Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Judicial Watch

I am concerned about the three-paragraph quote from Judicial Watch added by User:Aspencork.diff. We state Judicial Watch's findings as fact. In an introductory paragraph, we say:

On April 18, 2014, Judicial Watch received forty-one, previously unreleased documents from the State Department related to Benghazi. Among these newly released documents was a recently declassified email which revealed that:

This is followed by a three-paragraph quote from Judicial Watch's press release:

White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to "reinforce" President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being "rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy." Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a "Goal": "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The clause "Among these newly released documents was a recently declassified email which revealed that..." implies that the following quoted text is factual. However, what follows is the opinion of a political pressure group. it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to imply that these opinions are factual. For instance, Judicial Watch's claim that "...Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempt[ed] to orchestrate a campaign to "reinforce" President Obama..." Doubtless, others would interpret these emails differently. These additions do not meet our standards for WP:NPOV. GabrielF (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over this. I am concerned that there is much that needs to be fixed here. let me take some time to review it. May be a bit later before I get back.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved that entire chunk on FOIA down into the FOIA section, but now there's overlap/repetitive text, methinks. --Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why isn't this same level of discerning scrutiny applied to sources such as "Politico," "ThinkProgress," "Media Matters," etc.? Aspencork (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Politico is a newspaper, not a political pressure group. Wikipedia would generally use it as a source of facts. We should apply the same standards to Think Progress or Media Matters for America that we do for Judicial Watch - namely we use them as a source of opinions but not as a source of facts.GabrielF (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Politico," "Think Progress," and "Media Matters," are all cited as sources for "facts" in this article, and it appears they have been accepted as sources for "facts" for some time. I see inconsistency in the rigorous standards now being applied to the sources I cite. Judicial Watch did file suit and did receive the email written by Rhodes. Judicial Watch also received the pictures, and the pictures with the translations of the graffiti "seem" to be accepted as "facts," but quoting the words in the email is somehow "biased"!?!?! Aspencork (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed the concerns I raised above.GabrielF (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF. I don't know why editors are using political pressure groups for sourcing.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. It doesn't matter if the political pressure group is left leaning or right leaning. These sources are only used to cite opinion that is attributed to the author and source.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Without discussion, GabrielF deleted an image of a federal document obtained from and sourced to the Wall Street Journal. Evidently, Mark Miller, GabrielF and VictoriaGrayson need to explain why they consider the Wall Street Journal to be a "political pressure group," and they need to explain why they feel a need to hide the image and not let the readers of this article see Rhodes' email and decide for themselves what it says and means -- unless they are afraid of something. Aspencork (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have less of an objection to the image than I do to the textual content. I note that you have not addressed any of the concerns about the text which I raised above. However, I'm not a big fan of including images of text in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images. Also, it is not Wikipedia's role (or any encyclopedia's role) to reproduce primary-source documents. We can link to that document, but Wikipedia is ultimately a tertiary source and it should be explaining what reliable secondary sources have to say, not reproducing primary sources.GabrielF (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I did address your "concerns." To refute your "claim" that the material sourced to Judicial Watch was "problematic", I posted the actual document (which you deleted without the “discussion” you say you so prize). I also posted a link to a MSM source that echoed and substantiated the findings made by Judicial Watch. That MSM source was the Wall Street Journal -- which has a hyperlink to the actual document. I made these changes after your original objections to appease your sense of outrage.

This is a significant document, btw, because despite a Congressional request for this and other such documents, this document was withheld from Congress and obtained only byway of a lawsuit under the provisions of the FOIA. Like Judicial Watch, the WSJ determined that the email from Rhodes is evidence that Rhodes (i.e., the White House) coached Ambassador Rice in “Talking Points” formulated by the White House and not the “Talking Points” formulated by the intelligence agencies as the White House so disingenuously claimed.

Subsequently, you edited the WSJ quote, to the point of obfuscation, into namby–pamby pabulum (just as was done with the direct quote from Gregory Hicks' Congressional testimony taken verbatim from the Congressional record) so that it inaccurately appears to more support your Salon article rather than reflecting what the WSJ actually said.

I disagree with the notion that original documents should not be included. Wiki serves first and foremost as an informational and educational tool, and many if not most Wiki articles provide images of original documents, e.g., the “Zimmerman Telegram,” Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation,” Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” etc., etc., etc. In this instance, the "document" itself is significant and not merely "textual information."

BTW, I do appreciate how you folded the FOIA section into the main article rather than leaving it as an apparent “after thought” as it was originally published. I also appreciate Millers’ editing of the “Media Bias” section. Miller deleted some very irrelevant remarks that I found “problematic”. Aspencork (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Senate Intelligence PDF

I am reading some of the direct findings of the various committees. They do clearly say that the claims of protests originate from the intelligence community and the CIA. However there is no mention of this in the lead. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It matters. Woodshed (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. This was Finding #9 in the Senate Intelligence Report in case anyone wants to follow up.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be included.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed from lede. Lede is for overview of article. Text reverted provides the overview findings of multiple investigations. If you're going to add in one cherrypicked fact, then you'll open the floodgate of cherrypicked facts from all sides.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously going against consensus.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What consensus?? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Woodshed, Mark Miller and myself.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus until one objects. Eventually we have to determine if there is a legitimate reason for the objection or whether it is something that can be overlooked as a rough consensus, but three against one is not really a consensus. A consensus is what everyone can live with. Sometimes one person has a legitimate issue and sometimes not. Since this is from June 11 and Cirrus has not responded again so there does exist a consensus but if someone objects we should always try to hear and discuss the issues as much as possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FOIA section

An editor took a hatchet to the FOIA section where a surgical knife is needed. I reverted his entire edit but can see the point of doing some cleaning/consolidating. --Cirrus Editor (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to yesterday's version of the FOIA section. I think this version is still problematic (the twitchy.com piece on a tweet by Sheryl Atkisson strikes me as particularly weak and the FOIA request by the RNC strikes me as routine and unnecessary - what's interesting is the response to FOIA requests, not that the requests themselves have been filed.) However, I think this is a reasonable place to start a discussion.GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF. The article is full of useless info.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good gosh yes, this article has far too much unrelated trivia that seems to be used for political gain or punishment. Trimming or hacking would go a long way towards neutrality.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, you're butchering again.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with boldly editing an article on Wikipedia. Where there are legitimate concern's I feel they should be corrected. If you disagree, I believe in your good faith enough to discuss any edit I made.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I like Mark Miller's edits.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

FOIA image

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.

---

Let's talk about this image:

Montage of seven photographs released under a FOIA request to Judicial Watch from the Department of State.

I think this is far too much and is undue weight. I think that the entire sectioning of FOIA is undue weight, but this image is unnecessary. We do not need an image let a lone a montage, but a single image would be acceptable. The fact that the image contains text is bothersome for a number of reasons as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also redundant imagery since some of this is already in the info box montage. Seriously, we need to lose some of this. This really doesn't have enough context really to be illustrative of the FOIA request. Perhaps the actual request if that is available. I could accept an image but one that is clearly more encyclopedic value for what is being illustrated.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? You just air drop into an article and delete an image that's been there for nearly a year? --Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I brought it here to discuss because of the listed concerns. Not sure what you mean by "Air drop". I have been editing this article off and on for some time and am a major contributor to another, related article. But any way...I understand that you are in favor of the full montage and don't feel it is undue weight and have no issue with the text portion?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Cirrus Editor if there is no consensus from this discussion after a few days, that means the last stable version is used and the image is put back.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2014 (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.

Inappropriate external link and unnecessary image

I have removed an inappropriate external link and unnecessary image from this article.

The external linking guideline prohibits, except in unusual and extreme cases, external links in body text and bars links to social media sites except those directly relevant to a biography. Aspencork has been edit-warring to insert an external link that violates both of these prohibitions. They have offered no justification for why Gregory Hicks' LinkedIn page should be linked from this article, and I can discern no identifiable reason why we should do so.

The image in question is a single page of a government document, out of the thousands of pages of documents, and there exists no consensus on this page as to why we should single out that page for display here. Both factions argue about it, but we already quote the relevant section and depict the debate about its meaning quite adequately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The external link you deleted was "directly relevant to a biography": the biography of Gregory N. Hicks. I could not find a better one for Hicks, and since he is a central character in this event, some sort of biography should be included. I invite you to find a better one before you delete the only one provided, because, as you so ably noted, it is "directly relevant to a biography."

The image in question was already "singled out" by government officials and the press before any image of it was posted here. It is an image of a significant document, and it has become significant because despite a Congressional request for this and other such documents, this document – “singled out” – was withheld from Congress and obtained – “singled out” – only byway of a lawsuit under the provisions of the FOIA. Like Judicial Watch, the WSJ determined – “singled out” – that the email from Rhodes is evidence that Rhodes (i.e., the White House) coached Ambassador Rice in “Talking Points” formulated by the White House and not the “Talking Points” formulated by the intelligence agencies as the White House so disingenuously claimed. This "document" is central to – in fact the cause of – an ongoing Congressional investigation, and therefore highly relevant to readers. Aspencork (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The only place where such a link is permissible is in the article about the specific subject. For example, if we had a biographical article on Gregory Hicks, a link to his LinkedIn page might be relevant in the external links section — and in any event, it would not be placed inline within the article. This article isn't about Hicks, so we don't link to his social media page anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no Wiki page for Hicks, or that is the one I would have used. I also noted that some of the other individuals involved, i.e., Woods and Doherty, also do not have a separate page. However, I feel devoting such space in this article to Hicks would be excessive; hence, the external link. Aspencork (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't put an external link to a LimkedIn profile page, as clearly explained above. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, NorthBySouthBaranof's exact words are: "external links in body text and bars links to social media sites "except those directly relevant to a biography."Aspencork (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And this page isn't a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please source your remarks for verification, because this is what Wiki says:

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."Aspencork (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you prefix your lines with a colon like (:), you can properly indent the conversation to create threading.

You're correct that we can use self-published sources in limited circumstances. But we don't use direct inline external links when citing sources - instead, we use the reference tag/template system - see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Moreover, the LinkedIn page isn't being used as a source for anything - it's just there. Is there a particular fact in that section about Hicks that you need a citation for? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an instance of "inline citation", per se. It is an effort to provide more information about this individual by using an external link. LinkedIn wouldn't be my first choice for anything, except in this case it was my only choice. Again, Gregory N. Hicks is a central character in this fiasco, and a quick internet search will turn up more than one "Greg Hicks". Consider this a moot point, however. When I first provided the link I was focusing on how to better inform the reader, but on reflection, and in the interest of personal privacy, I now consider it would be wiser to not link this article to Hicks' LinkedIn page. I do not intend to pursue this "link" issue any further, but I do intend to pursue the image issue.

Last night, without comment here before he deleted the image, Cwobeel asked, "Why this document and not others?" The answer should be obvious for the same reason the "Zimmermann Telegram" is singularly more important than the thousands of other telegrams WWI Germany sent to its embassies. The Rhodes email launched a Congressional select committee. The other documents did not. Aspencork (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

House Republican Conference report

The source is quite clear: the report discussed in this article is a report by and for the Republican majority in the House. It expressly disclaims the fact that it is not an official report of the committees, that it has not been adopted by those committees, that it is intended for the "Members of the House Republican Conference," and that its conclusions are drawn by the "majority staff" - i.e., Republicans.

Title: Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference.

Table of Contents footnote: This staff report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of their Members.

p. 2: The Committees’ majority staff summarizes findings to date as follows:

All of this is patently self-evident from a cursory reading of the report itself. Therefore, it is true, factual and necessary that we make clear in our discussion of the report that it is explicitly a partisan document. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. As a Wikipedia editor, you deserve to know that taking a government report and then conducting a searching analysis looking for details that would undermine or cast doubt on the credibility or sincerity of that report — or inferring such details or incorporating them from other sources — is a privilege that we reserve exclusively to notable commentators whose views are published in reliable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the plain text of a document is not "a searching analysis."

Your assertion amounts to "we can quote from some parts of a document that I want to quote, but not quote from other parts of the document that I don't want to quote." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources note that Democrats have said they were entirely excluded from the process of developing the report. [1] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) If we are to use this material, it needs to be fully attributed, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. WP:NPOV and WP:V 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the attribution can't be unsubstantiated — otherwise it's still OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Attributing in this case is very straight forward, and has nothing to do with NOR. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's straightforward now that he has added a secondary source identifying the report authors as Republicans. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

POV/Undue weight in "US Media Responses"

As someone with no dog in this fight, reading this article for the first time, the US Media Responses subsection seemed to be leaning heavily toward criticism/conservative viewpoints. I realize this is a touch political issue for a lot of partisans on both sides, so I'm sure there has been some pushing back and forth on this already, POV intentional or not. However, the bulk of the article is from conservative sources, and the one "liberal" source seems to have a cherry-picked quote that doesn't match the tone MSNBC has taken on the issue in general. I think this either needs to be pared down a bit, or due weight given to the other side of things.12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, but the weight given to conservative sources is probably due to the fact that these sources are the ones pushing the story and keeping it alive despite all the reviews, hearings and the rest of it. I agree, though, that the Rachel Maddow quote is very much cherry-picked. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're probably not going to find a lot of progressive/liberal sources attacking President Obama on this issue, and for partisan political reasons many don't want to even mention it, so I don't really find the lack of lib sources especially noteworthy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot still needing to be done with that section and yes, I agree that Maddow quote is cherry picked, or at the very least has absolutely no context from a reliable source to mention. It seems randomly dropped in the section only because it is a media personality talking about Benghazi. If we do that.....there wouldn't be enough room on the servers for it. I have no objection if we start removing any and all content with nothing more than the primary source as a reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Too long

I just took the time to read the entire article, and boy, it was not easy to consume to say the least. As a reader, this article is way too long at 14,780 words (excluding sources and markup). Compare it with the Attack on Pearl Harbor, at 9,900 words, and September 11 attacks at 10,615 words. We have to address this issue because as it stands this article really hard to read and follow. One way to address this is to put some effort in splitting the article into different sections (The attack itself, aftermath, investigations, political implications, etc.) creating sub-articles where appropriate, and summarizing these sections here per WP:SUMMARY. It will be had work, but it will be a substantial improvement to what we have now. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

agreed, too long by half. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be minced, finely. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be left where it is and undivided. Aspencork (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the MOS, it needs to be downsized. I agree with Cwobeel, Darkstar1st, and RGloucester.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an initial proposal. Break down the article as follows:

• The attack itself, with the geopolitical background section, kept in this article 2012 Benghazi attack
• Aftermath to the 2012 Benghazi attack, with summary here in a sub section
• 2012 Benghazi attack investigations, with summary here in a sub section

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As I see no major objections to this proposal, or specific arguments against it, I intend to put some work over the next few days to get this started. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. if I have time this weekend I will help out.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So, are these articles too long, also?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at 14,500 words?

Fort Lee lane closure scandal at 16,500+ words?

-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I object to cutting the article if the only reason is to cut words, which is what this seems like some are intending to do. Other Wikipedia articles are longer and could probably also have the "very long" notice on top. I don't object to reasonable condensing. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No one wants to "cut words", just that this article can and should be split per WP:SUMMARY, as it is too long and it contains different elements that can easily be split and summarized here. But if there is no appetite for it, I am not in the mood for a protracted debate on how to do it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is no need for more Benghazi articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indepth research study.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

VA Congressman Frank Wolf letter

Currently I plan to add to the article body some material reflecting the notable and published view of VA Congressman Frank Wolf that "the White House lied about a matter with direct bearing on U.S. national security in order to influence an electoral outcome." I don't immediately see any grounds for objection but I wanted to mention it here first. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a secondary source for that material. After all, any politician can write whatever they want in their websites, or in letters to the Speaker of the House, and we are not here to promote or to decide how to summarize primary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

He's an elected official using his government website in his official capacity — an open letter to the Speaker of the House, by a 33-year incumbent Congressman, mind you — so that's not really the same as "any politician" publishing something "on his website".

But secondary sources are always better so I won't argue unnecessarily. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not just better. Essential. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There are not many non-partisan sources that reports on this letter. I found only one from US News, which summarized the letter in a single sentence: [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Without you explaining more about what you mean, I'm going to have to disagree. Secondary sources are merely better, and we may still use primary sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Very simple: if there is only a single non-partisan secondary source that describes that letter, it is notable enough for a short mention based on what that source say. You can disagree, of course, but that is what our WP:NPOV and WP:V says we should do, and what WP:NOR says we should not. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Factchecker atyourservice, this is true. Just adding a random fact from a primary source is only acceptable if there is context from some secondary source first. That opens the door to sourcing some further content from the primary source but very limited in how it can be presented on the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally this would be true if substantiation were needed either to explain the material, establish notability of the opinion's source, or establish a relationship to the article topic. But the meaning, notability, and relevance are all clear here. Do you have a clear policy objection? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Already explained. Do you need further clarification? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification already requested. Shall I request clarification more clearly? Allow me to try: I would like you to clarify the exact policy argument that you are making, with specific reference to actual policy text. I am requesting this clarification because the core policy relevant to this question — WP:Verifiability — otherwise appears to say, rather directly, that primary sources may be used. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, you may in very narrow cases. But that does not mean that you can bypass other core content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Have I bypassed a core policy somewhere? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrify, you might use these two secondary sources to introduce Wolf's letter: US News and the National ReviewAspencork (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said I wouldn't use a primary source where good secondaries are available. I was only speaking to respond to the incorrect statements of WP policy above. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There were no incorrect statements. You may use secondary sources, of course. But you can't summarize the primary source yourself. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There were multiple incorrect statements, beginning with you suggesting that primary sources could not be used. There was also an incorrect suggestion that a primary source could only be used if in conjunction with a secondary source. This may be the case in most appropriate uses of primary sources, but certainly not all. As I stated, if the notability, relevance, and significance of material from a primary source are all clear, it may obviously be used by itself. Of course, as I originally said, it's better to use secondary sources. However, contrary to Cwobeel's insistence, it is not "essential".

Nor did I say anything about providing my own "summary" of the document. Note the document contains direct quotations that are directly on point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting the policy violation so clearly. You can't and should not decide what to quote from that letter. We can only rely on what secondary sources have chose to highlight, otherwise Wikipedia will become the secondary source for that primary source and that is in contradiction with the narrow use of primary sources. Basically, it is not our role as editors to decide what is notable and what is not for inclusion. Rather, we need to leave that decision to the secondary sources that report on the issue. So as long as you have a secondary source that gives prominence to a specific aspect of this letter, you will be within the limits imposed by WP:NOR and WP:V. But anything beyond that would be contested. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What you have stated might be a good alternative to the WP policy on primary sources, but it is not the policy currently in force, and it does not describe how most people actually edit. So again: simply incorrect. Please refer to the actual WP policy on primary sources, which does not support your arguments above. And if you insist on claiming that it does, please start citing actual policy text. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I plan to quote this letter in the article. OK? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Per above discussion, you should not. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have any objections that are rooted in actual WP policy, please don't delay any further; state them clearly now. Otherwise I'll be quoting the congressman's letter in article prose. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Go quote the letter in the Congressman's article, not here. It is undue weight and OR/synthesis. How can you possible believe it's not POV and OR? So, no. Please don't. Dave Dial (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

sources are not required in wp. from the above discussion no one is arguing the congressman did not write the letter or what it contains. add the text and we can continue this if it is reverted. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

POV: Stevens declined security offer?

Thanks to all who have worked to keep a neutral POV on this difficult subject. I think, however, that there is an imbalance in at least one aspect of the article. Current wording:

After a meeting to discuss the deteriorating security situation at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, embassy officials in Tripoli drafted a cable on August 16 outlining the circumstances and specifying that security needs would be made known in a subsequent message. This cable, excerpts from which have been reported by Fox News, still remains classified. After reading it, Army General Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command and the senior U.S. military official in the region, phoned Stevens and asked if the compound needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, according to two government officials. Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said. One anonymous source told a reporter from the McClatchy News Service that Stevens may have declined the offers because there was an understanding in the State Department that consular officials should not request more security due to political concerns, since the country was being touted as a foreign policy success.[60]

The paragraph is muddled and doesn't give the reader the substance of the cited McClatchy article. The discussion of Stevens declining military assets offered by Ham lacks relevant context, and leaves the false impression that the senior diplomatic official on the ground may have thought the security was well in hand. The speculation as to Stevens' motives is just that. I propose a more concise, less speculative, and better referenced description:

Ambassador Stevens repeatedly sent requests to the State Department for increased security for the Benghazi diplomatic mission. Though Stevens has been quoted as declining military assets offered by Army General Carter Ham, declassified documents including cables signed by Stevens, dated June 25 and August 8, 2012, make it clear that he was deeply concerned about the security situation.

Please note I've added one reference. Rocketpi (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

agreed. the reader could be left with the wrong idea in the articles current state. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Benghazi

I see content that was verified by multiple reliable sources referring to the subject of this article as the "Battle of Benghazi", was removed. Oh, and sorry about my inactivity over the past year, a long WP:WIKIBREAK was needed. Why?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CIA content

The CIA gun smuggling content is undue weight and off topic. It was also removed several times and simply added back with no explanation. Here is the content:

Multiple anonymous sources reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was used by CIA as a cover to smuggle weapons from Libya to anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Seymour Hersh cites a source among intelligence officials, saying The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms. It had no real political role. The attack allegedly brought end to active US involvement, but did not stop the smuggling.

Should this be included in the article?

• Oppose per the above.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Inlcude there are literally DOZENS of source for this material. It most certainly isnt off topic. Excluding reeks of POV. WeldNeck (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Inlcude It's completely on topic and relevant. Multiple attestation through RS. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me take my vote back and say: Perhaps those who really want to put this back into the article put here some text and cites they would want. In the little bit of extra research I did, I found conflicting RS for this issue.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see why not to include it. Are there multiple sources? If so, it may be a good idea to add them. Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cwobeel, my concern is that this seems to be simply adding unrelated content that has no real link to the attack itself. Seems to be attempting to add undue weight of a different subject here for unclear reasoning. Here are my main concerns here per policy and guidelines:

• The section starts of with "Multiple anonymous sources reported.." then cites multiple sources for that claim. How is this reliable?
• Undue weight to the opinion of Seymour Hersh who only cites another source to make the claim "The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms. It had no real political role." There is also no balance here and it can certainly be provided.
• The use of the weasel word allegedly is an expression of doubt and per WP:ALLEGED and should only be used if the source uses it, but even if the source does use it, here on top of the issues is concerning that a possible POV is being pushed.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Include, of course. This is a very probable reason for the attack, confirmed by multiple RS. --Emesik (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• OPPOSE, There is not one person who will go on record to say that this happened--not even an obvious critic of American policy. And I am not impressed enough by the record of Hersh or others to take their word for the quality of their anonymous sources. Multiplication of rumor in the echo chambers of the web is hardly evidence. Tedperl (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include, for all the various reasons above.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the includes have it. WeldNeck (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude; it's giving undue weight to a conspiracy theory. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Inlcude as WeldNeck said: "there are literally DOZENS of source for this material. It most certainly isnt off topic. Excluding reeks of POV." I agree Cramyourspam (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

¶ I vote to include, and even expand on this. I keep hearing references to "our embassy in Benghazi" - but there was no US embassy there, nor a consulate, nor, as far as I could find, any State Dept office listed for Benghazi. It's 404 miles (650 km) from the capital of Tripoli, where the US Embassy really is, yet our Ambassador was there. Possible (probable ?) explanation: It was a CIA station. In fact, if it were CIA, there are probably so many secrets about its very existence and what was happening there, that Obama Administration officials will swear to unconvincing lies or fall on their swords rather than reveal CIA secrets in a Republican-engineered Congressional probe. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see this as having no consensus to remove. Perhaps we should now just make sure all content is accurate and summarized per sources as neutrally as possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a point missing here is not whether there are muktiple sources that indicate the CIA may have been using it as an avenue for arms...but whether there are sources indicating that that was a cause of the attack. Without the latter, it's OR at best to assert that it was a cause. We can't just say "oh, it's common sense that it was likely a cuase". We need an RS that states as such. In the absence of the link, I don't see the relevance of the CIA info to the article. Without a link, an implication is made by including it that it is related to the attack, which would need sourcing.12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it should definitely stay included. The recent book "Dark Forces" by Timmerman further advances this aspect of the story. I will add reference when I have time. Myster Black (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Responsibility

At this point I propose making more concise the responsibility page. What do others think? If there is general support, I will start spending time working on it.

Part of this will include referencing "Dark Forces" by Kenneth Timmerman. I have read the book and IMHO it is the most expansive research into this aspect of the attack. Here is a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Forces-Truth-Happened-Benghazi/dp/0062321196

He also has complementary articles on-line that can be referenced. I don't want to get into another fight over trusted sources, but I give a vouch for it. I will wait to hear from some others before doing anything.

It looks fine to me. IMO you should post here suggesting any changes you think need to be made. You don't exactly have perfect English, so I would urge you not to attempt rewriting the whole section yourself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

13 Hours in Benghazi

Some interesting bits from a recent review of this book (13 Hours, by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team).

The White House has long maintained, for instance, that no one was prevented from coming to the aid of the diplomats and security officials under attack at the compound. But CIA contractors describe in agonizing detail how they were forced by their base chief to wait at the CIA annex before responding to the desperate please for help from their countrymen a half-mile away. "If you don't get here soon, we're all going to die!" one of the Americans trapped at the compound said over the radio.

After waiting in idle vehicles for several minutes, fully dressed and armed for battle, one contractor shouts to the CIA base chief: "Hey, we gotta go now! We're losing the initiative!" The base chief, on the phone trying to get a local militia to respond instead, replies: "No, stand down, you need to wait." Eventually the team grew so frustrated they defied the chief's orders and raced to the fighting.

The book also indicates a team of CIA contractors drove past the compound about a half hour before the attack, and reported that "all was quiet":

The contractors "neither saw nor heard anything to suggest that anyone in Benghazi was upset about an offensive YouTube video clip from an anti-Muslim movie."

(quote is taken from the WSJ review)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Factchecker_atyourservice, Those are interesting. Which issue of the WSJ? When I saw the interviews related to the book release, I the thing that came to the top for me was that the security team believed the Ambassador would still be alive. I can understand the guy in charge wanting to get more assistance (the other side of the coin). The only perfect science is hindsight, but I thought it significant enough to get that part into this article. The other one that you brought up and is major to me too was that they defied orders to go, so who knows how long the senior guy would have prevented them from going. If the opposing force had been stronger, then the security team could also have all been wiped out too. Either way, there are lots of negatives about the event. Alrich44 (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't have it in front of me right now but I am pretty sure it was the Sep. 11 issue. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Speculation about reasons made by Anonymous sources - Delete?

I added the [dubious – discuss] tag to a line in the Instability in Benghazi section.

"One anonymous source told a reporter... that Stevens may have declined the offers because..."

An anonymous source's speculation (about why someone did something) is very non-encyclopedic. Should it be deleted? Although plausible, it is no more rigorous than another anon source speculating "the attackers might have heard voices from outer space". Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize this is a sub-part of the POV issue above but it's separate from that bigger picture. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been two weeks without comment regarding this so I will delete the line in question. I am still interested in feedback on this. Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Please remove "As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses." The source cited does not support the above statement. Although the nydailynews.com article is headlined that Clinton "Clinton takes responsibility for Benghazi attack" no where in the actual transcript does Secretary Clinton actually take personal responsibility for the security lapses that occurred in Benghazi in 2012. Instead the Secretary generally states "I have said many times since September 11th, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure." Tag357 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. needs a source EoRdE6 (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Panetta revelation

This article presently contains no information regarding more recent statement by Former SecDef Panetta that they knew early that this was a terrorist attack. This is backed by a declassified transcript about the nature of the briefing, (other source). Perhaps this should be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Doherty & Woods

Given that Corporal Nathan Cirillo is provided an infobox at the article 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, I propose that fmr SO1 Doherty, and SOCS Woods (USN, ret.) be provided info boxes as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sean Smith (diplomat)

Two years passed since AFD. Back then there was no consensus to merge or delete this article. Nevertheless, no matter how large the "2012 Benghazi attack" article is, notability of this person does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Looking at the article, I am sure that the content will be fine as merged into the parent article. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Um, no. The Sean Smith article is able to stand on its own just fine. It is better sourced than most and well written. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Current title

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.

---

Does the current title describe what the article is accuracy about? Does it adhere to WP:NCE, WP:AT, and other policies and guidelines? If neither, what name do you suggest? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am thinking 2012 Benghazi diplomatic attack or Attack on Benghazi diplomacy. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose-I am fine with the current title as-is.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not realize there were failed requested moves. Thank goodness I used RFC instead. --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• A lot of work needs to be done on this article, it meets WP:TOOBIG, and it hasn't been updated with investigation events that have occurred since mid-2013. That being said, I think the name is OK, I have cited that it has also been called the Battle of Benghazi, but that is not its common name in most reliable sources, which often use "Benghazi attack". There were attacks on other diplomatic missions in Benghazi besides the U.S. facilities, therefore changing the name as proposed by the RFC creator would expand the scope of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is 2013 Benghazi conflict. And when did those attacks occur besides attacks on US diplomacy? --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: 'Attack' is quite vague and should be changed to 'embassy attack' or something to that effect - diplomatic attack is a bit too unrealistic (there are very few attacks which are diplomatic). Uhlan ^talk 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhlan, I recently added old moves banner on top of page. This may help you eliminate those impossibilities. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be better if there was another move request: 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Uhlan ^talk 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

How can we connect titles with average readers? Your proposal... how about 2012 attack on U.S. Embassy in Libya or 2012 Libyan attack on U.S. Embassy or 2012 U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi (or U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi)? (per RGloucester, the attack took place at CIA complex / US compound) --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The former sounds better in my opinion. Uhlan ^talk 05:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Even so, as I told Cwobeel, the former was proposed previously less than two years ago. The consensus rejected the proposed title, so what are your other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

2012 Attack on U.S Benghazi embassy. Uhlan ^talk 05:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For the final time, there is no embassy in Benghazi. There never has been. The embassy is in Tripoli. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok no need for the name change to that particular one then. Uhlan ^talk 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – An "embassy" wasn't attacked. Please actually verify what you're talking about before proposing titles. There is no embassy in Benghazi. There is an embassy in Tripoli. Mostly, the attack was on a CIA complex, not a diplomatic facility, though the details are still murky. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... 2012 attack on CIA complex in Benghazi is too long for average readers. All other titles that I have come up fail required criteria of titles. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to be precise, you can try 2012 attack on the American compound in Benghazi, but that strikes me as crap. The other option, if you want to pursue it, is to use disambiguation by date, i.e. September 11–12, 2012 Benghazi attack. I don't use MDY myself, and I much prefer DMY (isn't 11–12 September 2012 Benghazi attack so much better?), but since this is an American article, I guess we have to use MDY. RGloucester — ☎ 04:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, which is longer than the CIA one. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Aussies or Brits or English-speaking Indians and Pakistanis ever heard of "CIA" as much as "US intelligence". As for the dates, they were proposed, but consensus opposed them. --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm British, and I can assure you I've heard of the "CIA". To be honest, I agree that the present title is rubbish, but all the proposed titles, including the one you just proposed, are also rubbish. When choosing between multiple titles that are rubbish, I believe WP:TITLECHANGES applies. In other words, we ought just leave well alone. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I must remind you: this is an RFC, not an RM. I'm using RFC as a prerequisite for or an alternative to RM. The title itself needs to be discussed. The policy says: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Yes, the "2012 Benghazi attack" has been stable for two years(?).
However, there have been plenty of good reasons to change it. First, the title is "rubbish" as you said. Second, it poorly connects to the article itself. In fact, the topic is the attack on the CIA complex (or the US compound) on September 11–12, 2012. Third, it implies that there is conflict generally in Benghazi in 2012, like suicide bombings on civilization. Nevertheless, another article, inter-civil war violence in Libya, already covers such incidents.
Fourth... well, there is no fourth. Screaming Benghazi has been overdone just to manipulate average Americans. Nevertheless, it's not a fourth reason to change it; Benghazi was the place where an attacked happened. However, the wording of the policy itself neither encourages nor discourages title changes but too much title changing. I think that's the principle of TITLECHANGES.
Of course, "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." To improve this article, the best I can do is adding events, but I'm poor at copy editing. So far, we've not heard much about this event. Nevertheless, this RFC may help others prevent any more frivolous RMs. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of your reasoning, and on the "rubbishness" of the present title. However, I'm not convinced that it is possible to come-up with a title that is less "rubbishy" than this one. All of the proposed titles have been either very long, clunky, or otherwise inaccurate (embassy). Given that, TITLECHANGES comes into play, as "good reason" to change a title implies that the title that one changes to is better than the original. If the new title is not an improvement, then it is quite clear that the stable title should be left alone. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• For accuracy, 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi may be a good choice. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It was opposed in January 2013. You opposed it then. Why rescinding your past opposition? --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no American embassy in Benghazi, and there never has been. Countries only have one embassy in another country, and it is always in the capital. They may also have consulates in other cities. However, the target of this attack was on an unspecified CIA/diplomatic compound, not on any embassy or a consulate. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The event in question occurred at two different locations, one was diplomatic in nature, the other was not. The current title appears to be one most used in reliable sources, therefore I Oppose changing the name, until reliable sources can be found that verify that a different name is used more commonly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as far as I know, the US media uses Benghazi to spin into sensation. What do Canadian, Australian, British, Irish, and New Zealand media refer it as? I guess I'll check the BBC, CBC, ABC (Aussie), and other media for more. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* BBC and CBC refer it as "2012 Benghazi attacks". ABC may have done the same, but I don't feel like checking it now. The Times of India does it, too. I guess we'll also check scholarly journals to see what they refer it as. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Found one journal from online university, Henley-Putnam University. It refers the event as terrorist attacks in Benghazi on 11–12 September 2011. The Thinker, South African magazine, calls it the "killings in Benghazi". I'll find more English-language African publications. --George Ho (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't use "attack". Rather it discusses the details and mentions the death of Stevens and refers it as "levels of insecurity". --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

2012 attack on U.S. consulate in Benghazi. It's was a consulate, not an embassy. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a consulate either. It was an unspecified diplomatic compound, and also an unspecified CIA compound. Neither of them provided consular services to anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 26 November 2014 (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.

Lede

The current lede does not summarize the lengthy and numerous investigations, which are a significant portion of this article. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree, this article probably needs to be shortened and summarized not added too. Longer than Iran-Contra article, not logically. Iran Contra ran several years and several major trials. The Lede is probably the bets part, please review the wikipedia MoS(Manual of Style)--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image should be of the site of the Benghazi attack, everything else is secondary. The current one is confusing and full of extraneous images. Please change it to an image showing the site of the attack. Darx9url (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

DisagreeA collage pertaining to the article is more appropriate and inline with the Manual of Style. Again very similar to similar political controversies such as Iran Contra and the September 11th attacks articles. I disagree that it is confusing and think the image is coherent, follows wikipedia policies and manual of style. Not sure what you mean by "Everything else is secondary" as that appears to be a very subjective statement.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Point of View

Being this is a controversial topic, especially political and given the significant length, In Contrast, this article more than doubles the length of Iran–Contra affair which was probably a larger multi year scandal. Also several entires really seem to lack a Neutral Point of View.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't some context be included, such as mention of the 12 terrorist attacks between 2002 and 2012?Newlenp (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

Need to correct the date of Glen Doherty's death from September 11 to September 12

Please change this:

Done -- Sam ^Sing! 12:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Glen Doherty

Glen Anthony Doherty (c. 1970 – September 11, 2012)

To This:

Glen Doherty

Glen Anthony Doherty (c. 1970 – September 12, 2012)

Glen was killed after midnight (No longer Sept 11) within minutes of his friend Tyrone Woods

Tyrone's date of death is correctly listed in the article as: Tyrone Snowden Woods (January 15, 1971 – September 12, 2012)

Evidence for September 12:

• Internal in the article under ===Assault on the CIA annex=== Details that the events surrounding his death occurred after midnight.
• Glen Doherty Foundation website: "Glen Doherty was one of the four Americans killed in a terror attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 12, 2012."
• Washington Post timeline of the attack: "4 a.m.: Gunmen launch an assault using mortars against the CIA annex. Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, both former Navy SEALs, are killed. Two other Americans are wounded."

Below Power Curve (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we using local time for the date? or Washington time? does it make a difference as to date of death?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Possible source

Some time has passed since this was a current news event. Article full of news sources that can over time be replaced with publications on the event. Bellow are some books that have been published recently. We should go over them see if any are credible and thus usable as sources. -- Moxy (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fred Burton; Samuel M. Katz (2013). Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-4668-3725-6.
• Roger Stone; U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2014). The Benghazi Report: Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-1-62914-814-4.
• Timmerman, Kenneth R. (2014). Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi. Broadside Books.
• MItchell Zuckoff (2014). 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4555-8229-7.

Spin-off articles

Spin-off articles are great, but per WP:SUMMARY they need to be summarized here. A link to the article is not enough. I'll wait a couple of days to see if that is done, otherwise I will undo these edits, per WP:POVFORK. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Re addition of content flies in the face of WP:SIZERULE. A summary is one thing, wholly moving a section is another, leave reaction to the investigation in the sub-articles about those investigations. I will revert the move per WP:BRD. Lets get consensus before re-expanding the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The spinoff article is about the investigations, but that section is about journalism coverage. Interesting that you mention WP:BRD. You did a bold edit, which I partially reverted, so you have done WP:BRRD, which is edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be also aware of the perils of WP:OWN. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Several official investigations have been completed, are ongoing, or are under consideration. No mention of that section. I'd ask of you to be more accommodating. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If anything we need to create more sub-articles, as the article is still 165k in size.

Yes a summary would be great and I would be interested in working with interested editors to create a neutral summary, but this is not a POVFORK as being claimed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

of course it is a POV fork. Any and all investigations have drawn a blank, but now we don't have that in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of WP:OWN does not show WP:AGF, furthermore accusing me of WP:EW also violates WP:AGF. Please stop this line of thought.

Now can we work towards a consensus rather than being adversarial as is seen in these edits? How about each substantial section of the sub-article we work towards building a short/concise neutrally worded paragraph here in this article? Therefore, there'd be a single paragraph that encompasses the FBI and Senate Select Committee, one paragraph for the different House investigations, one paragraph that is about the State Department investigation, and one paragraph for the investigative journalism and opinions section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias and interpretation?

This line:

"As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[16]"

It's citing a transcript, made available from a somewhat partisan source (New York Daily News), that appears in an online article titled "TRANSCRIPT: Hillary Clinton takes responsibility for Benghazi attack, defends actions in emotional testimony before Congress". http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/transcript-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-article-1.1246025

The only portion of that transcript that has any relevance to the subject of responsibility is a quote from Clinton regarding responsibility of the office of Sec. of State: "We wanted to be sure that whatever these independent, nonpartisan boards found would be made available to the Congress and to the American people, because, as I have said many times since September 11th, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure. Now, taking responsibility meant not only moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to make sure we were protecting our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world."

In short, I find this to be rather finger-pointing, and with misleading inference that Clinton was at fault for the attack, instead of simply stating that investigating the cause and fault were the responsibility of her office.

Moreover, the headline itself would be the only basis for that assumption, it seems, and that headline is from a medium regarded as one-sided/right-favoring. --Regroce (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of alternate name

@Tedperl: Why was this removed? It meets WP:VER? Perhaps it belongs somewhere in the article other than the infobox. But removing well sourced content is wrong. I will notify MILHIST.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be of the mind to accept Battle of Benghazi as an alternate name, although I would split up the cations for it to allow each individual citation to be independently given for that name. Thats just me though. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: The references were all grouped per WP:CITEBUNDLE and to avoid WP:BOMBARD. That being said I do not see a reason to exclude this content entirely, as was done by Tedperl.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is overly long--and I could make it a hundred times longer if the only standard was well-sourced conflict. At what point should we draw the line. 67.247.18.31 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC) This is me. I did not realize that I had been logged out.Tedperl (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO that is a poor reason for exclusion, there is a reason for WP:SPINOUT and WP:NOTPAPER. That this event has an alternate name should be included. This is done with other events, and other subjects, and to exclude it here because of size issues IMHO does not hold weight. Furthermore, there is a small consensus, TomStar81 and myself, for including the content and no consensus for excluding it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As to the battle of Benghazi idea, there already is another one Also, I tend to think of battles as larger and extending over longer periods of time--Battle of Gettysburg, Bull Run, etc. This is more the size of a skirmish.

References

As to the content question, I would counter your WPs with WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." There is, in my mind, a critical difference between facts and an effective presentation of knowledge. Although the article has gotten better over time I find the entry unreadable, because it has so much in the way of less than compelling detail. I would also note that WP:SIZERULE that Article > 100 kB "Almost certainly should be divided" and that this article is 150K Tedperl (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Including the alternative name is keeping with MOS:LEADALT. As there are other articles with the name "Battle of Benghazi", a simple redirect is not possible and there is a disambiguation article for that. As there is not a separate section about terminology, it is entirely appropriate to include it in the lead paragraph.

As for size rule, I have already began to create sub-articles, if other sections can be merged into existing sub-articles or if there are suggestions for new sub-articles, I am open to having that discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)