Jump to content

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Title change

Can we please change the title to 2012 Benghazi attack (phrasing similar to 2011 Norway attacks). The current title is very long and wordy. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with this or even shortened to Benghazi attack as it is now WP:COMMON in the media and congressional hearings. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with the name change to 2012 Benghazi attack. I think the year designation is good. It will help, probably, in the long run. Unfortunately. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Did we lose the talk page archives? Kelly hi! 14:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The subpages were missed during the rename. I moved it to Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2012/November and Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2012/October but Cluebot needs to rebuild the indices somehow. :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 20:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fatalities

I edited the fatalities-it's simply ludicrous to have seperate casualties for Americans and Libyans - there may well have been non-belligerent Libyans working in the compound, and the list is usually separated by belligerents to victims. Hope this is ok with everyone. Elliot x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.4.97 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I really had to search to find this previous list of links to collections of source materials I'd gathered back in October. Presenting it here again. Hope others find it as useful as I have:

The Economic Times Benghazi collection[1]

The Chicago Tribune Benghazi collection[2]

Los Angeles Times Benghazi collection[3]

CNN Benghazi collection[4]

New York Times collection[5]

Foreign Policy Initiative provide a very nice collection of abstracts and links to many different source materials. Day by day:

  • FPI Overnight Brief: September 13, 2012[6]
  • FPI Overnight Brief: September 14, 2012[7]
  • FPI Overnight Brief: September 17, 2012[8]

...and on and on. Just search by date.

For these collections I've just saved the search criteria from Google. So we have searches on each site for "benghazi attack" at:

  • Associated Press site: ap.org[10]

This last one might be really useful. It's a search on "benghazi attack" on all .gov sites. So this will find U.S. government sites, such as the White House, the State Department, Congressmen, Congressional Committees, etc:

Search "benghazi attack" on all .gov sites[14]

-- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please go easy on the edit warring

There is clearly a dispute about the link at the top of the page. I think the link is valid, and so do other editors. I think that stating any opinion as to the linkage between the events, however, does not necessarily reflect consensus about the relationship between events among opinions of weight. Unless this has been specifically hashed out before, can someone please break down for me who says that Benghazi was related to Innocence of Muslims and who doesn't? I know they happened at the same time, but correlation does not prove causation. Let's talk further here instead of edit summaries. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the "link at the top of the page" should stay, if only because the Benghazi attack took place around the same time that other worldwide protests were happening. The note as it is now--"For concurrent protests and violent incidents around the world, see Reactions to 'Innocence of Muslims'."--seems ok.
Almost immediately after the Benghazi attack the CIA knew that the attack was not related to the video. The president of Libya said on September 16 that the attack was not related to the video. For all of the people who were saying that the attack was not related to the video, see the Investigation timeline in the days after September 11. The only people I can clearly find who were publicly stating that the attack was related to the video was president Obama and his administration officials. See the Investigation timeline, and also the U.S. government response section. (An interesting twist is president Obama himself, who in the third presidential debate claimed that he clearly called the event a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden address on September 12, yet in public appearances as late as September 25 he is talking about the video. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that the attackers said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the video. The role of the video in this attack should be stated in the lede and also should be discussed elsewhere in the article in more detail. Reliable sources agree that the attack was committed by a well-organized terrorist group, that some planning had occurred,and that anger over the video played a role in the timing of the attack.
"To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html
"Witnesses to the assault said it was carried out by members of the Ansar al-Shariah militant group, without any warning or protest, in retaliation for an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/us/politics/after-benghazi-meeting-3-republicans-say-concerns-grow-over-rice.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all
Notice that the articles are saying the terrorist group attacked without warning or protest, NOT that there were not other protesters present at the time. In fact, reliable sources say that there WERE protesters present before the armed assault.
"An armed mob attacked and set fire to the consulate building during a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt's capital." http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html
PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. Department of State background briefing on Oct. 9 contradicts AlJazeera. See in article: "The street outside the compound was calm; the State Department reported no unusual activity during the day outside."[Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm]
In addition, the two Libyan guards who were at the front gate stated to investigators that there were no protestors. (See "No protest before Benghazi attack, wounded Libyan guard says" at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html.
Also: CBS News reports no protests before the attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGMlnBkUztM
Also: TIME reports: "Libyan security guards at the consulate and most witnesses say there were no peaceful protests outside the mission, but there were onlookers attending a wedding at a hall named Venice outside the mission’s main gate." Source: http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/little-sign-of-libyan-probe-into-consulate-attack/
And, finally, the White House admits there was no protest outside the facility before the attack: "There was no protest outside the Benghazi facility." From WH press briefing Nov. 27. (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/27/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-11272012)
Please remove the inaccurate information you included in the article about there being protests outside the Benghazi facility before the armed assault. Much obliged. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And, interestingly, the White House told reporters on Nov. 27 that there was no protest outside the Benghazi facility. The next day, Nov. 28, The New York Times reported (see the article from Nov. 28 you provided, PeaseLove) that the attack was in response to the video. I could not write this as fiction. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Other instances of controversial material not being split from a main article

In browsing around I found a controversial section for the movie Zero Dark Thirty. The section on the controversy is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Dark_Thirty#Reception. On the main page, not split off.

Does this support keeping the controversy section with the main page for the Benghazi attack? What do other editors think? Are there other examples of 'controversy' sections staying on the main page of an article? Or, is the Benghazi attack article a different instance; perhaps in anticipation of more sub-pages based on investigative reports to come, criminal investigation, further congressional investigations, who knows....? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because other pages have a similar flaw doesn't make it okay here- though in this case it isn't nearly as bad as it takes up less space (46.9% of words in the article as opposed to 76.5% here) and in talking about a movie, the reception is typically a major part of the discussion (and it would be pretty unreasonable in that case to make a separate article for the political controversy of the movie, unlike here). --Yalens (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEDECITE guideline

  • "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."
  • "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation."
  • "...editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."
  • "...there is not ... an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

Hope this helps us find a consensus. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Example of lede bloat

Here's one: "Intelligence sources and analysts agree that—based on the number of attackers, the types of heavy weapons used (including truck-mounted artillery and mortars), and the complexity and coordination of the attacks—some planning was necessary to execute the assaults on the two complexes." All factual, but not necessary details for lede. We can assume it's a fact that they planned it, unless disputes this fact. Just insert the word planned in the previous paragraph. We could also tag it in case any reader disputes, if anyone sees any likely challenge. I think this is a no-brainer. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example: "Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told NPR on Sept. 16: "The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."" Again, too high of a level for lede. It's premeditated. We get it. A lede which reads like a legal case does not fulfill the intent of lede, which is to summarize points, not make them. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed lede bloat by adding a section head which described all the new content summarily, plus summarizing with specific attribution in the newly shortened lede. Now we know who's responsible for the attack in sentence one. We still need references to conform with WP:RS and WP:V. I only had a problem with a sentence or two content-wise - perhaps sources for verification will strengthen the assertions. You guys let me know what you think. We should talk more better. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reform works for me :). --Yalens (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Me three. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

More lede changes need consensus approval

I reverted, since we just had an agreement, just so we can stay consistent in using consensus to work out lede changes per WP:MOS. Keep in mind that I don't have a strong opinion about most of this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rationale given was 'fluency'. I'm always striving towards becoming a better writer, down to the prepositions especially. I found this on writing fluency, but I don't really see how it applies to the changes made. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Shall we change "terrorists executed" to "militiamen launched"?
After all the focus on who did and didn't call it a terrorist attack and when, I'd say keep the word terrorists in the very least, unless some rationale shows us a better way per policy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Shall we change "American diplomatic mission" to "U.S. diplomatic mission"?
  • Shall we change "American diplomatic compound" to "U.S. diplomatic compound"?
  • Shall we change "compound for the consulate" to "compound which housed the consulate"?
Whether or not the past tense is appropriate has bearing, but I rather dislike passive voicing. Is the consulate no longer at that location? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Noticed a double meaning where fluency may come into play. This is sometimes loosely used to refer collectively to the people who comprise the diplomatic consul. The strict definition is the residence or premises of the consul. "Consulate building" as a term seems widespread in this instance, and refers to that building, whether or not the consul actually currently resides there.
  • Shall we change "where U.S. intelligence was posted" to "where the Central Intelligence Agency is posted"?
Using the correct tense is my question here. Are 'Murica's spyguys still posted there verifiably? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
My rationale was simple. "Terrorists” is inherently biased, because of the implications of word, and because what it means depends on who is reading it. The word “militiamen” here is accurate. It cannot be questioned in any way, because Ansar is a militia. “Terrorists” is in the eye of the beholder. Militiamen is not. American drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan might be “terrorism” to those living there, but, to Americans, they are strategic surgical strikes to remove a legitimate target.

“Executed” is kind of awkward in that sentence. “launched an attack” is simply a more fluent phrasing.

American is more appropriate, because it is an adjective. One says “the Italian diplomatic mission”, not the “Italian Republic diplomatic mission”. The same applies to this phrasing here. This applies, except in official titles. Examples: “U.S. Ambassador”, “U.S. Marshal”, “U.S. Army”.

"compound for the consulate” is awkward as well. The compound isn’t really “for” the consulate. It surrounds it, houses it, protects it. So, one could say “compound which protected the consulate”. I’m not sure if past or present tense is appropriate. I’d imagine one should leave it at the present tense for now. So, either “compound which protects the consulate” or “compound which houses the consulate”.

As far as the last phrase, I’d leave it present tense until one can verify otherwise. Originally, my phrasing was going to be “where the Central Intelligence Agency has a post”. I still think that is better than “is posted”, but I thought that would be more contentious, so I left it. RGloucester (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See above for 'consulate compound' compounded grammar thoughts. Your rationale for "terrorists" vs. "militiamen" seems sound, and far more important as an aspect of NPOV than of fluency. Harking back to the politicized media discussion of the status of Ansar al-Badguys, there's a Unites States governmental document supporting the assertion - however, we do want a worldwide view represented. The best thing to do in establishing how things are defined in an encyclopedia then is to source the most recent academic documents, which might rely not only on research at West Point, for example, but also much broader views within the academic community. In other words, we have an authoritative but perhaps biased governmental source for the assertion. We need best sourcing practices to counteract that. I hope I have written my opinion about this in a way that neither compromises my integrity as an encyclopedia editor nor my perceived patriotism. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is "respnosible" section the first section in the article?

Is it chronological sense to have this section on responsibility for the attack the first one in the article? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as, maybe: Background, Attack, Claimed Responsibility, Investigation Timeline....?

Also, in the Ansar al-Sharia responsible section, why were U.S. sources stating that the militants used the video as "cover" or as an "excuse" to launch their attack removed? Isn't this relevant?

We needed clear citations and attributions per WP:RS. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A senior U.S. official told CNN: "It was not an innocent mob," the official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."[15]

The source is Aarthun, Sarah, "4 hours of fire and chaos: How the Benghazi attack unfolded" CNN 13 Sep 2012. How widely cited is this report outside of CNN? We are left wanting for the credentials of the official. This is a reliable source for the CNN narrative about the causes of the Benghazi attack. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

President Obama: "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."[16]

The source is "Univision Town Hall with Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas". This is a reliable source on the views of the POTUS, and it is transcribed at whitehouse.gov. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Pres. Obama on Letterman: "extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."[17] -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The actual source is "Late Night With David Letterman", cited by USA Today and Washington Post on a statement made during the election cycle. Letterman is not widely known for factchecking his guests, nor an authoritative source on intelligence. It is a reliable source about the views of the POTUS, who has a background in constitutional law, not intelligence. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah. That's helpful. I did not think Letterman was widely known for factchecking his guests. I don't expect that from a professional clown. So, you're saying that one of those other references *could* be used in that Responsibility section to counter the text that is in there now that gives cover to a terrorist organization for "why" they killed four people? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it was first either, so I fixed it. --Yalens (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we change the title of the "Responsibility" section to "Role of Innocence of Muslims? Because right it looks like that's the only thing that section discusses.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it's also about specifically which militia/group/whatever did it, if you look at the history of the issue here on the wiki page you'll see. --Yalens (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, working title is Whodunit :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ARB Report is in

Primary:

Secondaries:

I view first reports as being least favorable quality, but necessary to evaluate an important primary source. I have provided three reports from international agencies and one from an internationalist think tank. I hope this shows an effort to balance for int'l POV, but again the event is overwhelmingly about the United States. Feel free to criticize these sources, as we cannot go with all of them, and maybe only one of them, and only temporarily. Thanks for looking. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that an IP user had already referred to the report, so I used the primary and three secondary sources to balance views. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Media and neutrality

Quite frankly, I was pretty dissappointed when this showed up on the page: why is it that a section entirely devoted to allegations that the US media is biased towards the Obama administration- an entirely internal American issue- takes up at least twice the space as the fallout in Libya (not to mention that the whole page has become completely devoted to the US controversy).
This page is turning into a poster case for the America-centrism present on wikipedia, and quite frankly, it looks horrible.
The inclusion of this material is both hugely off-topic and a major NPOV infraction... it belongs on someone's political blog, not on wikipedia. --Yalens (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought the added material was deepening our understanding of the topic. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure of what your complaint is. You don't like that an event's consequences for its principal participant receives substantial coverage?TomPointTwo (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The "consequences" (actually consequences of consequences of consequences) completely dominate the page. That's pretty abnormal. --Yalens (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What would you cut? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this section? The whole thing. This is about a controversy about the media's handling of a controversy about the US gov't's handling of this, and the larger controversy is relevant only to the United States. I'm sure there's some page somewhere about bias in teh US media- it belongs there. Not a sentence of it belongs here. --Yalens (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following your arguments. Help me understand. You're saying legitimate source material on bias of mainstream media reporting and/or the mainstream media ignoring the 2012 Benghazi attack does not belong in the article about the attack because:
A. It is relevant only to the United States.
B. It's turning the article on the 2012 Benghazi attack into a "poster case for the America-centrism present on wikipedia".
C. The "consequences (actually consequences of consequences of consequences) completely dominate the page."
Is that it? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I see where Yalens is with this. This article is about the attack. Is this content about the attack itself? No. Is it about reactions to the attack itself? No. See: Reactions to media coverage of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Or the like. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire section on Mainstream media looks like it was written by the Daily Caller or FoxNation. Mainstream media ignoring the Benghazi story is just filled with Conservative pundits. Charles Krauthammer saying something on Fox News got an entire paragraph. A quote from Bret Baier suggesting the media reaction if it was Republican President would have been different is mentioned. Conservative Forbes editorial got an entire paragraph. So did National Review, and pollster Pat Caddell. This isn't "many" pointing out that there was a liberal bias in covering the story. This is Republicans, who usually argue that there is a liberal bias, saying again that there is a liberal bias covering a story. This is all unnecessary. The section Mainstream media bias towards Obama administration is hardly different from Mainstream media ignoring the Benghazi story. At least merge the two and call it "Conservative Response to Obama Administration" and waste some more space by adding a Democrat response to balance things. But I'd prefer to have an article with studies and facts that show the media being biased to the Obama administration's story. "Mainstream" should replaced by a more neutral word. Just adding to the discussion my analysis of the sections. You may disagree, just please be polite. Sarcasm is unnecessary, like "And here I thought the added material was deepening our understanding of the topic." by Cirrus Editor who added the sections we are discussing. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we now have two separate complaints. The first is that the article shouldn't cover the political aftermath of the attacks in the United States because this is an article about the actual attacks. This sort of artificial cloistering of an article isn't logical or widely precedented. Articles in Wikipedia are generally holistic. For a better understanding of how this works well, and does so with years of precedence, I'd mention the September 11 attacks, Death of Linda Norgrove, USS Cole bombing or Japanese embassy hostage crisis articles. In the case that the response or reaction section becomes too large to be efficiently contained in the parent article a new article can be created as with the Response to the 2005 London bombings or Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings articles. Still, the section in question here has yet to grow anywhere near that size.

The second argument is an attack on the legitimacy of the material based on the perceived political leanings of some of the reliable sources and quoted figures. Overt partisanship or political idealism in a person's history is not in of itself a reason to exclude their reliably sourced comments on a subject if they otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion, which all the aforementioned people clearly do. Editors working on contemporary subjects will often also notice the inevitability of criticism coming from "one side" rather than the other when discussing a controversy. This is a natural consequence of how we source such material prior to wide spread discussion of the subject in academia, dedicated works of scholarship or the speaking circuit. An excellent example of this, for those willing to do the digging, is the evolution of Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina and its parent article. It's also worth noting that the partisan and media disparity in condemnation and criticism is covered in the very section under discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This exchange only adds another reason for removal: it threatens to turn the page into a battleground for American political partisans, the North American equivalent of the nationalist wars one sees plaguing pages on Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus.
I already saw an edit by a user with the description of that edit being: "Please do not alter this. The more you alter it, the more liberal you look". Now editing is becoming a left-vs-right thing. You edit something someone doesn't like, it makes you look like you're in favor of a side. Neutrality doesn't exist in politics.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly... just like the nationalist edit wars. And this is exactly why these sorts of things should be quarantined to pages that are actually about politics. --Yalens (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that you bring up Katrina- because it's great that the bulk of the criticism is placed on its own page, rather than taking over the main Hurricane Katrina page. As it stands now, someone who goes to this page for information on the actual attack who doesn't care a bit about American partisan crap finds a page that is almost completely devoted to American partisan crap (apparently with a bias in favor of that country's right wing, as I am now convinced). --Yalens (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your incongruent political analogies aside, I'm left wondering if there isn't a language barrier here as I've addressed the bulk of your comments in my preceding post. We seem to be talking past each other. The Katrina article is an example of the evolution of an article vis-a-vis dynamic sourcing. Yes, the criticism has its own page, as do two other examples I cited. But, I'm repeating myself. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I was too implicit: my point is that there is too much material on the controversy in the US (not just this section), it belongs elsewhere. Moving it too (a) different page(s) is one solution, as seen with the Hurricane Katrina example, where the criticism is mainly moved to its own page, rather than letting it dominate the main Hurricane Katrina page. By contrast, here, the controversy in the US- the criticism of the US gov't's handling of the affair, and now of the media's- dominates the page for which it is not the topic. --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So you want to create a spin-off? Bear in mind that such articles tends to fertilize their adopted material instead of stymie it. What do you propose be the scope of this spin-off article? I'd disagree that the section in question has taken over the article in general but I'm willing to be convinced of the need for a new sub article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the stuff, as long as this page stops being dominated by it. My earlier proposals to split the page and make a new page for the controversy failed. The addition of this particular section just took it way too far for me. Not a sentence of it belongs on this page about the Benghazi attack. It could be moved to an existing page about bias in the US media, with a new subsection there about the Benghazi attacks, I suppose. That's the first solution that comes to my mind at the moment for this particular section. --Yalens (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the criteria you're using to assert that the page is being dominated. A quick word count shows the criticism section and the two media sections in question compose 13% of the article. If you can explain why the material deserves its own article then I'd invite you to do so but it's not going to simply be deleted because you dislike reading about it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Using your method, the word count, I determined that material related to the US reaction and the various resulting controversies currently comprises 76.5% of the page (10330 out of 13505 total words). That's pretty clearly dominating the page: it shouldn't be any higher than 40% at the very most. I don't know about you, but that's way too much for me. I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted, but so much definitely doesn't belong here. It's not the page topic. --Yalens (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It isn't only this section that I take issue with. This section is merely the only one that I think has no place on the page at all. --Yalens (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The page is over three times the recommended article size, creating an accessibility issue. The main closest parallel article September 11 attacks of equal size has much less content on the investigations (though they were far more extensive) and practically nothing on criticism of mainstream media. (Admittedly, these were fringe views) 3000 people died 9/11/01. Four people died 9/11/12. This is no longer a question of whether we should start forking content according to relevance, it is a question of how to do so responsibly. The way to do so responsibly, IMO, is to ensure there is no sacrifice to neutrality here. This means summarizing the key points of the discussion being forked which reflects current weight. See: 2012 Benghazi attack investigations. Easy to summarize the key facts and redirect. See: Criticism of 2012 Benghazi attack media coverage. Huffpost source makes the discussion notable and should serve as the springboard. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The size of the 9/11 article must be mentioned in the context of it also having spawned thirty-one separate sub articles. That's a lot of content. I very much disagree there's an acceptability problem, a la War in Afghanistan (2001–present). As I mentioned before, the content in question composes 13% of the article's non-ref word count. Still, if you want to build a draft for a fork I'd be willing to take a look at it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Mission_Accomplished_speech#In_culture has stood untouched for quite some time. Only since yesterday was that 'popular culture' template placed. A couple of hours after I placed the bias in the media section on the Benghazi attack article. Interesting timing.
If Popular Culture references from professional clowns have a place on Wikipedia, surely legitimate journalistic voices have a place, too.
Mainstream media (MSM) is an acceptable term in the U.S. See also JournoList for liberal bias.
I think the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article is a good model to keep the Benghazi article to one page, for now. I found much more material that I could have used in the media bias section, the media ignoring section, and the CIA collusion section, but I only wanted to provide an overview, but with enough source material so that many sources/voices are heard.
I was trying to deepen the article by adding that new material. I've done the majority of work on this article, but when weeks went by and no other editor had stepped up and included information about the media coverage, about the NYT ignoring certain new developments in the story (the emails that proved the White House knew it was a terrorist attack almost as soon as the attack began), when the major media outlets worked with the CIA to suppress information, I stepped in and put that information in the article. The information is freely available; I merely put it in the article. I really don't see how that aspect of the story is not related to the aftermath of the attack. The Fourth Estate is supposed to do its investigative job; many legitimate journalists are thinking that the MSM is not doing its job on the Benghazi story. That is why, I think, the new material belongs in the article. Let's see how this shakes out over the long run; it may well be that certain sections will shrink up as new information makes old information irrelevant. For now, I think it's relevant and belongs in the main article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is an excellent tagged example of an article nearly 5x the recommended article length with numerous content forks and not one mention of how sources criticize the mainstream media for ignoring drone attacks. Neither this nor that article is an article about United States media. Such content ought to be in a relevantly categorized article so that editors who focus on that type of content are not de-canvassed. Category:2012 in Libya doesn't fit the new content. The writing is good, it just needs a new home. You're welcome to drop the content on the new page to get the credit. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
With 76.5% of the page dedicated to US-specific controversies and whatnot, I'm don't think we need much "deepening" on these issues. Looking further at the section, in addition to being a humongous tangent from the main topic of an attack in Benghazi, it also has a pretty bad neutrality issue as well as some editorializing. A good chunk of the sources are practically editorialistic themselves... In addition, the section is bloated beyond its natural size by quoting one interview or piece after another, all of which say basically the same thing. Some of the quotes say absolutely nothing about the actual issue- for example Sanders talking about how "ashamed" he is of being a journalist- that's just totally unnecessary to have. Another example would be the Fox News quote talking about how horrible this was for democracy. All these quotes do is talk about how horrible media bias it is, but they never mention anything about the specific issue itself. This is, let me remind you, a page about an attack in Libya. --Yalens (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You're complaining that three quarters of a US event's article covers US related material? Is your metric "US related" or is it your original "media and political criticism" related? It's become a moving target. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The target hasn't moved one bit- I have been complaining about this for quite some time now, though perhaps you're not familiar with this page's history. The target was always the US-issue domination of the whole page; the media section is just the most unacceptable manifestation of this. --Yalens (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
America-centrism?!? a USA govt site in libya with USA staff killed. USA media response and criticism of USA media response. of course the article will have USA all over it. it is not America-centrism to report what happened. were this a polish or chinese site, there would be a heavy presence of those respective countries' activities. there is some legitimate 'America-centrism' on WP, but some users get carried away with complaining about it. if you want there to be more emphasis on the libyan reactions, then find some sources and get writing. add it! --rather than removing existing non-libya content. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft of Criticism of 2012 Benghazi attack media coverage

Example lede here and propose to copy relevant information for here to there, create Criticism of 2012 Benghazi attack media coverage and then trim here to summarize general positions and notable proponents. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather a more generic "Response" or "Reaction to" type article. If you don't mind I'll tinker with it later but for now I have to go to work. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding more refs to this media bias section in prep for the move to a new page on the topic as time permits; I hope this weekend. If TomPointTwo (or another editor) beats me to it, that's fine. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Article's sources do not support its argument

This article's sources are weak, relative to its conclusions, and its argument is disingenuous. The first sentence in section 1 Ansar al-Sharia responsible cites three sources (nos. 4, 5, and 6), yet the only substantive fact in any of them that even tangentially supports the sentence's argument is a statement by one named witness (in source no. 5) who says, with no basis or explanation, "It was the Ansar al-Shariah people." As cited source no. 27 reports: "leaders of the group blamed for the attack, an Islamist organization known as Ansar al Shariah, denied that they had given the order to attack." Cited source no. 4 says, "spokesman Hani al-Mansouri denied that the Ansar al-Shariah brigade had participated." (Contrary to the ideas (in cited source no. 254) of then-CIA Director David Petraeus, who said "He knew almost immediately that Ansar al-Sharia...was responsible for the attack.")

Another news source quotes a witness who says he say militants rounding up people to force them to protest the video, before the group launched their attack. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In section 3.1 Assault on the Consulate, the opening sentence says "Between 125 and 150 gunmen" participated in the assault. This info comes from cited source no. 26; in that source, the origin of this number of gunmen is not given. The authors of this cited source do not ascribe that figure to any witness or specific primary source. None of the substantive information in that cited source (no. 26) is attributed to any identified witness. In the texts of the three cited sources (nos. 26, 27, and 28) for the first sentence of section 3.1, none of the substantive information supporting the premise of a military-style attack on the US embassy comes from identified witnesses; the texts are full of anonymous witnesses who tell cartoonish, sensational stories.

Three months after this event, there is still no evidence that corroborates the narrative of a coordinated attack by an organized band of Islamic militants using heavy weapons. As to the current state of US government intelligence, source no. 254 says, "the House and Senate intelligence committees described [testimony and "real-time" video] they heard and saw as informative, albeit not necessarily conclusive," and then it quotes Sen Diane Feinstein, who said, "We don't have all the facts."

I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion. Eyewitnesses inside the compound experiences grenades being lobbed over the wall, gun trucks backing the assault on the main gate; and, later, at the CIA annex, mortar rounds being dropped with precision. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not the same as implicating Ansar al-Sharia directly, though. However, to be clear, the ARB report states there was no protest, something which seems very likely to me given a correct translation of primary video. ARB said this was an attack "by terrorists". Weighty sources are required to balance that view, if indeed it is still disputed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This article's title is inaccurate. There is not any genuine evidence that the deaths of the Americans in Benghazi were caused by an intentional attack. A hundred headlines which scream "Benghazi Attack" do not the truth make. The title of cited source no. 28 is most telling: "Timeline of comments on attack on US Consulate," as opposed to a timeline of the events in the so-called attack, itself. This article looks like either an unexamined parroting of a fantastical mass-media premise, or like propaganda being used to push a narrow political agenda. Analogdrift (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You're being sarcastic now, right? That's helpful. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the editors who added the statements which I summarized in lede should address your points. I would like to hear the conclusions which come about. I do insist, however, that "attack" refers to a violent act, spontaneous or no, and has consensus support. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I checked out the David Kirkpatrick piece (item 4) and it looks good to me. What you're quoting as a denial only looks like a denial that the brigade did not act under orders, and then later denied that any AAS members had any part. As to uncited eyewitnesses, it is true that serious journalists must protect some sources from the repercussions of confiding, while spurious journalists often make wild claims under the same presumptions. Can we show that Kirkpatrick belongs to the latter and not the former? I am inclined, all things being equal, to accept his statement about eyewitness accounts as fact.
I have also just discovered that Long War Journal, cited on the Ansar al-Sharia page, reported at more length on the primary source, the spokesperson's news conference. They do not deny participation and do not explain how they went from 'helping out at a hospital' to arriving with a slew of heavy arms. I will seek a primary Arabic source to assure myself that the translation used by the NYT and LWJ is not a faulty product of MEMRI. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Gah! I sought the original Beni al-Monsouri statement provided to NYT and LWJ and tracked the source to Site Intelligence Group. I went to their website for the translation, which they do not provide. So I searched in Arabic. A major general in Libya is the only notable proponent of the "Ansar did it" hypothesis I can find. All references to Ansar I've found in the Arabic press state that they've denied involvement. In fact, there are other fingers pointing other places. The Al-Qaeda did it hypothesis; the Al-Qaeda infiltrated Ansar Al-Sharia hypothesis; the spontaneous demonstration hypothesis; some other fringe hypotheses. I know so little after checking for sources, I'm almost willing to believe Ansar was there trying to save the consulate, since they were working at the hospital at the time. Can someone please help orient my thinking? We don't know anything, and I've come to believe that it's irresponsible to point a finger at the bad Salafists in the lede without something a little more tangible. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget the "Gaddafi-loyalists did it" theory!--Yalens (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Since my tortured plea for something to orient my abductive thinking, an IP user from Texas vandalized the lede with the statement "All of this [sic] are lies. This is not the truth. Ambassador Stevens was tortured and killed. He did not die from the smoke." Actually, coroners did find that he died of smoke inhalation. A widely misinterpreted video displayed by Sean Hannity does show a head injury nonetheless. I would amend the IP user's statement to "Ambassador Stevens was attacked by a heavily armed group[who?] and left for dead.[why?][original research?]" Had the IP user tagged statements (for example, "smoke inhalation") to challenge, and provided a reasonable explanation as to why they were inaccurate, I would not revert such an edit. But it's not enough to make an assertion without facts. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus poll: Superfluous material

Various content has been criticized by editors as unrelated to the 2012 Benghazi attack or its subsequent investigation.

What is to be done with the material related to media responses to the attack and criticism thereof?

  • Weak delete: Per WP:COATRACK, per WP:NOT, and for purposes of making reliable sourcing and verification more evident in the article, I support deletion. I had been amenable to the move of such material, however, since it was stated that it would be incumbent on me to find it a new home, and as I have no inclination, I say click it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: As I've said many times before, it aggravates the US-issues-dominating-the-page issues, and it is an off-topic controversy about the media's off-topic handling of a semi-off-topic controversy within the US regarding the gov'ts handling. Way too many steps away from the main event there. --Yalens (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had plenty of time to entertain reasons for Keep. In light of the ARB report release, I am deleting speculative material and media reports about calls for investigation now to free up room for content about the investigation itself, its conclusions, and opinions of weight about it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping. It balances the party line. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the attack

What is to be done with the material related to opinion about the attack?

  • Consolidate: Per WP:UNDUE, per WP:RS, and again for purposes of elucidating the main topic with "the best and most authoritative sources", we should Delete material with poor sourcing and Merge best-sourced material wherever those opinions do not differ from one another, abiding WP:NPOV to "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." Case-by-case basis, per WP:NEWSORG. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Shrink and consolidate: It shouldn't dominate the page the way it does. To a degree it's notable, but there shouldn't be sooo much of it. All the main points can be gotten across without all this elaboration and exhaustive quotations.--Yalens (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite proposal

Shall we try the following?

The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by an Islamist militia, Ansar al-Sharia. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured. The attack was strongly condemned by the governments of Libya, the United States, and many other countries throughout the world.

Cuts it down a bit, and I think it is a bit clearer. If we are dropping the “Ansar did it” bit, then one can simply substitute “heavily armed group”. RGloucester (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support with "heavily armed group" until more substance shows otherwise. I'm fine with it, and was considering some sort of reference to the subsequent investigation, as it is a significant part of the article which no one to my knowledge has proposed to nix. I'd be interested in seeing how you treat it, RGloucester. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (until we get something definitive on the matter of who did it) --Yalens (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


  • I've done the following: put the new lead in, with a new final sentence that says "ongoing investigation subject of controversy &c.", moved the responsibility section to a more appropriate location, removed the picture from the infobox (because of its speculative nature on Ansar), and placed it in the responsibility section, and renamed the aftermath section "aftermath and controversy", to convey the gravity of the situation. RGloucester (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Bold action had my consent as a great temp fix. What would you think of placing Investigation, Responsibility, Media as the order at the end to create continuity? ARB's non-attribution in the Unclassified report other than to call it an attack by terrorists would at this time seem to flow well into a discussion of attacker attribution, and leave section 3.3 U.S. Media response for last, and possibly tag to globalize. Section 3.4 is just two sentences and could be footnoted in the investigation. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Susan Rice

This article doesn't contain any info on Rice's withdrawal from secretary of state nomination. Clearly this event had an impact on her career. Shouldn't this be included?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Briefest of mention with the bulk of discussion in Susan Rice namespace is okay by me. There were some state department officials who also had some career fallout. Same breath mention, I would think. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed it, because it's not technically a resignation (she didn't previously hold the post). In my edit summary I also mentioned a syn error- now I'm not as sure about that, but it's definitely fuzzy whether a syn violation occurred there (the article said she resigned "because of the controversy" whereas the source said because of the "politicization"). --Yalens (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Now, I’m glad the timeline was removed from this article, because it was bulky and didn’t really seem appropriate. At the same time, I’m sad to see all that information go to waste. Does anyone else think it might be wise to create a separate article containing the timeline? RGloucester (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It's fine with me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought there might be a twinge of regret. I am by philosophy an inclusionist. The information is retained at this subpage. :) Please note that it has been tagged and categorized mercilessly by the wider community. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why it is a subpage and not an article? I'm doing a little fix-up work, and don't see why it shouldn't be moved. RGloucester (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I tentatively support this. The concerns of other editors should be reasonably addressed before promotion to article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks for keeping that timeline page. I, too, thought there was much valuable information there. Too much to lose. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Forbes source needs fact-checking and evaluation of weight

According to Joan Neuhaus Schaan of the James Baker Institute, not only was there no protest in Benghazi over the Youtube video Innocence of Muslims, but it was not a factor in the September 11 2012 protests in Cairo, either. [emphasis mine] According to Schaan, the crowd in Egypt was protesting the U.S. imprisonment of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address. "The primary reason for the focus on the video was likely to cast the Americans’ deaths as an unfortunate and unforeseen incident resulting from an inflamed crowd. That video story redirected the debate from scrutinizing our Libyan policies that were supporting known extremists, to a debate centered on blasphemy." She points to this incident in support for her belief that our policies "aid and abet terrorist organizations (as defined by our own State Department) and their associates to overthrow leaders, some of whom have been our allies, through secret decrees accomplished outside of congressional authority."

Aside from a new reframe of the Cairo protests, this does not conflict with any facts I am aware of. How should we consider it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this only makes things (still) muddier... it's quite irritating actually :(. --Yalens (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're really in the mood to go down the rabbit hole, see Google search on "benghazi cia weapons syria"[18] Deserving of consideration as part of the main article? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
They are really coming out of the woodwork on both the left and the right. Daily Kos, Free Republic, The Centre for Research on Globalization, Fox News and Executive Intelligence Review all buying this one. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying it's best to hold back on this one unless we can find a real heavy source for it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Noman Benotman, a Senior analyst at Quilliam believes that the attack was perpetrated by The Imprisoned Sheik Abdul Rahman Brigade. Said Benotman on September 13, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated." He refers to a June 5, 2012 detonation of an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate which he stated that the group later publicized in a video of that attack, timed to coincide with the arrival of an American diplomatic asset.

Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister "Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack" CNN. Sep 13, 2012

More complicated, but not necessarily more muddy. Our job is to evaluate and weigh sources, not to promote theories - although I am starting to develop a humdinger. I find the weight of these sources to be strong. Joan Schaan is an expert in foreign policy. Noman Benotman is a former militiaman and expert on extremist groups. Forbes prints retractions. CNN retracts as well, and the report was written by a Senior International Correspondent. Nothing here conflicts with the findings of ARB. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack/Archive_4&oldid=1177617156"