Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Use Common name

Sources are calling the site a Consulate. Wikipedia uses the most WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable SourcesJOJ ^Hutton 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think sites for the U.S. embassy knows better the semantic differences between a consulate, diplomatic mission, and an embassy. Whatever the title we use for this page, I suggest the content itself use the most accurate term, "diplomatic mission" instead of "consulate". Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a Wikipedia issue, it's an issue with the reliable sources. Wikipedia articles shouldn't make assumptions that are not present within the sources. JOJ ^Hutton 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hasdi. After all, there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a news story. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and it's not to be written like one. It is an encyclopedia and accuracy is more important than stylistic guidelines here. The word "consulate" should be used in the title (and maybe in the lede) but in the body we should refer to it correctly as a diplomatic mission (and blue-link the hell out of it so people can click to find out wtf it is). 71.52.198.33 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME. The purpose of Wikipedia titles are not to be accurate, but to be easy to understand and find using a normal search engine. Wikipedia uses the sources to determine the most common name, because the title will be easily recognizable to a reader and is more likely to show up higher in an Internet search. JOJ ^Hutton 02

34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying to use the word "consulate" in the title & lede. Use the word "Diplomatic mission" in the body and/or the lede. You realize you linked to an article discussing how to name the title, which is not the issue here. I bet you are probably one of the people who don't know the difference between embassy consulate, and diplomatic mission. We don't dumb down every article just so a 3rd grader can understand it. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This event should be treated and written with historical perspective, not as a news event under contemporary perspective. 71.52.193.22 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hutton, are you arguing that an accurate title reading 'diplomatic mission' would be difficult to understand? Surely not! And a redirect from 'consulate' will catch search engines. There is no need to be inaccurate here.88.167.22.75 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But "diplomatic mission" would be incorrect also. Please see discussion below - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi#Is_there_a_US_Consulate_in_Benghazi.3F - Perhaps as user E4024 suggests, "US diplomatic personnel (or "officers" maybe) in Benghazi" (or something similar) would be more technically and historically accurate.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Per my own note below, in their official statements, Obama referred to it as a "diplomatic facility" and Hillary Clinton as "our mission in Benghazi". Weight needs to be given to that. I agree "consulate" is wrong, since that refers to a specific type of diplomatic mission (that seems to be used mainly by the press), but think "diplomatic mission" is fine given the official statements. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess so. :-S I still have a problem with it as, regardless of statements by Obama and Hillary, the only thing that can be officially identified in any way as "diplomatic", were the personnel. The Ambassador was officially designated to the US Embassy in Tripoli. His group was the official US diplomatic mission to Tripoli - not Benghazi. Obama and Hillary's statements were simply incorrect, misleading, and possibly even inflammatory. There is a vast difference between officially designated diplomatic territory (which affords certain diplomatic status, immunities, and protections) and other facilities. Coming to an honest consensus on this is important because the general public believe diplomatically protected US territory has been breached, and that is just not true. In fact, it could very well be a military compound. There is a vast difference between diplomatic and military facilities. We have a responsibility to the future to make an accurate record of historical events, or we could find ourselves complicit in public manipulation and/or political agendas, and risk humanity repeating the same mistakes again. As such, I must maintain my previous vote - the article should be titled, "Attack on US diplomatic personnel in Benghazi".PoizonMyst (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If its inaccurate, then we shouldn't use it, even if it's common, per WP:COMMONNAME. "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be used if inaccurate. But since it appears there was no US Embassy, Consulate, or even a Mission, we are slowly running out of options for a historically accurate title. PoizonMyst (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a US Consulate in Benghazi?

There is no mention on the websites of either the State Dept or the US Embassy in Tripoli of a Consulate in Benghazi.

http://www.usembassy.gov/ 

http://libya.usembassy.gov/ 

Some reports suggest it was a group of houses leased by the US but without official diplomatic status, or at least not a consulate. This needs to be clarified88.167.22.75 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further - All official comments about the recent attack on the US mission in Benghazi refer to it as a 'diplomatic mission'. The State Dept website distinguishes between 'Embassies', 'Consulates', and 'Diplomatic Missions' - http://www.usembassy.gov/ 88.167.22.75 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mission: I had time to read several official announcements on the Embassy webpage -provided above- and they all refer to the "US Mission in Benghazi" without using the word "Diplomatic". --E4024 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The usembassy.gov lists "Missions" too. They all seem to be UN/Global Affairs related. There is no US Embassy, Consulate, or Mission in Benghazi. There is a satellite image provided by BBC and other sources, which show the location of this supposed Consulate, and it appears to be central to a military base & weapons storage area used during Operation Odessey Dawn & others. This link does not meet "reliable sources" - http://reanimatedresidue.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/there-is-no-us-embassyconsulatemission-in-benghazi-libya/ - but everything is cited by quality sources so you are welcome to use anything you need in order to add the required information to the article. I think it is important that some reference to this information is mentioned. PoizonMyst (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider (Attack on/Terrorist attack on/against) "US diplomatic personnel (or "officers" maybe) in Benghazi" or work on those words to find a better combination... --E4024 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I have written it in the above discussion about accurate title for the article.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what the official websites say or don't say, I think we should give credence to the official statements from the President and SoS: Obama calls it a "diplomatic facility" while Hillary Clinton calls it "our mission in Benghazi". I think "U.S. diplomatic mission attack in Benghazi" is better, given both of them calling it a facility/mission of some sort; the terms are both generic enough anyways. (But changing it from "consulate" probably makes sense, since that's not quite so generic.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Official websites are RS, even more so than statements from politicians. Personally, I cannot give credence to people who regularly lie as part of their job. :P PoizonMyst (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of Libyans protesting against that attacks and Islamic militia-worth adding to reaction

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578010750711899438.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.170.143 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The info could also be added to the page Reactions to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. PoizonMyst (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

They even attacked and evicted Ansar al-Sharia from their bases together with several other militias. EllsworthSK (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This absolutely needs to be added; 30K people protesting and forcing the alleged attackers out is certainly noteworthy. Also of note from [1]: the invasion "appeared to be part of a coordinated sweep of militia bases by police, government troops and activists". – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you OP, EllsworthSK, and 2001:db8. The protest info was already written up in the subsection "Aftermath - Libyan Response". I have added the eviction and coordinated sweep info to the article and cited the source provided by 2001:db8.PoizonMyst (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Two attacks

If you read the Wikipedia article, you may have a distorted view of what happened. The annex is clearly separate. It is not next to the consulate. It is about a mile away. Auchansa (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the article has many issues and missing information. Conflicting media reports from "reliable sources", and undeniable proof of misinformation, have caused this. The annex or "safe house" (second attack location) was a separate location to the initial attacks, but the Ambassador was supposedly attacked at the "consulate" before he was found and taken to hospital. A consulate/embassy/or mission, that does not exist. PoizonMyst (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Really a mile away? NONE of the news I watch have ever reported that and I watch a lot of news. Is government misinformation really actually spread by cnn, reuters, and AP? 71.52.193.22 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NATO History with Al-libi - Al-Quaeda 2nd in command

Can someone with more experience, ascertain if this website could be considered a "reliable source"? http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Africa/Libya-Doomed-from-Day-One.html The article contains some important historical info about Al-Libi, the Al-Quaeda 2nd in command. I believe the information to be of high importance in light of things, and relevant enough to be included in the "Background" sub-heading of this article.PoizonMyst (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bunch of bollocks, there is not one RS which would call al-Libi as a friend of NATO in 2011. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Michael Bagley, the President of Jellyfish Operations which provides on-the-ground intelligence to Fortune 500 companies, doesnt have clue what he's talking about. :P That aside, I understand the website does not meet RS. Thanks. PoizonMyst (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Addendum: All I can find ATM is that Al-Libi made a propaganda video supporting the rebels in their quest to overthrow Gaddafi in 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/g8-stalls-as-muammar-gaddafis-forces-take-seaport-of-brega/story-e6frg6so-1226021360237 That, of course, does not mean he was directly supported by NATO in any way. PoizonMyst (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought so. It appears oilprice.com is considered RS as it is cited in at least 20+ articles on Wikipedia. Here's just a couple of examples, Gold, International Energy Agency, Ash-Shabaab (Somalia), Judith Curry, Tom Murphy (physicist),National Iranian Oil Company, Syrian Liberation Army, Corruption in Kyrgyzstan and the list goes on. Looks like there's enough to ascertain the website as reliable enough to include information from the source article I provided. Thanks for your help anyway, EllsworthSK.PoizonMyst (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that al-Libi was a friend of NATO is a WP:FRINGE as it gets. And I am not even talking about such ballsy statements that he fought alongside the rebels in civil war. You won´t find one more source that would support that, because, yes, it is bollocks. From RS, what I never said it isn´t, but not the first one, nor the last one I have ever seen. No need to thank me. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: And bytheway, this article wasn´t written by Michael Bagley but by Jen Alić. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of writing anyone was "a friend to NATO" - please do not hold steadfast to that which I have already concurred in my previous comments. I mentioned al-Libi's history, but my question was about RS qualification of the website - which it is, regardless of our personal worldviews and who wrote it. Fact is, the website and article are RS. My intention is to add clarifying information to the "Background" section - to write about Al-Libi's capture and escape, to reference the video he made in support of rebels against Gaddafi, and the drone attack in Pakistan which killed him in June 2012. I am considering adding Michael Bagley's comments about the al-Zawahiri video posted on a jihadi affliated website on 10th Sep 2012 - "This was a very powerful call to avenge al-Libi’s death," and that, "it came only 24 hours before the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi." Weight must be given to the implication of the al-Zawahiri announcement in light of Al-Libi's significance to Al-Qaeda, as it now appears (as stated in the oilprice.com article and many other RS')the real catalyst for the attack on the Benghazi compound had very little, if anything, to do with "Innocence of Muslims." We must not pretend that these facts are irrelevant, simply because they are uncomfortable.

It is no secret the rebels received weapons from NATO in addition to Gaddafi arms depots they had captured, while at the same time, the rebels were supported by, and even consisted of Al-Qaeda members. I can provide plenty of RS sources to support all that, but it is not directly related to this article, so I have no intention of including it. Nevertheless, the prevalence of weapons in the country, and the smuggling and use of those weapons in regional uprisings since Gaddafi's downfall, is an undeniable fact and likely played a role. As such, I am considering the inclusion of this in an appropriate section as well: Despite all the unrest in the region "it was only in Libya where attackers wielded machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/13/parry-libya-arms-embassy-attack.html

My thanks were given as you replied to my query. PoizonMyst (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Libyan protesters force Islamist militia out of Benghazi

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/libyan-protesters-militia-benghazi

I think needs to be incorporated somehow. — Hasdi Bravo • 10:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasdi. The protest and seizure of the militia HQ's was already written up under "Aftermath - Libyan Response", however the deaths and wounded were not. I have added the information and cited the article you provided. PoizonMyst (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)