Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

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:

Benghazi: The Definitive Report

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)

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)

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)