![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Meros Felsenmaus ( talk) 16:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)).
Not sure the word is pov. Its defined as an unruly crowd and it did get violent. Per this Lihaas ( talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The dead U.S. citizens have the privilege of being named here, but the Libyan citizens don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.246.5 ( talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Innocence of Muslims#Production and
I do not believe anything more than the trailers ever existed, I don't believe "Sam Bacile" ever existed, and I think it is much more likely that the film is either a deliberate attempt at trolling or an intentional incitement to violence. — Cupco 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
And there's more: "Steve Klein, who the AP describes as an associate ... was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which describes him as an 'extremist' who has led anti-Muslim protests." -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/12/161003427/what-we-know-about-sam-bacile-the-man-behind-the-muhammad-movie ("Update at 2:17 p.m. ET. Bacile Not His Real Name?") — Cupco 21:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
We can certainly include a summary of the story with a reference linking to it. — Cupco 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrkidding17 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"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)
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)
As expected, someone actually put this in the article. I have now reverted it per BLP. Since this is no ordinary BLP violation and could actually get someone killed, I will escalate immediately if it's put back. —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk 04:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, here's something I can get behind quoting:
Mr. Palmor also called Mr. Bacile 'a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot.'"
[85] —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk 04:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Kerfuffler has been editing for hours including on this talk page without responding. As others have pointed out above, there are no actual BLP issues. I am replacing the deleted text. If there are any actual "inferences with no proof" or actual violations of the BLP policy, then they should be stated. — Cupco 08:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Of course it is, HammerFilmFan, I suppose that's why the most frequently used sources on Wikipedia are the bastions of honest and objective reporting: the NYT and the BBC. The systemic leftist bias of Wikipedia that is evident to any initiated observer is, predictably, plastered across this article. Wikipedia isn't any better than the majority of political forums, anyways, although pretentious contributors hiding behind anonymous surnames (such as yourself, perhaps?) yield some sense of self-important by deluding themselves into thinking they're participating in some higher level of discourse that is Wikipedia. Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think there is objectivity on Wikipedia, you're wrong. I've already explained in detail how this article exemplifies the leftist bias of Wikipedia by indicating the omission of honest language that is unpalatable to the left. Terms like murder, terror(ist/ism), Islam(ic/ist), and so forth. Moreover, the multiple murders are described as a "disturbance" by one of the editors of this article. There is also no mention of the Islam(is/ist) graffiti that was found on the the property of the consulate. Photos of this graffiti, which in Arabic wrote "God is Greater" (Allahu Akbhar) are given no mention in this article, and probably never will be given any mention. Any honest observer knows why. Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What? Do we need to put "attacked during protests over ... blasphemy against the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" in extra-large blinking bold red type? There aren't any reliable sources calling it murder or terrorism yet as far as I can tell, but I'm sure there will be. The vast majority, including the BBC just as I write this, say "attacks" and so are Obama and Hillary Clinton. Presumably this is because we do not yet know whether the attacks were terrorist or coordinated military assassinations yet. Or just mobs from Islamist groups. — Cupco 03:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources which make it clear that this was an act of terrorism and murder. It is quite telling, by the way, that you would think that what occurred during these terrorist attack was anything BUT murder. Perhaps nothing can be understood until the NYT or BBC explain it to us? There was an orchestrated attack on two America governmental interests, on sovereign American soil, in Cairo and in Benghazi. Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhammad and other Islamist/Jihadist organisations made explicit warnings about such attacks that would be carried out on September 11 days earlier. I suppose you think there were two impromptu or spontaneous terrorist attacks on an embassy and a consulate that just coincidentally occurred on September 11 without any premeditations. Perhaps the killers of Christopher Stevens and the three others did so in self-defence? We'll never know until the NYT or BBC tell us what to think, right? Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Scrubbed by leftists? No, it's just that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert)
Bustter ( talk) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
ADMINISTRATORS - this whole discussion has gone on far too long and violates Talk Page rules about using them for Soapboxing or a Forum, and I submit this section should be "hid." HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's referred to twice. It was the occasion for political commentary, and it's content and tone (flirting with sadness for the first-amendment, and only then expressing "outrage," or whatever, is and may stay as a major point of contention. But unless I read toO fast, the original cable and twitter--was not supplied. It also should be noted that the whole matter of sending/disavowal is being cited to question the State Dept.'s operations in this case.I don't think these points are politically partisan for inclusion in Wiki. They are just what I see in the air now. Shlishke ( talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
More clashes, more fun. See here, here. Should be added to article and clarified this is a different day.
-- Activism 1234 03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Numerous news agencies are reporting that this was a planned attack due to 9/11 "Standing outside the fire-gutted compound, Mohammad al Bishari denied the attack began as a protest against an amateurish U.S.-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic faith."
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/12/3812183/they-attacked-right-away.html#storylink=cpy 24.98.139.66 ( talk) 05:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Andybinga
The planning for these events as it was described preceded the showing of the controversial film. It is important to keep in the article the date of the attack since it was on the anniversary of 911. Also the killing or removing heads of state has angered a lot of people and misrepresentation of the American media of the unpopularity of the governments with the people hides the fact that supporters of the former regime are larger than estimated an will continue to try to reclaim their country.The movie was so as to speak the straw that broke the camel’s back.
My source I have lived in the Mideast and worked in US missions for the last 20 years.
78.52.71.181 ( talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is anything known about whether embassy records were compromised? I'm wondering both whether information was taken away, and whether anyone would have had access to add something (such as a clean bill of health for some terrorist(s) they want to get into the U.S.). Wnt ( talk) 06:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The section "Other US reactions" does not seem objective to me, because it quotes Romney without quoting anyone who disagreed with him. I think the section is political soapboxing and should therefore be removed. 06:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Cairo Embassy statement should be quoted in full, rather than the abbreviated summary now provided. "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/ Jross10 ( talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add Argentine reaction: An communique by the Argentinean [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship signed by the President Cristina Fernández express: "The Argentine people expressed its strongest condemnation of the attack perpetrated yesterday against the U.S. Consulate in the city of Benghazi. We deeply regrets the death of that country's Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, and other Americans and Libyans citizens".
Sourse: http://www.infobae.com/notas/670158-La-Argentina-condeno-el-atentado-en-el-Consulado.htm.html (Infobae.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepaja1941 ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add Pakistan reaction source : PAKISTAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF US AMBASSADOR IN LIBYA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaqibQ ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Pakistan also condemned the film [88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.202.250 ( talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The embassy was freakin' stormed!-- 150.216.78.78 ( talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What is up with all the flags? Are they really necessary?-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As I'm not a user, I don't seem to be able to edit the article. However, under Reaction: US: Other US reactions, it reads "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."[38][39].[34][40][41] Cuba has been enemies with the US since the Cold War."
Wait, what? What does Cuba have to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.40.40 ( talk) 10:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Boston Globe is reporting that one of the four American's killed in Benghazi was Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL working at the consulate as a security officer for a private company. [89] The lede currently states that the other two Americans killed, besides Stevens and Smith were US Marines. This statement is sourced to a CBS report but CBS appears to be incorrect here since the Globe has an interview with Doherty's family and they clearly identify him as a private contractor. GabrielF ( talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat gives additional background text about one of the people killed in benghazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.57.129 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It is being reported that protesters are burning American flags in Gaza, and Arab-Israelis are protesting outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. I think these should be noted. Also, due to the spreading of the protests, and the uncommon events in Libya, a new separate article should be considered for the Benghazi attack since it was less of a protest than an organized attack/raid. ItsGrrreat ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a Canadian Citizen living in Iran. This incident is regrettable. However, in the intrest of accuracy and for the record
i) There is no US embassy in Iran
ii) There were protests in front of the Swiss
Embassy which acts to represent US interests in Iran. I repeat protests no attacks no entry intio the embassy compound which in any case is the Swiss Embassy
When I saw the flag of Iran, I searched the entire article to find out about any incidents in Iran regarding this.
Apart from demonstrations nothing happened here.
I suggest to remove the flag implying that the attacks have spread here. Again there is no US embassy here. Put the reference in again when it is at least confirmed that some other missions were actually attacked in connection with this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.75.87.132 ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is for the purposes of documenting English sources used here and on other Wikipedias, and on coordinating activities on this subject on other related Wikipedias.
English:
Arabic:
Persian:
Chinese:
Spanish:
French:
Russian:
Portuguese:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to the "International reactions" section: * {{flag|China}} – Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said that the Chinese government was "shocked" by the attacks and that it "strongly condemn[s] the violent deeds". It further reminded the Libyan government about its obligation to protect foreign ambassadors under the [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]].<ref>[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/13/c_123708330.htm China condemns U.S. diplomatic compound attack]. Beijing: Xinhua. September 13, 2012.</ref>
192.12.88.159 (
talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The category is apt, removal of it is vandalism. The Libyan president acknowledged that it was terrorism: after acknowledging Muslim anger at the "film", he said "use of force to terrorise innocent people and the killing of innocent people" (emphasis added). Even the Libyan leader connects the two. Let's document what has happened - in the views of those on the scene - and not editorialize to be politically correct. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Specific ideas for improvement are welcome, accusations against groups of editors are unproductive. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So, The Jerusalem Post reports that the obscure YouTube film trailer lampooning Islam and its prophet Muhammad "sparked protests" in Cairo and Benghazi without any evidence is accepted at face value?Rather than acknowledge the truth that these were coordinated attacks planned in advance coincidently occurring on September 11? Of course, the truth doesn't exist on Wikipedia until the NYT or BBC tells us what we're allowed to know. So until a "credible" source tells us ignorant masses the truth, the dishonest narrative of these terrorist attacks (which are not identified as such as per pervasive Wikipedia leftist sanitised lexicon) will remain: these were "protests" and "disturbances" that were spontaneous in reaction to a YouTube film trailer that none of the terrorists/"protesters" had even seen. Again, this all coincidentally occurred on September 11, in several cities, and the terrorist/"protesters" (or should we call them "participants" in order not to ruffle any feathers?) just coincidentally remembered to bring along their AK-47s and RPGs. Not only is the narrative of this article completely dishonest, the language used is perfectly Orwellian. We might as well refer to these murderers as "freedom fighters" and just indulge the political sensibilities of 90% of the Wikipedia "editor" community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Please add the Norwegian reaction to the international reactions section:
Minister of foreign affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre strongly condemned the attacks saying “We condemn the attack on the US consulate in Bengazi and the killing of diplomats and ordinary civilians in the strongest terms. Such acts of violence are indefensible. We will raise this matter with the Libyan authorities. Under international law, the receiving state has full responsibility for the security of diplomatic and consular missions and their staff”
Source: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/press/news/2012/attack_benghazi.html?id=698989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.106.129.103 ( talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I just added it. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it relevant to include the reaction of Mexico? I have a couple of sources for it. Thanks. ComputerJA ( talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we have this yet? NPR is saying that US officials are presently interrogating the men. — Cupco 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Its easy for the opposition candidate to just mindless criticize. The fact is that if he was just Governor Jones of the state of Foo, we wouldn't post his comments. If Romney is elected, his comments have no value because he didn't have the authority to act when it happened, and if he is defeated, this paragraph will just appear as a strange and unnecessary footnote. It's election year politics, nothing more. -- IP98 ( talk) 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain what football fans were doing protesting an embassy? Did a game just finish nearby without incident, so they decided to join in a sociopolitical protest? Any explanation is sorely needed, because the sentence "Salafists and football fans" definitely gave pause. SamuelRiv ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Libyan attack seemed to be much more serious, and was the only one that resulted in a loss of life. It seemed to be planned and executed by some armed group. It is also the one that is getting the most press. Should it be spun off into its own article? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Independent posted a lengthy article accusing President Obama of being warned about the forthcoming attack but doing nothing. The Obama Administration denied this. I think this needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page 50.74.2.12 ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As the article exists on 2012-09-14:T03:10, the title is about the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks, but the article is seeming to become an appendage to collect links to much more widespread protests about a controversial film. That is to say, the protests are occuring in more countries, but without any "attacks" on diplomatic missions. Not clear they all belong in this article, unless this article were to be retitled. What do others think on this question? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly split these into two articles. One for the most serious attacks, which was the attack on the Libyan embassy. And then another article detailing protests about the film. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted some of Vice regent's edits re the film "Innocence of Muslims". You had deleted a specific quote from a highly reliable world wide source, Reuters, in favour of a long list of adjectives from a number of sources, with a waffly introduction like "recent media sources..." or some such.
I want to point out to you than in successful reporting, sometimes "less is more". The more sensational newspapers are naturally going to emphasise what the Western World's readers are going to buy: sex, paedophilia, homosexuality.
Reuters, on the other hand, put their finger precisely upon those things that are offensive to Muslim men. Homosexuality and what the Western World would regard as paedophilia are widely practised and unofficially condoned in many Muslim countries. Muhammad taking a 10 yr old bride would not be offensive in those parts of Africa where girls mature young and are married at puberty.
The impact of the Reuters statement is that it summed up in three words those things that were really offensive.
Amandajm ( talk) 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Response:
You have to see the issues from a Muslim perspective in order to understand the outrage.
Amandajm ( talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it should be added, it's hilarious: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/snark-flies-us-embassy-brotherhood-twitter-spat-17229186#.UFMAC65I3eU FunkMonk ( talk) 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone change the unnamed official and the security officer mentioned in this sentence: 'The main building, containing Ambassador Stevens, another official, and a security officer, became engulfed in a fire after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.' to Sean Smith and Glen Doherty? They're already mentioned at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.173.81 ( talk) 10:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
do we need a broader page, since the BBC are now reporting attacks on other (Western) nations' emabssies -- German and British definitely. -- Simon Cursitor ( talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe I saw a mention of a protest in India that is not mentioned in this article. 75.41.109.190 ( talk) 13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there has been a lot of confusion here. :-/ The "attacks of the missions" and "protest of the film" occurred on Sept 11, 2012 but as reported later, U.S. officials believe that "the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was planned before the protests and was not prompted by the film, and that the attackers perhaps used the protest as a diversion." Prior to the attacks, there are earlier reputable articles ( WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY) articles that are indicative of this:
I suggest we move most of the edits related to "protest of the film" to Innocence of Muslims page as these are more relevant over there. We can probably have a small section on the film, but not under Background, as that is clearly misleading. It won't be the first time the media jumped the gun on two coinciding major events, and facts got lost in the confusion. Thoughts anyone? — Hasdi Bravo • 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Salafists are rioting in north Lebanon as well, burning KFCs. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/53569-one-killed-25-wounded-in-tripoli-protest-against-anti-islam-film FunkMonk ( talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Today the violence escalated further and a KFC and the German, British embassies in Sudan were attacked. Therefore the lemma should probably be extended to also cover those events and not only attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions. -- Wikieditoroftoday ( talk) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "Protests against 'Innocence of Muslim'" or 2012 anti-blasphemy demonstrations would more accurately present the scope of the article, and a separate page for what was evidently a planned terrorist attack in Libya?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Strong support. Urgent. GNews has us as 2012 Anti-Islam film protests Wakari07 ( talk) 00:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just moved it again out of the section on responses.
The subject of this article is the attacks.
The statement made by the US Embassy in Cairo was not a "response to the attacks" . It was a response to the video itself. As such, it is part of the section "background" .
Amandajm ( talk) 14:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have Chennai in the map. No deaths reported but 25 people are injured in major protests outside the consulate. References have been added in the article. Unlike protests in other countires the consulate was damages.Regards, theTigerKing 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The map showing locations of protests and attacks does not include the new country of South Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.80.82 ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This user has expressed no interest in being what he terms a "regular editor" but is only interested in making sweeping attacks. The point has been made, if you have no constructive and specific ideas for improvement than further discussion will not be productive. See: WP:DENY GabrielF ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here we are, and this article is STILL demonstrating the pervasive dishonesty of leftist bias endemic to Wikipedia. There is STILL no mention of the Islamic/ist graffiti that vandalised both the embassy in Cairo or the consulate in Benghazi, or the Islamic/ist signs and chants that were prevalent among the rioters/attackers/protesters/agitators/terrorists/murderers (or, to be in line with typical Wikipedia dishonesty, we can refer to them as "participants"). Why are these crucial facts omitted? Answer: in order to hide the real motivations and nature of the people involved with these attacks which are directly associated with Islamism. There is NO mention of the primary motivation of those that attacked the American embassy in Cairo - which was reported by Nic Robertson of CNN, as being a call for the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, otherwise known as "the blind sheikh", which was touched on during his interview with Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhamad on site at the protest/demonstration prior to the violence. Rather, the dishonest narrative of these attacks being some sort of spontaneous eruption in response to a YouTube trailer of a film lampooning Islam and Muhamad remains in the introductory paragraph. Again, the commitment to Wikipedia's editors to drafting a sanitised and dishonest narrative of history in order to comply with its dominant leftist agenda remains relentless. Bobinisrael ( talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I saw some mention of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing but that was a military installation and not a diplomatic mission, so it is not analogous to violence against an embassy or consulate. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be best to have an overall article on worldwide protests of the film, many of which are peaceful, and another specifically on the terrorist attack in Bengahzi. That way we can avoid the semantic division of "protests" and "attacks" on this page.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I say have one article for the Benghazi attack -- which appears to have been a premeditated terrorist attack that used the happanstance of the film as a cover, then diplomatic mission attacks for the others that were more a case of rioting and more clearly connected with the movie. Don't know about the poor KFC in Tripoli though.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Meros Felsenmaus ( talk) 16:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)).
Not sure the word is pov. Its defined as an unruly crowd and it did get violent. Per this Lihaas ( talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The dead U.S. citizens have the privilege of being named here, but the Libyan citizens don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.246.5 ( talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Innocence of Muslims#Production and
I do not believe anything more than the trailers ever existed, I don't believe "Sam Bacile" ever existed, and I think it is much more likely that the film is either a deliberate attempt at trolling or an intentional incitement to violence. — Cupco 21:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
And there's more: "Steve Klein, who the AP describes as an associate ... was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which describes him as an 'extremist' who has led anti-Muslim protests." -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/12/161003427/what-we-know-about-sam-bacile-the-man-behind-the-muhammad-movie ("Update at 2:17 p.m. ET. Bacile Not His Real Name?") — Cupco 21:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
We can certainly include a summary of the story with a reference linking to it. — Cupco 22:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrkidding17 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"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)
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)
As expected, someone actually put this in the article. I have now reverted it per BLP. Since this is no ordinary BLP violation and could actually get someone killed, I will escalate immediately if it's put back. —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk 04:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, here's something I can get behind quoting:
Mr. Palmor also called Mr. Bacile 'a complete loose cannon and an unspeakable idiot.'"
[85] —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk 04:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Kerfuffler has been editing for hours including on this talk page without responding. As others have pointed out above, there are no actual BLP issues. I am replacing the deleted text. If there are any actual "inferences with no proof" or actual violations of the BLP policy, then they should be stated. — Cupco 08:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Of course it is, HammerFilmFan, I suppose that's why the most frequently used sources on Wikipedia are the bastions of honest and objective reporting: the NYT and the BBC. The systemic leftist bias of Wikipedia that is evident to any initiated observer is, predictably, plastered across this article. Wikipedia isn't any better than the majority of political forums, anyways, although pretentious contributors hiding behind anonymous surnames (such as yourself, perhaps?) yield some sense of self-important by deluding themselves into thinking they're participating in some higher level of discourse that is Wikipedia. Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think there is objectivity on Wikipedia, you're wrong. I've already explained in detail how this article exemplifies the leftist bias of Wikipedia by indicating the omission of honest language that is unpalatable to the left. Terms like murder, terror(ist/ism), Islam(ic/ist), and so forth. Moreover, the multiple murders are described as a "disturbance" by one of the editors of this article. There is also no mention of the Islam(is/ist) graffiti that was found on the the property of the consulate. Photos of this graffiti, which in Arabic wrote "God is Greater" (Allahu Akbhar) are given no mention in this article, and probably never will be given any mention. Any honest observer knows why. Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What? Do we need to put "attacked during protests over ... blasphemy against the Islamic prophet, Muhammad" in extra-large blinking bold red type? There aren't any reliable sources calling it murder or terrorism yet as far as I can tell, but I'm sure there will be. The vast majority, including the BBC just as I write this, say "attacks" and so are Obama and Hillary Clinton. Presumably this is because we do not yet know whether the attacks were terrorist or coordinated military assassinations yet. Or just mobs from Islamist groups. — Cupco 03:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources which make it clear that this was an act of terrorism and murder. It is quite telling, by the way, that you would think that what occurred during these terrorist attack was anything BUT murder. Perhaps nothing can be understood until the NYT or BBC explain it to us? There was an orchestrated attack on two America governmental interests, on sovereign American soil, in Cairo and in Benghazi. Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhammad and other Islamist/Jihadist organisations made explicit warnings about such attacks that would be carried out on September 11 days earlier. I suppose you think there were two impromptu or spontaneous terrorist attacks on an embassy and a consulate that just coincidentally occurred on September 11 without any premeditations. Perhaps the killers of Christopher Stevens and the three others did so in self-defence? We'll never know until the NYT or BBC tell us what to think, right? Bobinisrael ( talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Scrubbed by leftists? No, it's just that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert)
Bustter ( talk) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
ADMINISTRATORS - this whole discussion has gone on far too long and violates Talk Page rules about using them for Soapboxing or a Forum, and I submit this section should be "hid." HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's referred to twice. It was the occasion for political commentary, and it's content and tone (flirting with sadness for the first-amendment, and only then expressing "outrage," or whatever, is and may stay as a major point of contention. But unless I read toO fast, the original cable and twitter--was not supplied. It also should be noted that the whole matter of sending/disavowal is being cited to question the State Dept.'s operations in this case.I don't think these points are politically partisan for inclusion in Wiki. They are just what I see in the air now. Shlishke ( talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
More clashes, more fun. See here, here. Should be added to article and clarified this is a different day.
-- Activism 1234 03:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Numerous news agencies are reporting that this was a planned attack due to 9/11 "Standing outside the fire-gutted compound, Mohammad al Bishari denied the attack began as a protest against an amateurish U.S.-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic faith."
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/12/3812183/they-attacked-right-away.html#storylink=cpy 24.98.139.66 ( talk) 05:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Andybinga
The planning for these events as it was described preceded the showing of the controversial film. It is important to keep in the article the date of the attack since it was on the anniversary of 911. Also the killing or removing heads of state has angered a lot of people and misrepresentation of the American media of the unpopularity of the governments with the people hides the fact that supporters of the former regime are larger than estimated an will continue to try to reclaim their country.The movie was so as to speak the straw that broke the camel’s back.
My source I have lived in the Mideast and worked in US missions for the last 20 years.
78.52.71.181 ( talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is anything known about whether embassy records were compromised? I'm wondering both whether information was taken away, and whether anyone would have had access to add something (such as a clean bill of health for some terrorist(s) they want to get into the U.S.). Wnt ( talk) 06:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The section "Other US reactions" does not seem objective to me, because it quotes Romney without quoting anyone who disagreed with him. I think the section is political soapboxing and should therefore be removed. 06:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Cairo Embassy statement should be quoted in full, rather than the abbreviated summary now provided. "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/ Jross10 ( talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add Argentine reaction: An communique by the Argentinean [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship signed by the President Cristina Fernández express: "The Argentine people expressed its strongest condemnation of the attack perpetrated yesterday against the U.S. Consulate in the city of Benghazi. We deeply regrets the death of that country's Ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, and other Americans and Libyans citizens".
Sourse: http://www.infobae.com/notas/670158-La-Argentina-condeno-el-atentado-en-el-Consulado.htm.html (Infobae.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepaja1941 ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add Pakistan reaction source : PAKISTAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF US AMBASSADOR IN LIBYA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaqibQ ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Pakistan also condemned the film [88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.202.250 ( talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The embassy was freakin' stormed!-- 150.216.78.78 ( talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What is up with all the flags? Are they really necessary?-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 09:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As I'm not a user, I don't seem to be able to edit the article. However, under Reaction: US: Other US reactions, it reads "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."[38][39].[34][40][41] Cuba has been enemies with the US since the Cold War."
Wait, what? What does Cuba have to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.40.40 ( talk) 10:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Boston Globe is reporting that one of the four American's killed in Benghazi was Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL working at the consulate as a security officer for a private company. [89] The lede currently states that the other two Americans killed, besides Stevens and Smith were US Marines. This statement is sourced to a CBS report but CBS appears to be incorrect here since the Globe has an interview with Doherty's family and they clearly identify him as a private contractor. GabrielF ( talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat gives additional background text about one of the people killed in benghazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.57.129 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It is being reported that protesters are burning American flags in Gaza, and Arab-Israelis are protesting outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. I think these should be noted. Also, due to the spreading of the protests, and the uncommon events in Libya, a new separate article should be considered for the Benghazi attack since it was less of a protest than an organized attack/raid. ItsGrrreat ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a Canadian Citizen living in Iran. This incident is regrettable. However, in the intrest of accuracy and for the record
i) There is no US embassy in Iran
ii) There were protests in front of the Swiss
Embassy which acts to represent US interests in Iran. I repeat protests no attacks no entry intio the embassy compound which in any case is the Swiss Embassy
When I saw the flag of Iran, I searched the entire article to find out about any incidents in Iran regarding this.
Apart from demonstrations nothing happened here.
I suggest to remove the flag implying that the attacks have spread here. Again there is no US embassy here. Put the reference in again when it is at least confirmed that some other missions were actually attacked in connection with this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.75.87.132 ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is for the purposes of documenting English sources used here and on other Wikipedias, and on coordinating activities on this subject on other related Wikipedias.
English:
Arabic:
Persian:
Chinese:
Spanish:
French:
Russian:
Portuguese:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to the "International reactions" section: * {{flag|China}} – Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said that the Chinese government was "shocked" by the attacks and that it "strongly condemn[s] the violent deeds". It further reminded the Libyan government about its obligation to protect foreign ambassadors under the [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]].<ref>[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/13/c_123708330.htm China condemns U.S. diplomatic compound attack]. Beijing: Xinhua. September 13, 2012.</ref>
192.12.88.159 (
talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The category is apt, removal of it is vandalism. The Libyan president acknowledged that it was terrorism: after acknowledging Muslim anger at the "film", he said "use of force to terrorise innocent people and the killing of innocent people" (emphasis added). Even the Libyan leader connects the two. Let's document what has happened - in the views of those on the scene - and not editorialize to be politically correct. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Specific ideas for improvement are welcome, accusations against groups of editors are unproductive. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So, The Jerusalem Post reports that the obscure YouTube film trailer lampooning Islam and its prophet Muhammad "sparked protests" in Cairo and Benghazi without any evidence is accepted at face value?Rather than acknowledge the truth that these were coordinated attacks planned in advance coincidently occurring on September 11? Of course, the truth doesn't exist on Wikipedia until the NYT or BBC tells us what we're allowed to know. So until a "credible" source tells us ignorant masses the truth, the dishonest narrative of these terrorist attacks (which are not identified as such as per pervasive Wikipedia leftist sanitised lexicon) will remain: these were "protests" and "disturbances" that were spontaneous in reaction to a YouTube film trailer that none of the terrorists/"protesters" had even seen. Again, this all coincidentally occurred on September 11, in several cities, and the terrorist/"protesters" (or should we call them "participants" in order not to ruffle any feathers?) just coincidentally remembered to bring along their AK-47s and RPGs. Not only is the narrative of this article completely dishonest, the language used is perfectly Orwellian. We might as well refer to these murderers as "freedom fighters" and just indulge the political sensibilities of 90% of the Wikipedia "editor" community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Please add the Norwegian reaction to the international reactions section:
Minister of foreign affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre strongly condemned the attacks saying “We condemn the attack on the US consulate in Bengazi and the killing of diplomats and ordinary civilians in the strongest terms. Such acts of violence are indefensible. We will raise this matter with the Libyan authorities. Under international law, the receiving state has full responsibility for the security of diplomatic and consular missions and their staff”
Source: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/press/news/2012/attack_benghazi.html?id=698989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.106.129.103 ( talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I just added it. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it relevant to include the reaction of Mexico? I have a couple of sources for it. Thanks. ComputerJA ( talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we have this yet? NPR is saying that US officials are presently interrogating the men. — Cupco 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Its easy for the opposition candidate to just mindless criticize. The fact is that if he was just Governor Jones of the state of Foo, we wouldn't post his comments. If Romney is elected, his comments have no value because he didn't have the authority to act when it happened, and if he is defeated, this paragraph will just appear as a strange and unnecessary footnote. It's election year politics, nothing more. -- IP98 ( talk) 22:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain what football fans were doing protesting an embassy? Did a game just finish nearby without incident, so they decided to join in a sociopolitical protest? Any explanation is sorely needed, because the sentence "Salafists and football fans" definitely gave pause. SamuelRiv ( talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Libyan attack seemed to be much more serious, and was the only one that resulted in a loss of life. It seemed to be planned and executed by some armed group. It is also the one that is getting the most press. Should it be spun off into its own article? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Independent posted a lengthy article accusing President Obama of being warned about the forthcoming attack but doing nothing. The Obama Administration denied this. I think this needs to be mentioned somewhere on this page 50.74.2.12 ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As the article exists on 2012-09-14:T03:10, the title is about the 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks, but the article is seeming to become an appendage to collect links to much more widespread protests about a controversial film. That is to say, the protests are occuring in more countries, but without any "attacks" on diplomatic missions. Not clear they all belong in this article, unless this article were to be retitled. What do others think on this question? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly split these into two articles. One for the most serious attacks, which was the attack on the Libyan embassy. And then another article detailing protests about the film. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted some of Vice regent's edits re the film "Innocence of Muslims". You had deleted a specific quote from a highly reliable world wide source, Reuters, in favour of a long list of adjectives from a number of sources, with a waffly introduction like "recent media sources..." or some such.
I want to point out to you than in successful reporting, sometimes "less is more". The more sensational newspapers are naturally going to emphasise what the Western World's readers are going to buy: sex, paedophilia, homosexuality.
Reuters, on the other hand, put their finger precisely upon those things that are offensive to Muslim men. Homosexuality and what the Western World would regard as paedophilia are widely practised and unofficially condoned in many Muslim countries. Muhammad taking a 10 yr old bride would not be offensive in those parts of Africa where girls mature young and are married at puberty.
The impact of the Reuters statement is that it summed up in three words those things that were really offensive.
Amandajm ( talk) 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Response:
You have to see the issues from a Muslim perspective in order to understand the outrage.
Amandajm ( talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it should be added, it's hilarious: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/snark-flies-us-embassy-brotherhood-twitter-spat-17229186#.UFMAC65I3eU FunkMonk ( talk) 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone change the unnamed official and the security officer mentioned in this sentence: 'The main building, containing Ambassador Stevens, another official, and a security officer, became engulfed in a fire after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.' to Sean Smith and Glen Doherty? They're already mentioned at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.173.81 ( talk) 10:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
do we need a broader page, since the BBC are now reporting attacks on other (Western) nations' emabssies -- German and British definitely. -- Simon Cursitor ( talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe I saw a mention of a protest in India that is not mentioned in this article. 75.41.109.190 ( talk) 13:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there has been a lot of confusion here. :-/ The "attacks of the missions" and "protest of the film" occurred on Sept 11, 2012 but as reported later, U.S. officials believe that "the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was planned before the protests and was not prompted by the film, and that the attackers perhaps used the protest as a diversion." Prior to the attacks, there are earlier reputable articles ( WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY) articles that are indicative of this:
I suggest we move most of the edits related to "protest of the film" to Innocence of Muslims page as these are more relevant over there. We can probably have a small section on the film, but not under Background, as that is clearly misleading. It won't be the first time the media jumped the gun on two coinciding major events, and facts got lost in the confusion. Thoughts anyone? — Hasdi Bravo • 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Salafists are rioting in north Lebanon as well, burning KFCs. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/53569-one-killed-25-wounded-in-tripoli-protest-against-anti-islam-film FunkMonk ( talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Today the violence escalated further and a KFC and the German, British embassies in Sudan were attacked. Therefore the lemma should probably be extended to also cover those events and not only attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions. -- Wikieditoroftoday ( talk) 14:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "Protests against 'Innocence of Muslim'" or 2012 anti-blasphemy demonstrations would more accurately present the scope of the article, and a separate page for what was evidently a planned terrorist attack in Libya?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Strong support. Urgent. GNews has us as 2012 Anti-Islam film protests Wakari07 ( talk) 00:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just moved it again out of the section on responses.
The subject of this article is the attacks.
The statement made by the US Embassy in Cairo was not a "response to the attacks" . It was a response to the video itself. As such, it is part of the section "background" .
Amandajm ( talk) 14:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we have Chennai in the map. No deaths reported but 25 people are injured in major protests outside the consulate. References have been added in the article. Unlike protests in other countires the consulate was damages.Regards, theTigerKing 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The map showing locations of protests and attacks does not include the new country of South Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.80.82 ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This user has expressed no interest in being what he terms a "regular editor" but is only interested in making sweeping attacks. The point has been made, if you have no constructive and specific ideas for improvement than further discussion will not be productive. See: WP:DENY GabrielF ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here we are, and this article is STILL demonstrating the pervasive dishonesty of leftist bias endemic to Wikipedia. There is STILL no mention of the Islamic/ist graffiti that vandalised both the embassy in Cairo or the consulate in Benghazi, or the Islamic/ist signs and chants that were prevalent among the rioters/attackers/protesters/agitators/terrorists/murderers (or, to be in line with typical Wikipedia dishonesty, we can refer to them as "participants"). Why are these crucial facts omitted? Answer: in order to hide the real motivations and nature of the people involved with these attacks which are directly associated with Islamism. There is NO mention of the primary motivation of those that attacked the American embassy in Cairo - which was reported by Nic Robertson of CNN, as being a call for the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, otherwise known as "the blind sheikh", which was touched on during his interview with Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother Muhamad on site at the protest/demonstration prior to the violence. Rather, the dishonest narrative of these attacks being some sort of spontaneous eruption in response to a YouTube trailer of a film lampooning Islam and Muhamad remains in the introductory paragraph. Again, the commitment to Wikipedia's editors to drafting a sanitised and dishonest narrative of history in order to comply with its dominant leftist agenda remains relentless. Bobinisrael ( talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I saw some mention of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing but that was a military installation and not a diplomatic mission, so it is not analogous to violence against an embassy or consulate. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be best to have an overall article on worldwide protests of the film, many of which are peaceful, and another specifically on the terrorist attack in Bengahzi. That way we can avoid the semantic division of "protests" and "attacks" on this page.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created a start page for Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" for the overall protests. I guess we should just leave this page for the violent demos, but even then it needs a title tweak, as British and German embassies and a KFC have also been attacked.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I say have one article for the Benghazi attack -- which appears to have been a premeditated terrorist attack that used the happanstance of the film as a cover, then diplomatic mission attacks for the others that were more a case of rioting and more clearly connected with the movie. Don't know about the poor KFC in Tripoli though.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)