Misplaced Pages

Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:59, 4 July 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive 4) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:07, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,815,308 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB 
(12 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old XfD multi |date=1 June 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=Reactions to Innocence of Muslims}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 9: Line 10:
|archive = Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
⚫ {{Afd-merged-from|Love Our Prophet|Love Our Prophet|22 November 2012}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
⚫ {{ITN talk|September 17|2012|oldid=511998762}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Mid|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Africa |importance=Mid |Egypt=yes |Egypt-importance=Mid |Libya=yes |Libya-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Africa |class=C |importance=Mid {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
|Egypt=yes |Egypt-importance=Mid {{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
|Libya=yes |Libya-importance=Mid }} {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Mid {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid|Social movements=yes}}
|USGov=yes |USGov-importance=Mid }} {{WikiProject United States |importance=Mid |USGov=yes |USGov-importance=Mid}}
}} }}
⚫ {{afd-merged-from|Love Our Prophet|Love Our Prophet|22 November 2012}}
⚫ {{ITN talk|September 17|2012|oldid=511998762}}

== Removing Benghazi ==

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. ] (]) 21:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:We may want to have small section to say that the Benghazi attack was initially attributed to the film but was later retracted. Everything else must go. — ''']''' &bull; 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
::A ''brief'' mention of that would be fine by me. ] (]) 00:21, 3 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 . I suggest this goes in a "Libya" subsection of Diplomatic Missions. ] (]) 02:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hmm... I could probably cut it down further, but the undue weight can be alleviated by expanding the lede (third paragraph and beyond) to cover other protests and also the events the lead up to the mob attack in Cairo. Even though Benghazi attack is unrelated, the incident is heavily cited as a response to the film in early news reporting. Right or wrong, mob attacks and demonstration at other diplomatic facilities used the incident in both Egypt and Libya to evangelize the protestors. In reality, Cairo is the point of origin of the major protests, not Benghazi. What do you think? — ''']''' &bull; 16:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
::I think Cairo (and to a slightly lesser extent, Sana'a) was certainly the spark that got the story buzzing, so should be in the lead. No other events strike me as leadworthy. Benghazi certainly '''was''' heavily cited, but that information is now outdated and contradicted (like Saddam Hussein's "links" to dead newborns, 9/11 and WMD). The article is largely ''based on'' news reports, but it's not ''about'' them. Perhaps we could have a "Media Reaction" section and move it there? ] (]) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:Under the Benghazi article, there is already a section "''Investigation (government, intelligence, and news sources)''" for this. For this article, we need a brief mention of the initial mass reporting that both Cairo and Benghazi were prompted by the film on 9/11. The protest in Sana'a and others happened two days later. Hindsight being 20/20, we now know better that the Benghazi attack is unrelated, but back then it didn't stop the protests to snowball from both incidents. The main thing is a lot of people still think otherwise, so we at least have to mention this in lede for the next few weeks or so. After that, it can be a footnote. — ''']''' &bull; 02:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:*Ok, we can remove the second paragraph if we can briefly mention the Benghazi in the first. Savvy? — ''']''' &bull; 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:*:<div style="border: dashed 1px blue; padding:10px; ">On September 11, 2012, the ] in ] was mobbed by protestors; a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the ] to replace it with a ]. This incident (and the coinciding ] that was later determined by U.S. intelligence as not prompted by the film) marked the beginning of a series of violent and non-violent protests outside U.S. and other ] diplomatic facilities across the world, apparently in response to an ] online video known as '']''. However, other underlying issues of discontent have fueled both protest and violence in some countries, and expanded to other Western-related locations. The protests that continued in the ensuing weeks resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries.</div>
That's much better, I think. ] (]) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:I agree. --] (]) 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:*Guys, I did something that I believe will accomplish the above with less words AND have the additional explanation in a footnote. Check out the article now and let me know what you think. {{Smiley|grin}} — ''']''' &bull; 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:*:<div style="border: dashed 1px blue; padding:10px;">On September 11, 2012, the ] in ] was mobbed by protestors, apparently in response to an ] online video known as '']''. A group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the ] to replace it with a ]. This incident, and the ] on the U.S. ] in ] that was widely misreported<sup></sup> as a similar reaction to the film, launched a series of demonstrations outside U.S. and other ] diplomatic facilities across the world. Although, other underlying issues of discontent have fueled the protests in some countries. The protests that continued in the ensuing weeks also expanded to other Western-related locations, some of which turned violent, resulting in dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries.</div>
Even better. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

::::The report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 15, 2014 took 16 months, and the bi-partisan finding on this matter clearly states that the video played no part in the Benghazi attack. See p. 32 ff of the report. Chairman Issa (R-CA) states that many administration career professionals stated under oath that "there was no evidence of any kind of reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That's the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath." The ARB Report from State Department released Dec. 20, 2012 found: "The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks...." In sum: there is no dispute from U.S. government sources. There was no protest about a video prior to the attack. Based on this information, I'm reverting the edits made by PeaceLoveHarmony to the lede. -- ] (]) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::There are two separate issues that are not mutually exclusive:
:::::(1) Anger over the video and the extent to which it motivated both the initial attackers and the mob of looters and arsonists who showed up later and
:::::(2) whether or not protesters were present at the scene prior to when the militia first attacked.
:::::The links you provide (with the exception of Issa's TV interview) only address the second question; there was no protest prior to the attack. This is not contradicted by the text which you reverted. There are reliable sources that state the attack was motivated by anger over the video. This is an ongoing dispute and we should present a balanced view of what reliable sources are saying. The YouTube video that you linked (of the highly-partisan Mr. Issa on a TV talk show expressing his own characterization of the committee's investigation) is a reliable source that documents his opinion, but multiple articles from the New York Times that cite interviews with eyewitnesses are also reliable sources.
:::::I have not reverted your edit, but have modified it to reflect what is in the official government sources you provided (i.e. investigations concluded no protest was present) and incorporated it into the previous version. I reviewed these sources and they do not address the issue of the extent to which anger over the video motivated the initial attackers, nor if such anger motivated the mob that arrived later. So, the statement, "Later investigations by the U.S. government confirmed that this attack was not in reaction to the video", is not supported by the sources that were provided.
:::::Thank you for your input and I look forward to continue working with you to improve this article to reflect the current information that is available from reliable sources. ] (]) 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


== What is the purpose of this article? == == What is the purpose of this article? ==
Line 76: Line 42:
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} {{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 11:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 11:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


== Misleading beginning of entry. === == Misleading beginning of entry. ===
Line 101: Line 67:


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

== Off-topic and unclear connection to topic ==

I came across this article by accident, nowhere in the lead is any connection to ''Innocence of Muslims'' established and half the content seems to have no connection ... or if there is a connection, it isn't made clear. ] (]) 20:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

:Read the lede? This article is chronicling protests against the film. The 'connection' is that the protesters didn't like it. What exactly is unclear about that? (Serious question, not a trolly one.) ] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:07, 12 November 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reactions to Innocence of Muslims article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Love Our Prophet was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
In the newsA news item involving Reactions to Innocence of Muslims was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 September 2012.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAfrica: Egypt / Libya Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Egypt (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

What is the purpose of this article?

This article by its content and timing appears to be nothing more than "anti-propaganda" propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleywolfe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire article should be summarily deleted...it is meaningless and just propaganda. A bunch of Muslims get angry over a youtube video (reportedly) lol....should that justify an encyclopedia article? How completely ridiculous. Lets have an article citing every place on earth people get mad over racism, or homophobia, or atheism, or name your religion. Every day there is a protest somewhere, people get mad over stuff...whoopdee doo, to think that justifies a sourced article is blithering stupidity. Lets make an article citing all "Black Lives matter" protests in the United States...every single one of them. Really? Welcome to planet earth...welcome to humanity...full of angry people, on a daily basis. Remove this article from Misplaced Pages, it has no rational purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.14.9 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Danleywolfe and 73.157.14.9 have it right. This is the worst of Misplaced Pages. 2.50.17.144 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 11:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Misleading beginning of entry. =

. ==

The edit of Oct 8th 2106 seems to be a "hack" of the article. The grammar is wrong but so is the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.252.209 (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Reactions to Innocence of Muslims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic and unclear connection to topic

I came across this article by accident, nowhere in the lead is any connection to Innocence of Muslims established and half the content seems to have no connection ... or if there is a connection, it isn't made clear. Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the lede? This article is chronicling protests against the film. The 'connection' is that the protesters didn't like it. What exactly is unclear about that? (Serious question, not a trolly one.) SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories: