Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Four opposes, no supports, and the move request is two weeks old. Seems safe to say there's no consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

2012 Benghazi attack → September 11 2012 Benghazi attack – After the discussion above, RGloucester and myself had a discussion on what would be a more appropriate name for this article. As there had been other attacks in Benghazi besides the two on September 11 in 2012. Therefore adding the entire date would be more appropriate, and it would still incorporate the common name of "Benghazi attack". RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: If it's not being moved to simply "Benghazi attack", I'd prefer to leave it where it is. Adding the full date makes for a lengthy title; if the date is to be included at all, the year alone will surely suffice. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such a change to "Benghazi attack" did not have consensus, as shown by the previous Request Move discussion above, this request just serves to clarify the series of attacks which are the subject of this article from the other attacks in Benghazi that occurred in 2012.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me this might be a case for parenthetical disambiguation (per Siege of Calais). What about Benghazi attack (September 11, 2012)? I think that better preserves your common name and disambiguates by date in a very straight forward manner. See WP:NATURAL for further guidance on natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The suggested name violates MOS:DATEFORMAT (because it's missing a comma after "September 11"). "Benghazi attack (September 11, 2012)" would be OK in that regard. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't have any other articles on attacks in Benghazi in 2012 so unnecessary disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If we don't already have another article about an attack in Benghazi in 2012, we're not likely to. And if there isn't another article, there's no title conflict that would make a less concise title a good idea. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Nobody has ever heard of any other Benghazi attack, and there is no need to disambiguate where no ambiguity exists. Federales (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

US Navy SEAL Tyrone Snowden Woods - Incorrect information

I am the mother of Navy SEAL Tyrone S. Woods. There are several statements in the personal information about my son that are incorrect. First, he retired from the US Navy in April, 2010 (not 2007). Second, his last child was a son, Kai Maddux Woods, born in June, 2012, approximately a month or so before he went to Libya. Kai's mother is Dr. Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, a dentist. Tyrone did not have any daughters. His other two sons are Tyrone, age 19, and Hunter, age 16. Both live in San Diego.

Thank you.

Trail213 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Cheryl Croft Bennett

Thank you for letting us know of factual errors, I have fixed the retirement date with this edit here. However, in researching what the reliable sources provide I ran into a problem. Wikipedia is based on what can be verified from reliable primarily non-primary reliable sources, and those sources do not agree with what the sex of Kai is. As there is a conflict we can neutralize the wording, but given conflicting reliable sources I won't state the sex of Kai. Here are the sources I speak of and quotes from those sources:

• Michael Winter (14 September 2012). "Ex-SEAL killed in Libya 'thrived on adrenaline, danger'". USA Today. Retrieved 15 July 2013. Besides his mother, Woods, a 1989 graduate of Oregon City High School, south of Portland, is also survived by his second wife, Dr. Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, a dentist in La Jolla, Calif.; their infant daughter, Kai; and two teenage sons, Tyrone Jr. and Hunter, from his first wife, Patricia Ann So.
• Timothy Pratt (14 September 2012). "SEAL Veteran With Zest for Adrenaline". New York Times. Retrieved 15 July 2013. Mr. Woods had recently moved from La Jolla, Calif., with his wife, Dorothy, and their infant son, Kai, to a quiet suburban cul-de-sac in Henderson, Nev., less than 10 miles from the Las Vegas Strip. He is also survived by two teenage sons from his marriage to Ms. So, Tyrone Jr. and Hunter.
• "DCPD-201200719 - REMARKS AT A TRANSFER OF REMAINS CEREMONY FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK ON THE U.S. MISSION IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA". U.S. Government Printing Office. 14 September 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2013. The President spoke at 2:46 p.m. at Joint Base Andrews, MD. In his remarks, he referred to Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, wife, Tyrone Jr. and Hunter, sons, and Kai, daughter, of Tyrone S. Woods, security officer, Department of State; and Heather Smith, wife of Sean P. Smith, foreign service officer, Department of State, and their children Samantha and Nathan.
• Everton Bailey Jr. (13 September 2012). "Portland-born retired Navy SEAL killed in attack on U.S. consulate in Libya". The Oregonian. Retrieved 15 July 2013. Woods is survived by his wife, Dorothy; three sons, Tyrone Jr., Hunter and Kai; and other relatives. Woods' wife declined to comment Thursday when reached on the phone.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed the statement from daughter to child with this edit, I hope that resolves the issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Title

There is no reason to include the title, at all. If one reads WP:LEAD, it clearly states:

If the article’s title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it:

BAD: The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

This title is like the example there. It is contrived, and is used only because it is the simplest and most neutral way to describe the attack that occurred. It isn’t, though, like the example, really the "title" of the incident, which does not really have a title. It is awkward to put it in the lead, and it should be removed as soon as is possible. RGloucester (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the common name used in most reliable sources is "Benghazi attack" with 154 million google search results, yet we have quantified this article with a date as to differentiate it from other attacks that occurred in Benghazi (why I don't know/remember), and Benghazi attack redirects to this article. If the article were to return to that name (if it was originally there), it would be far easier to use the term in a bold title, as is normal in the first sentence of the lead section of the vast majority of articles.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason why the title must be in the lead, and manipulating the title to something incredibly broad like just-plain "Benghazi attack", which could refer to anything, is terribly misguided. Leave the title alone, and do not include the title in the lead. "Common name" in this instance is misleading. We have "Benghazi consulate attack", "attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi", "Benghazi attack". Because we still don’t know exactly what was attacked, it is easiest to call it "attack". Which is why it is where it is. However, the media is not uniform in referring to it as the "Benghazi attack", at all. RGloucester (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh? I have provided a google search that shows that Benghazi attack is the common name used in the search result, is there a more common name, what are the alternate names used?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say there was a more common name. I simply said that the current title is not "the" common name alone, especially because of the lack of information about what exactly was attacked (consulate, CIA, diplomatic post, so on and so on). I accept the present title as necessary and proper, and you can note that I opposed changing the title in an earlier move discussion. I simply say, that, per WP:LEAD, we don’t manipulate the lead into awkward phrasing like "2012 Benghazi attack refers to". It only refers to that properly on Wikipedia. Elsewhere, it could mean some other attack in Benghazi, because there have been plenty of them. It is not an official term that "refers" to anything. This is exactly why the guidelines on the matter state what they state. This also why it was originally worded without the title in the lead. We should remove it at once. RGloucester (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not just replace the current lead with the proposal above? It's been a while and I think it's an improvement. There don’t seem to be major objections. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is, should we remove the bit about the Republicans and Obama from the lead? RCLC proposed this, and I think Cirrus Editor would prefer it. I kind of agree. It is rather impossible to be neutral while providing "Obama did this" and "Republicans say this". It is just a sparring match, if not a kicking one. If we removed that, I would be prepared to implement the new lead. RGloucester (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So in the below discussion, there appeared to be a move towards a consensus for moving the article to September 11th Benghazi attack; would there be an objection to that move?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"September 11th 2012 Benghazi attack" or "9/11 Benghazi attack" or "September 11 2012 Benghazi attack" or "September 11th Benghazi attack" or "September 11 Benghazi attack". We’d have to make that stylistic choice. The "original 9/11 attacks" are at "September 11 attacks" not "September 11th attacks". I’m not sure if a year for qualification is needed…chime in, chime in. RGloucester (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer the September 11th 2012 Benghazi attack name as it incorporates the common name, and the when and where of the event and does not contain any special characters. It could also require a possible headnote on this article and the September 11th attacks, but I doubt that is necessary or that many people would agree with that.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the article September 11 attacks does not include the stylistic flourish "11th", preferring "11". If that article does that, presumably this one should follow and be "September 11 2012 Benghazi attack". RGloucester (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Should we open up a new request move, or do so boldly, as we have consensus between ourselves?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While it is just a time qualification, I think an RM should be had…this is too controversial a topic to really do anything unilaterally. RGloucester (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As a neutral non involved editor "September 11 2012 Benghazi attack" sounds reasonable. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Already failed for various reasons, see below. RGloucester (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This title is extremely inept and misleading.

There was not only one terrorist attack on that same consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. There were a total of 4 if you count the two that happened on September 11th. Acknowledgement of the date of the attack is essential in separating it from the two earlier attacks, one which happened only 3 weeks before the final attacks. September 11th, 2012 Benghazi attack would be more ingenuous, and accurate.Ifearnot1 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your proposal about using September 11, 2012 date in the title to increase specificity. Does anyone listening have obvious objections? Myster Black (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A requested move to that effect failed, very recently. You can see this above. I’d wait a few months before trying to do that again. RGloucester (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. When were those other attacks? Is that information in this article, or another Wikipedia article? Can you cite some sources? Woodshed (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not just add an 's' and then mention the previous attacks in the current article? Andymease (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There were two requested moves roughly a month ago that perused changing the title, and what you’ve just said was suggested by some. It seems that, at the moment, this is the most workable title. I suppose a new RM could be created, but usually it is better to wait a while…at least in my point of view. RGloucester — 📬 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of Americans injured

New investigations by CNN state: "A source now tells CNN that number was 35 [CIA assets on the ground], with as many as seven wounded, some seriously."[1] Should the info box reflect this new # of American wounded? — Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any cross-references? RGloucester (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

CNN broke the story with their own source. But there is other info all through the article based on only one source (NYT, CNN, ABC, Fox). Not a big deal to change the 4 Am. injured to 7. The article is lacking in so many other areas. — Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No reason not to add it, I suppose, but make sure there is note saying that it is not fully confirmed. And I agree about the "one source" thing, but the problem is that this whole Benghazi business is shrouded in a ton of fog. No one really knows what the hell happened, and least not "properly" in a scientific manner. It is really hard for us to write this without having consistency in information RGloucester (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Detail not found in article

General Carter Ham, first the pentagon couldn't find him, then he was retired, then he testified in a closed door session. No mention in the article despite his fairly prominent role in the event.

CNN manages to interview Ahmed Abu Khattala but the FBI cant find him [2]

Allegations that the ambassador Stevens' mission was to coordinate shipments of captured Lybian arms to Syria [3]

Dozens of CIA agents in the area during the attack[4], forced to sign non disclosure agreements [5], take monthly polygraphs [frequent, even monthly], and according to Trey Gowdy even have thier names changed to elude investigators [6].

What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.214 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, it is very hard to grapple with the facts in this case. Usually we prefer to cross-reference our sources, rather than rely on one…and make sure that something is as clear as possible before putting it into the article. This is a very foggy incident. Not to say that we shouldn’t add some of this stuff, but it needs to be done properly. RGloucester — 📬 01:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"What gives" is that this article is a lightning rod. This is clearly seen in the editing (and non-editing) patterns and comments of certain editors. You are welcome to register as an editor and start revising the article with documented facts, like the ones you mention. :) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the prominent role of the CIA in Benghazi at the time of the attack, as well as the gun running speculation, are noteworthy, documented by numerous sources, and therefore should be included in the article. I see two main avenues of doing this.

(1) Include information on the presence of the CIA operatives and their potential actions in the Background section.

(2) Include these streams in the Investigative reporting section.

Opinions? Myster Black (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The background section must be updated to include the new information, but it must make note of the fact that this was found out through investigation, and not known originally. So, I suppose it should be in both. RGloucester — 📬 18:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree to add the info. This entire incident has been shady from day one, and for those who have been paying attention, the CNN "exclusive" is not altogether new news. I say include everything related that can be backed by a RS because they've absolutely tried to muddle reality and history with this one. I concur with Cirrus "that this article is a lightning rod" ... much that cannot be denied. PoizonMyst (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That’s why, despite having prepared and rewritten sections of this article that I find poor, I haven’t put my versions in. I rather not be fried by bolts of lightning…but I agree with you. We should, however, mention the sourcing in the body of the article as well, not just have a citation. RGloucester — 📬 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I empathize. I have felt bullied and intimidated by other editors over editing of this article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur and hence why I dumped all my research on my blog.[7] It's a bit out-of-date with its conclusions now, but still contains a wealth of valuable resources and touches on many controversial aspects that I was never allowed to include in the Wiki article. For one, I think it should be made clear in the wiki article that it was not a consulate or embassy that was attacked .... it's a sad reflection of our media (and also of Wikipedia's inability or unwillingness of some, to rectify such common misconceptions) that almost 12 months later people are still including "consulate" in page title suggestions. BTW RGloucester ... I too would have voted for a date specific title change had I known the discussion was occurring. Is it possible to reopen the discussion temporarily while the incident is a bit of a hot topic again ... or would you rather just not go there again for now? PoizonMyst (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead, with the RM. We can see what happens. As far as "consulate" is concerned, the reason we haven’t changed it is because we don’t know what else to call it. Do you have any suggestions? That’s why I added the footnote next to the word consulate, if you’ve noticed it, which explains that some say consulate, some say CIA base, some say &c. RGloucester — 📬 13:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, collecting pertinent citations. There are many sources that discuss the CIA and/or State department dealing with collecting arms that had flooded into Libya during the war to overthrow Gadhafi (For a summary with links, see here[8]). Yes, its NRO, but IMHO a pretty good collection of independent sources. Further, it has been reported that according to diplomats, Stevens was actually attempting to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups.[9] As for specific references dealing either with a strong CIA presence, weapons smuggling, or both, we have Times of London on weapons shipment[10], NYT on CIA presence[11], Fox News on weapons shipment [12], CNN on presence of dozens of CIA operatives and potential gun running[13], Telegraph on CIA presence and weapon smuggling[14]. "Secret weapons transfers from Libya to Syria" are also mentioned in Murphy and Webb's "Benghazi: The Definitive Report".

Speaking of Murphy and Webb, I am now going to bring up again their reporting on covert JSOC ops in Libya in the months leading up to the attack. I know a consensus grew that it was not substantiated. However, at this point, this is looking a lot more interesting, particularly since we know CIA-JSOC joint ops are the new fad (Operation Neptune Spear among others). Further, their reporting links John Brennan specifically to the operations, who just so happens to now be the head of the CIA. This reporting is complementary to an emerging part of this story: that there was a strong US covert, war-making apparatus in Benghazi and Libya at the time of the attack (that may or may not have precipitated the attack). In summary, I argue that all of these contexts (Libyan instability and plethora of arms, State department collecting weapons, CIA presence and potential gun running, anti-al Qaeda JSOC ops) are pertinent to this story and should be included in the background.

Are there important sources I am missing? Can we reach a consensus about how to integrate these points into the Background (and investigative reporting)? I'd like to take a crack at adding some text once I hear from some other interested editors. Myster Black (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if it's technically "allowed" on talk pages, but I just edited your comment so your reference links will work. Good collection so far. PoizonMyst (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The CIA presence in Libya is one small part of this story that I'm not terribly interested in (you're an editor on Wikipedia, so be bold and edit and source the material; seems what you have collected is from reliable and many resources). I am much more interested in how the Obama administration from hour one (and weeks onward) insisted the story was about a video because the attack did not fit their narrative; and how they've been blowing smoke since then (not releasing documents to Congress, hiding witnesses, etc etc) up to recent weeks, culminating in calling this a "phony scandal." It's remarkable that more news organizations are not investigating this story; almost like a state-sponsored media; and it's remarkable that no editors on Wikipedia are interested in finding the facts that are out there and putting them into this article (or on the investigation timeline[15], which is gathering cobwebs) but instead are going to great lengths re-writing sections of the article to fit and defend the Obama administration's narrative, so much so that I had to remove a sentence from the lede that was claiming a Libya terrorist stating the attack was in defense of Islam. It's very telling, and it's very disturbing. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? If someone does something, and they tell you why they did it, that's pretty important information. Was it sourced? If it is sourced and there aren't reliable sources contradicting it, that means it isn't a "narrative." For our purposes, it's a fact. Also, see WP:SOAP. Tyerion 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyerion (talk • contribs) <!— Template:Unsigned -->

Tyerion. Puppet? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The bit he removed was outdated, and felt purposely trying to defend one POV. It served no purpose in the lead, even if it was true, because it was sheer speculation. It was good on him to remove it. It was nothing to be concerned about, and if you are, you can see it in the recent edit history. While I’m not as keen on the idea that the Obama government has been blowing things around as much as Cirrus, I too, am rather startled by what it mess it is. The thing is, at least in my somewhat naive mind, the government is supposed to be a reliable deliverer of facts with regard to this type of thing, not to say I’m not a skeptical person, because I am. And even if I don’t think that the thing about the video was a purposeful attempt to mislead the public, I am very disturbed by the subversion with regards to the CIA, the purpose of the compound there, and in general, the lack of recognition of the situation that occurred. And it is almost impossible to find "facts" in this instance, other than the bits of investigative reporting we have. Editing this article really just feels like a nightmare. RGloucester — 📬 03:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about the partisan debate, but again I have to agree with Cirrus - the administration deliberately misled the public from the outset, therefore inciting protests and riots around the world, over a film trailer that noone had seen before the administration drew attention to it. It was deliberate obfuscation, and dangerous. Noone is being held accountable for that and I dont think anyone in the media have even bothered to ask about it. Intriguing to know how the administration knew about that crap quality video in the first place, wouldnt you say?

Having said that, I'm also interested in the whole reason this attack occurred, and why they would be willing to cover-up aspects, as well as deliberately distract, and incite riots over it. It was obvious from day one that there was more to this story than was being told, and that much of what we were being told were outright lies. The entire incident is important because it has a lot of explosive potential to make the public aware of western govt media propaganda and shady agency actions that get people killed.

Anyway, I've been doing a bit of browsing for more sources about the CIA Annex etc. Myster Black provided this link above to an article from The Times of London [16] but it's subscription based. The article is discussed and sections quoted here at SANA [17] (are we allowed to cite SANA?) and mentions that the Captain of the ship bound for Syria, which transported Libyan weapons through Turkey was a man named, Mousaeeb - "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support." Plus the whole thing is so intertwined with events elsewhere, it is difficult to bring it all together concisely or within the wikipedia guidelines. For example, This NYT article from June 2012 [18] talks about a CIA presence in Turkey, aiding in the steering of arms to Syria's rebels ... in light of the weapons shipment, it would be naive to think its not all related to the same operations. This Oct 2012 article at Business Insider [19] is actually pretty good, but I'm pretty sure BI is not considered RS.

Moving on, this old NYT article from July 2011 [20] speculates a buy-back program is occurring in Libya, as it had occurred in other countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Similarly related is this June 2011 NYT article [21] about "Antiaircraft Missiles on the Loose in Libya."

On 13 Oct 2012 Reuters published this article [22] which discusses, "U.S. intelligence efforts in Libya have suffered a significant setback due to the abandonment and exposure of a facility in Benghazi, Libya identified by a newspaper as a "CIA base"". Lastly an article from Oct 2012 in the Washington Post [23], again talking about the unveiling of the CIA Annex in Benghazi.

I have two satellite images the area, and I am willing to make a composite of sorts, for the article. The first image is my edited version of the area layout released by the Daily Mail [24] - unfortunately it doesnt have the Annex marked on it, which can be seen in this wikimapia capture here [25], which I sourced via here [26] - problem is, Wikimapia marks both sites as US Consulate, and US Consulate Annex. To keep things creative commons, I will use Google Earth imagery for the wider maps & close-up captures, and MSPaint to mark the pertinent locations. As I'm pretty busy, I will put this together over the next couple of days and then upload it to commons for inclusion. PoizonMyst (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

PoizonMyst, email me from my user page if you like. I created a map of the two compounds and uploaded it many months ago but it was removed because it was based too closely on Google Maps. I highlighted many important locations in this map and you might find it useful in your development of a new map for the article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also some suggestions on what to call the structures would be appreciated. I'm satisfied enough info exists to label the Annex "US CIA Annex", but what to call the "consulate" villas rented by the US mission?

Also a couple more resource links, but I'm not sure they qualify as RS. The first is from The Blaze in Feb 2013 [27] and is entitled Rand Paul makes it clear - 'I really think' the admin may have had a 'gun running operation' in Libya. The second is at Breitbart in Nov 2012 [28] which includes a Fox News report discussing a speech by Paula Broadwell in which she confirms a number of militants were being held prisoner at the CIA Annex and that the attack was to free these prisoners. Havent had time yet to check if any of this has been included in the main article.PoizonMyst (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the removed part said: "The video and the resulting anger may have provided an opportunity for the attackers; according to eyewitnesses, the attackers stated they were acting in response to the video. The day after the attack a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as an appropriate response to insults of Islam, stating 'We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet.'" Sources were included, and I think this was part of the lede agreed to by consensus, so it seems like poor form to remove it.

RGloucester: This section basically makes 3 statements of fact: (1) anger against the video, as detailed in the lede, may have provided an opportunity for the attack (note this doesn't claim it was the cause, just an opportunity); (2) eyewitnesses said the attackers used the video as a justification (it may have been a convenient excuse, for all we know, but there it is); (3) the leader of a terrorist group praised the attack for defending Islam (for all we know, this may have been convenient PR, but he apparently did say it). How is this outdated? Is there a reliable source stating that one of these 3 facts is wrong?

PoizonMyst: First of all, there is a lot of supposition and outright falsehood in what you are saying, and this talk page is meant for discussion of improvements to the article, not controversial and unsourced political claims. Second, I note you seem convinced that the government lied, perhaps even about the relationship of the video to the attack. Have you considered they weren't deliberately lying, but that they believed the video was related precisely because of the facts presented in this removed section? If the attackers said this was why they were attacking, as backed up by eyewitnesses, if related terrorist groups praised it as a response to the video, and (as still stated in the lede) there were ongoing protests over the video in the region, why wouldn't the government think that had something to do with it?

So I would argue that this piece provides useful context, given how the video issue is discussed. Tyerion (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tyerion, you "note" I "seem convinced the govt lied." Yes, I'll admit I'm pretty certain ... I do not blindingly trust what anyone says, no matter who they are. Let me see, first of all, there is no/was no consulate or embassy in Benghazi. But there is really little need to fear my opinion, any "supposition" on my part is here on the talk page, and not in the article. I doubt anyone will be taken to trial over my ramblings. Is my opinion about the video formed because of what is not included in the article? The part that was removed? I would say absolutely not, because I have been long aware of that aspect of the story. In fact, my opinion is not stagnant, but rather widely inclusive - hoping that a wide net will help me understand all possible aspects of what happened, not just what I am told to think. Amongst other things that I documented in my blog article, http://reanimatedresidue.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/there-is-no-us-embassyconsulatemission-in-benghazi-libya/ was an Alqueda video released on 10th Sep 2012 which announced and vowed revenge for the death of al-Libi, the Alqueda second in command. Another supposition is that the attack may have been perpetrated by Green Resistance, loyalists to the Gaddafi regime. Not to mention documents for lucrative oil contractors and informants. Do you think the administration really believed this attack was over a badly dubbed Youtube video that hardly anyone in the region had access to? Really?

BTW, I personally have no objection to including the part that was removed from the article - as I say, I prefer a wide net.

But as to your concern about "discussion of improvements to the article" ... never mind the four paragraphs of RS resource links I provided toward that - if those RS links contain "controversial and unsourced political claims", then talk to the journalists/networks who published them. Sorry if my two paragraphs of opinion got in the way.PoizonMyst (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree about including that part. But your focus on your personal opinions detracts from the discussion from you and others about the article itself and yes, it is against wikipedia policy (see WP:SOAP). Note that advocacy, opinion pieces, scandal mongering and self-promotion are not allowed, and that includes on talk pages. Normally I don't care but with this much of it from you and others it's completely disruptive. I would also note that not all of your sources are reliable in my opinion - at least one is an opinion piece, and one is an arm of the Syrian government itself (wow). The Blaze and Breitbart also don't qualify. Tyerion (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Blaze and Breitbart don't "qualify"? Ever? Eli Lake over at The Daily Beast was breaking news on Benghazi early on all by himself. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As reliable sources for statements of fact, I would argue that they do not qualify, no. How would you feel if I added factual claims about the issue and sourced them to dailykos or Rachel Maddow's blog or something? These are biased sources by design. Daily Beast has more of a straight news aspect in some areas, so I think it's probably better, but I'd still be careful. That's my feeling. Tyerion (talk)] (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I still dont know what I'm saying that's so "disruptive". Maybe it is reactions such as yours that the other editors and myself are talking about. This is a discussion, about an extremely complex topic, as I'm sure you can appreciate. We are simply throwing out research & ideas to make the main article better - to be sure the info we include in the article is correct, but also to be sure nothing vital is overlooked. And maybe, sometimes that may mean reliable sources provide conflicting narratives and we may have to include all these different sides and let the reader decide.

I have included a wealth of reliable source links in my posts, and comparatively, I feel you are being pedantic about any disruption on my part. I feel it is a blatant dismissal of my hard-work, seemingly because it doesnt sit well with your world view. Listen, if you have something RS to include as well, feel free. You wont see any restrictive objections from me.

BTW, every questionable link I posted, I have been sure to make note of. I figured Blaze and Breitbart were not RS, but the stuff they source could very well be - like the Fox broadcast for example, and the Paul Rand statement may be tracked to its original source. I'm not really interested in the commentary of these sites, simply the sources they draw from ... this is also the case with SANA as I was simply searching out more info on what was contained within the subscriber only article from The Times of London. I'm not afraid of a Syrian news website ... it's about as propagandised as any other network on this planet. Anyway, all I am doing here is digging for what's out there in hopes it will help lead to clues for what to search about, or provide links to further reliable sources. Try as you might to imply otherwise, I am discussing the article. Now how much more time are we going to waste on the semantics of how we discuss things, rather than moving forward with discussing the content of the article?

As for "self-promotion", I do apologise for linking my blog. I only did so as it contains a repository of useful and relevant links that I'd rather not copy directly onto the talk page here - it would be a lot of work ... it was a lot of work ... it's simply easier to link to my work than repeat myself in multiple places. I also mentioned it was my own blog, not with the intention of "self-promotion", but to be clear and transparent with other editors. Thank you for pointing that rule out and I'll be certain not to repeat the error in future. PoizonMyst (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

When people are having a discussion about a topic, and someone else changes the topic, that's disruptive. The topic of this page is changing/improving the article. Several people are changing the topic to their personal opinions/intuitions/political ideologies about the subject of the article and writing long essays on these opinions. That's disruptive, I'm not sure why that's so tough to understand. If you put these opinions on your blog, I might even stop by to read them, but this is not the place for that. I'll bet you have no idea what my worldview even is, and that's how it should be on an article talk page. A lot of your sources are fine, and if you want to add information to the article using them, that's great. But there's no reason to even mention sources like Breitbart. Just find a RS with the information that interests you. Also, I would argue that if you look at SANA, they are obviously more biased than a lot of other sources, particularly on issues surrounding Syrian politics and foreign policy. By all means, let's talk about changes to the article based on facts gleaned from reliable sources. Tyerion (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think you can have it because I hate going around in circles and repeating myself. I'm not a blank person, so I cant talk in some unreasonably restricted structure as you want. I have provided RS links - a plethora of them. I provided reasons why I gave non-RS links. I have explained myself. Thoroughly. Get off the obsession already. What you are doing is called derailing a discussion off topic - look it up - learn how disruptive it is, how suspicious it is.

Look, I'm just a Mum trying to throw together a bit of research on an extremely complex subject between home-schooling assignments, housework, and dinner .... sorry I didnt throw out the 10/10 RS right away and just put it here as a "note", hoping to locate the RS for that talking point later. I guess I shouldnt be on here anyway. I obviously have no idea how to conduct a discussion, 'cause now I'm disruptive writing essays and all (what's the next excuse?).... or maybe there's just one too many pedantic rules restricting speech. I cant believe this ... I would understand if I was going edit crazy on the main article, but I'm not and never have. Please refrain from making me feel uncomfortable about participating on WP.

It is also incredibly easy to judge and falsely accuse others. Seems you want to push an illegitimate agenda as well. It's well known the attack was not caused by the video, and other than being confidently trotted out as the reason by the admin and the mainstream western media propaganda machine, it had very little to do with it (but it was praised by some radical Islamics and possibly used as spontaneous cover for an attack that was going to occur anyway) - and to you, that radical opinion is okay and legitimate to mention, but not the state newspaper of what is a sovereign nation, last time I looked. Dont give me the rubbish that it's got "more propaganda" ... what, are you 12? The film excuse is a lie, distortion, distraction, and disinfo .... and you want to keep pushing it like it was crucial to this event. It was not. It was a side-note. Why you want to make it something more? Hmmmmm .... what was that again? "personal opinions/intuitions/political ideologies about the subject." PoizonMyst (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if asking you to follow the rules makes you uncomfortable, but I don't think it's a lot to ask. The piece that I was concerned about being removed was sourced to the New York Times, so you seem to be comparing its reliability to that of an arm of the Assad regime, which means you've basically lost me. My "agenda" is to include relevant information that is reliably sourced, which I feel is the case with that piece. Someone suggested that it be moved to the body of the article instead, which is ok with me. I never claimed, and I am not trying to imply, that the video caused the attack. In fact, I think you are almost certainly right that it was used as a cover/excuse for a preplanned attack, which was actually implied in the removed piece. Maybe you should re-read it, because you seem to be getting really heated and ascribing views/motives to me that I do not have. This says more about your biases than mine. Tyerion (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think both of you need to assume good faith, and cool it a bit…if I may suggest that. RGloucester — 📬 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The phrases removed don’t belong in the lead, regardless. They are not essential. The video is already mentioned. They can be included in the main body, but not the lead. RGloucester — 📬 12:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Tyerion (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto to what RGloucester said. It does not belong in the lede because it's propaganda from an Islamist group, hardly a neutral source of information. It would be the same as single sourcing something from Fox News (in some people's minds). -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Phony Scandal"

Jay Carney said that President Obama considered this event to be a "phony scandal." When I add this to the article, it continues to be reverted. I think in light of charges being filed by the U.S. government, it becomes demonstrable that the administrations feels it's not "phony" or a "scandal." -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What you're adding is a non-sequitur. Carney isn't suggesting that the attack in Benghazi was "phony" or not important, he's suggesting that the accusations leveled by members of Congress and others at the administration about their handling of the situation is a phony scandal. There's nothing contradictory about going after Libyan militants and at the same time saying that Republican attacks on Susan Rice and attempts to uncover some sort of coverup are phony. GabrielF (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, it doesn't belong in the lead of the article. Maybe in body, but not in the lead. RGloucester — 📬 04:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Erroneuz1, place that information in the body of the article, please. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead

The lead contains the statement "Some Republican politicians, conservative media figures, and other critics immediately accused the Obama administration of mishandling the attack and its aftermath and of over-emphasizing the role of the video.", but does not have anything about the other perspective. There should be something about how the administration has acknowledged mistakes were made, but has criticized the Republicans for politicizing the attacks and trying to turn it into a scandal. Also, I think there should be some reference to the timing of this attack right before the elections as that was critical in terms of how it was reacted to by politicians on both sides and covered by the media. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We are trying to keep the lead focused on the event, rather than on political implications in America. In fact, I'd be all for removing the bit about "Republicans &c." all together. That paragraph serves no purpose in the lead, other than to be, as described above, a lightning rod. RGloucester — 📬 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the lead should be a summary of the article (including any controversies), able to stand on its own as an overview of the article's subject. The article as written is mostly about the political implications, so I think it's appropriate for something to be there about it as long as it is neutral, giving appropriate balance and weight to the differing notable perspectives. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that, whatever we write it won't be neutral. We've had this problem from day one. We've had complaints on both sides about everything. It seems best to make an exception to the general lead guidelines in this case. RGloucester — 📬 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm optimistic that we can write a balanced lede that encompasses all perspectives (but without going into too much blow-by-blow detail, hopefully), as long as interested editors aren't wholly excising relevant angles. Feel free to rewrite, revert or improve the edit I've just made. Woodshed (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, this article is about the "event" itself. Since the start, it has been clear that this article veers too far away from the subject of this article, which is the "2012 Benghazi attack". Adding more sentences about the American reaction is disproportionate. It has to been mentioned, but we can't have paragraphs and paragraphs in the lead about who thinks what. I reverted your edit because, on the one hand, it inserted some more POV elements into the lead, and two, it did the opposite of what we should do, which is be concise. We want to reduce the lead, if possible, not make it unbearably long. I also removed an extra sentence about the event being a "focus on the right" which is POV, but left in that the some people launched independent inquiries. These are my present concerns. RGloucester — 📬 18:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just made an attempt to summarize it in a shorter, more general way. This way, we acknowledge the significance of the debate and subsequent investigations without getting into any of the specifics. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like what you've done, though I'm not sure how others will respond. RGloucester — 📬 19:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Background overhaul

I have been putting together some text for a new background. I'd like to be bold and add it, but want to allow a chance for some opinion about my direction. In general, I have text on Islamic fundamentalism in Libya starting with the Libyan Islamic Fighting group and leading up to the empowerment of many radical factions after the overthrow of Gadhafi. I then move to the American presence in Libya and Benghazi which includes both CIA and State department assets, which is heavily connected to collecting intelligence on and weapons from Al-Qaeda linked groups. This then segue ways into the instability and violence on the ground in eastern Libya and Benghazi specifically that is already included in the section. My opinion is that the current first paragraph about past attacks and who was president is slightly off topic and should be removed, and that the laundry list of troublesome events should be shortened. Opinions? Myster Black (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I have:

Islamic Militancy in Libya

In 1995, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was founded by Abu Laith al-Libi with the goal of overthrowing the regime of Muammar Gaddafi and installing an Islamic state. Formed from many jihadists who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, the group was banned world wide by the UN as an Al-Qaeda affiliate shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The group reportedly joined Al-Qaeda in 2007, though it was reported in 2009 that some member organizations of the group had subsequently split. Further, Libya supplied the most jihadists per capita to the Iraqi insurgency during the American Iraq war that began in 2003, many of which came from the eastern portion of the country known for Islamic activism that includes Benghazi.

Islamic radical groups played a central role in the Libyan civil war that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011. Militants like Abdul Hakeem Belhaj, who fought alongside Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, other former members of the LIFG or other radical movements, as well as jihadists who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan were essential in the effort to overthrow Gadhafi. Rebel leaders spoke of their need for anti-aircraft missiles. That spring, weapons began being shipped to rebels through Qatar with American approval. In July 2011, it was reported that anti-aircraft missiles were being raided from bunkers of the Gaddafi regime by Libyan rebels. By September 2011, Western counterterrorism officials had become increasingly concerned with the role Islamic radicals were playing in the revolt in Libya, and worried the weapons provided to them during the war would be used in future terrorist attacks.

American Presence in Libya and Benghazi

Within months of the start of the Libyan revolution in February 2011, the CIA began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was named the first liaison with the Libyan opposition in March 2011. After the end of the war, both the CIA and the US State department were tasked with continuing to identify and collect arms that had flooded the country during the war, particularly shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former arsenal of the fallen regime of Gaddafi, as well as securing Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles, and helping to train Libya's new intelligence service. According to some of his colleagues, Ambassador Stevens was in Libya to purchase stinger missiles from Al-Qaeda groups that had been provided by the State Department during the civil war. It has since been speculated that arms shipped through Turkey to Syrian rebels fighting the regime of Bashar Al-Assad were related to the American presence in Libya.

Further, eastern Libya and Benghazi were key intelligence-gathering hubs for intelligence operatives. Before the attack, the CIA was monitoring Ansar al-Sharia and suspected members of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well as attempting to define the leadership and loyalty of the various militias present and their interaction with the Salafi elements of Libyan society. By the time of the attack, dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi. In addition, it has been reported that in the summer of 2012, American Joint Special Operation Command (JSOC) missions had begun to target Libyan militias linked to the Al-Qaeda network of Yasin al-Suri. By the time of the attack, a composite US Special Operations team with two JSOC members was already in Libya working on their mission profile independently of the CIA and State department operations.

Instability in Benghazi

In the months leading up to the attack, instability and violence in Libya in general and toward American assets more specifically was significant.

That last short section (Instability in Benghazi) can include what is already in the background. Please get back to me ASAP if you have issues. I don't want to get in an editing war, which can happen with significant changes or additions. However, I believe this text is important background to understanding the attack. Myster Black (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• To start with, the first bit strays from the topic of this article, which is the attack itself. I have more concerns, but I'll write them when I have more time. RGloucester — 📬 16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll wait to upload. I hope we can come to an agreement about what is relevant. I will say that in my opinion the LIFG and their links with al-Qaeda are important in understanding the make-up of the attackers, who now appear to be a nebulous group of Libyan Islamic militias and Al-Qaeda-linked radicals. Perhaps my text can be more concise, but the brief history gives important context. Also, do you have an opinion on the first paragraph of the current background that deals with past attacks on embassies and who was president? I find this more off topic than info on the LIFG and their links to Al-Qaeda. Myster Black (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I will start editing the background section soon. Does anyone have anything to say? Myster Black (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the first paragraph was off topic as it was directly relevant to the topic of terrorist attacks on American diplomatic sites. Maybe it didn't need a full listing, but at least 1 sentence referring to the history of such fatal attacks would add important context to the article. Similarly, I do think your section on the history of Islamic Militancy in Libya does add some context, but should probably be shortened, cutting some of the middle. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I am going to start adding some parts to the background. I would appreciate if people post here on the talk page with any potential issues rather than revert automatically. I really am just trying to make this page more useful for people to understand the attack on Benghazi. Myster Black (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador Stevens captured alive. Tortured to death (discredited rumor)

Seems relevant. Its notable. Many graphic pictures now online. Showing him alive then mutilated. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/christopher-stevens-death_n_1890322.html http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-torture-and-murder-of-ambassador-chris-stevens-graphic/

I include this last reluctantly, poor man. http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/shocking-photo-of-ambassador-chris.html

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

unadulterated nonsense, although it has a lot of play. This was originally reported in some obscure Lebanese web site, Tayyar, attributed to APF, which denied ever reporting it.

AFP said in response to the Tayyar report that:

Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsoever to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp69.204.251.64 Tedperl (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)(talk) 04:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Good call Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Blade-of-the-South. I just viewed that horrific photo that you referenced, the third one on the blogspot site. It now has this appended to it:

"The photo was taken in 2009 and this is not Ambassador Stevens. Note the date on the report, long before Ambassador Steven's death."

In the other photo, which I have seen elsewhere, I read this, via the Huffington Post:

"Stevens' seen in authenticated photos of him being carried away on another man's shoulders ... When they entered the consulate, "there was no one around. There was no fire fighters, no ambulances, no relief,"... The accounts of all witnesses mesh with that of the doctor who treated Stevens that night. Dr. Ziad Abu Zeid told The Associated Press that Stevens was brought by Libyans, with no other Americans around, to the Benghazi hospital ... Stevens had severe asphyxia from the smoke... Once they learned his identity, they were stunned Stevens had been alone. "I've never seen incompetence and negligence like this, from the two sides, the Americans and the Libyans," he said. "You can sacrifice everyone but rescue the ambassador. He is the ambassador for God's sake."

It appears that the Libyans who found Ambassador Stevens were good, compassionate people, and saved him from further harm. Also, it is reasonably certain that he was not tortured. I pray that that is the case.

I spent this afternoon searching for any follow-up on the incident. Other than a single news story on 25 June 2013, Issa Subpoenas Four as Battle Over Benghazi Escalates, it seems to have sunk without a trace. In a few weeks, it will be 11 September again. I couldn't find anything new to update the article. --FeralOink (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"taking its eye of the ball"

In the "Response to criticism" section, Obama is cited as saying, "taking its eye of the ball"; that should be "taking its eye off the ball." Also, there's no citation for that quote listed. Here's one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/obama-economic-speech_n_3645371.html

I would change it, but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigew (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Someone has fixed this. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing the lede

I undid a recent revision to the lede because it was a re-tread of text that did not pass muster before. That is all. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

New photo montage in info box

I put together a montage of six photographs/images for the info box. All six are works of the U.S. federal government and thus in the public domain. Limited images/photographs were available; I tried to make the montage representative of the whole article.

I placed all source URLs with the image. Here they are fyi:

• Official White House photo of President consulting with staff.[29]
• Official White House photo of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in Rose Garden.[30]
• Both FOIA photographs.[31]
• Screen capture of Secretary Clinton testifying before U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.[32]
• Portion of FBI's "Seeking Information" poster.[33]

-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Errors in Text

The text incorrectly refers to a future date: "On October 19, 2013, House Oversight Committee..." Iddolev (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change capitalization of page title to "2012 Benghazi Attack"

Hi, Since typically Wikipedia articles about incidents, such as the Boxer Rebellion, or the Boston Massacre are listed in all caps, I propose that the title of this article should be listed in all caps as well. Comments? Scott P. (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Because those incidents are basically proper nouns due to their nicknames. This Benghazi attack is a generalized term and the article reads like a news article with "2012 Benghazi attack" not being described in the header, instead going straight into explaining the incident. Antoshi ☏ ★ 20:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Benghazi attack" is not a proper noun. It is just a construction used because all other options are either POV or not supported by reliable sources. We've had this debate many times. This is the best compromise we came up with. RGloucester — 📬 21:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

After Googling the term "2012 Benghazi attack", I see your point. I must admit, I made an incorrect assumption. It seemed to be the most "logical capitalization", but I guess amongst journalists, that is not the case. Thanks, I now agree with your compromise. Scott P. (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of Americans wounded in the attack

I noticed that the Fatalities and injuries section did not include any of the several differing numbers of injured Americans during the attack. So I added text plus cites. And I also changed the info box to reflect this new info in the article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim of "40 injuries" can't be included without some sort of reliable source. As it was, there was just a single person saying they "were told" it could be as many as 40. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is 'we'?

A CBS news reporter's computer was hacked during the time she was investigating Benghazi. Looneymonkey removed my addition of this information stating: "we would need more than one person's guess that this has anything to do with this" [34]. But, single sources are used here on Wikipedia all the time. In every article. What is it about this one that made you remove the text? And who is 'we'? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"We" is Wikipedia. How is the paragraph you added at all related to this article? Unless you're implying that the journalist had her computer hacked as retaliation for her reporting on Benghazi (a conclusion that even the article you referenced doesn't state). If such a claim were going to be made here, it would require extraordinary sourcing. Otherwise, you're just engaging in synthesis. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. She says it was about the same time she was investigating Fast and Furious, so it could've been that, too. Hard to tell. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. And I'm 'we', too. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Al Qaeda in Talking Points

The drafting of the "talking points" was and still is a big issue, including the reason "Al Qaeda" was removed. Concerns were raised about biasing the investigation by mentioning Al Qaeda. The article lacks these details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.169.160 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I say: get a Wikipedia account and be bold and start editing. You can see from this talk page what a welcoming and kind-hearted and understanding bunch is here. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

aka Morgan Jones notable for this article?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/01/star_benghazi_witness_may_not_have_been_an_actual_witness#.UnQeadnRKrE.twitter

Add his fictional account? Hcobb (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

More about Dylan Davies here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/lara-logan-apologizes-60-minutes-benghazi-correction_n_4239046.html Hcobb (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a revert and then requesting discussion before edits or reverts...

Per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD editors are not required to discuss their edits before they make them. Also, if a revert is made on a bold edit you make, you do not revert the revert. I have reversed that and would like to discuss the addition and see some justification made for it's inclusion which seems to be unrelated to the subject and added in a manner that seems out of context.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I wrote this above but will include it here as well:

So where can we meet here? I find the reporting by Webb and Murphy on lethal JSOC operations targeting Al-Qaeda personalities in the Libyan militias in the months leading up to the attack highly relevant to this page, particularly for the investigative journalism section. This was found by using confidential sources, but that is basically necessary. Why do you not trust them compared to other reporters, particularly with their access to current and former members of the intelligence community and special forces? In my previous text that was just deleted, I never mentioned a secret war nor Brennan because those are more controversial aspects that speak about currently important people. However, the point that JSOC operations against al-Qaeda linked militias were occurring in Libya is very relevant to this page and deserves to be mentioned.

Further, do you have a problem with the Way of the Knife reference by Mark Mazzetti? Here is a link to a NYT book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/books/the-way-of-the-knife-by-mark-mazzetti.html?_r=0

I would say it is a well-referenced book with more sources than pretty much any article you will find sourced currently. The sentence I added merely provided additional info about what the CIA was doing in Libya (controlling the flow of arms to rebel leaders), which is already mentioned. It also provides important context to the later info in the background about attempting to collect these arms from militants after the civil war. Do you disagree? Myster Black (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are new to Wikipedia, or at least as a registered member, you appear to be new. That is actually a good thing. Welcome.

However, because we are disputing each others desires for the article, and no one else has weighed in, it will be up to us to come to a conclusion.

My issue with the Mazzetti material is that the source is not really about Benghazi. It seems that the information lifted from that article was extremely brief. In as much, I have to wonder of the relevance to this subject. Exactly how much background is required here? I am not sure, but we will find a way to either include the information through better sourcing or exclude it with your understanding and acceptance of the outcome should it not go your way. The same is true of myself. So...let's get to work together and see if this information can indeed be rescued if it's context to the subject is strong enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What the CIA was doing in Benghazi is mentioned in the lede of the article because it is an important part of the page and story. Page 316 of Way of the Knife (which I specifically referenced and you deleted) specifically discusses Benghazi and what the CIA was doing there. Do you disagree? If you disagree, please provide a logical argument. You seem to mention a problem with relevance. I repeat again: what the CIA was doing in Libya and Benghazi is very relevant. Myster Black (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Myster Black makes good points. Seems important to include in the article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tedperl and Mark Miller have gone silent. I will add text about the JSOC operations and reference Way of the Knife, while avoiding "secret war" and mention of Brennan. If you have a problem make an open, good-faith argument. Myster Black (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would you remove the list of books from the article?

I'm curious to know your reasoning for removing the list of books from the article, Kafziel. In your revert you state: "(lots more than four books have been written about it; we don't list every book ever written about every subject)" and on my user page you write that "dozens, perhaps HUNDREDS of books have been written about the attacks." Dozens? Hundreds? Those are ridiculous claims. I included four popularly known books from legitimate publishers in the article that were written specifically about the attack. Why shouldn't those be included? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that the World War II article doesn't contain a list of books that have been written about World War II. Or the Civil War article. Or the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Because these are encyclopedia articles, not directories or card catalogs. If the books on that list can be used as reliable sources for content within the article, they can (and should) be cited in the reference section.

It's hardly a ridiculous claim that dozens of books (and, yes, possibly hundreds) have been written about the Benghazi attacks. It was world news. There are many more than four books available, in English, just on Amazon; there are still more in French and Arabic, and quite likely many other languages, not to mention the countless government-published books for use by intelligence agencies, embassies, etc. But, really, the only important point is that there are clearly, demonstrably, not just four. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a card catalog going on at this WW2 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte. To your second point, I'll ask again: where are the hundreds of books written about the Benghazi attack? Nevermind. You can't produce them. Is it ok with you if those 4 books are included in a Further Reading section? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with that Bodenplatte article; it doesn't have a random list of books and nowhere in it is there a sentence like "X number of books have been written about this". If you have a MIM, surely you understand the difference between a bibliography and an arbitrary list. So why would we list those four, and not all the others? And why would we list any of them if we're not using them in the article? "Further reading" sections are exceptionally rare (fewer than 3% of articles have one) and contain only highly reliable, completely neutral works. If you can't be bothered citing these books as sources (or if they don't contain anything worth citing) then there's no reason to have them here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your personal attacks are noted. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to imagine personal attacks in anything I said, that's none of my concern. If that's all you've got, I guess we're done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted my non-productive commenting. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Congressmen/women (both D and R) disputing the gist of the NYT article

I put back in the essence of how lawmakers dispute the gist of the NYT article. As a side note, The Washington Times was sourced 3 times (I count) in the article. But those cites were not touched. But Looneymonkey noted in his/her edit: "can't state editorial opinion as fact, especially from such a partisan source." 1) this isn't "editorial opinion"; it's the opinion of Congressmen/women 2) to some it's no more partisan than the NYT. 3) Maybe you'll want to search the article for the other cites to The Washington Times and replace those? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Walid Shoebat and Benghazi claims

I know that this source is not very credible, but Walid Shoebat claims that several media outlets in the Mideast have claimed that the Libyan government, upon interrogating (alleged) suspects in the Benghazi attack, found (alleged) links to the government and/or political party of then-Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi. Normally, I would just dismiss these allegations, except that the source provides an actual photocopy of an (alleged) document by Libyan authorities. While his conspiracy theories are not credible, I could not find an English or other source disputing the reliability of the Libyan sources and/or the claims tying Morsi to the Benghazi attack. The claim is obviously repeated by right-leaning critics of the Obama administration (see the manifold conspiracy theories on Benghazi), but since these theories are so widely repeated, I would like to see whether any source has specifically debunked the claims by Shoebat re: Egyptian complicity in the Benghazi attack. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)