Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

Section break to segregate REFLIST below

awesome

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.

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)

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)

No acknowledgement

No acknowledgement of the fact that it was proved the Obama administration knew it was a planned terrorist attack, was initially going to report it as such, and then changed their minds? --140.32.16.3 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much consensus on this being "proved". Tedperl (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How about now? http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/24.20.65.149 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)