Talk:Reactions to Innocence of Muslims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intifada

The Arab/Muslim world appears to be on fire in protest and violence against Western targets. Should we start calling this an Intifada (or is that reserved for Palestinian vs. Israel conflicts?)

I think this is more like a wave of protests, nothing as big as uprising (intifada), but if it develops we'll carry on. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions already. It's not World War III yet. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We can not call it an intifada if that is not what it is called in RS outlets and the term is used widely. That'd just be attributing our own views to it. --Activism1234 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Google Map has more up-to-date info

As of right now, this Google Map has far more up to fate information than we do: [1] 71.246.159.216 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Added to External links as this clearly satisfies everything in WP:EL. —Cupco 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An update to all of the maps are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaskerr1027 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're blanking/moving the protest section...

The best way is not to remove the entire thing. It would be much better to summarize the protests fully, rather than remove all of them with just a vague summary. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain and Germany are not U.S. colonies or subsidiaries

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.

---

Don't treat them as such. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The lemma is simply wrong. It would be silly to treat the attacks against the British and German embassy in a different topic. So 2012 diplomatic missions attacks should be the new lemma. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 21:27, 14 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.

One more death in Lebanon

According to this Al Jazeera English report, 2 people have died in Lebanon altogether. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291482159758224.html David O. Johnson (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the death count in Lebanon. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is KFC really a diplomatic mission? - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Including anniversary of Sep 11 in lede

"The attacks coincided with the 11 year anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks against the US." - this seems silly. Of course they did, and so do many other things. Yes, they're linked. However, just mentioning that without drawing any sort of conclusion is basically just tossing trivia into the lead. More importantly, it ties the attacks to the anniversary, which has NOT been established. I'm not going to edit war and remove it a second time, but it's rather awkward and unneeded. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I will remove it because I agree with you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support The information on the September 11 2001 attacks on the US in the lead is relevant to emphasise the actual motive behind the new attacks on the very same day.--Rpdant767 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your problem is that you are speculating on motives, background, an other stuff you're trying to add without backing it up. Find reliable sources that describe this as directly related to 9/11 or other claims you've made, then it can be considered. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The information that September 11 2001 occurred on the same day is not a speculation in itself.--Rpdant767 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course not. But that's trivial unless you can back up your claim that it's not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I disagree that the date coincidence is trivial and believe that it is very significant. As far as the motive it is up to the readers to make their own conclusions.--Rpdant767 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • If the attacks were not timed to September 11 but to the movie, they should have occurred in July back when the movie was released.--Rpdant767 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • You do know that the film was dubbed in Arabic and widely circulated in Muslim world only last week? Just because someone uploaded a video to Youtube in July doesn't mean that everyone should have noticed it right then.Merrybrit (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Instead of just bickering, you could find some sources so that the info. can be included, like here, here, or here.--ɱ 02:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
              • As with other sources, all three of those say that the attack is being investigated for links to 9/11. We already separately note that both the Libyan foreign minister and the Obama administration have mentioned that, as your refs say. But it's still an investigation, and does not seem notable for the lead as it still doesn't establish any link, past the fact that they're investigating it. (And it would be rather odd if they didn't investigate a possible terrorist attack that happened on the anniversary of 9/11.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dishonestly edited title.

{{hat|[[WP:FORUM]]}} This is a legitimate discussion of improving the article with a more accurate title. Un-hatting. —Cupco 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the title of the article should be renamed to "2012 Anti-American Islamist protests". The editors of this article are willingly parroting the false pretext of these terrorist attacks and murders (which are *still* not identified as such in the body of the article) as being in response to an obscure YouTube movie trailer, rather than actually being premeditated terrorist attacks that utilised political agitation regarding this film to provide human cover as an operational asset to increase the likelihood of the attack's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but we need sources saying it. WP:RM —Cupco 22:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it's a violation of WP:FORUM. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To which specific provisions of WP:FORUM are you referring? I see a discussion about improving the article title, with somewhat overblown language, unless you have been keeping up with the reporting cited in #Evidence for coordinated attacks for example. —Cupco 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The user is treating it as a WP:SOAPBOX and has had multiple discussions hidden; while it may be a legitimate point, it's made with the same unconstructive attack-filled language as previous rants have been. We're being accused of editing the title in a "dishonest" manner, but it's just a continuation of all the previous comments. The user does not wish to contribute, but only to comment on a narrow set of talk pages, and has not responded to MANY efforts at reasonable discussion. WP:DNFTT – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the opinions expressed by Bobinisrael reported in reliable news sources, so I disagree that this is soapboxing. I suggest that WP:BITE is of particular relevance here. —Cupco 23:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that his opinions are necessarily incorrect, but how they are presented (which has been discussed at length here and on his talk page, so no need to expand on it here.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, because the tone of my unapologetic rejection of blatantly dishonest editing in this article with the intent to propagandise the readership is more concerning to you than, say, the actual quality and accuracy of the content contained therein. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't an Administrator already hide this? Without RS's, it's just WP:FORUM HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Provide any constructive suggestions in the relevant section above. Skullers (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Too late, it was closed out of order. Bobinisrael's comments here and above 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. —Cupco 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence should also say "ostensibly started" when discussing the video, since that's what the sources say. Fast Clear (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is "Anti-Islam film protests" a factual title?

First, good restructure-- the current title is better than the old one. I see some people questioning the title's literal accuracy-- that is, how important is the film in these protests, really? Is the film the "cause", or just a "trigger" that sets off latent social unrest?

If I could poll the protestors, how many would cite the film? Any guesses or estimates?

In any case, the title seems a fine working title until clarity emerges. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider commenting on the move-request rather opening a new section... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, User:Wikieditoroftoday went ahead and did the move before it could be closed and while it appeared to lack consensus. I feel a request for move protection may be called for, but I'm very much unhappy with the current name and would hate to see it get locked this way for a couple weeks. —Cupco 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with it as a title-- that's what BBC and RT are calling it, for lack of a better name.

I just wonder how "central" the film is to the protestors-- if they were here editing, would they "agree" with the weight we're giving to the film as a cause of the protests. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't relevant, we name articles per WP:Common. To me, the film is nothing more than Mohamed Bouazizi; "the straw that broke the camel's back". Also why is the article title changed back to the one no seems to be agreeing with? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for coordinated attacks

These all seem to have various support from different perspectives that the attacks were coordinated, i.e., not mob action:

• http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8KCMYB20120912
• http://techpresident.com/news/22845/unlikely-911-unrest-response-to-clips-alone
• http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21523678/obama-condemns-attack-that-killed-us-ambassador
• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/
• http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html

I don't have enough sleep to evaluate them all in detail and try to compose a unified summary, so maybe someone else will I hope. —Cupco 09:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Read also this post. Just FYI Noman Benotman is Libyan, was member of LIFG and has vast array of contacts within the jihadists although he made a split with them a decade ago. Libya seems like AQ coordinated action which used the protests as cover-up (in Tripoli there was protest as well. 40 people attended it and most of the city didnt even know about them). EllsworthSK (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. This needs fixing. The article is written as if the film is the biggest part of it, but it's just a smokescreen. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely agreed, now that these better sources are coming up. I'm not sure the best way to fix all of this since the entire Background section is currently about the film...but we can (sanely) change the ascribed motives in the lead, and fill in the background section slowly I suppose. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added some info on the possible coordination and some U.S. officials saying it wasn't caused by the film to the lead (though the second part may be too speculative, but it is CNN quoting anonymous US government officials, which passes the reliability test for me, and I used "believed" in any case), but the "background" section still needs to be expanded to note all of this. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No Man Be Not Man? Thats not a name, it's an existential quandary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.23 (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The article currently starts "On September 11, 2012, a series of protests started in response to a YouTube trailer of a film presented with the title Innocence of Muslims and considered blasphemous by many Muslims." That is looking less and less likely. I would correct to say "perhaps" or "reportedly", but the article is locked and I can't make any corrections. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of debate still, as of September 16, whether this was a spontaneous or pre-planned attack on the US consulate in Behghazi. Yet the first sentence still claims the attacks began in response to a film. Can this be updated and corrected? See resources below:

US, Libya differ on accounts of Benghazi attack http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grZlSqbDUPOklWk6DdxzsZPDUIig?docId=CNG.fe8e9253b496ea61d57a5b1f8ffb3eee.01

Libyan President: Attack planned by foreigners http://www.washingtonpost.com/libyan-president-attack-planned-by-foreigners/2012/09/16/7be6d8c0-0020-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_video.html

John McCain: Libya Attacks On U.S. Officials Were Planned By Terrorists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/john-mccain-libya_n_1888291.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Libya lawmaker says Benghazi attack planned http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=23366 "I don't want to talk about what happened in other countries but as for Libya, the operation was meticulously executed," Mohammed al-Megaryef [the country's assembly chief] said. "There was planning. It was not a peaceful protest which degenerated into an armed attack or aggression. That's how it was planned," he said.

And from Sept. 13: Consulate attack planned as 2-part militant assault, Libyan official says http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/13/consulate-attack-planned-as-2-part-militant-assault-libyan-official-says/ Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From other reliable sources:

No protest before Benghazi attack, wounded Libyan guard says http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html

Islamists targeted U.S. diplomats with gunfire, RPGs in planned assault, witness says http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/12/168270/attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya.html

It seems the Background section and the lead needs to be revised to reflect this information.

Update Map

Benghazi

Cairo

Sana‘a

Tunis

Tripoli

Khartoum

Chennai

class=notpageimage|

Location of some of the several dozen attacks and protests. More complete interactive map.

The map in 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks#Attacks should be updated to reflect new attacks in Indonesia and the Phillipines as of September 14, 2012.

You may want to make those requests in the comments at [2] which is in the External links here and should probably be cited from the map's caption as we are approximately 41 protests behind at present. —Cupco 23:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that the the caption to the map in the article section "Attacks", be changed in it's entirety to 'Location of attacks and protests. See also "http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0"'.

As that map seems to be more actively maintained; and as per the suggestion of Cupco.

BTW the complete list of countries given in the article section "Protests" is Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Turkey, Tunisia, and the United States

 Done Per above. —Cupco 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we export the Google Map points?

Here is what we have so far, shown above:

{{Location map+ |Middle East |width=450 |float=right |caption=Location of some of the attacks and protests.
 [http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0 More complete interactive map.]
 |places=
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=32.116667 |long=20.066667 |label=[[Benghazi]]|position=top }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=30.058056 |long=29.50 |label=[[Cairo]]|position=bottom }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=15.348333 |long=44.206389 |label=[[Sana‘a]]|position=right }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=36.8 |long=10.183333 |label=[[Tunis]]|position=left }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=34.433333 |long=35.85 |label=[[Tripoli, Lebanon|Tripoli]]|position=top }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=15.633333 |long=32.533333 |label=[[Khartoum]]|position=bottom }}
 {{Location map~ |Middle East |lat=13.083889 |long=80.27 |label=[[Chennai]]|position=left }}
 }}

Can we export the Google Map points into that format? —Cupco 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have exported the KML file and I think this is possible.... If only Google Earth would let me out of full screen flight simulator mode.... —Cupco 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Bangladesh

Sanaa, Yemen

Cairo, Egypt

Tripoli, Libya

Gaza Strip

Jakarta, Indonesia

Khartoum, Sudan

Kashmir

Tripoli, Lebanon

Benghazi, Libya

Tehran, Iran

Baghdad, Iraq

Islamabad, Pakistan

Karachi, Pakistan

Lahore, Pakistan

Jalalabad, Afghanistan

Mogadishu, Somalia

Tunisia

Algeria

London, UK

Kuwait City, Kuwait

Kuwait City, Kuwait

Chennai, India

Amsterdam

Maldives

Sri Lanka

Doha, Qatar

Jos, Nigeria

Sheikh Zuwayed

Sale, Morocco

Casablanca, Morocco

Damascus, Syria

Amman, Jordan

Nouakchott, Mauritania

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysi

Batu Caves, Malaysia

Ipoh, Malaysia

Hyderabad, India

Diraz, Bahrain

Istanbul, Turkey

Nablus, West Bank

Basrah, Iraq

Mombasa, Kenya

Srinagar, India

Kut, Iraq

Tel Aviv, Israel

Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan

Sidon, Lebanon

class=notpageimage|

Location of some of the attacks and protests. More complete interactive map.

Meh. Does someone want to try to mess with the |position={left,right,top,bottom} parameters to see if this is salvageable? I haven't yet added the Philippines per above. The docs are at {{Location map+}} and if you want to try to find a map with a better crop for this, see Category:Location map templates. —Cupco 01:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a question about the interactive map. Who made it, and is he a reliable source? If not, and if we don't have control over the third party that may change the map whenever, we shouldn't be linking to it as if it was reliable.VR _talk 03:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who "John" is, but every single one of his map points links to a verifiable news story from a mainstream source with a reasonable summary. —Cupco 04:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The actual source seems to be here: [3]. So "John" is John Hudson of The Atlantic, which I would say is perfectly reputable for this purpose. And the map is apparently being updated (or at least was earlier.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know when the guy will update it, because there were, or still are protests in Sydney. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chennai? The current map features only seven of the largest protests...this seems like the right way to go but one of them is Chennai, in India. Despite this, there is nothing in the body of the article about a protest in Chennai and the section on India (under the 'protests' sub-heading) states only that there was a protest in Kashmir. If something significant did happen in Chennai, it should be mentioned at least once. If not, what is the rationale for including Chennai on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.23 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Protesters in southern India have been arrested on suspicion of throwing rocks at the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, the city police commissioner said. As many as 200 protesters were demonstrating in front of the building, but the number arrested was not reported. There were no reported injuries."[4] —Cupco 15:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Google News and "2012 Anti-Islam film protests"

Google News refers to us @ the lemma 2012 Anti-Islam film protests while we redirect it ~here~. Wakari07 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be updated to whatever the current title is as soon as the page is indexed again. No big deal. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we hurry on this??? Only US interests attacked? Diplomatic interests? Come on... Wakari07 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See the move discussion above. There are Wikipedia policies that restrict us from moving the page without a consensus on title, since a move discussion is in progress. I agree, the current title sucks, and the policy doesn't really work well with breaking news articles like this. But they're in place for good reasons to protect articles in general, so we have to follow them. If everyone just moved it to the title they wanted, there would be NO single, consistent title. That would be even worse.

As for the factual content, yeah, it's slanted to the US and needs to be fixed, but keep in mind that this is developing news and the initial attacks were aimed at US targets. Thus the article developed along those lines. I see you're already editing the page (I was going to suggest that), so that's a good start to getting the article to how it should be! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that anyone could possibly object to simply removing "U.S. " from the title? —Cupco 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither can I. But we need more people to chime in on the move discussion to at least do that. I don't feel comfortable moving it under the current contentious conditions without a bit more consensus. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone objected, on what are probably reasonable grounds. —Cupco 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a general and a specific. This article covers generally. The information in the article covers not only the attacks on diplomatic missions but protests as a whole, does it not? The responses are varied. In some countries, the protests were less than 100, and a great deal of those protests carried the tone of "shame on you guys". In other places, there were words of violence, but no actual violence. Other places had actual violence. In my opinion "2012 Anti-Islam film protests" is the best title, since this article which encompasses Islamic reaction in general as a socio-political phenomenon is just that general. To imply that: 1) Some Muslims reacted in protest to the film 2) Some of those Muslims rioted 3) Some of the rioting Muslims attacked American diplomatic interests, therefore 4) All of the Muslims who reacted to the film in protest attacked embassies is a logical fallacy. And let's face it, in light of events, a little more logic is called for. Shouldn't it come from us? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Organization

Despite “too many cooks” the article organization has improved immeasurably. The intro concentrates on the “what” - protests and attacks. Logically the “Background” and “Protests against Innocence of Muslims” gives context. This is followed by detailed “Attacks” section with a country by country break-out.

I suggest the “Protests against Innocence” section can be reduced since there is a separate article on Innocence of Muslims. The last two paragraphs should be moved to the film’s article if the info isn’t there already. Also, the “US Embassy in Cairo” statement should be moved into the “Background” section because it happened before the protests. (I previously moved it and was corrected by an astute editor.) Jason from nyc (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write the above, the sections were reorganized. I was hoping to encourage stability. Let me look again and see what's there now! Jason from nyc (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored rough chronological order so that "Background" are events before the protests and attacks. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing breaking news articles can be an exercise in confusion, futility, and lots of edit conflicts. :) (And sometimes fixing things repeatedly as you note.) I think the article, especially given the high volume of editors, is doing fairly well. Not to mention that the protests spread and news changed rather quickly. Definitely need to improve the article in light of developments in the last 24 hours, which aren't included all that well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please organize the "attacks" section chronologically rather than alphabetically

Can someone organize the "attacks" section chronologically rather than alphabetically? It's standard to organize articles about events this way. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

al Jazeera and others' protests live blogs

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701 —Cupco 05:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More live blogs: Foreign Policy, Reuters, The Guardian, al Akhbar English. —Cupco 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

attack on German embassy unlrelated

[5] <der spiegel/google translate-link Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Angry

The section on background has been shifted from the fact that an extraordinarily offensive movie trailer, offensive to every Muslim believer in the World was produced and shown on YouTube, and that as a result of this offence, an excerpt was shown and discussed on Egyptian TV.

So people protested.

But the ground has been shifted on Wikipedia.

The protests are now the fault of the Egyptian TV station that alerted Muslims to the fact that someone had made and broadcast an extraordinarily offensive and provocative film trailer.

The protests are now the fault of Al Quaeda and other terrorists!!

Get real!. The killing of the Ambassador may have been pre-planned and then conveniently undertaken during an opportune moment of unrest.

But the universal offence to Muslim believers was without doubt going to provoke protest, action against those seen as the offenders (the US) and outrage at "the West" once again portraying and insulting the Prophet.

That background section needs URGENT fixing!

Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Don't even go there. Go to some blog or forum where you are free to voice your opinions or "angry" sentiments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate why this is not true, consider that during that period the media was saying that Terry Jones hadn't (yet) burned a Koran, about 20 videos of Koran burning appeared on YouTube. (I actually added the list as a footnote to the article at the time) It wasn't hard to find them, just search "Koran burning". The fact is, America has a pretty near unlimited reservoir of people who love free speech and have a very low opinion of Islam, and there hasn't been a day when there wasn't something that protesters couldn't have cited as a reason. So it is hardly "inevitable" for one more video to cause all this. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Protesting is the natural result of offending people, not the work of terrorists

What editor keeps inserting words like "allegedly", "supposedly" and "purportedly" ... as in "the protests were allegedly started as a result of the broadcast etc etc etc"

Who ever you are, get this, it doesn't take Al Quaeda to tell Egyptian and Lybian Muslims to go out in protest over the fact that someone put a video on YouTube depicting Muhammad as a fraud! The protests were genuine, and in the eyes of the Muslim world, completely justified.

While peaceful Muslim people condemn the killings, they don't condemn protesting.

What do you expect people to do, except protest, when they have been seriously offended?

Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to find or found your own blog. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Incidentally, posting on a blog is a valid response to the question, "What do you expect people to do, except protest, when they have been seriously offended?" Rioting is not my first response when offended. Protesting is not my first response. And unless you doubt that Americans are "seriously offended" by having their ambassador assassinated, the relative lack of protests in the streets of New York should cut somewhat against your thesis. Righteous indignation does not improve this, or any other, encyclopedia article. What do we expect people to do when offended? If we're writing an article, we don't expect anything. We don't anticipate anything. We don't say "X caused Y." We report that "Source S reported that X caused Y." We don't care whether "the protests were genuine" as you suggest; you may be right or you may be wrong, but we only report what our sources say. Don't sympathize with the protestors, don't sympathize with the victims, be objective. DCB4W (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

At present, we have some very conflicting information about who may or may not be behind the production of the trailer. There are onion-layers of production companies, check fraud, severe illness, and methamphetamine dealing involved, if you can believe that. Please see Talk:Innocence of Muslims#Production and associated people background investigative reports. Furthermore, CNN is obliquely suggesting that the video might have been deliberately produced to stir protests to provide cover for the embassy attacks.[6][7][8] —Cupco 06:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm, the changes you're trying to push make the background-section even more confusing. It doesn't make sense to put the general statements at the end of the section. They are chronologically first. PLlease justify those changes here and wait 'til you hear from others what they think. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What do we know?

• What we know is that the trailer for the film was made, that it was shown on YouTube.
• We know the excerpts (someone left that word out) were shown on TV in Egypt.
• We know that the Embassy responded promptly.
• We know that people went out in protest in several places.
• We know that during the protest violence occurred resulting in deaths.
• We are fairly certain that a group who had pre-planned an attack, took advantage of the protests to act.

What we don't know

• Whether Al Quaeda was behind the attack in Libya
• To what extent they have fostered unrest. I put it to you that Muslim people are perfectly capable of protesting, smashing KFCs and burning flags without Al Quaeda telling them to do it! Moreover they don't have to be radicals in order to o it. People can condemn murdering an ambassador, but still protest outside an embassy.

In writing the background we need not lose sight of the facts that we are sure of.

For some reason, people here are choosing to play down the fact that it all started with protest over a movie.

Let me make this clear. I am not Muslim. I am Christian. And as such, I am bound to redress injustice.

• The fact that an offensive movie was made and put on YouTube has been played down
• The "background" stated that Reuters said the CAUSE of the unrest was the screening of the movie on TV in Egypt. The paragrph went on to say that the Egyptian authorities periodically suspended al-Nas for “promoting religious or sectarian hatred.

OK What we are actually say hear is that the CAUSE (Wikipedia's word, not Reuters) was the acts of the Egyptian TV station.

We are not acknowledging, in the same paragraph, or the same section, that:

1. the trailer is inherently provocative
2. that the pastor who promoted it has previously been accused of "promoting religious or sectarian hatred."
3. that people involved in the production have issued anti Islamic statements, confirming that they have no regrets at the offence caused.

Warnings.

• Anybody who uses a word like "caused" needs to triple-think how they use it.
• Anybody who cites a reference over a very sensitive matter needs to triple-think how they word the sentence they are writing. Don't write that Reuters attributed blame, where they did not.
• If you do not understand the niceties of the English language, that make a difference between a "cause" and a "flashpoint" then leave sensitive articles alone.
• You are not writing a "cheap and nasty". you are writing an encyclopedia.
• You are not composing a "conspiracy theory". You are writing an encyclopedia.
• The "bad guys" (Al Qaeda and the Illuminati) are not behind everything that happens.

As an elderly ex-college lecturer, I am appalled by the liberties that you take with facts, by your ignorance in your choice of words, and by your disregard for balance in your reporting. A number of you are apparently too blind and stupid to see the possible ramifications of a badly written Wikipedia article.

Trust me! If a movie trailer can cause such outrage, then so can a stupidly-written, biased, unbalance Wikipedia article.

It is up to you to get it 'right

Now, go back to the "background and THINK THINK THINK what you are doing. After you have done it READ READ READ to make sure that you have not written in any idiocy like "The showing of the film on Egyptian TV CAUSED the protests (according to Reuters).

Amandajm (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Err... so you post a wall of text and then just go ahead and continue your war without waiting for any sort of response or input? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Dear! we don't have all week! It needs to be fixed ASAP! Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like "I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks." Would that sum up your position in this matter? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is where you are precisely wrong? What I am urging you to do, is think.

I regard some of the recent edits as "thoughtless" and barrow-pushing.

I am deeply concerned about what "others" think.

You cannot afford to plough in, in a thoughtless manner, picturing things as if everything that is going on depends on a particular terrorist organisation.

I don't know, because I haven't checked the history, who it was that put Al Quaeda at the top of the Background section, but who ever it was did not have my consensus to do it.

Amandajm (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm, I think I can understand where some of your concerns are coming from. Basically, we've had three different events dropped on us all at the same time. Heavily armed militants in Benghazi executed a commando raid killing a US ambassador. Independently (it appears), a mass wave of anti-us/western protests broke out. And among those protests, some have turned towards property violence, breaching embassy walls. Is that more or less correct?

Currently the article title and focus is in flux, and that is probably resulting in some confusion. For example, Al Qaeda is a valid background to the Benghazi attacks, but probably not appropriate background when discussing a non-violent protest in india just condemning the film. It's all smooshed together at present-- have faith, clarity emerges with time. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm is completely ignoring the fact that the demonstrations/riots/protests/attacks at the American embassy in Cairo were planned in advance and primarily centred around a demand for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, with the date of of September 11 specifically selected for maximum political and symbolic impact. I found a small portion of the reporting here: CNN's Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik (the title is misleading, the man interviewed is actually Muhamad Al-Zawahiri, brother of the Al-Qaeda's infamous Ayman Al-Zawahiri), where the primary motivations of these events are clearly laid out. I have explained in detail earlier in this page that the YouTube movie trailer dishonestly placed at the centre of these events is being used as a false pretext as well as a strategic rallying tool to provide human cover and commotion. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Cut'n'paste

A trailer for a movie Innocence of Muslims, described by Reuters as depicting Muhammad "as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake" and showed him having sex, was shown on YouTube. The film was promoted by the U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who had previously angered Muslims by announcing plans to publicly burn the Quran. Reuters cite the broadcast of an excerpt of the trailer for the film, Innocence of Muslims, on Egyptian TV network al-Nas on Saturday 8 September on a show, hosted by Sheikh Khalid Abdallah, as "the flashpoint for the unrest.” Prior to the 2011 revolution, Egyptian authorities periodically suspended al-Nas for “promoting religious or sectarian hatred.”

Just pasting this here so that it doesn't get lost while you are re-thinking a balanced and intelligent approach to writing the Background to the events that are the subject of this article. Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"over and out" as they used to say....Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your summary of the film as a lead to the background to the protests is excellent. I have move the details of the films production to the article on the film Innocence of Muslims. I hope this bold edit finds acceptance as I sense editors have appreciated the need to focus on the protests and attacks in this article while the saga of who did what in the film production is an article in itself. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I added this too: 'NBC news described the trailer as depicting Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser."'NBC News.VR _talk 16:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Swiss Embassy Residence in Iran heavily barricaded

I happened to drive by the Swiss Embassy residence located in the suburb of Elahie in North Tehran on Friday afternoon.

There was a massive presence of Iranian riot police in what is usually a quiet leafy suburb housing the affluent and the wealthy.

Several trailer trucks were parked next to the compound and many high-ranking Iranian police officers were present overseeing the errection of 30 foot high makeshift barriers covered with barbed wire.

Looked like an overkill given the location but it appears that the police were determined not to let the events at the nearby British Embassy compound earlier this year to be repeated again.

You could see pockets of police for several miles around the compound, checking ATM machines, convenience stores and making sure all the nooks and crannies are covered.

Never seen this level of police presence for the protection of foreign embassies

The prominent Embassies in Tehran all have a downtown business location and residential locations in the affluent suburbs in North Tehran.

There were demonstrations and marches but I didn't see anything else.

I am providing my observations on an informational basis. Do with it as you please. I was thinking of adding my observation about the protection levels around the Swiss Embassy compound somewhere in the article under the Iran paragraph which follows the Iranina flag. The main thingto notice is that the Iranian police seem to be very adamant this time to protect the Swiss Embassy and avoid another embarrassment and dimplomatic debacle.

Notice again that in Iran the Swiss Embassy functions as a representative for US interests. The US mission withdrew from Iran following the hostage taking in the early 1980s 188.75.87.132 (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait until it appears on the news, then we can include it if the articles say it may be in connection with this event 68.84.31.110 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for posting this - As suggested, if there are links to news accounts (and maybe Flickr photos?) about this activity, could you post them here in this talk section? I am sure someone will integrate them into the article as appropriate. Thanks again. KConWiki (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Call for Wikipedians from affected nations

I wish there were a "batsignal" I could turn on to get help from editors familiar with the language and the cultures. It's difficult to synthesize all this without knowing the local language or knowing the local culture and local politics. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That really doesn't wash. This is the English Wiki, and must use Reliable Sources written in English (since there won't be anything unique in another language on this issue, the media are all over this topic), and there are many editors very familiar with the mideast situation from college professors to anthropologists and historians from non-middle eastern countries. We shouldn't be 'synthesizing' anything - we need to take the relevant facts from the Reliable Sources and utilize them for the betterment of the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, Wikipedians from the affected nations can help us with information, such as this person did: [9], which can help guide us to finding the references for what's actually happening. And that's just an IP editor who appears to be somewhat new, not even an experienced Wikipedian, yet still quite informative! (Even if unreferenced for inclusion on the main page at this time.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Split "International reactions"

I suggest to split this part to International reactions to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be premature to do that before the move discussion is completed. My reasoning behind this is that we have a 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi article, and most reactions are in response to that attack specifically. So if the move discussion ends up with this page titled "protests", then it would probably make sense to move all the Benghazi-specific reactions to that page, and deal with a possible split there afterwards if needed; the reactions to the protests are currently fewer, though I expect that to change. However, if this page remains with "attacks" in the title, I think it would make sense to split the reactions AND merge with the same information split from 2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, since they duplicate each other quite a bit (sometimes rightfully so, because many reactions are to BOTH events), and then can both link to a combined main reactions page. Thus, my suggestion to wait and see what the outcome is, since in my opinion it affects where the reactions should go and whether we should merge the other article's reactions... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

Update

This page needs to be updated as I watched Fox News report that this has spread all over the Middle East and in Sydney, Australia. JC · Talk · Contributions 16:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a Reliable Source to cite, then by all means, improve the article. But please be specific, as "all over the Middle East" is a figure of speech and should not be taken literally. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from this reliably sourced map [10], it's spread way past what even the broadest definition of "Middle East" would include. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source. Fast Clear (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How come Fox News is not a reliable source? JC · Talk · Contributions 20:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, but some opinion articles may not be if the individual is not an expert or notable commentator in the field. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@JC lol have you watched Faux News fool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.224.139 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah, that was basically my line of thinking. It's not taken seriously as a news organisation. Fast Clear (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to debate whether Fox News is a reliable source, but Wikipedia does generally treat it as one. (This is not an endorsement of Fox News in any way. :) If certain references are included that appear biased, those can certainly be individually challenged. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See Fox News Channel controversies, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#Fox News is an unreliable source along with the many discussions just like it in the WP:RSN archives, and e.g. [11] ("The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.") —Cupco 00:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia had a button that let you "like" a post. Fast Clear (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Like perhaps? Ahaha, it exists. Brilliant. Fast Clear (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Graffiti vandalism STILL omitted from this article.

After an exhausting three second internet search, I can provide photographs taken at the site of the ravaged Benghazi consulate with the Islamic/ist graffiti. Unsurprisingly, this information is STILL missing from this article, despite it being widely-reported the day the story began to break. Here is graffiti that reads "No God but God", and "Muhammad is the prophet". After Benghazi Consulate Attack What’s Next for U.S. Relations with Libya and Egypt?. Here is an image from the Cairo embassy with the Islamists holding a banner reading "any one but you God's prophet", [http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2012/09/13/10/34/896-1qsZEq.St.55.jpeg EMBASSY VIOLENCE. Here is another image from the vandalised American embassy in Cairo: Welcome To The New Middle East?. There are so many more photos out there, all of them depicting the Islamic/ist graffiti vandalising all the embassies and consulates attacked during these events, and yet there is STILL no mention of these crucial facts in this article, despite the good faith of the committed volunteers. Go figure. Another ten second investment from anyone will yield many more images (and video) of these facts. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you missed it. Read section "Egypt". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, there is still no mention of this graffiti vandalism with Islamic/ist messaging in reference to the attacks on Benghazi, Tunis, Sana'a, or Khartoum. You realise there were more attacks that just in Cairo, right?Bobinisrael (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's one of those instances where you jump the gun claiming it's nowhere in the article. That claim was patently false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read this post of mine, I *specifically* stated that there is no mention of the vandalism and graffiti in association with the Benghazi attacks. My claim remains patently factual. [personal attack redacted, warning given] Here are my exact words, quoted again for your convenience, "After an exhausting three second internet search, I can provide photographs taken at the site of the ravaged Benghazi consulate with the Islamic/ist graffiti. Unsurprisingly, this information is STILL missing from this article, despite it being widely-reported the day the story began to break." Bobinisrael (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if graffiti is a significant issue. It's just...graffiti.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very significant, because it is a part of a broader series of facts that demonstrate the motivations of the protesters/rioters/demonstrators/attackers/terrorists. The broader series of facts includes but is not limited to: the graffiti, the signs being held, and the slogans being shouted. Beyond that, there should be references to websites that monitor Jihadist/Islamist websites that discuss the motivations of discussion participants. Why is this all relevant? Because it shatters the persistent false narrative that these events amount to a spontaneous eruption of rage due to an obscure YouTube film trailer. Predictably, the title and opening paragraphs of this article make virtually no mention of these events being primarily motivated by Islamism/Islamic extremism/fundamentalism/radicalism or anti-Americanism. The dominant value of (so-called) political correctness continues to reign supreme at Wikipedia, with honesty being the first casualty. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No Libyans died in Tuesday's attack

According to The Libya Herald, no Libyans died in Tuesday's attack. According to the article, Mustafa Abushagur stated on his Twitter feed that “no Libyans died in the attack”. http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14495

This page should be updated as well: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2012_U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi

David O. Johnson (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and adjusted the other page as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There is really some weird communication between the Libyan officials. Libyan UN representative and Interior Minister said that up to 10 guards/policemen/SSC died and suddenly it is some injured and no dead. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re additions to background- What I am calling for here is balanced reporting

(I have pasted Bobinisrael's comment from above:

Amandajm is completely ignoring the fact that the demonstrations/riots/protests/attacks at the American embassy in Cairo were planned in advance and primarily centred around a demand for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, with the date of of September 11 specifically selected for maximum political and symbolic impact. I found a small portion of the reporting here: CNN's Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik (the title is misleading, the man interviewed is actually Muhamad Al-Zawahiri, brother of the Al-Qaeda's infamous Ayman Al-Zawahiri), where the primary motivations of these events are clearly laid out. I have explained in detail earlier in this page that the YouTube movie trailer dishonestly placed at the centre of these events is being used as a false pretext as well as a strategic rallying tool to provide human cover and commotion. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the political agitation that inflames the protests. Those who are bent on destruction of the "West" not only plan, but also opportunely seize occasion for violence.

But you must understand that the Movie alone is enough to provoke violence. This is not to say that the protests are not generated for other political purposes. But this article needs to recognise that a very real offence has been committed, in the eyes of Muslims world-wide, and that rational Muslims, while condemning the killings, also condemn the production of the movie and what they see as deliberate provocation and insult.

In fact, the statements made by the producers have shown no regret whatsoever over the offence caused to Muslim believers. If you look at the history of Muslim objection to "blasphemous" media, which includes fatwas, then it is clear that thousands are going to protest, without the help or motivation of Al Qaeda, and that wherever thousand of people assemble, particularly angry ones, violence is almost certain to occur. The recent incidents London riots by young people across England resulted in a number of deaths, and the burning of numerous premises, along with looting and generally vandalism. This is partly about "mob mentality".

Amandajm (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Split up

Right now, I split up the article:

• 2012 diplomatic missions attacks
• Chronology of the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks

I know that more can be split up, but this is the first. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep! well done! Amandajm (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the current article contains entirely too much material for it's more narrow scope: attacks on diplomatic missions. Mere protests, assemblies of people, street parades, etc. are not attacks. And that material should still be split out to some article with another name. N2e (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that was rather... spontaneous...? Because of this? Such a drastic changes should not be done without any discussion. :Edit: the The reactions section was also split up. This was previously done and merged back. Can we decide on some actual structure before cutting things up? Skullers (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I retract that? I think if a section needs to be moved, it's the section that lists the widespread protests that appear to be specifically against the film, and which haven't resulted in serious violence against diplomatic missions. That section could be conveniently moved to the Movie's page, because it is specifically related to the movie. In making the move, some material that is most pertinent to this article might be retained.

Amandajm (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just cut and pasted the info re protests against the film over to the page Innocence of Muslims where it seems more pertinent but will not cut from this article without agreement.

Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Sydney Islamic Riots

What happened to the article 2012 Sydney Islamic Riots, it used to have its own page but now it only links to here?--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I presume it's because that is only one protest/riot, among many many others, and there's no need for individual articles. We can properly explain it all here. --Activism1234 03:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected the article to this page, because there were only three references. However, if someone can supplement more refs, it can have its own page. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should have named it the 2012 Sydney Sand Monkey Riots, has a much better ring to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.45.229 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm NO. Anyone want to place bets on how quickly this IP gets blocked? --Activism1234 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have nothing nice to say its better to not say anything at all...--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Putting the word "Islamic" in the title needlessly stigmatizes Australian Muslims. It's not as if the riots were supported by the Australian Muslim community, or are a part of Islam.VR _talk 19:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know JC, there are more references that I can find, but all of them are similiar if not the same worded as the references I already put up, so I'm not sure if you want to put it back to its original article, and just add more references? Thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome! JC · Talk · Contributions 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no film only a bad trailer on Utube

Sorry, I have only once attempted to edit a Wikipedia entry, but was annoyed to find the "2012 Diplomatic Missions Attacks" page constantly using the word film to describe what has now been investigated and reported as only a 14 minute utube trailer for a "film" that does not exist. It also appears that it was on utube for some time, and no-one paid any attention even though promoted by a few websites in the US, until it was translated into Arabic and then received wider attention.

So I feel the page should be edited to reflect these new facts (not so new now): -- "protests in response to an alleged film, although there is no evidence there actually is such a film, even one still in production."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/13/egypt-libya-hollywood-film

Oh and yes, title should be "protests" with the attack in Libya treated separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueacorneater (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

According to various sources, the full length film was screened on June 23, 2012 in Los Angeles [12][13] so it appears that at least some people have seen the full length version. The length of the film has been quoted as two hours [14] but other sources have been unable to confirm this.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, "alleged film" doesn't wash, simply because it is ungrammatical.

• The only sorts of things that can be "alleged" are those things which may or may not be true, not those things which may or may not exist.
• It is alleged that the film exists. It is not and cannot be an "alleged film".

Come up with a grammatically correct way of making the statement, or use a word other than "alleged" to describe the film.

Amandajm (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Only tiny audiences have been lucky enough to watch the full version of this cinematic non-masterpiece. This is why there is some doubt about how long the full length version is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lucky"? --Activism1234 06:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Irony:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a comment, (but I can't recall where) by someone who had seen the trailer, that in fact the trailer appeared to be complete in itself, in that it had a lead-in, (Modern Muslim Egyptians burning the homes of Copts) an introduction (a father telling his daughter that he would explain) a body (a potted "life of Muhammad") and a finale.

This is not the way that trailers are usually done. It would seem to indicate that, in fact, there is no more to the movie than the trailer.

It is said to have taken 5 days to film. I know from practical experience that it can take two days to film a 30 second TV commercial. Of course, quality is an issue here! This film trailer apparently didn't have any. However, I for one am very sceptical about the existence of a two-hour film.

Has anybody claimed to have seen it, in its entirety? What evidence is there that the two-hour production doesn't exist? Is there just media opinion, and a perceptive assessment of the trailer, or is there real evidence?

Amandajm (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to; I commented on this but didn't go into quite that much detail. The 14-minute “trailer” simply does not fit the format of a trailer in any way. It might be, say, the first 14 minutes of a film—but that would mean the rest of the film is basically all murder, because the usual Christian vs. Muslim talking points are all covered in the 14 minutes. I strongly suspect there is no longer film. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I also doubt the existence of a two hour version. It has also been claimed that the film is unfinished and cost $5 million to make, which also has rather wobbly sourcing. The only known version that can be easily verified is the 14 minute "trailer". However, this is more of a subject for Innocence of Muslims as this article is primarily about the protests.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)