Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RE: ongoing investigation and Congressional hearings

I don't see much on the ongoing investigation by the FBI and others, nor little about Congressional hearings on the Benghazi attack. While they might be able to fit in the U.S. government response section, it may be worthwhile to make new sections to deal with these topics. To all those paying attention, any strong opinions one way or the other? I lean toward new sections. Myster Black (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a sub-article regarding the ongoing investigation, please see Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Myster Black (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester and Richard-of-Earth

I noticed an edit, reversion, and re-reversion cycle starting. I want to head it off before an edit war begins. What appears to be the problem?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

With regard to building consensus, I don't have a problem relating militias as opponents of the Gaddafi regime, since the cited BBC piece article does so, but we need to be careful to avoid any original research in stating that this caused the formation of the militias. I'm not sure that the BBC article was clear on that point. This being my view, I would more strongly support "...militias which had opposed Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan civil war." But per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should represent the consensus of editors, therefore I have decided to discuss rather than immediately amend. Does anyone see a problem with my take on a revision? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I like CR's rewordining, but my concern is that the lead is suppose to summarize the body of the article. No where presently in the body is there a mention of Gaddafi. Therefore, for it to be in the lead, the background section needs to be expanded that goes into a very brief, but neutrally worded, paragraph about the Libya Civil War, and the rise of the various militias, as well as the differences between the militias (the ones who opposed American presence, and the ones who favored American prsence, etc.)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a misunderstanding anyways. The reference to support the addition was buried down in the article with Gaddafi spelled Qaddafi, so I didn't find it. Partially my bad for not being thorough. The reference I was looking at was the BBC article that states "Senior Libyan officials say that while they welcomed the protests, people should differentiate between the rogue militias and honest rebel brigades that helped to secure the town in last year's uprising against Col Muammar Gaddafi." To me it looked like a contradiction. My WP:OR take on it is that people are saying members of Ansar al-Sharia did it and Ansar al-Sharia is saying it was a rogue group possible from their ranks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not reference the BBC article, but the NY Times article that was also cited for that sentence. It states: “The militias, which started forming soon after the February 2011 uprising against Colonel Qaddafi began in this eastern Libyan city, emerged as a parallel and often menacing presence after his downfall in October 2011, seizing territory for themselves and asserting their authority over the fledgling government"[1]. I did this for a simple reason: the sentence previously referenced militias, but did not explain why they even existed. Now, it is clear. As far as RCLC's concern, I do not think it is an issue. The only reason this is mentioned is because it relates to the aftermath of the attack (i.e. the protests). One still does not know the real cause/actors for the attack. Going into any more detail about the civil war seems to be unhelpful at this point, until one knows more. Nevertheless, the protests should be mentioned because they are known to have occurred in the aftermath of the attack, regardless of whether an Islamist militia actually did carry out said attack. RGloucester (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• A new disagreement has arisen. Richard-of-Earth seems to want to include the phrase "Part of Reaction to Innocence of Muslims” in the infobox. I earlier removed the phrase, as that is a very contested claim. I don’t think that can feasibly placed in the infobox without POV concerns. He has reinstated it. What shall we do? RGloucester (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reach consensus.

It should be included somewhere, given the weight the Obama Administration placed upon the video in the weeks after the attack, but I too understand the concern of it being in the infobox. Perhaps it should be embedded someplace into the lead paragraph?

I still have my concerns about content in the lead that aren't included in the body of the article. Perhaps, the body regarding the anti-militia demonstrations, to match the lead should include more background as to why the militias arose in the first place? Otherwise, the only mention of the Libyan civil war is in a collapsed template at the bottom of the article. If there is no change to the body, the explicit mention in the lead should be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims is already mentioned in lead, in the way you mentioned. I really think it has no place in the infobox.

I agree with you. The anti-militia demonstrations section should provide a brief background. That seems to be the best way to resolve this issue. RGloucester (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If no objection is heard before 11FEB, I will remove the content in the infobox that is indispute, as there appears to be a consensus formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RG, I am so sorry. I only ment to revert the edits of the 2 IPs and not yours. I have no real opinion about that edit you made. I fixed it now. I will not be reverting any of your edits (on purpose) without discussing first. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good man. Welcome aboard. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Boilerplates

There are currently two boilerplates atop the page. I believe that concerns related to sourcing matching article statements has been addressed. I recommend its removal. I think the worldwide view boilerplate has been useful in generating international sourcing. I also recommend its removal with the understanding that we still prefer this type of sourcing going forward. Are there any objections? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to removing the tags.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend their removal. RGloucester (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi: The Definitive Report

A significant amount of content has been added that references to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, a book that has just been released on 11 February. Now I will take good faith about the validity of the book, not having read it myself, however has this one source been given to much weight regarding its mentions in the article, specifically mentioned twice in the article? Also, are there other sources that corroborate what the book is used to verify?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read the book. To me, it appears to be an important report that fits most of the corroborated reporting elsewhere. I recommend getting it yourself so you can evaluate it independently. It is a quick read. I am all for adding additional citations where they fit, and look forward to the vetting of this source going forward. I mention it specifically in the Responsibility section because there are some conclusions that have not been reported elsewhere, so people can evaluate it themselves. Myster Black (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the opinion of others? And what if other sources do not corroborate the text that this source verifies?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Investigation subarticle

Per WP:BRD I have removed good faith reliable source content as it already exists in the subarticle Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack.

I believe that the best recourse, is that there needs to have a better summarization of the subarticle. The summary should be kept up to-date and no longer than two paragraphs, while keeping the highlights of the subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good solution! Whatever we do, both here and in the subarticle, we need to be conscious of this form of bias: partisanship driving media coverage of the topic. My edit was meant to counter this. For example: partisan critics keep saying "why why why did they not say it was terrorism sooner?", and Petraeus replies "to avoid tipping off terrorists that we knew it was them", and the critics keep repeating "why why why" no matter what kind of answers are given. (Basically a case of WP:IDHT IRL. Of course WP policies don't apply IRL; I'm just using IDHT as an analogy, and a pretty close one, for critics' disingenuousness.) What I'm saying is that we should place limits on the extent to which politically-motivated repetition of talking points drives the article -- this per WP:UNDUE. Thoughts on this? --Middle 8 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it the view of Middle 8 that this article has POV issues?

Of course the summary should follow WP:NEU, but depending on who one asks NEU could be giving equal balance to all sides, or should skew based on coverage of reliable sources (this has been discussed elsewhere on wikipedia, with no consensus reached).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think this & the other article have, at the very least, minor POV issues. These could be fixed with edits along the lines of my comments above, including not burying the Petraeus comments cited in my edit. See WP:VALID. WP should be nonpartisan, and sometimes that means not weighting articles solely on the degree to which views are covered in news media. Examples include abortion in the US, evolution and climate change. Just because someone makes a lot of noise and the media covers it doesn't mean that all of that coverage is encyclopedic. In general the media want to attract readers, which makes for a bias toward sensationalism and controversy and false equivalence (again, cf. WP:VALID). That's my view on how to apply NPOV here. How much editorial consensus agrees with my take remains to be seen, of course.... --Middle 8 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. addendum to my comments just above (00:12, 20 February 2013): Basically I'm saying that we have to consider WP:WEIGHT in covering the investigation, since a lot of it is hot air (i.e. repeating "why" after questions are answered). As with a lot of weight issues, it's subjective, but hopefully some consensus will emerge. A good example of well-sourced but poorly-weighted and unencylopedic material is the silliness about Sen. Marco Rubio's drinking water during his SPTU response (which I deleted wholesale; who knows if that edit will stick). --Middle 8 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A summary of the Petreaus testimony can be included in the summary of the sub-article. What else should be included to provide a balanced and neutral summary of the sub-article that neither favor, advocates, or denegrates the POVs of the Congressmen or the Obama Administration?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly how I'd approach it as well, re NPOV. I'd agree it probably should be in the lede section of the timeline subarticle; I'll have a look to see if anything else there might be changed. Then we could just the lede (or a modified version of it) here. (A good lede section is a fine resource. For example, I've used a sentence or two from the lede of Scientific opinion on climate change when a brief summary is needed elsewhere.) What do you think of the subarticle's lede? Will post more on that talk page when I have some ideas. Note -- I won't be doing much more editing for about a week. Thanks; hope to see you later. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to say that it falls far short from the mark of what a lead should be of a quality lead section. It claerly defines its scope, but does not summarize the article. The lead needs to rewritten, giving equal weight to both the concerns of non-administration notable individuals, and testimony from Obama Administration officials, while not advocating either sides POV. I know that will be tricky, but anytime that one deals with a politically contentious subject, it is usually that way. What actually occured is probably somewhere in the middle between the two dominant POVs (as it often is).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Investigation section expanded

I expanded the Investigation section to include missing info on all known investigations that are completed, ongoing, or proposed. Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

semi-protected

It is best that folks get accounts here - then people can discuss their opinions here as well and it can be seen who is saying what and why. I don't mind if someone else revisits the semiprotection if progress is made. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Attackers deaths in infobox

Why was the attackers estimated deaths, which is cited, excluded from the infobox? I had added it, and it was removed, with the claim that it is vandalism?!? The statement about attackers death is stated here in the article:

During the fighting, the CIA had successfully rescued six State Department personnel, recovered Smith's body, and had evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi alive. Just under 100 attackers were killed in the fighting.[18]:46, 48

This is not vandalism as defined in the link I have provided, but better summarization of info in the article for the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my edit. I did not see that info in the text and thought it was vandalism. Reason being: I followed this story very closely for a couple of months after it happened and never once did I run across any estimate of "attackers killed". Not one. Then there is this book claiming 100 were killed? I did a little searching now and could not find any corroborating material. Can you supply any other cites besides that book? Or are they taking their "just under 100 attackers killed" from some government report? Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That book has been cited too much here, has clear and notable POV issues, and often isn’t confirmed by any other independent sources that I can find. I’ve looked. No where can I find material that says anything about that number of attackers being killed. Even if it was not vandalism, I don’t think it belongs until it can be independently confirmed, apart from that book. RGloucester (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Likely some were killed, though. Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to qualify the language a little. I don't know if the negative assertion about the number not being widely reported is okay. I can't prove it obviously beyond my own googling which turns up nothing. Method3000 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I also could not find any decent sourcing on numbers of attackers killed, so if the only source is the mis-titled, and non-footnoted "Definitive Report", I would take it out or at least indicate some considerable skepticism. Tedperl (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If Congress ever gets to talk with the Benghazi survivors, then we might someday know. Otherwise, who knows? - Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Preparation for implementation of the new lead

The almost finalized lead proposal is below. Please issue final comments, so any revisions can be made. RGloucester (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Who says this is the "almost finalized lead proposal"? - Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group led by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the main diplomatic building (FOOTNOTE, with refs: There is disagreement about the purpose of the building that was attacked. Initially, it was referred to as a consulate. Later, it was called a "diplomatic post" and a "diplomatic facility". Some sources, though, have said that it was in fact a clandestine CIA facility.) A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different 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.

Seems like basic info. What about it being a terrorist attack, which everyone agrees to now, but you seem to have your needle skipping on not including this in the first sentence. I don't know why. Scratch that. I do know why. Let's move on. I'll give up trying to convince you of including specifics on weapons used; I know, I know, they're in the info box. I'd just edit for grammatical sense: "...at a compound meant to protect..." Not sure at all about the FOOTNOTE and need for that. Splitting hairs? What refs will you use in the footnote? Also, I still like including the fact that there was a running gun battle from the compound to the annex. As in: "The attack began during the night at a compound meant to protect the consulate building and continued along streets to a nearby CIA annex, where a second assault took place in the early morning the next day." What about mention of American survivors and why no one has heard from them in 8 months?

Many Libyans praised the late ambassador and staged public demonstrations against the militias that had formed during the Libyan civil war to oppose Colonel Gaddafi. The Libyan government also began attempts to disband many of the groups. The United States increased security worldwide at its various diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the attack.

Fine; I give up. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

At various times between September 11th and 17th, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims. Initially, it was suggested that the attack arose in similar circumstances, but an investigation by the U.S. State Department determined that there was no such protest and that the attack occurred without warning, was premeditated, and driven by what have been labeled "terrorist groups", such as Ansar al-Sharia. The video and the resulting anger may have provided an opportunity for the attackers; according to some eyewitnesses, they used the video as justification for the attack.

While President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attack, former CIA director David H. Petraeus later testified that the administration initially refrained from publicly identifying the groups that were suspected in the attacks, to avoid alerting the militants of their investigation.

Some Republican politicians, conservative media figures, and other independent critics immediately accused the Obama administration of mishandling the attack and its aftermath and of over-emphasizing the role of the video. As the incident became a focus of political discussion on the right, some Republican members of Congress launched their own independent investigations and hearings on the subject in the following months. These investigations are currently ongoing, and are a matter of great controversy in the American political sphere.

POV is sprinkled liberally throughout. Where should I begin? - Cirrus Editor (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead! What must be done, must be done. RGloucester (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:PeaceLoveHarmony

These recent edits seen to present many POV problems, and I'd propose that they be removed at once. Placing these at the start of the "background" section is entirely inappropriate. We shouldn't try to balance one POV with another, which is what this seems to try to do (the next paragraph is about criticisms against Obama, this one is trying to make Obama seem better off). Instead, we should be neutral. RGloucester (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance is part of neutrality. If a paragraph or section is dedicated to criticism of the Obama administration, that may already be a POV issue. Information about prior embassy attacks and funding of embassy security seems like valid background information, though I'm not so sure about some of the sourcing. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the way it is done is not neutral. The whole background paragraph needs to be revisited. I'm especially referring in this case to the bit about "Republican cuts". It seems like an attempt to fight POV with more POV, rather than actually sort the lot out. RGloucester (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have NPOV issues, but I don't think that they should be in this "background" section. Perhaps in areas where we discuss the different ways that Dems and Reps frame the issue. There is a legit claim that there have been a number of embassy attacks, even if less violent and dramatic, which have not been as investigated as this one. Tedperl (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"From 2001 to 2008, under the Bush Administration, there were 13 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities (not including attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan) resulting in 98 deaths.[16] The 2012 Benghazi attack was the second deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility that occurred during President Obama's first term."

"After they gained control of the House in 2011, Republicans sought successfully to cut the Obama Administration's funding requests for diplomatic security by hundreds of millions of dollars.[17]"

This is completely POV and is misleading.

1. Comparing attacks on embassies during Bush's administration with this are more partisan than anything else because the contentious issue is whether or not the administration denied requests for security, denied assistance to those calling for help, and misled the American public afterward. Not to mention, this is the first time an Ambassador, which is a very high level diplomat, has been murdered since 1979. The comparison here is misleading because an Ambassador in a country is ideally the most politically important, sensitive, and secured American. Finally, there have not been accusations of refusal to secure, misleading, or dishonesty in the attacks on the embassies during the Bush administration. As you can see, this is a debate of POV. It could be phrased in a more objective way.

2. The Republicans did not cut funding requests, because what they passed in the house was never passed in the senate, nor signed into law by the president. This is blatantly misleading. In addition, funding for the security came from the Pentagon DoD budget.

While testifying before the Senate, SoS Clinton acknowledged the accuracy of the email on 12/28/12 from the CFO of the Department of State, Robert Baldre stating that security was not compromised due to a lack of funding, agreeing with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, Charlene Lamb.

It would be better stated that this is a point of contention, however, as it is, it is written as fact when it is not. For the sake of objectivity, I would request it be reworded to sound objective, and if these facts are to be mentioned, both sides should be mentioned. DaCapitan (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, thank you for raising the concern about POV with these edits that I added. I completely agree that maintaining NPOV in this case is a challenge. My purpose in adding these factual statements at the beginning of the Background section is to provide some context on both the attack as well as the political response to it.

The reader might naturally have questions like How frequently have diplomats been attacked over the past decade?, Are these kinds of attacks a rare event? and Were there concerns about adequate security for overseas diplomats prior to the attacks? and Were there recent changes in the level of overseas diplomatic security, and if so why? I am of the opinion that the best way to address concerns about POV is to provide more facts and information, rather than to leave out or suppress information.

I agree with the opinion of ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ that the sourcing should be improved. I found it surprisingly difficult to find a listing of terrorist attacks on diplomats in objective reliable sources, but will continue looking, and would appreciate help from anyone who wants to join the search.

DaCapitan, regarding your first point about comparing attacks under Bush vs. Obama, the purpose of the sentence is to provide a factual summary of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies thus far in this century, so that the reader can have some context. While the number and nature of political accusations (or lack thereof) in the aftermath of these attacks is relevant, I think it would be difficult to address that in an NPOV way. For example, a statement could be made that the opposition party never launched political attacks on the Bush administration in response to any of the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities that occurred on his watch, and we could pull up statements from Republicans that questioned the patriotism of anyone who criticized the President. That would be great for an opinion piece on DailyKos, but obviously would not be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia.

I would not object to adding something like "and the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since [whatever]" to the sentence that reads "The 2012 Benghazi attack was the second deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility that occurred during President Obama's first term."

With respect to your second point, the reliable source (The Hill) states: "The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in." The sentence I added closely follows the lead of this story, which reads:"Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011."

This is clearly an objective factual statement that has significant relevance to the Background section of this story, so I cannot see how this can be considered POV. (The number of ways that this fact could be injected into a POV statement is infinite, but that does not mean the simple statement of the fact itself is POV.)

If you have information from reliable sources indicating that some diplomats held the opinion that Republican cuts to diplomatic security did not contribute to the inadequate security situation in Benghazi, then I see no problem with adding those facts in an NPOV way. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct about funding as far as I know. Regarding prior attacks, the Huffington Post piece appears to only be a partial list of attacks for the purpose of making a point. This, for example, goes into more depth. GTD is basically dedicated to listing terrorist attacks, but they don't have an easily accessible analysis that would be useful from what I see — someone would need to search through their spreadsheets. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

PeaceLoveHarmony edits are completely partisan POV. During her Oct. 10, 2012 testimony before Congress, Ms. Lamb, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, was asked if budget cuts had anything to do with security decisions. The exchange is: “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., California). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?” “No, sir,” said [Charlene] Lamb. Watch the exchange here [2] The exchange begins at 24:30. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. RGloucester (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove them. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Budgets are made by originating from the house, passage in the house, passage in the senate, and signing by the President. The present first sentence

After they gained control of the House in 2011, Republicans sought successfully to cut the Obama Administration's funding requests for diplomatic security by hundreds of millions of dollars.

make it appear that ONLY the House of Representatives (where the Republicans are the majority) is responsible for budget cuts which lead to less security which lead to the deaths, does appear to have MASSIVE POV bent. It does help that what has since been added attempts to balance it out, basically cancelling the talking point by stating

However, an aide with knowledge of the State Department’s efforts to improve security said the consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens and other Americans died, was only considered a “temporary facility” and was not on the administration’s request list for structural improvements for fiscal 2012 or 2013.[17] A Washington Post "The Fact Checker" article[20] published on May 16, 2013 disputed the claims that there was not adequate funding available.

but I am of the opinion that it is too little to late, with a strong emphasis in the anti-Republican lean in the paragraph.

That being said, I have expanded the list of previous attacks to fully encompass the information from the source, rather than ONLY focusing it on the Bush Administration.

Also another editor is challenging the consensus for removal. Perhaps we need a stronger consensus?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? If you want my opinion, the funding issue can stay or go. However, it's entirely reasonable to assume that a reader will want to know if/when other attacks on American diplomats have occurred. It is valuable background information, and I don't know how you could argue it is POV. It comes from an apparently reliable and neutral source, and makes no mention of parties or presidents or attempts to place blame. If anything, it’s the following sentence saying it's the second such attack during the Obama administration that actually needs a citation or removal. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If it has been changed not to mention parties, presidents, &c, I think that bit about "previous attacks" can stay. The bit about funding, though, I’m not so sure. RGloucester (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If we have sources that go back further than 1998, I would not be opposed to it; or should we just link to a list of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities?

The previous wording was only focused on the Bush Administration, and thus had POV issues. As I said I expanded it to include all attacks listed in the source, and thus made it more neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi Reasons for the attack

Most are concerned of who, when, where and what happened.... not Why?.... Since the invasion and the fall of Ghadaffi... what groups and special interests have been on the ground in Libya... the role of European, American, British, and Israeli interests must all be evaluated. Following the money and who was hired is always first on the list.... So, the question is.... Where is the GOLD, who wants the OIL, and where are the MISSILEs??? END COMMENTARY ... The truth is seldom revealed by humans in power! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.41.72 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't exactly true

"A report prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, stated “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” ^[157] This initial assessment was provided to Executive Branch officials.^[158]"

The report, or talking points as they've come to be known were first prepared on September 14th and edited with a heavy hand to make them virtually meaningless by the time Susan Rice has sandbagged with them. If picking a quote I'd go with the unmolested original version:

"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evovled into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack."

†TE†Talk 05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Talking Points

Should the editing of the Amb. Rice talking points be included in this article, or in the sub-article about the investigation? The editing of the talking points have been the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, including the BBC News, ABC News, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. While I am all in favor of somehow splitting up the article in ways that shorten it and just discuss the facts of the case, I think that Rice's talking points should probably stay in the main article. Tedperl (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There were 2 indentical entries of the talking points in the U.S. Government Response section. User:ThinkEnemies changed the first entry to the the above, bolded first draft. I removed it because it was redundant and not the highly edited, official 'government response.' and the 'talking points' controversy is currently in the new 'Investigative Reporting' section. IP75 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say about identical entries. Hadn't noticed. I took it upon myself to fix the inaccurate talking points with the original due to the former being presented as such. Also came back and removed redundancy between talking points given to Susan Rice and her official interpretation of them. It's not like she deviated from the talking points she recieved. †TE†Talk 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Never defined the acroynm JSOC

The Acronym "JSOC" appears multiple times in the CIA Annex Attack paragraph but it has no definition included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.241.150 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the mentions links to the Wikipedia page, though not the first mention. The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a component command of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and is charged to study special operations requirements and techniques to ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop Joint Special Operations Tactics.Robinrobin (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead wording

First discussion

This article is so severely biased that it doesn't meet the level of what one expects from a Wikipedia article. Where's the edit button on the main page? The opening paragraph says that the "The Republican Party accused the Obama administration of over-emphasizing the role of the video," - that isn't the case, at least not according to the article that is supposedly the citation for that sentence. It actually says: "On Sunday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told CNN there was no proof indicating the attack was related to protests over an anti-Islam video." His name is Mike Rogers - this could be considered an accusation by implication, but it is not an accusation, and it certainly isn't "an entire party". Further, the person doing the accusation, in that citation is here: 'On Wednesday, Townsend said a law enforcement source told her investigators from day one "have known clearly that this was a terrorist attack." '. Who knows what party the law enforcement source is. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't want to start editing controversial articles, but someone with more experience than me should look at this. Durron597 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, several sentences in the lede should be revised and a little more info needs to be added. I'll do that now, and also remove the cites because the material I'll be revising is clearly in the article. For example, the wording in the lede "Initially, there was speculation that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video" is misleading. From the first day the Libyan government, several security experts, and some Republican lawmakers publicly stated the attack had all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack. Numerous cites are in the article for the new wording I'll put in. I'm aiming to strike a balance in my revisions. Not going into too much detail, but providing enough to make sense of things; remaining neutral POV; etc. Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been no denial that it was an act of terror. What motivated the terrorists is a separate issue. The administration has indicated that there was no demonstration - based on the surveillance videos - but I can find no evidence to contradict that "The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video" (NYT Oct 15, 2012 Kirkpatrick, Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all ). This article is cited in the lede but without reference to the video. Another NYT article two days later again says that the assailants, who were known to local officials, stated that the video motivated them to attack the consulate. (NYT Oct 17, 2012 Scott Shane, Clearing the Record about Benghazi http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/questions-and-answers-on-the-benghazi-attack.html . This is my very first post; please excuse my syntax (I will study). Auriandra (talk) 15:00 CDT 10 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Cirrus Editor:Your attempts to make the lead more "balanced" have done the opposite. The original wording did not squarely place "blame" or "correctness" on either side. Now, with some preliminary information, one would get the feeling that the Obama administration was entirely wrong, and misled people purposefully. This is not at yet verifiable, and I think that the lead should be reverted to its old form until a new one can be drafted with the updated information. This should be done through consensus, and not by one individual editor, as was the last lead draft. RGloucester (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted the changes to the lead until consensus is reached on the subject. As with the first lead, I think we should draft it here, and then discuss it before implementing it. RGloucester (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Commentary on lead - My thoughts on the subject are simple. The present lead does a good job of making sure that neither side is considered "right or wrong", and was drafted with that intent. The only questionable sentence, at least in my mind, is the sentence that says "the Republic Party accused...&c". That should be revised to say, "Some members of the Republican Party, and other independent critics...&c". That sentence you call misleading is not so. There was much speculation, my mass media sources as well as the Government, that it was spontaneous. No one ever denied that it was "terrorist attack", but that is an ill-defined and POV-loaded term anyway. At first, no one was really certain what happened, exactly. We know that it was murky, and many people said many different things. No one, at that point, appears to have really been right or wrong. The new report by House Republicans that you cited is considered biased by many people, and can't really be held as "fact" at this point. What one wants here, is to make clear that neither side is really "right". That has already been done with the present. Other than that one sentence about "the Republican Party", the rest of the lead accomplishes that well. RGloucester (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm fine with your proposed revision of the lead... you could also mention Rep. Mike Rogers, Rep. Darrell Issa, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz in particular as they have all been outspoken critics, but that may be too detailed for the lead. I also contest your opinion that at first no one was right or wrong, but that argument is not one for the main page of the Wikipedia entry. Durron597 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is, is it certain that the White House intentionally mislead people into thinking something? Or was that just speculation because of the murkiness surrounding the whole incident? One, at the moment, anyway, certainly can't say with NPOV that the White House did that. Some Republicans say they did, and some Democrats say they did not. In other words, with our job as arbiters of NPOV, we must present both sides. There was "speculation" that it was caused by a video, yes. And others, notably some Republicans, said that this was insidiousness on the part of the White House. We don't know which is really correct, verifiably, though we may all have opinions on the matter. So we must present each opinion, neutrally. The present lead does this, as best as it is able. It isn't a matter of opinion, but of what is neutral and verifiable. At the moment, there isn't very much that is, other than the fact that we now know that it was not a spontaneous reaction, but a premeditated attack. That does not, however, say anything about whether the White House was deceitful. RGloucester (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the preponderance of evidence of deceit is already there, however, I agree that it is not for Wikipedia to take a side at this time (or ever, until those investigating have completed due diligence). I support your stance to have the main lead remain neutral. Durron597 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead lacked current and complete information. I'd been away for months and was sweeping the dust and cobwebs off the article. The entire Investigation section needed updating. I added five different bullets for the different (and one proposed) investigations. After I did that I updated the lead with information. I was including current and complete information. (And much more remains to be done, still. For example, no one has updated the Allegations of media bias section, and there is no information in the article about Steve Hayes' investigative reporting[3] that ABC News then took and ran with about the 12 evolutions of the talking points.[4])

From the lead in its current state, all a reader would know is 1) there was an attack by a "heavily armed group" 2) 4 American were killed 3) Libyans protested 4) and then it devolved into mishmosh. "heavily armed group"? Everyone knows they had ties to al-Qaeda. Why is that information, which is in the article, not in the lead? "Initially, there was speculation that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video," Well, ok. What about the initial speculation from many security experts, the Libyan president, some news sources around the globe, and U.S. lawmakers (both Democrats and Republican) that it was a preplanned and coordinated terrorist attack?[5] That information is in the article already, so why isn't it represented in the lead? Because it doesn't fit with someone's preconceived idea or with what they want the attack to be? "premeditated attack by Islamist militants" With links to Al-Qaeda? That's an important bit of information in the lead, right? That they were not just any old militants; they came in there riding artillery-mounted gun trucks. "the Obama administration of over-emphasizing the role of the video..." This is still more disingenuous text. We can tonight find citations for resources of news and government documents that claim the Obama administration willfully obfuscated on the matter. In addition, in the current lead, a reader would have no information on one of the completed investigations and its findings, the two ongoing investigations and the May 8, 2013 congressional hearings and their several and important new revelations, the April 23, 2013 interim report findings from the 5 House Committees, and a congressional push in the House with nearly two-thirds of Reps calling for a select committee. Also, the phrase "took issue with the investigation" implies there is/was only one investigation and that it is over. The congressional investigation is continuing. The lead omitted important information, and it was misleading readers. I tried to fix it. Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cirrus Editor: While I'm sure we all applaud your attempts to "fix" the lead, you did so in language that was clearly not neutral. The previous lead was adopted by consensus on the talk page, and any changes should be thoroughly discussed before they are made. I'm aware of the various reports coming out at this very moment on the subject, but one thing journalists are learning is that is necessary to hold back until the "dust settles", so that one avoids misprinting anything. At this moment, nothing is really confirmed or verified. So, as I said...let's work out something through consensus here that adequately updates the lead with neutral language. That's they way to do it. I've asked other editors who previously helped develop the present lead to come here and discuss it, so we should have some others joining us shortly. RGloucester (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your work in this, RGloucester. Take away recent developments and the current lead is still woefully out of date and filled with inadequate and misleading information. One point: I personally think the lead should carry the weight and sense of the complete article, without cites. Some of the information I placed in the article recently is very old. It's just that no other editor bothered to update the article. Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the current revision (RGloucester's) of the lead has enough (if not too much) discussion of the US' internal political squabbles. All readers need to get from the lead is that there is a controversy in the US over it, mainly over the (perceived?) early interpretation of the nature of the events, which is exactly what this version does. We don't need to go into the gritty details- not only because it spurs on POV wars (as in what details are put in, where they're placed, etc), but also because it gives way to much space to a phenomenon that's only part of the picture. For comparison, the much more dramatic events in Libya that resulted from it-a showdown with militias involving major protests and conflict- has only one sentence (and by the way the whole section was more or less made by myself, sadly, and is still undersized). —Yalens (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the average reader would think that a controversy that reaches to the top of the (still) most powerful country in the world trumps an internal showdown in a country still finding its footing.Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

While I’m not entirely in agreement with Yalens on the matter, that is clearly a matter of POV RGloucester (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

State Department or Accountability Review Board?

I changed "Accountability Review Board" to "State Department investigation" in the lede because the former requires a definition that is not provided until a later subsection while the latter is more informative for a lede and requires no such definition. I'm posting this technical edit here because it was reverted for some reason. 128.103.7.152 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we change it to "State Department"? I’d be okay with such a change, as it would be more familiar to a layman. I, however, am not okay with the removal of the hatnote. That is there not because of WP:RELATED, but because this article was originally part of the other article. The hatnote should stay, as even at this point there could be confusion. Regardless, the reason I reverted your changes is because we in a discussion regarding potentially overhauling the lead, and any changes made should result from discussion because of the controversial nature of the subject. The removal of the hatnote could be considered a NPOV issue. RGloucester (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Um. Where's the outrage? I change the lede and it's reverted and gaskets are blown. An IP address changes the lede and it's ok and up for discussion? What happened to:

I think that the lead should be reverted to its old form until a new one can be drafted with the updated information. This should be done through consensus, and not by one individual editor, as was the last lead draft.--RGloucester

Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP’s edits were minor. They didn’t change the structure of the lead, and I don’t rate IPs as any less valuable than registered users. Instead of being bombastic, perhaps you could say if you think it would be okay to switch to "State Department" and whether the hatnote should be removed. RGloucester (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it was originally part of an article 9 months ago that no longer exists or has been renamed, but there is no reason for the hatnote to remain in the article. For one, neither article is ambiguously named (which is why a split article might have a hat note). I believe the other article is WP:RELATED and should be linked in the article if appropriate, but should not be hatnote. Finally, the article that the hatnote mentions that this was split from no longer seems to exist, and the "Reaction" article that it now points to does not have an ambiguous relationship like the title that this article was split from. I get that there's some controversy here regarding the content of the lede and I understand your desire to reach a consensus on controversial changes, but I don't think that should paralyze this article from being edited. 128.103.7.152 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article isn’t "paralyzed" from being edited. In the past, and now, we’ve had about a million attempts to take the article in one or another POV. At the start of this article especially, it was a mess. Eventually, we got to the point where we worked it out and were eventually able to remove the POV boilerplate. Because the process worked, and because of the nature of this article, this is the most effective way to deal with the edits. The "Reaction" article is the renamed article that this article here was split from. It is ambiguous to some people, as some believed (or believe) that this attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video. That’s why it was done. Some people thought, and do think, that this was "part of the reaction to the Innocence of Muslims". This hasn’t be resolved yet, even though evidence points to contrary. Until it is, the hatnote should remain, to make it clear that this is a separate issue. RGloucester (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the ambiguity relates to the actual title. If the real reason for the hatnote is because some people are confused and come here looking for the reaction page, then maybe the proper hatnote should be {Distinguish|Reactions to Innocence of Muslims} "template". But just to be clear, I don't think there should be a hatnote at all. 128.103.7.152 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the template you’ve referenced is the more correct one. We’ll see what other people say. RGloucester (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests

@Cirrus Editor: What exactly do you want the lead to say, and why? What do you think it lacks that it needs? What facts are missing? Write it here, and we’ll figure a neutral way to include it. RGloucester (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm afraid I will be forced to remove myself from the conversation for a little while, as I've been reported for edit warring here. I hope the conversation can continue, and that a neutral update to the lead can be agreed to. RGloucester (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Revised first paragraph might be:

The 2012 Benghazi attack was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 (the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks). The attack began during the night at a compound meant to protect the consulate building and continued along streets to a nearby CIA annex, where a second assault took place in the early morning the next day. Dozens of heavily armed attackers with ties to Ansar al-Sharia and al Qaeda took part, using rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks, diesel canisters, and mortars. 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. (Although I'm not sure about the injury count; there has been some speculation about Benghazi survivors in U.S. military hospitals, but I've not been able to find a source with any number. Just like Congress can't get a correct number, neither can we.) Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Terrorist attack" is an inherently POV term that, if we can avoid, we should (e.g. one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter). That’s what we did last time, and it makes sense now. Just plain "attacked" avoids any spin, and simply gives objective fact. The bit about the anniversary seems somewhat superfluous for the lead. Also, is the type of ammunition the attackers used really relevant for the lead? As far as Ansar goes, it would seem the best way to describe it would be "Heavily armed attackers associated with Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militant group with ties to Al Qaeda. So, my revised version would read as follows:

The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia with ties to Al-Qaeda. 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.

I think this a good way to deal with the first paragraph. We need to be concise. The following paragraphs contain the "meat" of the lead. Even in that "meat", we ought be careful not to load it too much with stuff about "diesel canisters", which I haven’t got a clue about. RGloucester (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a few points: 1) Using your "terrorist attack" logic, the articles on September 11 attacks or 2008 Mumbai attacks or, indeed, List of Islamic terrorist attacks, should not have that term, either. And I don't think "terrorist attack" is an inherently POV term; countries today use the term "terrorist" (hence, "terrorist attack") to officially track dangerous organizations across borders across the world. Multiple news, government (in official reports and speaking in public), and expert analyst sources have called the 2012 Benghazi attack a terrorist attack. 2) Why not work 2012 Benghazi attack into lede as in Wiki style? 3) Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack; it does not make all attackers Ansar al-Sharia. 4) Tense issue: the compound "was" meant to....it no longer "is" meant to. 5) The anniversary is not superfluous; there is an attack-date connection between the events. Again, multiple attestations. 6) Scrubbing all mention of types of weapons used seems an act of omission. Other articles work the type of attack into the lede. 7) The information in the lede after the first paragraph is an entirely different matter. I was only trying to do this first one. :) - Cirrus Editor (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The title is rather contrived, and according to the guideline on such things, there is no point in working a contrived title into the lead, and I somewhat agree. As far as "terrorist attack" is concerned, there is really no good reason to use that phrasing. The buildings were attacked, were they not? Whether it was terrorism or not is POV. I’m not disputing that, from the American perspective, this was certainly a terrorist attack. But it isn’t that simple. It is made even more complicated by the fact that the target in this case was not a "civilian" one, but a state target with armed defense, unlike 9/11 or Mumbai. "Attack" is objective, "terrorist attack" is not. Is it really necessary to load the phrasing with POV?

One can say that the attack was "lead by Ansar &c." It is my understanding that they were "the leaders" of the attack, and also were the majority of participants.

I’m not saying that the anniversary is not superfluous on the whole, but I don’t think it belongs in the first sentence of the lead.

What do weapon-types really tell the reader that one needs to know, in the first paragraph of the lead? I don’t even know what a "diesel canister" is. The lead should be concise, and explain the event that occurred, but not go into specific details, at least in my understanding. We still mention the weapons in the infobox, which I don’t necessarily agree with, but they are still there anyway, so it is not like they are disappearing. If people want that information, it will still be in their face. It simply won’t clutter the lead. RGloucester (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the party of "no". I can’t imagine why Wikipedia has the reputation that it does. :/ - Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cirrus Editor: It is rather hard…but, what reputation does Wikipedia have? I’m surrounded by academics (in Literature and media fields), and even they now use Wikipedia. It is really rather lovely when a well known and good contemporary poet-teacher says that Wikipedia’s articles on poets are invaluable, and more comprehensive and neutral than any mainstream criticism. And I agree. I’d like to keep it that way, if it is possible. Nevertheless, do we agree that we should replace "heavily armed group" with "by a heavily armed group led by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia with ties to Al-Qaeda". That part really does need immediate updating. RGloucester (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Some editors are screwing around with the lead in notably bad ways, and since I can't revert them due to what happened at WP:ANEW (I was let off, but I'll be careful regardless), I've requested page protection. RGloucester (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the following phrases from the lead that were added? "heavily armed group of terrorists" is just stupid. "The terrorists have not been captured" is even stupider. And furthermore, the bit about Obama covering stuff up is alleged, not confirmed, at yet, and was added with weasel words. Can that be removed, or modified, as well? I can't do so, as I'm the position I'm in. RGloucester (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, the lead should briefly summarize the known basic facts of the attack, the initial political response in Libya, the U.S., and other countries, the context of current events in which the event occurred, and the criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the attack by Republican politicians and conservative media. My proposed lead can be found here: [6] and reads as follows:

The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group. 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.

Many Libyans praised the late ambassador and staged public demonstrations against the militias that had formed during the Libyan civil war to oppose Colonel Gaddafi.[5][6][7] The Libyan government also began attempts to disband many of the groups.[8] The United States increased security worldwide at its various diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the attack.[9][10]

On the night of the attack, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to a film called Innocence of Muslims. While witnesses reported that the Islamic militants who launched the attack stated that they were acting in retaliation for the video[11], the State Department Accountability Review Board also determined that the attack was premeditated.[12][13]

While President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attack, former CIA director David H. Petraeus later testified that the administration initially refrained from publicly identifying terrorist groups that were suspected in the attacks, to avoid alerting the militants of their investigation.[14]

Republican politicians and conservative media figures immediately accused the Obama administration of mishandling the attack and its aftermath and of over-emphasizing the role of the video.[15] As the incident became a focus of political discussion on the right, Republicans in Congress launched multiple investigations and hearings over the following months. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This, to me, seems very well done. I do, however, question whether there will be a problem with worldview-POV issues. It is rather American-centric. But the language is mostly neutral (could use some tweaks), and deals with current events. I think, however, we can safely replace "heavily armed group" with "by a heavily armed group led by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia with ties to Al-Qaeda". Also, "Innocence of Muslims" was not a film, but a video. There is a difference, if I must explain it. My revision of yours would be as follows:

Feel free to comment further. RGloucester (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Current proposal

Present lead proposal, being updated here:

The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group led by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the main diplomatic building (FOOTNOTE, with refs: There is disagreement about the purpose of the building that was attacked. Initially, it was referred to as a consulate. Later, it was called a "diplomatic post" and a "diplomatic facility". Some sources, though, have said that it was in fact a clandestine CIA facility.) A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different 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.

Many Libyans praised the late ambassador and staged public demonstrations against the militias that had formed during the Libyan civil war to oppose Colonel Gaddafi. The Libyan government also began attempts to disband many of the groups. The United States increased security worldwide at its various diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the attack.

At various times between September 11th and 17th, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims. Initially, it was suggested that the attack arose in similar circumstances, but an investigation by the U.S. State Department determined that there was no such protest and that the attack occurred without warning, was premeditated, and driven by what have been labeled "terrorist groups", such as Ansar al-Sharia. The video and the resulting anger may have provided an opportunity for the attackers; according to some eyewitnesses, they used the video as justification for the attack.

While President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attack, former CIA director David H. Petraeus later testified that the administration initially refrained from publicly identifying the groups that were suspected in the attacks, to avoid alerting the militants of their investigation.

Some Republican politicians, conservative media figures, and other independent critics immediately accused the Obama administration of mishandling the attack and its aftermath and of over-emphasizing the role of the video. As the incident became a focus of political discussion on the right, some Republican members of Congress launched their own independent investigations and hearings on the subject in the following months. These investigations are currently ongoing, and are a matter of great controversy in the American political sphere.

Comments

I'll excuse myself from the cherry picking of facts for a while. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What choice do we have? The lead can only contain so much. That’s what the body is for. Furthermore, we can only print what is verified. Very little is, other than that we know that it was a premeditated attack by Islamist militants, and that there are many accusations of foul play, from the "consulate" being a secret CIA palace, to the "terrorism denial" bit, to the "revision of talking points", &c. &c. Cherry picking? We have no choice but to decided what to include in the lead, and what not to. We can’t possibly include it all, or else it would not be a "lead"…I don’t really know what you’re asking of us to do… RGloucester (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, I like your edits and think they are an improvement. I might still like to modify this sentence a little bit: "While initially there were reports that attack arose from similar spontaneous protests, an investigation by the U.S. State Department determined that the attack was premeditated, and driven by what have been labeled "terrorist groups", such as Ansar al-Sharia."

There are actually three separate elements of this controversy. Was the attack (1) spontaneous or was the attack (2) premeditated, and was the attack (3) motivated by the video. The concepts of "spontaneous attack" and "motivated by video" seem to have become conflated to such an extent that they are viewed as synonymous in some people's minds and it would be helpful if the article could parse this out a bit (without doing OR or POV). Evidence from reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times) indicates that the attackers stated to eyewitnesses that they were acting in response to the video, and also that advance planning for the attack most likely occurred and that there were no spontaneous protests taking place immediately prior to the attack. There are at least a couple of New York Times articles that support these facts, and there also may be other reliable sources.

One possibility would be to add a clause such as this: "While initially there were reports that the attack arose from similar spontaneous protests, and eyewitnesses reported that the attackers said they were acting in response to the video, an investigation by the U.S. State Department determined that the attack was premeditated, and driven by what have been labeled "terrorist groups", such as Ansar al-Sharia." PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good way to handle it. I'd like to hear more comments though, especially those of Cirrus Editor, because this is a rather critical thing, and we don't want to leave anything out or otherwise blindly put something in out of our own POV. I'll modify the one above with the new sentence. I'd also like to compile references for this lead proposal as well, if you have any. RGloucester (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we need more comments from anyone who might have POV concerns about this version of the lead. I number of the required reliable sources are included in the version that I originally posted, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&oldid=554486575 . (Apologies if you already know this.) Thanks! PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Any more comments on this lead proposal? It would be nice if people would contest or approve it. RGloucester (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly good, but I think you need to be careful about implying that the video was completely unrelated to the attack. Yes, it was pre-planned and pre-meditated. However, from what I’ve read, the group still used the video as a justification for the attack, and they may have decided to attack when they did (rather than wait longer) because of the various demonstrations that were happening at that time related to the video. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So, how would one go about wording that? RGloucester (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The third paragraph could say something like: On the night of the attack, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims. Initially it was suggested that the attack arose from a similar protest, but investigations determined that there was no protest and that the attack occurred without warning, driven by Islamist militant groups. The video and the resulting anger may have provided an opportunity for the attackers; according to eyewitnesses, they used the video as a justification for their attack on the mission.

I'm using this as a source about the video, though I think I read a more recent one that I can't find. I would also take out the bit linking the group to al-Qaeda in the first paragraph. It is probably a stretch depending on who you ask. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 06:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The bit about Al Qaeda, that's why we left as just plain "heavily armed group" for so long. I suppose, until more is confirmed, we can leave out Al Qaeda in the lead. I agree with what you did with the third paragraph, and will modify the proposal. RGloucester (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I went back and looked at the Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims article and realized that I made a serious misstatement. The eight other attacks on the diplomatic facilities began on Sept 11 in Cairo, but the other seven occurred on later dates over the following week. I suggest we say something like "On various dates from September 11 to September 17, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims." PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated. RGloucester (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for showing up late to the party, I have been busy in real life and it has limited my time on Wikipedia, for better or worse. To state that Obama referred to the attack as a terrorist attack in the 12SEP12 rose garden speech is debatable, as some reliable sources including the Washington Post, and USA Today have stated Obama refer to the attack as a terrorist attack initially. This page should not serve to advance Obama Administration reinterpretation of what they stated; that would violate WP:NPOV. At the same time this article should not devolve into an attack page upon the Obama Administration for those on the American right either.

Otherwise, the proposed lead appears to be OK. IMHO in order to be more neutral, remove the Obama and Republican from the lead. We should leave that the House has investigated the attacks, and the response, and include all the other investigations as well. This IMHO would make the lead more neutral. Statements of response IMHO should include what Romney stated, if we are going to include what Obama stated. If we are going to include the Reaction to Innocence of Muslims, we should include Amb. Rice and Pres. Obama’s highlighting the video on morning political programs and in front of the United Nations, or we can exclude that and leave it for the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are advocating sticking with the current lead, mostly, but adding the bit about Ansar, and the footnote, and perhaps a few other minor things…I’m okay with that, and I agree that this proposal focuses way to much on the American response to the attacks, which to me seems a sure problem. RGloucester (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to concerns that RightCowLeftCoast has raised about POV, I am OK with just taking out this sentence: "While President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attack, former CIA director David H. Petraeus later testified that the administration initially refrained from publicly identifying the groups that were suspected in the attacks, to avoid alerting the militants of their investigation." (It would be good to add that Petraeus info somewhere else in the article though.) I think the last paragraph about Republican criticism etc. is NPOV, though I am not sure about the "other independent critics" part. I disagree with just saying it is investigations by the "House" without mention of Republicans, as this is a very partisan issue that is very obviously driven by political forces on the right. The part about the anti-Islamic video and it's impact seems to me to be accurate and NPOV. I disagree with adding info about Ambassador Rice and the CIA talking points, as this would be too much detail about a peripheral issue in the lead. We do state that the Obama administration was accused of overemphasizing the role of the video, which seems to me to be just the right amount of detail. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That removes missteps that the Obama Administration have taken in their misstatements to the public of what actually occurred, and gives a narrative that this event is used primarily as a Republican talking point which to attack the Obama Administration. It actually enables one POV by removing another POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Consulate?

I'm not trying to stir the hornet's nest here, but is it accurate to call it a "consulate"? I thought the State Dept was saying that it was a "US Mission." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->

"Diplomatic mission" refers to the overarching American diplomatic mission in Libya, which consists of an embassy in Tripoli, and, potentially, consulates elsewhere. However, in recent days there have been statements that the building was never a consulate, and hence, not part of the American diplomatic mission. Instead, it is claimed that it was a part of some kind of CIA convert something or other [7]. None of this is really verified at the moment though, so it doesn’t really make sense to change it. RGloucester (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Glenn Kessler says (here, here) it was not a consulate "despite persistent news media reports" to the contrary. Unless someone can find an equally reliable source that addresses this issue, I think we should remove the word "consulate" and replace it... but with what? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, I see that you cited the one of the same article I did. What do you mean that "none of this is really verified at the moment?" All that's required is that it's supported by a reliable source. Kessler is highly reliable and has been cited all over Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

U.S. government sources are still vacillating between calling it a "consulate" and a "diplomatic post", contradicting the article. 138.16.120.207 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are still referring to the "facility" as a consulate. Some even refer to it as an embassy (which is impossible), and still others refer to it as a "diplomatic post". At the moment, it isn't verified whether it is true that it was not a consulate, and some kind of clandestine CIA operation, because of this conflicting information. RGloucester (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There will never be any "verification" that it was a "consulate" or a "diplomatic post" or anything else. We must make a decision based on WP:RS and not based on some kind of "verification" -- by whom? "U.S. government sources" are not as reliable as the print media because the government is directly involved and has already been accused of spin doctoring. Kessler is one of the most reliable sources out there, and he explains in detail why it wasn't a consulate. If someone feels we should continue using "consulate" then at the very least they should find a more reliable source than Kessler that uses it. Even better they should find a source that explains why "consulate" is correct. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is, the reliable sources all say different things at the moment. None is necessarily correct, and until we know which to use it doesn't really make sense to change it to something else contrived. 138.16.120.42 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Phrases like "diplomatic post" or "diplomatic mission" could be taken to include embassies, consulates, and similar. If editors don’t want to call it a consulate, we can simply call it a diplomatic post. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article that he is referring to says that it was a "diplomatic nothing", but instead a CIA covert operations base. So, diplomatic post would be wrong in terms of that one article. That’s why I say leaving it as it is is best until we know more. It was initially made "consulate" because that’s how we originally knew the story. Until it makes more sense, why should we change it? RGloucester (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

138.16.120.42: Wikipedia doesn't wait until there's consensus among all sources before adding or changing something. If there's disagreement among equally reliable sources then all views should be expressed. See WP:RS.

RGloucester: The reason we should change it now is because it's incorrect, i.e. a very reliable source has refuted our article and there doesn't seem to be any justification for keeping it as is beyond that we haven't agreed on an alternative. How about calling it a "post?" Or a "CIA post?" —Nstrauss (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We don’t know at all what it was. We can’t call it a CIA post, because some reliable sources say it is a diplomatic post, or a consulate. We can’t call a diplomatic post for the same reason. I guess we could just call it a "post". But that doesn’t really make much sense. An "American post" in Benghazi? I guess if we added a footnote that explained that it was confusing, then we could do that. In fact, we could just leave it "consulate" and add a footnote that explained the whole controversy, which might be the best thing to do. Anyway, we don’t really know if was incorrect. Many reliable sources still call it a "consulate attack" and refer to it as a "consulate". The whole CIA business may well be equally incorrect, because, again, we don’t know. Neither do the reliable sources. We really don’t have the information at the moment. A CIA post is by nature not a diplomatic facility. There are too many reliable sources calling it a "diplomatic something or other" to call it a CIA post yet. I think we should go with a footnote. RGloucester (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and we are drafting a new lead right now. Just look above at the "current lead proposal". Changing the consulate business will be part of that. Right now, I’m trying to figure out a way to remove "consulate" and find an alternative with a footnote. RGloucester (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As the reliable sources conflict on what the two buildings were, how about these two possible compromises:

1. ) State that the buildings have been referred to as X, Y, Z, etc. and provide the reliable sources, bundled, that call the buildings X, Y, Z, etc. .
2. ) Call the buildings "American facilities".

The first option keeps with what can be verified, the second option gives a neutral wording that isn't verified, but is kind of a disambig.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I like it. RGloucester, this can remain a separate discussion from the "current lead proposal" thread. There's no need to roll together all issues that affect the lead section. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of types of reliable sources, but as someone else said, they seem to disagree on this point. I'm trying to find sources written by the State Dept before the incident, since it seems like they're the ones that would be the most authoritative and least politically-fueled. --Lacarids (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi: The Definitive Report

Is "Benghazi: The Definitive Report" a reliable source? The first review I found on Google [8] — from the not-exactly-left-leaning Washington Times — says it was "obviously rushed to publication" and "the lack of citations makes it impossible to verify their credibility." I ask because it appears to be the most heavily cited source in the article, by a wide margin. (Not looking to touch off a political argument about the topic.) Woodshed (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, no, it is not. A lot of the information contained in the book is not confirmed anywhere else. There really is nothing "definitive" about it. We just discussed the matter previously with regards to "just under a 100 attackers killed", a "fact" from that book that has nothing to back it up anywhere (and makes no sense). All of that material, as far as I can tell, was added by one editor, Myster Black. I don’t know what to do about it, though. Questions arose earlier about this from other editors as well, but no action was taken [9]. RGloucester (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that The Definitive Report, and all references to it, should be taken out, as it is not referenced and hence non-verifiable and alleges a massive conspiracy. I think it is very damaging to the credibility of the article that it is included. Tedperl (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it will be difficult, given how it has been woven in. It must be done carefully. Also, there is a general lack of verifiable information on the subject at the moment, which makes it even more difficult. RGloucester (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I least edit out the massive conspiracy angle? There are also a lot of tidbits of knowledge like people hugging on roofs that have no business in what should be IMHO be a more dispassionate account, but those are, as you point out, more deeply woven in. Tedperl (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You can be WP:BOLD, and we can see what happens. But I would not cut anything verified….Preferably, you’d tell us exactly what you’d like to cut. RGloucester (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Tedperl, what massive conspiracy angle do you refer to? I am in contact with Mr. Webb to receive further footnotes, as I agree corroboration is important. Myster Black (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of contact is that? We don’t want this to turn into WP:SOAP. RGloucester (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, I agree. Just trying to corroborate. Myster Black (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement that got my attention was "While Murphy and Webb say these operations targeting Al Qaeda leaders in Libya such as Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil may be warranted, the problem occurs when "their actions move a multi-billion-dollar counter-terrorist apparatus across the world, and its operations begin to get out of control...all with a non-elected political appointee running the show." They report that with Brennan running his own private war, he did not go through the normal chain of command, and operations were not deconflicted (a term referring to the avoidance of conflict between operations among agencies). Therefore, Ambassador Stevens was not read in on the JSOC operations, and was kept in the dark and ultimately killed in a retaliation that he never could have seen coming."

This mention of an "out of control" multi-billion dollar counterinsurgency strikes me as a conspiracy theory and one that requires a very substantial amount of documentation. I too am not inclined to edit war, which I raised it first here. Tedperl (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTOPINION (I’ve never cited so many of these before, but how utterly useful!). That has no place in the article, at all. I’m fairly certain that most would agree with me. Oh, by the way…please comment on the lead rewrite stuff. It is rather important… RGloucester (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this paragraph can be edited, though I do believe the overall point is pertinent to include here, especially if it is clear who the source is. American special ops (a multi-billion-dollar counterterrorist apparatus) in Libya is not really a conspiracy, but the "out-of-control" comment is a bit interpretive. It looks like the sentence you really have a problem with is the quote from Murphy and Webb, which was included as a quote to be clear it came from them. Is that right? I appreciate the comments, and please keep this dialogue going. Myster Black (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that out of control is what I thought was most problematic. I would also say that "own private war" later on is problematic. My general thought is that the whole paragraph should either be substantiated as a cause of the attack or cut, because otherwise it does not rise beyond the level of speculation--and there is a lot of speculation out there. For example, some have claimed that the CIA was running guns to Syria, and that Stevens was killed either because he was a part of it or opposed to it. If the book had footnotes or was more transparent in its WP:SOURCES, I would be more sympathetic, but as it is, I would omit the paragraph. As to the other uses of the text, I have less of a problem, since they all seem to be filling in details. I would still like other verification, but they do not substantially impact the story, I am less inclined to make an issue. Tedperl (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The question is, why do we care what Murphy and Webb say, when we have no independent verification of what they say, and a lot of contradictory evidence? We have sources that we can generally consider reliable, like the Washington Post and the New York Times, which question the book’s credibility. We know that it was published before many recent developments. It would be one thing if we had such information from a traditional, reliable source. But, in this case, we don’t. Just because something is published does not mean we automatically accept it. Essentially, their work amounts to opinion unless it can be verified. At present, it can’t. RGloucester (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article has problems, that source being a big one. Even if we had reason to believe that everything they claim is true (and we have plenty of reason to believe the opposite), if they are the only ones saying those things, they don't deserve the kind of prominence they are being given here (see WP:UNDUE, another policy that's probably being broken right now). Like several others, I would recommend removing any content that relies solely on that source. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, a lot of contradictory evidence? Please elaborate.

Hazydan, why do we have plenty of reason to believe everything they claim is false?

I have removed some of the language in the Responsibility section associated with The Definitive report. This source should not be given undue influence, however, for the most part the account fits with the rest of the sources. Myster Black (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not everything they say is false, and I’m sure there might be some stuff we can use from them. If it appears in both their book, and in other reliable sources, i.e. it is verified, then we can use it. Otherwise, it doesn’t pass the test of mettle. RGloucester (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant we have reason to believe that not everything they say is true, not that everything they say is wrong. I agree that their information should not be used unless other reliable sources back them up. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester, no one considers the NYT a "traditional, reliable source" except those who agree with its politics. I would suggest referring to something with more widespread acceptance as a "traditional, reliable source." DaCapitan (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is considered one of the primary newspapers of record in the United States, if not the primary one. We don’t cite the opinions page. RGloucester (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur with RGloucester, the New York Times has been informally known as "the newspaper of record" in the U.S. for over a hundred years, and there are few, if any, more reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence which references "Benghazi: The Definitive Report": "The U.S. government, including President Obama, later had to retract these statements when it became increasingly apparent that there was no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi and that the violence had little to do with a video." A search of the book does not return "Letterman", "Late Show", or "Univision", so it seems implausible that this source states these specific statements were retracted by President Obama. Furthermore, the statements by Obama were factually correct, in that eight other diplomatic facilities were attacked on the night of the Benghazi attack and eyewitnesses reported that the Benghazi terrorists stated they were acting in retaliation for the video. So it seems very implausible that these factual statements were explicitly retracted by the President. I do not think these statements should be re-instated unless we have a reliable source to back it up. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on the removal of this paragraph?

In their book, "Benghazi: The Definitive Report," Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb report a contributing factor to the attack were covert JSOC operations in Libya planned and executed by Deputy National Security Advisor John O. Brennan, with tacit support from Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, and Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Admiral William H. McRaven, which led to a retaliation from militias such as Ansar al-Sharia.[19]:25, 29, 56-58 Sometime in mid-summer 2012, Brennan directed JSOC to conduct combat operations in Libya targeting high-level Al Qaeda operatives within Libya militia organizations. They report that with Brennan running a private war, he did not go through the normal chain of command, operations were not deconflicted (a term referring to the avoidance of conflict between operations among agencies), and Ambassador Stevens was not read in on the JSOC operations.[19]:58-60 The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the book,[119] and United States Special Operations Command made a statement that they don't confirm or deny operations.[120]

While it has certainly been improved, in terms of not so directly attributing Stevens death to reprisal for JSOC ops, it is still based on one source, and is only one of many explanations out there. I don't have any clue as to whether it is true, since I don't know Murphy and Webb, and they don't link to anything, much less something that I do know or could plausibly trust. It fails verifiability IMHO Tedperl (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. As long as it states what the source is, I don't see why it needs to be removed. Some have said this is not a reliable source, but IMHO that is being a bit selective with sources. There are other portions of the article where a single source (that is not the NYT) is used to reference events. This paragraph does not contradict the overall article, and complements other more mainstream points of view. Finally, it should be appreciated that absolute corroboration of secret special operations can often be difficult bordering on impossible. That Webb and Murphy are ex-spec op individuals who run a site that regularly reports on this world with inside sources gives them standing in this field. Myster Black (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it has to do with the level of the claim. Claiming to offer an alternative explanation of the whole event without actually demonstrating who the perpetrators were and offering evidence as to the fact that they committed the act for the reasons that you think it happened is just totally unjustifiable. The business of Wikipedia is not to report rumor, however well-informed and well-meaning the authors, but to report verifiable facts. Tedperl (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by perpetrators? I agree it is not the business to report rumor, however it is a fact the Murphy and Webb reported about JSOC operations in Libya influencing the attack in Benghazi. I would say this is complementary to other explanations, not alternative. As I said previously, that their sources work in a secret world makes public sourcing difficult. Would you be OK if thay had referenced an "unnamed special forces operator"? Myster Black (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, but you cut to the heart of the problem, which is that for all we know it is a single unnamed special OPs guy with a grudge. Tedperl (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If the information contained in the book is contradicted by most of the usual reliable sources, and has no citations to back it up, that means that it is not reliable. This is not selectivity, but common sense. 138.16.118.161 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The book is not contradicted by most of the usual reliable sources. Most of their reporting in the blow-by-blow of the attack fits very well with other sources. Further, I have not seen anything that contradicts that JSOC operations were occurring in Libya in summer 2012, that they were targeting al-Qaeda elements, or that these could have precipitated an attack. Other influences have been reported (video, Rahman release to name 2), but that does not contradict the reporting by Webb and Murphy. This is additional information, not contradictory information. I don't see why there can only be one reason that caused the attack. Myster Black (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't very well use a book that lacks any citations. It is impossible to ascertain anything that the book says because of this, except to cross-reference its versions of events with those in reliable sources. So far, many "facts" presented in the book have proven to be contradicted by other sources, notably the bit about "just under a hundred attackers killed", which makes little sense considering the minimal amount of security personnel known to be at the compound. The Washington Times said its credibility was "suspect at best".[10] How can we use a source like this? How can we justify it? It has nothing to do with selectivity. The book has no, I repeat, no citations. No references. No indication AT ALL that it is not a fictional thriller novel. Suspect at best, says a prominent conservative American newspaper... RGloucester (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

While I do not think we should remove the source outright, I do agree with others, that given the contentious/controversial nature of the event which is the subject of this article, that almost everything here needs to be corroborated from two (if not multiple) reliable sources (preferably from one from each side of the political spectrum or from neutral sources).

While I see the NYT as reliable source, I am also not under the illusion that it doesn not have has a left editorial page, and its news editors have a left of center lean (but not far left); same can be said that Fox News is a reliable source, but I am not under the illusion that the majority of their commentators (not saying anything about their news reports) are right and right of center (but not far right), and their news editors have a right of center lean (but not far right).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We have reached a point where almost everyone except for Myster Black is uncomfortable with the use of the "Definitive Report" because of its lack of footnotes and references. I find that this makes it unverifiable and hence not to be included. The question is what do we do about it. While I don't want to appear unduly harsh to Myster Black's efforts and willingness to change the prose, I would prefer that we take out all references that can not be confirmed by other sources. Most important for me is the unsourced explanation that Stevens was killed in retaliation for some (rogue) JSOC operation. Tedperl (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not ready to call in unreliable, as it does list sources, but no footnotes, making it difficult to confirm where they got what they write, so I would say that it is more questionable. Mark the source within the reference with Template:verify credibility; then we should look for other reliable sources that can verify the content being supported with the source. If another source cannot be found, be bold and remove the content. But we should look for those other sources first before just deleting it. And when deleting it we should post here what is getting deleted. As we have found out not everything about this event is yet to be known, and some things have since come out, and some things might come out later.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. I added the [[Template:verify credibility] tag to the paragraph that concerns me. Tedperl (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A new version of the Benghazi report does include referencing, though many of them are (as you can imagine) confidential sources. These are still important points of view. It has never been claimed the operations were rogue, just not deconflicted properly. I just want to take stock so the text can be most accurate. What parts are in dispute? That JSOC has and continues to wage war on al-Qaeda elements in North Africa, including Libya? That Brennan was the guy running things? That jihadis seek to wage war on Western outposts in North Africa, which would include a consulate in Benghazi? That many al-Qaeda elements took part in the attack? That it was a reprisal? I continue to believe as long as the source is mentioned (with a warning now!), it is pertinent reporting. Myster Black (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In earlier versions of the offending paragraph, you drew on the "Definitive Report" to say "their actions move a multi-billion-dollar counter-terrorist apparatus across the world, and its operations begin to get out of control...all with a non-elected political appointee running the show." and also "They report that with Brennan running a private war, he did not go through the normal chain of command". That does strike me as rogue. As to what I object to, it is the reprisal argument, since the cause of the event is one of the most critical components. But once you take that out, why is JSOC significant? And the rest of claims are non-controversial and covered elsewhere. Tedperl (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because a former military officer with confidential sources publishes a book, that doesn't automatically make it reliable. It's pretty clear that a number of editors feel uncomfortable using it. Given how pertinent many of their claims are (or at least seem), it should be possible to find corroboration in more traditional reliable sources if those claims are true. If we can't find those in other sources, they should be removed soon. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because a book is published that uses confidential sources does not make it unreliable. Most national security information is gained through confidential sources. In a perfect world, it should be possible to find corroboration in more traditional reliable sources if those claims are true. This is not a perfect world. There are many things that are true that are not corroborated by traditional reliable sources, and there are things that are untrue that are "corroborated". Many traditional sources linked the attack to a demonstration against the Innocence of Muslims video, which looks like a very troublesome argument now. Why is this source particularly unreliable? Myster Black (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's of course true that confidential sources don't automatically make something unreliable. Given that their content has been criticized in other sources and the book goes much further than others in discussing motives behind the attack, for example, the burden of proof is really on you. If the attack was motivated by special operations activities in the area, and there's evidence for it, why wouldn't the usual sources have reported on it the same way they report on the motive behind any attack? A lot of editors feel that we have no good reason to trust the book. In a perfect world we wouldn't need reliable sources at all, but that's how it works. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Myster, the point is not that "this source is particularly unreliable", it is that it is asserting a theory of the case that does have a conspiracy/rogue component to it and that is not verified besides anonymous sourcing. I checked a few online sources, such as Daily Beast and PJ Media , and they all have pretty much the same interpretation that I do, which is that is interesting speculation, but not verified. And Wikipedia's policy on this is clear: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." It is particularly true, when the claim goes beyond traditional understandings of the case "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". WP:EXCEPTIONAL So, either find some verification that this happened in the next week or so, or, as per RightCowLeftCoast I am going to be bold and delete the paragraph in question. Tedperl (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In their book, "Benghazi: The Definitive Report," Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb report a contributing factor to the attack were covert JSOC operations in Libya planned and executed by Deputy National Security Advisor John O. Brennan, with tacit support from Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, and Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Admiral William H. McRaven, which led to a retaliation from militias such as Ansar al-Sharia.[19]:25, 29, 56-58[unreliable source?] Sometime in mid-summer 2012, Brennan directed JSOC to conduct combat operations in Libya targeting high-level Al Qaeda operatives within Libya militia organizations. They report that with Brennan running a private war, he did not go through the normal chain of command, operations were not deconflicted (a term referring to the avoidance of conflict between operations among agencies), and Ambassador Stevens was not read in on the JSOC operations.[19]:58-60 The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the book,[120] and United States Special Operations Command made a statement that they don't confirm or deny operations.[121]

Is the above paragraph that is what is proposed to be deleted?

If so, 120 is to foxnews, a reliable source; but 121 goes to this website. I am unsure as to whether sofrep.com is a WP:SPS, or is a rs blog written by a known expert within their field of expertise. Perhaps 121 should be taken to WP:RSN along with the book?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the paragraph in question. There is no point in having 120 or 121 in there at all, if the whole paragraph goes, since they are essentially asking people to verify the claim in question. Tedperl (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tedperl that the JSOC paragraph should be deleted. The Daily Beast article Benghazi Book’s Outrageous Claims by Eli Lake, cites U.S. officials who deny the claim. I have searched and have not found a secondary WP:RS for verification. IP75 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ, you ask "why wouldn't the usual sources have reported on it the same way they report on the motive behind any attack?" There are many reasons why reporters would not report on this subject, including laziness, partisanship, fear of breaking national security laws, or just not having the right sources.

IP75, I have read the Daily Beast article. It appears the comment you refer is from Ken McGraw, who said "all U.S. Special Operations Forces work inside the established military chain of command,” and wouldn’t “work in a foreign country without the knowledge and permission of the U.S. ambassador or chief of mission.” I think this is a pretty weak denial. While it does address the chain of command issue (in very general language), it does not address JSOC operations in Libya, particularly those targeting al-Qaeda elements in the militias, and whether those might have precipitated the attack. I propose we include this comment in the current paragraph as an official response.

To all who are listening, I will make one final plea to include the current paragraph. In general, the account does not contradict traditional sources. The new version of the book does include citations, which was one argument against the source. It does go further than most in describing reasons for the attack using confidential sources, however the authors's standing in the field gives them background in reporting on such matters. We have an organized attack that is coordinated by multiple al-Qaeda elements against American assets in Benghazi, and information on JSOC-driven operations on Islamic radicals in Libya is pertinent to this story. There are other sources out there dealing with American special operations in North Africa in general. I have avoided including those so far because I don't want to stray from the Benghazi attack, but they are out there. I have worked with all of you to improve the language of the text, and I appreciate the input from all. Webb and Murphy deserve to have their reporting on Wikipedia IMHO, even if other reporters avoid the story. The page is richer with their information and perspective. Myster Black (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several possible outcomes:

1. ) find corroberating reliable sources, and keep content as is
2. ) reduce the WP:WEIGHT of the content, include the response
3. ) remove the content, include the book in a Further reading section
4. ) remove all mentions of the source altogether.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since no further documentation was found in two weeks and no one besides Myster Black has defended its inclusion, I removed the offending paragraph. This has the additional advantage of not making the outrageous accusation, again without real evidence, that John Brennan, Director of the CIA, was "running a private war".Tedperl (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Benghazi attack

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack → Benghazi attack – Actually what I was stating above is more of a request move per WP:COMMONNAME, which would be able to then follow WP:BOLDTITLE more closely. So there are multiple issues here. I understand that there were other attacks in Benghazi, but they too occurred in 2012, so adding a date modifier to the common name used in reliable sources isn't sufficient alone. So given that the most common name used to describe the attacks sidesteps the status of the attacked buildings altogether we should abide by the events most common name. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the issue regarding removing Obama this, Republican that, etc. from the lead, I would not be opposed to neutralizing it. Such things are much better handled in the body of the article. That being said, to properly summarize the article per WP:LEAD, there must be a neutral way to say there has been an ongoing controversy regarding the event, without getting into the back and forth which has occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to the title 2012 attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.(Possibly "the U.S. Consulate"; I can't decide. Red Slash 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I reserve the right to support a similar title, but both the current title and the proposed one are far too vague. Red Slash 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• OPPOSE all changes - "Consulate attack" cannot be used, as we do not know that it was a consulate, and many sources say it wasn’t. Nor can "diplomatic mission", as some sources say it was a CIA operation, which would not be "diplomatic". There is absolutely no reason to remove the "2012" which is necessary for disambiguation. "Benghazi attack" is about as vague a name as is possible. There is no way that Wikipedia can use that as a title. The present one is here because we lack information about what was attacked. Once we know, we can move it to "2012 Benghazi so and so attack". Until then, it should remain here. Removing the "2012" goes in the wrong direction. Furthermore, RCLC, moving it to "Benghazi attack" would still not be grounds for including the title in the lead. The guideline does not refer to whether or not the title is "common name", but the type of manipulative phrasing that is necessary to include it. It would still lead to awkward phrasing, like "the term so and so refers to". I do not know why you think it is so important for the title of the article to be in the lead, when WP:LEAD makes it clear that this is not at all necessary, and that, sometimes, it should be avoided. RGloucester (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Benghazi attack" per WP:COMMONNAME. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• oppose How about "Benghazi attack, 2012"? Tedperl (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose there have been many attacks in Benghazi, and many attacks on Benghazi. The other two entries of Battle of Benghazi can also be characterized that way. Not to mention when the DAK attacked Benghazi in 1941, etc. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been many attacks in Benghazi but for this subject he most common name used in reliable sources is "Benghazi attack", therefore we should abide by the guideline. Also this name meets NCE as described in "Examples of "where" and "what""; the where is Benghazi, the what, an attack. Other attacks, such as the attack on the Red Cross, attack on the British, the attack on the Tunisian consulate all use Benghazi attack as well, but the attack on the American facilities uses the term far more often and as such when one refers to the Benghazi attack, due to its common usage, most understand that one is talking about the attack in Benghazi on two American facilities that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Amb. Stevens.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All that suffers from WP:RECENTISM, a view from more than the last few years. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it will help to quote directly from a policy addressing common names. "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." Most of the editors here agree that the suggested title is far too ambiguous. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But the problem there is that there were multiple attacks in 2012 that occurred in Benghazi, so even its current name isn't sufficient. I have already shown that the most common name is "Benghazi attack", so how do we modify it to be more specific? Adding a year isn't sufficient, so how about September 11th Benghazi attack, as as far as I am aware there was at least one other attack on Americans, so 2012 Benghazi attack on Americans doesn't work either nor does the current name, so perhaps some proposals for better names are in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 11:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I’m not opposing a potential "9/11 Benghazi attack", however I would like to make clear that that title would not be included in the lead either, according to the same policy. RGloucester (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Such a change would make an already vague title even more vague. It is inappropriate to change a title to make it easier to use for purposes of WP:BOLDTITLE. The article title should conform to guidelines in WP:TITLE (specifically WP:NCE), period. If it doesn't lend itself to being bold-type in the lead, then so be it. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 07:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: agree - proposed title is too vague IP75 (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Other proposal: maybe "Benghazi embassy attack" would be better? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We know for certain that it wasn’t an embassy. A country will only have one embassy in another country, and that is in the capitol, Tripoli. Consulates, however, are often found in major cities outside the capitol. Nevertheless, we don’t really know what the purpose of the building was, so we cannot be specific. This has lead us to the current title. RGloucester (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose maybe 2012 attack on American delegation in Benghazi, as this can be used in the opening sentence as stated in our manual of style.—KTo288 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly not. There is no such thing as an "American delegation". "Delegation" to what? We cannot use such an outlandish title. RGloucester (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 attack on American diplomatic mission in Benghazi then.--KTo288 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use that either. Many reliable sources claim that the compound was a covert CIA facility, which would not be part of the American diplomatic mission. This is why we have left it at 2012 Benghazi attack, because reliable sources are all conflicting, and because they also use "Benghazi attack" to sidestep the issue. RGloucester (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally there were two American facilities that were attacked on 11 September 2012, and one of those American facilities was attacked earlier in 2012 so the current title can be referring to either attack and thus doesn't meet the guideline as pointed out by Hazydan. Therefore, another one of my proposed names appears to be the most accurate, as I am unaware of any other attacks in Benghazi that occurred on 11 September of any other year; additionally, it incorporates the common name used for the event which is the primary subject of this article.

The name change may not be what I originated this RM with, but that name was never the goal. The goal is to improve the article's title.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since you have already twice used the word yourself as a disambiguation of the other attacks in Benghazi, how about using the construction American facilities, maybe something like September 2012 attacks on American facilities in Benghazi, wouldn't be too artificial to use it in the lead either:- The September 2012 attack on American facilities in Benghazi were...--KTo288 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, but is there something more concise?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You don’t think "attack on American facilities" is artificial? What in God’s name is an "American facility"? A public toilet? The more words one adds to the title, the more ridiculous and contrived it gets. Our best option right now, if we must change it, is "9/11 Benghazi attack". I still think we should hold off. RGloucester (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To hold it off for what option? If September 11th Benghazi attack is the best neutral wording we can get, which incorporates When per WP:COMMONNAME, and the common name for the event, then let’s implement it.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn’t oppose it. RGloucester (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. What short memories and lack of historical knowledge some people have. Benghazi has been attacked many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title is entirely too ambiguous. COMMONNAME does not trump disambiguation. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.