Read every word before you change the introductory sentence of a current event article.

The sentence said that the attacks occurred during protests over the film. The protests were over the film. No-one was protesting about another subject. The attacks were covered by the protest.

Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Libya situation was different. As I put in my edit comment, the attackers were NOT like they were in Egypt, but had heavy weapons and ammo, and it was coordinated. We can't say dogmatically that the Libya matter was just "over that movie". There's evidence and reliable sources now saying different. Many sources are mentioning that. That's all I'm saying. Regards. Watercolor Merger 05:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

READ the sentence and think about what it says.

The sentence doesn't say what the attacks were about.

The sentence states that the attacks took place during the protest about the film. It is about "time frame", not "reason".

In other words, the protest was about the film. The attack could have been for any other reason, but it happened during the protest.

The sentence has been extremely carefully worded.

Amandajm (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read it and I agree with you. Point taken about that. Which is why you notice I left it alone. Cheers. Watercolor Merger 05:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

The way to sign your name is to go to the upper left of your keypad and type four squiggles.

Here's my advice for effective editing

Effective editting[edit]

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the four squiggles. I keep doing it, and it doesn't work right for some reason. But I know how to do it. Been doing it for years. It's not working now though. Not sure why. Watercolor Merger 06:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I put them on the talk page, then decided to cut them because they are not entirely on topic.

Response:

• There is universal outrage among Muslims over the content of the trailer.
• Therefore the sentence that describes what it is that offends Muslims needs to deal with those issues, not issues that concern Non-Muslims.
• Since homosexuality is widely practised in some Muslim communities, to the extent of sending chartered planes full of Muslim men to visit homosexual brothels in eastern Asia, then we can presume that those men would not be offended by suggestions of homosexuality, but might still be deeply offended that Muhammed was visually portrayed.
• The biographical fact that Muhammad married a girl of 7 and had sex with her at ages variously stated as 7, 9, or ten, does not offend Muslim sensibilities, regardless of how much it might offend Western sensibilities. Some Westernised Muslims claim that she was in fact 18, but these claims are generally disregarded.
• Girls in many parts of Africa are still married at very young ages. Westerners might be offended by what they refer to as "paedophilia" but in countries where girls often have their first babies at 12, these marriages don't offend the sensibilities of those Africans/Muslims who take young brides. The thing that is offensive is when the girl's bladder ruptures during childbirth and she can't hold her urine any more. That is considered really offensive!
• But the same men who might marry a ten-year-old girl because the Prophet did, would see portrayal of Muhammad as an offence.

The issue is not to give a long list of everything that a Westerner, or a Christian from any culture might find offensive. The crucial thing is to list those things that would universally be found offensive to Muslims.

Homosexuality is not a "universal offence", although many Muslims might be offended. What the Western World/Christianity regards as paedophilia is not universally offensive to Muslims, although many would undoubtedly be offended.

But

• having an actor play the part of Muhammad is universally offensive to Muslims
• portraying Muhammad as a "fool" is universally offensive to Muslims.
• portraying Muhammad as a "fraud" is universally offensive to Muslims.

You have to see the issues from a Muslim perspective in order to understand the outrage.

The difference with Christianity is that anyone can question:

• The existence of Jesus
• The divine nature of Jesus
• The resurrection of Jesus (key fact in Christian belief)
• The Virgin birth
• whether Jesus was celibate
• whether Jesus was in a homosexual relationship with "the disciple whom Jesus loved" thought to be John. (In fact, the Greek equivalent is more like saying "Jesus' blued-eyed boy", i.e. a much younger person that he mentored)

There was indeed a time when you could be condemned by the Church for saying things like this, but that is long past.

Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]