This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RE: ongoing investigation and Congressional hearings
I don't see much on the ongoing investigation by the FBI and others, nor little about Congressional hearings on the Benghazi attack. While they might be able to fit in the U.S. government response section, it may be worthwhile to make new sections to deal with these topics. To all those paying attention, any strong opinions one way or the other? I lean toward new sections. Myster Black (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
With regard to building consensus, I don't have a problem relating militias as opponents of the Gaddafi regime, since the cited BBC piece article does so, but we need to be careful to avoid any original research in stating that this caused the formation of the militias. I'm not sure that the BBC article was clear on that point. This being my view, I would more strongly support "...militias which had opposed Muammar Gaddafi during the Libyan civil war." But per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should represent the consensus of editors, therefore I have decided to discuss rather than immediately amend. Does anyone see a problem with my take on a revision? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I like CR's rewordining, but my concern is that the lead is suppose to summarize the body of the article. No where presently in the body is there a mention of Gaddafi. Therefore, for it to be in the lead, the background section needs to be expanded that goes into a very brief, but neutrally worded, paragraph about the Libya Civil War, and the rise of the various militias, as well as the differences between the militias (the ones who opposed American presence, and the ones who favored American prsence, etc.)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it was a misunderstanding anyways. The reference to support the addition was buried down in the article with Gaddafi spelled Qaddafi, so I didn't find it. Partially my bad for not being thorough. The reference I was looking at was the BBC article that states "Senior Libyan officials say that while they welcomed the protests, people should differentiate between the rogue militias and honest rebel brigades that helped to secure the town in last year's uprising against Col Muammar Gaddafi." To me it looked like a contradiction. My WP:OR take on it is that people are saying members of Ansar al-Sharia did it and Ansar al-Sharia is saying it was a rogue group possible from their ranks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It was not reference the BBC article, but the NY Times article that was also cited for that sentence. It states: “The militias, which started forming soon after the February 2011 uprising against Colonel Qaddafi began in this eastern Libyan city, emerged as a parallel and often menacing presence after his downfall in October 2011, seizing territory for themselves and asserting their authority over the fledgling government"[1]. I did this for a simple reason: the sentence previously referenced militias, but did not explain why they even existed. Now, it is clear.
As far as RCLC's concern, I do not think it is an issue. The only reason this is mentioned is because it relates to the aftermath of the attack (i.e. the protests). One still does not know the real cause/actors for the attack. Going into any more detail about the civil war seems to be unhelpful at this point, until one knows more. Nevertheless, the protests should be mentioned because they are known to have occurred in the aftermath of the attack, regardless of whether an Islamist militia actually did carry out said attack. RGloucester (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
A new disagreement has arisen. Richard-of-Earth seems to want to include the phrase "Part of Reaction to Innocence of Muslims” in the infobox. I earlier removed the phrase, as that is a very contested claim. I don’t think that can feasibly placed in the infobox without POV concerns. He has reinstated it. What shall we do? RGloucester (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It should be included somewhere, given the weight the Obama Administration placed upon the video in the weeks after the attack, but I too understand the concern of it being in the infobox. Perhaps it should be embedded someplace into the lead paragraph?
I still have my concerns about content in the lead that aren't included in the body of the article. Perhaps, the body regarding the anti-militia demonstrations, to match the lead should include more background as to why the militias arose in the first place? Otherwise, the only mention of the Libyan civil war is in a collapsed template at the bottom of the article. If there is no change to the body, the explicit mention in the lead should be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Innocence of Muslims is already mentioned in lead, in the way you mentioned. I really think it has no place in the infobox.
I agree with you. The anti-militia demonstrations section should provide a brief background. That seems to be the best way to resolve this issue. RGloucester (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If no objection is heard before 11FEB, I will remove the content in the infobox that is indispute, as there appears to be a consensus formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
RG, I am so sorry. I only ment to revert the edits of the 2 IPs and not yours. I have no real opinion about that edit you made. I fixed it now. I will not be reverting any of your edits (on purpose) without discussing first. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two boilerplates atop the page. I believe that concerns related to sourcing matching article statements has been addressed. I recommend its removal. I think the worldwide view boilerplate has been useful in generating international sourcing. I also recommend its removal with the understanding that we still prefer this type of sourcing going forward. Are there any objections? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A significant amount of content has been added that references to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, a book that has just been released on 11 February. Now I will take good faith about the validity of the book, not having read it myself, however has this one source been given to much weight regarding its mentions in the article, specifically mentioned twice in the article? Also, are there other sources that corroborate what the book is used to verify?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I have read the book. To me, it appears to be an important report that fits most of the corroborated reporting elsewhere. I recommend getting it yourself so you can evaluate it independently. It is a quick read. I am all for adding additional citations where they fit, and look forward to the vetting of this source going forward. I mention it specifically in the Responsibility section because there are some conclusions that have not been reported elsewhere, so people can evaluate it themselves. Myster Black (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the best recourse, is that there needs to have a better summarization of the subarticle. The summary should be kept up to-date and no longer than two paragraphs, while keeping the highlights of the subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Good solution! Whatever we do, both here and in the subarticle, we need to be conscious of this form of bias: partisanship driving media coverage of the topic. My edit was meant to counter this. For example: partisan critics keep saying "why why why did they not say it was terrorism sooner?", and Petraeus replies "to avoid tipping off terrorists that we knew it was them", and the critics keep repeating "why why why" no matter what kind of answers are given. (Basically a case of WP:IDHT IRL. Of course WP policies don't apply IRL; I'm just using IDHT as an analogy, and a pretty close one, for critics' disingenuousness.) What I'm saying is that we should place limits on the extent to which politically-motivated repetition of talking points drives the article -- this per WP:UNDUE. Thoughts on this? --Middle 8 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it the view of Middle 8 that this article has POV issues?
Of course the summary should follow WP:NEU, but depending on who one asks NEU could be giving equal balance to all sides, or should skew based on coverage of reliable sources (this has been discussed elsewhere on wikipedia, with no consensus reached).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think this & the other article have, at the very least, minor POV issues. These could be fixed with edits along the lines of my comments above, including not burying the Petraeus comments cited in my edit. See WP:VALID. WP should be nonpartisan, and sometimes that means not weighting articles solely on the degree to which views are covered in news media. Examples include abortion in the US, evolution and climate change. Just because someone makes a lot of noise and the media covers it doesn't mean that all of that coverage is encyclopedic. In general the media want to attract readers, which makes for a bias toward sensationalism and controversy and false equivalence (again, cf. WP:VALID). That's my view on how to apply NPOV here. How much editorial consensus agrees with my take remains to be seen, of course.... --Middle 8 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. addendum to my comments just above (00:12, 20 February 2013): Basically I'm saying that we have to consider WP:WEIGHT in covering the investigation, since a lot of it is hot air (i.e. repeating "why" after questions are answered). As with a lot of weight issues, it's subjective, but hopefully some consensus will emerge. A good example of well-sourced but poorly-weighted and unencylopedic material is the silliness about Sen. Marco Rubio's drinking water during his SPTU response (which I deleted wholesale; who knows if that edit will stick). --Middle 8 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
A summary of the Petreaus testimony can be included in the summary of the sub-article. What else should be included to provide a balanced and neutral summary of the sub-article that neither favor, advocates, or denegrates the POVs of the Congressmen or the Obama Administration?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly how I'd approach it as well, re NPOV. I'd agree it probably should be in the lede section of the timeline subarticle; I'll have a look to see if anything else there might be changed. Then we could just the lede (or a modified version of it) here. (A good lede section is a fine resource. For example, I've used a sentence or two from the lede of Scientific opinion on climate change when a brief summary is needed elsewhere.) What do you think of the subarticle's lede? Will post more on that talk page when I have some ideas. Note -- I won't be doing much more editing for about a week. Thanks; hope to see you later. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to say that it falls far short from the mark of what a lead should be of a quality lead section. It claerly defines its scope, but does not summarize the article. The lead needs to rewritten, giving equal weight to both the concerns of non-administration notable individuals, and testimony from Obama Administration officials, while not advocating either sides POV. I know that will be tricky, but anytime that one deals with a politically contentious subject, it is usually that way. What actually occured is probably somewhere in the middle between the two dominant POVs (as it often is).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
