Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reactions to Innocence of Muslims article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject Africa|class=B|Libya=yes|Libya-importance=High}} Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Reactions to Innocence of Muslims be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Format the article as a battle rather than a terrorist attack
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)
- 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)
- Really? An ambassador dying? How often is that, then?Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- true, but thats why "see also" and not cited as fact of itself. no?Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 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)
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)
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)
Issues
This article is missing information about Error: you must specify what information is missing.. |
- [2] is not from the wikilink, but a quote from the source
- [3] notable enough for a wikipage is notable. Further a prospective candidate influences decision makigng via popular opinion
- [4] not notable? really? if you want to change reaction lists across WP, then get a wider consenssu.
- [5] needs copyedit as in quotation marks closed and then repened without anything in th emiddle.
- [6] per above, removes consistent format
- [7] "spome" is vague
- [8] not sur e why..
- [9] ditto
- [10] censoreD? its in the source.
- [11] GOOD, but wrong place.
- [12] original is more neutral than "american" flag.
- [13] verification to ource.
- [14] context per the others in the "background section"
- [15] minor grammar
- [16] still a 9/11 attack
- [17] engvar
- [18] minor but to remove with other readdition as then overlink.
- [19] copyvio, hence i changed wording.
- [20] colon after "Scrawled"
- [21] 110% relevant to the context of the new ME.
- [22] umm, the article already says/said there has not been a screening.
- [23] minor ", and"
- ][24] sourced removal for speculation. We have a susperps in the infobocx
- [25] engvar and removal
- p[26] believed by who is vague.
- [27] npov with summary and removed source
- [28] then reword dont remove it. Nothign wrong ther either.
- [29] and the user follows with this????
- [30] vague and engvar
- [31] minor, not arabic
- [32] notable in terms of where us operations are based. For researchers thats adding to AFRICOM.
- [33] VANDALISM
- [34] you cant change a QUOTE
- [35]restored to mine, but other was better.
- [36] reflinks and single sentence para
- [37] OR, he clearly did not AMAKE the movie
- [38] inclined to clear vandalism, but agf. What does games have to do with this?
- [39] quotes not in italics for UNDUE
- [40] ol for redirect
- [41] true, but others said too (al jaz) so can remove "according to nyt"
- [42] no comma with "and"
- [43] ???
- [44] engvar
- [45] unsoured
- [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
- [47] thats hy reaction sections have organisation
- [48] same user then tevmoed?
- [49] consistent reflinks
- [50] ditto, inexplicable?, see p[51]. And user is now warring [52]
- [53] agreed, same to infobox.
- [54] "american" is wrong and pov
- [55] reaction? with diff subsection
- [56] not in source?
- [57] sources now changd.
- [58] wrong lplace reactions is better.
- [59] and replicated...
- [60] nice, kudos.
- [61] redundant
- [62] ??? was perfectly in sync before the section muckabout by said user.
- [63] engvar and the what-the-heck is he doing?
- [64] check quotes
- [65] ref reomoval
- [66] nice
- [67] vague
- [68] reflinks (and need to chck all)
- [69] calrify why van gogh
- [70] restore needed per (edit conflict)
- [71] dub ious but passable
- [72] per aove van gogh
- [73] no unsourced, see wikilinks
- [74] nice but [minor copyedit
- [75] died, wasnt killed
- torching of US embassy in islamabad in 1979, see also
- [76] wikify
- [77] dubious discuss
- [78] cease and desist, if you hae a problem with established wiki practice then get wide consensus. Do not remove per IDONTLIKEIT.
- [79] sourced to aljaz, before butchering.
- [80] --> [81]
- [82] why one not the other?
- [83] UNDUE italics
- [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)
- 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'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)
- In that case, these are issues and i dont want to edit war.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 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’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)
Authenticity of Innocence of Muslims and "Sam Bacile" is in very serious question
See Innocence of Muslims#Production and
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real
- http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/
- 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)
- What relevance does this have? That mobs with false beliefs did everything? Is that what you're saying? Isn't that what Klein is also saying? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:28, 12 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)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- Unknown-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class film articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Mid-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Mid-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Wikipedia requested images