A fact from United States House Select Committee on Benghazi appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
References
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)
" 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)
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)
@
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)
“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)
References
How come there is no mention of this on the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
References
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
A fact from United States House Select Committee on Benghazi appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 June 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
References
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)
" 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)
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)
@
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)
“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)
References
How come there is no mention of this on the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
References
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)