![]() | 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 |
Here is the results of the move request discussion: [1] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
lem with duplicate information. That may be trimmed down as the phenomenon becomes clearer. There should be no problem with including information about protests of all kinds there since some protests were violent and some were not. A fork of some type is the only practical solution to intractible opposition to having an all inclusive article here under a name which does not create apparent bias that all this activity is an attack on an embassy. Further I certainly declare that any opinion which does not immediately address this glaring sensationalization should not even be considered "consensus". It makes no observable effort as such. Continuing to offer "September 2012 Islamic/Muslim unrest" as a more general alternative that takes into account observations that not all unrest had the film as a motive. Also offering "September 2012 global unrest" to include nationalist Chinese protests and riots as well and to avoid any appearance of anti-Muslim bias. The measure on the table, however, seems an acceptable and workable compromise. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, strongly!
Comment on the content, not the contributor
WP:Personal
|
---|
|
The proposed title is misleading. Not simply wrong in having a capital A for anti, but wrong in the implications that it carries.
Well, this may be moot, since some other editor has decided to ignore the talk page discussion and move all the information to the Innocence of Muslims page. Where they're actively talking about removing all protest information on the talk page. *headdesk* —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
10:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - While some protesters and attackers make a mention of this film, our more reliable sources, those who have actually explored the issues and provided analysis, have told us that the film is being used more as a pretense, that there are actual substantive issues involved beyond just this film, and the initial timing of these various attacks and protests was impossible to mistake for a random response to a film that had been floating around the internet for some time. As Hasdi mentions above, we have a film page and the kind of information can be included in a "reactions" section. Like User:2001:db8, I believe that this page could be renamed in such a way to cover more of the overall unrest and actions, if we can reliably cover what is going on. Most of the media is into very simplistic and shallow explanations or very black vs white type analysis. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Eyewitnesses to the event and intelligence sources indicate the attack in Benghazi was a premeditated and coordinated assault, possibly with the collusion of Libyan security guards. Not simply a protest about a 15-minute clip of a film posted on YouTube. Also, there is new information from a DHS report indicating that there may have been a call to attack the embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Cirrus Editor ( talk) 10:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I see this as a dubious way to skirt around the outcome of the move request. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's becoming more obvious that many/most of the protests have much more behind them than a cheesy youtube trailer. There is no need to attribute a motive for the protests in the title of this article, or bypassing the previous no consensus and making a POV fork. First Light ( talk) 18:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose All the events are somewhat related. It's too difficult to split and differentiate the catalyst for each, without mentioning the other. The proposed title would be misleading. PoizonMyst ( talk) 23:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Per earlier discussions (and to keep the renaming discussions of this page as sane as possible) I can withdraw my split proposal IF I can update "
2012 Anti-Islam film protests" to redirect to "
Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" instead of this page. No objections, yes?
—
Hasdi Bravo •
04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is extremely swung to the white house narrative and is not so much as even mentioning the fact that for 10 days many mainstream and Fox news programs have run on the basis that the Libyan attack was a planned measure and even went as far as to cite Al Qaeda as the attack was retribution for killing their senior leader. This article seems to be pushing the 'verifiability' aspect selectively and not dealing with a sizable portion of the populace which believes this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. I'm not going to say one view or the other view is the 'truth', but in light of the White House's formal declaration, the view consistently held by many conservative and objective media outlets have some presence here. Even the Vatican called it as such on Sept 13. See here. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
LogicalCreator, it sounds like you are claiming that the US Executive Branch has complete control over freedom of speech and press in the United States. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html for the details of how the U.S. official position has transitioned from initially explaining the attacks as solely an outgrowth of the film trailer protests, and now as a coordinated effort involving a Libyan politician. — Cupco 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Both the White House and the Pentagon are now unequivocally calling the attacks "terrorism." The Washington Post has a timeline of the evolving positions, saying, "For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi. Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation. Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly. On Wednesday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged also that Obama himself believes the attack was terrorism...."
I'm not sure I agree with the cynical explanation that it was strictly political cover, primarily because everyone was confused about what was going on, and that confusion multiplied because the Copts were blaming the film on Jews. The real question is how much the attackers had anything to do with fomenting the protests. Some of the people who promoted the video in the weeks before the attacks have been associated with radical Sufism. — Cupco 21:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion archived by User:Hasdi [7] on 2 October. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
2012 diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks – Clarity. WikiSkeptic ( talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Every other wiki is currently identifying this phenomenon, correctly, as anti-American in scope. Any cursory review of the talk history shows consensus developing for the above topic, followed by one (1) kneejerk Brit response, 'hey, I'm not American,' leading to subsequent kneejerk bleeding heart US American liberals shedding tears that oh god, this must be an 'international' attack, which is BS. The Japanese agree this is anti-American. The Chinese agree this is anti-US. The French, the Russians, the Spanish, the Simpler English speakers, so on and so on. It's time to the face the tough truth. This was an anti-American phenomenon.
WikiSkeptic (
talk)
00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would Anti Islamic film protests and attacks be a reasonably-sufficiently all inclusive title? OrangesRyellow ( talk) 06:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently some editors don't want to include the "Other related attacks" section, which included info about the attacks in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Israeli border, all of which were reported to be inspired by the video. I know what the current title of this article is, but it's disputed. These non-diplomatic missions attacks are clearly related to the other attacks. They are all part of the larger reaction to the Anti-Islam video, fueled by various reasons. Until we get a consensus here, the status quo remains.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The large map refers to protests not even mentioned in this article. Batu Caves? There is no argument to retain material that is not part of the article. I have removed places not mentioned in the article. WWGB ( talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that contents to be reorganized into 3 major pages:
Thoughts welcome. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So, do we need to formally propose a Page Move to retitle this? Or did we just establish consensus here? Any objectors out there? InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The current type of infobox being used is an attack infobox. Not all reactions to the film were violent attacks, which is why I wanted to name the title of the infobox "Attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims". That title more accurate describes the infobox. The title of the infobox and the article don't have to match. If we want to title it the same as the article title, then we should use a different infobox template, specifically the one designed for protests. See the one used for 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There are arguments made that the protests on September 11, 2012 were related to more than the Innocence of Muslims video. For example, here: [8]
I propose to make the title to this article more general: Protests on September 11, 2012. Myster Black ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the main article? "Inaccurate at best" is your opinion. The article itself states Cairo was the origin of the events. Is it not relevant that this most prominent protest of all was potentially planned before the trailer to the movie was released? Myster Black ( talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 108.233.89.73 ( talk) 14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone created a user named "Helen Celeste" and apparently used that username to make changes just to this article. There is currently no user page or talk page available for that user.
I have reverted those changes, because they substantially changed the lede to be about the Benghazi attacks. There is a separate article on that subject. The version which I reverted to mentions the Benghazi attacks and addresses the disputed question of the role of the Innocence of Muslims video in that attack, using reliable sources. Some additional detail on that question could arguably be added to the lede, but it should not distract from the main purpose of this article, which is to describe the various reactions to the video that occurred over a period of weeks following its release. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Even the mainstream (including the White House Press) is now in general agreement that this was a separate, coincidental event which has virtually nothing to do with Innocence of Muslims (which has become the de facto common thread tying this article together). It has its own separate enormous article, and is no longer relevant here, in light of multiple reliable sources since it was added. So I'm getting rid of it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think one third of the lead is a bit much emphasis on something we're trying to explain isn't related to the article's topic. Undue weight, for sure. It'd be like explaining in Bill Clinton's lead how he didn't murder anyone. I suggest this goes in a "Libya" subsection of Diplomatic Missions. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
That's much better, I think. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Even better. InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I have boldly made a change to how the Benghazi attack is presented in the lead, too make it conform better to current knowledge. There are actually three separate elements of the controversy over how the Benghazi attack was initially characterized. Was the attack (1) spontaneous or was the attack (2) premeditated, and was the attack (3) motivated by the video. The concepts of "spontaneous attack" and "motivated by video" seem to have become conflated to such an extent that they are viewed as synonymous in some people's minds and it would be helpful if the article could parse this out a bit (without doing OR or POV). Evidence from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times) indicates that the attackers stated to eyewitnesses that they were acting in response to the video, and also that advance planning for the attack most likely occurred and that there were no spontaneous protests taking place immediately prior to the attack. There are at least a couple of New York Times articles that support these facts, and there also may be other reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I restored info about Benghazi to the lead, based on info from reliable sources, e.g. The New York Times. Made some minor modifications to what had been there previously. Apparently someone removed this info, but did not explain why on the Talk page. Since numerous eyewitnesses reported that the attackers said they were acting in response to the video and since the spokesman for the attacking group stated the following day that it was in response to the video, it seems to make sense to at least mention the attack here in the lead. I also included a sentence about the political controversy in the US over the role of the video in the attack. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Restoring info in the lede about the Benghazi attack. The info is based on highly reliable sources which are cited properly. Yet another more recent reliable source article (an in depth analysis by the New York Times) supports that the video did play a role in the initial attack: "The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras." http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 17:35, 22 January 2014 (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 |
Here is the results of the move request discussion: [1] -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
lem with duplicate information. That may be trimmed down as the phenomenon becomes clearer. There should be no problem with including information about protests of all kinds there since some protests were violent and some were not. A fork of some type is the only practical solution to intractible opposition to having an all inclusive article here under a name which does not create apparent bias that all this activity is an attack on an embassy. Further I certainly declare that any opinion which does not immediately address this glaring sensationalization should not even be considered "consensus". It makes no observable effort as such. Continuing to offer "September 2012 Islamic/Muslim unrest" as a more general alternative that takes into account observations that not all unrest had the film as a motive. Also offering "September 2012 global unrest" to include nationalist Chinese protests and riots as well and to avoid any appearance of anti-Muslim bias. The measure on the table, however, seems an acceptable and workable compromise. ClaudeReigns ( talk) 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, strongly!
Comment on the content, not the contributor
WP:Personal
|
---|
|
The proposed title is misleading. Not simply wrong in having a capital A for anti, but wrong in the implications that it carries.
Well, this may be moot, since some other editor has decided to ignore the talk page discussion and move all the information to the Innocence of Muslims page. Where they're actively talking about removing all protest information on the talk page. *headdesk* —
Kerfuffler
harass
stalk
10:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - While some protesters and attackers make a mention of this film, our more reliable sources, those who have actually explored the issues and provided analysis, have told us that the film is being used more as a pretense, that there are actual substantive issues involved beyond just this film, and the initial timing of these various attacks and protests was impossible to mistake for a random response to a film that had been floating around the internet for some time. As Hasdi mentions above, we have a film page and the kind of information can be included in a "reactions" section. Like User:2001:db8, I believe that this page could be renamed in such a way to cover more of the overall unrest and actions, if we can reliably cover what is going on. Most of the media is into very simplistic and shallow explanations or very black vs white type analysis. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Eyewitnesses to the event and intelligence sources indicate the attack in Benghazi was a premeditated and coordinated assault, possibly with the collusion of Libyan security guards. Not simply a protest about a 15-minute clip of a film posted on YouTube. Also, there is new information from a DHS report indicating that there may have been a call to attack the embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Cirrus Editor ( talk) 10:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I see this as a dubious way to skirt around the outcome of the move request. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It's becoming more obvious that many/most of the protests have much more behind them than a cheesy youtube trailer. There is no need to attribute a motive for the protests in the title of this article, or bypassing the previous no consensus and making a POV fork. First Light ( talk) 18:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose All the events are somewhat related. It's too difficult to split and differentiate the catalyst for each, without mentioning the other. The proposed title would be misleading. PoizonMyst ( talk) 23:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Per earlier discussions (and to keep the renaming discussions of this page as sane as possible) I can withdraw my split proposal IF I can update "
2012 Anti-Islam film protests" to redirect to "
Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" instead of this page. No objections, yes?
—
Hasdi Bravo •
04:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is extremely swung to the white house narrative and is not so much as even mentioning the fact that for 10 days many mainstream and Fox news programs have run on the basis that the Libyan attack was a planned measure and even went as far as to cite Al Qaeda as the attack was retribution for killing their senior leader. This article seems to be pushing the 'verifiability' aspect selectively and not dealing with a sizable portion of the populace which believes this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. I'm not going to say one view or the other view is the 'truth', but in light of the White House's formal declaration, the view consistently held by many conservative and objective media outlets have some presence here. Even the Vatican called it as such on Sept 13. See here. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
LogicalCreator, it sounds like you are claiming that the US Executive Branch has complete control over freedom of speech and press in the United States. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html for the details of how the U.S. official position has transitioned from initially explaining the attacks as solely an outgrowth of the film trailer protests, and now as a coordinated effort involving a Libyan politician. — Cupco 18:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Both the White House and the Pentagon are now unequivocally calling the attacks "terrorism." The Washington Post has a timeline of the evolving positions, saying, "For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi. Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation. Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly. On Wednesday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged also that Obama himself believes the attack was terrorism...."
I'm not sure I agree with the cynical explanation that it was strictly political cover, primarily because everyone was confused about what was going on, and that confusion multiplied because the Copts were blaming the film on Jews. The real question is how much the attackers had anything to do with fomenting the protests. Some of the people who promoted the video in the weeks before the attacks have been associated with radical Sufism. — Cupco 21:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion archived by User:Hasdi [7] on 2 October. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
2012 diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks – Clarity. WikiSkeptic ( talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Every other wiki is currently identifying this phenomenon, correctly, as anti-American in scope. Any cursory review of the talk history shows consensus developing for the above topic, followed by one (1) kneejerk Brit response, 'hey, I'm not American,' leading to subsequent kneejerk bleeding heart US American liberals shedding tears that oh god, this must be an 'international' attack, which is BS. The Japanese agree this is anti-American. The Chinese agree this is anti-US. The French, the Russians, the Spanish, the Simpler English speakers, so on and so on. It's time to the face the tough truth. This was an anti-American phenomenon.
WikiSkeptic (
talk)
00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Would Anti Islamic film protests and attacks be a reasonably-sufficiently all inclusive title? OrangesRyellow ( talk) 06:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently some editors don't want to include the "Other related attacks" section, which included info about the attacks in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Israeli border, all of which were reported to be inspired by the video. I know what the current title of this article is, but it's disputed. These non-diplomatic missions attacks are clearly related to the other attacks. They are all part of the larger reaction to the Anti-Islam video, fueled by various reasons. Until we get a consensus here, the status quo remains.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The large map refers to protests not even mentioned in this article. Batu Caves? There is no argument to retain material that is not part of the article. I have removed places not mentioned in the article. WWGB ( talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that contents to be reorganized into 3 major pages:
Thoughts welcome. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So, do we need to formally propose a Page Move to retitle this? Or did we just establish consensus here? Any objectors out there? InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The current type of infobox being used is an attack infobox. Not all reactions to the film were violent attacks, which is why I wanted to name the title of the infobox "Attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims". That title more accurate describes the infobox. The title of the infobox and the article don't have to match. If we want to title it the same as the article title, then we should use a different infobox template, specifically the one designed for protests. See the one used for 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There are arguments made that the protests on September 11, 2012 were related to more than the Innocence of Muslims video. For example, here: [8]
I propose to make the title to this article more general: Protests on September 11, 2012. Myster Black ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the main article? "Inaccurate at best" is your opinion. The article itself states Cairo was the origin of the events. Is it not relevant that this most prominent protest of all was potentially planned before the trailer to the movie was released? Myster Black ( talk) 14:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 108.233.89.73 ( talk) 14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone created a user named "Helen Celeste" and apparently used that username to make changes just to this article. There is currently no user page or talk page available for that user.
I have reverted those changes, because they substantially changed the lede to be about the Benghazi attacks. There is a separate article on that subject. The version which I reverted to mentions the Benghazi attacks and addresses the disputed question of the role of the Innocence of Muslims video in that attack, using reliable sources. Some additional detail on that question could arguably be added to the lede, but it should not distract from the main purpose of this article, which is to describe the various reactions to the video that occurred over a period of weeks following its release. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Even the mainstream (including the White House Press) is now in general agreement that this was a separate, coincidental event which has virtually nothing to do with Innocence of Muslims (which has become the de facto common thread tying this article together). It has its own separate enormous article, and is no longer relevant here, in light of multiple reliable sources since it was added. So I'm getting rid of it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think one third of the lead is a bit much emphasis on something we're trying to explain isn't related to the article's topic. Undue weight, for sure. It'd be like explaining in Bill Clinton's lead how he didn't murder anyone. I suggest this goes in a "Libya" subsection of Diplomatic Missions. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
That's much better, I think. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Even better. InedibleHulk ( talk) 19:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I have boldly made a change to how the Benghazi attack is presented in the lead, too make it conform better to current knowledge. There are actually three separate elements of the controversy over how the Benghazi attack was initially characterized. Was the attack (1) spontaneous or was the attack (2) premeditated, and was the attack (3) motivated by the video. The concepts of "spontaneous attack" and "motivated by video" seem to have become conflated to such an extent that they are viewed as synonymous in some people's minds and it would be helpful if the article could parse this out a bit (without doing OR or POV). Evidence from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times) indicates that the attackers stated to eyewitnesses that they were acting in response to the video, and also that advance planning for the attack most likely occurred and that there were no spontaneous protests taking place immediately prior to the attack. There are at least a couple of New York Times articles that support these facts, and there also may be other reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I restored info about Benghazi to the lead, based on info from reliable sources, e.g. The New York Times. Made some minor modifications to what had been there previously. Apparently someone removed this info, but did not explain why on the Talk page. Since numerous eyewitnesses reported that the attackers said they were acting in response to the video and since the spokesman for the attacking group stated the following day that it was in response to the video, it seems to make sense to at least mention the attack here in the lead. I also included a sentence about the political controversy in the US over the role of the video in the attack. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Restoring info in the lede about the Benghazi attack. The info is based on highly reliable sources which are cited properly. Yet another more recent reliable source article (an in depth analysis by the New York Times) supports that the video did play a role in the initial attack: "The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras." http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)