![]() | 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 |
There is now a general article at 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I have copied some of the information which was moved to Innocence of Muslims there. We need to alert the front page editors to wikilink the mention of protests to that page so as not to create an unintentional bias. We need to remove any protests which were not specifically attacks from the map so as not to sensationalize this article. We need to link mention of widespread protests from here to there. Additionally, any other edit which creates a clear impression that this is a specific article and that 2012 Anti-Islam film protests is the general article. Hope that satisfies everyone. Once complete, we should be able to remove the header template and call it good. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I'm also completely open to renaming that article. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An editor deleted that split, claiming I did not seek consensus. As you can see above, I did, and this was the solution which presented itself. Mind you, no information has been deleted and no specific objection has been given. Please continue to dialogue if you can present a different solution which doesn't imply the fallacy that all these protests were attacks, which many many editors have already objected to in some form or fashion. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted that deletion. It's my first. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. There is no other resolution for the multiple biases the article creates unintentionally than to either - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just the attacks by moving to an alternate title - or - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just attacks by creating the more general article. Seeing intractible opposition to the first, I chose the second. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
We seem to consider it important enough to mention that some bloodsuckers politicians have called for withholding aid, but apparently everyone missed
this piece, in which John McCain speaks out against that. (Note: Anyone who accuses me of political bias here will get laughed off the fucking internet. You've been warned.) —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
08:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Some other link fodder related to this:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that some editors understood what I was looking for and have really run with it. I am going to keep my nose out of it. I started removing pins from the map which were not attacks, but did not finish. You guys are really great! I'll check back in a couple to see how you did. Good luck! ClaudeReigns ( talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
At the citation of BBC I could not see Turkey. (FYI only 100 people made a protest in the almost 14 million populated Istanbul and another 100 in Rize.) Turkey's population is 74 millions, so these protests are not notable for inclusion. Only in the protests of Anvers, Belgium 120 people were detained by the police; a number larger than the participants of each of the two protests in Turkey. BTW the Anvers protest has not been added to the article yet. -- E4024 ( talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This source [5] cited for half of the "39 deaths" talks about an attack on a military base where Prince Harry is serving. I don't think one royal in uniform makes it an embassy! Wnt ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The map seems to be about protests, but the caption states "attacks". If it is about violent protests, many locations are missing namely Sydney and Paris where there were mass arrests. What a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.135 ( talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Are these events part of the Arab Spring? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No. No. WP does not use opinions. That source seems unreliable. It's completely unrelated. Arab Spring consist of Arabs protesting their rulers. This is much different. Like the Afghanistan Quran-burning protests, I don't think these protests will last that long. -- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
To give a taste from four references at the end...
So this perspective, while it definitely exists, is still more limited than the numbers there would suggest. It should be presented, but not as a universal observation. Wnt ( talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This website doesn't show any reason why we should consider it reliable. We don't know the author and anyone can make a website. Also, the website itself doesn't make any connection with the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks so making a connection between these facts looks like OR. I'm removing all material sourced to it. VR talk 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the connection between Satanic Verses, Younus Shaikh, the murder of Salman Taseer and the current wave of attacks? (No, don't answer my questions, please just show me a reliable that answers them.)
I think we can have a see also link to Islam and Blasphemy but connecting much of this material to this article is excessive and original research. VR talk 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Certain sections do a good job of identifying the types of people wounded or killed in the protests. I would encourage anyone who can offer greater details to include them. As an example, stating that "four people were killed" is okay, but better would be "three protesters and one bystander were killed."
I realize with a "current event" story that there is a lot of editing still to be done. For the sake of posterity (as this article will be read for years to come), I hope these details can be added as more information is learned. Jnmwiki ( talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The map should distinguish which places were experiencing peaceful protests, and which were experiencing violent events, such as this one: [7]. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a wikilink to Ban Ki-moon's statement:
"The United Nations [[Defamation of religion and the United Nations|rejects defamation of religion]] in all forms.
192.12.88.137 (
talk)
17:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I revised the article's opening sentences based on the unknown nature of the attacks in Benghazi. I also left out citations, per Wikipedia's preference. Feedback is appreciated, but I think it would be good to post soon so that folks are aware there is ongoing disagreement among legitimate sources on both sides for the genesis of the attack:
On September 11, 2012, protests began at U.S. diplomatic missions in Cairo, Egypt, and Benghazi, Libya. Sources differ as to whether the attacks in Benghazi were preplanned or spontaneous (in response to a YouTube trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims, considered blasphemous by many Muslims). The protests and attacks quickly spread across the Muslim world to additional U.S. and other countries' diplomatic missions and other locations, with issues beyond offense at the movie trailer becoming subjects of protest. Cirrus Editor ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems like that the locations of the protests are spreading and are too numerous to list all of the protests. How about we replace the list with something like "Throughout the Arab world, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium" or something along those lines? -- Luke (Talk) 23:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Video Shows Libyans Retrieving Envoy’s Body: [8] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Innocence of Muslims also has a list of protest in response to the film and this article also has a list of protest?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuanzuanfuwa ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Fresh incidents of stone pelting reported in Chennai. [1] [2] [3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTigerKing ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
References
Here is a source with an overview of the violence so far [9]. Then adding the dozen dead in Kabul attack [10] should make us uptodate for now. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The link to the September 11 2001 attacks has been removed from the 'See also' section by the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Anti-Islam_film_protests&diff=512504920&oldid=512504506 That link should remain in the 'See also' section as both attacks are connected by that date.-- Rpdant767 ( talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The box on the top right has a wiki link to all the cities involved except Sydney. Ballchef ( talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The sentence states that neither the Qur'an nor Hadith condemn blasphemy. While normally I'm a stickler for avoiding primary source arguments, even a cursory search reveals references condemning blasphemy (though, to my knowledge, without specified penalty in the Qur'an, my knowledge of hadith references is deficient in this category). Yusuf Ali's translation has it the most commonly, though I am also finding references in Pickthall's translation (Arabic-speakers would be better equipped to address this in greater depth). Peter Deer ( talk) 06:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You are perfectly right. It was a borrowed statement from another source. I have changed it, but doubt that it is right. I suspect that what is in fact referred to is the representation o Muhammad as blasphemous. How do you suggest the sentence is worded? Can you fix it to something more appropriate? Amandajm ( talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This section seems tangential and frankly redundant. Not only is it immediately followed by "Background of protests" (which is quite good and strikes a balance between providing necessary information and staying within the scope of the events), but it seems to be just a summary of other, similar events like this in the past. There's no mention of relevance, and it is up to the reader to infer it. It seems like this would be better suited to a "summary"-type article that reviews events of a type, instead of an "event"-type article that seeks to provide facts specific to the current event. At best, links to these other events should be provided in the "See Also" section and the text incorporated on some other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"Blasphemy riots" is per the Christian Science Monitor, adapting to other articles already on wikipedia. We should conform to the other articles in the title so as to mirror editing which shows no such dispute. This frees the distinction of the German embassy attack, which cited the Danish cartoonist instead of Innocence of Muslims. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The lead on the Wikipedia main page is misleading according to current information. The current In the News lead-in states: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur following the release of a short film critical of Islam." Yet there is evidence from eyewitnesses to the attack and from intelligence sources that the Benghazi attacks were preplanned and coordinated. A U.S. senator has also stated that there was complicity with Libyan guards at the Consulate. See the investigation section in the article U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Perhaps change to: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur on anniversary of September 11, possibly linked to film critical of Islam and terrorist group activities." Cirrus Editor ( talk) 01:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is the renewed discussion: [11] Please Join. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Two pictures were added, and both have been removed
Reason:
Amandajm ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I get that the media narrative intends these to be viewed as one topic, but Wikipedia does not need to follow suit. The squabble over proposed titles indicates that none is entirely inclusive of all of these events. Some aren't on embassies, some aren't allegedly inspired by the YouTube clip, many aren't attacks, but protests. The largest incident section (Benghazi) starts by explicitly saying there's no real clear connection to the rest. I propose this article be split into individual articles (perhaps linked together by a Category template). It would cut down on the debate about what is relevant drastically. I apologize if this has already been proposed somewhere. InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The map of the protest locations lists Tripoli in Syria, even though it's actually in Libya. I don't know how to fix this, can someone do that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebombzen ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Should we need to mention in the article ? http://wh.gov/ZQKx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.136.115 ( talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this for now. What do people think? Apparently, there's never been a consulate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
@Myself: I tend to believe (with the little info available) there was no formal mission in Benghazi or if any, was in the process of establishment... -- E4024 ( talk) 14:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There were reports of protests in Ankara and possibly other cities in Turkey yet not even one mention of it. Turkey needs to be mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 18:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 Anti-Islam film protests – As the situation clearly changed with German and British embassies as well as restaurants coming under attack, I suggest moving this article per above. After that we can link split out into a separate article the terrorist attack in Libya. Note that most news media refer to it as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim film protests (BBC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177 AP here http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROPHET_FILM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-14-17-23-47) Merrybrit ( talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: I created an article 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Help me move information on the terrorist attack to that article. Merrybrit ( talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This title is incredibly flawed. Suggest it be moved to Innocence of Muslims protests. SnowFire ( talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This temporary move was initially withdrawn by me (due to lack of consensus), but then carried out by an admin after more consensus towards removing "U.S." developed. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 16:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This was moved again, with no clear reason. While it was moved to the name I actually supported as a temporary name, I don't support bypassing the move process when it's clear that we don't have consensus at the moment, even for a change of that nature. Thus, I moved it back, even though I really don't like that we have "U.S." in the title. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Has everyone here forgot about WP:common name? Not a single news media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The most common ones usually go something like "Protests over anti-Islam film" or "anti-Islam film protests". Things have changed. This title needs to change too.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Several people have brought this up. Also, the NYT created a topic page for these events and calls it the "'Innocence of Muslims' Riots" [17]. My question is: should the film title be included in this article's title? How about "2012 'Innocence of Muslims' protests and attacks" or something like that? It's definitely less vague than anti-Islam protests -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
A simple search of copious anti-muslim content on YouTube proves the fallacy of "opinion-mongers" in the popular media and here in Wikipedia that these attacks were somehow justified in response to a perceived insult from a single film. "Bad old Western culture blasphemed our Prophet with this film. Please ignore all the other examples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.165.242 ( talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion was a response to the film, but it may also be a pretext for an attack on the base. I think the name of the article should be 2012 attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya (which involved al-Qaeda), and the Camp bastion attacks (which involved the Taliban). - M0rphzone ( talk) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I see people shooting random suggestions as usual, but perhaps we should approach it more systematically:
How specific or how generic should it be to clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the article (and scope of the event for that matter) while remaining neutral and factually accurate? As it is, the 3 articles on this topic (with the film itself and the attack in Libya) overlap in scope for protests, attacks, and reactions. I suggest we figure this instead of causing further confusion. Skullers ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There is definitely consensus to keep "2012" (nobody has objected to that), and there are a lot of people who want to remove "diplomatic missions" part, because those are not the only targets. There is strong consensus to not have "US" in the title, and I haven't seen any arguments to have "anti-West" in the title.
The main issues that we need to vote on are (1) type of event (attacks or protests), (2) whether or not to include the film (anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims), and (3) whether to include diplomatic missions or not.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 Islamic anti-West protests (or Muslim, whatever is the correct term). This is neutral and captures the broad scope. The attacks on the German embassy are not related to the film, but are likely inspired by the attack in Benghazi. Further, there was a report that said the attack in Benghazi was planned before the film came out. [18] [19] [20]-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's make this more organized. Here is a chart. Feel free to edit it.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Google News test" shows number of Google news results for this past week without quotation marks. If you wish to update them, click on the link next to the numbers and check if there's any difference. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources | Name of events | Links | Google News test |
---|---|---|---|
NY Times | Innocence of Muslims Riots | [28] | 19,900 [29] |
AJE | Anti-Islam Video Protests | [30] | 101,000 [31] |
RT | Arab Fall | [32] | 17,600 [33] |
BBC | Anti-Islam film protests | [34] | 113,000 [35] |
Sky News | Anti-Islam film protests | [36] | ~ |
Washington Post | Anti-American protests | [37] | 38,200 [38] |
Los Angeles Times | Anti-U.S. protests | [39] | 41,800 [40] |
CBC | Attacks at American diplomatic missions | [41] | 48,100 [42] |
CNN | protests over anti-Islam film | [43] | 115,000 [44] |
Columbia Daily Tribune | Anti-Muslim film protests | [45] | 53,500 [46] |
Analysis It looks like "anti-Islam film protests" and "protests over anti-Islam film" are the most popular terms used in the news media. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
How about we have this article's title be, September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests. All of the other proposed titles are under heavy dispute. However, what about this title? I can't see anyone disagreeing with this. The protesters and attackers believe in Islam, why can't the title be this one? Below, explain your support or oppose statement. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
We need to change the title of this article to, say, 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks as German embassy in Sudan was set on fire and British embassy in Sudan was attacked as well. Merrybrit ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Not a single media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The protests and attacks are clearly related and belong in the same article. Something like "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is much better. Take a look at 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:FORUM-rant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please indicate which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are alleged to be at issue here. This may be a rant, but it is also a legitimate discussion of the article title. — Cupco 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
|
This is a very general article. Not everyone agrees that the film alone caused this unrest. Not all forms of unrest were violent. It seems pretty clear that this particular unrest should be distinguished from that in China against the Japanese. Per the LA Times and NY Times, perhaps Islamic unrest is the right generality to use. Therefore I offer the title of "September 2012 Islamic unrest"
I can anticipate that a few people may feel unease about this particular wording, however, it does seem clear that none of the activism, peaceful or violent, has been initiated by any other religious group, and that the admirable multi-cultural aspect of Islam has caused this phenomenon to transcend any racial or national generalities one may succinctly delineate.
There is a strong possibility that any title which does not include the word "attack" will find some uncompromising disfavor. I am not opposed to an article which devotes itself to the attacks which were the result of this unrest and that article, I think, would be free to pursue much more detail.
One may also note a small potential fallacy I have committed, in not implying that any unrest that may or may not have arisen directly from the film, an exception to the rule, does not disprove the rule. However, "Islamic unrest" is still descriptive, and a far better descriptor than "attacks" as there was a wide range of response and other causes of unrest have been cited in specific situations.
I should admit my own bias and declare that I am American, and an atheist, formerly a Christian. What's important to me is that we reach a compromise which describes the general phenomenon as accurately as possible. I invite all commentary. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This was an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia needs to honestly document events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A moot point now, but this move would not fit our naming style for events of this type. We rarely if ever name the perpetrators in the title, and unless there is a separate rash of diplomatic mission attacks, adding Islamic Terrorists into it would do nothing to disambiguate it. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues! 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A spin-off from this article was created for the protests in Sydney. At the discussion for merging that spin-off back into this article, one user correctly noted that the spin-off article was not a diplomatic attack, only a protest and a riot.
So if the current name sticks, other users too, will have cause to move content about protests that didn't attack diplomatic missions into separate articles. VR talk 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtcoachdoubtcoach ( talk) 05:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - any such change would be very out of line, considering that our sources tell us that the movie is only being used a pretense for these attacks. Besides that, this particular suggestion is just a lousy name. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This disscussion is a mess, but I took the time to read it and count the votes. Here's what I got. You're welcome to update it if necessary. Important note: this summary does not include votes cast for the temporary move (removing “US” from title), which has already been implemented. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Results last updated by: JC · Talk · Contributions 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Position | Votes | Names |
---|---|---|
Support for “2012 Anti-Islam film protests” | 9 | Merrybrit, 2001:db8, VR, Wikieditoroftoday, Kashmiri, Hasdi Bravo, Skycycle, Mohamed CJ, FutureTrillionaire |
Support for inclusion of “Innocence of Muslims” in title | 5 | Skullers, SnowFire, hydrox, M0rphzone, ypnypn |
Oppose to further title change/support current title | 9 | Rpdant767, Cupco, Toa Nidhiki05, Activism1234, |
Support for inclusion of “Anti-West[ern]” in title | 2 | Metallurgist, WikiSkeptic |
Other suggestions (look for their comments above for more info) | 2 | Kerfuffler, JCRules ( See here) |
Conclusion: No consensus
![]() | 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 |
There is now a general article at 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I have copied some of the information which was moved to Innocence of Muslims there. We need to alert the front page editors to wikilink the mention of protests to that page so as not to create an unintentional bias. We need to remove any protests which were not specifically attacks from the map so as not to sensationalize this article. We need to link mention of widespread protests from here to there. Additionally, any other edit which creates a clear impression that this is a specific article and that 2012 Anti-Islam film protests is the general article. Hope that satisfies everyone. Once complete, we should be able to remove the header template and call it good. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I'm also completely open to renaming that article. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An editor deleted that split, claiming I did not seek consensus. As you can see above, I did, and this was the solution which presented itself. Mind you, no information has been deleted and no specific objection has been given. Please continue to dialogue if you can present a different solution which doesn't imply the fallacy that all these protests were attacks, which many many editors have already objected to in some form or fashion. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted that deletion. It's my first. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. There is no other resolution for the multiple biases the article creates unintentionally than to either - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just the attacks by moving to an alternate title - or - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just attacks by creating the more general article. Seeing intractible opposition to the first, I chose the second. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
We seem to consider it important enough to mention that some bloodsuckers politicians have called for withholding aid, but apparently everyone missed
this piece, in which John McCain speaks out against that. (Note: Anyone who accuses me of political bias here will get laughed off the fucking internet. You've been warned.) —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
08:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Some other link fodder related to this:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that some editors understood what I was looking for and have really run with it. I am going to keep my nose out of it. I started removing pins from the map which were not attacks, but did not finish. You guys are really great! I'll check back in a couple to see how you did. Good luck! ClaudeReigns ( talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
At the citation of BBC I could not see Turkey. (FYI only 100 people made a protest in the almost 14 million populated Istanbul and another 100 in Rize.) Turkey's population is 74 millions, so these protests are not notable for inclusion. Only in the protests of Anvers, Belgium 120 people were detained by the police; a number larger than the participants of each of the two protests in Turkey. BTW the Anvers protest has not been added to the article yet. -- E4024 ( talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This source [5] cited for half of the "39 deaths" talks about an attack on a military base where Prince Harry is serving. I don't think one royal in uniform makes it an embassy! Wnt ( talk) 16:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The map seems to be about protests, but the caption states "attacks". If it is about violent protests, many locations are missing namely Sydney and Paris where there were mass arrests. What a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.135 ( talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Are these events part of the Arab Spring? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No. No. WP does not use opinions. That source seems unreliable. It's completely unrelated. Arab Spring consist of Arabs protesting their rulers. This is much different. Like the Afghanistan Quran-burning protests, I don't think these protests will last that long. -- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
To give a taste from four references at the end...
So this perspective, while it definitely exists, is still more limited than the numbers there would suggest. It should be presented, but not as a universal observation. Wnt ( talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This website doesn't show any reason why we should consider it reliable. We don't know the author and anyone can make a website. Also, the website itself doesn't make any connection with the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks so making a connection between these facts looks like OR. I'm removing all material sourced to it. VR talk 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the connection between Satanic Verses, Younus Shaikh, the murder of Salman Taseer and the current wave of attacks? (No, don't answer my questions, please just show me a reliable that answers them.)
I think we can have a see also link to Islam and Blasphemy but connecting much of this material to this article is excessive and original research. VR talk 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Certain sections do a good job of identifying the types of people wounded or killed in the protests. I would encourage anyone who can offer greater details to include them. As an example, stating that "four people were killed" is okay, but better would be "three protesters and one bystander were killed."
I realize with a "current event" story that there is a lot of editing still to be done. For the sake of posterity (as this article will be read for years to come), I hope these details can be added as more information is learned. Jnmwiki ( talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The map should distinguish which places were experiencing peaceful protests, and which were experiencing violent events, such as this one: [7]. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a wikilink to Ban Ki-moon's statement:
"The United Nations [[Defamation of religion and the United Nations|rejects defamation of religion]] in all forms.
192.12.88.137 (
talk)
17:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I revised the article's opening sentences based on the unknown nature of the attacks in Benghazi. I also left out citations, per Wikipedia's preference. Feedback is appreciated, but I think it would be good to post soon so that folks are aware there is ongoing disagreement among legitimate sources on both sides for the genesis of the attack:
On September 11, 2012, protests began at U.S. diplomatic missions in Cairo, Egypt, and Benghazi, Libya. Sources differ as to whether the attacks in Benghazi were preplanned or spontaneous (in response to a YouTube trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims, considered blasphemous by many Muslims). The protests and attacks quickly spread across the Muslim world to additional U.S. and other countries' diplomatic missions and other locations, with issues beyond offense at the movie trailer becoming subjects of protest. Cirrus Editor ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems like that the locations of the protests are spreading and are too numerous to list all of the protests. How about we replace the list with something like "Throughout the Arab world, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium" or something along those lines? -- Luke (Talk) 23:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Video Shows Libyans Retrieving Envoy’s Body: [8] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Innocence of Muslims also has a list of protest in response to the film and this article also has a list of protest?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuanzuanfuwa ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Fresh incidents of stone pelting reported in Chennai. [1] [2] [3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTigerKing ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
References
Here is a source with an overview of the violence so far [9]. Then adding the dozen dead in Kabul attack [10] should make us uptodate for now. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The link to the September 11 2001 attacks has been removed from the 'See also' section by the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2012_Anti-Islam_film_protests&diff=512504920&oldid=512504506 That link should remain in the 'See also' section as both attacks are connected by that date.-- Rpdant767 ( talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The box on the top right has a wiki link to all the cities involved except Sydney. Ballchef ( talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The sentence states that neither the Qur'an nor Hadith condemn blasphemy. While normally I'm a stickler for avoiding primary source arguments, even a cursory search reveals references condemning blasphemy (though, to my knowledge, without specified penalty in the Qur'an, my knowledge of hadith references is deficient in this category). Yusuf Ali's translation has it the most commonly, though I am also finding references in Pickthall's translation (Arabic-speakers would be better equipped to address this in greater depth). Peter Deer ( talk) 06:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You are perfectly right. It was a borrowed statement from another source. I have changed it, but doubt that it is right. I suspect that what is in fact referred to is the representation o Muhammad as blasphemous. How do you suggest the sentence is worded? Can you fix it to something more appropriate? Amandajm ( talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This section seems tangential and frankly redundant. Not only is it immediately followed by "Background of protests" (which is quite good and strikes a balance between providing necessary information and staying within the scope of the events), but it seems to be just a summary of other, similar events like this in the past. There's no mention of relevance, and it is up to the reader to infer it. It seems like this would be better suited to a "summary"-type article that reviews events of a type, instead of an "event"-type article that seeks to provide facts specific to the current event. At best, links to these other events should be provided in the "See Also" section and the text incorporated on some other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"Blasphemy riots" is per the Christian Science Monitor, adapting to other articles already on wikipedia. We should conform to the other articles in the title so as to mirror editing which shows no such dispute. This frees the distinction of the German embassy attack, which cited the Danish cartoonist instead of Innocence of Muslims. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The lead on the Wikipedia main page is misleading according to current information. The current In the News lead-in states: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur following the release of a short film critical of Islam." Yet there is evidence from eyewitnesses to the attack and from intelligence sources that the Benghazi attacks were preplanned and coordinated. A U.S. senator has also stated that there was complicity with Libyan guards at the Consulate. See the investigation section in the article U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Perhaps change to: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur on anniversary of September 11, possibly linked to film critical of Islam and terrorist group activities." Cirrus Editor ( talk) 01:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is the renewed discussion: [11] Please Join. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Two pictures were added, and both have been removed
Reason:
Amandajm ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I get that the media narrative intends these to be viewed as one topic, but Wikipedia does not need to follow suit. The squabble over proposed titles indicates that none is entirely inclusive of all of these events. Some aren't on embassies, some aren't allegedly inspired by the YouTube clip, many aren't attacks, but protests. The largest incident section (Benghazi) starts by explicitly saying there's no real clear connection to the rest. I propose this article be split into individual articles (perhaps linked together by a Category template). It would cut down on the debate about what is relevant drastically. I apologize if this has already been proposed somewhere. InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The map of the protest locations lists Tripoli in Syria, even though it's actually in Libya. I don't know how to fix this, can someone do that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebombzen ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Should we need to mention in the article ? http://wh.gov/ZQKx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.136.115 ( talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this for now. What do people think? Apparently, there's never been a consulate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
@Myself: I tend to believe (with the little info available) there was no formal mission in Benghazi or if any, was in the process of establishment... -- E4024 ( talk) 14:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There were reports of protests in Ankara and possibly other cities in Turkey yet not even one mention of it. Turkey needs to be mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 18:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 Anti-Islam film protests – As the situation clearly changed with German and British embassies as well as restaurants coming under attack, I suggest moving this article per above. After that we can link split out into a separate article the terrorist attack in Libya. Note that most news media refer to it as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim film protests (BBC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177 AP here http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROPHET_FILM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-14-17-23-47) Merrybrit ( talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
NOTE: I created an article 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Help me move information on the terrorist attack to that article. Merrybrit ( talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This title is incredibly flawed. Suggest it be moved to Innocence of Muslims protests. SnowFire ( talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This temporary move was initially withdrawn by me (due to lack of consensus), but then carried out by an admin after more consensus towards removing "U.S." developed. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 16:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This was moved again, with no clear reason. While it was moved to the name I actually supported as a temporary name, I don't support bypassing the move process when it's clear that we don't have consensus at the moment, even for a change of that nature. Thus, I moved it back, even though I really don't like that we have "U.S." in the title. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Has everyone here forgot about WP:common name? Not a single news media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The most common ones usually go something like "Protests over anti-Islam film" or "anti-Islam film protests". Things have changed. This title needs to change too.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Several people have brought this up. Also, the NYT created a topic page for these events and calls it the "'Innocence of Muslims' Riots" [17]. My question is: should the film title be included in this article's title? How about "2012 'Innocence of Muslims' protests and attacks" or something like that? It's definitely less vague than anti-Islam protests -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
A simple search of copious anti-muslim content on YouTube proves the fallacy of "opinion-mongers" in the popular media and here in Wikipedia that these attacks were somehow justified in response to a perceived insult from a single film. "Bad old Western culture blasphemed our Prophet with this film. Please ignore all the other examples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.165.242 ( talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion was a response to the film, but it may also be a pretext for an attack on the base. I think the name of the article should be 2012 attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya (which involved al-Qaeda), and the Camp bastion attacks (which involved the Taliban). - M0rphzone ( talk) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I see people shooting random suggestions as usual, but perhaps we should approach it more systematically:
How specific or how generic should it be to clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the article (and scope of the event for that matter) while remaining neutral and factually accurate? As it is, the 3 articles on this topic (with the film itself and the attack in Libya) overlap in scope for protests, attacks, and reactions. I suggest we figure this instead of causing further confusion. Skullers ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There is definitely consensus to keep "2012" (nobody has objected to that), and there are a lot of people who want to remove "diplomatic missions" part, because those are not the only targets. There is strong consensus to not have "US" in the title, and I haven't seen any arguments to have "anti-West" in the title.
The main issues that we need to vote on are (1) type of event (attacks or protests), (2) whether or not to include the film (anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims), and (3) whether to include diplomatic missions or not.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 Islamic anti-West protests (or Muslim, whatever is the correct term). This is neutral and captures the broad scope. The attacks on the German embassy are not related to the film, but are likely inspired by the attack in Benghazi. Further, there was a report that said the attack in Benghazi was planned before the film came out. [18] [19] [20]-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's make this more organized. Here is a chart. Feel free to edit it.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Google News test" shows number of Google news results for this past week without quotation marks. If you wish to update them, click on the link next to the numbers and check if there's any difference. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources | Name of events | Links | Google News test |
---|---|---|---|
NY Times | Innocence of Muslims Riots | [28] | 19,900 [29] |
AJE | Anti-Islam Video Protests | [30] | 101,000 [31] |
RT | Arab Fall | [32] | 17,600 [33] |
BBC | Anti-Islam film protests | [34] | 113,000 [35] |
Sky News | Anti-Islam film protests | [36] | ~ |
Washington Post | Anti-American protests | [37] | 38,200 [38] |
Los Angeles Times | Anti-U.S. protests | [39] | 41,800 [40] |
CBC | Attacks at American diplomatic missions | [41] | 48,100 [42] |
CNN | protests over anti-Islam film | [43] | 115,000 [44] |
Columbia Daily Tribune | Anti-Muslim film protests | [45] | 53,500 [46] |
Analysis It looks like "anti-Islam film protests" and "protests over anti-Islam film" are the most popular terms used in the news media. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
How about we have this article's title be, September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests. All of the other proposed titles are under heavy dispute. However, what about this title? I can't see anyone disagreeing with this. The protesters and attackers believe in Islam, why can't the title be this one? Below, explain your support or oppose statement. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
We need to change the title of this article to, say, 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks as German embassy in Sudan was set on fire and British embassy in Sudan was attacked as well. Merrybrit ( talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Not a single media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The protests and attacks are clearly related and belong in the same article. Something like "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is much better. Take a look at 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:FORUM-rant |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please indicate which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are alleged to be at issue here. This may be a rant, but it is also a legitimate discussion of the article title. — Cupco 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
|
This is a very general article. Not everyone agrees that the film alone caused this unrest. Not all forms of unrest were violent. It seems pretty clear that this particular unrest should be distinguished from that in China against the Japanese. Per the LA Times and NY Times, perhaps Islamic unrest is the right generality to use. Therefore I offer the title of "September 2012 Islamic unrest"
I can anticipate that a few people may feel unease about this particular wording, however, it does seem clear that none of the activism, peaceful or violent, has been initiated by any other religious group, and that the admirable multi-cultural aspect of Islam has caused this phenomenon to transcend any racial or national generalities one may succinctly delineate.
There is a strong possibility that any title which does not include the word "attack" will find some uncompromising disfavor. I am not opposed to an article which devotes itself to the attacks which were the result of this unrest and that article, I think, would be free to pursue much more detail.
One may also note a small potential fallacy I have committed, in not implying that any unrest that may or may not have arisen directly from the film, an exception to the rule, does not disprove the rule. However, "Islamic unrest" is still descriptive, and a far better descriptor than "attacks" as there was a wide range of response and other causes of unrest have been cited in specific situations.
I should admit my own bias and declare that I am American, and an atheist, formerly a Christian. What's important to me is that we reach a compromise which describes the general phenomenon as accurately as possible. I invite all commentary. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This was an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia needs to honestly document events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
A moot point now, but this move would not fit our naming style for events of this type. We rarely if ever name the perpetrators in the title, and unless there is a separate rash of diplomatic mission attacks, adding Islamic Terrorists into it would do nothing to disambiguate it. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues! 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A spin-off from this article was created for the protests in Sydney. At the discussion for merging that spin-off back into this article, one user correctly noted that the spin-off article was not a diplomatic attack, only a protest and a riot.
So if the current name sticks, other users too, will have cause to move content about protests that didn't attack diplomatic missions into separate articles. VR talk 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubtcoachdoubtcoach ( talk) 05:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - any such change would be very out of line, considering that our sources tell us that the movie is only being used a pretense for these attacks. Besides that, this particular suggestion is just a lousy name. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This disscussion is a mess, but I took the time to read it and count the votes. Here's what I got. You're welcome to update it if necessary. Important note: this summary does not include votes cast for the temporary move (removing “US” from title), which has already been implemented. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Results last updated by: JC · Talk · Contributions 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Position | Votes | Names |
---|---|---|
Support for “2012 Anti-Islam film protests” | 9 | Merrybrit, 2001:db8, VR, Wikieditoroftoday, Kashmiri, Hasdi Bravo, Skycycle, Mohamed CJ, FutureTrillionaire |
Support for inclusion of “Innocence of Muslims” in title | 5 | Skullers, SnowFire, hydrox, M0rphzone, ypnypn |
Oppose to further title change/support current title | 9 | Rpdant767, Cupco, Toa Nidhiki05, Activism1234, |
Support for inclusion of “Anti-West[ern]” in title | 2 | Metallurgist, WikiSkeptic |
Other suggestions (look for their comments above for more info) | 2 | Kerfuffler, JCRules ( See here) |
Conclusion: No consensus