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)
Investigation section expanded
I expanded the Investigation section to include missing info on all known investigations that are completed, ongoing, or proposed. Cirrus Editor (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
semi-protected
It is best that folks get accounts here - then people can discuss their opinions here as well and it can be seen who is saying what and why. I don't mind if someone else revisits the semiprotection if progress is made. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Attackers deaths in infobox
Why was the attackers estimated deaths, which is cited, excluded from the infobox? I had added it, and it was removed, with the claim that it is vandalism?!? The statement about attackers death is stated here in the article:
During the fighting, the CIA had successfully rescued six State Department personnel, recovered Smith's body, and had evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi alive. Just under 100 attackers were killed in the fighting.[18]:46, 48
That was my edit. I did not see that info in the text and thought it was vandalism. Reason being: I followed this story very closely for a couple of months after it happened and never once did I run across any estimate of "attackers killed". Not one. Then there is this book claiming 100 were killed? I did a little searching now and could not find any corroborating material. Can you supply any other cites besides that book? Or are they taking their "just under 100 attackers killed" from some government report? Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That book has been cited too much here, has clear and notable POV issues, and often isn’t confirmed by any other independent sources that I can find. I’ve looked. No where can I find material that says anything about that number of attackers being killed. Even if it was not vandalism, I don’t think it belongs until it can be independently confirmed, apart from that book. RGloucester (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried to qualify the language a little. I don't know if the negative assertion about the number not being widely reported is okay. I can't prove it obviously beyond my own googling which turns up nothing. Method3000 (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I also could not find any decent sourcing on numbers of attackers killed, so if the only source is the mis-titled, and non-footnoted "Definitive Report", I would take it out or at least indicate some considerable skepticism. Tedperl (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group led by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia. The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the main diplomatic building (FOOTNOTE, with refs: There is disagreement about the purpose of the building that was attacked. Initially, it was referred to as a consulate. Later, it was called a "diplomatic post" and a "diplomatic facility". Some sources, though, have said that it was in fact a clandestine CIA facility.) A second assault in the early morning the next day targeted a nearby CIA annex in a different compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. AmbassadorJ. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured. The attack was strongly condemned by the governments of Libya, the United States, and many other countries throughout the world.
Seems like basic info. What about it being a terrorist attack, which everyone agrees to now, but you seem to have your needle skipping on not including this in the first sentence. I don't know why. Scratch that. I do know why. Let's move on. I'll give up trying to convince you of including specifics on weapons used; I know, I know, they're in the info box. I'd just edit for grammatical sense: "...at a compound meant to protect..." Not sure at all about the FOOTNOTE and need for that. Splitting hairs? What refs will you use in the footnote? Also, I still like including the fact that there was a running gun battle from the compound to the annex. As in: "The attack began during the night at a compound meant to protect the consulate building and continued along streets to a nearby CIA annex, where a second assault took place in the early morning the next day." What about mention of American survivors and why no one has heard from them in 8 months?
Many Libyans praised the late ambassador and staged public demonstrations against the militias that had formed during the Libyan civil war to oppose Colonel Gaddafi. The Libyan government also began attempts to disband many of the groups. The United States increased security worldwide at its various diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the attack.
At various times between September 11th and 17th, eight other diplomatic missions in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe were subject to protests and violent attacks in response to an inflammatory video, Innocence of Muslims. Initially, it was suggested that the attack arose in similar circumstances, but an investigation by the U.S. State Department determined that there was no such protest and that the attack occurred without warning, was premeditated, and driven by what have been labeled "terrorist groups", such as Ansar al-Sharia. The video and the resulting anger may have provided an opportunity for the attackers; according to some eyewitnesses, they used the video as justification for the attack.
While President Obama referred to the attack as an "act of terror" in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attack, former CIA director David H. Petraeus later testified that the administration initially refrained from publicly identifying the groups that were suspected in the attacks, to avoid alerting the militants of their investigation.
Some Republican politicians, conservative media figures, and other independent critics immediately accused the Obama administration of mishandling the attack and its aftermath and of over-emphasizing the role of the video. As the incident became a focus of political discussion on the right, some Republican members of Congress launched their own independent investigations and hearings on the subject in the following months. These investigations are currently ongoing, and are a matter of great controversy in the American political sphere.
These recent edits seen to present many POV problems, and I'd propose that they be removed at once. Placing these at the start of the "background" section is entirely inappropriate. We shouldn't try to balance one POV with another, which is what this seems to try to do (the next paragraph is about criticisms against Obama, this one is trying to make Obama seem better off). Instead, we should be neutral. RGloucester (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Balance is part of neutrality. If a paragraph or section is dedicated to criticism of the Obama administration, that may already be a POV issue. Information about prior embassy attacks and funding of embassy security seems like valid background information, though I'm not so sure about some of the sourcing. – ʎɑzyɗɑƞ20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but the way it is done is not neutral. The whole background paragraph needs to be revisited. I'm especially referring in this case to the bit about "Republican cuts". It seems like an attempt to fight POV with more POV, rather than actually sort the lot out. RGloucester (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have NPOV issues, but I don't think that they should be in this "background" section. Perhaps in areas where we discuss the different ways that Dems and Reps frame the issue. There is a legit claim that there have been a number of embassy attacks, even if less violent and dramatic, which have not been as investigated as this one. Tedperl (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
"From 2001 to 2008, under the Bush Administration, there were 13 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities (not including attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan) resulting in 98 deaths.[16] The 2012 Benghazi attack was the second deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility that occurred during President Obama's first term."
"After they gained control of the House in 2011, Republicans sought successfully to cut the Obama Administration's funding requests for diplomatic security by hundreds of millions of dollars.[17]"
This is completely POV and is misleading.
1. Comparing attacks on embassies during Bush's administration with this are more partisan than anything else because the contentious issue is whether or not the administration denied requests for security, denied assistance to those calling for help, and misled the American public afterward. Not to mention, this is the first time an Ambassador, which is a very high level diplomat, has been murdered since 1979. The comparison here is misleading because an Ambassador in a country is ideally the most politically important, sensitive, and secured American. Finally, there have not been accusations of refusal to secure, misleading, or dishonesty in the attacks on the embassies during the Bush administration. As you can see, this is a debate of POV. It could be phrased in a more objective way.
2. The Republicans did not cut funding requests, because what they passed in the house was never passed in the senate, nor signed into law by the president. This is blatantly misleading. In addition, funding for the security came from the Pentagon DoD budget.
While testifying before the Senate, SoS Clinton acknowledged the accuracy of the email on 12/28/12 from the CFO of the Department of State, Robert Baldre stating that security was not compromised due to a lack of funding, agreeing with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, Charlene Lamb.
It would be better stated that this is a point of contention, however, as it is, it is written as fact when it is not. For the sake of objectivity, I would request it be reworded to sound objective, and if these facts are to be mentioned, both sides should be mentioned. DaCapitan (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
RGloucester, thank you for raising the concern about POV with these edits that I added. I completely agree that maintaining NPOV in this case is a challenge. My purpose in adding these factual statements at the beginning of the Background section is to provide some context on both the attack as well as the political response to it.
The reader might naturally have questions like How frequently have diplomats been attacked over the past decade?, Are these kinds of attacks a rare event? and Were there concerns about adequate security for overseas diplomats prior to the attacks? and Were there recent changes in the level of overseas diplomatic security, and if so why? I am of the opinion that the best way to address concerns about POV is to provide more facts and information, rather than to leave out or suppress information.
I agree with the opinion of ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ that the sourcing should be improved. I found it surprisingly difficult to find a listing of terrorist attacks on diplomats in objective reliable sources, but will continue looking, and would appreciate help from anyone who wants to join the search.
DaCapitan, regarding your first point about comparing attacks under Bush vs. Obama, the purpose of the sentence is to provide a factual summary of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies thus far in this century, so that the reader can have some context. While the number and nature of political accusations (or lack thereof) in the aftermath of these attacks is relevant, I think it would be difficult to address that in an NPOV way. For example, a statement could be made that the opposition party never launched political attacks on the Bush administration in response to any of the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities that occurred on his watch, and we could pull up statements from Republicans that questioned the patriotism of anyone who criticized the President. That would be great for an opinion piece on DailyKos, but obviously would not be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia.
I would not object to adding something like "and the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since [whatever]" to the sentence that reads "The 2012 Benghazi attack was the second deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility that occurred during President Obama's first term."
With respect to your second point, the reliable source (The Hill) states:『The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.』The sentence I added closely follows the lead of this story, which reads:"Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011."
This is clearly an objective factual statement that has significant relevance to the Background section of this story, so I cannot see how this can be considered POV. (The number of ways that this fact could be injected into a POV statement is infinite, but that does not mean the simple statement of the fact itself is POV.)
If you have information from reliable sources indicating that some diplomats held the opinion that Republican cuts to diplomatic security did not contribute to the inadequate security situation in Benghazi, then I see no problem with adding those facts in an NPOV way. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You are correct about funding as far as I know. Regarding prior attacks, the Huffington Post piece appears to only be a partial list of attacks for the purpose of making a point. This, for example, goes into more depth. GTD is basically dedicated to listing terrorist attacks, but they don't have an easily accessible analysis that would be useful from what I see — someone would need to search through their spreadsheets. – ʎɑzyɗɑƞ00:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
PeaceLoveHarmony edits are completely partisan POV. During her Oct. 10, 2012 testimony before Congress, Ms. Lamb, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, was asked if budget cuts had anything to do with security decisions. The exchange is: “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., California). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?” “No, sir,” said [Charlene] Lamb. Watch the exchange here [2] The exchange begins at 24:30. - Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Budgets are made by originating from the house, passage in the house, passage in the senate, and signing by the President. The present first sentence
After they gained control of the House in 2011, Republicans sought successfully to cut the Obama Administration's funding requests for diplomatic security by hundreds of millions of dollars.
make it appear that ONLY the House of Representatives (where the Republicans are the majority) is responsible for budget cuts which lead to less security which lead to the deaths, does appear to have MASSIVE POV bent. It does help that what has since been added attempts to balance it out, basically cancelling the talking point by stating
However, an aide with knowledge of the State Department’s efforts to improve security said the consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens and other Americans died, was only considered a “temporary facility” and was not on the administration’s request list for structural improvements for fiscal 2012 or 2013.[17] A Washington Post "The Fact Checker" article[20] published on May 16, 2013 disputed the claims that there was not adequate funding available.
but I am of the opinion that it is too little to late, with a strong emphasis in the anti-Republican lean in the paragraph.
That being said, I have expanded the list of previous attacks to fully encompass the information from the source, rather than ONLY focusing it on the Bush Administration.
What consensus? If you want my opinion, the funding issue can stay or go. However, it's entirely reasonable to assume that a reader will want to know if/when other attacks on American diplomats have occurred. It is valuable background information, and I don't know how you could argue it is POV. It comes from an apparently reliable and neutral source, and makes no mention of parties or presidents or attempts to place blame. If anything, it’s the following sentence saying it's the second such attack during the Obama administration that actually needs a citation or removal. – ʎɑzyɗɑƞ02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If it has been changed not to mention parties, presidents, &c, I think that bit about "previous attacks" can stay. The bit about funding, though, I’m not so sure. RGloucester (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If we have sources that go back further than 1998, I would not be opposed to it; or should we just link to a list of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities?
The previous wording was only focused on the Bush Administration, and thus had POV issues. As I said I expanded it to include all attacks listed in the source, and thus made it more neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Benghazi Reasons for the attack
Most are concerned of who, when, where and what happened.... not Why?.... Since the invasion and the fall of Ghadaffi... what groups and special interests have been on the ground in Libya... the role of European, American, British, and Israeli interests must all be evaluated. Following the money and who was hired is always first on the list.... So, the question is.... Where is the GOLD, who wants the OIL, and where are the MISSILEs??? END COMMENTARY ... The truth is seldom revealed by humans in power! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.41.72 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't exactly true
"A report prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, stated “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” [157] This initial assessment was provided to Executive Branch officials.[158]"
The report, or talking points as they've come to be known were first prepared on September 14th and edited with a heavy hand to make them virtually meaningless by the time Susan Rice has sandbagged with them. If picking a quote I'd go with the unmolested original version:
"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evovled into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack."[1]
Good question. While I am all in favor of somehow splitting up the article in ways that shorten it and just discuss the facts of the case, I think that Rice's talking points should probably stay in the main article. Tedperl (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There were 2 indentical entries of the talking points in the U.S. Government Response section.
User:ThinkEnemies changed the first entry to the the above, bolded first draft. I removed it because it was redundant and not the highly edited, official 'government response.' and the 'talking points' controversy is currently in the new 'Investigative Reporting' section. IP75 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you're trying to say about identical entries. Hadn't noticed. I took it upon myself to fix the inaccurate talking points with the original due to the former being presented as such. Also came back and removed redundancy between talking points given to Susan Rice and her official interpretation of them. It's not like she deviated from the talking points she recieved. †TE†Talk15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
