Talk:13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Demographics of support
Moving into the opening weekend (I just saw the movie, it's great) Donald Trump rents a theater and offers free tickets for people that RSVP. Obviously, he hopes to influence caucus voters before Monday, February 1st. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Free promotion
Ted Cruz mentioned the movie to begin his closing statement in the sixth Republican debate (watched by 11million viewers). The next day, Donald Trump made his spash renting a theater in Iowa. Here is what Ted Cruz said, to applause: CRUZ: "13 Hours" -- tomorrow morning, a new movie will debut about the incredible bravery of the men fighting for their lives in Benghazi and the politicians that abandoned them. I want to speak to all our fighting men and women. I want to speak to all the moms and dads whose sons and daughters are fighting for this country, and the incredible sense of betrayal when you have a commander-in-chief who will not even speak the name of our enemy, radical Islamic terrorism, when you have a commander-in- chief who sends $150 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who's responsible for murdering hundreds of our servicemen and women. I want to speak to all of those maddened by political correctness, where Hillary Clinton apologizes for saying all lives matter. This will end. It will end on January 2017. And if I am elected president, to every soldier and sailor and airman and marine, and to every police officer and firefighter and first responder who risk their lives to keep us safe, I will have your back.(APPLAUSE)" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, Democrat contender Bernie Sanders is mentioning HRClinton's role and Benghazi very often! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Could have been a Great Movie if
Stated how this happened

First Democrat President Obama's Foreign Policies since March 2009 of "Regime Change" as the Overthrows of U.S. Allies "Established Governments"; U.S. Ally President Mubarak of Egypt, A u.S. Ally since 1973 (neighbor Nation to Libya; Egypt Strategic to attack Libya), Overthrown by the President Obama Supported Muslim Brotherhood aka "Islamic Democracy Movement" later renamed Islamic State Egypt and Islamic State Sinai (that blew up Russian Federation Passenger Aircraft); U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi, a U.S. Ally since 2006, as Required by U.S. Alliance Agreement U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi had his Libyan Military "Aggressively Fighting" the Muslim Terrorist Organizations this kept the Muslim Terrorist Organizations stuck fighting the U.S. Ally Libyan Military and kept the Entire Continent of Africa Stablized; U.S. Ally President Saleh of Yemen forced to resign as threatened by the President Obama Administration, U.S. Ally President Saleh was the Key U.S. Ally that provided unlimited support for the U.S. to shutdown the Original Osama Bin Laden Muslim Terrorist Organization Training Camps to conduct Terrorism against the U.S. Ally Saudi Arabian Government to force the U.S. Military Bases out of U.S. Ally Saudi Arabia, as U.S. Military Bases at Muslim Nations being used to murder Muslims at other Muslim Nations as proven by Democrat President Clinton's 1993, 1996 U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks and U.S. Airstrikes against Baghdad Iraq, killing thousands of Innocent Men, Women, Children only causing the over 1.8 Billion Muslims Worldwide to believe and support Osama Bin Laden, the final straw was Democrat President Clinton's 1998 Declared War Against Iraq, U.S. Law, "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" with Authorization Use of (U.S.) Military Force (AUMF) with this U.S. Law Democrat President Clinton then Ordered the U.S. Airstrikes and U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks against Baghdad Iraq, by then there were no more Iraqis Government and Iraqis Military Targets at Baghdad Iraq so Democrat President Clinton had the Crowded Urban Poor Areas of Baghdad Iraq attacked, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis Men, Women, Children; after the Failure of the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings, Osama Bin Laden was Unpopular and lost Support, to regain Support and Popularity Osama Bin Laden 1998 Declared Revenge for the Murders of the Innocent Poor of Islam murdered during Democrat President Clinton's 1998 Operation Desert Fox, with the "Islamic World" then Declaring the U.S. The Great Satan". Democrat President Obama's Overthrow of U.S. Ally President Assad of Syria, a U.S. Ally since 1990.

September 11, 2001, Osama Bin Laden accomplished his Declared Revenge for the Murders of the Innocent Poor of Islam; New Republican President Bush, Ordered by Executive Order, the creation and implementation of CIA Operation Neptune Spear (authored by Lieutenant General McChrystal and Admiral McRaven), It is absolutely necessary to Locate and Capture Osama Bin Laden for the U.S. to gain his (OBL) Thought Processes and Planning Processes he (OBL) imprinted on his Al Quada Leadership, for the U.S. to preemptively interdict Al Quada Activities Worldwide. This CIA Mission/Operation Failed as previously Democrat President Clinton had Destroyed the U.S. Defense 1993 to 2001, No Longer Funded were the U.S. Funded Worldwide Intelligence Assets, there were no U.S. Funded Local Afghan Intelligence Assets, to assist the CIA and attached U.S. Military Special Warfare Forces to Locate, Capture Osama Bin Laden and to avoid capture by Millions of Afghan Taliban.

Worldwide the over 1.8 Billion Muslims start to Worship Osama Bin Laden as their Modern Day Hero Holy Warrior of Islam, up there with Mohammad and Allah.

Last attempt President Bush's CIA Operation Neptune Spear as conducted by CIA Director Leon Panetta using President Bush's Executive Orders, 2001 CIA Operation Neptune Spear, President Bush's 2006 Amended U.S. No Assassination Policy as the Authorization to Terminate Osama Bin Laden Failing his Capture, conducted CIA Operation Neptune Spear from a CIA SCIF, NOT the Whitehouse only full of Spectators as Democrat President Obama fearing for his Political Career and Reelection "Politically Distanced" himself from CIA Operation Neptune Spear.

Democrat President Obama Insulted the over 1.8 Billion Muslims Worldwide with his Reelection Speech "Osama Bin Laden Is Dead, General Motors Is Alive", as two events Democrat President Obama had nothing to do with, 2008 Democrat President Obama was not U.S. President, Republican President Bush was responsible for the 2008 Loans to GM and Chrysler to keep them Alive. In response to Democrat President Obama's Insults the Imams at the Mosques Worldwide "Obama Declared War Against Muslims (Islam)", at Rallies Worldwide the Muslims chanted "Obama, Obama, We Are All Osama"; then the President Obama Supported Muslim Brotherhood attacked the U.S. Embassy Cairo Egypt, U.S. Consulate Alexandria Egypt; Pakistanis Taliban attacked the U.S. Consulate Pakistan killing two U.S. Civilians; Afghan Taliban attacked the "Green Zone" Kabul Afghanistan; the Iranians living at Iraq supported by Democrat President Obama as the Shia of Iraq attacked the U.S. Embassy Baghdad Iraq and U.S. Consulate Basra Iraq; the President Obam Supported "Libyan Rebels" of Non Libyan Citizen Al Quada Ansar Al Shariah attacked the U.S. Consulate Benghazi Libya and the CIA Annex Benghazi Libya, then President Obama's Supported Al Quada Ansar Al Shariah attacked neighboring Nation Tunisia attacked the the U.S. Embassy Tunisia and took over the U.S. Embassy Tunisia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pJGX1JzyFc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udSEcQbM308

U.S. Ambassador Stevens went to the U.S. Consulate Benghazi Libya from the highly protected U.S. Embassy at Tripoli to Destroy the U.S. Department of State and CIA Documents; however, since the previous Democrat President Obama U.S. Airstrikes and U.S. Cruise Missile Attacks the Libyan Electricity was not working so the U.S. Consulate electric document shredders did not work, the Electric Generators were not finished being installed, so using fuel U.S. Ambassador Stevens attempted to burn the U.S. Department of State and CIA Documents while inside the U.S. Consulate, resulting in the building catching on fire, but the Documents of high quality flame resistant paper did not burn only produced large amounts of smoke, the Democrat President Supported "Libyan Rebels" of Al Quada Ansar Al Shariah would capture these Documents and post them on the Internet, as the Mission of the CIA Annex was to Locate the over 2,000 Russian Federation SA-7 Anti Aircraft Missiles and Especially the 400 U.S. FIM -92 Anti Aircraft Missiles that were sold to U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi by the U.S. Department of State Foreign Military Sales Program when President Gaddaffi was a U.S. Ally; as well as, destroying any Documents that indicated that President Gaddaffi was a U.S. Ally since 2006.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham, Commanding Officer of U.S. AFRICOM, successful U.S. Military Operation Odyssey Dawn and United Nations Unified Protector, Demanded President Obama's Presidential Authorization to send the U.S. Military Forces of U.S. Military Operation Odyssey Dawn located less than Two Hours away during the 13 Hours of attacks to assist or Rescue the U.S. Citizens; the U.S. Military Special Warfare Forces (Battalions; and a U.S. Air Force Special Operations Wing of AC-130Ws were less than one hour away) were less than one hour away; the armed MQ "Drones" were at the same Base as the Unarmed RQ "Drones" that were sent as less than 30 minutes away. Democrat President Obama refuses General Ham's demands, relieved General Carter Ham of Command and Forced Retirement.

Previously, Democrat President Obama's 2009 Foreign Policies got the U.S. KICKED OUT OF IRAQ, December 2011, by the Ally of Iran, the Shia of Iraq Government, as Democrat President Obama Refused to allow the U.S. Negotiators to use the threat of the Withdrawal of U.S. Aid And U.S. Assistance (U.S. Citizen's Money) to Force the Shia of Iraq Government to Renew the Republican President Bush Status Of Forces Agreements (S.O.F.A.) or to negotiate a New Status Of Forces Agreement Iraq. With the U.S. KICKED OUT OF IRAQ, nobody controlled the Autonomous Kurdistanis Region, the Kurdistanis Ally of Iran as Non Syrian Citizen "Obama Syrian Rebels" then attacked U.S. Ally Syria a U.S. Ally since 1990, to seize Syrian Land to form their Muslim Nation of Kurdistan. The Democrat President Obama Supported Shia of Iraq Government then KICKED OUT THE ACTUAL IRAQIS (Arabs, Language Arabic, Sunnis) from the Iraqis Government and the Iraqis Military, the Actual Iraqis of the Iraqis Professional Military of Iraqis President Saddam Hussein then formed the "Islamic Democracy Movement Iraq" later renamed Islamic State Iraq to take back their Nation of Iraq from the Non Iraqis Citizen Shia of Iraq (Persians, Language Farsi (Iranian), Shia (plural Shiites), and the Non Iraqis Kurdistanis (Indo Europeans, Language their form of Farsi (Iranian), Shia (plural Shiites)).

After the Main Osama Bin Laden Muslim Terrorist Training Camps at U.S. Ally Yemen were shutdown with the Strategic Support of U.S. Ally President Saleh of Yemen, the Muslim Terrorist Organizations relocated to the Autonomous Kurdistanis Region, Iran's Qods (Quds) then Trained, Armed, Funded Millions of Holy Warriors of Islamc at the Autonomous Kurdistanis Region of Millions of Kurdistanis, Al Quada Saudi Arabia, Al Quada Syria, Al Quada Iraq, Al Quada Afghanistan, Al Quada Yemen, AQIM, AQAP, etc., Muslim Chechen Foreign Fighters, Hamas Foreign Fighters, Pakistanis Taliban, Boko Haram, Ansar Al Islam, Ansar Al Shariah, Muslim Brotherhood, etc..

During the Iran Iraq Wars, 1979 to 1990, the Traitorous Kurdistanis living at Iraq fought on the side Iran against U.S. Ally Iraq, after the Peace Accords, the Kurdistanis continued to fight against the Iraqis until Iraqis President Saddam Hussein used Chemical Weapons 1991 to finally end the Kurdistanis and Shia of Iraq still fighting the Iran Iraq Wars, the same as the U.S. use of Nuclear Weapons to finally End World War 2. After the 1979 Fall of U.S. Ally Shah of Iran, Millions of Iranians fled to U.S. Ally Iraq as Illegal Aliens, that refused to become Iraqis Citizens as Loyal Iranians yet demanded Iraqis Citizen's Rights, Benefits and Entitlements; just like the over 23 Million Illegal Aliens at the U.S..

During the "Peace Flotillas" of Holy Warriors of Islam returning to their Nations of Origin from the Autonomous Kurdistanis Region, Democrat President Obama Praised and Supported the "Peace Flotillas" of the "Islamic Democracy Movement" (that later renamed themselves Islamic State) as the "Arab Spring" (Overthrows of U.S. Allies Established Governments"), and condemned the Democratic Nation of Israel for attempting to stop them. Hundreds of Thousands of Fully Armed, Trained, Funded Muslim Brotherhood would land at Alexandria Egypt, then went to Cairo Egypt to Overthrow U.S. Ally President Mubarak, after U.S. Ally President Mubarak in accordance with the U.S. Alliance Agreement reported to Democrat President Obama "Increased Al Quada Activities, Democrat President Obama Ordered the U.S. Department of State to Stop All U.S. Aid, U.S. Assistance, U.S. Military Assistance to U.S. Ally Egypt, after the Muslim Brotherhood Overthrow of U.S. Ally President Mubarak using Insurgency Warfare (threatening the lives of Egyptian Citizens to Vote for the Muslim Brotherhood Candidate), the Muslim Brotherhood supported more Holy Warriors of Islam to attack neighboring U.S. Ally Libya from Former U.S. Ally Egypt. The Strategic Goals of the Holy Warriors of Islam, Overthrow U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi of Libya, Seize the Decades of Libyan Military Weapons, Ammunition, Munitions, Military Equipment, etc. at Hight Razma Benghazi Libya to Resupply the Millions of Holy Warriors of Islam Worldwide and stop U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi's Libyan Military from using these weapons against the Muslim Terrorist Organizations; especially of interest to Al Quada were the over 2,000 Russian Federation SA-7 Man Portable Anti Aircraft Missiles, 400 U.S. FIM 92 Man Portable Anti Aircraft Missiles, long range high altitude missiles like those used at Ukraine to shoot down the Malaysian Passenger Aircraft, "To Shoot Down U.S. Commercial (Passenger and Cargo) Aircraft to Cripple the U.S. Economy" - U.S. Democrat President Obama's Supported "Libyan Rebels" of Al Quada Ansar Al Shariah.

In accordance with the U.S. Alliance Agreement U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi reported "Increased Al Quada Activities" to President Obama; In Violation of U.S. Law, War Powers Resolution, Democrat President Obama, Ordered the U.S. Pearl Harbor Surprise Attacks against U.S. Ally President Gaddaffi of Libya, to Support the attacks from Former U.S. Ally Egypt of the Non Libyan Citizen "Obama Libyan Rebels" of Al Quada Ansar Al Shariah made up of Hamas Foreign Fighers, Al Quada Saudi Arabia, Al Quada Yemen, AQAP, AQIM, Al Quada Iraq, Al Quada Syria, Hamas Foreign Fighters, Pakistanis Taliban, even some Afghan Taliban, etc..

2010 the Pakistanis Government found out about Democrat President Obama's Secret Negotiations with the Muslim Terrorist Organizations at Germany to Overthrow U.S. Allies Established Governments and turn over those Nations to Muslim Terrorist Organizations from the U.S. Army Private Manning Wikileaks. The U.S. Ally Pakistanis Government then demanded the U.S. Military Bases and RQ/MQ "Drone" Bases Out of Pakistan fearing Democrat President Obama would use these to Overthrow the U.S. Ally Pakistanis Government. Without the U.S. Military Logistics Support Bases at Pakistan to Support the United Nations Coalition at LANDLOCKED U.S. Ally Afghanistan the Unsupportable United Nations Coalition must Abandon U.S. Ally Afghanistan No Later Than 2014. Previously, after the U.S. Abandoned U.S. Ally Afghanistan after CIA Operation Cyclone, Millions of Afghans returned from Iran many had fought against U.S. Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars and became the 1990s Afghan Taliban, the 1990s Afghan Taliban then Massacred the U.S. Abandoned Pro U.S. Afghan Muhajeen, Unopposed the 1990s Afghan Taliban then Massacred about a Million Afghan Men, Women, Children (Entire Families, Generations) as possible Collaborators to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers, this is why the Afghans do not want to be Abandoned by the U.S. again, since the 1950s the U.S. had built up U.S. Ally Afghanistan as a "Little America"; during the 1960s the U.S. "Hippie" Generation built Communes and started growing poppies (for Heroine, Opium) to fund the U.S. Communes at Afghanistan.

Who wrote the above fantasy? Pcolley (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

On Location
I thought the photography was amazing, and wondered the location. Today, on the main Wikipedia page it instructs, "Did you know ... that 13 Hours, a dramatization of the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, is filming in Malta and Morocco?" TNKS, AstroU (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Box office receipts
On Monday, January 18th, after opening weekend, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ reports: $5,925,000(est.) for Friday, opening day; $5,785,000(est.) for Saturday; and $4,290,000(est.) for Sunday; in 2,389 theaters, totalling $16million. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: What was the film budget/cost??
 * There is already a 'box office' section under 'reception' and the receipts for Martin Luther King, Jr, weekend were estimated to be $19million (production budget of $50million). -- AstroU (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot
Can someone add the full plot to the plot section? Just to show any differences in historical accuracy that isn't included in the historical accuracy tab? Just needs a whole plot overview like the other war films like Lone Survivor or Defiance. - Theironminer (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe bias detected in historical accuracy section
The historical accuracy section reads like it was ripped straight off of a pro Hillary fan blog. And the sources are a who's who of bought & paid for far leftist outlets. An ethical vacuum is what they all share. One or two such instances and I would assume good faith. But a whole section? It reeks of bias.

LOL @ randomly citing some quote from Zack Beauchamp, a writer for ThinkProgress. What authority does he have to comment on the accuracy of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B14E:E693:85D6:42EB:A488:2958 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please leave your personal POV at the door when editing. NPOV requires the inclusion of criticism when it's found in reliable sources, and Vox is a good source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not Conservapedia. Please assume good faith.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While Vox may be a "good source", Beauchamp's article is strictly an opinion piece. There is no evidence that he has any personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the events of September 11, 2012. His quotes do not belong in the "historical accuracy" section of the article. Bones357 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Over time, we will have to consider the liberal bias. But for now, remember that the film makers wanted to avoid being a lightning rod and make it just about the brave six men and what they saw. If other people want to make their own movie based on the Whitehouse point of view, they can. You can note that no names are mentioned in the movie, above "The Chief" locally. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone editing here should watch the four-minute interview of Michael Bay: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4712583219001/michael-bay-enters-the-no-spin-zone/?intcmp=hpbt4#sp=show-clips (with Bill O'Reilly) where they note avoiding politics. Michael Bay answers these questions. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is NOT Conservapedia and the point of this page is not to weed out anyone with a "liberal bias". Vox is a reliable source and therefore the content should stay. This article is also not an advertisement for the movie and just because you think the movie was good, does not mean everyone else agrees with you. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC) ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Properly sourced opinions and biased sources are perfectly proper content at Wikipedia. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and that obviously includes opinions of all types. To make it clear that biased content is not from editors, attribution is essential, and that's why Beauchamp's name is used. The more strong and biased a statement, the more likely it should be an exact quote attributed to the author. These are situations where paraphrasing is usually not appropriate. We don't leave out such content, we simply frame and attribute it properly. Censorship is not allowed, and all significant POV should be mentioned. We don't write hagiographies or sales brochures here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And let's quote the 'secret soldiers' that were there as to the accuracy. There are numerous reliable interview that can be quoted. WP readers can decide for themselves which encyclopedia information is to be believed, IMHO. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Although the film creators intended "13 Hours" to honor the secret soldiers and not be political, in light of the HRClinton Campaign, it is highly political, and as is said, the victors write the history.
 * To quote from the section: "Former Special Forces Officer Kris "Tonto" Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night ..." (He is quoted on the "Stand down" order.) -- AstroU (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Zack Beauchamp is a Think Progress blogger who just recently graduated poli-sci from a budget ivy league college and then got an MS in international relations. He's no expert or heavyweight and his credentials are no better than hundreds or thousands of other lefty bloggers. Sourcing policy requires us to look at the author, not just the publication, and to explicitly attribute and identify the source where appropriate. I have done that here. Also his single opinion piece was being used to "refute" claims in a very inappropriate point/counterpoint style; I have collected Beauchamps claims into one place where they are explicitly attributed, to avoid presenting them as fact sources and giving them undue weight.

TL;DR this guy is a hack who uses "TL;DR" in a piece that purports to be serious analysis.Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a master's degree in International Relations is exactly what does make him an expert. Wikipedia is not censored and you can NOT remove content just because your own political ideology doesn't agree with it.  Wikipedia is not Conservapedia.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a master's degree does not make someone an expert worth referencing ...there are millions of people in the world with Masters degrees. And to contradict your absurd statement that "Wikipedia is not Conservapedia" perhaps you need to be reminded that it isn't "Liberapedia either" so commentary by far left wing bloggers doesn't belong either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.202.37 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * None of your arguments are based on policy. The political POV of an author is not a reason to not use them. We are required to include opinions from all significant POV. The author need not be notable either, but in this case he is. (Notability does not apply to article content, only to article creation.) This also applies to Korny O'Near: I don't like it is not a legitimate reason either, and that's basically what your objections boil down to. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. If that were the case ANYBODY'S OPINIONS could be thrown onto wiki pages. 98.113.202.37 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument about notability is plain hair-splitting. Obviously, anybody saying the opinion isn't notable (which it really isn't) means that it is being given undue weight by being mentioned at all, or at least by being given extremely long, multiple sentence quotes.  Please note that the issue of weight has already been raised so there's no reason to dismiss it incorrectly as a notability argument. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If the article states that the accuracy is in question by journalistic sources, perhaps it should be stressed that the accuracy is attested by the people who lived through it and eye witnessed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.9.195 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct! Having lived through Hell, and having had time to think about the lies that were now revealed (lying to the families), the five survivors should be believed, and three go on FoxNews and other outlets to promote the film. Beyond the book, they worked 'on set' to help the movie be accurate in every detail. And they avoided the obvious politics against 'high officials'.  Leaving the politics aside leaves WP editors with eye-witness accounts. -- AstroU (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This section currently says "The real-life CIA chief has lied, stating that there was no stand-down order." That seems pretty un-objective to me. 138.16.2.174 (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington state shooting
The section was originally added on January 23 by VictoriaGrayson.

I removed the section (only one sentence, so definitely undue weight) 14 hours later as trivia.

VictoriaGrayson restored it over a day later.

Since my objections have not been met, I have now removed it again, and, requesting that BRD be followed, will let the community decide whether it should be restored. Let's discuss this.

Here are relevant links:


 * The section: #Washington state shooting
 * The source: Toxic gun culture at work: “13 Hours” theater shooting accident a sobering sign of our concealed-carry times
 * The policy: WP:TRIVIA

A parallel situation is worth considering: Trainwreck (film). I think it happens to be relevant for inclusion. It's a totally different situation and isn't trivia. It even has its own article: 2015 Lafayette shooting.

I still consider it trivia which doesn't belong here. Let's discuss this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Two incidences that are totally irrelevant to this movie and Behghazi. Keep them out! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zack Beauchamp quote
The following quote, from a piece in Vox by Zack Beauchamp, has caused a lot of edit warring; it has been removed by various people, including myself, and restored by others: The movie's attempt to make a real-life event into an action movie, and raise the stakes by telling an audience what they're seeing is a 'true story,' requires it to distort the events of September 11, 2012 — in some cases twisting it beyond recognition. And in doing so, the movie lends credence to some of the most pernicious conspiracy theories about Benghazi out there.

There are several issues with this quote, one of which is that it's not clear how notable a pundit Zack Beauchamp is; that's covered above. But the more relevant issue to me is simply that the quote doesn't add any new information. He's basically just saying that he doesn't think the movie tells the truth. But anyone reading the "Historical accuracy" section already knows that there's controversy about the truthfulness of the film, and they can see the specific breakdown of which specific claims have been supported/disputed, and by whom. This specific quote doesn't tell us anything more, other than that this one person strongly believes one side. You could add in ten more such quotes, on both sides of the argument, but it wouldn't improve the article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No legitimate arguments. See my comment to you above. I don't want to deal with this in two places. I will say this though: it is the only source we use which mentions an important point, that the film panders to right wing conspiracy theories, and that's an important reason to use the quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, this is two separate discussions - the one above is about the author, this one is about the quote itself. I do agree that "conspiracy theories" is an interesting phrase, though I think we can all agree that it would be better if someone could find a more notable author who said it. But in the spirit of compromise, how about shortening the quote to something like: 'Zach Beauchamp wrote that, in its retelling of events, "the movie lends credence to some of the most pernicious conspiracy theories about Benghazi out there."'? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I already trimmed that quote previously, by even less, yet you reverted it without discussion, making a quaint complaint of "censorship" that one would ordinarily expect from an editor with 0 weeks of experience.

Anyway though, 's points above are quite apt and you didn't address them at all (or rather, you made the puzzling or perhaps ridiculous response that he had raised "no legitimate arguments".) Anyway, to wit: the novice partisan blogger Beauchamp is not a fact source, and isn't adding anything at all—he's merely saying that he disbelieves the soldiers' claims about air support and a stand down order and believes the sources that assert the contrary claim. Even if we somehow give this source any weight, which we probably shouldn't, we might as well just fairly reflect his point instead of using vague polemic language to puff up the credibility of one side.

I'll also point out that so long as we're using low-quality/high-bias sourcing for contentious political claims, then there's no reason not to include some choice material from right-wing sites such as Breitbart or, as suggested below, Rush Limbaugh. Just FYI.
 * To be precise, Rush Limbaugh is a high-quality/high-bias source. Here's a discussion about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.242.127 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, just for laughs I'll point out that neither of the things Beauchamp refers to as "conspiracy theories" are actually conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is based on supposition and furthers the notion that others conspired against some person/entity/etc, to hurt him or it for nefarious reasons. But neither of these things is the case here: (1) with the "stand-down" order we've got at least one of the actual participants adamantly insisting that the official report from the political side is incorrect (no supposition there); and (2) with the lack of air support all that's being claimed is that there was no air support provided, either due to its actual unavailability, or due to incompetence of the commanders. There's no alleged "conspiracy" that the air support was deliberately withheld in an effort get the soldiers killed.Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You make a good point that Beauchamp is not an ideal source here. And the argument in his Vox piece is indeed weak, though to be fair it's not as nonsensical as you make it out to be. The conspiracy theories Beauchamp is talking about are not about whether President Obama, and/or someone else high-ranking, ordered a stand down, but why they did so - but all they presuppose that there was indeed a stand down order from a high level. Beauchamp is saying that this film, by showing a stand down order, makes it possible to believe those kinds of theories. In other words, his issue isn't so much that the film is inaccurate (though he believes that it is), but that it's a first step down a slippery slope toward believing in something really kooky. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The writeup of the film can stick with not mentioning what is obvious to everyone. "Official" reports only confirm the obvious. -- AstroU (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh mentioned the film today
There are 20million, mainly Conservatives, that listen to his daily radio show. He says he was promised a pre-release version by Paramount, but the offer was withdrawn to avoid pirating. Anyway, he was mentioned in Los Angeles TV by an editor of Rotten Tomatoes as a possible reason more didn't see the movie, yet. However, Rush Limbaugh said he hasn't said two words about the movie, one way or the other. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Did Woods die?
Sorry, but did Woods really die in the movie? I thought he got his arm severely wounded (nearly cut off), but survived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.1 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Where's the opinion of the Libyan people?
The film has been wildly criticized by the Libyan people and the minister of culture at that time Omar Al-Gawairi also criticized the film and at the Historical accuracy section there's no mention of the fact that it was the Libyan people who found the ambassador and took him to the hospital while US officials had no idea where he is according to the report of congressional committee on Benghazi.


 * I mean...that is what is portrayed in the movie...US personel search for the ambassador in vain, later on he is found by Libyans...Have you actually seen the movie? 178.15.151.163 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So where's the opinion of the Libyan people? Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by حنان محمود (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "So where's the opinion of the Libyan people?" - I think I'm looking at one, am I not? Why don't you add a piece into the article? As long as it meets wikipedia criteria of neutrality, POV, reference etc. there is nothing stopping you.178.15.151.163 (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

~ I've added the section. Thanks for your encouragement. :) --حنان محمود (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Home Media Sales
I feel there should be an addition to the article about the DVD/Blu-Ray/Digital sales as they have been quite significant, making over $40 million. , which is more than half the amount of money made from the box office.

I'm just not sure whether this is better suited to the Home Media section, or the Reception section, as it deals with the box office reciepts as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacB182 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bizzare Deroy Murdock Quote
Not sure what is intended in the historical accuracy section with...

"American conservative columnist Deroy Murdock wrote that the film confirmed his personal view that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lying when they initially blamed the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims for the attacks in the weeks after they occurred.

If a columnist really wants to say something that makes him look so stupid - that he gets his personal political views confirmed by a movie - that's his business, but why is it being quoted here. It does a good job of making the point that historical accuracy is important - that even in a situation where vast amounts of real research have been done a columinst would still get his information from a movie - then it does a good job, but then it still wouldn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Academy Award nomination
One of the members of the sound mixing team had his nomination rescinded (discussion on that person's bio's talk page). The remainder of the sound mixing team remain nominated. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)