape is child rape...WHATEVER the twisted "culture". I mean, analyze it...I'm no prude, and I understand things, but Mohammad couldn't even wait until Aisha had her period! She wasn't even menstruating yet. Biologically wasn't ready for sex, by any justification. I mean, maybe the teen years I can see, sort of. But Aisha wasn't even that. She was UNDER-AGE...BY ANY RATIONAL BIOLOGICAL STANDARD. Sorry, it was pedophilia. Regardless of "culture". Period. And again...she was 9...not even 10. Regards. Watercolor Merger 05:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss what a pedophile is. I agree with Amandajm here; if you're trying to convey the reason people objected to the film and started protesting/rioting, the Reuters quote nails it exactly. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I may agree largely with Aman about that, perhaps. But on the other hand I don't think it's WP valid to suppress certain facts and issues that we personally don't like. Also, I notice that you didn't rebuke Amand for "discussing what a pedophile is." You seem to be inconsistent here. If you notice his comment above, you'll see that HE HE HE first decided to get into a whole thing of what "pedophilia" is and is not "in certain parts of the world". Yet you only single me out (hypocritically) about "not the place to discuss". Funny that. Amand..opens the door and brings UP the discussion, I respond and correct his inaccurate statement... Yet you only address me. Interesting. Only because you agree with him on the "Reuters" thing does not give you the right to hypocritically pick and choose and have selective unfair analysis of what the hell went on here. HE, Amand, first brought up this discussion...for some oddball reason. About what "pedophilia" is. Not I. Address him...don't address me. (Or at the very least, address us both...especially since he first brought the matter up in the first place.) Thank you. Watercolor Merger 05:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I did address both of you. Please, let's stick to the question of what to put in the article. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Response:

  • having an actor play the part of Muhammad is universally offensive to Muslims
  • portraying Muhammad as a "fool" is universally offensive to Muslims.
  • portraying Muhammad as a "fraud" is universally offensive to Muslims.

You have to see the issues from a Muslim perspective in order to understand the outrage.

Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Amandajm: I would suggest transposing your points to Christianity: until last century English law prohibited the portrayal of Christ on stage, outside of Christian miracle plays; and that withint he last quarter-century English politicians have called for the protrayal of Chirst as a fool or a fraud to be a criminal offence (whether or not it already is, as blasphemy). But I see no reference in these articles to the disparity in how Muslims are expected to "tolerate" whole-scale attacks on their truly-held faith and beliefs -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll add that most people reading this on the English Wikipedia are probably not Muslims, thus explaining the issues as from a Muslim perspective likely isn't the best option, since it requires additional context and explanation. A combined perspective is probably best, including those elements you mention as well as elements that can be easily identified as offensive by both Muslims and non-Muslims (e.g., portrayal of homosexual acts by Muhammad, which most non-Muslims should be able to grasp as extremely offensive without further explanation; though that's just an example, not an endorsement either way whether to include it on the page.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to Muslim Brotherhood "condemnation

Maybe it should be added, it's hilarious: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/snark-flies-us-embassy-brotherhood-twitter-spat-17229186#.UFMAC65I3eU FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Could someone change the unnamed official and the security officer mentioned in this sentence: 'The main building, containing Ambassador Stevens, another official, and a security officer, became engulfed in a fire after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.' to Sean Smith and Glen Doherty? They're already mentioned at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.173.81 (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The security officer is not Doherty, and lived; Doherty was killed at the annex along with Woods. I've edited in Sean Smith's name though. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 11:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not for here, but ...

do we need a broader page, since the BBC are now reporting attacks on other (Western) nations' emabssies -- German and British definitely. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

India protest

I believe I saw a mention of a protest in India that is not mentioned in this article. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

While a passing mention of the protests outside the Chennai consulate in this article may not be unwarranted, including Chennai in the list of places where US diplomatic missions have been "attacked" is misleading. I was unable to find any reliable source to back up that assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.79.6.243 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Innocence of Muslims film?

I think there has been a lot of confusion here. :-/ The "attacks of the missions" and "protest of the film" occurred on Sept 11, 2012 but as reported later, U.S. officials believe that "the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was planned before the protests and was not prompted by the film, and that the attackers perhaps used the protest as a diversion." Prior to the attacks, there are earlier reputable articles (WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY) articles that are indicative of this:

  1. "Egypt intelligence warns of attacks on Israel, US embassies". The Jerusalem Post. 2012-09-11. Retrieved 2012-09-14.
  2. "Egypt: Letter warns of embassy attacks". United Press International. 2012-09-11. Retrieved 2012-09-14.
  3. Al-Masry Al-Youm (2012-09-11). "Intelligence warns of attacks against US and Israeli embassies". Egypt Independent. Retrieved 2012-09-14.
  4. Kim Sengupta (2012-09-14). "Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination". The Independent. Retrieved 2012-09-14.

I suggest we move most of the edits related to "protest of the film" to Innocence of Muslims page as these are more relevant over there. We can probably have a small section on the film, but not under Background, as that is clearly misleading. It won't be the first time the media jumped the gun on two coinciding major events, and facts got lost in the confusion. Thoughts anyone? — Hasdi Bravo • 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Background section is indeed excessive and somewhat misleading; I think it can be condensed down quite a bit, since the film does have its own article. It has been noted that the US apparently had prior information, etc, though your sources are definitely helpful to edit further along those lines. However, I think this primarily applies just to Libya, since the other protests DO appear to have been caused by the supposed film (whether or not it exists past a YouTube video and whoever actually made it...) But various people (including myself) have suggested splitting the Libya attack off, which solves that problem. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is still too much about the development of the film in the article. The Innocence of Muslims covers this topic. We need not know the story about the name of the film's producer in our article. We only need to know that an offensive film was made in America. I already removed a paragraph. I suggest making it terse with only a brief mention of the circumstances of its usage in Islamic lands. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon

Salafists are rioting in north Lebanon as well, burning KFCs. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/53569-one-killed-25-wounded-in-tripoli-protest-against-anti-islam-film FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New lemma? Attacks against KFC, German, British embassy

Today the violence escalated further and a KFC and the German, British embassies in Sudan were attacked. Therefore the lemma should probably be extended to also cover those events and not only attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The primary fopcus is still the United States, but obviously we do have to acknowledge other targets, whether attacked deliberately, or in ignorance (hard to determine which at this stage). Nick Cooper (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree we will probably have to expand this, change the title, and split it. It's hard to tell exactly what to do right now, since these apparent larger protests are just unfolding. Definitely need to include the information, of course. (And that helps steer the article towards being split/renamed/whatever in a reasonable fashion.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Protests against 'Innocence of Muslim'" or 2012 anti-blasphemy demonstrations would more accurately present the scope of the article, and a separate page for what was evidently a planned terrorist attack in Libya?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Strong support. Urgent. GNews has us as 2012 Anti-Islam film protests Wakari07 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The section on Sudanese protests shows that the violence occurred near the British and German diplomatic missions.
2012 Anti-Islam film protests is a good alternative.VR talk 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy statement

I have just moved it again out of the section on responses.

The subject of this article is the attacks.

The statement made by the US Embassy in Cairo was not a "response to the attacks" . It was a response to the video itself. As such, it is part of the section "background" .

Amandajm (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Chennai in the map

Can we have Chennai in the map. No deaths reported but 25 people are injured in major protests outside the consulate. References have been added in the article. Unlike protests in other countires the consulate was damages.Regards, theTigerKing  14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The map showing locations of protests and attacks does not include the new country of South Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.80.82 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

STILL omitting crucial and well-documented facts.

This user has expressed no interest in being what he terms a "regular editor" but is only interested in making sweeping attacks. The point has been made, if you have no constructive and specific ideas for improvement than further discussion will not be productive. See: WP:DENY GabrielF (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here we are, and this article is STILL demonstrating the pervasive dishonesty of leftist bias endemic to Wikipedia. There is STILL no mention of the Islamic/ist graffiti that vandalised both the embassy in Cairo or the consulate in Benghazi, or the Islamic/ist signs and chants that were prevalent among the rioters/attackers/protesters/agitators/terrorists/murderers (or, to be in line with typical Wikipedia dishonesty, we can refer to them as "participants"). Why are these crucial facts omitted? Answer: in order to hide the real motivations and nature of the people involved with these attacks which are directly associated with Islamism. There is NO mention of the primary motivation of those that attacked the American embassy in Cairo - which was reported by Nic Robertson of CNN, as being a call for the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, otherwise known as "the blind sheikh", which was touched on during his interview with Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhamad on site at the protest/demonstration prior to the violence. Rather, the dishonest narrative of these attacks being some sort of spontaneous eruption in response to a YouTube trailer of a film lampooning Islam and Muhamad remains in the introductory paragraph. Again, the commitment to Wikipedia's editors to drafting a sanitised and dishonest narrative of history in order to comply with its dominant leftist agenda remains relentless. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Find any reliable source and be bold in your editing. This article is about a current event unfolding and needs plenty of additional editing. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that I am the only one here calling attention to these glaring omissions of well-documented facts is very telling of the nature of most Wikipedia contributors. It's impossible to assume good faith when there is clearly a systemic bias around here committed to dishonest narratives of history. The truth is that the main article is being used as the soapbox by the dishonest editors who we're supposed to assume operate in good faith. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Nic Robertson is a reliable source, so be bold in your editing. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT (in regards to Bobinisrael.) If you're not familiar with his previous disruptive behavior here, please look at previous entries on this talk page and his edit history. (And yeah, I consider it vandalism, since after MANY editors tried to have good-faith discussions with him, he continues attacking the community.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, because criticising the blatantly dishonest manner in which this article has been composed amounts to "disruptive behaviour". Let's resume the harmonious existence of the "community" of editors prior to my arrival, with the echo chamber of leftists operating in "good faith" who CONTINUE to omit crucial and WIDELY-REPORTED facts that are inconvenient to the narrative desired from the dominant worldview that exists here. Nevermind the fact that I have not edited this article, which cannot amount to any vandalism. Moreover, continue to reject legitimate criticisms that I am levying against the composition of this article as "ranting" on an internet soapbox. You've now opted for a different strategy, to deride me as a "vandal" in order to shut down dissenting views. The only good faith I'm seeing here is the commitment to preserving a façade of integrity at Wikipedia by criticising me rather than addressing valid and legitimate points that I am the only one bringing forward. Bobinisrael (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

I saw some mention of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing but that was a military installation and not a diplomatic mission, so it is not analogous to violence against an embassy or consulate. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Urge article split

I think it would be best to have an overall article on worldwide protests of the film, many of which are peaceful, and another specifically on the terrorist attack in Bengahzi. That way we can avoid the semantic division of "protests" and "attacks" on this page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems rational to me. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. What should the new article about protests be named? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with the split but such "overall article" can be contained in Innocence of Muslims page. As we have learned so far, the full film has not been released, just "the trailer" --- the actual content of the film can be in its own section. Hence, the film page itself can best just about the protest. :-/ Also, please refer to my earlier section. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not clear if the main attack in Libya was a reaction to the film, but the rest are definitely reactions. Maybe it should be International reactions to Innocence of Muslims? Then a summary can be put in the film article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Each article should merely state the location of the attack, not possible cause(s) eg the "film". (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What happened in Libya seems to be a two separate things at this point. An actual protest because of the film and a planned attack that the protests were ancillary to. There's also some evidence coming out that the Cairo protests were motivated by more than the film trailer as well. The protests happening all over the world today seem to be more of a reaction to the perceived blasphemies of the film. It would almost seem there could could be two or three articles. In the least, one covering the protests started on September 11 and spreading now and one specific to the attack in Libya.Capeo (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The protest/demonstration/riot/attack in Cairo had little to do with the film trailer, and much more to do with demanding the release of the so-called blind sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman who was convicted of involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. The date of September 11 is not an accident. Of course, there is NO mention of this in the article which is supposedly written by committed volunteer editors who operate in good faith. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest something like "September 2012 Anti-Western Protests," or "September 2012 Anti-Western Protests and Vandalism," and maybe with "in the Middle East" appended, and certainly a separate article for the terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate, with the verifiable connections between the events discussed as appropriate in both articles. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree we need a split. The best thing for now, in my opinion, is to split off the Libya attack to 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and rename this one to something like 2012 Muhammad film controversy protests. (That may not be great, but maybe something like that.) I really don't like the idea of using "Innocence of Muslims" as the actual name for the protests article, since the only thing we know exists for certain is a trailer for a purported film, since the reported "longer version" isn't even the same movie as described. Then "Innocence of Muslims" can remain a standalone article expanding on the film in greater detail. (Edit: or something like 2012 Islamic film controversy protests.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Just going by the majority of headlines on Google News it seems most sources are calling them Anti-Muslim Film Protests. So maybe 2012 Anti-Muslim Film Protests? And I'd think 2012 Libyan Consulate Attack or something like that would suffice for the other article. Capeo (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's what the majority of the headlines on Google News state after an exhausting five seconds of research on your behalf, who are we to disagree if this dishonest characterisation of events is irreconcilable with the facts?Bobinisrael (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This does seem to be the case as for what many sources are calling it, but the name is ambiguous: it makes it possibly sound like there are film protests which are anti-Muslim, rather than protests against an anti-Muslim film. I think "Islamic film controversy" says the same thing as "Anti-Muslim film" more clearly here, and reads more neutrally to me. As for the Libyan article title, I went by what the "see also" and similar articles use as the title format. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd hope we continue the discussion here (or there) as to what to call it. There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus, and I'm not sure the name of the film belongs in there at all, as it is creating a link between the film and of the protests, especially now when things are being reported as just wider general protests. Not necessarily against the film anymore. I'll continue on that talk page. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought we had reached concensus. All of the sources on the protest page say that the protests concerned are against the movie "Innocence of Muslims"--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I say have one article for the Benghazi attack -- which appears to have been a premeditated terrorist attack that used the happanstance of the film as a cover, then diplomatic mission attacks for the others that were more a case of rioting and more clearly connected with the movie. Don't know about the poor KFC in Tripoli though.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused now, since you originally said you wanted to split off an article on Benghazi...which I assume meant moving all of the other attacks/protests/misc info, rather than just the list of protests. I agree the article needs to be separated out, but just moving a list into a new article doesn't accomplish that. (It just creates an article that will be inevitably merged back.) I think a new article on the Benghazi attack would work well, writing it from the viewpoint of being a pre-planned attack, rather than trying to "fix" this page to fit the Benghazi attack. (Which seems a lot harder than forking off the Benghazi attack onto its own page.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/Archive_1&oldid=1083531321"