Jump to content

Talk:Sydney anti-Islam film protests

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mariachi3 (talk | contribs) at 11:21, 15 July 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bias?

Considering that the orignal list of perpetrators included "Nutcases and Hypocrites" I think it's fair to say that the original writer of this article has a bias and this article should be checked against factual information that's out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs)

Please explain to me where there is any bias in the article? All of this information can be found in those links. By the way, if the perpetrators were not Islamists then who were they? The tooth fairy?--Collingwood26 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this protest called a "riot" in the title and lead. No reliable independent media have used that term. Bias? I will also support any action to redirect this page to the worldwide article. This page is just short term news, not worthy of a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ten news and I think nine news labelled the protest as a riot, I remember recalling that term being used several times in their reports, it's obviously a bit sensationalised but they're nonetheless reliable sources. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, YuMaNuMa, this article has instantly been met with leftist bias which wishes to scrub Wikipedia of politically inconvenient history. Apparently WWGB has consulted "all reliable independent media" and concluded that these events were never described as riots. I congratulate whoever took the initiative to actually begin the composition of the article, which would have been completely ignored otherwise by the majority of the Wikipedia community.Bobinisrael (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article could certainly be better written, but I disagree that it should be marked for deletion. This event is significant and had a major public response in Australia. It deserves to be included although some of the current language seems a little colloquial for a wikipedia article. Betchaboy —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that this event is being considered for deletion is a damning indictment of the pervasive leftist bias the infects Wikipedia and seeks to propagandise the uninitiated reader.Bobinisrael (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

needs a little more TLC; but is significant enough an event that it should not be deleted. 58.165.31.232 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion on deletion etc... Just from a grammar point of view shouldn't the title be "2012 Sydney Islamist riots"? Islamic riots doesn't make any sense. You don't say that guy is islamic, you say he's a muslim or an islamist. A riot can't be called islamic... unless its some sort of religious thing they do every year!!! :D like: "I really enjoyed the islamic riots this year, the floats were much better than last year" LOLAlertboatbanking (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Islamist" is an appropriate term to describe these riots/demonstrations/protests, considering the nature of the "participants", their placards, slogans, and statements to the media. Unfortunately, there is a widespread effort to sanitise these articles and cleanse them of references to either Islam or Muslims.Bobinisrael (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's correct, "Islamic riots" means that the riots are of or pertain to Islam. Correct me if I'm wrong. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article pertains to islam. Specifically political Islam. The ideology of the people at this protest was islamist which has a clear well-understood meaning. The folks saying other people are not allowed to criticize their prophet are making a political statement that goes beyond their belief in their own god/book/etc, that political statement pertains to islam and is called islamist. We can safely assume that there are some muslims who do not agree with silencing other people. These people (very hated by the islamists) are not islamists, and they didn't go to this rally. Thus the rally should be call by the well understood name of the people who went to the rally.

For example if there's an pro-life rally in Oklahoma, we don't call it a christian rally even though you can be sure that all of the people there are Christians and the reason they are there is deeply related to their Christianity and many Christians agree with them. It just doesn't convey the correct meaning. Alertboatbanking (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to label every Muslim who disagrees with the anti-Islam film an "Islamist". This is exactly why the vast majority of reliable sources call these protests in response to the anti-Islam film. See section below for examples.VR talk 20:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More inconsistency at Wikipedia serving so-called "politically correct" agendas.

Why is this article (accurately) titled "Sydney Islamic riots", while the terrorist attacks/riots/demonstrations/protests targeting consulates and embassies in Muslim-majority countries (Cairo, Benghazi, Tunis, Khartoum, etc) aren't labelled as Islamic/ist? The other article is generically titled "2012 diplomatic missions attacks", with no reference to the Islamic/ist character of the events. The answer for this discrepancy is obvious, and stated in the header of this section. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't be titled "Sydney Islamic riots". The term "Islamic" implies that this riot is a part of Islam or enjoyed a support of the majority of Muslims in Australia, both of which are false.VR talk 19:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term does NOT imply that these events enjoy a support of the majority of Muslims any more than defining the 9/11 terrorist attacks as "Islamic/ist terrorism" does. Islamism is a core component of these events, and your suggestion seeks to obfuscate this truth. What the term indicates is that there is an Islamic character to these events, which is undeniable given the fact that the participants/rioters/agitators/demonstrators are shouting things like "Obama! Obama! We love Osama!", holding signs stating "Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet", and took a break from their activities to get down on their knees for group Muslim prayer session. You are trying to sanitise the article of references to Islam and Muslims in order to conform to the dominant so-called "politically correct" narrative on Wikipedia, which is EXACTLY what I'm trying to demonstrate here at Wikipedia through my contributions. Your post reaffirms my position, and for that I thank you.Bobinisrael (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DNFTT. This user has stated that he does not wish to interact in a WP:CIVIL fashion with other editors or comply with Wikipedia policy in general, spilling onto yet another talk page now. Ignoring him is best. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the glaring inconsistency of the articles and misleading titles in question are not relevant topics to discuss. Better to pretend that these problem don't exist, right? I have also never said that I will be not be civil, but I reject your definition of civility which is essentially a demand for acquiescence to consensus around dishonest politicisation of articles. 2001:db8 continues to obsess over niceties rather than content. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article should be kept (ie. I am against the deletion request), although obviously the wording and title of this article needs to be carefully monitored to ensure it remains neutral and free from over emotive wording from either side. --TinTin (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the concept "protests" (in the text) come to the article title as "riots"? This does not make it an objective article, beginning from the wrong title... --E4024 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So which word is inaccurate? Riots or protests? If you'd actually take a moment to look at footage from these events, it's not a stretch to describe them as riots. The Muslim rioters/agitators/protesters/agitators were assaulting police officers all over the place. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a muslim and have not hit anyone since I was a kid. I also watch BBC everyday. Does it reach Israel, or do you watch IDF raids live there? Take care. --E4024 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you cannot answer my straightforward question, and continue to reveal your commitment to sanitising the true character of these events. The evidence is abundant that much of these events can be accurately described as riots. For your convenience, here is the definition of a riot:

1.a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.

2.Law . a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

3.violent or wild disorder or confusion.

All of the above criteria apply to the events in Sydney, much to your dismay. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7news has described this as a riot. Bobinisrael (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bobinisrael, didn't you just claim that media use the term "Muslim protests" to describe the events. So does that mean you prefer the term "protests" over "riots" to describe the events?VR talk 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated, clearly, that reports are mixed and seem to interchangeably use the terms "riots" and "protests" to refer to these events. I've seen many sources use both terms, sometimes even in the very same article. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you would then agree that using the term "protests" in the title is legitimate since so many reliable sources use it?VR talk 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary move

I propose to move the article, at least temporarily, to 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests. Here are my reasons:

VR talk 15:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your own links contradict your assertion. The first link you provided from the Syndey Morning Herald states, in the first twelve seconds of the video, that "This was supposed to be a peaceful protest, but as you can tell by the sirens behind me it has turned out to be anything but. The link also quotes Prime Minister Julia Gillard as condemning the violence. The third link is titled "Violent Sydney Protests". You cannot reconcile these facts with your narrative of their having been peaceful protests. How many sub-groups are we to divide these rioters/demonstrators/protesters into? Should we have an article for the violent participants, the not-so-violent participants, and Islamist messaging participants, and the peaceful participants? Are you now going to tell us that the violence only came from a "tiny minority" that "wasn't representative" of the broader group? There are many more example from your own links completely contradicting your narrative, but I'll leave it there. My advice to you is this: try actually reading your own links in the future. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald link clearly says "The protest began peacefully at Town Hall at lunchtime, where 400 protesters had gathered after receiving text messages and social media updates."
The link titled "Violent Sydney Protests" also says: "While the protest started peacefully enough on Saturday afternoon, with some 300 people marching from Sydney Town Hall to Martin Place."
Brisbane Times: "The vast bulk of Saturday's protesters were peaceful, and Muslim community organisations are lining up to condemn the outbreak of violence."
Channel News Asia: "But police said while there were peaceful elements in the crowd, others had a different agenda."
No on is denying that violence occurred. But you should not deny that much of the protests were actually peaceful and not-violent.VR talk 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of the Islamist character of these demonstrations/riots/protests.

Video from Russia Today's official channel (there are many other sources I can provide) clearly show these theme. I do not know how to edit and cite articles, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to add to the third paragraph the fact that signs were held stating the following: "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell", "Shariah will dominate the world".

Here is another video from the Associated Foreign Press, which unfortunately has been deliberately edited to mask the prevalence of extremism/Islamism, although signs with Islamist messaging can still be seen ("Behead those who insult the prophet", "The followers of Muhammad will never stay silent even if it costs us our lives", black Islamist/Al-Qaeda flags, etc). Bobinisrael (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree call a spade a spade. It's plenty obvious this was not an "anti-islam protest". It was an islamist protest/riot/etc. I'm agnositic on whether it should have its own article or be part of the whole video reaction article (as long as the important verifiable information is not removed). However if it is kept it should be called islamist not islamic as I explained explained earlier based on grammatical correctness.Alertboatbanking (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What of the plenty of reliable sources that call the protests as against "anti-Islam film". Please see the many, many sources, I've quoted above.VR talk 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with using both descriptors for the article. It can be described as an Islamist riot/demonstration/protest in response to a film. The Islamist component, however, is crucial to honestly describing the character of these events. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the title of the article. Most reliable sources describe the protests to be in response to the anti-Islam film. Everything must be sourced to reliable sources.VR talk 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you don't even read your own links, your assessment of how "most reliable sources" describe these events cannot be taken seriously. Many sources I've come across describe these events as "Muslim riots". In about five seconds, I found these articles describing the events as "Muslim protests":

Herald Sun - No hiding as police hunt angry mob photographed during violent Muslim protests in Sydney

ABC Sydney - Muslim protests

9NEWS - Islamic protest sparks violence in Sydney

Global News - Muslim protest spread to Sydney

The Courier - Sydney ride verges on riot as Muslim protest explodes

Bobinisrael (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now suggesting we call the protests as "Muslim protests"? That unfairly stigmatizes the whole Muslim community.
And the sources you provided all appear to be local Australian sources. Which is fine, but we many other Australian sources (Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Times, Australia Broadcasting Corporation, The Age (Melbourne), The Australian, Sky News Australia) call the protests as against the anti-Islam film. This is also the wording used by most international sources as well: AFP, Vancouver Sun, Xinhua, Channel News Asia, Haaretz, BBC News, CBS News.
Once again, it is most neutral to refer to the protests as anti-Islam film protests, because plenty of Muslims have spoken out against what happened at the events, and the protests are not representative of the Muslim community in Australia.VR talk 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my position, I think the title should include the term Islamist, as well as a reference to the YouTube movie trailer "Innocence of Muslims", either by name or otherwise. To remove the Islamist/ic component from the title serves only to advance a dishonest so-called "politically correct" narrative. The common denominator among the rioters/demonstrators/protesters/agitators was Islam. You cannot demand a virtually unprovable standard such as majority support from Muslims towards something before that very something can be described as Islamist/ic. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok VR, so I grant you, there is a possibility that there were some people there who were protesting anti-islam expression but did not support the suppression of that expression (I doubt it, but lets say it was true) let's say we don't call the protests islamists because there may have been some people there who didn't support political islam what do you propose? "The anti-anti-islam movie protest"? :D there needs to be some kind of shorthand way of approximately describing the nature of a thing. I think I'm being reasonable here.Alertboatbanking (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a very simple alternative "2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests". This is the same thing that is being proposed at Talk:2012 diplomatic missions attacks (minus the Sydney part).VR talk 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a horribly titled article. It has omitted the Islamist/ic component from a transparently dishonest political agenda. You seem to be playing the usual game that comes from the left who wishes to pretend that both Islam and Muslim are four-letter curse words. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will politely ask you not to ascribe a political ideology to me. Please see policies on WP:CIVIL.VR talk 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full text required

There is content that is sourced to an article called "Extremists seen among Muslim Rioters at Sydney Protest". Can we get the full text of the article? Some of the content makes negative claims about living persons.VR talk 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The title is both wrong and misleading, a news reporter asked questions to these rioters and the majority claimed they had never even seen the film, which means these people or even the majority were not truly protesting against the anti-Islam film, and most had their own "agenda". Also the media has not named this an "anti-Islam film protest", many news sources have either called it a muslim riot, muslim uprising, and some have even called it a "street battle". Using the term "protest" implies it was peaceful which again is misleading, the event was violent NOT peaceful, it should either be called the 2012 Sydney Islamist Riot, or 2012 Sydney Muslim Riot.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, the title of this article has been dishonesty edited. How do we go about changing it back? I do not know how to change titles and I do not wish to waste my time only to find it reverted again. Bobinisrael (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most Muslims protesting against the movie have likely not seen it, given the fact that it is so offensive to them.
You must acknowledge that peaceful protests took place that day, just as violent protests did. I've given reliable sources showing that that has happened. In fact most reliable sources call these events "protests".
Even Bobinisrael has found reliable sources that call the events "protests".VR talk 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point, exactly? The events have been reported with all sorts of language, including protests, riots, and demonstrations. Moreover, how do we acknowledge the violent nature of much of the folks involved? The videos and news coverage make this clear. Personally, I am not opposed the title choosing the term "protest", as long as there is a mention in the body of the article that there were descriptions of at least part of these events as being riotous. Moreover, the title of article MUST include some mention of Islamist/ic nature of the events. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the body must cover the violent acts.
The title does include "anti-Islam film", so if you are looking for the word "Islam", its already there.
The word "Islamic", as has been pointed out, is grammatically incorrect since the protests are not a part of Islam.
To brand all the protests as "Islamist" is far from obvious, cause many people were peacefully holding signs "I love prophet Muhammad". How does holding such a sign automatically make you an Islamist?
And to call these protests "Muslim" gives way too much credibility to the small group of people (around 500 people out of 500,000 Muslims in Australia). In fact some Muslim leaders in Australia have urged their followers not to protest at all.
VR talk 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles, here. It is clear that you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the common denominator of Islam that unifies virtually all of the rioters/demonstrators/agitators/protesters, as well as downplay the violent character of these events. The evidence speaks for itself. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most specific common denominator is that they were all protesting against the anti-Islam film. This is what the reliable sources say. (To see a list of reliable sources that say this, look at this comment of mine)VR talk 13:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out the these "protests" were NOT authorised by any governing body, and the police were not notified of any plans for a "protest", this offers further proof that it was both illegal (in a sense) and violent.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That fact alone proves only that it was unauthorised. As I'm not fluent or 100% conversant in the law in this area (unlike perhaps you), I can only say it might have also been illegal. But I don't understand your suggestion that it was violent because it was unauthorised/illegal. --Merbabu (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "suggestion it was violent"??? It was violent, thats a clear fact, many people were wounded during the riots hardly peaceful.--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read your previous comment again. You said the lack of notification is proof it was violent. I disagree with that logic. That is all. --Merbabu (talk)|

Perhaps you didn't read it properly it says this offers further proof that it was both illegal AND violent, in other words not only was the protest violent in nature it was also illegal.--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OH I see why Merbabu is against this article, its because he is muslim...--Collingwood26 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Hyacinth (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, double fail. I voted to keep on the AFD (just like you), and what makes you think I'm a Muslim? Stupid comment. But so what if I was? Are you saying a Muslim should not contribute? Would a Muslim be any more biased compared to a Muslim hater such as yourself? (since you're making sweeping assumptions, allow me the same pleasure) And, using your (again faulty) logic, do you only support the article because you are a Muslim hater? DOn't assume that others think (as stupidly) as you. --Merbabu (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more time, the fact that it was was unauthorised doesn't prove it was (or wasn't) violent. I find it hard to understand how you don't' get this. --Merbabu (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that "anti-Islam film protests" is a very awkward title, and not particularly accurate either. Were the protestors anti-"films about Islam" in general? Or just protesting this particular anti-Islam film? It's just awkward and poorly worded. I believe the previous version "Islamic riot" was more accurate. Indeed, if there hadn't been a riot, this planned "protest" never would have been notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an awkward title that needs to be read twice to be understood. On the other hand, it was first and foremost a "protest" whereas "riot" was just one of the methods. They weren't all rioting all of the time. On the other hand, they were all protesting all of the time. How about, "Sydney protest against the Innocence of Muslims". I don't think we even need the year there - it's never happened in a previous year, and so far hasn't happened in a future year. --Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YetiHunter: the term "Islamic riot" fails the very test you give to "anti-Islam film protests". Was this a riot by all or mainstream Muslims in Australia? Or was it by a specific group of Muslims? And unless you refer to Muslims as "Islamics" (some do), there should be no such thing as "Islamic riot" unless rioting is connected to a specific tenet in Islam.VR talk 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things further to my previous comment:
  • I agree with VR’s comments about “Islamic riots” (and also “Muslim riots” if VR means this also) for the reasons pointed out. Further, I note that the titles for the Cronulla and Redfern riots articles aren’t respectively labelled “white riots” or “aboriginal riots”. And it's not like there were separate concurrent protests against the film by Buddhists, accountants, or bus drivers, between which article titles must distinguish - so why the particular eagerness to label them Muslim/Islamic/Islamist/etc???
  • As for “riots” vs. “protest”, as I said above it’s first and foremost a protest, and rioting was but an aspect – they weren’t all rioting, and there wasn’t a riot the whole time.
  • ”Anti-Islam film protests” is confusing – it can be read as the protesters were anti-Islam. Hence my recommendation to focus the article name on the specific name of the film. Say, “Sydney protest/s against the Innocence of Muslims” or something similar. Remember an article title doesn’t have to explain details, rather it just has to define the scope. Hence the word Sydney is required but 2012 isn’t (if there was an article about a similar protest, last year, also in Sydney, about the same film, then we would need 2012).
Just saying. What do others think?--Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • The title, as Yeti Hunter and Merbabu point out, is awkward and needs to be read twice to be understood. That is simply because people continue to write "snappy titles" as if they were for a scandal-rag, instead of thinking in encyclopedic terms.
The words "anti-Islam film" are being used in the sense of an adjective to describe the noun "protests".
The heading should read 2012 protest(s) against anti-Islamic film.
It is prepositions (that is the name of the "part of speech") like "about", "against", and "over" that make sense out of nouns and verbs.
So far, there has only been one significant protest.
And while it might have been hijacked by Islamists, I have not the slightest doubt that the majority of people there, including women who took their children, presumed that they were going to be focussed on the film trailer.
  • Secondly, it's been pointed out that many of the people protesting don't appear to have seen the film trailer.
People who are not Muslim are taking this as evidence for the fact that the protestors are not really protesting about the film.
This shows a misunderstanding of Mob mentality in general, and Muslim thinking and social interaction in particular.
The majority of these people, as with any other mob of people, are neither highly educated nor astutely intelligent. They are, for the greater part just average, people. They do what their friends and neighbours do. They do what their classmates do. This would be true in any group of average people anywhere in the world.
So it is probable that many of the people here, who consider themselves as righteous and decent Muslim people, would not watch the film, because it has been declared blasphemous, and they would not take part in the blasphemy. They believe it to be blasphemous because they have been told that it is.
  • On one hand, I object to the fact that Islamists seem to have hijacked what ought to have been a peaceful protests. On the other hand, I don't want to see anyone hijacking this article in order to imply that all the Muslim people who turned up to protest were radicals, fundamentalist, terrorists or anything else.
I propose that the article is moved to 2012 Sydney protest against anti-Islamic film trailer or 2012 Sydney protest against Innocence of Muslims
Amandajm (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK! We have had an edit conflict here, while I was writing the last.
I think that we have a consensus that the name is bad. What do we move it to?
Singular or plural? There is just a chance that they will get going again on Saturday. But then again, maybe they won't be quite that stupid since there has been general condemnation for the violence from the Islamic community.
Amandajm (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of your two suggestions – “2012 Sydney protest against anti-Islamic film trailer” or “2012 Sydney protest against Innocence of Muslims”, I prefer the latter. The former is still awkward and while it is perhaps more precise and descriptive, in comparison with the latter, it is at the expense of not just clarity but also accuracy. (let’s save the “precision and accuracy are not the same and sometimes conflict” discussion for another day!) Although in each case, I’m think 2012 is not necessary. And I’d prefer plural over the singular, but that’s just a nuance thing. But your second suggestion, whether with or without 2012, or whether singular or plural, would be far superior to the existing.
As for your views on how representative these people were of the broader “Muslim community”, I agree that the images and footage suggest they weren’t the smartest knives in the drawer – indeed very similar to the impression given by images and footage of crowds in the Cronulla riots. :-P --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going with either of those very specific titles, we can safely discard "2012", unless these protests happen next year (which we'll worry about when it happens). So it's best to have "Sydney protest against Innocence of Muslims".VR talk 04:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Many, many more images under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license are available in this photostream if you guys need it, 1. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations banner

I'm removing the banner requesting more citations. I can't see a discussion specifically about it. Most points in the article have a footnote (although I have not checked each one to see if they are reliable or correctly used). Given that there are actually a fair few footnotes, if additional ones a needed, and inline cn tag/s should be used rather than a blanket banner. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child controversy

Information should be inserted regarding the child controversy, where a young child held a sign calling to behead all those who insult Islam. The reason is because it led to official condemnations from even the prime minister of Australia, the media attention caused the mother to turn herself in, led to condemnations by certain Muslim leaders, and other government ministers commented on it as well.

Here are some references:

[4]

[5]

[6]

Hope it helps.

--Activism1234 04:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC) ACTIVISM Y WUD U WANT TO BRING A SMALL DFENCELESS CHILD INTO THIS??? is that sign reelly noteworthy here???121.220.66.96 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only because of the amount of attention and condemnations in the government it received... The Prime Minister of Australia even spoke about it. --Activism1234 15:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it has received very little attention and was mentioned one time in the herald sun,they have a major bias against Islam and so I am wonderin if they should be included as a reference at all?this child is innocent,mentioning him here will engrave him in stone to this event and he will never be able to rub it out think of him121.220.66.96 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

attemtped aussie resistance lol

we should mention that the aussies tried makin there own protests which failed to match the Islamic protests on the weekend I say tried because they were weak and only a few of them showed up because they had no REASON to show up in the first place

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/police-suppress-anti-islam-rallies/story-fn9hm1gu-1226479856906

"A SERIES of anti-Islamic protests planned for every Australian capital city and promoted by members of marginal, anti-immigration political groups were effectively suppressed by police yesterday."

this is relevant and the australian is a good unbiased not antiIslamic media source, unlike the herald sun article which was disgusting

please help me on this, thankyou =)121.220.66.96 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitised Article Title

Why has the article title been changed to a laughable and politically correct "Protest" when clearly it was a Riot?? Should the Cronulla Riot page reflect this new paradigm and now be called the "2005 Cronulla Protest against bashing of Life Savers"?

This was a Muslim Riot. It was well reported as a Muslim Riot and keeping with consistancy of other articles, we should call it what it is here and thats the 2012 Sydney Muslim Riots.Crocodile2009 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but unfortunately the politically correct don't want to offend muslims. I say that if this article's name isn't changed the Cronulla riots should be renamed to Cronulla protests.--Empire of War (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was single-handedly changed by a user VR, without any agreement from the others. Coincidentally, user VR happens to be muslim, as seen from his talk page. Can someone with appropriate privileges change the title back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.88.43.130 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Description

There is a currently an IP user entering into an edit war over the description on the poster held by the protester. The keep adding the adjectives of offensive and threatening to describe the sign held. Assuming good faith I would like to open discussion if these adjectives should be used or leave it up to the reader to decide what is offensive. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how the adjectives added (without explanation or discussion) improve the article.Nickm57 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against using the title "2012 Sydney Islamist Riot & Anti-Islamic Film Protest". The majority opinion cited numerous reasons why and suggested other titles, none of which has consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor unilaterally moved this article to 2012 Sydney Islamist Riot & Anti-Islamic Film Protest. I reversed the move to allow for discussion. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"2012 Sydney Islamist Riot & Anti-Islamic Film Protest" is exactly what it was. Provide strong evidence that it was neither, or accept both sides strong argument that it was both of these things and name it as such. Most of the principal leaders are known Hizb ut-Tahrir (forced shariah) and ISIS supporters/recruiters, including members of the gang investigated by Operation Appleby (as documented in ABC's "Plan of Attack" documentary). They weren't there for peace. If they'd had their way, they would have invaded the US Embassy. It was VIOLENT. Police were hospitalised. People were charged and prosecuted for riot and affray, it's therefore a riot. Dlmetcalf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one particular side should get to name this page, based solely on their own personal viewpoint. The fair way to resolve it is to name it neither just 'protest' or 'riot', but BOTH. If we're going to call Cronulla a riot (which is was), instead of protest, then so should we be calling this one. Dlmetcalf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, who can really look at this, [7] and claim with any credibility that it wasn't a riot? Dlmetcalf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a strong argument otherwise and to resolve dispute between viewpoints, I intend to rename the page in future as I've proposed above. Dlmetcalf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that reliable sources describe the event as a "riot". The proposed title is unnecessarily clumsy, and includes poor construction like an ampersand and excess capitalization of words ("Riot", "Film", "Protest"). I "could" agree to a title like 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film riot but would prefer to wait awhile and see what others think. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer "protest", but would accept 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film riot if a strong case were made. I have trouble reading the article to see that the current content affirms that it was a riot in the current Wikipedia explanation or the New South Wales legal sense. It appears that only one person was charged with riot rather than other civil disturbance crimes. The Courier Mail (reference 8) has "riot" in the headline and image caption, but "near riot" in the text. That's the first one I picked with the word describing the event (rather than in the phrase "riot police"), so I still prefer "protest" as a more neutral term, since "event" is wishy-washy. --Scott Davis Talk 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scott and (WWGB), thanks both for the input. Did you have opportunity to review the video link above too? When I look up definitions of the word "riot", this is what I've found: violent, many participants, uncontrolled, disorderly, noisy, public disturbance, involving vandalism or destruction of property. Each of those possible elements is evidenced in the video footage.
The lack of far more charges being laid was almost certainly due to discretionary leniency and special (not necessarily warranted) protection, given it occurred over a religious sensitivity etc.
I think the video shows clearly that it incident satisfies the stricter Crime Act, Section 93B definition too. The additional element there is that it "would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety".
That fear was certainly evident in the interviewees. Given that even police officers were getting hospitalised, that fear is natural. Police had to quarantine the general public away from rioters too, for their safety, as police feared for public safety too (even using martial law type language, by directing the public as "civilians").
The event was highly disorderly (stampeding between locations), unplanned & unauthorised, unlike regular legitimate protests.
I'd be happy with your suggestion of just naming it 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film riot too. Although I accept there were a minority who attended with intent of peaceful demonstration, that was not the overwhelming tone of the day, or why it was such a significant event.Dlmetcalf (talk)
  • Oppose Move - I'm thinking Dlmetcalf might be a little new, so it might be worth mentioning that we have a set of rules governing how articles are named. Those rules go a little beyond arguments like that's "exactly what it is". Might be worth taking some time to review policies like WP:CONCISE or WP:COMMONNAME, neither of which would support the rename. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move The move should certainly not have been made without a previous discussion. Having said that: The title should reflect the text of the article, which is not under dispute, and the way the subject is described in sources. The article primarily describes violent events that go far beyond what "protest" implies. "Riot" is certainly accurate and gives a clearer picture of what happened. Contemporary news sources use terms like "riot" or "violent protest".[1] or focus on the violence rather than the protest that preceded it.[2] Had the protest remained a protest it is unlikely to have achieved notoriety worthy of a Wikipedia article. HGilbert (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

129.88.43.73 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC) The discussion is good, but why the user Vice Regent was able to rename the page from "riots" to "protests" entirely ignoring the counter-arguments, yet the opposite renaming requires a consensus? 129.88.43.73 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC) The page should be definitely simply renamed back to the original title it had, "2012 Sydney Islamic Riots". The logic of the first rename was about as sound as "the war included some arguments as well, let's rename the article about the war to the argument".[reply]

  • Comment I think the name 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests/riots give the impression that it was anti-islamists who were the instigators of violence. I would prefer 2012 Sydney Islamic violent protests as this makes it clear where the violence came from, that there was a protest with violent occurrences. AadaamS (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move under the proposed title. The policy which governs here is WP:TITLE, under subsection WP:CRITERIA. The proposed title conflicts with four of the five criteria listed in that section (specifically recognizability, naturalness, conciseness, and consistency). There may be a case to be made for "riot" superseding "protest", but that case has not yet been made in terms relevant to how we apply policy on this project. It may very well be that some here feel that this event cross the line into a riot, but utilizing that interpretation in how we present the matter would be clear WP:original research. What is called for here is a review of the sources to see how many regard the event as a protest, how many review it as a riot and, after assessing the relative depth of their coverage, make a judgement call based on those sources, not our subjective criteria. In any event, the proposed article title ("2012 Sydney Islamist Riot & Anti-Islamic Film Protest") is clearly not viable. Although, if we ultimately decide that both "protest" and "riot" should be included in the title, the not-altogether different "2012 Sydney anti-Islamic film protest and riot" seems perfectly reasonable, simple, and articulate enough to get the job done. Snow let's rap 09:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on procedure - Whoever filed this as an RfC, either WWB or Dlmetcalf, you should know that you made a procedural mistake. You are asking about a move, therefore you should file it as a move request (see WP:RM#CM for more info) which can be opposed or supported; not as a Request for Comments which is for disputes about content in-article. It's not a big thing, but it is annoying when you come to help with a content dispute and find out it is actually a page-name dispute. You will find more interested editors if you use the {{Requested move}} template.
  • Oppose move - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this using the 5 points found in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA from WP:TITLE:
  • The title is stupidly long and are not concise about what the event(/s) were. ✗ Fail Concise, Naturalness, Recognisability and Precision
The current title actually fulfills the requirements outlined at WP:TITLE. I don't understand why there is such a ruckus caused by this to make it explicitly clear about the "who done what" in the title, though I do understand the political correctness that this is probably motivated by. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2], [3]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 11 January 2016

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A clear consensus against the original proposal for grammatical and capitalisation reasons. And there was no consensus for any of the alternatives offered. Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests → 2012 Sydney Islamic Riots – This is the original article name. It was renamed for no good reason. The event would not have achieved such a media notability if it was merely a "protest", and protests do not leave six police officers injured. Trying to storm an American embassy is also much closer to a "riot". The current title does not accurately describe the contents of the page. 129.88.43.73 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 July 2016

2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests → Sydney Islamic riots – The current article name is confusing, and could be understood as a protest against Islam. The original title reflects the contents much better. Mariachi3 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests&oldid=729905140"