Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 8

Supporting the idea that attackers attacked due to video
Hi PeaceLoveHarmony, So, I get it. You're adding content and cites to support the idea that the attackers attacked the compound because of the video.


 * This attack was not due to a video. There may be some trying to confuse the issue by tossing that into the discussion, but the attack was due to hatred and ignorance. To say that this was not a planned action is to ignore all rational probabilities.  I don't care who you are or where your from, this was an organized attack with intended fatalities.  We gambled on the support of the Libyan People, and we lost..... 'Oh, gee, a video made me mad.  I guess I'll go get my assault rifle and tell my buddy to bring his mortar launcher ...' I don't think so.  This situation was fomented, calculated, and executed.  swampfoot (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"While there was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad, a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film.[54] It was reported by the New York Times[60][61], Associated Press[54], Al Jazeera[62], and a Reuters reporter on National Public Radio[63] that the attackers stated they were acting in response to the movie.[64]"
 * I'm wondering how the media sources you mentioned all happened to have reporters at the scene during the attack who could distract 'the attackers' for an interview.swampfoot (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked the AP story and could not find there the information that "the attackers stated they were acting in response to the movie." I do see in the AP story where the witnesses "suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack." Which is correct. Right? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, my apologies, I think that though the other articles discuss a link between the movie and the attack, that only the New York Times article explicitly quotes an eyewitness who says that the attackers said that was their motive.
 * So I would shorten this to say: "It was reported by the New York Times[60][61] that the attackers stated they were acting in response to the movie."


 * Since motive has been such a part of the controversy, I think it would be worthwhile to add a "Motive" section right before or right after the "Responsibility" section.


 * In the Motive section, we could have a discussion of the various motives and the controversy around it. With respect to the role the movie may have played it could say something like:


 * "It was reported by the New York Times that the attackers stated they were acting in response to the movie;the Associated Press reported that the movie may have provided the attackers with a cover for their actions. Al Jazeera reported that the attack was a response to the movie, and a Reuters reporter who had interviewed people at the scene of the ruined compound stated that 'almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie.'"


 * Obviously this section would also explore the other possible motives that have been discussed in reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

From the Ansar al Shariah statement on the Sept 11 attack released the day after the Benghazi attack- "Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West." http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php#ixzz2mpvANQIJ


 * There's quite a bit of evidence linking the video to the attack that is overlooked by this article. For example, John Rosenthal is a National Review contributor, and months ago he reported this (Al-Monitor, "New Evidence Links Benghazi Attack to Anti-Muslim Movie," 8 July 2013):

"examination of contemporaneous chatter on Libyan websites shows that locals really were in an uproar about the video in both the run-up to and immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack"


 * Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I just expanded the lede slightly to address the fact that the role of the video is an ongoing political dispute in the USA. I added a sentence referencing the year-long investigation by the New York Times indicating that the initial planned attack was motivated by anger at the video and that looters and arsonists subsequently ravaged the compound. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 15, 2014 took 16 months, and the bi-partisan finding on this matter clearly states that the video played no part in the Benghazi attack. See p. 32 ff of the report. Chairman Issa (R-CA) states that many administration career professionals stated under oath that "there was no evidence of any kind of reaction to a video and, in fact, this was a planned attack that came quickly. That's the evidence we have by people who work for the U.S. government and were under oath." The ARB Report from State Department released Dec. 20, 2012 found: "The Board concluded that no protest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks...." In sum: there is no dispute from U.S. government sources. There was no protest about a video prior to the attack. Based on this information, I'm reverting the edits made by PeaceLoveHarmony to the lede. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One other point: in all my time here on Wikipedia I have seen editor after editor after editor trashing FoxNews as a reliable source because of they're supposed conservative bias. To the point that I've had cites removed from articles because it's FoxNews. In this instance, it might be that the NYT is guilty of liberal bias. Just sayin'. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(In response to Cirrus Editor above) I do not want to have an edit war, but the sources you provide do not contradict the New York Times report which I cited, so I do not see the motive for removing this information, which is supported by reliable sources. There are two separate issues that are not mutually exclusive:

(1) Anger over the video and the extent to which it motivated both the initial attackers and the mob of looters and arsonists who showed up later and

(2) whether or not protesters were present at the scene prior to when the militia first attacked.

The text you reverted is not contradicted by the sources you have provided. And in any case, even if your sources did contradict the view that the attack was motivated by the video (and again, they do not), there are reliable sources that state the attack *was* motivated by anger over the video. This is an ongoing political dispute in America and we should present a balanced view of what reliable sources are saying. The YouTube video that you linked (of the highly-partisan Mr. Issa on a TV talk show expressing his own characterization of the committee's investigation) is a reliable source that documents his opinion, but multiple articles from the New York Times that cite interviews with eyewitnesses are also reliable sources.

The official goverment refs you provide do not address the question of the extent to which anger over the video motivated the initial attackers, nor if such anger motivated the mob that arrived later. They only address the question of whether or not protesters were present prior to the attack. They conclude that no protesters were present, and the New York Times article does not contradict this conclusion. For now, I am restoring the info that you reverted, as it is well supported by the reliable sources and is intended to provide a balanced view of this ongoing dispute in the American political arena. As for the reliability of Fox News or The New York Times I sometimes find it helpful to check other sources, e.g. Media Matters, PolitiFact, etc., to assess this question. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Singling out and giving undue weight to one report by one investigative journalist who did not have access to classified information that standing U.S. committees from both houses of Congress did is certainly also not editing from NPOV.


 * Please re-read my reply and cites above, all of which clearly state that 1) the attack was preplanned and not motivated by a video and 2) there was no protest prior to the sudden attack.


 * On these points it seems we have:


 * on one side: one report by one newspaper (the NYT) and
 * on the other side: the U.S. intelligence community, multiple career professionals who testified under oath in congressional hearings, multiple American and Libyan eyewitness accounts, Democrat and Republican congressmen/women, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee the Libyan president (see article), multiple other investigative reporters from many reliable source news outlets (see article), and, finally, newly declassified documents indicating that President Obama was debriefed on an "attack" not a protest or a video.


 * I'm reverting your edits to the lede. We could debate the differences in small changes, for example, between the words "premeditated" and "planned", but I really don't see the value in that. Your focusing on "the role of the video" is a red herring because the "ongoing dispute" encompasses many more aspects surrounding the attack. (There are too many to go into here; they're documented in the article in various points.) If you continue we can call in help. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Cirrus Editor, I think getting outside help is a good idea. Let's work together to improve this article.

On the day of the Benghazi attack and the following weeks there were protests and violent attacks in response to the anti-Islamic video in the following locations: Cairo, Egypt; Sheikh Zuwayed, Egypt; Sana'a, Yemen; Athens, Greece, Khartoum, Sudan; Tunis, Tunisia; Chennai, India; Jakarta, Medan, Makassar, and Surabaya, Indonesia;Lahore, Karachi, Peshwar, Islamabad, and other locations in Pakistan; M São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Calgary and Toronto, Canada; Dearborn, Michigan, Canton, Ohio, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, USA; Jalalabad and Kabul, Afghanistan; Dhaka and Chittagong, Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; Tokyo, Japan;	Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Gaza, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, Sydney, Australia; Mombasa, Kenya; Port Louis, Mauritius; Jos, Sokoto, Kano, and Kaduna,Nigeria; Zinder,Niger; Mogadishu, Somalia; Johannesburg, South Africa; Kampala, Uganda; Zanzibar City, Tanzania;

Apparently it is the view of the right-wing in America that of all these incidents, the attack in Benghazi was utterly unique in that it was absolutely not motivated by this video in any way whatsoever. To support this claim, they emphasize the evidence that there were no protestors present prior to the attack. They seem to think that the lack of such protestors proves that anger over the video was not a motivating factor in the attack. And they angrily denounce eyewitness reports and subsequent evidence that the attacks were motivated by the video {e.g. September 12 video of angry Muslims standing in the smoldering ruins of the compound as they denounce the YouTube video}.

The fact is, the official records that you have cited do not address the question of how much anger over the video motivated the attackers. They only address the question of whether or not there was a protest against the video *prior* to the attack. It is also important to note that the article from The Hill that references Diane Feinstein also says this: "The Times has received some high-profile support from Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA. He told CBS that the Times report had “the ring of truth to it.” “These kinds of events are a lot more nuanced than we would like them to be looking back at them in retrospect,” he said, adding that the Times investigation “kind of bears ... out” his initial assessment that the attack was carried out by a group that was “like-minded or low-end affiliated” with al Qaeda."http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi#ixzz2rNi2mLt Feinstein only disputed the notion that the attacks grew out of a protest against the video (a claim that the New York Times article does not actually make). Also: A spokesman for the senator took issue with The Hill’s characterization of Feinstein’s comments. “When Senator Feinstein said ‘loosely affiliated’ she clearly was referring to groups not directly connected to (or taking orders from) core AQ in Pakistan — which was essentially the conclusion of The New York Times as well,” said Brian Weiss. “So to say she ‘rejected’ the conclusion of The New York Times is an overstatement.”http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/195327-feinstein-rejects-nyt-on-benghazi#ixzz2rNjrqziY The New York Times report is a high profile reliable source and a former head of US intelligence has publicly expressed support of it's conclusions. The latest sources you provide are partisan Republican politicians who have appeared on TV talk shows to express their own opinions which in some cases are not supported by the conclusions of their own investigative committees. These are certainly reliable sources for their opinions. But they should not be given undo weight. As discussed in more detail above, your own links to government investigations do not discuss the role of anger over the video in motivating the attackers, or how much such anger may have motivated the mobs who arrived spontaneously (after the planned attack) to ransack and burn the compound. They simply conclude that there was no protest prior to the planned attack (which is what the New York Times investigation also concluded). This is not even an area of dispute at this point, and the conclusions of the New York Times investigation are not in disagreement with the official sources. They just provide additional details and nuance that is missing from those sources. The current version that you have reverted to is not NPOV, because it fails to note that the role of the video is a matter of dispute and it fails to provide evidence from multiple reliable sources (including a former director of the CIA and NSA) that support the view that anger over the video was a motivating factor in the attacks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PeaceLoveHarmony, you're using "shotgun argumentation" in your vast "response" and attacking a group of people ("right-wing in America" "partisan Republican politicans"), thereby revealing your own bias. The NYT remains a sole voice in the role of the video in the Benghazi attack, and it has been pointed out by multiple sources that liberal politics may have had something to do with the NYT report. Another editor has reverted your work on the lede. I see you've added a slew of new material to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence section, making it much much larger than any other subsection under "Investigation". You've also incorrectly stated in your edits that "A minority of Senators from the Republican Party offered additional views:" and then go on to list 5 bullet points. Three of these bullet points is from the main body of that report. Bullets 1 and 4: Finding #14 (p. 40). Bullet 2: Finding #9 (p. 32). Bullets 3 (in addition, the Senators noted resistance from the Obama administration) and 5 belong in this "Additional Views" section. I'll move those there. Oh, and I see you've also cherry-picked facts and stuffed the bullets of the main findings of the Senate report with only what can be deemed apologetic work for the Obama administration. (Your bias is showing, again.) More later. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

References and explanatory notes
There is a difference. They should be separated and all notes REQUIRE sources. I am going to remove all notes that have NO reference. Is there a way others feel these can be rescued without just adding them back without proper sources? And how about we start a "notes section"?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. In the article now I see References and External links. What are these "explanatory notes" of which you speak? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * References are the sources used to cite the claims and facts in the article. External links are extra reading outside of Wikipedia that add to, or enhance the information in the article. Explanatory notes are just that. Notes within the article that explain in further detail about the information. They should not be mixed together and all explanatory notes must have references as well. See Template:Notelist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Some issues, but overall not a bad article
There are a few things that I have addressed and a few more that I feel still need to be addressed but the article is very long, very detailed and seems to cover the subject broadly. I have a small concern that there may be some overt bias from both sides needing to be neutralized and every now and then I find unnecessarily qualifiers such as "CNN reports that" when it is not stated in the article itself. There are number of instances where the source DOES state that (something I always find amusing in media reports to see them mention themselves) and I have been sure to leave that text as is, since the reliable source is the one making the claim and we can then summarize it, but in other instances I have removed stitched together content referring to multiple journalist sites that was original research and synthesis. My only major concern at the moment (along with the smaller concerns) is copyright infringement as I did have to remove one blatant use of the exact wording from the source. Our policy is to remove it completely, text and source on sight without question or discussion so, it might be a good idea to scan through the entire article for other copyright issues. I think there could be a little more balance over all but for the moment I am not over concerned about it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your comments and input. As the editor with the most edits on this article, I can say that I've tried to maintain neutrality in presenting the facts. As you can imagine, it's not always been easy with this touchy subject, from both the far left and far right. Thanks again for your evenhanded treatment. It's much appreciated. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It reads pretty well and could not find any glaring omissions or lack of neutrality. I have removed some old dispute tags accordingly. Good job overall. Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Movement of content to sub-article
This article is getting rather long, and the content at Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack is out of date, given more recent reports produced by sources such as the NYT and Congress, perhaps content can be moved to the sub-article and a better summary provided here?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would take out the rather long bio pieces of the victims, with perhaps the exception of the ambassador.  It seems overly long, and there are also bio pieces in Wikipedia that they could be linked to.
 * I also think that we should take out much of the discussion of rumor and stick what are verified facts. See my discussion at the end of the Investigative Reporting section for the material that I would cut.  Tedperl (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)66.108.109.110 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That Timeline article is an elephant graveyard of facts. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My meaning is: I'd rather get rid of that Timeline article because I'd say at first blush that everything in that article is in this main article. There's the one image that's nice, from the Oct. 2012 congressional hearing. There might be other facts in that article that are not in this main article, but likely they're not facts/info that make or break the article. Likely you could start going through that Timeline article and scrape month by month, looking for things to bring over into whatever sections you can into this main article. Once done, just delete that Timeline article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To delete (or merge) an article, we need to follow WP:DEL, but IMO timelines are excellent devices for research, and I would oppose a merge or deletion. If the timeline article has problems, then WP:FIXIT Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. In order to delete the article would require either it meet speedy deletion requirements or be nominated for deletion and discussed at length in an AFD. However, merging may be done by anyone boldly without discussion. But, if reversed, that would be a considered disapproval or disagreement and then would require a consensus discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am vehemently opposed to deleting the timeline or removing out-dated material from it. Even if some early reporting was wrong, it can give insight into how the story developed. For example, an AP report the day after the attack noted that a high Libyan government official and some Benghazi locals had blamed the attack on the anti-Islam video. That was later determined not to be the case, but the news report shows that even Libyans thought the video played a role. I don't think any of this is in the article, so this crucial information would be lost if the timeline were removed or "updated" according to the latest authoritative conclusions. SDLarsen (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of investigative reporting section
I think the next major addition needs to be the investigative reporting section. I think the recent CNN report about dozens of CIA operatives on the ground should be added, as well as other reports about what the CIA was doing there. I also believe the reporting of Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb is some of the best out there and has unfortunately been mostly overlooked. I will start working on some text. Anyone else have ideas? Myster Black (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have at it. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but CNN is no longer a credible source. swampfoot (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * '... CNN report about dozens of CIA operatives on the ground' is a contrived non-story. Of course there would be CIA and other security personnel ASSIGNED to the region, housed in the CIA annex near the compound, as with any other Embassy site worldwide, and as with foreign Embassies hosted within the United States.swampfoot (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Come out of the shadows, Tedperl. You are holding Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy to a different standard than other sources. Almost every single source in this article uses anonymous sources due to the sensitive nature of the topic. While I myself do not consider their book "definitive", that does not mean it is not reputable and important. I am adding back some of the details you deleted. Please come discuss on the talk page before deleting with snide comments. Myster Black (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that we should delete all of the anonymously source materials. We had this long discussion last May. that went on for several weeks, and the consensus was that anonymous sourcing did not meet Wikipedia standards.  If you want to revisit this, I am more than happy to do so.  Anybody can claim anonymously sourced materials. If you want to pull our entire discussion from the archives, and continue from where we left off, I am very happy to do so.  I have nothing against your friends, but a strong belief that including all these rumors is not the job of something that pretends to the status of an encyclopedia.  I want to wait until we get some hard data.  Tedperl (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the old discussion:

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 [2] and PJ Media [3], 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: ) find corroberating reliable sources, and keep content as is ) reduce the WP:WEIGHT of the content, include the response ) remove the content, include the book in a Further reading section ) 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) Tedperl (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not my friends. They are 2 individuals who have reported pertinent information on the Benghazi attack, period. In this case, for many reasons anonymous sourcing is unfortunately necessary.  As long as it is clear they are reporting the information, I don't see why you continually attempt to delete the reporting, particularly if it is in the "Investigative Journalism" section. Myster Black (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Myster Black. At one point, I thought that you said that you would reach out to them for clarification, so I assumed a personal connection.  If you don't mind my asking, do you have any professional relationship with them?  Tedperl (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The authors are not investigative journalists, so their original research and conclusions should probably be listed under some other section header. BTW, this "overlooked" source is cited 15 times in this article (more than any other single source by at least a 2:1 ratio). Woodshed (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. We had a very long discussion last May, referenced above in which Myster Black was pretty much the only one who considered the pretentiously titled "Definitive Report" to be a reliable source.  Recently, he has tried to bring back the same arguments under the investigative journalism rubric. And you are correct, they are not investigative journalists.  I also find their willingness to make unsubstantiated claims, in the sense that there is no name attached to very serious accusations, of great concern.Tedperl (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To pick out one example from the previous conversation,
 * 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 2013Tedperl (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Woodshed, Uh, what do you define them as? IMHO, your definition of investigative journalist is too narrow if it does not include Murphy and Webb.  They are cited many times because they did the investigation and the reporting.  Much of their account has been supported throughout the last 8 months as facts have come out through other sources. Myster Black (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To Tedperl, Woodshed, and anyone else who is listening: almost every single source in this article uses secret sources. As I have said before, you are holding Webb and Murphy to a different standard than others reporting on Benghazi, all of whom are using confidential sources. No name attached to an accusation? I think you'd have a hard time referencing much of anything with that logic. How many times a day do you see "A senior official said" in the NYT, Washington Post, etc.? Your argument to remove everything with confidential sources is over the top. There could be almost no Wiki pages on national security topics if that were the rubric. Wiki would be a poorer place with those rules. I find your "pretentious" claim somewhat ironic, given your pretentious definition of who is and who is not an investigative journalist. To be clear, what exactly is your definition? While I agree their account is not definitive, it is still an important source. I have avoided including the most controversial aspects of their reporting in order to find a middle ground here. I have added things to the investigative journalism section because it fits there, and that section was not present back when we were discussing these issues previously. Myster Black (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Myster Black, I see your argument regarding anonymous sourcing more clearly now. Will be happy to address at greater length later on. I was only claiming that the title was "pretentious"--I have no animus against the authors, and the one time I read an interview about one of them, he seemed like a nice enough guy--but it is pretentious to claim, long before all the facts were known (and before they did some revisions), that an account is definitive.

And I do respect your decison to avoiding their more controversial claims and your willingness to seek a middle ground. Had you not shown a willingness to discuss these issues, I would have argued for not including anything from the book, since I don't find their sourcing convincing and a number of their accusations like those accusing the present DCI Brennan of running a multi-billion dollar, out of control secret war so outrageous that it undermines their credibility. Tedperl (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So where can we meet here? I find the reporting on lethal JSOC operations targeting Al-Qaeda personalities in the Libyan militias in the months leading up to the attack highly relevant to this page.  This was found by using confidential sources, but that is basically necessary.  Why do you not trust them compared to other reporters, particularly with their access to current and former members of the intelligence community and special forces? In my previous text that was just deleted, I never mentioned a secret war nor Brennan because those are more controversial aspects that speak about currently important people.  However, the point that JSOC operations against al-Qaeda linked militias were occurring in Libya is very relevant to this page and deserves to be mentioned.


 * Further, do you have a problem with the Way of the Knife reference by Mark Mazzetti? I would say it is a well-referenced book with more sources than pretty much any article you will find sourced currently. The sentence I added merely provided additional info about what the CIA was doing in Libya (controlling the flow of arms to rebel leaders), which is already mentioned.  It also provides important context to the later info in the background about attempting to collect these arms from militants after the civil war.  Do you disagree? Myster Black (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Tedperl and Mark Miller have gone silent. I will add text about the JSOC operations and reference Way of the Knife, while avoiding "secret war" and mention of Brennan. If you have a problem make an open, good-faith argument. Myster Black (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I did go silent, mostly because I did not have the time to make the longer argument about which sources I thought should be accepted and which not. I was mostly annoyed with the Brennan "secret war" arguments, and since they are gone, I will leave the sourcing argument for the moment.

The one issue that I would like to raise is the question of whether we are in the rumor business. I find the quotes to be issues of unwarranted (and not very well supported.)

"According to some of his colleagues, Ambassador Stevens was in Libya to purchase stinger missiles from Al-Qaeda groups that had been provided by the State Department during the civil war.[25] It has since been speculated[according to whom?] that arms shipped through Turkey to Syrian rebels fighting the regime of Bashar Al-Assad[26] were related to the American presence in Libya.[21]:56[27][28][29]"

The purchase missile argument is based on something said to PJMedia about future testimony that was reported in Fox. Since I don't regard PJMedia as a reliable source, and since to my knowledge, those issues were never raised in any testimony, I would prefer to axe this. I have similar feelings about the missiles shipped to Syria. Tedperl (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the latter point, see http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/HPSCIBenghaziUpdateJan2014.pdf which says unequivocally that:
 * All CIA activities in Benghazi were legal and authorized. On-the-record testimony establishes that CIA was not sending weapons (including MANPADS) from Libya to Syria, or facilitating other organizations or states that were transferring weapons from Libya to Syria.
 * I am inclined to leave this up for a couple of weeks and then delete these passages unless there is opposition. Tedperl (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For completeness's sake keep the material, and add to it using the HPSCIBenghaziUpdateJan2014 material denying the weapons smuggling connection. Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct the spelling of Shemm to Schemm in footnote 55.
Correct the spelling of Shemm to Schemm in footnote 55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.118.181 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ Thanks for the correction. GabrielF (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

there was no protest
At various times between September 11 and 17, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests the 3rd paragraph of the lead appears to contradict itself. if the RS state, there was no protest, giving space, in the lead, to the alt theory the attack was a protest or inspired by such is undue. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. it is a fact of the matter.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lede
Thanks for sending me a notice via email, Mark Miller. It helps with quicker responses. This was your edit to the article: done on May 1. Another editor had removed that text on April 22:. That editor's note was: "removing off-topic trivia on theory widely accepted as false." I think he was getting to the point that later investigations proved that there was no protest outside the Benghazi consulate before the terrorists launched their attack. I think that's beside the point here. I removed that language from the lede because it seems to me it's not simply trying to provide context for the terrorist attack on the consulte (for that we already have the notice at the top of the article ("For concurrent protests and violent incidents around the world, see Reactions to 'Innocence of Muslims'"), but it's trying to provide absolute motivation for the attack. In a non-POV way, too. Almost legitimizing the other attacks around the world by saying the video is "inflammatory". The language is also, it seems to me, trying to group all attacks into one large pot. This is generalization. So I think that language is 1) trying to place motivations where none might be (and where they've been proven not to exist) in this instance of Benghazi; 2) making the generalization that because attacks occurred around the world at x number of facilities, then this y instance must also, therefore, be attributable to the same cause; it doesn't have to be the case; 3) and so giving undue weight to this; 4) non-POV use of language ("inflammatory video"); although off topic here; 5) other editor removed language before me, so I'm merely reverting to what was standing text in the lede; 6) a link to the generally violent response to the video is provided at the top of the article for context, if that is your concern, which I'll assume on good faith that it is, and you're not trying to impart motivations to the Benghazi attack nor generalize it among the other concurrent attacks; 7) the language now there in the lede sums up nicely what the controversy is over the video: "First it was reported a [and a link is provided to the film's article page]. Then investigations by x determined y and that x." That sums it up succinctly, to me. Which is what a lede should do. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Senate investigation does mention those other attacks. Either way, Wikipedia is not sourced from American governmental investigations! VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor is Wikipedia a place for those with political axes to grind. Or vandals. I can see now why you opened two different accounts temporarily, made edits with both, then used just one of them to leave a nasty note on my user talk page. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are confusing me with someone else. If you are accusing me of having two accounts, feel free to run a SPI. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK...I am back. I see there has been no movement on this.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Security
I came to this article looking for information on the story about the embassy making requests to increase security prior to the attacks, and those requests being turned down, or ignored. I'm surprised to find nothing in this article about that. Did I just not see it? There is material about this issue, for example, this. --B2C 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"On May 2, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner announced that he is planning a House vote to create a select committee to rehash old material about the attack and generate headlines during the months before the 2014 off-year elections."

This sentence clearly does not have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themock (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014
In the first paragraph, please change "and another diplomat" to "and Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer."

Please change "killing two embassy security personnel" to "killing two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty." This fact was reported by UPI on 2 Nov 2012.

This fact has been confirmed by former Secretary of State Clinton.

Please include hotlinks to these three men's Wikipedia profiles.

asm70 11:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done. I am closing this request as a technical action only; I believe that this change puts too much detail in the opening paragraph. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 02:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of contextual information
Why remove very useful contextual information? Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Original Research
The sources for this edit do not mention the Benghazi Attack. To include references to anti-aircraft missiles in this article based on these sources is WP:original research.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We can discuss that, but why remove other material as you did here ? All these are good sources and provide very useful context for our readers. Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the sources for them say nothing about the Attack. It's original research to include them in the article.CFredkin (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am tired of your exclusionism, so I'll disengage, but I believe your edits are tremendously disruptive. Off my watch list. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't realize that pushing back on WP:original research could be considered exclusionary and disruptive.CFredkin (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Senate Intelligence Report in Lede
The following statement seems overly specific and undue for the lede as described by WP:lede: According to Finding #9 of the Senate Intelligence report, "press reports on protests...were simply copied into intelligence products" of the intelligence community and that these "erroneous reports" "caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers."CFredkin (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears based on earlier Talk discussion from about a month ago (above) that a few editors agreed that it should be included. However it doesn't appear that there was much discussion at that time, so I'm re-initiating now....

Also, it seems like a response to an accusation that isn't really being made currently in the lede. The previous sentence just states that the attack was initially reported as a protest. It doesn't make any statements about whether policy makers were truthful in public statements.CFredkin (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd remove it from the lede. 1) It's a micro-fact, but the lede is supposed to be an overview of the article. 2) As CFredkin points out, it seems to be a response to something not preceding it. Much better for the lede is the straightforward: "Initially, it was reported that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest, triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims. Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attack was premeditated and launched by Islamist militants." Thus we have: "First it was thought X. Then investigations determined Y." And 3) I searched the article and could not find where "Finding #9..." is. Put it in the body of the article, don't cherrypick for the lede alone. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

recent edits by Aspencork
Recent edits by User:Aspencork are not compliant with our policies on sourcing. For instance, Aspencork added the following: "During Congressional hearings, Ambassador Stevens’ top deputy in Libya, Greg Hicks, testified that Ambassador Stevens “was at the poorly secured State Department facility' in Benghazi on the anniversary of the 2001 9/11 attacks 'at least in part because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted to convert the department compound there into a permanent outpost and department officials wanted her to be able to announce this was the case when she made a planned visit to Libya in December 2012.”" This is written to suggest that the quote is from Hicks' testimony. However, the actual quote is from an article by cnsnews.com about the testimony. Misrepresenting the origin of the quote in this way is intellectually dishonest and is not acceptable per Wikipedia's verifiability policies. Further, the use of cnsnews.com as a source of facts is problematic as cnsnews is effectively the media wing of the right-wing Media Research Center. Relevant threads on WP:RSN can be found here and here. Given the high-profile nature of these hearings, we can easily find a better source that speaks to Hicks' testimony. GabrielF (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this. In fact, I'll go a step (a few steps) further and come right out and say...this article is one of the most biased, unencyclopedic articles Wikipedia has. Sources are being misused and text is being added to make claims that are original research. This article is a horrible mess of political bias and BLP violations.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided five sources -- two with videos of Hicks testifying before Congress -- and you two arbitrarily claim they are biased sources!?!? CNN!?!? The Guardian!?!?! Really!?!? How is quoting Hicks -- a direct participant in the events discussed -- biased? You are the ones and who are "biased" engaging in "edit wars". Aspencork (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you don't seem to understand what an edit war is. Someone reverted your contribution and you attempted to add the content back with slight changes but were still saying the same thing. Your sources are not all up to Wikipedia standards and regardless of whether the content is accurate or not is secondary to the fact that it was removed by two separate editors and a discussion begun. You added the content back at least twice without discussion. Per 3RR, changes to any content on the same article, whether it be the same or similar content, constitute a revert. But you were reverting the reverts of others to keep your content. That is edit warring. At the moment there is no consensus to include the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This does appear to be well-sourced, and GabrielF's initial concern regarding the quote can be addressed through editing.CFredkin (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is actually not well sourced and as you are new I feel an obligation to explain that partisan political sources should not be used to source facts and that is in question here, also, point blank NO, the concern is not addressed through editing. On Wikipedia when a revert is made a discussion is begun and a consensus is formed. What you are suggesting will get the editor blocked. When a discussion is begun, consensus determines if the content is included.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to CNS, there are references to The Guardian, PoliticalTicker, and Daily Caller. At least one, perhaps all, of these sources are certainly wp:reliable.CFredkin (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets form consensus as to the content and whether it should or should not be added.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the text from the last revert by CFredkin:

--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aspencork's revision is still problematic. It's not clear to me what this text has to do with the rest of the paragraph, which is about reports of CIA activities in the city. The text cites a December 2012 visit by Secretary Clinton as one motivating factor, but it fails to describe other factors cited by Hicks, including a September 30th deadline to allocate construction funding and (to quote Hicks) a desire on the part of Stevens to "make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.” This paragraph also fails to cite the reason for the timing of the visit given in the State Department report, namely to fill gaps in staffing. Aspencork also inserted the comment "[on the anniversary of the 2001 9/11 attacks]" into the quote, which I believe is editorializing. The clause: "Stevens was at the improperly secured facility in Benghazi because..." also strikes me as editorializing. I renew my objection to the use of cnsnews as a source of facts.GabrielF (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to agree with GabrielF. Even the re-edit appears to be editorializing and there is indeed a great deal of balance missing. I also agree that it seems out of place. I believe there is clearly no consensus to add the material back at this time. My question for is, do you think we should just point blank exclude all of this or is there a way you feel it can be improved enough to be included. Myself....I feel that this is out of the blue and perhaps out of context and seems to be written with a POV. At the moment I am for exclusion.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think GabrielF's concerns can be addressed by putting this content in its own paragraph (separate from the content re CIA). I would also propose to edit as follows. (I'm basing this on the Guardian and CNN sources and didn't see a reference to construction funds in them.)CFredkin (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two editors with concerns. Not just Gabriel. The above still seems out of place and still seems POV to me. But I have other concerns such as no citations to claims that are contentious and over referencing at the end of the paragraph. But I am still concerned that this is being pushed into the article by Aspencork when there is currently no consensus for the addition. When there is no consensus we revert back to the last stable version.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, the content in the proposed edit is reliably sourced to The Guardian and CNN. Personally I'm comfortable limiting the citations to these 2 sources to address any concern about excessive citations.  However if there's continued concern regarding the notability of this content (which also seems to be the case), we can certainly find many more references to reliable sources.  This content was widely reported. What specifically about the proposed content seems POV?CFredkin (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is better. Your text implies that making the post permanent was the sole purpose of the visit. The sources, including the Guardian source, say that this was "part" of the rationale for the trip. That should be made clear. We may wish to state that according to the State Department's Accountability Review Board, the trip was timed to fill gaps in staffing.(pages 6, 18) GabrielF (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with notability. We are not creating an article, just adding content. Thanks for taking time to propose the new text, which seems to correct some of Gabriel's concerns. As for me, I will need this to be to MOS standards and not add all the links to the end of the paragraph but added as inline citations after each contentious claim. I still have concerns that this is out of place and out of the blue, but if Gabriel accepts it I will as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to attribute the quote to Greg Hicks. Not sure why this wouldn't be in here at all. Seems vital to the overall investigation of the attack to have this in the article.-- JOJ Hutton  22:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is vital to have in regards to any investigation. But...and this is important, add the source next to the claim and as long as the text is not a copyright violation and the source is reliable and not partisan I, myself, won't take issue with it.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all for the input. I think we may be able to address the concern about any implications regarding the purpose of the trip by changing "wanted" to "hoped" in the proposed text above. That's consistent with language in the CNN source. I'm going to go ahead and post with that change. I don't want to delve into the ARB content personally, but someone could certainly propose changes to add that.CFredkin (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe now that we have reached a rough consensus. Adding the content at this point seems to be appropriate. There will certainly be some tweaking and changes to it, but that can be dealt with through editing as long as nothing is objected to by others. I will look to see how the sources are placed as that is one of my major concerns. (but first....I might have to make dinner)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:CFriedkin's text is definitely an improvement. Thank you both. GabrielF (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I still have a problem with all of you wanting to "allude" to what Hicks actually said rather than quoting him directly as I originally did. The sources are 100% valid now that I finally found the Congressional transcripts: printed and video. Aspencork (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't care that you have a problem, as much of what you are saying is simply not accurate. Sources may be valid and they may not be, but I am not going to take your word for it. If you have a problem with how Wikipedia works....perhaps this site is not for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a verbatim quote and not at all inaccurate. So, evidently, the problem is with you, since you are the one who wants to suppress the truth. Aspencork (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I'm nominating this as a Good Article. It meets all the 6 criteria. Going through the process could fine-tune it even more. — Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It will need a lot of revision to meet good article status. I hope you are in for a long-haul. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence! Sure. Why not? If the woefully out of date article Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a Good Article, I have high hopes. Like an ant. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first one to mention that the stability of the article makes it a quick decline candidate.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "stability of the article" is a bad thing? -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. If an article is unstable and has many edit wars and reverts, it is one reason that a GA review is "quick declined". I suppose the criteria can seem random or unfair, but it really is a part of the GA process. Generally, it is to keep articles that still have highly differing editors trying to work out the article and that would indicate that it is not a good GA candidate. Many controversial articles don't get listed in the early stages of the article or for some time while it is topical.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
I am very concerned that the article contains too much original research and analysis of sources that are not actually in or from the source being used. We can't say that a media personality or news network did something and then just use the primary source that demonstrates that they did it. You have to have a secondary source for the interpretive claims. The primary source is only illustrative. Now, if you want to quote from a primary source you can do so, but may only mention what is being said by the figure and nothing else. No interpretations or analysis of the source. You can say: John Smith stated: "Statement from John Smith". But cannot make any other reference to the primary source. For example, if Rachel Maddow does something on her website or show and we wish to mention it, we need more than a video of her show or the website article that shows her doing it. An independent, reliable, secondary source must be used to cite the content. This article misuses primary sourcing far too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with using primary sources is that in the long run it becomes original research to just add opinions and primary source quotes to support claims using Wikipedia's the voice of authority if there is no overarching secondary source that is being summarized. I am not tearing my hair out about all the primary sources being used to reference claims at the moment, just that they be formatted to comply with Wikipedia standards and then we can research the claims from the article that lack secondary sourcing and add them. I really don't think the material on the page was pulled out of thin air, but it needs a good copy edit and trimming because the article is seriously "overgrown". I am not a deletionist. I will try to rescue the content and if I can, immediately strengthen it with secondary sourcing from the article if I can, but I did leave a lot of primary source claims because I am sure, with a little time, they can be strengthened with secondary sources. Wherever we cannot find secondary sources we just have to ask if the use of the primary source is too random or if there is context to the section it is in to support the primary source quote or summary. The difficult part of summarizing primary sources is that you can only mention things that are clearly just listing content that can easily be verified by looking such as dates, names, and specific items, subjects or topics as clearly shown in the primary source. You can't analyze or interpret what the source says. I am also not going to try to trim the entire article at once. I started one section and will try to research out the topics to night and find secondary sources if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)