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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:38, 12 September 2012 edit2001:db8 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,935 edits Issues← Previous edit Revision as of 19:39, 12 September 2012 edit undoLihaas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users77,615 edits IssuesNext edit →
Line 95: Line 95:
# notable in terms of where us operations are based. For researchers thats adding to AFRICOM. # notable in terms of where us operations are based. For researchers thats adding to AFRICOM.
# VANDALISM # VANDALISM
# you cant change a WUPTE # you cant change a QUOTE
#nrestored to mine, but other was better. #restored to mine, but other was better.
# reflinks and single sentence para
# OR, he clearly did not AMAKE the movie
# inclined to clear vandalism, but agf. What does games have to do with this?
# quotes not in itlaics for UNDUE
# ol for redirect



:Sorry to interrupt your in-progress listing of diffs, but I'm confused what scouring through diffs that often *don't even apply to the article anymore* accomplishes. If there are specific issues, they should be brought up. If something's broken, you can always edit it rather than pasting a diff that may have been further edited. Obviously there will be issues in the process of editing an article, particularly a breaking news article. The current version is what's important. – ] (] | ]) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC) :Sorry to interrupt your in-progress listing of diffs, but I'm confused what scouring through diffs that often *don't even apply to the article anymore* accomplishes. If there are specific issues, they should be brought up. If something's broken, you can always edit it rather than pasting a diff that may have been further edited. Obviously there will be issues in the process of editing an article, particularly a breaking news article. The current version is what's important. – ] (] | ]) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:39, 12 September 2012

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, 4
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEgypt Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFilm
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

{{WikiProject Africa|class=B|Libya=yes|Libya-importance=High}}

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconInternational relations
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Reactions to Innocence of Muslims be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Upload

Format the article as a battle rather than a terrorist attack

It seems that because of the involvement of security forces, American military and officials, and organized militant groups, this article could be formatted as a battle (or skirmish) with opposing sides rather than an attack with perpetrators. There have been reports that Libyan police may have been killed by the militants, which would additionally support this event as a skirmish between militants, security forces, and Americans in the broader context of the aftermath of the Arab Spring and Libyan civil war. Z.graber (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Raphel Pakistan 1988 is the last US Amb killed/who died mysteriously in the line of duty.

Meros Felsenmaus (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Source?Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence not clear

What is the intended meaning of this sentence?

"In Benghazi, Libya, RPGs were fired at the consulate from a nearby far result in the death of the visiting Ambassador Christopher Stevens from smoke inhalation, two US Marines, an additional unknown staff member and injuries to two others."

KConWiki (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

fixed,  Done(Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).

Blowback

I believe this is relevant as a see also (obviously not in the article as that could be OR/Synthesis). Based on the discussion at ITNC as the "unintended consequences" of the civil war.(Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).

It's obvious, but of course, there should be sources for it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
true, but thats why "see also" and not cited as fact of itself. no?Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I wouldn't be surprised is someone tried to remove it afterwards, and we wouldn't be able to defend inclusion then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mobs

Not sure the word is pov. Its defined as an unruly crowd and it did get violent. Per thisLihaas (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mob action or coordinated attacks?

The possibility of coordinated attacks is now being investigated per. As I have some issues with Politico as a reliable source, I don't intend to add this to the article unless it is confirmed. —Cupco 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Name (drop the date)

I think we should drop the date (but not the year) from the name. Including the date makes it seem like this was planned for the anniversary of 9/11. What I've read about it instead says that this film was translated into Arabic just a few days ago. I think Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions also supports using just the year.--Chaser (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the date should be dropped, unless/until there are other attacks on other dates that this event could be confused with.
Relating to the name, should there be a double plural in the title? ("missions attacks") Shouldn't it just be "missions attack" or mission attacks"? 331dot (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
there are 2 missions and thus 2 attacks.
Though, as somoene having created other such articles, WP convention would be okey in removing the date without the year
 Done(Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)).
I realize that, but I'm not sure if both words need to be plural, I think only one does. Could be wrong, but it seems awkward the way it is now.331dot (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It is awkward, but correct. "Diplomatic mission attacks" would suggest one mission was attacked multiple times, and "diplomatic missions attack" would suggest that it was a single coordinated assault, which it doesn't appear to have been (other than the same film causing both initial protests.) I guess "diplomatic mission attacks" would be okay, but it's less accurate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Libyan Dead

Apparently, there was a news conference in Libya recently that stated that 10 police were also killed in the attacks. This should be noted. This would raise the death toll to 14. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

source?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues

This article is missing information about Error: you must specify what information is missing.. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.
  1. is not from the wikilink, but a quote from the source
  2. notable enough for a wikipage is notable. Further a prospective candidate influences decision makigng via popular opinion
  3. not notable? really? if you want to change reaction lists across WP, then get a wider consenssu.
  4. needs copyedit as in quotation marks closed and then repened without anything in th emiddle.
  5. per above, removes consistent format
  6. "spome" is vague
  7. not sur e why..
  8. ditto
  9. censoreD? its in the source.
  10. GOOD, but wrong place.
  11. original is more neutral than "american" flag.
  12. verification to ource.
  13. context per the others in the "background section"
  14. minor grammar
  15. still a 9/11 attack
  16. engvar
  17. minor but to remove with other readdition as then overlink.
  18. copyvio, hence i changed wording.
  19. colon after "Scrawled"
  20. 110% relevant to the context of the new ME.
  21. umm, the article already says/said there has not been a screening.
  22. minor ", and"
  23. ] sourced removal for speculation. We have a susperps in the infobocx
  24. engvar and removal
  25. p believed by who is vague.
  26. npov with summary and removed source
  27. then reword dont remove it. Nothign wrong ther either.
  28. and the user follows with this????
  29. vague and engvar
  30. minor, not arabic
  31. notable in terms of where us operations are based. For researchers thats adding to AFRICOM.
  32. VANDALISM
  33. you cant change a QUOTE
  34. restored to mine, but other was better.
  35. reflinks and single sentence para
  36. OR, he clearly did not AMAKE the movie
  37. inclined to clear vandalism, but agf. What does games have to do with this?
  38. quotes not in itlaics for UNDUE
  39. ol for redirect


Sorry to interrupt your in-progress listing of diffs, but I'm confused what scouring through diffs that often *don't even apply to the article anymore* accomplishes. If there are specific issues, they should be brought up. If something's broken, you can always edit it rather than pasting a diff that may have been further edited. Obviously there will be issues in the process of editing an article, particularly a breaking news article. The current version is what's important. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, these are issues and i dont want to edit war.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss any edits, I'm just confused because many of these are minor edits and often don't exist on the page anymore. It's just hard to discuss them when it's a long list of slow-loading diffs, many of which are obsolete, and many of which seem to be over trivial issues. I'm sure you have valid points in there, it's just hard to find them because it's a decent bit of effort to load every diff then check the page to see if it's still valid...and I suspect most other people aren't going to do that either. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Time of the attack

There is still no information in the article about when both attacks took place, if some when has some information about the local time during which they took place, please add the information.--Kimdime (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

article says/said Libya was in the evening.Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: