Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Split complete

There is now a general article at 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I have copied some of the information which was moved to Innocence of Muslims there. We need to alert the front page editors to wikilink the mention of protests to that page so as not to create an unintentional bias. We need to remove any protests which were not specifically attacks from the map so as not to sensationalize this article. We need to link mention of widespread protests from here to there. Additionally, any other edit which creates a clear impression that this is a specific article and that 2012 Anti-Islam film protests is the general article. Hope that satisfies everyone. Once complete, we should be able to remove the header template and call it good. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I'm also completely open to renaming that article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone deleted the split

An editor deleted that split, claiming I did not seek consensus. As you can see above, I did, and this was the solution which presented itself. Mind you, no information has been deleted and no specific objection has been given. Please continue to dialogue if you can present a different solution which doesn't imply the fallacy that all these protests were attacks, which many many editors have already objected to in some form or fashion. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And reverted

I reverted that deletion. It's my first. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving it in a screwed up state where the article is split but the talk page is still a redirect. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
ClaudeReigns, totally independent of the merits of whatever you're attempting to do, you just did a "cut and paste move." (See also Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves) If your plans for "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" are basically a copy of this article, then what you REALLY want is to move the article over there in the requested move discussion above. If you want to sketch out your vision of separate articles... well, no, you haven't really explained what you want, but if you want to do some live editing, you can create articles in your own user space and link to them here on the talk page to show what you think the article should look like. SnowFire (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
On a less procedural note, if the general Muslim unrest is separated from the diplomatic mission attacks - which I would be fine with - I would strongly, strongly prefer "September 2012 Muslim unrest" or the like, or "Innocence of Muslims protests." As noted above in the RM, "Anti-Islam film protests" is a vague and terrible title. SnowFire (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that those titles sound better to my ear, but I don't think my ear counts. I went with what had been suggested by the POV whose concern stood unaddressed by the actual article. I don't really call that consensus, so I made a judgment to favor that argument. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, he's already deleting content from this article, which leaves us currently in a broken state where some of the information is actually missing completely. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this split is ill conceived. The media and politicians are discussing these mostly together, and much of the stuff like international response cannot be cleanly separated. As such, I don't think it's practical to split the article. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this should have been the general article - but not titled as it was. The removal of bias and not sensationalizing wikipedia, however, is an urgent concern. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. There is no other resolution for the multiple biases the article creates unintentionally than to either - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just the attacks by moving to an alternate title - or - make it clear that the phenomenon is more than just attacks by creating the more general article. Seeing intractible opposition to the first, I chose the second. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't an "alternate request", you've forked the article to the preferred title to bypass the existing RM. By your opinion, there is "no other resolution". Please provide constructive input in the relevant section above before taking the initiative in moving it yourself. Skullers (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal of aid

We seem to consider it important enough to mention that some bloodsuckers politicians have called for withholding aid, but apparently everyone missed this piece, in which John McCain speaks out against that. (Note: Anyone who accuses me of political bias here will get laughed off the fucking internet. You've been warned.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Some other link fodder related to this: [1] [2] [3] [4] —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, nice job

I just noticed that some editors understood what I was looking for and have really run with it. I am going to keep my nose out of it. I started removing pins from the map which were not attacks, but did not finish. You guys are really great! I'll check back in a couple to see how you did. Good luck! ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Protests - Edit request

At the citation of BBC I could not see Turkey. (FYI only 100 people made a protest in the almost 14 million populated Istanbul and another 100 in Rize.) Turkey's population is 74 millions, so these protests are not notable for inclusion. Only in the protests of Anvers, Belgium 120 people were detained by the police; a number larger than the participants of each of the two protests in Turkey. BTW the Anvers protest has not been added to the article yet. --E4024 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Population size and protest size is irrelevant here, if there are protests and it's mentioned in an RS outlet, we have a duty to mention it, even if briefly. This is how it's being done with every country, even those where you have 50 people protesting. --Activism1234 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I've read at some sources that the protests are not as large as those of the Arab Spring, this could be good for the opening paragraph of the section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I looked again. Turkey is not in the citation. Removed reference. --E4024 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Say whaaat? Why are deaths from an attack on a military base in Afghanistan listed in the infobox?

This source [5] cited for half of the "39 deaths" talks about an attack on a military base where Prince Harry is serving. I don't think one royal in uniform makes it an embassy! Wnt (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... please join the discussion in the section above to rename it to 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, although I think 2012 Anti-Islam film reactions would cover cases were attacks were claimed to be in response of the film. Most of the reactions are protests and rioting. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a tough one, but I think that this article should stay about the diplomatic missions themselves - there are certainly enough things happening at embassies per se to be notable in their own right. The other article... I don't know. Every time somebody gets killed in Iraq or Afghanistan somebody might say it's about the Koran, but it's also about them simply having longstanding conflicts. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It is a tough call, but where does that information go then? As long as the article is primarily about the protests and aftermath (disregarding the contentious title), I think it makes sense to include it here as related to the whole "diplomatic missions attack" as currently covered. It could go on Innocence of Muslims, but that currently only covers non-violent protests while all the violence is covered here. Better to include it here than nowhere, since it is related. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The Benghazi attack is already covered in U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi page, and that was a pre-planned attack that uses the protest also at the Benghazi embassy as a diversion, so we need to refocus this page on the other protests. — Hasdi Bravo • 19:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless of the page title, I think it really should be edited with a focus on the protests and ensuing non-Benghazi attacks, based on how the various related pages are currently split. (Which seems like it could change at any time...) We also need to more clearly state in this article that the primary motivations for the Benghazi attack event and larger protests are separate; this article still conflates the two excessively. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Map is wrong

The map seems to be about protests, but the caption states "attacks". If it is about violent protests, many locations are missing namely Sydney and Paris where there were mass arrests. What a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.88.135 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it part of the Arab Spring?

Are these events part of the Arab Spring? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring turns against the USA -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an editorial. It's a sound opinion but I don't think there is widespread usage of the term Arab Spring in this case. I've seen some refer to the rise of Islamists as the coming of Arab winter. We'll see what catches on in the future. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I just googled and found all these opinions by journalists.
Arab Spring turns bitter for America
Arab spring turns into Arab rage turns into rage against America
'Arab Spring’ Explodes in Attacks Against America
Ambassador Chris Stevens killed in Libya: Is Arab Spring turning against US?] -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No. No. WP does not use opinions. That source seems unreliable. It's completely unrelated. Arab Spring consist of Arabs protesting their rulers. This is much different. Like the Afghanistan Quran-burning protests, I don't think these protests will last that long. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not only one opinion. The last 2 days many articles have written in this direction. I gave links to 5 of them. Moreover, the whole Arab Spring concept is based on opinions, right? I mean, the term Arab Spring was first brought by journalists. Opinions gathered together make facts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of your sources above are unreliable. This source that you quote doesn't even have correct grammar. This one says "The flare-up of anti-US violence ... shows how the Arab Spring has unleashed forces in the region that are vehemently opposed to America and its ideals." In other words the anti-US violence maybe a side effect of the Arab Spring, but not a part of it.VR talk 16:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To give a taste from four references at the end...

  • "It is no secret that US administrations are captives of the all-powerful Israeli lobby and must, more often than not, bend to the Israeli will." - the Deccan Chronicle
  • "That plan was put together in 1996 for Israel. They were just waiting for an idiot to come along so they could implement their plan for the Middle East." - Before It's News
  • "We are witnessing the stepped process of the Islamization of American domestic and foreign policy unfold before our eyes"
  • However, the fourth is a normal CSM article.

So this perspective, while it definitely exists, is still more limited than the numbers there would suggest. It should be presented, but not as a universal observation. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an indirect part of the "Arab Spring" in the sense that the same people the West has been supporting in some of these countries during the past year are the very same who have now turned against them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Define "same people". There were people pro Mubarak, people pro democracy, people pro Al Qaida. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In Libya, the people NATO armed and helped are basically using the same arms against the US. FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In Libya there were more than 70,000 armed fighters on rebel side. Not counting others who supported war effors from behind the front. Last time I checked embassy wasn´t stormed by 70,000 militiamen. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Last time I checked, no one claimed the embassy was (or had to be) stormed by 70.000 men. The Libyan army can't do much about these guys, because they couldn't have won the war without them (and NATO). The US let them in, armed them, and are now reaping what they have sown. Next, Syria! FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • An academic analysis on the differences between the Arab Spring and the anti-Islam film protests.VR talk 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This website doesn't show any reason why we should consider it reliable. We don't know the author and anyone can make a website. Also, the website itself doesn't make any connection with the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks so making a connection between these facts looks like OR. I'm removing all material sourced to it.VR talk 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the unreliable source was re-inserted. Can User:Amandajm ples. discuss?VR talk 03:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a good source. I'm searching for a source that is more reliable and equally comprehensive. However, the material stated there is plainly neither contentious nor misquoted. The section plainly needs a "lead in" sentence. Launching straight into Blasphemy executions without any mention of what is regarded as "blasphemy" seems rather poor structure, and irresponsible editting. Amandajm (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Since we agree the source is not reliable, I will remove it, per WP:V. We can work on the structure of the article, *after* we ensure the article complies with wikipedia policy. Article structure is no excuse to put in unreliable references or original research.VR talk 14:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research

What is the connection between Satanic Verses, Younus Shaikh, the murder of Salman Taseer and the current wave of attacks? (No, don't answer my questions, please just show me a reliable that answers them.)

I think we can have a see also link to Islam and Blasphemy but connecting much of this material to this article is excessive and original research.VR talk 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

More original research has been inserted here. Can Amandajm pls. discuss?VR talk 03:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't original research. It is context. Unless one finds a really good source that sums up the Islamic attitude to "blasphemy", and quotes that, then the only way to indicate why these problems have arisen is to give the "Historical context". Hence the list of significant recent events involving charges of blasphemy. Those included are those that involve depicting Muhammad in some way by artists, academics and writers, rather than 11-yr-olds carrying bags of burnt rubbish.
If you can write, and source, a really good way of putting the protests and violence in context, then get on with it. So far, you haven't come up with a better suggestion.
But since the material is already in place, and it's refs are fixed, and the wording modified to suit the new refs, I suggest you put some ideas on the talk page, before deleting.
Amandajm (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, Iranians have made the connection for us: [6]. And, providing historical context so that people can make sense of the event, and not just blindly transcribing news reports, is exactly the sort of thing we're here for. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Kerfuffler, we're here to not introduce any material, or combination of material, that have not already been introduced by reliable sources. If not a single reliable source mentions that material in combination, then what does that tell you?
To give you another example: would it be appropriate mention the history of American soldiers disrespecting Muslims and Islam (Abu Ghraib humiliations, US soldiers flushing Qur'an down the toilet, US soldiers burning the Qur'an, US military class wanting to nuke Mecca...) in the background section?VR talk 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Classifications of dead/wounded

Certain sections do a good job of identifying the types of people wounded or killed in the protests. I would encourage anyone who can offer greater details to include them. As an example, stating that "four people were killed" is okay, but better would be "three protesters and one bystander were killed."

I realize with a "current event" story that there is a lot of editing still to be done. For the sake of posterity (as this article will be read for years to come), I hope these details can be added as more information is learned. Jnmwiki (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The map needs to be more specific

The map should distinguish which places were experiencing peaceful protests, and which were experiencing violent events, such as this one: [7]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012

Add a wikilink to Ban Ki-moon's statement: "The United Nations [[Defamation of religion and the United Nations|rejects defamation of religion]] in all forms. 192.12.88.137 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revising the lead sentences to show disagreement among sources for pre-planned or spontaneous Benghazi attacks

I revised the article's opening sentences based on the unknown nature of the attacks in Benghazi. I also left out citations, per Wikipedia's preference. Feedback is appreciated, but I think it would be good to post soon so that folks are aware there is ongoing disagreement among legitimate sources on both sides for the genesis of the attack:

On September 11, 2012, protests began at U.S. diplomatic missions in Cairo, Egypt, and Benghazi, Libya. Sources differ as to whether the attacks in Benghazi were preplanned or spontaneous (in response to a YouTube trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims, considered blasphemous by many Muslims). The protests and attacks quickly spread across the Muslim world to additional U.S. and other countries' diplomatic missions and other locations, with issues beyond offense at the movie trailer becoming subjects of protest. Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. So far, the U.S. administration is taking the stance of spontaneous attack, but we have John McCain, Republicans and others arguing otherwise. Libya is officially (via it President) taking the stance that it is preplanned. A case of preparation meets opportunity? — Hasdi Bravo • 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Location parameter change

It seems like that the locations of the protests are spreading and are too numerous to list all of the protests. How about we replace the list with something like "Throughout the Arab world, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium" or something along those lines? -- Luke (Talk) 23:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stevens most likely died from smoke

Video Shows Libyans Retrieving Envoy’s Body: [8] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They're celebrating, so I doubt they "saved" him, as claimed by some: Youtube fMjcmJOhslQ FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is already a small army of spin doctors claiming that they are shouting "Allahu Akbhar!" in celebration of their (supposed) discovery that he was still alive at that moment. Look here: Jean Moussa's spin job. Perhaps these spin doctors are consulting with the White House to reaffirm the narrative of "brave" Libyans "heroically" trying to save the ambassador after a "tiny minority of extremists" ruined what was otherwise a "peaceful protest". No doubt some of these spin doctors are making "good faith" contributions to this very article.Bobinisrael (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Incredible. He's clearly dead, and those guys are happy about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The reliable source clearly says "In the video, none say anything that shows ill will." The Libyans were trying to help Stevens.VR talk 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The translation that says "he's alive" was shown to be false. "Ill will" is when you dump a body on the ground, take pictures of it, and shout allahu akbar. Everything else is wishful thinking. A different account: http://www.france24.com/en/20120914-libya-islam-attack-consulate-benghazi-who-are-ansar-al-sharia-al-qaeda FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
NYT is far more reliable than France24.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

The article on the Innocence of Muslims also has a list of protest in response to the film and this article also has a list of protest?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuanzuanfuwa (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Chennai protests- Fresh

Fresh incidents of stone pelting reported in Chennai.[1][2][3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTigerKing (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 September 2012‎ (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article3906944.ece
  2. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-consulate-in-Chennai-shuts-down-visa-section-for-2-days-following-protests-over-anti-Islam-film/articleshow/16432296.cms
  3. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-consulate-in-chennai-shuts-down-visa-section-for-2-days-268335

Please update the article

Here is a source with an overview of the violence so far [9]. Then adding the dozen dead in Kabul attack [10] should make us uptodate for now.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to September 11 2001 attacks should remain in the 'See also' section

The link to the September 11 2001 attacks has been removed from the 'See also' section by the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Anti-Islam_film_protests&diff=512504920&oldid=512504506 That link should remain in the 'See also' section as both attacks are connected by that date.--Rpdant767 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." As the September 11, 2011 attacks are referenced in the body, they don't really belong in the See also, since there appears to be no valid reason to ignore that rule. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SEEALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ULTIMATELY a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Therefore, due to the common sense, the link to the September 11 2001 attacks does belong in the 'See also' section.--Rpdant767 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course inclusion is ultimately a matter of our judgment. But that means ALL of our judgments, not a single editor's if it's contentious. That's why I quoted the entire bit including "as a general rule." What appears to be your personal opinion of "common sense" does not seem to be a reason to ignore the MOS's general rule here. I'm glad you indeed read the MOS as linked, but if there is some reason that we should ignore established practices, I think it needs to be more than that you personally feel it should be included. As in, perhaps seek consensus for having it in a See Also despite being in the body (since again, the MOS tells us generally not to do so), if you think it's truly important enough that being in the article alone is insufficient, with a reason that's going to persuade people more than "common sense." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
A general rule does not apply to every case, and not for huge articles like this. There are plenty of other links in the 'See also' section that are also inside the article. At this time you're also the only editor with a personal opinion against the inclusion of a link to the September 11 2001 page in the 'See also' section.--Rpdant767 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sydney

The box on the top right has a wiki link to all the cities involved except Sydney. Ballchef (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The sentence states that neither the Qur'an nor Hadith condemn blasphemy. While normally I'm a stickler for avoiding primary source arguments, even a cursory search reveals references condemning blasphemy (though, to my knowledge, without specified penalty in the Qur'an, my knowledge of hadith references is deficient in this category). Yusuf Ali's translation has it the most commonly, though I am also finding references in Pickthall's translation (Arabic-speakers would be better equipped to address this in greater depth). Peter Deer (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. It was a borrowed statement from another source. I have changed it, but doubt that it is right. I suspect that what is in fact referred to is the representation o Muhammad as blasphemous. How do you suggest the sentence is worded? Can you fix it to something more appropriate? Amandajm (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it's tricky! See, the actual quote from the source is "neither the Qur'an nor the Prophet stated clearly the existence of an offence called 'blasphemy' or a specific temporal punishment for it." which the original wording seems to be an accurate representation of...however, my problem with it is that the statement itself seems to be in error. I'll be honest, I don't know how to approach it, I was hoping discussion would clear it up. 99.109.33.111 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been removed Amandajm (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Context of protests" section

This section seems tangential and frankly redundant. Not only is it immediately followed by "Background of protests" (which is quite good and strikes a balance between providing necessary information and staying within the scope of the events), but it seems to be just a summary of other, similar events like this in the past. There's no mention of relevance, and it is up to the reader to infer it. It seems like this would be better suited to a "summary"-type article that reviews events of a type, instead of an "event"-type article that seeks to provide facts specific to the current event. At best, links to these other events should be provided in the "See Also" section and the text incorporated on some other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just pretend that you are a Wikipedia reader from Mars. There seem to be a few out there, but never mind! If you were to stumble on this article without any awareness of the fact that depicting Muhammad is generally forbidden in Islam, that blasphemy is taken so seriously that it can result in the death of a blasphemer, that there have been an increasing number of major protests in the last 20 years, and that people who have offended go into hiding for the rest of their lives, then without that knowledge, you might be seriously confused as to why protests are happening world-wide.
The content of that section is what you call "Historic background". As such, it is completely relevant.
However, as the writer of it, I am not permitted to draw conclusions. If I draw a conclusion, it is going beyond the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and I will immediately be challenged with Original Research, which is problematic.
As soon as the BBC, or some other body, does an analysis of the events in the light of History, I will quote them. Until they do, I cannot make implications, merely state historic fact and give the references.
The section may be moved to another article, in the near future, but we are still determining the name of that article.
In the meantime, it can stay where it is, to inform the people from Mars.
Amandajm (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that much of the Background section is tangential to this article. Starting the section with "Since the late 1990s..." does not make sense. The Context of Protests section should be removed entirely; or moved piecemeal, as appropriate, into the Islam and blasphemy, if you like. (Some of the incidents mentioned, though, may already be there in that article.) The Background to protests section is completely misleading and one-sided, considering information from eyewitnesses and intelligence sources who claim the attack was premeditated and coordinated. See Investigation section in the article U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi.
If the concern is that a person from Mars is unaware "that depicting Muhammad is generally forbidden in Islam", it seems that it would be appropriate to link to the article on Islam and blasphemy or some section there. That seems to be a very thorough and well-documented article on the types of blasphemy and the punishments incurred. Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The review of recent Muslim violence and prosecutions in Muslim nations in response to insults or blasphemy is needed background. This is sociological context. However, statements about Islam are theological and should be avoided. We need only know that Muslims have responded this way recently and not that they should respond this way according to their religion. The first reports factual events. The latter is original research on theology. I suggest we remove the sentence on the Qur'an and Hadith. That's a whole can of worms that it is best to avoid. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Removed some of the first paragraph in line with comments here. Please check current state. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
So much information is coming out every day it's difficult to keep up with it. I just saw a video showing a group of attackers approaching the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi; not protesters, but attackers. I will try to find this, and other relevant source materials. The entire Background section is still a wall of text that obfuscates the core issue: were the attacks on the Cairo embassy and the Consulate in Benghazi incited (in the case of Cairo, incited by a call to burn "the embassy down with everyone in it") and pre-planned (in the case of Benghazi, attackers used RPGs, assault rifles, mortars, and they also used Libyan security guards to gain entry). I will hold off for now on making any major changes to the Background section; but as it is written now it is misleading. Regarding the "Context of protests" section, I still think a link to the article on Islam and blasphemy will take care of most of the text presented there; how about this: keep the first two sentences, link to the Islam and blasphemy article, and remove the rest (or move it to the Islam and blasphemy article, because there are lists of specific attacks there). Regarding the "Background of protests" section, pointing to the main article on the film seems misleading, too, as if to say, "Right here, here is the problem, here is the core issue, it's this anti-Islam film." When in point of fact it's not. Or, it may not be the full picture of what "caused" the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi. Time might tell. Thanks for listening.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New phenomenology

September 2012 global unrest

  • 2012 diplomatic missions attacks

"Blasphemy riots" is per the Christian Science Monitor, adapting to other articles already on wikipedia. We should conform to the other articles in the title so as to mirror editing which shows no such dispute. This frees the distinction of the German embassy attack, which cited the Danish cartoonist instead of Innocence of Muslims. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion that we should use one or other of the above titles? 2012 global blasphemy demonstrations is getting there, but I think it needs an indication that it involves Islam, rather than being a universal protest against blasphemy.
As I have said before, I think this article ought to be retained, because of the seriousness of the attacks. Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, this isn't an AfD like they're having over the China article. (Seriously, one req for deletion and like 9 Keeps and no Deletes in the entire discussion!) I want the world to know who Ambassador J. Christoper Stevens was, the ideals he died for, and the events surrounding his death. The matter of titles describing content is something which needs resolved. Those instances where missions were attacked, and especially those instances where lives were lost are especially important to Americans. That which was so biasedly referred to as "Muslim Rage" by Newsweek (go figure) is not where we want to go for the big picture. Previous instance is a complex of articles under the heading Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy including International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy but the burning of embassies on that page gets a header and 12 lines. I'm not saying that what we're working on should at all be that small. We've got a whole new context here. But let's build on 7 years of experience and let some of that guide our way, rather than have that same extended argument. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
We could try to split Innocence of Muslims instead - but what are the chances the editors there are going to cry "Don't split our article!" too? We need help from an experienced editor or admin, so I am going to RfC if we can't work it out by tomorrow. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Amandajm, we already got an article on the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. That is the only attack that merits its own article and its got it. The rest of the attempts to storm the US embassy can be lumped in with other protests.VR talk 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, VR, I wasn't aware of the other article. I have been proceeding as if it didn't exist, and have just found this comment.
That being the case, I am in favour of:
  • lumping all the demonstrations together
  • renaming the article.
  • NOT renaming it as 2012 anti-Islam film protest because that name is confusing.
  • The problem is that the words "anti-Islam film" are all being used as if they were a couple of adjectives to describe the noun "protest".
When words are being used as adjectives, a good way to assess the meaning is simply to look at them individually to see if they make sense.
If you omit the word "film", then you have "anti-Islam protest" which is not what it was about at all.
If you call it a "film protest", then you have no indication as to whether it is a protest in film, or a protest about film.
  • The part of speech called a "preposition" is very useful in dealing with such confusions.
2012 protests against anti-Islamic film
2012 protests against anti-Islamic film trailer (or "video clip")
2012 protests against Innocence of Muslims
Amandajm (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to change the article lead-in in the In the News box on main Wikipedia page

The lead on the Wikipedia main page is misleading according to current information. The current In the News lead-in states: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur following the release of a short film critical of Islam." Yet there is evidence from eyewitnesses to the attack and from intelligence sources that the Benghazi attacks were preplanned and coordinated. A U.S. senator has also stated that there was complicity with Libyan guards at the Consulate. See the investigation section in the article U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Perhaps change to: "Attacks on diplomatic missions and widescale protests occur on anniversary of September 11, possibly linked to film critical of Islam and terrorist group activities." Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All issues with ITN should be brought up at WP:ITN/C. --Activism1234 01:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New Move Request Proposal!

Here is the renewed discussion:[11] Please Join. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

PIctures

Two pictures were added, and both have been removed

Reason:

  • Context is important. Illustrations should not be used out of context.
  • The lead pic showed a non-violent protest, followed by a list of violent protests against diplomatic missions.
It was a blatantly misleading image, because it needs to be seen as illustrating this article, not a general topic of protests against the film trailer.
  • The second image showed and named a cleric taking part in a non-violent protest. It was, admittedly, in a very brief section stating in a general way, that protests had taken part.
Given the nature of the article, and the very general nature of the statement in that particular paragraph, then having a very specific picture of a named leader inserted there is inappropriate.
The particular individual was neither cited in the paragraph or quoted in the paragraph. Therefore, an illustration of a named leader was irrelevant.
Moreover, since the topic of the article is attacks, it could be quite misleading to have a photo of a leader, who was neither leading or commenting upon an attack, in the context of the article.

Amandajm (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is a single article grouping all of these events wise?

I get that the media narrative intends these to be viewed as one topic, but Wikipedia does not need to follow suit. The squabble over proposed titles indicates that none is entirely inclusive of all of these events. Some aren't on embassies, some aren't allegedly inspired by the YouTube clip, many aren't attacks, but protests. The largest incident section (Benghazi) starts by explicitly saying there's no real clear connection to the rest. I propose this article be split into individual articles (perhaps linked together by a Category template). It would cut down on the debate about what is relevant drastically. I apologize if this has already been proposed somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tripoli in Syria?

The map of the protest locations lists Tripoli in Syria, even though it's actually in Libya. I don't know how to fix this, can someone do that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebombzen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm There's a city in Lebanon called Tripoli. That's what the map is referring to. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

petition on White house website.

Should we need to mention in the article ? http://wh.gov/ZQKx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.136.115 (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you mention that in Innocence of Muslims page under Reactions and possibly the lede. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

consulate? mission?

I reverted this for now. What do people think? Apparently, there's never been a consulate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that Seb; I wonder if there ever was an intention to establish a US Consulate (General) in Benghazi and if so the approval of the Libyan Government was asked already... --E4024 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, there is an ongoing discussion on Talk:U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. The US embassy website has always referred to it as a diplomatic mission. (see http://libya.usembassy.gov/tw091312.html). Check the September archive. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Obama said "diplomatic facility", Mr. Clinton said "mission", Mrs. Clinton (twice) said "personnel in Benghazi" although the Embassy website uses the word "Mission" on the first page summaries of all those declarations... --E4024 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Myself: I tend to believe (with the little info available) there was no formal mission in Benghazi or if any, was in the process of establishment... --E4024 (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have said in the other talk page, I think U.S. embassy knows better the semantic differences between a consulate, a diplomatic mission, and an embassy. But others have argued for WP:COMMONNAME, even though the media may not use the correct terminology. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is missing.

There were reports of protests in Ankara and possibly other cities in Turkey yet not even one mention of it. Turkey needs to be mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there were small-scale (around 100 participants each) and peaceful demonstrations in Ankara, Istanbul and -if I am not wrong- Konya or Rize. You must make ref to rel. sources though... --E4024 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks → 2012 Anti-Islam film protests – As the situation clearly changed with German and British embassies as well as restaurants coming under attack, I suggest moving this article per above. After that we can link split out into a separate article the terrorist attack in Libya. Note that most news media refer to it as anti-Islam or anti-Muslim film protests (BBC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177 AP here http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROPHET_FILM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-14-17-23-47) Merrybrit (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Most media sources are referring these events as protests against an anti-Islam film.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this name (at least for now, events may change); it's a succinct description of the situation, and we absolutely need to include more than US embassies now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I created an article 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Help me move information on the terrorist attack to that article.Merrybrit (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Move and split at the same time? There has been no concensus for such a change. Your new title is ambigous and overlaps in scope with the film's article as well. Shoot first and aim later? Skullers (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is only one film involved, Innocence of Muslims. If you're going to title after it, then call it by name. Skullers (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - was a discussion opened and then an editor decided to just change the name to the proposed name without having consensus or a closed discussion??? I can very well see consensus developing in favor of the name - but while we're discussing it, I don't believe it's wise to simply change the name in the middle. --Activism1234 22:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and there are multiple other discussions on what this article should be called, how it should be split up, etc. I don't see a problem with the new title (and it's much better than the old one), so I didn't bring it up, but the move process on this does appear to have been done hastily, but in good faith. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did not move the article but I support the move. The situation has significantly changed today with other countries' embassies as well as private businesses having been attacked. It is unsustainable to have an article referring only to the US diplomatic missions. As for split, the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act and should be treated as such. Its investigation and aftermath should be in a separate article. Furthermore, most of the international reactions currently on this page refer to the reactions to the killing of Ambassador Stevens so it makes sense to move them to a separate article dealing with the Benghazi attack. Merrybrit (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The film was just a pretext for an anti-US protest intended to celebrate the 11th anniversary of the 2001 September 11 attacks.--Rpdant767 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • says who? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "an anti-US protest intended to celebrate the 11th anniversary of the 2001 September 11 attacks." - that's why protesters in Sudan set fire to the German embassy on September 14 Merrybrit (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Attacking another country a couple days later does not demonstrate a lack of motive to celebrate the 2001 September 11 attacks by attacking the US again on September 11.--Rpdant767 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That is your opinion, but this is not the place to argue for your personal opinions or interpretations. Don't go down that path. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The fact that these attacks were premeditated has been widely reported. Predictably, however, there is very little reference to this in the article in order to continue to parrot the dishonest narrative of the left that these protests/demonstrations/riots were (and remain) some sort of spontaneous eruption of rage - the dishonest narrative that you are seemingly committed to preserve.99.224.56.242 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated strong oppose. The new title is vague and misleading. Other totally valid interpretations can include:
  • These are anti-islam film protests. e.g. the protests are by people who hate Islam riled up by the film.
  • These are film protests that are against the tenets of Islam - e.g. a bit of soapboxing to say that "These protests aren't really Islamic."

This title is incredibly flawed. Suggest it be moved to Innocence of Muslims protests. SnowFire (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose and object to the premature, out-of-order move while this request was still pending. —Cupco 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
...for what it's worth, my preferred name is 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. —Cupco 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If you are opposed to the move, suggest a better title. Do not just say "I oppose". The previous title mentioning only US facilities became misleading and obsolete, so it has to be replaced. Merrybrit (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I did offer a suggested alternative. But this current title is awful. Anyway, if people are fine with identifying this as based on the movie, I will repeat: "Innocence of Muslims protests". This isn't perfect because the Benghazi incident was not really a "protest" but more like an assassination + riot. If we want something very generic to placate those who don't want to play up the movie, then "2012 embassy attacks and protests". SnowFire (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The RM was closed prematurely and without consensus so of course the correct action is to move the article back to the original name and let the RM run its course until it can be closed by an admin. —Cupco 23:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd normally be in full agreement, but the old title was essentially preventing information from being added properly after non-US embassy targets started seeing protests and attacks. I'm not sure the best way to approach the issue of the premature move, but I thought I'd note that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't closed, it was "carried out". This section was tagged as it is, 3 minutes prior. Skullers (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the current title is awful. That's how at the moment BBC is referring to these events (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177) as well as other media organisations. I think it's fine as a working title. Going forward, we might want to downplay the film as a cause of this, then I will support something like "2012 diplomatic missions attacks and protests". Regarding the Benghazi incident, as I wrote above, it's a terrorist attack and as such deserves a separate article. Merrybrit (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the move because the protests have taken place at non-US diplomatic missions, and even a KFC.VR talk 14:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved the title back. While this needn't (and shouldn't) run the full seven days, opinion was swaying against this name. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now there were also riots in Sydney. This has gone far beyond the U.S. diplomatic missions. A separate article for the attack in Benghazi is probably a good idea because there are currently a lot of rumours about it being preplanned and it is very likely historically relevant on its own (post civil war Libya). Anti-Islam Video Protests seems also be the title given by the media now (e.g., Al Jazeera). We should not invent our own titles! --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per SnowFire. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about the title, 2012 international diplomatic attacks. JC · Talk · Contributions 17:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Belated Strong Oppose to above suggestion. THere are no recorded attacks on China (1.3 billion people), nor at present anti-Indian attacks. We cannot call it a 'international' targeted attack. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - it's simply dishonest and a lie. The article itself discusses numerous reports and statements by officials who comment that the attack in Libya, for one, seemed to be planned in advance and was highly sophisticated, and the movie was used as a pretext. The title (which has since been changed) drew a cause-and-effect comparison, which may or may not exist. That said, I propose to rename the current title to indicate that the diplomatic missions were Western embassies, something like "2012 attacks on Western diplomatic missions." --Activism1234 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is currently unknown if it was pre-planned. You cannot indicate that. JC · Talk · Contributions 01:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment'. Yes it is pre-planned. Check the latest updates from the Libya President himself. "foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months, planned the attack and used Libyans to carry it out." — Hasdi Bravo • 01:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The purpose of the events was to express anger, outrage, etc., against what is locally perceived as "Western/American values", additionally with clear political overtones. The film was a trigger. We thus witnessed a string of demonstrations in front of selected Western embassies, and in Kabul in front a US military camp. Media report that demonstrators chanted slogans, burned US/Western flags, threw stones - as it is the norm during any demonstration in these countries - and in a few instances (see article for a complete list) ransacked the premises. However, in all times [the Bengazi incident aside] the essence and purpose was a protest, not an attack. The current title is thus misleading, and it can even be argued that it purportedly misrepresents somewhat understandable mob outrage as planned military-style action. kashmiri 17:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Because the new name fits much better with the current event(s). LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a complete mess I recommend this be closed wait a few days and revisited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporary move

This temporary move was initially withdrawn by me (due to lack of consensus), but then carried out by an admin after more consensus towards removing "U.S." developed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Propose moving to a temporary title of 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks while the move discussion is in progress. That seems the least controversial interim option to me (compared to the current title), and allows for the attacks on other countries' embassies to be properly included without being off-topic. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That is my preferred name for this article, but I think the "d" should be lower case. —Cupco 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I support this as a temporary title as it's better than what we have now. However, it poses a problem of including the attacks on restaurants, private businesses and American school in Tunis.Merrybrit (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a fine temporary title to me as well. SnowFire (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question If we seem to have a consensus on this proposed temporary title, is it valid to move the page as such with the move discussion open? (Since it's not worth discussing a temporary title if it's not.) But I get the sense that people wouldn't mind dropping "U.S." from the title, so I would hope that if a couple more people chime in with support and nobody objects, we can make that move quickly. The title really is broken right now, since non-US embassies were attacked as part of this sequence. 00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The attacks are against the United States, and the others were targets of opportunity. It's no more against Germany and the UK than an attack against KFC. It wasn't the chicken they were "protesting".Skullers (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point, actually. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Several sources contradict this stance; the attacks on the German embassy were deliberate and focused on Germany, not the U.S. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 05:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. In the course of the attack (or violent protest, if you will) against the German embassy, the embassy seal was removed and vandalized (see, for instance, [12] as a source). That is a deliberate attack against a diplomatic symbol of a country and thus, by extension, against the country itself. — Precedingunsigned comment added by FungusFromYuggoth (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Drop the proposal for a temporary title due to objection; let's build proper consensus then (and get it done quickly, I hope) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Resumption of original move discussion

This was moved again, with no clear reason. While it was moved to the name I actually supported as a temporary name, I don't support bypassing the move process when it's clear that we don't have consensus at the moment, even for a change of that nature. Thus, I moved it back, even though I really don't like that we have "U.S." in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support For the reasons 2001 says below.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support While the diplomatic attacks are a major part of the protests are not the only part. It is an international protest with some violent and peaceful parts. 65.182.245.138 (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks since there had been attacked diplomatic missions of other countries meanwhile, e.g. Germany, the United Kingdom (both in Sudan) --Matthiasb (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per 2001:db8. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The protests involve more just attacks on US embassies. There were protest rallies and general protests against US, which were not attacks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -This is getting way too chaotic. We need to do something soon. Removing the US is definitely going into the right direction-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - As stated multiple times by multiple editors, the attacks and protests are no longer limited to the U.S. embassies. The U.S. part of the title needs to go ASAP, even if the main renaming discussion is still running. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the current title is unsustainable. The article now includes attacks on restaurants in Lebanon, the attack on NATO base in Afghanistan - they aren't "US diplomatic missions". Do we really have to wait seven days to correct what is clearly a title that nobody's happy with? Merrybrit (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that we have a 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi article which covers that attack from the viewpoint of it reportedly being premeditated, so I don't think using "film" is inaccurate at all, since it's meant to apply to the rest of the protests and attacks, not to the Libyan attack – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the proposed name is actually confusing; is it about an “Anti-Islam film” or protesting against an “Islam film”? I'm not sure I have a better suggestion, but maybe “September 2012 pro-Islamic middle eastern protests”. —Kerfuffler  harass
    stalk          02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have the same concern: that it can be misinterpreted as being a protest against an Islamic film. But I think that a better title will probably be long and convoluted, so I think it's worth considering the tradeoff. I'm don't think characterizing the protests as "pro-Islamic" is accurate either. I don't think you can assume that from the protestors being primarily Muslim, and sources are mostly reporting on the anti-whatever nature of the protests and attacks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are questions being raised by reliables sources about the true motive for the attacks. Prefer the broader "2012 diplomatic missions attacks." First Light (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose to renaming per Dennis Brown and others. This is good title right now. It focuses on the pure fact of the attacks. It does not claim any reasons for the attacks. The motives could be the movie, the anti-Americanism, the order from Ayman al-Zawahiri, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I support the construction of a title without US, but oppose whitewashing the "attacks" into merely a "protest." These actions may have been protests reacting to a film, but they became deadly attacks. With a few dozen dead, "protests" is dangerously euphemistic. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • May I humbly suggest 2012 Anti-Islam film reactions so the term reaction will cover both protests AND attacks? Most of the reactions are protests, with the Benghazi attack using the film as cover of a pre-planned attack. Some attackers are claiming responsibility in response of the film. We need to sort out the protests and attacks and place them in separate sections so facts don't get confused. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I am now convinced that name change to 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, which should cover both peaceful and violent protests. To me, "attacks" suggest military style confrontation, like what happened in Benghazi, hence misleading. The protests also have expanded beyond "diplomatic missions". — Hasdi Bravo • 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Propose "Innocence of Muslims protests". Why call it "Anti-Islam film protests", when the name of the work is well-known? It also risks confusion with "Anti Islamic cinema". OTH, "Anti-American" is not suitable, because European entities have also been targeted, and "diplomatic" is not suitable, because businesses (like KFC) have also been targeted. --hydrox (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This attack was pre-planned. How come did this all start on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks. These attacks were not only done against the anti-Islam movie, but also because September 11 is the anniversary of such a tragic day. I also oppose Hydrox. This has been pre-planned, as I already mentioned. Hasdi, the events that occurred on September 11, 2012 was an attack, by Islamic extremists. Currently, I believe that as this event continues, a new title will be proposed. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the WP:Common name?

Has everyone here forgot about WP:common name? Not a single news media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The most common ones usually go something like "Protests over anti-Islam film" or "anti-Islam film protests". Things have changed. This title needs to change too.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Reiterate support for the original 2012 Anti-Islam film protests, partially due to this. The Libya attack has a separate page now, and if more than speculation arises on the Egypt attack being coordinated, we can certainly do the same for that or include it with the Libya attack. But the rest of the world is engaged in a protest that started with a reported film, and is being reported as such, even if it has wider implications. It's mostly non-violent, with some violence in places, so "protests" seems better overall (and DOES cover the violent portions just fine; it's not like the proposed title is "peaceful demonstrations".) Using "attacks" in the title seems NPOV against any peaceful protests, whereas "protests" doesn't do the same to including attacks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's an ongoing event and there's no established common name. The media have to conserve headline space and use the shortest possible name to identify the story. Such as "mohammed cartoons", "anti-islam film", "mohammed video" etc. And neither do they use "2012". There are other films that are "protested" against, do we cover them by the year? We should use a title that most accurately identifies the event. Skullers (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this helps, but the NYT has decided a name for the topic page regarding these events: ['Innocence of Muslims' Riots] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've a number of websites referring to these events as the Arab Fall [13], [14], [15], [16]. I doesn't seem to be common though. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The attacks on the diplomatic sites are a clearly defined topic which we can cover well. The other protests are probably also such a topic, but not to cover here. That other article will be hard to define - how do you say when an attack in Afghanistan is about the Koran and when it's about there being a war on? Wnt (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Should the film title "Innocence of Muslims" be included?

Several people have brought this up. Also, the NYT created a topic page for these events and calls it the "'Innocence of Muslims' Riots" [17]. My question is: should the film title be included in this article's title? How about "2012 'Innocence of Muslims' protests and attacks" or something like that? It's definitely less vague than anti-Islam protests -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. The first attack in Benghazi was clearly a planned al-Qaida event having to do with a drone attack on the organization's #2 leader, which follows closely after other attacks that preceded release of the film! Wnt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A simple search of copious anti-muslim content on YouTube proves the fallacy of "opinion-mongers" in the popular media and here in Wikipedia that these attacks were somehow justified in response to a perceived insult from a single film. "Bad old Western culture blasphemed our Prophet with this film. Please ignore all the other examples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.165.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Attacks are not only on diplomatic missions

Apparently, the Taliban attack on Camp Bastion was a response to the film, but it may also be a pretext for an attack on the base. I think the name of the article should be 2012 attacks in response to Innocence of Muslims. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya (which involved al-Qaeda), and the Camp bastion attacks (which involved the Taliban). - M0rphzone (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Move to 2012 attacks in response to anti-Islam film (or include the actual film title) - The scope of this article is on the protests, riots, and attacks, not only on protests. These attacks aren't specifically targeting diplomatic missions, but rather, Western-related buildings and also as a pretext for the coordinated attacks in Libya and Afghanistan. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment as requested: I would support this over the current title if we can't reach consensus on the proposed title, as it's better than "diplomatic missions attacks". However, I strongly prefer the use of protests over attacks, since most of the countries we're reporting about aren't seeing violence, and "protests" certainly covers violent protests as well. (The pre-planned attack in Benghazi is another matter, and is being covered in its own article as it should be.) Something more succinct like 2012 protests over anti-Islam film would be better I think, and I'd support that version as much as the primary option of 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of these events are protests, not attacks. I would support a title like 2012 protests over anti-Islam film over the original proposal due to misinterpretation issues.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, there's only one film involved, Innocence of Muslims. There exist plenty of other anti-islamic films, and the "protests" are over this particular one. No need to be vague like that. Skullers (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Except I don't think that is the real title, or the film actually exists. >:( From what I have seen in the 14-minute clip, it is an overdub of selected scenes of "Desert Warrior" film. I think it is best to give that "film" a descriptive name like "Anti-Islam film" until we have seen the rest of the it. — Hasdi Bravo • 02:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Taliban attacks to US bases in Afghanistan is actually fairly common, one or two per week (maybe more, I lost count). Since Taliban has cited the film for this particular attack in Camp Bastion, we probably should include it, but I highly suspect Taliban will attack the base in spite of the film. :-/ My two cents. — Hasdi Bravo • 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown of article title

I see people shooting random suggestions as usual, but perhaps we should approach it more systematically:

Year: adding "2012" implies that all the "film protests" in 2012 fall within its scope, and that we cover them by the year.
Type of event: [muslim] riots / protests / attacks / reactions / unrest / etc - rather contentious
Motivation: anti-film / anti-US / anti-west / etc... may be improper to attribute in the title
Target: [US] diplomatic missions / anything that looks western and flammable

How specific or how generic should it be to clearly and unambiguously identify the scope of the article (and scope of the event for that matter) while remaining neutral and factually accurate? As it is, the 3 articles on this topic (with the film itself and the attack in Libya) overlap in scope for protests, attacks, and reactions. I suggest we figure this instead of causing further confusion. Skullers (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely consensus to keep "2012" (nobody has objected to that), and there are a lot of people who want to remove "diplomatic missions" part, because those are not the only targets. There is strong consensus to not have "US" in the title, and I haven't seen any arguments to have "anti-West" in the title.

The main issues that we need to vote on are (1) type of event (attacks or protests), (2) whether or not to include the film (anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims), and (3) whether to include diplomatic missions or not.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say similar, though I'd add that (2) and (3) are essentially the same (since nobody has really proposed we have both in there, just one or the other, so it can just be treated as three options: anti-Islam film vs Innocence of Muslims vs diplomatic missions, plus whatever else might be suggested, in addition to attacks vs protests separately.) The existing discussion is also a mess, due to the rapidly changing nature of the event, and also the move removing "U.S." (which makes replies before that occurred possibly confusing,since people were objecting to wording that's no longer applicable, but of course the move was necessary); perhaps it would be good to get a newer set of editor opinions to help clarify the existing discussion. Phrasing is also an issue, though more minor in my opinion (and only really applicable if it's "anti-Islam film" I think, and there are some suggestions on longer phrasing to avoid the ambiguous "Anti-Islam film protests/attacks".) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2012 is redundant if Innocence of Muslims is identified by name, since it wasn't "protested" separately in 2011 or 2013. There are other anti-islam films protested against, and we shouldn't distinguish them by year. Something like "Innocence of Muslims" riots would be more accurate. Skullers (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree, but I'm not sure we even need to worry about that point, assuming nobody does want to call it the "2012 Innocence of Muslims riots". (Since that goes against article title conventions.) As long as it's clear that that version of the name wouldn't have 2012, but the others would, then I don't think it's a big deal. (And if anyone does strongly prefer that name, it can be suggested as an alternative to just plain "Innocence of Muslims".) I would say considering riots in addition to protests and attacks is likely warranted, though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I Agree. ypnypn (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - taking a look at a few news sources shows we can definitely go with 2012 anti-Islam film protests or something of the sort. --Skycycle (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I support 'Anti-West" be added. There are no attacks on China. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Islamic anti-West protests (or Muslim, whatever is the correct term). This is neutral and captures the broad scope. The attacks on the German embassy are not related to the film, but are likely inspired by the attack in Benghazi. Further, there was a report that said the attack in Benghazi was planned before the film came out. [18] [19] [20]--Metallurgist (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Shouting "death to america", killing an american diplomat on american soil (an embassy), is a blatant attack on the US, especially considering it started around September 11, and before that, the video itself had less that 1000 views, as well as the fact that the video has been out for 3 months. I don't even see how the video plays a part at all, outside of a scape-goat for rioting. Countered (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm How many more times do we need to discuss this? The attack in Benghazi that killed Stevens is unrelated to these protests, which are ignited by the film.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW - I am confident that the US and/or world media will come up with a common name for the series of events that they all latch on to and will be obliged to use. These aren't always obvious during the events. (ie: We didn't call WWI by that title during the war) I wouldn't suggest anyone get too attached to any name until then, as that will become the common name, although the discussion is always healthy. I suggest leaving the title as it is for a week or two with the full understanding that the current title is purely temporary, as no one likes it nor thinks it will be the final title, but bouncing it around between titles isn't helpful either. Discussing it is fine, but history has shown us that the sources will pick the title, we won't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should search for the most common name used to refer to these events in English reliable sources and use it instead of trying to make one by ourselves. We need someone searching and showing URLs to verify as I've seen done in such situations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources:
  • CNN: No specific name. Titles such as: Anti-U.S. demonstrations worldwide and Attacks on U.S. missions used to refer to specific events, but not the whole events. [21]. This is also true for many other news websites (most websites I visited avoided using a specific term to refer to these events).
  • AJE: Anti-Islam Video Protests [22].
  • RT: Anti-US riots [23].
  • BBC: Anti-Islam film protests [24].
  • Sky News: US Anti-Islam Film Protests [25]
  • Washington Post: Anti-American protests [26]
  • Los Angeles Times: Anti-U.S. protests [27].
Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
If we look into the quick search results, we'll see "Anti-Islam" vs "Anti-US", for this I think most of us will agree Anti-Islam is better. Is it a film or video? Both seem the same for me. Is it attacks/riots/protests or all (reactions)? It is all, but for the most part it is protests and that the most used term to refer to the events. Therefore I support 2012 Anti-Islam film protests. I also don't oppose 2012 Anti Islam film reactions. For those who think the name is "vague and misleading" or "confusing", you might as well tell that to the BBC, AJE, Sky News, etc. We name articles per WP:COMMON. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I am somewhat in agreement with you. We really need to sort out the protests from the attacks, as I would reserve the word attack for "military" attacks (involve guns and RPG and stuff). Another problem is that the 'Anti-Islam film' (which I took the trouble to watch) is likely IMHO a 14-minute riff-raff version of 'Desert Warrior', overdubbed and all. I don't see any references to Bin Laden in the youtube video AND Desert Warrior, so 'Innocence of Bin Laden' could be another film entirely. This whole thing is one huge cluster-f**k. >:( — Hasdi Bravo • 17:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Reactions" is very misleading, because it most reactions to a film consist of printed reviews, not riots or attacks or whatever. I think "protests" is the most accurate, because it include violent protests as well. ypnypn (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Do read the first paragraph: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; [...] When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. - WP:UCN. It's a current event and headlines change, there is no "common name". Do we really need to quote policy like scripture and start chery-picking headlines for it? Skullers (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not think that describing the events as protests is inaccurate, because as indicated above, protests can be violent and turn into riots. Also the attack in Libya has its own article. If you think this is cheery-picking, then please find what other sources are calling it and add them to the table below. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It's cherry-picking and that's why i'm not engaging in it. Do you know how many "sources" there are in total? Do you tally every headline you come across, or just the ones that count? Category:Lists of newspapers Category:Television networks, lmk. You might have to re-count again as things develop. Skullers (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What the media are calling these events

Let's make this more organized. Here is a chart. Feel free to edit it.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was curious so I did a Google test using "$NAME" -wikipedia for some of the entries. Go ahead and edit/update/refine it if you like. Braincricket (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I just filtered the search to show only results from the past week. Not sure how to interpret it really, but here are the numbers. Braincricket (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Google News test" shows number of Google news results for this past week without quotation marks. If you wish to update them, click on the link next to the numbers and check if there's any difference. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources Name of events Links Google News test
NY Times Innocence of Muslims Riots [28] 19,900 [29]
AJE Anti-Islam Video Protests [30] 101,000 [31]
RT Arab Fall [32] 17,600 [33]
BBC Anti-Islam film protests [34] 113,000 [35]
Sky News Anti-Islam film protests [36] ~
Washington Post Anti-American protests [37] 38,200 [38]
Los Angeles Times Anti-U.S. protests [39] 41,800 [40]
CBC Attacks at American diplomatic missions [41] 48,100 [42]
CNN protests over anti-Islam film [43] 115,000 [44]
Columbia Daily Tribune Anti-Muslim film protests [45] 53,500 [46]

Analysis It looks like "anti-Islam film protests" and "protests over anti-Islam film" are the most popular terms used in the news media. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

lol @ turning 194 into 19,800. And "Anti-American protests"? Every other protest in the world is Anti-American, film or not. I'd stay away from analysis based on that.
Is it [2012] anti- Islam/Islamic/Muslim/Mohammed...film/video...protests/riots/attacks...at/on/against...U.S./American/Western...embassies/diplomatic missions/objects? Are we searching for specific words or picking arbitrary combinations? In headlines or body text? In unique publishers or in total articles? In Google or Bing? I'd take that with a bag of salt. Skullers (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of "September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests"

How about we have this article's title be, September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests. All of the other proposed titles are under heavy dispute. However, what about this title? I can't see anyone disagreeing with this. The protesters and attackers believe in Islam, why can't the title be this one? Below, explain your support or oppose statement. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:55, 20 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.

2012 Islamic attacks and protests
  • Support Covers two major elements of the issue: who and what.Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -Good idea. I hope this can serve as a compromise between the "protests" supporters and "attacks" supporters. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be honest, this title just came from the top of my head. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Nope, not WP:NPOV. If Jews protest against an anti-semitic film, should we call such an event "2012 Jewish attacks and protests"? Replace "Islamic" with something else. — Hasdi Bravo • 03:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with opposing it, but there's a difference between Islamic and Muslim (although regular Muslims certainly protested the film as well).
  • Oppose - way too vague. There have been many protests in the Arab world this year, some of which are Islamic in nature (Mali, Ethiopia...). Obviously, our intention isn't to put these unrelated protests in the article. Simply put, the title is too vague, causing it to be too broad in scope. However, when we say diplomatic mission attacks - there haven't really been any others in 2012, so we know what we're discussing. --Activism1234 04:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 2012 Muslim rough and tumble? 2012 Islamic rack and ruin? 2012 Islamic hustle and bustle? Skullers (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdrawal. I am now proposing September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests. JC · Talk · Contributions 01:47, 21 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.
September 2012 Islamic attacks and protests
  • Strong oppose Well, for one thing, not all protesters (and attackers) are muslims. 'Islamic' could be construed as attacks and protests that is endorsed by the religion of Islam, which is not. No all muslims took part in this - some just dismiss Sam Bacile (whatever his name is) as a moron. Don't forget that the first amendment is not just the freedom of speech but also freedom of assembly. Even if Bacile is not falling into hate speech, others have the right to protest peacefully. Enough rant. As I have said previously, change "Islamic" to something else. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Other related discussions

Need to change the name of this article

We need to change the title of this article to, say, 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks as German embassy in Sudan was set on fire and British embassy in Sudan was attacked as well. Merrybrit (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Events appear to have become anti-Western-- German and British embassies, KFC restaurant, etc. I'm also uncertain about using the term "attack" as a blanket for all protests-- it fits well for the Benghazi attack, but not all.
What about September 2012 Anti-Western protests? --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "Western" is the right word to use in the title, since it's a bit subjective, but the suggested 2012 Western diplomatic missions attacks, or maybe just 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks to avoid using Western, seems fine with me. Though it seems the idea at the moment is to merge this into the Protests against "Innocence of Muslims" article, and turn this into an article on the apparently pre-planned Benghazi attack specifically. (Though I'm not sure why that wasn't done the other way around.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, neither title captures the essence of the events. The purpose of the events was to express anger, outrage, etc., against what is locally perceived as "Western/American values", additionally with clear political overtones. Thus, we witnessed a string of demonstrations in front of selected Western embassies, and in Kabul in front a US military camp. Media report that demonstrators chanted slogans, burned US/Western flags, threw stones - and in just a few instances (see article) ransacked the premises. However, in all times [the Bengazi incident aside] the essence and purpose was a protest, not an attack. The current title is thus misleading, it can even be argued that it presents somewhat understandable mob outrage as military action. Suggestion: September 2012 anti-Islamic film violence/unrest. kashmiri 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Kashmiri is correct; there are no recorded anti-Chinese or anti-African attacks. This is not an attack on "international" forces, but specifically against Westerners. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This article's title needs to change, be more generic

Not a single media source calls these events the "2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks". The protests and attacks are clearly related and belong in the same article. Something like "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is much better. Take a look at 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say, section above this one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:FORUM-rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please indicate which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are alleged to be at issue here. This may be a rant, but it is also a legitimate discussion of the article title. —Cupco 23:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a patently dishonest renaming of the article to further the false implication that these terrorist attacks were carried out in response to the obscure "anti-Islam" film, when we know that these attacks were premeditated and planned long in advance to coincide with September 11 to garner maximum political and symbolic effect. The film that is continually being dishonestly characterised as being at the centre of these events was used as a false pretext merely to draw out the masses to provide human cover for the terrorists and increase their likelihood of a successful murder operation. Your decision to rename the article as "Anti-Islam film protests" serves the agenda of reinforcing the false narrative of these terrorist attacks being some sort of spontaneous eruption of rage (which somehow included RPGs, AK-47s, and prior warnings from prominent Jihadists/Islamists). One must suspend reality to actually believe that the parallel attacks on American embassies and consulates in different cities was somehow coincidental, moreover coincidentally occurring on September 11. We saw this same strategy implemented many times, including the "Koran-burning protests" in Afghanistan where a Mujahedeen terrorist used to commotion and human traffic as cover from which to murder American soldiers. As expected, the pervasive dishonesty of Wikipedia is inescapable, and we are expected to see good faith in editors who clearly have a dishonest agenda to conform the narrative to their leftist worldview. Bobinisrael (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Bobinisrael's comments here and below are neither original research (they are supported by e.g. the sources at #Evidence for coordinated attacks), nor personal inventions, nor personal essays (they are about improving the title), and they are about improving the article; therefore, the allegations that Bobinisrael has violated WP:FORUM are false. These comments should not be hidden. —Cupco 23:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this new generic title "diplomatic mission attacks of 2012" suggests that diplomatic missions in general are being attacked. Contrary to this Western-viewpoint, non-Western diplomatic missions are not being attacked-- incl, for example, China's, which represent 1.3 billion people. Shouldn't it be "Western diplomatic mission attacks of 2012? -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Requested Move

This is a very general article. Not everyone agrees that the film alone caused this unrest. Not all forms of unrest were violent. It seems pretty clear that this particular unrest should be distinguished from that in China against the Japanese. Per the LA Times and NY Times, perhaps Islamic unrest is the right generality to use. Therefore I offer the title of "September 2012 Islamic unrest"

I can anticipate that a few people may feel unease about this particular wording, however, it does seem clear that none of the activism, peaceful or violent, has been initiated by any other religious group, and that the admirable multi-cultural aspect of Islam has caused this phenomenon to transcend any racial or national generalities one may succinctly delineate.

There is a strong possibility that any title which does not include the word "attack" will find some uncompromising disfavor. I am not opposed to an article which devotes itself to the attacks which were the result of this unrest and that article, I think, would be free to pursue much more detail.

One may also note a small potential fallacy I have committed, in not implying that any unrest that may or may not have arisen directly from the film, an exception to the rule, does not disprove the rule. However, "Islamic unrest" is still descriptive, and a far better descriptor than "attacks" as there was a wide range of response and other causes of unrest have been cited in specific situations.

I should admit my own bias and declare that I am American, and an atheist, formerly a Christian. What's important to me is that we reach a compromise which describes the general phenomenon as accurately as possible. I invite all commentary. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I like September 2012 Islamic unrest or September 2012 Muslim unrest. It's a step in the right direction-- title improvement is much needed-- only some of the events discussed are 'attacks'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally don't like being too picky and I must agree that the suggested title is much better than the current one, Muslim or Islamic unrest implies that only this certain demographic was involve which isn't the case in some protests. Also to me, the title somewhat sounds like it's bias against the Islamic people and blame solely lays on them for causing the unrest with no reason given but that's just me. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Four points
  • The name leads you are suggesting itself to this becoming an enormous article.
  • I think that a separate article (i.e. this article) on Diplomatic attacks is warranted, and that unfortunately it might become increasingly warranted.
  • A "list of Attacks" has been carved off and used to create a separate article. I suggest that list is returned.
  • I carved off the "list of protests" and placed them on the film page. I suggested that only the relevant (i.e. "attacks") be maintained here. No feedback on that from anyone yet.
I wouldn't rename this. A new article with a broader base might be warranted. If so, it ought to include both the lists of "unrest" protests, and comments from Islamic leaders (specifically).
Amandajm (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the information in the article could be any more general. The lead uses 'protests' six times and 'attacks' just once. The map includes points where only peaceful protests occurred. If you'd like to focus on the attacks, I applaud you. This article is not that article. This is the general article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm tempted to do a bit of carving off of my own. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is being consolidated into an article about the attacks, specifically.
It is a valid article. If you change it's name, then an article of the same name will promptly need to be created. Star another article.
Amandajm (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Add terrorism to title

This was an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia needs to honestly document events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but I think you want to discuss that on a different page: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, because there were no Islamist terrorists at this attack. You are ignoring that both articles need to be renamed: 2012 diplomatic missions Islamist Terrorist attacks, because you can't see through your political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Donfarberman is absolutely correct. Welcome to the battle against the pervasive narrative of leftism that infects Wikipedia. There is a DELIBERATE attempt to minimise the association of these events with anything Islamic/ist. Bobinisrael (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You are completely correct. Any honest editors get scrubbed by the leftists, and it's a deliberate and systemic bias in Wikipedia. How can we solve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Dude, if "Islamist terrorists" is that important to you, then do a move request on the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi page to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi by Islamist terrorists or something. We're trying keep facts straight on this page, specifically about the protests on the film, both peaceful and violent. — Hasdi Bravo • 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP soapboxing about Wikipedia policies on the Talk Pages, Bobinisrael and others - this is NOT the place for pushing your ideas of what is wrong with Wikipedia and is against the Talk Page rules. Confine comments here to the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article(s). Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
REMOVED-you've been blocked indefinitely from editing and you have no business here causing disruptions either, Donfarberman.

A moot point now, but this move would not fit our naming style for events of this type. We rarely if ever name the perpetrators in the title, and unless there is a separate rash of diplomatic mission attacks, adding Islamic Terrorists into it would do nothing to disambiguate it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 07:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's change the name soon, please

A spin-off from this article was created for the protests in Sydney. At the discussion for merging that spin-off back into this article, one user correctly noted that the spin-off article was not a diplomatic attack, only a protest and a riot.

So if the current name sticks, other users too, will have cause to move content about protests that didn't attack diplomatic missions into separate articles.VR talk 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

With the title "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" as it is, a lot of content don't belong on this page. My biggest issue is that any protest is being categorized as an attack, even if no violence, death or bodily harm is involved. If I protest against my government on overspending, is that considered an attack against Obama? Whatever happened to free speech? I see only two attacks here, one in Benghazi that apparently is not prompted by the film, and another in Afghanistan that is not even a diplomatic mission but a military base in a freaking active war zone. For heaven's sake, please stop trying to redirect / merge unrelated pages and content under on page about "attacks on diplomatic missions", or categorize a spit on the embassy building as an attack on the United States. >:( Adios. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
So why not rename this article "2012 anti-Islam flim protests" and then merge all the protests here?VR talk 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You tell me. I voted for 2012 Anti-Islam film protests in the move section above. If we can't get a consensus, I suggest we just track all the protest in a huge section under Innocence of Muslims page, at least until we get all this semantic arguments sorted out. >:( Alternatively, we can split off 2012 Anti-Islam film protests in its own page, and have this page to actually track all attacks on diplomatic missions in 2012, with one Benghazi entry so far. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that if all the protests are moved to this page, it is going to be so long that it will be cumbersome to load, anywhere in the world without fast networks. (much of Asia for example). It's best if articles don't get too huge.
  • Currently, the Hezbollah are calling for more protests and more action. I suspect we have not seen the end of the violence.
  • My strategy would be to continue what was started, and remove anything that was not a) violent b) directed at a diplomatic mission to another page.
  • In doing this, some of the material from the "Background" sections will need to be pasted into the new articles.
  • This article is possibly best left as the Main for that purpose, because items within the background such as other attacks on diplomatic missions, and other protests involving serious violence, murders and calls for death, as well as the material pertaining to terrorist organisations is all more relevant here than to a protest that involved 500 people peacefully staging a sit-down in the town square.
  • So we start a new article, cut the long list of "non-violent" and "non diplomatic", retrieve the stuff that got pasted onto the page Innocence of Muslims for want of somewhere better to put it, and then use Main article links to direct to the lengthy "background" section here.
  • This may sound pessimistic, but this article may not be finished for quite a long time.
  • Basically, what I'm saying is, don't be short sighted about this. Leave it, and see what eventuates.
Amandajm (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Further to this, I am going to comment that any action in which a diplomat, along with other people, is killed, needs its own article, or as here, an article that focusses only on similar events. Amandajm (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See, we can't "remove anything that was not a) violent b) directed at a diplomatic mission to another page." because that other page is 2012 Anti-Islam film protests AND it is being redirected to this page. Moreover, any attempts to recreate the protest page is seen as an attack (ha!) to wikipedia renaming process. Now, if somebody can be so kind to drop objections for such a split, then I don't see the need to rename this page and we go off our merry ways. — Hasdi Bravo • 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Move title to Innocence of Muslims Riots

Doubtcoachdoubtcoach (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? •Jim62sch•dissera! 14:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - any such change would be very out of line, considering that our sources tell us that the movie is only being used a pretense for these attacks. Besides that, this particular suggestion is just a lousy name. -- Avanu (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, it's what the NYT is calling it: [47] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And as always, the reliability of a source is based on 3 factors, as well as context. We have sources that clearly show that "'Innocence of Muslims' riots" would be an unfit title because it is a less-than-accurate description. Just because the New York Times says something doesn't make it automatically reliable or proper. -- Avanu (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - haven't we had this discussion a hundred times already? In either case, I oppose because it draws a cause-and-effect. Anti-Islam film created, Muslims riot. However, there is abundant evidence that the attack in Libya, for one, was pre-planned, and this film was used as an excuse. Many writers have also commented that the film may have been used as an excuse to just protest anger against the West in general or frustration with the Arab Spring. --Activism1234 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is information from eyewitnesses and various intelligence sources to indicate that the attacks in Benghazi were premeditated and coordinated. There is also information from a DHS report that people may have been incited by a Web posting 2 days before September 11 to attack the embassy in Cairo.Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

This disscussion is a mess, but I took the time to read it and count the votes. Here's what I got. You're welcome to update it if necessary. Important note: this summary does not include votes cast for the temporary move (removing “US” from title), which has already been implemented. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Results last updated by: JC · Talk · Contributions 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Position Votes Names
Support for “2012 Anti-Islam film protests” 9 Merrybrit, 2001:db8, VR, Wikieditoroftoday, Kashmiri, Hasdi Bravo, Skycycle, Mohamed CJ, FutureTrillionaire
Support for inclusion of “Innocence of Muslims” in title 5 Skullers, SnowFire, hydrox, M0rphzone, ypnypn
Oppose to further title change/support current title 9 Rpdant767, Cupco, Toa Nidhiki05, Activism1234, JCRules, Dennis Brown, Wnt, My very best wishes, BDD, Countered
Support for inclusion of “Anti-West[ern]” in title 2 Metallurgist, WikiSkeptic
Other suggestions (look for their comments above for more info) 2 Kerfuffler, JCRules (See here)

Conclusion: No consensus

  • You do know that voting has no actual effect? The consensus is actually when a user made a strong argument in which that statement effects the result. For more information, see WP:VOTE. JC · Talk · Contributions 01:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims/Archive_3&oldid=1140125178"