Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

New York Times

For this article's purposes, how shall we view the reliability of the New York Times? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Not RS Per the Huffington Post, the Times covered up the relationship of ex-SEALs to the intelligence community. The ARB finding conflicts with NYT's initial report, and their statement that Ansar Al-Sharia took responsibility is not backed up in Arab media, though it should be in light of Libyans storming their compound and a general mistrust of militias. Dubious. We have better sources from the left. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just stupid. The NYT is obviously RS. Ask at WP:RSN if you have doubts. FurrySings (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pruned information regarding Wood & Doherty

My last edit to this article was on 12 November, and since that time a lot of verified to reliable source content has been removed from the article. That being said it appears that verified to reliable source content has been removed regarding former SEALs Doherty and Woods. Skimming over the edit summaries, I have not seen a good reason to trim the content verified by reliable sources. Dohertry resided in Encinitas, California & Woods resided in Imperial Beach, California (source). As their articles were merged and redirected to the fatalities section of this article, it can be said that what remains can fall under WikiProject California, WikiProject San Diego, and WikiProject Military history (United States Task force).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

what the hell happened to the archives for this TP ?

everything's goneHammerFilmFan (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack → 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi – Seems to be more descriptive but might be a reason its here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What's your preferred format? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps something like United States Benghazi Consulate attack?
Ultimatly whatever the common name of the consulate is, followed by attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, FYI, it has also been referend to as the Battle of Benghazi.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Benghazi attack" is the common name. The year is there for consistency with other articles. Unless there was another notable Benghazi attack this could get confused with, it should not change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is common name, and doesn’t get bogged down in descriptors. One might want to add that the proposed title is incorrect. An embassy was not attacked. It was a consulate. Furthermore, it wasn’t just an attack on that consulate, but also, a CIA annex was attacked. The current title is best and avoids any such problems. There was not another notable event called “Benghazi attack” in 2012. RGloucester (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simplicity is best. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

archival

I suggest we change the archival on this page, now that activity has died down. Since ClueBotIII only supports hours to archival, I think we should use MiszaBot instead which supports days to archival. The current ClueBot archives should be consolidated into new MiszaBot style archives, since we don't need to make an archive per month anymore, there's not enough activity.

-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree the current archive style makes it difficult to look at older discussions. How doe we fix this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Change in lead

Another editor has altered the lead based on WP:LEAD; in doing so the editor introduced a new reference, which emphasized Democrat Party calls for increased funding and Republican Party attacks on Hillary Clinton. This can be seen as framing the Republican Party in a negative light, a clear violation of WP:NEU. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, using existing references already contained in the article, I have created a new expansion of the lead, which the sections already in the article. No where prior to the edit which initially expanded the lead, did it mention the call for increased funding by the Democratic Party. The most recent version, includes mention of the Republican Party being critical of SecState Clinton, as well as other parts of the aftermath.

Additionally, the initial increase in the lead could be reverted per WP:BRD. Proper summary of the article in the lead is important, that I agree. Using it to frame one political party in a negative light shouldn't occur.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead of the article needs to summarize all relevant aspects of the topic, as found in reliable sources. The reaction to the attacks in the U.S. has been characterized by a great deal of political partisanship. That's a relevant aspect of the topic, and it's not my opinion - it's amply documented by reliable sources (for example, "In Benghazi Hearings, Partisan Politics Play Out", Wall Street Journal 20 Dec 2012).

I added a sourced sentence on the topic to the lead ([1]). My addition was reverted by RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) because, in his words, the information "could be seen as an attack on the Republican Party". I think that rationale is, frankly, ludicrous, since my edit simply reiterates the content of a reliable source (in this case, the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left-wing propaganda outfit). I could produce other reliable sources attesting to the partisan nature of U.S. reaction, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile endeavor if reliable sources are simply going to be rejected because one editor views their content as insufficiently deferential to the Republican Party. Does anyone else have other suggested wording to cover this relevant aspect of the subject in the lead? MastCell Talk 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Some other stuff: Bloomberg, and an interesting Datapoint from Pew. RCLC is right that the lead as of MastCell's post probably is unbalanced as to the coverage it gives the weight it gives different parts of the article, but the solution to that is to fix the lead, not wholesale revert. Also, something something reality something something left-wing-bias. NW (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
First let me apologize if my boldness in reverting and re-summarizing the article in place of the bold addition to the lead may have caused any negative feelings.
The new source does verify the content added by MastCell, that is not in dispute. However, per LEAD it is suppose to summarize the contents of the article, and not introduce new content to the subject, which was done using the new references. Moreover, it unbalanced the lead in focusing on the partisan nature of the response, while ignoring the remainder of the content. I did my best to only use sources and content within the article that was pre-existing prior to the edit by MastCell. I understand that MastCell believes that he/she were doing the right thing for this article; at the same time, so am I.
I articulated clearly the reason for my reversion, and the essay which supports it. Furthermore, attempting to keep with the MOS:LEAD I did my best in summarizing pre-existing content into the lead from the article body. If my most recent edit needs to be reworded for neutrality, I can wholeheartedly agree in a review of my edit, and a consensus reaching discussion which leads to more neutral wording if the current wording is thought to be non-neutral by some editors opinion.
Additionally, the newly added content (from the edit by MastCell) maybe better within the scope of a sub-article that deals with the timeline of the investigation (Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack). Moreover, perhaps the source should be reviewed in order to include more information it contains, rather than focusing on a single paragraph of the article. I am sure it may have more information that can be neutrally worded and added to the sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Why is this article listed under Wikiproject California and Wikiproject San Diego? I was tempted to just delete those two templates but I thought I would ask first and see if there's some reason not apparent to me. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'd say the template for Wikiproject Military History is also dubious - based on the "What topics do we cover?" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right about the first two. They're almost certainly tagged because one of the victims was from San Diego. But you're a bit of an expert on the area, so if you're confused by this, it's very unlikely this is big enough there to merit the tags. The California tag could also be because another victim was buried there, but this really seems like a stretch. I'll remove them both. I think Military History is appropriate, however, as military personnel were killed. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason for this was due to the previous discussion, which has now been archived regarding three of the four American deceased fall within the scope of the San Diego WikiProject and California WikiProject. The biography articles for Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were merged and redirected here (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Doherty). Therefore, since this basically serves as their articles, the sections of this article fall within the scope of the two wikiprojects. Yet I see that the wikiprojects have been removed. PO1 Glen Doherty lived in Encinitas, and SCPO Tyrone S. Woods lived in Imperial Beach.
Therefore, I request that the removal of the wikiprojects be reversed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there's enough information about them anymore to justify it, but I won't edit war over the issue. I'm not affiliated with either project. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that some of the people were from San Diego does not, IMO, bring this article under the scope of the San Diego project, where the scope is defined as "This project aims to help organize and contribute to the growing collection of articles about San Diego and San Diego County and its metropolitan area." IMO that definition of scope does NOT include everything that happens anywhere in the world to anyone who happens to be from San Diego. Even less does everything that happens to a Californian fall under WikiProject California. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree. Involvement by San Diegans (or Californians) in a given event does not make that a San Diego (or California) project. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So question, are biography articles of those people who reside in San Diego or the greater San Diego County should not be included within the WikiProject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content regarding alternate name

WP:COMMONNAME applies, however so does WP:VER. I had added content regarding an alternate name Battle of Benghazi. It was supported by four different references (emphesis mine):

  • Clifford D. May (8 November 2012). "Lessons of the Battle of Benghazi". National Review Online. Retrieved 11 November 2012. Now that the election is behind us, perhaps we can put politics aside and acknowledge a hard fact: On September 11, 2012, America was defeated by al-Qaeda in the Battle of Benghazi.
  • Spencer Ackerman (12 November 2012). "What Happened in Benghazi Was a Battle". Wired. Retrieved 11 November 2012. Which means the next battle of Benghazi could be even more intense than the last.
  • Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer (30 October 2012). "To live and die in Benghazi, Libya without leadership from America". Fox News. Retrieved 11 November 2012. This battle of Benghazi was a protracted fight - covering at least six to eight hours (depending on when you start the clock).
  • Daniel Greenfield (30 October 2012). "Benghazi's Tough Questions". The Jewish Press. Retrieved 10 November 2012. When all is said and done, we will likely find that the Battle of Benghazi had more in common with the Battle of Ganjgal than it did with any of the conspiracies.

Yet, although it was verified by multiple sources, it was removed in December with the claim:

removing from lede 4 references that do not support the newly added text, which was micro-information

— User:Cirrus Editor

As we can see above, the content is verified by the references. Now, recently the references were removed from the disambiguation page per WP:DABPAGE. Yet per DABPAGE the MOS reads:

References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.

Therefore the content should be readded to this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As the one who removed the references (commented out) from the dab, I agree that it would be appropriate to incorporate them here. I'm hesitant to throw them right into the lede, however. At least half of those sources aren't exactly neutral, so I'd want to see more evidence that this is a common enough term for the event that readers will use it. In the meantime, perhaps we could add a free field to the infobox with the alternate name, supported by the references. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a fair compromise that I can get behind.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the template, I do not see a line for alternate names. Am I not seeing something?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack/Archive_5&oldid=1177616598"