Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lionheart Omega (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 13 September 2012 (→Death Toll Again: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Really? An ambassador dying? How often is that, then?Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source?Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)).[reply]

It's obvious, but of course, there should be sources for it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
true, but thats why "see also" and not cited as fact of itself. no?Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

source?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get it. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
In that case, these are issues and i dont want to edit war.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article currently has summaries of conflicting hypotheses regarding motivations. —Cupco 01:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done. Please see {{edit semi-protected}} for future suggestions. —Cupco 00:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. There are now multiple sources on this in Innocence of Muslims#Production 2nd paragraph. —Cupco 03:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, we can't exactly use more hyperbolic language than the articles cited themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Maybe they should be split once more info comes along. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? There are currently two sections - Egypt and Libya. Both are separate. --Activism1234 04:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split articles. At the moment, it isn't even clear if they're linked. FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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 to 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims&oldid=512125201"