Talk:J. Christopher Stevens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Very interesting news on his participation in EVE Online

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/12/3323012/eve-online-sean-smith-libya-attack EVE Online players may have been the first ones to possibly be aware of his death. 71.231.197.235 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't ambassador Stevens this was Sean Smith the Information Management Officer.41.254.5.181 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

An earlier version of this page contained text from the State Department website page http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/193075.htm , which is in public domain as a work of the U.S. federal government, see http://www.state.gov/misc/87529.htm#copyright -- Emerine (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

Reuters says "The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car "HERE. Makes smoke inhalation, as reported by Al-Jazeera seem unlikely. --220 of ^Borg 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

These photos seem a bit weird too: [1][2] Perhaps he was even lynched like Gadaffi? Blowback big time. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How would you pull a person to security if you had to be quick? I once tried (it was too late unfortunatly) to save a person from a burning building and carried him in a manner similar to photo #1; not too far from one of the standard firefighter systems (though you have to bend the arm of the victim so you can grab it from both sides). Al-Jazeera and Reuters are both WP:RS, i.e. both should be included until we get a more firm picture of what actually happened. FunkMonk's photos certainly look more like death by smoke inhalation than rocket blast. 62.107.222.115 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to save someone "quickly", I wouldn't stand around with a damn mobile phone to take pictures before (let alone waste time sucking on it afterwards). And how do you explain the handling of the man on photo 2? Very nimble, I'm sure of that. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Did the marines die of "smoke inhalation" too? Al Jazeera is cheer leading for Salafists in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, no wonder they try to make them look like saints here. "Oh, we blasted the buildings, but we made sure to save the people inside, using standard fire-fighter practices!". It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the same people you ignoramus. The attackers left and after that is when the civilians showed up to do what they could. Al Jazeera has about the same leanings as Fox News and claiming that they would "cheer on the Salafists" or whatever is absurd.41.254.5.181 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now the NTC accuses "Gadaffi sympathisers"of the murders... In Benghazi!? Looooooool. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you regading the photos. Are you saying that because he has a mobile in his mouth (=both arms are free to carry the victim) he must be up to no good!? Or are you saying because these photos exist they must be up to no good!? We have plenty of picture of the "original" 9/11, and I doubt anyone would say everybody that took photos on that terrible day were bad people. Regarding the Marines - don't put words into my mouth. I haven't said anything about them and I have no idea how they died. Neither have I suggested the people that set fire to the building (if that is what happened) were up to any good. They clearly weren't. If you set fire to a building where people may be inside, that's attempted murder (if people survive) or murder (if people die). However, I haven't said they died of smoke inhalation. I have only said two things are being reported, smoke inhalation in building or rocket-propelled grenade in car, and that the person on the photo doesn't have any obvious blasting injuries. You're the only person that has presented your own WP:OR theories (lynching). I'm equally puzzled by the last sentence in one of your last comments ("we blasted the buildings, but we made sure to save the people"). I never said they were the same. It would be remarkably narrow-minded to think Benghazi, a city with more than half a million inhabitants, only has bad people (=attackers) and no good people (=trying to save others). 62.107.222.115 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So "good people" make sure to take pictures of the injured before "saving" them by carrying them like a bag of potatoes? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The guy carrying the ambassador was not trying to take a photo he simply had his phone in his mouth for whatever reason. He was in a hurry, wasn't thinking straight, etc. The other people taking pictures were acting naively, in poor taste, or whatever but they didn't mean any harm.

The point is rather that 'good people' will not be around if extremists fire guns and grenades. The only possible explanation would be that they arrived long after the radicals left and still before the police arrived. Well... 87.172.170.204 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The notion is, without RS stating that the people carrying the victim, one does not place any rationale for the action, as that would be POV. I could pull pictures of people carrying victims from 9-11, does that mean those taking the pictures and those carrying victims were terrorists? Without an RS stating what was going on, it is inflammatory POV.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what we say here, no one is proposing changes to the article itself based on images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the rocket attack on car contention and leaving it as smoke inhalation because CNN is now saying that it has gotten confirmation for the latter from two separate "senior officials" with the State Department.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite cautious about that. They also denied Gadaffi had been lynched until footage of it appeared. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

When Gaddafi got lynched footage of it was available within hours. Not the case here. Trust me, if the American ambassador had gotten lynched and the locals were happy about it we'd have seen footage of it around 24 hours ago.

There was a passage that has now been removed citing involvement of the security forces in the attack: "According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/u.s-officials-deadly-libya-attack-likely-planned/). I think such information is important, especially because Al-Sharef is an official source. 87.172.170.204 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what was meant was unwitting help, in other words they were incompetent rather than wilful accomplices. Also the protestors themselves weren't the ones who did this, a bunch of thugs with guns showed up in pickup trucks (also mounted with guns) and chased everyone away.41.254.5.181 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Those guys were basically celebrating while "helping" him, so no cigar: Youtube fMjcmJOhslQ FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that al-Sharef quote [3] is important information and would like to see that back in the article. Contrary to what 41.254.5.181 wrote, the source for that specifically said that the Libyan Security forces helped the protestors out of sympathy with the grievance of the protestors (viz. the film deliberately insulting Mohammed) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

l0l you're both retarded. "Celebrating while helping him" hahahahaha they're happy that they found someone alive you idiot. You don't have a clue, back to fox news for you.

Listen. I just noticed this now, saw the photos here in the talk page. First rule of diplomacy: NEVER kill or harm an ambassador, or the senior consulate representative. Every country knows this, including Libya, and abides by it. Ambassadors DO get killed sometimes, but if at all possible, you sever diplomatic ties and put the ambassador on the first plane, car or truck you can find, and make sure that you leave him in the nearest different country, alive. I don't know if this was planned or not by the Libyan government. It isn't easy to control mobs once they pick up momentum.

Regardless of who was responsible, do NOT draw any conclusions about the people in FunkMonk's photographs! They were NOT dragging or hurting Ambassador Stevens. He may have already been dead, as it looks like rigor had set in. If the people in the photos were ill-disposed toward him, they would have just left him in the safe house, or wherever they found him! That's a lot easier than taking it upon yourself to get him to a hospital, and risk being accused of being responsible for his death. Those Libyan people in the photos were GOOD, because they took the ambassador somewhere that he'd be safe, and if he were dead, ensured that no one dishonored his mortal remains. That doesn't mean that they like the U.S.A., nor can one infer anything else.

The man with the cellphone didn't want to lose it, and was doing his best to help. The same is true in the other photo. Those are terrible photos, but they make the tragedy more real to many who don't realize. It IS a tragedy, inexplicable, that the ambassador's earlier request for more security wasn't responded to, quickly. There's plenty of blame to go around: The U.S. state department shouldn't post diplomatic corps to a country whose allegiance and stability is uncertain. Similarly, if Libya agreed to have a U.S. consulate, everything possible should have been done to avoid this from happening. Please don't say these awful things about Ambassador Stevens, nor the Libyan people who helped. Where were the CIA, the U.S. fighter planes, the military guards? There were two guards (aides?); both were killed. Only the people in those photos were there, when no one else was, and they helped as best they could. -- FeralOink --FeralOink (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Was he the only ambassador?

Are there typically 3 ambassadors per embassy? Where/what happened with the other 2 ambassadors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

He was only visiting, apparently, and it was not a real embassy. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there are not 3 ambassadors. There is only 1. If the ambassador is on leave, the second person at the embassy becomes Charge d'Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfensis (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk: You may want to educate yourself on what constitutes an embassy vs a consulate (or as you call it "..not a real embassy." And we was not only visiting. He had only taken the post in June, however. Thank you. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/embassy.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.48.230 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If facts and information bore you, perhaps contributing to an encyclopedia isn't your highest and best use. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.48.230 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should get an account and replace me. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to mentor you. With or without an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.48.230 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should accept his offer FunkMonk. You are clearly about as educated re. other societies as the ignorant scumbags who did this since your eyes apparently see all Libyans as clones with identical ways of thinking and behaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.5.181 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Låwl. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

We still don't have a proper source for the date of birth. Various usually reliable sources give "April 1960" as a month of birth, but no date, which I find suspicious: if they were getting their information from truly authoritative sources, they'd usually give the exact date. I worry that at least some of these articles may be getting at least some of their information from this Wikipedia article, creating a closed citation cycle (see http://xkcd.com/978/). We should take out the date of birth until we have a source confident enough to give the day of birth. -- The Anome (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a loop in this case because I was involved in this article from its creation and noted the April date from sources (such as allgov.com that predated this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. I've got the cite here:

Matt Bewig (March 18, 2012). "Ambassador to Libya: Who Is Chris Stevens?". allgov.com. Retrieved 2012-09-12.

I'll add it to the article. We still need the day of birth, but I'm sure that fact-checkers in newsrooms across the world should be working on that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'd been trying to research the same question. A few sources list "April 1, 1960," but this may be the result of improper handling of "April 1960" by the underlying software being employed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

California Birth Index gives 18 April 1960 in Nevada County, California. http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/john_c_stevens_born_1960_7441345 . His brother Thomas E., Assistant US Attorney in SF, has same mother's maiden name and birth in Nevada County too. But this is too close to original research for me to post it. --Snugspout

Someone has added a similar citation to the article now: FamilyTreeLegends.com. I'm not sure how reliable of a source this is. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Other deaths

Three other people died: an IT specialist, Sean Smith, who was also a well-known gamer, and two U.S Marines, so far un-named by sources. I've started an article about Smith, since his name has been released, together with news stories on him. It would be good if someone can start an article for each of the two Marines, when their names and obituaries are eventually released. -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The question has been asked there about whether we should have an article about Smith, since his notability independent of this incident is in doubt. Apologies, but I'd argue that the case for entries on the two marines seems, prima facie, even weaker. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

10 Libyan security forces also died in the attack. GiantSnowman 09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Sean Smith and Glen Dougherty were created.--FeralOink (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Article name

Not a formal RM proposal, but would perhaps 'diplomat' be more suitable? GiantSnowman 16:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, moved. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unexpected but thanks. GiantSnowman 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing Fox News

I've removed a bunch of material sourced from Fox News. Fox is essentially a news-entertainment channel: we don't cite the Daily Show as a news source, and we shouldn't cite Fox for the same reason. A rule of thumb: if you can't source it from anywhere but Fox, it's probably news-entertainment content. -- Emerine (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Emerine, you must be another drone in the army of leftists that have destroyed Wikipedia as a credible source of information on political issues. The selective contempt for Fox News is telling, especially considering that it receives a majority of its information from the same sources as its competitors. Congratulations on scrubbing another article of inconvenient truths in order to align the narrative with your leftist ideology. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia:Personal attacks - In any event, you can look at the WP:RS noticeboard entry here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Fox_News_is_an_unreliable_source We do not use popular media articles for science-related things, but for politics yes we do. That includes Fox News. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reports of non-notable speculation are not useful here. A wide variety of theories are no doubt circulating, some plausible, many crackpot. It makes sense to say "X is investigating" or "Y is awaiting confirmation", it's in general not useful to say "Z is speculating that", unless Z's speculation is sufficiently notable that it can be sourced to multiple mainstream media sources. -- Emerine (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you're putting your dishonesty on full display for all of us to see. Your initial complaint was against the entirety of Fox News, not its opinion pieces or entertainment aspects. All you're doing, and I thank you for this, is demonstrating the prevalence of leftists who inhabit Wikipedia who are committed to propagandising the readership with its dishonest narratives of politics and history. Clearly you're one of those leftist drones that actually thinks Fox News is overly conservative in its journalism. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken Emerine. Fox News has both hard news and opinion pieces. While opinion peices generally shouldn't be cited, hard news stories should. I am undoing your edits. 75.128.88.144 (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions for User Emerine

Emerine: The sources from Fox were from its news department not its entertainment branch. It would like removing reports from the New York Times because they have sections on movies and other trivia. I have left you a question on your talk page at User talk:Emerine#Christopher Stevens (diplomat). It's worth repeating here as well because of its relevance to this article's content:

Hi Emerine: Are you following the news? It may help you learn the facts. I am not sure why in the Christopher Stevens (diplomat) article you are fighting so hard to deny the growing news reports and government sources that Stevens and the other Americans killed and wounded on the recent September 11 attack in Libya was due to a military strike by trained assailants and was not the result of a riot. On the first day, somehow news reports were fed the story that rioters were protesting a movie, 24 hours later reports were coming in that this was a well-organized terrorist attack. Now as the third day after the attacks the news reports are coalescing around the conclusion that this was an attack that used a mob as cover to perpetrate its aims. As good example, see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511645/u.s-launching-apparent-terrorist-hunt-in-libya/:

CBS News:

"September 12, 2012 5:02 PM

U.S. launching apparent terrorist hunt in Libya

Updated 2:45 a.m. ET Sept. 13

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, has begun what appears to be a terrorist hunt in Libya, as evidence mounts that the deaths of four diplomatic workers there were perpetrated by well-armed thugs and not an out-of-control crowd.

CBS News correspondent David Martin reports the FBI has opened an investigation into the deaths, and agents will be sent to sift through the wreckage for evidence. They will be accompanied by a second team sent just for their protection.

As part of the hunt for the attackers, officials say the U.S. will increase its surveillance over Libya, including the use of unmanned drones. In addition, the U.S. Navy is positioning two destroyers armed with cruise missiles off the coast of Libya.

One destroyer, the USS Laboon, moved to a position off the coast Wednesday, and the USS McFaul is en route and should be stationed off the coast within days. Officials said the ships, which carry Tomahawk cruise missiles, do not have a specific mission. But they give commanders flexibility to respond to any mission ordered by the president.

The investigation will focus on whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video.

After the attack, an elite anti-terrorist unit of about 40 Marines was flown in to beef up security at the American embassy in the capital of Tripoli. Air Force transport planes flew the bodies of the dead Americans out, along with at least three who were injured and the rest of the approximately 25 diplomats assigned to the consulate. At the same time, the U.S. State Department urged all non-essential personnel to leave on commercial flights.

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda's No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June, and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected.

Confirming al-Libi's death for the first time in a video posted online Monday, al Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahri called on Muslims in al-Libi's native Libya to take revenge for his death.

U.S. officials believe the militants were using the demonstration against the video as a cover to get into the consulate and then take as much revenge as they could on Americans, Martin reports.

While the White House has been hesitant to call the attack planned, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was not so ambiguous.

"Absolutely it's a terrorist attack," Rogers told CBS News Capitol Hill producer Jill Jackson. "This was not done by the Libyan government. It was done by an external group we believe has at least extremist ties, maybe al Qaeda ties, and the style and the signature of the attack clearly would be something that we have seen before and would be in line with something al Qaeda would do."..."

Stay tuned as this unfolds in the media, it's gonna be a big story! IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Another point here, is that the attack is now going to backfire on its perpetrators because now, for the very first time (from the start of the civil war to evict Gadafi) the US is now injecting fighting soldiers on the ground. During the war to remove Gadafi, European Nato countries supplied air power, and there were all sorts of "unofficial" advisers helping the anti-Gadafi forces. But now, with this killing of a US ambassador, Obama is injecting US troops into Libya (see US sends Marines to Libya after deadly attack) to hunt down the killers and defend US interests (petroleum and destroy Al Quida) with boots on the ground, something he avoided doing throughout the war against Gadafi. Now with an election coming up, Obama cannot afford to look weak and he is forced to send in the Marines who will likely remain for a long time turning Libya into an even greater US dependency. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another pathetic article drafted by the left.

This is degenerating into attacks on editors and commentary on the topic rather than on the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following words are not given any specific mention in the article for obvious reasons: Islam(ism) <in association with the motivation of the murders>, murder, terror(ism/ist), or Al-Qaeda. Ridiculously, the terrorist murders are described as a "disturbance" in the third paragraph under the 'Death' section. There is also no mention of the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001, which is obviously relevant information and was deliberately selected by those who planned these murders. There is also no reference to the graffiti marking the ruins of the embassy which denoted Islamist phrases (Allah is Greater/Allahu Akbhar, etc). This is another in a long list of articles that have been scrubbed for inconvenient truths irreconcilable with the leftist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael (talk • contribs) 01:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) If you can include any of that with references, be our guest. Making wild accusations won't get you nowhere. FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Bobinisrael - either find reliable sources to verify your suggested additions, or stop your pathetic rants about "leftists." If you're trying to push a certain point of view (which you clearly are) then I'd politely advise you to familiasire yourself with our policies and guidelines. GiantSnowman 07:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Clearly the leftists of Wikipedia are now following me around and circling the wagons to defend the indefensible dishonesty in this article. The facts are that Christopher Stevens was murdered along with three other Americans, and this article instead describes them as 'killings'. Moreover, the obvious motivations of this terrorist (another word that is virtually never applied honestly or consistently on Wikipedia) murders are not given any mention: Islam(ism) and anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism. Honest observers know exactly why this article, as well as many others, has been scrubbed of inconvenient truths that do not conform to the dishonest leftist narrative that permeates most of Wikipedia. My "point of view" is simply for the truth to be told, but that's a tall order around here. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) If you can include any of that with references, be our guest. Marnanel (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC) We didn't use the term murder on Osama Bin Laden either. The navy seals did not "murder" bin laden. The muslim brotherhood just wants to take their country back from libyan shadow government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Bobinisrael (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Do you or do you not understand that "murder" is defined as an unlawful killing? Considering that Osama Bin Laden openly declared that his organisation was at war with America and her allies, he was a legitimate target for assassination. Thankfully, Islamists like you who express solidarity with murderers who want to implement tyranny are here to further demonstrate the destruction of Wikipedia by leftists by dressing up terrorism as "taking their country back". Bobinisrael (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Of his mother"

...the son of Jan S. Stevens, a former Yolo County Superior Court judge, Davis city councilman[8] and California Assistant Attorney General[9] and his mother Mary Commanday (née Floris), a cellist with the Marin Symphony Orchestra.

This currently reads as though CS was the son of JSS and JSS's mother. I assume this isn't true. Is "his mother" supposed to be "his wife" or something? Marnanel (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've revised and amended all this after my initial additions on his parents were changed; I hope it's clearer now. (The previous version essentially said he was the son of his mother, which is unsurprising.) MisfitToys (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual rape

There are some allegations that he was homosexually raped before being killed. There are articles, but I'd like to have the homosexual rape confirmed more thoroughly, before being placed in the article. http://www.examiner.(com)/article/lebanese-report-us-ambassador-raped-before-murdered --196.210.144.201 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If you mean that he was raped by another man, say so. His alleged rapist's sexual orientation is irrelevant. Marnanel (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The article on homosexuality defines it as both orientation and behavior. Political correctness aside, the theoretical rapist's sexual orientation wouldn't affect whether the rape was homosexual (i.e. same-sex). Put another way, two men could engage in homosexual activity even if both are heterosexual in orientation. MisfitToys (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source in Libya; possibly one local group trying to make another look bad. See this story. Now being promoted as truth by American propagandists. However, if it is revealed in autopsy reports... Or if reliable details come out about which group was trying to make another look bad (and contribute to misinformation here in US which article SHOULD clear up) then would be relevant. Time will tell. CarolMooreDC 16:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An autopsy with this information is private info and should not be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.135 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Carolmooredc. Unless this is confirmed by independent reliable sources, such as autopsy evidence, there's a very good chance this is pure rumor-mongering, and simply stirs the pot of hatred for no good reason. -- Emerine (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read these stories too and agree with Emerine & Carol, it's all reports of a claim made on a non very well known Lebanese website. I think we should wait before including them to see if there's more reliable reports. --Richardeast (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual rape is a man raping another. If a man rapes a man, it is performatory evidence that he has at least some homosexual inclinations. Even, if the rapist is generally acting like a heterosexual, that still would make him a bisexual. I agree that before the homosexual rape allegation comes into the article it needs to be confirmed by an autopsy report. --41.151.33.220 (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not blame on conservatives, mention of this here is wrong and hurtful to the family. Do you all have any decency? This is just wrong. If this is true, then perhaps a newsworthy mention, but this is outrageous. The man died in the line of duty for our country. We should be more respectful. I am not saying that you all do not have the right to say this, but you also have the right to not say it. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I would wait about a year before adding it to the article so that the hysteria finally dies down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Political correctness aside, the theoretical rapist's sexual orientation wouldn't affect whether the rape was homosexual"

I say again...

"the rapist's sexual orientation wouldn't affect whether the rape was homosexual".

Good Lord, right wing conservatives are batshit insane. 203.59.113.248 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

I think it is important to note the true manner of his death, which I heard was by torture including rape, cattle prod, and torture for seven hours before being burned to death (not simply smoke inhalation, as stated in the main article). It is important is because certain people are responsible politically and they shouldn't be protected publicly by softening the horror of what actually happened as a result of their decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.240.176 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Date of death

I'm pretty sure he died on the 12th, not the 11th. It was the 12th in Libya, while it was still the 11th in the US. --205.174.126.163 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.151 (talk)

That may be up in the air, since these two stories quote Benghazi time, but it's unclear if he was dead by time brought to hospital. BBC Says alive at 1 am their time.Obviously it still was 9/11 here and dboutless that's what US will claim. But technically it may have been the 12th in Libya. CarolMooreDC 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well in any case the article contradicts itself now, listing both the 11th and 12th in different places 73.81.19.36 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

STILL no mention of murder.

Is Wikipedia unable to differentiate between killing and murder? Or is that territory too politically sensitive, lest we offend Islamists and other sympathisers with mass murderers and terrorists? There are category links on the bottom of the page associating this article with murder, implying that Christopher Stevens was indeed murdered (which is indisputable). The opening paragraph, however, takes a much more tepid approach and simply states that he was killed. Why the cognitive dissonance? Honest observers know the answer. Bobinisrael (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

we don't yet know the facts. he did die as a result of the raid. that's all we are certain of. he might have died just as a terrible "accident" as a result of the mayhem --smoke inhalation. if we had footage of him being shot or beheaded, that would be one thing. but at this early point, all we do know is: there was a raid by the mobs, he is dead. shot? rocket attack? mangled? just the smoke? we don't know yet. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if he had died of smoke inhalation, it's still murder. None of the scenarios you've indicated (shooting, RPG, smoke inhalation) change the fact that he was murdered. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the definition of murder. And as expected, the dishonesty of the article remains in the opening paragraph.Bobinisrael (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ah well, at this point we've got manslaughter --an accidental death from smoke. or maybe cardiac issues from the stresses of escape-struggle. for the wording to change from the neutral and factual death to the loaded term murder there needs to be a certain level of evidence of intent to kill him. calm down and wait for more news to come in. to keep insisting so early on POV loaded terms will make you look wp:FRINGE.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So you obviously have no understanding of the terms murder and manslaughter. You need realise that engaging in malicious behaviour that is likely to lead to the deaths of others constitutes murder. Attacking a consulate with AK-47s and RPGs more than qualifies as clear intent to murder, and the results are obvious - murder victims. Even if he died as a consequence of smoke inhalation from fire caused by an RPG explosion, it still constitutes murder. "Murder" is only a loaded term around Wikipedia. 99.224.56.242 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this user appears to be an IP sockpuppet of User:Bobinisrael - exact same language (see [4]), and has contributed to the exact same two talk pages as that account. Given the disruptive editing on both this talk page and the 2012 Anti-Islam film protests talk page, it seems apt to point out someone apparently engaging in a discussion using an apparent sockpuppet. (Edit: This was an erroneous accusation on my part, and I withdraw that this is a sockpuppet. However, given previous edits, I feel it's still relevant to clarify the user association.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it couldn't possibly be that I had forgotten to log in and that my IP rather than ordinary signature was recorded when I used the four tildes. Perhaps you should assist in editing the Wikipedia article for Sherlock Holmes. I look forward to seeing you follow me around in the future in order to shut down discussion of Wikipedia articles that you find politically inconvenient. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, and I apologize if you feel that you were followed around, and for accusing you of sockpuppetry. I made the associated based on the wording in the other edit, and made the comment here based on the fact that you were apparently participating in this particular discussion under two accounts. And yes, you should expect heightened scrutiny when multiple other editors have expressed concern with disruptive editing (and just in general, see WP:SPA); I wouldn't have noted the association but for that fact. But again, there's no need to continue to be WP:UNCIVIL, as almost all of your comments are. It does not promote helpful conversation, and it is not doing anything to advance your viewpoints. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

actually bobinisrael, my understanding of words like murder and manslaughter is fine. your assertion that "malicious behaviour that is likely to lead to the deaths of others constitutes murder" is incorrect. it is also WP:OR. in fact, malicious behavior that is likely to lead to the deaths of others constitutes reckless endangerment, a term you might want to look up some time. i'm guessing that you're usually prone to throw such words around rather than minding the subtle shades of meaning. he died as a result of the riot. he is a victim of the riot, yes. the crowd did use military weapons, and should then have expected deaths. res ipsa. you've got reckless endangerment of life and incitement to riot and aggravated assault with intent to kill for sure. no one is denying that. but he didn't actually die from a mortar or AK or RPG impact as far as we actually, factually know. yet. he survived those --only to die tragically later apparently due to smoke inhalation or from cardiac overexertion while trying to escape the building fire. it is subtle but important since murder is such a legally and morally loaded term. he was not per se murdered --as far as we yet know. there still might be more information inbound. it is still early. we can't fall for the hazy rumors (like it has already been said that he was shot, was sodomized, died in a vehicle after an RPG hit, and died on the way to the hospital). it seems like the credible version so far involves death from smoke effects and/or heart issues while on the roof of the burning structure. tone down the personal vitriol and await (or search out) reliable accounts. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Cramyourspam (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reckless endangerment seems to be an American exclusive. Murder, on the other hand, is universal. Regardless, even in such a circumstance, anybody who would carry out these terrorist attacks in the USA would be charged with murder given the same results, so you're still wrong even in the American context. My point is simple: that Wikipedia is incapable of using honest language to describe events due to political considerations masquerading as a commitment to neutrality. Moreover, even if you are correct (and you are not), then the hyperlinks at the bottom of the article associating these events with murder ("American people murdered abroad", "People murdered in Libya") should be removed, right? Bobinisrael (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Murder is a more loaded term. Regardless of what you think, he was in fact "killed". Whether he was "murdered" is a term that has not yet been determined by a court or other legal body, and as such, the most correct word is "killed". In addition, people in war are generally not thought of as murderers, but as soldiers. While we are not specifically at war with these individuals, officials in the United States have often used the term "War on Terror". So you can call these people murderers, or terrorists, or freedom fighters, or soldiers, whatever... but in the end, a US diplomat is dead. Killed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How about considering that as this happened in Libya, it underlies Libyan jurisdiction, or is Libya now considered part oft the U.S.? Under local jurisdiction, from a libyan point of view, it may also be seen as execution, which is even considered in the U.S. as manslaughter, not murder, and thus not a crinminal delict, as in Libya exists capital punishment and as in U.S. where the execution of a criminal is as a real act seen as manslaughter, but for lawful causes in the judical sense. For example in self defense you can do the physical act of manslaughter i.e. intentional killing, but are not considered or convicted as murderer, since there is a justifiable excuse. Furthermore, in libyan jurisdiction the overthrow of the de facto government by an external aggressor in contradiction to international law could be considered punishable with death penalty. The more as this was not a declared war, but an covered operation. So any American met there due to unlawful aggression could be considered a spy, mercenary or terrorist, but not a POW, so could be instantly courtmartialled and executed. Or waterboarded, smoked and accidently died. Like happens to prisoners in U.S. camps too, from time to time176.4.138.44 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Death section minor edit war.

the nationality of the particular think tank is not relevant in THIS article. it already appears in the think tank article. i'm not going to revert 3rr-ing user Villaboy8 lest i wind up stepping into 3rr myself. see. maybe someone else can tweak that part. Cramyourspam (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Family

There's nothing in here about the family he is survived by - wife, children, etc. (it does mention parents and siblings) Not really relevant to the news of late but usually it's in the infobox. --108.210.124.24 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, he had none. Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It was widely reported that he was married and had children. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He was a homosexual. (92.10.132.85 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

I don't think there is any evidence he was homosexual. Various pictures of him with Austin Tichenor (who is married with children, and shared a room with Stevens at Alpha Tau Omega fraternity at Berkeley) are not sufficient evidence. snug (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He had girlfriends.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=8807574 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.204 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An obit in the Seattle Times stated this "He was remembered as a self-effacing bachelor with a wry sense of humor who drank beer, dated women and liked outdoor sports." The article can be found here http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019139515_stevensobit13.html BardicHeart (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mary Floris, Chinook

@Kitchawan: I believe you are correct, but the sourcing and citation method aren't standard. Can you please find better sources and cite correctly? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Mary Floris is the daughter of Beryl Marjory Brown Floris, who wrote a book about Chinook Chief Comcomly. Beryl Marjory Brown is also a Chinook and descendant of Comcomly. Proving this with secondary sources looks hard, though. Here is the wikipedia on Comcomly, which cite's Beryl Floris' book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Comcomly . Beryl Floris was also an artist. snug (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The descent is.... Daisy Johanna Colbert (1871-1960, in 1937 Indian Census, Tsinuk=Chinook Tribe, Quinaielt Reservation, Taholah Indian Agency); her daughter is Beryl Marjorie Brown (1904-1979), her daughter is Mary J. Floris (1937-living), her son is Chris Stevens. But this is not documented in secondary sources. snug (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Per BardicHeart, a reliable source was found, documenting his Chinook Nation ancestry. --FeralOink (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that he's of Native American descent?

Apparently he was 1/16th Chinook and a registered citizen of the Chinook Nation according to an article in Indian Country which can be checked here http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/ambassador-j.-christopher-stevens%E2%80%99-mother-spells-out-family-legacy-136422

76.120.17.197 (BardicHeart) 03:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This point may need to be made clearer

Despite that warning, Mr Stevens did NOT ask for more U.S. troops, and commented that Benghazi officials believed the city was becoming safer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214665/Libya-consulate-attack-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-told-officials-security-worries-day-died.html#ixzz2AHDRluvz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.195.211 (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. The article is confusing. It begins as follows:

"The American ambassador to Libya sent a diplomatic cable spelling out his worries about the security situation in Benghazi on the day he was killed in a raid on the U.S. consulate, it has been revealed. Chris Stevens told State Department officials that two militias which had been providing security in the city were threatening to withdraw over a dispute about U.S. policy... On September 11th, the day he died, Mr Stevens wrote to Washington officials detailing a dispute involving the leaders of two prominent Benghazi militias who were responsible for security in the city."

Then the article continues with this, which is the confusing part:

"They [the leaders of the two militias, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi] claimed that the U.S. was lobbying for centrist politician Mahmoud Jibril to become Libya's prime minister. They said that if he won the vote, they 'would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,' according to Mr Stevens. Despite that warning, Mr Stevens did not ask for more U.S. troops, and commented that Benghazi officials believed the city was becoming safer. The American compound was being guarded by members of the 'February 17 Martyrs Brigade', a militia which shared members with the groups run by Mr bin Ahmed and Mr al-Gharabi."

Regarding the request for more security, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood was head of a Special Forces 'Site Security Team', but posted in Tripoli, not Benghazi, 400 miles away. Afterward,

"Mr Wood claimed that other senior officials, including Mr Stevens, had requested a boost in the U.S. security presence, saying: 'We felt we needed more, not less.'"

However, Mr. Wood was told he wasn't needed in Benghazi, and in fact, was ordered to leave Libya along with his security team, as his role was merely temporary, and that they were no longer required, as the consulate in Benghazi did not need their services.

So, to summarize,

1. Ambassador Stevens sent a diplomatic cable, that he was worried about the security situation in Benghazi on the day he was killed.
2. Mr Stevens wrote to Washington officials detailing the dispute between the two militias who were responsible for his security. Was that the same as the cable? I don't know.
3. Yet Mr. Stevens also commented that Benghazi officials believed the city was becoming safer, and did not ask for more U.S. troops. When? In the cable, letter or both? It seems as though Mr. Stevens said he was worried about security, described why, yet didn't ask for more protection and said that local officials believed things were getting safer. Hmm...

It is difficult to put this together, in a coherent narrative. Of course, maybe more information is available now, although I don't recall any. I haven't changed the article based on this. --FeralOink (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrorists

Please, replace terrorists with something like unhappy rioters or protesters, because they were not terrorists. They genuinely were an angry mob that was unhappy with USA in their country. They were not organized, and he was killed, sadly, by the people of the town, not terrorists. 77.77.245.239 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

Does this mean Benghazi people customarily carry RPGs with them, just in case they get angry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.86.234 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1