Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

sources

some of these are dead links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.195.219 (talk • contribs)

That happens. Sometimes we can add the Internet Archive link. Regardless, we do not delete dead links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you listed the dead links here. Then we could work on fixing this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten investigations clearing high-ranking officials

IntelligentName, I see that on multiple occasions you have removed correct, long-standing, well-sourced content establishing that none of the ten Benghazi investigations found any wrongdoing by any high-ranking Obama administration officials. I suggest that unless you can find a reliable source that contradicts this, you should stop removing the content. But I can save you the trouble by assuring you that you will not find credible evidence to support your position, because it doesn't exist, because it didn't happen, regardless of this. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy

The Hillary Clinton email controversy is not mentioned in this article, while the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun. According to the New York Times: "The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack." (Link)–Zfish118^⋉talk 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the 2012 Benghazi attack is listed as major reason that the email controversy had begun? The controversy began with the fact she was using a private server, irrespective of Benghazi. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The use of the private server started before the attack. The discovery of the server occurred during the Benghazi hearings. This fact is clearly articulated in the email controversy article, which links back here. The issue is the lack of a reciprocal link on this article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That liberal bias yet again

Wikipedia has historically and traditionally been accused of having a liberal bias, and it's perfectly exemplified in this article, my specific concern is the section "US media response", a section which starts by saying that "Fox News massively repeated a narrative of a conspiracy and cover-up" and then goes on to describe the coverage of other news outlets in neutral terms, so it's basically saying that Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok. This is shameful and disgusting to be honest. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Fox News is a paranoid right-wing conspiracy-promoting propaganda machine while the liberal left-wing outlets are ok." Correct. That sums up the facts and what RS tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fox News breathlessly reported on numerous Benghazi conspiracy theories for 2+ years. It was The Benghazi Channel that quite literally patted themselves on the back for obsessing on conspiracies that other outlets correctly ignored, because it was abundantly clear the conspiracies were false from the getgo, which was confirmed by TEN investigations, including the last of six GOP investigations that was specifically created to smear HRC. Time to move on. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I laughed so hard at your reply and attitude: "This article is biased because it's the truth, I can confirm it, so stop complainin and shut up" Haha yeah all right we're all good now... Except not, I will not stand for liberal bias in Wikipedia, it's disgusting and shameful. --177.225.172.224 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)