Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George Ho (talk | contribs) at 00:23, 26 June 2015 (→top: oldid). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:23, 26 June 2015 by George Ho (talk | contribs) (→top: oldid)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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.

Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance

	Society portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	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.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	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.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This 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.

Africa: Egypt / Libya Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Egypt portal This article is supported by WikiProject Egypt (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Libya portal 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.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

A 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

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)

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. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A brief mention of that would be fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 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 didn't murder anyone. I suggest this goes in a "Libya" subsection of Diplomatic Missions. InedibleHulk (talk) 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? — Hasdi Bravo • 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? InedibleHulk (talk) 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. — Hasdi Bravo • 02:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we can remove the second paragraph if we can briefly mention the Benghazi in the first. Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 03:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cairo, Egypt was mobbed by protestors; a group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag. This incident (and the coinciding armed attack in Benghazi 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 Western diplomatic facilities across the world, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic online video known as Innocence of Muslims. 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.

That's much better, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 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. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
On September 11, 2012, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cairo, Egypt was mobbed by protestors, apparently in response to an anti-Islamic online video known as Innocence of Muslims. A group scaled the embassy wall and tore down the American flag to replace it with a black Islamic flag. This incident, and the coinciding heavily armed attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that was widely misreported as a similar reaction to the film, launched a series of demonstrations outside U.S. and other Western 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.

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)

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. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 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. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox title

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)

The norm is to have infobox's title in the lede to match the article's title. If you prefer, you can have that infobox moved a different section like "attacks in response of the film" or something. Otherwise, I made sure the infobox caption itself also stated "mob attacks in response of the film", but yeah, I think {{Infobox civil conflict}} is a better template to use. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On the second thought, maybe we should move this infobox down to the section "Protest at diplomatic missions". If so, you can change the title back. I think a better image to use for a different infobox in the lede is the protest in Cairo, e.g., like this. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should definitely be kept at the top of the page, where's it's more accessible. What I'm saying is the infobox needs to incorporate the protests as well as the attacks. Right now it only discusses the attacks. I suggest we keep the title of the infobox as it is now, but replace the current "attack" infobox the "protest" infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a protest infobox makes more sense. Only a very small percentage of the events here can reasonably be called attacks. Of the death toll, most are protesters killed by security guards in suppression of the protests. This infobox suggests the protesters attacked and killed 75 people, in retaliation for the video. Pretty misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we change the infobox image to one from the Cairo protest (e.g., see this article from Voice of America) and this the Yemen protest started two days after that. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No that image came from Reuters. If you enlarge it and look at the bottom right corner, you'll see it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Overall title

There are arguments made that the protests on September 11, 2012 were related to more than the Innocence of Muslims video. For example, here:

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)

No. This isn't an article about the single protest on that day. It is an article on the reaction of the video.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You may also wish to review Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Amadscientist, there is no individual page for the protests at all. If I search for the Cairo protest, the number 1 recommendation is this page. Further, "September 11 2012 attacks" redirects to this page. That is very disingenuous. As for your single purpose account charge, I find it a bit accusatory. My goal is to accurately help Misplaced Pages with its encyclopedic endeavor. Myster Black (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I made no charge. I suggested that you may wish to review that page. The above argument has nothing to do with your POV to alter the name of this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that we have that cleared up, what say you about my other questions? Do you believe that if someone types in "September 11 2012 attacks" that they should be redirected to this page? There is significant evidence that planning for the protests (at least in the case of Cairo) as well as the attack in Benghazi was performed independently of any outrage about Innocence of Muslims. While there is much controversy about these issues, that is all the more reason that linking all of these things back to a page titled Reactions to Innocence of Muslims is at best a gross simplification of the events, and at worst an inaccurate portrayal. Myster Black (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think what you may be looking for is Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion. If I understand you correctly, you object to the redirect to this article. I could understand that and even support the redirect being removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with this point. I will look into the technicalities of this. If you would be willing to help, I would appreciate it. However, I need to return to my original point. There is evidence that the Cairo protest was planned before the trailer to the movie started circulating (in fact this is mentioned in the page itself). Therefore, I still propose that placing this protest (which appears to be the driver of the rest of them) squarely in a "Reactions to Innocence of Muslims" page is inaccurate. As I said before a broader title would be less controversial. My initial proposal was too narrow, as this page does include events that span more than just September 11, 2012, however I stand by the point that the title of the page is too controversial. What about "September 2012 Anti-American Protests"? Myster Black (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that "some evidence" is a strong argument for your proposed alterations and note that your statement that you feel that the protest appears to be the driver of the rest of them, is inaccurate at best. This article was split from its main article. The change you are attempting would be inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 29 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)

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)

Removing changes by (seemingly) a single-purpose user

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)

Categories: