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 21:32, 2 October 2012 editInedibleHulk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users127,280 edits →Removing Benghazi: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 21:53, 2 October 2012 edit undoInedibleHulk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users127,280 edits →Reorganization proposalNext edit →
Line 193: Line 193:
:::Sounds good to me. ] (]) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC) :::Sounds good to me. ] (]) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Fine with me. --] (]) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC) :::Fine with me. --] (]) 20:27, 2 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? ] (]) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


== Removing Benghazi == == Removing Benghazi ==

Revision as of 21:53, 2 October 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, 4Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
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: 14 days 
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 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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).
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

Finally! "Summary of opinions" for the title move request

Here is the results of the move request discussion: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 18 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.

Proposal to split off 2012 Anti-Islam film protests

No consensus (on the move request). Great. I move motion to fork 2012 Anti-Islam film protests from 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Any seconds? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
There may be some overlap but I estimate about 80% of the content in 2012 diplomatic missions attacks will be gone (and can be re-expand to include other attacks to diplomatic missions that are unrelated to the film). We can start by nuking the "Protest" section. — Hasdi Bravo • 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have no prob

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)

If choosing September 2012 global unrest, add 2012 Catalan independence demonstration

Oppose, strongly!

Comment on the content, not the contributor WP:Personal
  • No, Hasdi Bravo, despite your choice of bold case, you are a very minor contributor. In fact, your major contribution since you joined Misplaced Pages is to push for the moves of contentious articles.
  • No, DavidK93, you have added not one single jot to this article that I can find, to indicate that you know anything about the subject. You have just popped up out of nowhere to second something.

The proposed title is misleading. Not simply wrong in having a capital A for anti, but wrong in the implications that it carries.

It is not clear in the proposed title that the expression "anti-Islam" is being used in the sense of an adjective to describe the film itself.
Neither is it clear that the three words "anti-Islam film" are being used to define the words "protest" .
It is simply horribly bad, jargonist, journalistic abbreviated writing. Like the heading in a really badly written rag of a newspaper, not like the heading in an encyclopaedia. We are writing an encyclopedia.
Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

  • Comment. Did the attack occur during the protests? or did the protests occur during the attack? The title tells me the later (i.e. that the attack is the main purpose of the article and protest are part of it, developed due to it or were reactions to it). Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments Oh, here it goes... someone calling me a single-purpose account. The last time, somebody accused me of being on M. Night Shyamalan's payroll. I don't see the problem here, the proposed title complies with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. The current title "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" does not, and also fails on two technical counts: a) it is not no longer about "diplomatic missions" and b) it is turning all instances of protests into attacks, including non-violent ones. And now, some people are trying to scrub the protest section from Innocence of Muslims page too? You think *I* have issues. If you disagree with the proposed title, at least give something better than "I don't like it", and cite actual wikipedia policies on WP:TITLE. — Hasdi Bravo • 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support moving to anything that's broader than "diplomatic missions" or "attacks" at this point. (But oppose this fork.) I'll also note that this is probably doomed to fail if drama ensues or it veers off topic again. Minor issues with contributors really don't need to be here; if there's truly a separate issue with users !voting in bad faith, that can be brought up in another section or on another page. Otherwise we end up with a mess like last time (which I've ended up contributing to further myself, now!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No comments on many of the points that Amandajm raises, but the name is confusing in that it sounds as if it refers to protests made against Islam by means of a film. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be "2012 Anti-Islam protest film" instead, but I tell you what: if the move is successful, we can open a discussion for the new page on other similar names including "protests over Anti-Islam film" and "protests over 'Innocence of Muslims' film". Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
      • "Anti-Islam protest film" must mean "film protesting against Islam", but "film protesting against Islam" does not necessarily result in "Anti-Islam protest film". It's like the "Cannes film festival" — we know that it's the film festival at Cannes, but grammatically it could be the festival of films about Cannes; were it neither official nor clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this festival, we'd confuse readers by using that name. In the same way, "Anti-Islam film protest" could be a protest against an anti-Islamic film, or it could be an anti-Islam protest that uses one or more films. Because there's no official or clear WP:COMMONNAME for the topics covered in this article, we have to use a descriptive title that's not going to confuse readers. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose .... you move to fork? What? And Object to voting on... whatever that's supposed to mean... before the current (identically titled) MR is closed, firsted with the words "No consensus. Great." in a section titled "Finally! "Summary of opinions" for the title move request". Skullers (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No. But firsting an actual "Proposal" would be a start. Skullers (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It would also be helpful to describe how you propose to divide the content, as there's a blurry line in some cases between "protest" and "attack", and some instances are arbitrarily included in one location or the other, of the two we have. Besides, most of the non-violent protests are on Innocence of Muslims at the moment, so it seems you should be proposing a fork there, not here. Clarified above that I oppose this somewhat vague fork; my support is for moving this page to anything that lets it be more inclusive of the general unrest. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Now THAT is an elegant solution. Instead of renaming or splitting this page, we can just update "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" to redirect to "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" section instead. If that section gets bigger later, we can spin that section off as its own article. We can then refocus this page on actual attacks on diplomatic missions in 2012. Everyone is happy, yes? — Hasdi Bravo • 15:20, 19 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)

With the title as it is, we could potentially include this? No attacks so far, but France is beefing up embassy security after magazine caricatures Prophet Muhammad, to avoid a repeat of U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. FYI. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:54, 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)

The discussion above 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.

Updating redirect for 2012 Anti-Islam film protests

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)

Seems reasonable. If there isn't already a {{for}} link there pointing to this page, that would also be a good idea. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirect successful. Split proposal is withdrawn. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Substantially evolving White House narrative: now it's certainly coordinated

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)

As an event unfolds, and more information becomes aware, narratives naturally reflect the changes in known information. A quick look at the page for any current event on wiki is a prime example of this. I'm unsure what your point is here... 204.65.34.196 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I was merely trying to point out the noteworthy fact that the U.S. authorities initially blamed the attacks as well as the protests on the film, but no longer blame the attacks on the film. —Cupco 03:25, 26 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)

Not NPOV under American views

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)

Whether I agree with you or not, I don't quite see how Misplaced Pages can avoid being biased. The U.S. government has the power of law, which essentially controls what types of media and news come to light. Gag orders and whatnot. It's seemingly impossible to get an ultra-logical view of almost anything unless you witness it firsthand -- which is, of course, "original research." I suppose you could always attempt to find alternative news companies that share your views (ironic, no?) and attempt to have them listed here as "reliable sources." LogicalCreator (talk)
That would be fine if it were true. Though I can take a look about the film itself and draw such conclusions from the text: " Some U.S. officials, speaking under anonymity, said that they believed the Benghazi attack was coordinated and planned in advance, and not prompted by the film. Al-Qaeda has indicated responsibility and said it was in revenge for a U.S. drone strike which killed Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader." Which cites the refs 82 and83. We don't even discuss the fact that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility and gave a reason for it. As for the other side of the American response here's an article from Sept 14th. Here Its not even a stretch to find these, just set google with a parameter from Sept 11 to Sept 18th and search for 'Libyan terrorist attack' and you get a bunch of easy cites and opinions which are just now being recognized by the White House. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Additionally, initial reports state it may have been The Green Resistance who carried out the attacks - TGR never really went away and have most certainly been very active over the last 12 months. It's not like the USG and media have provided a consistent account of events overall, and TGR angle makes a lot of sense too. In both this and the focus article of the Benghazi attack, TGR possibility is only mentioned in connection to accusations by the militia toward the protesters on Friday.PoizonMyst (talk) 23:25, 23 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)

Concur with Avanu's observation. The U.S. executive branch's power over the media is very limited---that's been the law since New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). In fact, a lot of Hollywood action movies like the Bourne Legacy are based on the fact that the government cannot control the media directly, and has to resort to covert means to limit the discovery or dissemination of classified information. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "complete control" but when it comes to political matters/statements, we cannot ignore the fact the govt does have some sphere of influence and control - not to mention corporate influence of mainstream media as well. This older link isn't RS, but it cites all it's sources: And here's Hillary herself talking about how the US is losing the information war and needs to improve it's propaganda efforts It happens. Be wary. We must be careful not to become complicit in manipulation of the public. I believe that is what NPOV is ultimately protecting. Greater effort is needed on wiki overall, to present a world view.PoizonMyst (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's quite reasonable to reflect (based on the reputable sources listed, not the sketchy political blogs...) that there is a beleif that these may have been planned incidents. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use these references to say the events WERE planned. It's the difference between wiki reflecting what RS say about dissenting opinions, and wiki actually voicing a dissenting opinion. The latter is NPOV. Personally, I think FOX tends to run a little loose with facts, and conjecture is not the same thing as facts in general. Al Queda takes responsibility for anything it can. We can certainly cite an RS indicating that they claimed responsibility; however we can't use that source to say they WERE responsible. "NPOV" doesn't mean "I don't agree with this article". It means that the article reflects, in DUE WEIGHT, the preponderance of RS.204.65.34.196 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Reactions to Innocence of Muslims be renamed and moved to 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2012 diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks – Clarity. WikiSkeptic (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose This article is a hodgepodge of every news story mentioning the trailer. Some aren't attacks, some aren't on embassies, some involve non-American embassies. This article really shouldn't exist at all (though most of its content should be on Misplaced Pages in separate articles), but if it must, it should settle on an all-inclusive title. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per InedibleHulk, but there's nothing wrong with capturing the coincident events in a single article and people will expect that anyway, even if they know the U.S. missions attacks were planned independent of the film protests (if they were....) —Cupco 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • comment since:
1) the cited cause has moved away from mere spontaneous reaction to the web movie trailers, and
2) since the site struck was not the embassy, consulate, or mission per se (it was a state dept rented house where the US ambassador died) and,
3) since the initial main attack involving the military grade weapons was against US sites,
i'd therefore suggest 2012 Anti-USA Riots in Libya
or something like that. Cramyourspam (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a few concerns:
1) Not all of the "protests" qualify as "attacks". I would prefer terminology that accurately includes both the violent and nonviolent incidents under one title. eg "WHATEVER attacks and protests"
2) At this early date, it seems weird to put a single "cause" on such a diverse phenomenon. I'd prefer a more basic descriptor. We know the when, the where, the who-- but the why is always harder. So, I'd suggest a title like "Sept 2012" and then some geographic descriptor ("global? Islamic nations? something else ).
You get my point-- let's go for a bland title that is very flexible and doesn't take a stand on gray facts or over-simplifying a diverse group of peoples into simple causes.
I'd throw out September 2012 protests and attacks , but I'd hope some someone else with more knowledge of the movement could improve on that by adding good specific descriptors that are absolutely WP:Verifiable. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I could go for September 2012 diplomatic mission attacks and Muslim protests. —Cupco 11:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
But what if something "related" happens five days or more from now? I think we'd be best to give notable attacks and protests their standalone articles, and list (or broadly mention) the non-notable (by Wiki article standards) in the Reaction section of whatever topic a reliable source says they're reacting to. And then don't title this article at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Then Fall 2012 diplomatic mission attacks and Muslim protests? --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's clearly better. The date doesn't matter nearly as much as separating the attacks from the protests. —Cupco 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to ask: is there a compelling reason we should lump two unrelated events (the diplomatic mission attack in Benghazi and worldwide protest of Innocence of Muslims) into a single page? — Hasdi Bravo • 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
They were not only simultaneous, but partially co-located to the extent that the latter provided cover for the former, which alone would be sufficient to cover both in the same article. Can you imagine trying to describe the attacks without reference to the protests? But more importantly, the jury is still out as to whether the attackers anticipated or were even involved in provoking the protests. —Cupco 15:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be easy to explain the cover theory in the Benghazi attack article, with a Wikilink to the Reaction section of the video article. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:


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)

Definitely agree it's anti-something-US-related. But Is it anti-US or anti-Westernism? e.g. KFC? non-US embassies). --08:08, 26 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)

There's a better than even chance that the initial attacks had virtually nothing to do with the film, unless its publicity was intended to provoke the protests to give cover for the attacks, which seems to be getting more exploration in the "unnamed administration sources" press. —Cupco 11:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Benghazi attack is definitely anti-American. The worldwide protest against the Anti-Islamic film (which started at the US Embassy in Cairo) is against the American-made film itself, NOT Americans in general. Both coincided on the same day, September 11 2012, which probably lead this mass media confusion. Does that help? :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's any media confusion. They seem to be linking and sensationalizing these events with a clear purpose. I won't get into what that purpose is here, but it's not much different than the usual vague "linked to al-Qaeda", "linked to Iran" or "inspired by Tunisia and Facebook". This does lead to confusion among media consumers, however. Which is why Misplaced Pages shouldn't follow their lead; it serves an entirely different purpose (straightforward education, not shaping opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter whether the initial attacks were in fact about the film or not. Although I agree that the nature of the initial attacks is subject to debate, we may never find out the real **HARD FACTS**. But an inability to pin down facts does not prevent us from having articles about events? There are a gazillion news sources which discuss the initial attacks/protests in relation to the anti islamic film. So, we can do the same? Of course we can and should note the disputed nature of the initial attacks within the article. Does that solve our problem? Can we now try to find a new title for the material in the article?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you checked the latest news? The word from administration now is that the Benghazi mission is a terrorist attack from a "militia friendly to Al-Qaeda," not prompted from the film. So, can anyone tell me what this page is supposed to be about that is not already in "U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi" or "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions"? Anyone? — Hasdi Bravo • 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Other related attacks"?

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)

Disputed or not, the article is currently about a string of protests (or "attacks") on diplomatic missions, not the perceived cause of it. The perceived cause is mentioned in the article, yes, but it is a detail, not the topic. A section titled "related attacks" should mean "related to the topic of the article". This is more of a "Attacks that have things in common with the topic". It's like saying Barack Obama and Road Warrior Hawk are related because they're from Chicago. This section belongs in the Reaction section of Innocence of Muslims, if anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In simpler terms, there is no direct connection between Point A (the embassy attacks) and Point C (routine warzone activity), only through the intermediary Point B (a YouTube video). If we decide the Benghazi attack was caused by al-Qaeda (or whoever), should we then consider other shit caused by al-Qaeda (or whoever) to be significantly related to the topic here? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It is easy to see that this article has developed far beyond the limitations of it's scope, as per it's title. Instead of paring down the material, this could mean that we should simply use a broader title. Deleting material from a well developed article would be a retrograde step. Another issue is that there is considerable overlap/duplication between this article and Innocence of Muslims#Reactions. So, to avoid unnecessary duplication, we would probably either have to merge this article with the Innocence of Muslims#Reactions or merge Innocence of Muslims#Reactions into this article. In either case, we should not delete material without making sure that it has been inserted into the other article. If we delete material without inserting it in the other article, some material may be lost. As such, I think we should allow the section to stay until we decide what to do. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, merging is the way to go. This article is at least three existing articles (and several potential) rolled into one, bound by some imaginary "phenomenon" some editors feel obliged to try and adequately define. Split this whole thing into nice compartmentalized articles (or sections) and the naming and inclusion problems are solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What about the clearly-related protests in Bangkok that missed the mass media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.137 (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Protest map

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)

The article is about Anti Islamic film protests and attacks despite the current title. Please let the material stay until we decide what to do. Instead of deleting material, changing the title or merging with another article may be better options. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal

I propose that contents to be reorganized into 3 major pages:

  1. Innocence of Muslims. The anti-Islamic film that cause such a ruckus in 2012.
  2. U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. The terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic X in Benghazi, Libya. "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" can be redirected here.
  3. Worldwide reactions of anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims. The word "Worldwide" can suggest the global scope of the reactions. I am using the word "reactions" as it covers both protests and attacks, as well death threats like from the Pakistani minister, and possibly pretexts in routine warzone activity like in Afghanistan. The term "anti-Islamic film" may seem redundant but "Innocence of Muslims" was intentionally titled to be misleading, to suggest a film that is favorable to Muslims when it is not. Contents of Innocence of Muslims#Reactions can be moved here."Reactions to Innocence of Muslims" per consensus below. — Hasdi Bravo • 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts welcome. — Hasdi Bravo • 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Support -Separating the peaceful protests (which are now in the Innocence of Muslims article) and violent protests (which are now in the diplomatic missions attacks article) when both the peaceful and violent protests are related is nonsense. However, I'd suggest to name the new article "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims", with the reactions section in the IoM article redirecting to that. That long title you suggested is unnecessary. Take a look at Reaction to On the Origin of Species. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm cool with "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims." I just thought some might appreciate a bombastic title as significantly more notable. o.0 All that sound and fury over a pathetic film and its director, IMNSHO. I suggest we note the major protests initiated in U.S. Embassy in Egypt, which coincided with the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. — Hasdi Bravo • 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Support merging into all existing relevant Main/Further Information articles. Oppose creating new reactions article; the section in Innocence of Muslims should suffice. If we must split for size reasons, "Worldwide" and "anti-Islamic film" are unnecessary in title. And it'd be "Reactions to", not "of". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am also open to keep the section Innocence of Muslims#Reactions if the size can be contained, otherwise "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims" it is. — Hasdi Bravo • 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think this title should redirect to the potential reactions article instead of Benghazi. Sad as it is, "attack" and "protest involving fire, anger or throwing things at a wall" have become commonly synonymous in news lately. I think more people searching for 2012 diplomatic attacks will be looking for the whole hubbub. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... it would suggest that the reactions article be as its own article rather than merely a section under Innocence of Muslims. BTW, will that article be titled "Reaction to Innocence of Muslims" or "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims"? Also, we might want to merge "Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks" into that article under "Condemnation of violence" section instead of renaming it to "Reactions to Reactions to Innocence of Muslims". @____@ — Hasdi Bravo • 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. If we go with a separate article for reactions, it should get the redirect. And if that article is created, we should merge this Reactions to the Diplomatic Attacks article. Each country can have its own section where we list the protests/attacks/whatever, followed by the official reactions of that country's spokespeople. Much neater that way. I think "reactions" would be better for the title. They may be similar ("We do not condone this!") but they're still technically separate reactions, not a global joint statement. "Reaction" isn't so terrible, though. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC) That reactions article is going to be tough to merge, after looking at it. I didn't realize how much fat we'd have to trim. I'd figured it was just reactions from the countries affected, not the entire political world. That'll be a doozy of a debate, I can tell. But yeah, we'll see how it goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That been the case, I suggest we just rename this page to "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims", trim out the Libya attack, replace the profile image with a picture of the Cairo "attack", and THEN discuss potential split / merger on "Innocence of Muslims#Reactions" talk page, and also discuss merger on "Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks" talk page. Otherwise, the next move is to delete / merge of this page instead, which I sense some editors are not ready for yet. — Hasdi Bravo • 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 2 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)

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. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories: