Jump to content

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

No consulate on consulate list

http://www.usembassy.gov/

The consulate doesn't appear in this list. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.68.88 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of deaths in infobox

Obviously there has been a lot of movement on these stories, and I know this article was broken off from 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, so this may have been discussed elsewhere. But, let me ask here - If ten Libyan policemen were killed in this instance, shouldn't they be accounted for in the infobox as well? Currently it only accounts for the four Americans killed. Please let me know if there is some reason not to have listed the ten, otherwise I am going to add it. KConWiki (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. I suggest you write it as "4 Americans and 10 Libyans". — Hasdi Bravo • 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
OK - I see that as facts have become more clear, it turns out that there were not in fact ten Libyan policemen killed. So, thanks to whomever made the fix to my edits mentioned above to remove that (now known to be erroneous) statement. KConWiki (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Libyan president released a statement yet?

Earlier today I heard he was going to give statement on a tv news show, but i just got home from work. Has it been released yet? (I'll try to find a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing yet. It is 4pm right now in Libya, so it is possible that if he is going to give some statement it will be little bit later, after evening prayers probably. Libya Herald or Tripoli Post are usually the first one who come up with english-language news from Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a US Consulate in Benghazi?

There is no mention on the websites of either the State Dept or the US Embassy in Tripoli of a Consulate in Benghazi. 

http://www.usembassy.gov/ 

http://libya.usembassy.gov/

Some reports suggest it was a group of houses leased by the US but without official diplomatic status, or at least not a consulate. This needs to be clarified88.167.22.75 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Mission: I had time to read several official announcements on the Embassy webpage -provided above- and they all refer to the "US Mission in Benghazi" without using the word "Diplomatic". --E4024 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The usembassy.gov lists "Missions" too. They all seem to be UN/Global Affairs related. There is no US Embassy, Consulate, or Mission in Benghazi. There is a satellite image provided by BBC and other sources, which show the location of this supposed Consulate, and it appears to be central to a military base & weapons storage area used during Operation Odessey Dawn & others. This link does not meet "reliable sources" - http://reanimatedresidue.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/there-is-no-us-embassyconsulatemission-in-benghazi-libya/ - but everything is cited by quality sources so you are welcome to use anything you need in order to add the required information to the article. I think it is important that some reference to this information is mentioned. PoizonMyst (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Consider (Attack on/Terrorist attack on/against) "US diplomatic personnel (or "officers" maybe) in Benghazi" or work on those words to find a better combination... --E4024 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I have written it in the above discussion about accurate title for the article.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what the official websites say or don't say, I think we should give credence to the official statements from the President and SoS: Obama calls it a "diplomatic facility" while Hillary Clinton calls it "our mission in Benghazi". I think "U.S. diplomatic mission attack in Benghazi" is better, given both of them calling it a facility/mission of some sort; the terms are both generic enough anyways. (But changing it from "consulate" probably makes sense, since that's not quite so generic.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Official websites are RS, even more so than statements from politicians. Personally, I cannot give credence to people who regularly lie as part of their job. :P PoizonMyst (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of Libyans protesting against that attacks and Islamic militia-worth adding to reaction

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578010750711899438.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.170.143 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The info could also be added to the page Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. PoizonMyst (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
They even attacked and evicted Ansar al-Sharia from their bases together with several other militias. EllsworthSK (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This absolutely needs to be added; 30K people protesting and forcing the alleged attackers out is certainly noteworthy. Also of note from [1]: the invasion "appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia bases by police, government troops and activists". – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you OP, EllsworthSK, and 2001:db8. The protest info was already written up in the subsection "Aftermath - Libyan Response". I have added the eviction and coordinated sweep info to the article and cited the source provided by 2001:db8.PoizonMyst (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Libyan protesters force Islamist militia out of Benghazi

I think needs to be incorporated somehow. — Hasdi Bravo • 10:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasdi. The protest and seizure of the militia HQ's was already written up under "Aftermath - Libyan Response", however the deaths and wounded were not. I have added the information and cited the article you provided. PoizonMyst (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NATO History with Al-libi - Al-Quaeda 2nd in command

Can someone with more experience, ascertain if this website could be considered a "reliable source"? http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Africa/Libya-Doomed-from-Day-One.html The article contains some important historical info about Al-Libi, the Al-Quaeda 2nd in command. I believe the information to be of high importance in light of things, and relevant enough to be included in the "Background" sub-heading of this article.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bunch of bollocks, there is not one RS which would call al-Libi as a friend of NATO in 2011. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Michael Bagley, the President of Jellyfish Operations which provides on-the-ground intelligence to Fortune 500 companies, doesnt have clue what he's talking about. :P That aside, I understand the website does not meet RS. Thanks. PoizonMyst (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC).
Addendum: All I can find ATM is that Al-Libi made a propaganda video supporting the rebels in their quest to overthrow Gaddafi in 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/g8-stalls-as-muammar-gaddafis-forces-take-seaport-of-brega/story-e6frg6so-1226021360237 That, of course, does not mean he was directly supported by NATO in any way. PoizonMyst (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm I thought so. It appears oilprice.com is considered RS as it is cited in at least 20+ articles on Wikipedia. Here's just a couple of examples, Gold, International Energy Agency, Ash-Shabaab (Somalia), Judith Curry, Tom Murphy (physicist),National Iranian Oil Company, Syrian Liberation Army, Corruption in Kyrgyzstan and the list goes on. Looks like there's enough to ascertain the website as reliable enough to include information from the source article I provided. Thanks for your help anyway, EllsworthSK.PoizonMyst (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying that al-Libi was a friend of NATO is a WP:FRINGE as it gets. And I am not even talking about such ballsy statements that he fought alongside the rebels in civil war. You won´t find one more source that would support that, because, yes, it is bollocks. From RS, what I never said it isn´t, but not the first one, nor the last one I have ever seen. No need to thank me. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: And bytheway, this article wasn´t written by Michael Bagley but by Jen Alić. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I had no intention of writing anyone was "a friend to NATO" - please do not hold steadfast to that which I have already concurred in my previous comments. I mentioned al-Libi's history, but my question was about RS qualification of the website - which it is, regardless of our personal worldviews and who wrote it. Fact is, the website and article are RS. My intention is to add clarifying information to the "Background" section - to write about Al-Libi's capture and escape, to reference the video he made in support of rebels against Gaddafi, and the drone attack in Pakistan which killed him in June 2012. I am considering adding Michael Bagley's comments about the al-Zawahiri video posted on a jihadi affliated website on 10th Sep 2012 - "This was a very powerful call to avenge al-Libi’s death," and that, "it came only 24 hours before the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi." Weight must be given to the implication of the al-Zawahiri announcement in light of Al-Libi's significance to Al-Qaeda, as it now appears (as stated in the oilprice.com article and many other RS')the real catalyst for the attack on the Benghazi compound had very little, if anything, to do with "Innocence of Muslims." We must not pretend that these facts are irrelevant, simply because they are uncomfortable.
It is no secret the rebels received weapons from NATO in addition to Gaddafi arms depots they had captured, while at the same time, the rebels were supported by, and even consisted of Al-Qaeda members. I can provide plenty of RS sources to support all that, but it is not directly related to this article, so I have no intention of including it. Nevertheless, the prevalence of weapons in the country, and the smuggling and use of those weapons in regional uprisings since Gaddafi's downfall, is an undeniable fact and likely played a role. As such, I am considering the inclusion of this in an appropriate section as well: Despite all the unrest in the region "it was only in Libya where attackers wielded machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/13/parry-libya-arms-embassy-attack.html
My thanks were given as you replied to my query. PoizonMyst (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That is what article says, fact that al-Libi escaped from captivity and that Zawahri called for revenge after what US drones killed him in Pakistan is already mentioned in the article and also in the main article (including Noman Benotman statements about the possible involvement of AQ in the attack, AFAIK he was the first one to come with that and as former LIFG fighter he has a lot of connections when it comes to both jihadism and Libya)[2]. That is not unconfortable fact for me as I added it to the main article more than a week ago, though someone has replaced original source with CNN. Also it is something I defended on main.
However, you wrote that article contains some important historical info about Al-Libi where I assumed you are reffering to this part of the article: In 2011 he resurfaced again, but this time as a friend to Washington and He fights alongside intervention forces to oust Gaddafi which are simply FRINGE. As for the last sentence, only in Libya every family has MG and RPG. Also only in Libya as a result of ambassadors death, 30 000 people went to street and ransacked bases of extremist militias which were accused of participation in attack. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No, his capture and escape is not mentioned, nor the date or location of his death - small details, but details nonetheless. And I still think the video al-Libi made in support of the rebels against Gaddafi, is historically important information to include. Why avoid it? As for "friend to Washington" I already agreed in my initial reply that there is only evidence he endorsed the rebels against Gaddafi. Why keep repeating it? Anyway, I read the FRINGE policy and notice it says FRINGE can be included, just as long as the source is RS and the FRINGE is made obvious as such in the article content. Still, as I said, I had no intention of saying he was a "friend".
Please understand I posted about the oilprice article here first, not for condemnation, but for clarification of RS. I also hoped to pursue discussion of how I might assemble content for inclusion in the article - maybe even locate further sources with other editors interested in this aspect of the story. I am not yet confident enough as an editor to jump in and make such changes or additions, and I have zero desire to engage in any edit war. Rather than moving forward and feeling invited to contribute, I now seem to be explaining the same things over and over. If you feel concerned about the nature or quality of my possible contributions, please feel free to check out any changes I ever made on Wikipedia. I may hold alternative personal views, but I always participate in line with policy.
I note the opinions of a number of intelligence services and think tanks are included in the article 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Jellyfish Operations also have a lot of experience and contacts in the region, considering their being former Blackwater and Able Danger operators. There does not seem to be any reason why Michael Bagley's statements could not be included on that article at least. Thanks for reminding me about that article as I have edits to include about the protests on Friday.
The 30,0000 Libyan protesters story could be true. Of course we must include it as there are many news sources stating it happened. Protesters may also be misguided as to who perpetrated the attacks - they may be correct - who really knows? Afterall, initial reports state it may have been The Green Resistance who carried out the attacks [3] [4] - TGR never really went away and have most certainly been very active over the last 12 months. It's not like the USG and media have provided a consistent account of events overall, and TGR angle makes a lot of sense too. In both the wiki articles, TGR possibility is only mentioned in connection to accusations by the militia toward the protesters on Friday. This story is still developing. None of us can really give a definite black and white version of what has, and is, occurring. We should offer what we do have though, so readers can decided for themselves.
"only in Libya every family has MG and RPG." <-- I'm not sure what your getting at. I never said that. My source doesnt say that. Are you saying that? I cannot find a source stating that.PoizonMyst (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, let´s scratch this discussion to productive state. As for what to include, I believe that time of his escape, death and his endorsment of rebel side during civil war belongs to other articles (namely Libyan Civil War, al-Libi main article and probably also AQ article). Zawahri calling on Libyans to avenge his death and sources which links it to attack should definitevly be in this article. My reasons are that although this may be linked to this attack, it is not yet known for sure and it is too distant information to be that relevant. We can wikilink al-Libi´s name so every reader can read more about his, though.
As for Green resistance, Gaddafi loyalist or however we shall call them, everytime something in Libya happens someone accusses Gaddafi loyalists. So far I counted 1 time when it was true. Everytime some dispute arises (Toubou vs Zwai, Toubou vs that Sabbha tribe, Mashashiya vs. Zintan, Berbers of Zwara vs. Jmail, Zawiya vs smugglers) one, or sometimes even both sides, accuses Gaddafi loyalists. Not even mentioning politicians. Even Bani Walid denies that they want to bring back Gaddafi-era system. Only that bombing in July, in Tripoli was rightly linked to G loyalists. And when people went to the street (I can even give you the name of two organizators who were working since 17th Feb for revolution) Ismail Sallabi, head of Rufallah Saheti brigade (officialy under army contro, de facto independent, just with state endorsment because of his links to Ikhwan), said that they were pro-G and on the drugs because they attacked his little fortress. Ansar al-Sharia, before this incident, attacked Tunisian consulate (sorry, I am on shitty internet, but you can find articles about them on Libya Herald), they assassinated a lot of G-era officers, are believed to be behind MSF attack in Misrata and are basically a bad news. I, for one, was not surprised when someone linked them to attack.
In Libya was civil war, in Benghazi rifles were distributed among population for free as "what if Gaddafi comes back" scenario. Warehouses were looted. Libyan population is armed to the teeth. See this need for the government to gain control of the hundreds of thousands of arms still in the hands of militias and private citizens. [5] EllsworthSK (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Two attacks

If you read the Wikipedia article, you may have a distorted view of what happened. The annex is clearly separate. It is not next to the consulate. It is about a mile away. Auchansa (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the article has many issues and missing information. Conflicting media reports from "reliable sources", and undeniable proof of misinformation, have caused this. The annex or "safe house" (second attack location) was a separate location to the initial attacks, but the Ambassador was supposedly attacked at the "consulate" before he was found and taken to hospital. A consulate/embassy/or mission, that does not exist. PoizonMyst (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Really a mile away? NONE of the news I watch have ever reported that and I watch a lot of news. Is government misinformation really actually spread by cnn, reuters, and AP? 71.52.193.22 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are genuinely surprised or being sarcastic. :) It's not just govt tho, it's corporate agendas as well. Here is a recent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/business/media/the-puppetry-of-quotation-approval.html And this older link isn't RS, but it cites all it's sources: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/24/corporate-news-reporters-reveal-mainstream-news-censored-controlled-paid-government-41091/ And here's Hillary herself talking about how the US is losing the information war and needs to improve it's propaganda efforts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yugm1960xZ4 PoizonMyst (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the entire "Attack" section needs to be redone based on most recent information. And yes, there's tons of misinformation and spin on the news out there, from everywhere. It's ridiculous. Anyway, some things are known, of course, and I've been working pretty hard to keep up with all the new info coming from so many different sources on this event. Thanks to others, too! Speaking of a map, though, there's a nice interactive one here from [New York Times]. It really helps place the locations of the attacks in perspective. There was a U.S. marine unit dispatched by helicopter over the desert to get the diplomats out, after the attack began. I don't think that has yet been put into the article. It was at that second compound when mortars rained down on the roof, killing two more Americans.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Obama's remarks on September 20

Is is accurate to say that the President "appeared to 'hold firm to the story that an anti-Islam film was to blame'" on September 20? This was deleted by someone saying the source is unreliable. FOX News supports this view but I will concede that FOX might be overly biased. What is the actual text?

Q We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack....
THE PRESIDENT: Well... I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video....
Q Al Qaeda?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don’t know yet....

It seems to me that Obama was still talking about "natural protests" and "outrage over the video" more than a week after the attack. Now I won't edit war over putting this back in as long as the hint earlier on in the lede that the administration was, shall we say, a little behind the curve on recognizing terrorism as central and the movie as peripheral stays in (that is to say, that Susan Rice's blaming of the movie is noted and that this is followed by a "however" or some sort of contrast with the view of working level US officials and what other sources were saying from the beginning). This is not to say that a political controversy is inevitable, which would arguably be POV. It's rather to note the facts in a neutral way such that the possibility of a political controversy is suggested without leading the reader in any way. The lede is supposed to set the stage for the rest of the article and so discussion of a controversy later in the article should not be a complete bolt out of the blue. In sum, I believe that purging the lede of even the slightest hint that the administration might have been relatively slow to finger Al Qaeda as opposed to "Sam Bacile"'s movie would be too extreme, just as Glenn Greenwald probably goes to far towards the other extreme here and here.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney re Cairo embassy's "apologizing for America"

This article is about the Benghazi attack. There is already a separate article about what happened in Egypt and what the US staff there tweeted. That other article, which deals with all the attacks more generally, is the place for the controversy about Romney's criticism of the administration's response to the attacks in general. I'll move this over to the "Cairo Embassy statement" section (and note that Romney tried to spin the Cairo diplomats' pre-protest statement as Obama's "response" to the protests) of that other article unless it can be explained how it is relevant to Libya.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Name change to article title, and name change in text in article

In their reporting of this event The New York Times is using the word "mission", not "consulate". Of course now I cannot locate the exact article in which they explained this usage. But if you go to some of there current articles they're using the term "mission". http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html and http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/20/world/africa/the-attack-on-the-american-mission-in-benghazi-libya.html?ref=africa

Should we be following and change the article title and also text throughout? Thoughts?--Cirrus Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the "Use Common name" discussion above. It's like "Republic of China" versus "Taiwan". A wire service's style manual calls for the latter unless legal precision is required, in which case use the former. I don't think we need the more precise "mission" in the title (which is actually a more general term than "consulate"). The New York Times is the sort of media outlet that will adhere more closely to the legally precise terminology. That could be Wikipedia's style as well but not necessarily. There may be places in the body of the article where "mission" may be more appropriate, in any case.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Use Common name

Sources are calling the site a Consulate. Wikipedia uses the most WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable SourcesJOJ Hutton 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think sites for the U.S. embassy knows better the semantic differences between a consulate, diplomatic mission, and an embassy. Whatever the title we use for this page, I suggest the content itself use the most accurate term, "diplomatic mission" instead of "consulate". Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not a Wikipedia issue, it's an issue with the reliable sources. Wikipedia articles shouldn't make assumptions that are not present within the sources. JOJ Hutton 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hasdi. After all, there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a news story. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and it's not to be written like one. It is an encyclopedia and accuracy is more important than stylistic guidelines here. The word "consulate" should be used in the title (and maybe in the lede) but in the body we should refer to it correctly as a diplomatic mission (and blue-link the hell out of it so people can click to find out wtf it is). 71.52.198.33 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You have to understand the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME. The purpose of Wikipedia titles are not to be accurate, but to be easy to understand and find using a normal search engine. Wikipedia uses the sources to determine the most common name, because the title will be easily recognizable to a reader and is more likely to show up higher in an Internet search. JOJ Hutton 02
34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying to use the word "consulate" in the title & lede. Use the word "Diplomatic mission" in the body and/or the lede. You realize you linked to an article discussing how to name the title, which is not the issue here. I bet you are probably one of the people who don't know the difference between embassy consulate, and diplomatic mission. We don't dumb down every article just so a 3rd grader can understand it. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This event should be treated and written with historical perspective, not as a news event under contemporary perspective. 71.52.193.22 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hutton, are you arguing that an accurate title reading 'diplomatic mission' would be difficult to understand? Surely not! And a redirect from 'consulate' will catch search engines. There is no need to be inaccurate here.88.167.22.75 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
But "diplomatic mission" would be incorrect also. Please see discussion below - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi#Is_there_a_US_Consulate_in_Benghazi.3F - Perhaps as user E4024 suggests, "US diplomatic personnel (or "officers" maybe) in Benghazi" (or something similar) would be more technically and historically accurate.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Per my own note below, in their official statements, Obama referred to it as a "diplomatic facility" and Hillary Clinton as "our mission in Benghazi". Weight needs to be given to that. I agree "consulate" is wrong, since that refers to a specific type of diplomatic mission (that seems to be used mainly by the press), but think "diplomatic mission" is fine given the official statements. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess so. :-S I still have a problem with it as, regardless of statements by Obama and Hillary, the only thing that can be officially identified in any way as "diplomatic", were the personnel. The Ambassador was officially designated to the US Embassy in Tripoli. His group was the official US diplomatic mission to Tripoli - not Benghazi. Obama and Hillary's statements were simply incorrect, misleading, and possibly even inflammatory. There is a vast difference between officially designated diplomatic territory (which affords certain diplomatic status, immunities, and protections) and other facilities. Coming to an honest consensus on this is important because the general public believe diplomatically protected US territory has been breached, and that is just not true. In fact, it could very well be a military compound. There is a vast difference between diplomatic and military facilities. We have a responsibility to the future to make an accurate record of historical events, or we could find ourselves complicit in public manipulation and/or political agendas, and risk humanity repeating the same mistakes again. As such, I must maintain my previous vote - the article should be titled, "Attack on US diplomatic personnel in Benghazi".PoizonMyst (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If its inaccurate, then we shouldn't use it, even if it's common, per WP:COMMONNAME. "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it should not be used if inaccurate. But since it appears there was no US Embassy, Consulate, or even a Mission, we are slowly running out of options for a historically accurate title. PoizonMyst (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that quote, mohamaed CJ. I again argue that we call it a [Diplomatic Mission] because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We are not here to promulgate misinformation, we are here to build an encycopedia with an accurate worldview. `71.52.193.22 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. state department's website doesn't list any embassy, consulate or diplomatic mission in Benghazi. It is an unidentified facility and should be referred to as such. 82.229.73.73 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Some footnote text could point this out. However, the most obvious explanation is that official representation in Libya is very new (Stevens was formally appointed this summer). Does this really make any difference in the end? Whether "consulate" is indeed "inaccurate" is debatable. "Taiwan" is arguably an inaccurate name for the Republic of China but the consensus on Wikipedia was to change Republic of China to Taiwan. I might add that there is an original research problem when making something out of the absence of information on a website.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It's probably the most likely explanation but without any confirmation it's just pure speculation. We're supposed to be as accurate as possible, the question is not "does it make a difference?" the question is "is that description accurate?". The Taiwan/ROC situation is different because people actually know what location they're talking about while we still don't know the nature of the facility that was attacked in Benghazi. We are not talking about any website, we're talking about the US state department's website, you would expect it to be accurate and up to date. They updated the website to honor Chris Stevens but there's still no listing for any diplomatic facility in Benghazi. It is an issue.Balistik94 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1177618114"