Talk:2017 Raqqa attack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Raqqa attack redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Syria

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria

Kurdistan

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan

United States: Military history

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Sources

None of the news links provided direct to articles on this topic. One is a dead link. Skingski (talk)

One of the AFP-links is dead, yes. The other one works, but is just a flash at the top of the page. The Sveriges Radio link is not an article but a short 3-minute soundclip. I have added 3 new sources: newsweek.com, democracynow.org and breitbart.com. --Bensin (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating references. Specific comments:

On Reference 1 (full headline adds, ": monitor"): The full article is needed. Headlines change constantly and depend on the editor. You don't need this reference anyway since you cite other good references.

The consensus of the good references indicate the source for this information is SOHR -- I would add this info into the article.Skingski (talk)

Anyone wanting to verify the Sveriges Radio source (in Swedish) should do so within the next few days as these short news updates eventually are removed from the web. I have updated the link to lead directly to the sound clip. The relevant part is 40 seconds in and the piece is some 20 seconds long. If you do verify the source and agree that it supports the content of this Wikipedia article, please add a comment here stating that. You should of course also comment if you have listened to it and don't think it supports the article. Just do it soon. --Bensin (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations need to be stable not short-lived. Also, is the broadcast in Swedish? (my stupid computer has trouble playing it) Not useful on English Wikipedia. Maybe another editor knows the policy? But you don't need this reference if it only repeats information in your other references.Skingski (talk)

Facts and Neutrality

A quick glance at the internet fails to support the article's claim. Current news[1] reports 19 ISIS boats, not civilian hit amongst other targets. No reports on number of dead civilian or otherwise thus far. Moreover, the article is incomplete, not detailing the entire event, its scope, purpose, etc. The content could therefore be claimed to be biased. Skingski (talk)

See my answer above. --Bensin (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article as is does not discuss both sides of the event. SOHR head Abdel Rahman says the bombed boats were taking the same route leading out of the city’s southern districts used by IS fighters (Brietbart link). A coalition spokesman says, "The coalition takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously and will assess these allegations" (Newsweek link). With this added information, one can assume the coalition believes that the boats contained in whole or in part IS fighters or as SOHR may believe, it was a mistake. Information is still evolving.Skingski (talk)

Notability and Overlap Policy

As explained here: WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:BREAKING and WP:OVERLAP this unsourced event by itself is not notable. It along with the referring page Raqqa_attack_5_June_2017 should be merged into the larger article: Raqqa_campaign_(2016–present) Skingski (talk)

The event is sourced. See my answer above. --Bensin (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge. We dont need an article every time the US drops a bomb, especially a low information article like this. also WP:NOTNP Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia's strive to remain neutral, couldn't one argue that this article is as important as any article covering bombs detonating killing civilians in the west? If not, then why? I agree that the article is small, but it is very well sourced and the event was covered in diverse sources. Anyone thinking the article contains to little information is free to expand it. It is explicitly encouraged by the stub template reading "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Skingski's links are worth considering, but I ask that all information and all sources are retained if a merger is performed. --Bensin (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a one-off bombing, but part of many bombings inside an overall campaign. If it was not in the context of an overall war or if it represents a key turning point in a war, then your point would be well taken. A merge is the best solution. Skingski (talk)