Talk:United States House Select Committee on Benghazi

Sources[edit]

The Washington Post[1] and the Christian Science Monitor[2] seem like stronger references to me than does Politico, especially when it's a potentially controversial issue and the weaker source is the only one used (as is the case with the Clinton supporter story, which the above references were used to complement). This may be my own bias, having grown up with what is now called "old media". Even as key as outlets like Politico are to the current political debate, they still strike me as less reliable--and I suspect they are viewed that way by readers. --Artaxerxes 14:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my bad, I normally don't use Politico for things like this unless there's another source too. It's not that they make stuff up or are biased, but they tend to see trends and drama where none may exist, largely because they feel obliged to come up with so many new pieces each day. As it happens in the Hillary instance, there is this corroborating story from ABC News that can be used to back it up. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rucker, Philip; Clement, Scott (29 April 2014). "Poll: GOP presidential race wide open; Hillary Clinton leads Jeb Bush in theoretical matchup". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
  2. ^ Feldmann, Linda. "Beyond Hillary Clinton: Eight Democrats who might run if she doesn't". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 23 May 2014.

Personalities[edit]

Darrell Issa is important in the background of the establishment of this committee, the progress of the overall Benghazi investigation, the minority reaction against him--and he's likely to stay prominent in how this all plays out, in terms of the Democrats selected, how they behave, and any continued related activity on his Oversight committee. He needs to be mentioned and discussed in this article. The key is not to pull from the current developments, not to make him too much of the story, not to engage the fight here--to keep him in proper perspective.--Artaxerxes 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he should only be mentioned as it affects this select committee - that's why I added that he was still holding hearings and trying to get witnesses, as it calls into question whether this committee is really centralizing all the Benghazi investigations or not. I agree, the rest of what you mention belongs in his article, not here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion[edit]

"Republicans have a mandate for their Benghazi probe" by Aaron Blake; June 3, 2014 in The Washington Post.--Artaxerxes 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Current title[edit]

Does the current title adhere to existing applicable policies and guidelines, like WP:AT and WP:NCE? If not, what title do you suggest? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • COMMENT: Could you be a little more specific? What problems do you see in its adherence to WP:AT and WP:NCE? (editor " randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment ") --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, BoogaLouie, the title itself may look too long by looking at it. Who would type in more words after "United States"? Well, there's United States Attorney, but that's concise enough. This title doesn't seem to be commonly used unless I miss sources that use it. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I can find about 50 sources, not all RS, that use this title for the house select committee. Are select committees not officially named when they are set up in the US? SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
SPACKlick, see WP:COMMONNAMES policy and WP:official titles essay. --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
George Ho, do you have any suggestion for an alternative/new title? ...w/an explanation for how it would be an improvement. (editor " randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment") --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie: The official website of the investigation says "The Select Committee on Benghazi", but it looks not precise enough. What about United States legislative investigation on the 2012 Benghazi attacks or legislative investigation on the 2012 Benghazi attacks or United States Congress investigation on the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Either one is shorter than the current title; I checked the Microsoft Notepad. Am I on the right track here? --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Select Committee on the 2012 Benghazi attacks? I checked the article; the House of Representatives and the House of Senators formed a joint investigation on the attacks. --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the Committee's website, they now seem to self-identify as The Select Committee on Benghazi rather than the more long-winded name they started with. If you look at Category:Committees of the United States House of Representatives, all House Committee article titles begin with "United States House ..." and then Committee or Select Committee or Permanent Select Committee or whatever. Put them together and United States House Select Committee on Benghazi would be a possible title. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Wasted Time United States House Select Committee on Benghazi seems reasonable enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Wasted Time United States House Select Committee on Benghazi. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R, SW3 5DL, Cwobeel, BoogaLouie: The suggested title is not helpful (edited) what I wanted for non-Americans and average-minded Americans as well. How would anyone not living in America know this title? I'm thinking United States House Select Committee on 2012 Benghazi attack to be consistent with 2012 Benghazi attack, or 2012 Benghazi attack briefings by the United States House Select Committee. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're making this too hard. If you want a long title, go with what the article already has. If you want a shorter title, go with the one we suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure the readers know what "on Benghazi" refers to? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
George Ho, If the readers are fluent in English, and especially if the've been living in America, then yes, I'm certain they know what "on Benghazi" refers to. Adding in ". . .on 2012 Benghazi attack" is reasonable. But you know the lede sentence could just say that. And it will come up in a Google search. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has been shortened by removing too many words, reducing to "...on Benghazi". --George Ho (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy[edit]

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”[1]

That's what Kevin McCarthy said on Hannity last week. In response, Hillary unloaded,[2] Nancy Pelosi threatened to pull the Democrats from the committee,[3] and the Democrats on the committee are leaking the full Cheryl Mills testimony.[4] My question here is not a matter of if this material should be in this article, but how it should be integrated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It breaks down three ways: 1) how his words have been used/twisted to support the notion that this committee has been a political attack on Clinton from the beginning (the committee "in the news", but not directly material); 2) how it's drawn attention to the work of the committee (not a helpful addition); and, 3) how the discovery of her personal email account/server--not something the committee set out to discover, but a result of focusing on the Benghazi investigation by the committee--challenges her candidacy for president (the article discusses the discovery of her server so has a discussion spot for supplementing). Looked at in the light of the latter point, the committee has been doing good work--with one hand tied behind its back (lacking knowledge of how she was handling her email communications). Subterfuge on her part helped make it appear that the committee's work has been a politically-motivated goose chase instead of a serious hunt for information. The discovery of that subterfuge might now aid the Benghazi investigation--and help unravel her campaign. --Artaxerxes 19:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot of irony in advocating that his words are being twisted negatively when comments like the one above go to SUCH great lengths to twist his words in a positive way. The comments should be added into the article as they have extensive coverage from a multitude of reliable sources and add a very important perspective and glimpse behind the curtain. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of this on the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want to know. Considering how contentious the subject is, and how detailed the article is, I didn't want to add it. If I do, it'd probably be clumsy.
Anyway, Democrats are considering filing an ethics complaint and other options.[1] Whatever Democrats do choose to do needs to be added, as well as much of the above. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Grayson has filed an ethics complaint.[1] Louise Slaughter introduced an amendment to end the committee, which was of course defeated in a party-line vote. Steny Hoyer says the Democrats might stop cooperating after Hillary's testimony on Oct 22.[2] And the NYT editorial board is calling for the end of the committee.[3] This needs to be added to this article. If an editor more involved in this page doesn't start adding the content of this talk section into the article by later today, I'll do it, and then people can help with whatever sloppiness or lack of cohesion I'm afraid of introducing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Muboshgu, It needs to be added. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And also this [1], including this [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering that I just noticed how infrequently this article has been edited lately (much like how infrequently the committee actually meets), I guess it's on me and I hope you check my work. I'm not sure what to title it, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a section. Edit away. That fact sheet has quite a bit of information that could be added, though secondary sources are always preferable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Gowdy's PR machine is keeping his WIki page free of any mention of Benghazi[edit]

Just as a head's up, Gowdy's PR machine is making sure no mention of the Benghazi fiasco is put on his Wiki page. Every news outlet in north America is commenting on it but not one word on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.249.2 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

The article does not include information and reporting about the alleged politicization of the committee and its actions. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I did write most of the "Calls for dissolution" section. What else do you think is missing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the POV tag, with {{POV-lede}}The content was so low on the page that I did not see it. The lead needs a mention of the controversy for NPOV, and per WP:LEDE - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead is incomplete, and the article needs some work. I think the article should be reviewed and possibly rewritten, to an extent. Hillary's testimony needs to be a significant part of it, and some older items might not need to be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hillary's October testimony[edit]

I thank you, Artaxerxes, for starting off the section on Hillary's testimony, but as it stands it's incomplete to the extent of skewing NPOV. There's much that needs to be added about the nature of the questions asked of Hillary and the media response afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Cwobeel's edits helped. I didn't see them before tagging. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Video vs. terrorism[edit]

Numerous sources support the fact that Clinton privately said the attack was due to terrorism, while publicly blaming the YouTube video. As has been said:

"It's largely undisputed that she had that information, and that's the way that she articulated it privately that night."[1]

— Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)

--Artaxerxes 15:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Westwood, Sarah (28 June 2016). "How the White House misled on Benghazi". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2016-06-29.
The reference you used pointedly made use of the word "appeared". Also, don't use Pompeo directly as a source due to his extreme anti-Hillary bias. You would need to cite a secondary source quoting the guy, if you really feel the need. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There is zero evidence of Hillary publicly claiming the video was the catalyst for the attack. -- 76.94.79.68 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please consider[edit]

I don't contribute to current political articles, but I think whoever is keeping a friendly watch on this page should check out Kurt Eichenwald's fall 2015 analysis in Newsweek. It was written before the committee report appeared (such as it is), but it's a damning collection of the lies and distortions told by the Republican members to various media outlets, and supports the charge that the Committee itself was little more than a way of trying to damage Clinton's candidacy. Find it here – http://www.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-385853. Theonemacduff (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House Select Committee on Benghazi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)