Jump to content

Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Balistik94 (talk | contribs) at 11:36, 29 September 2012 (→Use Common name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thank you for finding that quote, mohamaed CJ. I again argue that we call it a [Diplomatic Mission] because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We are not here to promulgate misinformation, we are here to build an encycopedia with an accurate worldview. `71.52.193.22 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. state department's website doesn't list any embassy, consulate or diplomatic mission in Benghazi. It is an unidentified facility and should be referred to as such. 82.229.73.73 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some footnote text could point this out. However, the most obvious explanation is that official representation in Libya is very new (Stevens was formally appointed this summer). Does this really make any difference in the end? Whether "consulate" is indeed "inaccurate" is debatable. "Taiwan" is arguably an inaccurate name for the Republic of China but the consensus on Wikipedia was to change Republic of China to Taiwan. I might add that there is an original research problem when making something out of the absence of information on a website.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the most likely explanation but without any confirmation it's just pure speculation. We're supposed to be as accurate as possible, the question is not "does it make a difference?" the question is "is that description accurate?". The Taiwan/ROC situation is different because people actually know what location they're talking about while we still don't know the nature of the facility that was attacked in Benghazi. We are not talking about any website, we're talking about the US state department's website, you would expect it to be accurate and up to date. They updated the website to honor Chris Stevens but there's still no listing for any diplomatic facility in Benghazi. It is an issue.Balistik94 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack&oldid=515136603"