Talk:2017 Shayrat missile strike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Could be clearer....

"[...] Homs Governorate, which was believed to be the base for the aircraft that carried out the chemical attack [...]"

62.156.151.11 (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

International reactions

"The governments of ... praised the attack as a just response and strong message against the use of chemical weapons."

This should be reworded. Not all of these governments praised the attack, e.g. Merkel called the attack understandable. I suggest something like "...expressed varying levels of support...". 80.132.88.198 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

When I originally worded it, Germany wasn't here yet. I agree that the summary should reflect what is added. But not everyone needs a bullet, flag and quote. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this better? I wanted to keep the reasons the ones who praised it liked it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. 80.132.88.198 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Typos in reference link

In reference no. 25, regarding Poland's (international) response: ""POoland Supports US Aactions on Syria". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 7 April 2017." Stackguy (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Markets

The mention of the Chinese Yuan and Japanese Yen falling after the strikes seem...irrelevant. What actual demonstrated connection is there between those particular currencies falling and the strikes? Surely they correlated, but without evidence of cause and effect, it seems superfluous. Did other currencies not related to the strike rise or fall? Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Russia should have its own section in "reactions"

The principle players in this conflict are The United States, Russia, and Syria. Currently only the US and Syria have their own reaction subsections. I believe lumping in the Russians with the "International" reaction section significantly downplays their significance in the situation, especially given their strongly differing response to the rest of the international community.Floates (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel-Hezbollah incident as part of geopolitical context

The sentence in question:

The attacks closely followed a series of Israeli airstrikes in Syria that targeted Hezbollah arms convoys.

@Michaelh2001, Coffee, and Triggerhippie4: It is of my opinion that it's useful for readers to know that this U.S. strike closely follows a strike by Israel, an important ally of the U.S., on Syrian government allies. Trigger seems to disagree, having opposed the inclusion of this context three times. I'd like to hear his rationale. -- Philip Terry Graham 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is very relevant. I originally added the information to the article header. I participate in WikiProject Israel. While my view of Israel is not neutral, (My views on Israel are positive) my related edits here on Wikipedia are neutral. But the airstrikes, while unrelated and for different reasons, are closely timed and involve close allies. Thanks for your efforts! Juneau Mike (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for violating the 1RR restriction in effect. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the Israel airstrike is relevant (as the creator of that article). Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel's general problems with Hezbollah are roughly linked to the US' problems with Syria, by association. But that doesn't mean two specific attacks should inherently be linked. A clear cooperation would be better than an apparent coincidence. But I don't care strongly, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Official position is that it was a reaction to the chemical strike: the events described here (Israeli attack) preceded (not only days, but weeks) the said event which officially motivated the US strike. So there is no clear evidence that this was more than a coincidence. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is no link in sources between Israel-Hezbollah alleged incidents in March and the US airstrike in April. An attempt to do such link in the article is typical case of editorial interpretation in violation of WP:SYNTH policy of Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 12:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Greyshark - there's no connection between these events at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

error in number of missiles

Fix the untruth.

60 cruise missiles launched, not 59. — Preceding unsigned comment added by April Fools Day After (talk • contribs)

Source? Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April Fools is correct. See http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-attack-people-20170407-story.html where the Los Angeles Times says one missile of the 60 hit the water. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Detailed video from the place of events (UAV, and on the ground color high-quality video). https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2875204 4 min

Detailed video from the place of events (UAV, and on the ground color high-quality video). https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2875204 4 min

There may be a few more questions =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.233.33 (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

http://tass.ru/politika/4163240 http://www.interfax.ru/world/557324

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n33N1cJbfU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtJjPypT7I https://russian.rt.com/world/video/376312-bespilotnik-siriya-baza-ssha The airfield is intact, the take-off landing strip is intact, many whole aircraft. 212.119.233.33 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

An image of the air fields after the air strike can be added.

There are satellite images which shows comparison between the previous and present status of the air base after the missile strike.

One image can be added.

Ahmedafifkhan (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran both in own section and under "Others"

In the International Reactions section the reaction of Iran is described both in its own subsection and in the subsection "Others". That's inconsistent, isn't it? --91.56.222.203 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

US reactions

There are manifestations and protests all over US against the strikes. Please, mention it in the article. Colorado, NYC, California, Chicago, it's all over the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There are also demonstrations in favour of the strikes, including by Syrians. I'm fine with including both in the article. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"All over" is loaded language, as these have only involved the far-left, in small numbers, and only in the very largest of cities. Americans are pretty satisfied with the action in Syria, and the climate among the vast majority of the populace is very calm. Just because left-wing activists are noisy and colorful, does not mean they are representative of the mood of the country. Does the punk group Pussy Riot reflect the mood of the Russian people? Of course not. Rightly or wrongly, Putin remains very popular with the average person in the Russian Federation.104.169.28.48 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump's 2013 tweet

Can we cite this tweet from President Trump's official Twitter account, "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."? Or do we need to find a reliable third-party source contextualizing it first?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Will New York Times be a more reliable source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html citing the same twitter? — Ace111 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I was BOLD in good faith and added it to the lede. Happy to discuss further on the talkpage if some disagree.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It was removed from the lede. See discussion about the 'lead' below.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

First use of force?

"It was the first time during his presidency President Trump had ordered the military to use force..." Does the Yakla raid not count? --Jfruh (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That was a secret order to a special force. As far as the White House and DoD are still telling (if Wikipedia isn't wrong), it was strictly an intelligence gathering mission, nice and peaceful-like. That's probably the problem here. I'd personally count it, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the context for "first use of force" is against a foreign government/against the Syrian government. IIRC the Yamla raid was against AQAP and there have been many airstrikes and other raids against ISIL and other such groupa, but none of those were against a legitimately recognized government until this strike. ansh666 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true today, but Friday was another story. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP poster who had added the forum/personal opinions (now removed) - the Talk Pages are NOT A FORUM - they are only for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article. Keep your rants off here - find a blog or a soapbox on the sidewalk or something to vent.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

User:Volunteer Marek you put a template which states that "neutrality of this article is disputed", saying "way too much weaseling and undue weight given to fringe theories", but did not provide the relevant discussion nor explained where in the article is this "weaseling", given "undue weight", and "fringe theories".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If you do not provide it then it can be safely removed by point 6. of WP:WTRMT, also if now do, it can be removed only after the issue is adequately addressed and reached a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No argument presented here, so tag removed. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Satellite image analysis

The ISI analysed satellite imagery of the base and more or less confirms Pentagon claims it seems. http://archive.is/zuxre Jan3334 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A nice external articles with satellite data to reference: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4392962/Satellite-images-destruction-Assad-s-air-base.html I think it's definitely worth adding to the page 195.208.49.60 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

International reaction

Could someone update the International sub-section with the Finnish reaction? There is also need to update the map with the Finnish (neutral) standpoint. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC) +Slovak, Austrian reactions. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I updated sub-section, but did not the map.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

When checked the list of governments which supported the strike could not confirm it for Romania ([1] condemned chemical attack, no mention of support). In the map Romania is included among countries which support the attack, Luxembourg's recation that it was "understandable" is vague and doubtful compared to other countries which clearly "support" it, Slovakia's "understandable" reaction is also a vague "support", Netherland's source is not in English language so it needs to be confirmed, while Finland and Austria are neutral. The term "understandable" may denote an informal agreement, but it is ambiguous. Because of this false or possibliy false accusation the map should be removed until it is correctly updated and its content confirmed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Title

This news story is developing. Change the title of the article if a better one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamHolt6 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Shayrat Air Base raid. kencf0618 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think "raid" suggests a closer attack, with soldiers at the scene (and less so, pillaging). Missiles from afar seem more like a "strike". Maybe "missile strike" is clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then "2017 Shayat Tomahawk strike" would be clearer still. kencf0618 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe too precise, though. Are there other attack articles named after the weapon model? I don't see them. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting point of nomenclature, and one well taken. kencf0618 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm more sure that an "airstrike" comes from the sky, not the sea. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Cruise missiles are technically aerial vehicles. I do, however, agree that "2017 Shayrat missile strike" is the best name for the article. This is currently the only missile strike that hit Shayrat in 2017. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur, on both points, especially given that missile-only attacks are not that uncommon nowadays. kencf0618 (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically aerial vehicles, but in no way attack aircraft. If the missiles fired smaller missiles while flying, that could be an airstrike. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know what USS Ross' flag signals mean?

The first image of USS Ross firing missiles. What do those four flags mean? I was trying to figure out using this reference: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/communications/flags/flags.html but only got the first flag -- "NO" "?" "?" "?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.208.34.203 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

November Golf Whiskey Bravo

I don't think the signal flags were related to the launch. I doubt they'd release a photo like that to the press.104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

NGWB. It's the callsign of USS_Ross_(DDG-71) (see infobox). No funky joke here. 80.132.64.47 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

I am uncomfortable with WP presenting information that 9 civilians including 4 children were killed without caveat based only on Syrian official numbers. As far as I can see there is no other source for this, though I cannot see the WSJ article. I would suggest the infobox is more cautious, perhaps presenting a range of casualties without details, and the Casualties section describes which agencies present which numbers. Thoughts? |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The casualties should be described (according to different sources) in the related section, while the infobox should include approximate number based on multiple sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nine were wounded and seven killed in total, Talal Barazi, the governor of Homs province, clarified on Friday afternoon." Six dead and nine dead were simply earlier reports. Singling out the children is agist and sappy, in any case. The Syrian government should be a fine source for Syrian casualties. We don't automatically assume other governments are filled with lying shitweasels. Even if that's Wikipedia policy for the federal government, it shouldn't extend to Barazi. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if that info is also outdated (Friday was a while ago), whatever source the infobox uses should be readable without a subscription. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Currently on the article are three sources ([2], [3], [4]); in the infobox cite all three with range of casualties, first with its ref name, on second place subscription refnote, and with third quote Barazi in "Casualties" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That might work. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, children on a military air base. Guess it was the daycare for the pilot and technician's families. Smirk. Pure propaganda.104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Children were not in the military air base.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Part of..."

In the infobox, are we really going with "as a part of Cold War II"? I don't think that has (or even been) started. Anyone else have an opinion about it? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove. The reference is obviously to an OP-ED on a website that does not specialize in military or political matters. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite a lot of news articles mention this in the light of Cold War II, honestly. I agree that Syrian Civil War is more immediately applicable, though. Really, it's part of both. Esn (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Date

The current revision lead section mentions that the attack happened on thursday "morning of 6 April 2017" (cite "beginning around 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday"), while in the infobox is mentioned friday "7 April 2017 04:40 EEST (UTC+03:00)". Is there a possibility the media coverage in US and other parts of the world (for e.g. see cited "The US missiles hit at 3:45am Friday morning") have different date because of time zones? Which should be mentioned?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Presuming it's accurate, local time is always the correct time. Eastern European Standard Time, this time, not Eastern Standard Time. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph stated, "The 2017 Shayrat missile strike took place on the morning of 6 April 2017". The attack happened on 7 April 2017 at 04:40 EEST, that is 01:40 UTC. In what universe is that "the morning of 6 April"? Even in California it was the 6th of April 18:40. Some twit keeps changing the first line to "the morning of 6 April", please lock it. 81.230.220.218 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was only restoring the version which - I believe - is supported by the given reference. Which I did precisely once. And even if I were mistaken, calling me names is quite uncivil.--109.81.208.15 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

The WP:LEAD does not provide a summary of the content. It includes a sentence "President Trump justified the strike by stating, "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons"." which explains the Trumps reasoning for the attack, but it does not mention that there was no prior investigation and evidence for responsibility, Trump acted without authorization from United States Congress, or from the United Nations Security Council, thus raising questions about its legality under the U.S. law as well as international law, and because of this it was held an urgent session by UN Security Council. Also it does not mention any summary of reactions, which actually make the majority of content in current article revision.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

He acted totally within U.S. law - and the United States, like just about every other country, puts their own laws above international law. The U.S. was reacting DUE TO international law, according to their argument, due to Syria's war crime in using chemical weapons that also targeted civilians. You might wish to review the War Powers Act that was passed during the Reagan administration timeframe.104.169.28.48 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on the content change. See Was Trump’s Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining Presidential War Powers (New York Times).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I was BOLD in good faith and added a short paragraph about the criticisms as well as Trump's 2013 tweet (see above). Happy to discuss further here if some editors disagree.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Brian Everlasting: You removed the criticisms as potentially unconstitutional or a violation of international law asking for a reference, but my understanding is that the lede does not need to be referenced unless there is a direct quote as long as the info is referenced in the body of the text (which it is). Can you please agree to restore it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually even the New York Times article mentions both, so you could use it as a reference if you want?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The NYT article is the opinion of Charlie Savage and not a reliable source, so no I can't use it as a reference. Where else in the wikipedia article is this criticism referenced? Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ford, Matt (6 April 2017). "A Polarized Political Response to Trump's Syria Strike". The Atlantic. Retrieved 8 April 2017. for "unconstitutional" and "U.S. Airstrikes in Syria: Fallout Around the World". NYT. NYT. 7 April 2017. for "international law".Zigzig20s (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I will move the information about the tweet and criticism (Trumps change of POV) to appropriate section, also if understood well the policy, the things which are not mentioned in main section should can not be cited in the lead section. @Brian Everlasting, how the NYT article is not a reliable source? By this criteria every article by an author or journalist (by the way, Charlie Savage is a notable journalist) which includes his opinion should be considered as unreliable. That does not make any sense. According to which Wikipedian policy it can be considered as unreliable?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok you can put the "unconstitutional" part back in since Rand Paul, Ted Lieu, and others are calling it unconstitutional. But who is calling it a "violation of international law" (other than maybe Charlie Savage.) Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The lede needs to summarize the entire article. That includes criticisms. So I think we can/should add the info about the tweet both in the lede and in the body of the text too (I wasn't sure where--could we create a subsection about his campaign promises?), but we can't whitewash the lede. I think we should keep the paragraph I added to the lede as it is very brief, and then the body of the text will have more about the criticisms...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bolivian Ambassador to the UN. He gave a whole speech comparing it to Iraq at the UN.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually I working on it (everything you said). Wait my edit so we can discuss further change, first in main section, and later in lead section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok so maybe something like: "Members of the U.S. congress such as Rand Paul and Ted Lieu called the attack unconstitutional, while the Bolivian Ambassador to the UN Sacha Llorenti described the attack as a violation of international law." Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's more precise. They're "critics" though.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to include critics then it would be fair to include supporters in the lead section as well. But I think adding opinions of critics and supporters detracts from wikipedia's mission of reporting only the facts. Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not about empty criticisms. Reporting that critics have called it "unconstitutional" or "a violation of international law" is about constructive criticism; it's not a case of "they didn't like it." In other words, it's not a personal criticism of Trump at all; it's about the law. It is possible to like Trump and possibly support the strike, and yet think that it may have been unconstitutional and/or a violation of international law. Essentially, we're reporting only the facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski: Could you please restore the 2013 tweet? There appeared to be consensus to keep it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the edit - [5]. The sentence by Brian Everlasting was included in the lead, the tweet and populist criticism were included under "United States" sub-section, Bolivian ambassador was quoted in "Aftermath" and "Others" sub-section thus having a quote like Rand Paul and Ted Lieu, as well mentioned that was held a session by United Nations Security Council.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there no consensus to include the 2013 tweet in the lede now? It's fine to add it in the body of the text too, but this subsection is about the lede. I think we should include it but obviously because it was removed, we need to reach consensus. Why would you be opposed to it?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As far I am concerned I did not understand there was any consensus on the tweet in the lead, but to mention it in the article. You do not understand the LEAD policy, the lead section summarizes the main section, not the other way around. It it out of scope to quote or mention a Trump's tweet in the lead, actually, there's already one Trump's quote in the lead and it is much more relevant to the attack.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I do understand the policy, that's why I suggested we add it to the body of the text as well. I just wasn't sure where to put it there. Anyway, I think it is weird to keep the fact that Trump tweeted, "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." in 2013 from the lede. The lede should include the fact that Trump was very anti-war in Syria for years before he was elected, and during the campaign too. We could summarize the tweet (by saying, "Trump was against the war in Syria for years before getting elected") but since it is succinct, I support restoring the tweet in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not weird, it would be weird if an article titled "Trump's policy on war in Syria", or something similar, did not mention his reversal in policy. This fact is not the specific scope of the article like the missle strike. For now I do not agree to push the inclusion in the lead until there's more information and sources added to the article and done further editing. The fact is mentioned in appropriate place and context. You constructively proposed to mention the tweet and criticism of the reversal in policy, thus it was not in vain. Have in mind that the event and article are only one-two day old.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think brief summary of responses worldwide would be OK in lede, but the current version was focused only on US responses and internally inconsistent. After telling that opinions were polarized, it provided only opinions from one side. Hence my edit [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You should provide additional or more summarized opinion, yet you removed it against the consensus as well policy, also making a mess of unreferenced claims seen from red warnings in the reflist. User:Volunteer Marek, please stop violating the WP:LEAD policy and engage in the talk page discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Stickee, there's a discussion for lead section. Please engage it before making any edits. I do no understand by what criteria the edit was substantiated. You removed the fact, mentioned in the article, that the responsibility is disputed and importantly that Syrian government denied involvement. The statement that "the previous statements don't claim responsibility either" is nonsense - the attack was factually made because they considered Syrian government responsible for the chemical attack. The lead section was once again wrongly edited.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus has clearly been against you here, which is why the edits have been made. I've now done a different summary, taken directly from the page of the attacks (which I've just found out you were blocked for edit warring on!). Stickee (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus as your consideration is contradicting and violating editing policy in the same way as it is pushed Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Npov section. It is invalid. Instead to discuss it, these editors are intentionally edit warring and in the same time violating editing policy. Sorry, that won't pass.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Another invalid revert. The reverting editors ignore to discuss, and when do they fail to substantiate their consideration and reverts with editing principles. It is pushed a deliberate violation of editing policy in both 2017 Shayrat missile strike and Khan Shaykhun chemical attack articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that was clearly an improvement by Stickee. No one but you objected. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it was not nor was provided a valid substantiation based in editing policy and sources. The claim is not supported by the reference.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder

"Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: The both edits ([7], [8]) are challanged and thus should be removed as seemingly there is no consensus for both. Specifically, the first edit has failed to be challenged on valid reasons&policy, while the second edit has failed to be defended on valid reasons&policy. Hence, I am going for WP:RFC because continued the WP:TENDENTIOUS editing ([9]) which ignores and games the violation of editing policy, i.e. constructive improvement of the article. According to WP:CON, in the discussion the editors should "try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", yet the provided reasons fail to be based on policy, sources or common sense. According to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view". Similarly WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes ... instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense", yet such basis is not provided. Basically, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1 and 2, WP:GAMETYPE point 4 and 5.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about what? I do not mind (re)including the statement "The attack was without the Congress's legal authorization" if you insist. Both versions tell that Syrian government denied the responsibility. This is fine. The only difference is this: version you do not like tells it is generally believed (a "majority view" in sources) that the bombing was conducted by the Syrian aviation. I am sorry, but this is almost a matter of fact.My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC is about the discussed content change (on both articles as is essentially the same) and is in the process of creating. The specific statement should be (re)included. The specific version has nothing to do with my personal liking yet editing policy, as such please do not twist that fact. Once again is intentionally ignored that the matter is not a fact (violation of WP:ASSERT as we must "avoid stating opinions as facts"), that there is no "generally believed" or "majority view" for Syrian responsibility nor the reference in current revision provide such a consideration and claim nor there are provided multiple references for such a claim (i.e. multiple WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR violation). Although the bombing is related to the Syrian aviation, the very topic is who is/are the responsible perpetrator/s for the chemical attack, and that topic is disputed, however that fact continously fails to be acknowledged. The very same issue is found at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Responsibility ([10]) i.e. discussion Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Npov section. With pushing such an invalid substantiation and violation of editing policy, both articles currently violate WP:IMPARTIAL as are endorsing and rejecting a particular point of view.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Current version does claim anything as fact. It tells that the bombing was "attributed" by sources (and by many countries) to the Syrian aviation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Widely" is too vague; obviously, there is no direct causal link between the jets′ bombing per se and who was behind the presence of chemical agents released: there is a plethora of possibilities. Logically, the only party who was obviously interested was the U.S. gov that has a long history of creating pretexts for war action dating back to the Gulf of Tonkin incident all the way to the widely−known recent incidents of outright mendacity and falsehoods. On the other hand, "U.S. attacked under the belief" is plain poor English, just like many other statements written by Miki Filigranski.Axxxion (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice editorial. Please keep your personal opinions off the Talk Pages and only discuss the Reliable Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, what you say is contradicting. @Axxxion:, that "plain poor English" was not written by me yet it is considered for the sake of consistency in difference between revisions. With your edit you changed the lead sentence to "The chemical attack was attributed by the U.S. and its allies to the Syrian government, but the Syrian government denied responsibility". In the source there is no allies attribution or the sentence does not mention Syrian allies, but although supported by the editing policy, with such an edit was changed the direction and purpose of the RFC because it was planned to cover the same issue on the two articles. Can we agree to merge the current and the previous revision which was more neutral and in the context of U.S. attack (e.g. "The U.S. attacked because it attributed the chemical attack to the Syrian government, but the responsibility for it is still disputed and the Syrian government denied involvement."), so the RFC can cover only the other article?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only English is poor (as Axxxion said), but you include a lot of materials that fall under WP:Recentism. For example, here you included info that visit by T. to Moscow was cancelled, but he is actually in Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reply has nothing to with the discussion i.e. lead section. Your note about Recentism is doubtful as the whole article topic is relatively recent. Once again you make a false accusation as I did not include that info (I only included a reliable reference previously not cited) and you totally misunderstood it - Johnson cancelled the visit to Moscow, not Tillerson.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Striked through. Sorry, you should realize that I do not have a lot of time to look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: the previous revision stated "The political response to the U.S. attack was polarized, with some members of the U.S. Congress supporting it or calling the attack unconstitutional, while some international diplomats praised the attack and other diplomats described it as a violation of international law" - the scope was political response in the U.S. and internationally with emphasis on the law. With your edit the scope is lost as it is stated that "The political response to the U.S. attack tended to be positive", which contradicts WP:VERIFY as in the reference source it is stated that the "media coverage was overwhelmingly positive", meaning connecting it with "particularly from U.S. allies" being WP:SYNTHESIS, and as the lead does not mention the Syrian allies, there's a violation of neutrality and WP:IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: If you wish to revert my edit, feel free. I made it because the overall reaction both in the U.S. and worldwide was positive (and not dependent on political party), and it appeared POV and UNDUE to thus call the reaction "polarized" (making it seem as the sides were roughly equally split and that Democrats and liberals opposed the strike). As long as the original wording is improved for those reasons, I don't mind what you do. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: there's no need for a complete reversion, maybe partial. I will try to re-phrase the sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Miki Filigranski, do you understand what admin said above? I have challenged your edit through reversion [11]. Now, you suppose to explain why did you make these changes (the differences are relatively minor, but I do not like the way it was written, such as "US attacked") and get consensus. But instead you start reverting: [12]. 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: do you know what is the problem with your challenges? You do not mention any explanation what, why and how you challenge it. I do not understand what part of the content change in revert you challenge: 1) The lead was explained multiple times above, it is not my problem if you do not care about violation of editing policy. United States did attack as a simple "Google News" check confirms such wording 2) Putin's remark is not an event nor is relevant for the section 3) news "articles" are not the focus of the article, was removed sourced information, and these sections (edited by Blagamaga) are too small per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Blagamaga: once again you reverted the revision, ignoring the discussion (see comment above). The structure in other sections is not divided in two separate subheadings. Also this information is relevant material in the sense, if there is a consensus to have a separate "Public" heading, removing relevant information is counter-productive because it already contradicts the MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Also, the sentence "Many articles noted" is out of scope because the "news articles" are not the subject of interest for the article, and the information the attack "was conducted without either U.S. congressional or United Nations Security Council approval" is a fact which is related to the U.S. politicians mixed reaction as well that "Many members who supported the action showed lack of worry about the authority issues or did not know the legal and constitutional rationale that supported the action". It belongs to the specific paragraph and section because it has everything to do with politics and law. Within 24h I will revert your edit because of this substantiation. I do not oppose to have separate headings, one day, but currently there is not enough material.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

My comment that accompanied my reversion of your edits made it clear that I used the term "that structure" in reference to the textual, and not typographical, aspect of the content in the U.S. reaction section, but given your history of edit warring on not just this but other articles as well (e.g. [13]) it is understandable that you couldn't/didn't want to read my comment properly. But even if I accepted what you meant by the term "that structure", the main point of contention still remains, which is your positioning of the sentence "the military action against Syria was conducted without either U.S. congressional or United Nations Security Council approval" as the opening sentence of the lead paragraph for the US reaction section. [14] Given your previous edits on this and other articles (e.g. [15] and [16]) which is indicative of a pro-Syrian government stance that you hold, your deceptive portrayal of the American reaction simpliciter to the airstrikes as decisively negative through the positioning of that sentence in that way is unsurprising because since the United States is arguably the chief opponent of the Assadist regime, it would give the Assadist government and its allies' positions on the airstrikes its greatest measure of moral credibility if you're able to give reader the impression that the American people hold the same position that the Assadist regime is taking, which is an unambiguous opposition to the airstrikes. This ideological subtext that drives your attempts to deliberately misrepresent the American position simpliciter on the airstrikes also explain the exclusivity of your focus/your obsession to restructure the American reaction section (vis-a-vis the "Syrian and allies" and "international" reaction sections) such that it leads of with not the mixed reactions of American government officials to the airstrikes, but an interpretation of the event that has irredeemably negative connotations and associations. But the problem with such an edit would be that, in addition to contravening the extant empirical evidence of the American public opinion on the airstrikes and violating NPOV, it would be no more than a statement of your political bias; this problem of tendentiousness equally applies to your selective editing of the anti-airstrike protests, in which you chose to just highlight the affiliation of far-right groups with the protests even though as a matter of fact they were organized by groups on both the far-right and the far-left. I point out in closing that at least one editor has already essentially reverted your reverts of my edits ([17]) to the edits that I originally made so do not revert my reverts ([18] and [19]) of your reverts unless you have the consensus to justify your future edits/reverts. Blagamaga (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In short, you did not substantiate your edit with any editing policy, actually ignored the noted violation of editing principle, and instead to be concise and focused on content change, are you aware that you wrote a WP:WALLOFTEXT personally accusing (WP:PERSONAL with cherry-picking) and misrepresenting other editor for something he has nothing in common? Such an "ideological" comment could have only be written from someone who is already ideologically biased, and it is an actual example of yours "political bias", "obsession" and frustration. Your reply is another example that I was true when warned that on both articles is slowly pushed violation of WP:IMPARTIAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I justified my reversion of your reverts with reference to NPOV so your accusation that I did not substantiate my edits with references to Wikipedia's editing policies is as absurd as your implication that the changes that you are proposing would not violate WP:IMPARTIAL. I also noted how another editor has already reverted your reversion of my edits to the edits that I originally made so the onus is on you to get the consensus for the changes that you are trying to ram through. Blagamaga (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again a revert, speechless. You show WP:GAMETYPE behavior - there was no justification because your statement about NPOV is your false personal opinion about other editor "personal bias" or "selective editing", while in the same time ignoring MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Your ideological bias is crystal clear. As for what you said in the last sentence - that does not make a consensus. Sorry, with this warning it is more than obvious you do not understand that you're the one who is ignoring editing policy, who is edit warring, and who does not understand WP:BRD. Don't ram your way to the noticeboard. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I will try to expand the "Public" sub-heading, hence the cited information about alt-right protests will be reverted (it is reliably cited and relevant information and it needs due to PARAGRAPHS), as well move "article noted" sentence to related heading and paragraph. If you do not agree with this intermediate proposal then it will be reverted previous revision with no two sub-headings.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to sound authoritative by citing as many Wikipedia editing policies as possible that you are accusing me of violating, but it would make your performance be more credible if you actually took the time to digest the significance of this simple fact that as another editor has already reverted your reversion of my edits to the edits that I originally made, the onus is on YOU (emphasis added) to get the consensus for the changes that you are proposing. Blagamaga (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In short, you ignore the violation of editing policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: your revert, with which violated WP:LEAD, with which made bunch of citation errors, removed reliably sourced information without any substantiation, with such an ironical and contradicting edit summary "Too much controversial detail for intro. And remember that intro is only a summary of content sourced in the body of page; it should not include all refs itself" - it is nothing more but a WP:DISRUPTIVE edit and provocation as a consequence related to your contemporary replies ([20], [21]) at the noticeboard. Your obsessive tracking of my activity has no reasonable limits and does not exclude damaging improvement of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Responded here. In addition, you are making massive changes without consensus. But I am not really opposed to your changes in the body of the page. You can make them when appropriate and if others do not object. The reason for my revert are only your changes in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

These "massive changes" i.e. improvement of the article, are challenged without any substantiation, even when there's some substantiation, it's simply not based on any valid sources, editing policy or reasoning. Once again, you made a revert without any substantiation and reasonable explanation for it. You removed both the "changes" in the lead and body of the article. Your comment on my user talk page is not a valid substantiation - your removal is not on any valid ground an improvement of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I mostly do not like phrase "The U.S. attacked because it attributed the chemical attack to the Syrian government, but the responsibility for it is still disputed and the Syrian government denied involvement.". I do not think this is proper description of the situation as described on the page and as reflected in RS on the subject. If fact, there is little doubt the attack was committed by the Assad regime. But let's wait and see what other contributors think. I will support whatever most of them would suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can not believe it that contributors do not know the rules of common discussion - basically, you made a major revert because of your personal opinion about some reliably sourced wording in one sentence in one part of the revert? Because of your dislike of a phrase without specifically explaining it and proposing/doing any minor change? Because of your personal opinion which contradicts factual reality and quotes from RS; because of your personal opinion according to which, that the U.S. did not attack, that it is a "fact" (violation of WP:ASSERT) there's "little doubt" about Assad's responsibility; because of your personal opinion which is not based or substantiated by any cited source or editing policy? Yours or ours personal opinion have no value, Wikipedia is WP:NOTOPINION for personal advocacy, propaganda, or opinion pieces. You act like to have such ideological and legal authority to push/ignore what you personally do/do not like and violate WP:IMPARTIAL. If you want to convince people about your opinion and edit alternate reality then "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum", until then do not be a WP:GAMETYPE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't used Wikipedia's voice for such a thing, just say who said what in this case. Stickee (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What a failed revert. Obviously another provocation. These are intentionally WP:DISRUPTIVE reverts because are not substantiated by anything for valid consideration.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please get a consensus for your changes. You just came out of a 72 hour block for you warring. Editors hear have clearly stated why your proposed changes are unacceptable. Stickee (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Obiviously you are not aware what you have done. You made a major revert because you do not follow nor engage in the discussion. Yours edit summary of a disruptive revert is based on "edit warring" (which had nothing to do with this article), and it is not acceptable anyhow. Your both reverts were about another editors editing activity which had nothing to do with this article, i.e. the content change was not substantiated with any valid reason, source, or editing policy. You, like editors above, intentionally ignore and support the violation of multiple editing policies, intentionally ignore to discuss or to discuss with valid reasoning, and all of you show anything but WP:GAMETYPE. I had enough of your ignorance and gaming with both the content and me, this is the end of the discussion, you're going to be reported. It is simply ridiculous that editors who are actually disruptively edit warring are accusing me for it, what a hypocrisy. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:@Stickee:@Volunteer Marek: you have one chance to finally engage in the discussion and address your issues with the current revision and content change you're intentionally gaming. I literally do not care if you are not aware that your behavior was and is WP:GAMETYPE. If you fail to explain your reasoning and propose content change, I had enough with your gaming and am going to fill a report at noticeboard.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There's extensive discussion and explanation right above. You're just engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You got blocked for edit warring and as soon as the block expired you came back here and resumed the edit war over the same issue, except this time being a bit more careful about tip toeing around the 1RR line. And then you have the gall to accuse others of WP:GAMEing! Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In the discussion above there is no discussion, explanation nor substantiation about the major reversion. The block had nothing to do with this article, yet Khan Shaykhun chemical attack article ([22]), as such yours reply is typical example of gaming WP:SANCTIONGAME. Nice, you gave more material for report, and of course you had a chance but failed to comment on content change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the explanation doesn't mean there was no explanation. Stickee (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This article proves Wikipedia is just a cut and paste plagiarism site

The air strike in the grand scheme of things is something that happened. But does it warrant an article? No. Because nothing notable happened that is beyond the scope of adding a couple of lines to the Syrian War article. Should every missile ever fired now be a documented event? Every bullet? Every bomb?

The only thing that empowers this article is that it is fed through all the repetitive press coverage that can be added to the "reaction" section.

But it's copypaste is that violates WP:RECENT.

Meanwhile there are reams and reams of pisspoor history articles on this site that sum up their entire topics' existence by covering centuries or even millenniums with just one or two sentences.

Likewise how can anything scholarly or academic be gleaned from an event that has just happened? None whatsoever. This is just news (plagiarised from published sources) masquerading as a peer-reviewed article in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.56.173 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is SO bad, why are you wasting your precious time here? Go find something useful to do! WWGB (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The air strike never happened. It came from the sea. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but your objection borders on the absolutely insane, and it is definitely within the boundaries of the absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with this assessment Nuvigil (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that history has absolved me, ip.SamHolt6 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Steve Bannon...but was overruled by Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner."

"White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon had reportedly opposed the strike, but was overruled by Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner." This sentence implies that a Senior Advisor to the President in this case Jared Kushner has the legal authority to authorize military action, which is not at all the case. To someone with little knowledge of the national command authority they could perhaps come away with the understanding that this is the case (which it is not.) I have thus changed this to "White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon had reportedly opposed the strike, and disagreed with Senior Advisor to the President, Jared Kushner who reportedly favored the strike." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmons123456 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable estimate of Shayrat damage

Since only minor physical damage was caused (although nine civilians including four children were reported by the Syrians to have died in the attack), as reported by The Guardian, is it possible to find any more reliable assessment of the damage caused by this attack? Some sources say that it took $100 million of Tomahawk missiles to do this little bit of damage. Is it possible to confirm (reliably) how much damage was done? Santamoly (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

After the bombing of Damascus and Homs in 2018, fragments of Tomahawk missiles were shown, including an unexploded warhead

After the bombing of Damascus and Homs in 2018, fragments of Tomahawk missiles were shown, including an unexploded warhead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RT not RS

Re [23]. This is a, at best, misleading edit summary. RT is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Consensus was reached. Yes, there were objections but there always are. Consensus was that RT should not be used for anything except the most basic facts or direct quotations from Russian officials. This is policy as it has been widely applied across the encyclopedia.

Yes, RT isn't reliable like, say, the New York Times, that had Judith Miller on their payroll. She won the Pulitzer Prize for her amazing work with Ahmed Chalabi. Wikipedia has to only use sources that have unimpeachable standards and ethics! It's not as if US corporate owned media would ever engage in misleading information that might turn out to be blatant propaganda like Russia would! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you really really really really must, you can take it to RSN again and try to relitigate the issue. Good luck with that. But for now, RT is NOT considered reliable, there's is NO consensus for inclusion, and reverting to put it back in with, uh, misleading, edit summaries is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

RT is highly propagandaic so I've replaced it at least in one case. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, per the notice at the top of this page, you're not suppose to restore edits which have been challenged by reversion, as Fitz did here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of the missile battery

Editor Vnkd is repeatedly changing the name of the missile battery from SA-6 - which is what the reference article calls it - to 2k12 kub. While the names are synonymous, we need to identify them as the article identifies them. I tried a compromise of noting the the 2k12 kub is also known as SA-6, but editor Vndk reverts, and leaves uncivil summaries, in particular, "Do yuou even know what a 2K12 is? educate yourself before reverting! just type 2K12 on this very site and you will find... the original name of SA-6!". No, I did not know that about the 2K12/SA-6 - but we aren't writing the encyclopedia for experts in subject matter, we write it precisely for those who don't know the details. The referenced source refers to them only as SA-6. Not including that in our material derived from that source will only lead to reader confusion - and we are not here to do that. Please either leave my compromise of "5 2K12 (also known as SA-6)", or propose a different version, or instead, cite a source that refers to the destroyed batteries as 2K12. Please work collaboratively. Anastrophe (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

How about a section about the objective(s) of the strike?

There's nothing at all in the article about what the objective(s) of the are thought to have been. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"Tulsi Gabbard's position on the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tulsi Gabbard's position on the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21 § Tulsi Gabbard's position on the 2017 Shayrat missile strikes until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)