Talk:April 2018 missile strikes against Syria/Archive 1

Nancy pelosi

Resolved

Nancy Pelosi is not a senator. Your editor thinks this is. Personal opinion and my comment trying to correct an error is vandalism. Please correct it before Wikipedia looks silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c100:fcf:989f:ea2e:cf00:da81 (talk)

The current article doesn't even mention Pelosi. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dailymail source indicating Australian PM's support for strikes

Resolved

This source [1] quotes Malcolm Turnbull, and said quotes support the strikes in Syria. Should I add the information in spite of Wikipedia's stance on using the Dailymail as a source, or wait for corroboration from other sources?--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBS has something [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBS is good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and Canada?

Australia and Canada were not belligerents, they shouldn't be under that subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC1E:C000:8150:FB41:3E2:C27B (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and Canada supported the bombing, refs are in the article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are refs for them in the article. Infobox content on these types of articles is often a nightmare to try to obtain consensus; I remember months of arguments at 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis. You can still edit the article yourself if you feel strongly; I'm at WP:3RR at this point so am going to retire for the night. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]== Russia ==

Shouldn't Russia be under the support section for Syria? They let them move their aircraft into their bases and defended them at the UN. Syrian air defence systems are most likely Russian as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC1E:C000:8150:FB41:3E2:C27B (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ft.com/content/8ad661d4-3e5e-11e8-b9f9-de94fa33a81e

Are you sure of any of the claims in that post? We don't base what we write on who you have taken sides with. We need reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump series infobox

As there's going to be a lot of edits here, to avoid 3RR problems, I'm starting a section on what should be a trivial issue. Don't add the {{Donald Trump series}} to this article. Unless there's some support in this section for the (excessively long) navbox, I intend to claim any further reversions of this are exempt from 3RR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's not add this template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, the article is not long enough to accommodate such a large template.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree.- Mr X 🖋 11:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{air force|France}} returns flag icon and red link to France Air Force instead French Air Force

Referenced in the infobox. Pls fix. --Mareklug ^talk 01:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs fixing; bypassing it peacemeal with two wikilinks is not a general soultion. --Mareklug ^talk 08:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Template_talk:Country_data_France#French_Air_Force. Needs admin action. Greenshed (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to "April 2018 coalition attack on Syria"

The name of the country targeted should be specified, as well as making the month precise.Vhstef (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statements and reactions - too many

As is typical with articles on events like this, the number of entries in this section is rapidly increasing. It cannot continue until we include comments from every world leader who wants his name in the news. I suggest limiting it to comments from the belligerents and neighbouring countries. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should limit it to belligerents and their involved allies.- Mr X 🖋 11:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What of nations like Turkey that are involved in the Syrian Civil War but did not take part in the strike?--SamHolt6 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure.- Mr X 🖋 16:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better not to attempt to come up with very debatable criterion for excluding views. A separate article titled something like Reactions to the 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs would be better with a prose summary in this article. Greenshed (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's time to WP:SPINOFF the reactions as per usual. The article is already overwhelmed by flags and remarks.- Mr X 🖋 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section is becoming ludicrous. Why does anyone care what Kosovo's government thinks about a conflict in a different continent in which it is not a belligerent? Does it really meet the notability guidelines?—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The response of the Kosovo government may not be of much interest to the typical reader but for someone (perhaps in the future) looking to research the attitudes of Kosovo to the western powers, it could well be useful. That's why I favour a spin off article which does not give undue weight to minor parties views in this article while still enabling those who really want to know to find the answer somewhere else. As to notability, that applies to articles not sentences - let's just make sure that what is written is capable of being backed by citations to reliable sources. Greenshed (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article Douma chemical attack also has a reactions section. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the reactions section is currently excessive. We don't need to hear that other NATO members have approved of an action by NATO members. However, some things, I feel, are worth keeping. The Kosovo reaction, perhaps; the reaction from Argentina because it is unusual for a Western power; Turkey's mention of its airbases not having been used; the mention of Italy refusing permission for use of its airbases; Cuba's opposition perhaps. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now HALF of a comprehensive article! It's time to act. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the less than two hours since I wrote the above, there have been eleven additions to the list. Bolivia? Does no-one else agree this is insane? HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely time to create a "Reactions to" split for all the flag lovers. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it needs a separate article. There is no clear way to say which countries/NGOs should or should not be included. Perhaps the main article should have the belligerents only - with everyone else in the spin-off - and even then this criteria can be subjectively interpreted as the politics of the war is very murky. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barzah scientific research centre

I invite editors to help expand the Barzah scientific research centre article, and help differentiate this specific site from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center article, which seems to be more about the agency than the Barzah site. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2018 OPCW report (section 11):

"the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities of the SSRC was concluded on 22 November 2017. ...The analysis of samples taken during the inspections did not indicate the presence of scheduled chemicals in the samples, and the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention during the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities."

https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/88/en/ec88dg01_e_.pdf

Keith McClary (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties

Some of the target were in residential damascus so there must be a ton of civilian casualties because (according to media) the targets were chemical weapon storages and factories/research centers. If you hit a bulding that stores chemical wepons then those chemicals get dispersed over a large area. I will collect some information/references on this and add them to the article. DerElektriker (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey this dictator killed people, let's kill 100x as many!" God dammit, what is the logic in this bombing? Alex of Canada (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a forum with your filthy mouth. The Talk Pages are not for WP:SOAP, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Votes at home. But I know that will never become part of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you have reliable sources for what are so far just partisan speculations on motives and casualties, please add them. Everybody has opinions — facts, not so much. —Blanchette (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, you need to read https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life Attack Ramon (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

That demands an explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for all these civilian casualties or are we just making things up now?- Mr X 🖋 11:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A storm of Storm Shadow links

All of the British and French weapons launched were variants of the Storm Shadow missile, which is called several other different things when in French service. The result is that the article is now littered with wikilinks for assorted variants of this missile, all of which, the reader will be WP:SURPRISEd to learn, go right back to the same Storm Shadow article. Perhaps we could add initial text along the lines of "All French and British missiles used were variants of the Storm Shadow missile", and then remove the separate links for each variant, perhaps using "variant" wording. Thoughts please. MPS1992 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: for reasons above - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am one of those readers duped into repeated visits to the same article. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- the repeated links using different text have now been removed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suggestion

As the event was a direct result of the chemical attack in Douma I would like to suggest this article be merged with Douma chemical attack.

Nemoanon (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS Response to the Bombings

Was there an ISIS response to the bombings? It is not mentioned in the article.

Good. There are already far too many responses. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need one, already have a plethora of response to the bombings from irrelevant parties. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statements and reactions section is too long

About 1/3 of the article is just listings of various nations and their reaction to the strike. I say we keep relevant nations and get rid of the inconsequential (for lack of a better term) ones to remove clutter. Reactions from countries like Chile, Kosovo, or Brazil are just so irrelevant to this issue. Keep reactions strictly from NATO nations, belligerent parties, and countries in the immediate region. Of course I open it to a consensus vote on the matter. Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph is odd

The current lead states "The three countries claimed to do so in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in Douma in eastern Ghouta on 7 April, which they attributed to the Syrian Government. Syria denied involvement in the Douma attacks and called the airstrikes a violation of international law." The word "claimed" appears nowhere in the cited sources and may violate WP:CLAIM; it's odd that Syria's dubious statements are presented as more credible in the lead. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister

The following is flawed: ‘Prime Minister Theresa May’. This because Prime Minister is a position not a title. Can someone with editing access correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.25.102 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

WTF has this page been protected? I can see only one instance of vandalism prior to protection, and that was quickly mopped up by ClueBot. Previous to that, some great work had been done by IPs (including me on a different address). Seems like the only reason is to get rid of IP editing. 86.187.163.215 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

90+ Military Casualties

"The Chemical Research Center near Damascus & the Barzeh military-research base were both targeted by US missiles, leaving at least 5 Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Quds Force members killed, reports indicate.

Even though 90 percent of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force units evacuated all bases prior to the attack, sources in Syria say at least 15 IRGC Quds Force advisors were killed in these attacks. Their bodies are reportedly missing.

40 Lebanese Hezbollah members & 35 Syrian military personnel were also killed." https://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2018/04/16/ANALYSIS-Are-Syria-strikes-a-wake-up-call-for-Iran-.html

Daveinsea (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'Bombing'

Our inability to effect a simple and obviously needed correction to the title of this article shows the basic weakness of editing by 'consensus.' Too many cooks, too much bloody-minded intransigence. It was never so in journalism, or in publishing generally. Sca (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the simple fix? "Cruise missile attacks" is too long and "attacks" is too vague, if those are still your preferences. But that's just my stupid opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most RS news sites use "strike/s." Sca (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UN Votes

' On 10 April, an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting was held where competing solutions were presented on how to handle the response to the alleged chemical attack; all were ultimately vetoed' Errr, not that I know, only the allies backed resolutions were vetoed (by Russian). The Russian drafts failed to gather the minimum amount of votes and were never vetoed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.27.186 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portals and Templates

Why the need for templates of Trump and May, and links to the France, UK and US portals? They serve no useful purpose in this article. Should we remove them? 31.52.167.150 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current portals bar seems fine:

{{portal bar|2010s|France|Syrian Civil War|United Kingdom|United States}} ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why 2010s and Syrian Civil War are useful, but not the country-related ones. 31.52.167.150 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anonymous IP editor. If we do include a country-related one, maybe Syria itself, but not France, the UK, or the US. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The {2010s} and {Syrian Civil War} (and perhaps Syria) portals are useful here, others are superfluous.--ז62 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've removed the Trump+May templates & removed the country-related portals without adding Syria since there seems to be a rather rough agreement and it's a considerably small part of the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

This section is way too long and too quote-based. We need to slim it down to a summary of the main relevant reactions and lose most of this. I emphatically do not want to see this moved to a standalone article. --John (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.- Mr X 🖋 11:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as I had stated above. Only relevant reactions should be from NATO members, Russia, Syria, nuclear powers like India and China, and countries in the immediate region. Reactions from Brazil, Chile, the Ivory Coast, etc. are irrelevant and inconsequential. Sovietmessiah (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the mess. Please help me to keep it encyclopedic. We do not need a list quoting every world politician who gave a bland statement via Twitter, with hundreds of tiny flags. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of quotes. --John (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are reactions that condemned the attack missing entirely from this section? It made it seem like only Russia, Syria and Iran condemned the strike when many more like China, Cuba and Venezuela actually condemned it? To be honest the entire international response to this attack is important for impartiality, the current state of the section makes it seem like either most country support it or are quiet about it. Nebakin (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missiles shot down found and sent to Russia

http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/5139903 https://www.kp.ru/online/news/3088708/ https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2018/04/19/11721721.shtml Две несдетонировавшие в ходе удара США 14 апреля крылатые ракеты, найденные сирийскими военными в хорошем состоянии, 18 апреля отправлены самолетом в Россию. Об этом сообщил ТАСС в четверг источник в сирийском военном ведомстве.

Two non-detonated in the course of the US attack on April 14 cruise missiles, found by the Syrian military in good condition, were sent by air to Russia on April 18. A source in the Syrian military department told Tass on Thursday.

More on TASS: 185.124.231.221 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS; TASS is not generally considered a reliable source eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3008716&tid=95994 ля их уничтожения хватило бы 30 ракет, а не 103, которые были выпущены. to destroy them would be enough for 30 missiles, not 103, which were released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

probably need to kill 4 million US citizens for the balance of the killed citizens in Vietnam? will agree this is a great joke? Washington Post is no better than TASS, this is not a joke.

https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3008716&tid=95994 Two non-detonated in the course of the US attack on April 14 cruise missiles, found by the Syrian military in good condition, were sent by air to Russia on April 18. A source in the Syrian military department told Tass on Thursday. http://tass.ru/ http://tass.ru/tass-today Cooperation TASS maintains partnership relations with more than 60 news agencies around the world. TASS is the head of the Russian National Committee of the International Program for the Development of Communication of UNESCO, a member of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Information and Communication (IPDC), the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO.

TASS is an active and authoritative member of the world and regional media organizations:

World Media Summit (WMS) World Congress of News Agencies (NAWC) The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) Organization of information agencies of the countries of Asia and the Pacific (OANA) Black Sea Association of National Information Agencies (BSANNA) The Council of Heads of the State Information Agencies of the CIS (CIS Information Board) and the Association of National Information Agencies of the CIS Member States (ANIA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, sources claim that no missiles were actually shot down and almost all the launches by Syrian forces happened after the US/French/UK missiles had impacted. See here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/syria-only-got-off-two-missiles-while-coalition-strikes-hit-despite-russian-claims-that-71-were-intercepted?source=articles&via=rss . The source quoted in the Vesti piece is TASS, so it is not a seperate report. As said above, TASS is not considered a reliable source. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say that The Daily Beast is a reliable mainstream source as well, it is mostly opinion based.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://rg.ru/2018/04/19/kak-upavshie-v-sirii-umnye-rakety-trampa-pomogut-rossii.html Two (1=JASSM-ER) non-detonated in the course of the US attack on April 14 cruise missiles, found by the Syrian military in good condition, were sent by air to Russia on April 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actual

Ministry of Defense of Syria. It was stated that two serviceable missiles had been seized and taken to Russia.^[1] Ministry of Defense of Russia. It was stated that there are enough 10 and a maximum of 30 missiles for destruction by 100-300% of the targets that the US Department of Defense officially declared.^[2] It was confirmed that at least 46 missiles were destroyed, and that their fragments will be shown.^[3]

The fragments of missiles defeated by air defense were shown, publicly, officially, openly for study.^[4]^[5] https://sputniknews.com/world/201804251063889631-russia-mod-us-missiles-syria/ En

References

^ "Как упавшие в Сирии "умные" ракеты Трампа помогут России".
^ "Две "умные" ракеты Трампа прилетели в Россию".
^ "Фрагменты сбитых в Сирии ракет продемонстрируют в Москве‍". 2018-04-25. {{cite web}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 57 (help)
^ "В Минобороны РФ показали сбитые сирийской ПВО американские "Томагавки"".
^ http://www.interfax.ru/russia/610081

The "Objective" is spreading anti-Syrian propaganda

"Alleviate humanitarian suffering..."
Could the Objective line be changed? First, there is no consensus that it was Syria behind the chemical attack in Douma. Second, the strike will not bring back the dead.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're seeing there is faulty use of the Infobox operational plan template. I imagine Objective is meant to show the specific target of a military operation, i.e. what they they were trying to blow up. At this point it is just repeating one side's propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing such as "to alleviate humanitarian suffering" is absolutely doing the propaganda of one side, and any edits such as that should be removed immediately. The very wording comes off as Orwellian; more explosives won't alleviate the suffering of anyone. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, the blatantly propagandistic tone used there has to be intentional. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Britain, it's saying the explosions are aimed at degrading chemical weapon capability and deterring Syria from using them. That lack of further gassing is what alleviates the future suffering (in theory). Not about euthanasia or resurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title of page

Should it be "American-led intervention in Syria" or "2018 coalition military action against Syria", or something else entirely? --Vhstef (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest idea. Let's not move it for another 6-8 hours, hopefully the facts will be clear then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, first reports use the word "strike". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the use of "intervention" implies a longer series of military actions rather than a series of strikes. More information is needed to decide upon a proper title.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that two articles will be necessary; one on the strikes tonight, and another on any on-going conflict that they start. It's impossible to know at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After yet another undiscussed move, Oshwah has move-protected the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs" seems too broad. Hasn't there been previous "bombings" (e.x. clashes in southern Damascus) in Damascus this year? There will most likely be further bombings in the future as well. I suggest adding April to the title. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion A concise, searchable, non-confusing title (with the earlier Israeli airborne attack at Holms) would be: 2018 Allied military strike on Syria's chemical program targets --Mareklug ^talk 08:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concise?...anyways, let's have an RM discussion. ansh 666 18:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

concise | kənˈsīs |

adjective

giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive: a concise account of the country's history.

Yes, I know what concise means, but "in a few words" is definitely not what your title is. Either way, I've opened a RM below so please comment there. ansh 666 20:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest changing the name of this article to: Coalation strikes on Damascus and Homs. I think this is very clear to everybody and the 2018 is unnecessary because this is actually the first time the US striked Damascus. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, but no clear consensus to move to any particular title, per the discussion below. There is significant opposition to including the rationale for the missile strikes; some objection to the geographic inaccuracy of "Damascus and Homs"; some objection to the imprecision of "bombing"; and some vagueness in the inclusion of "coalition." There is also some indication that other significant attacks against Syria have taken place in 2018; but those events do not appear to have independent articles, or they have not been classified using the categories that have been applied to this article. Therefore, I am moving the page to 2018 missile strikes against Syria at this time, with the understanding that further disambiguation may be necessary in the future. As explained in the scenario at the bottom of WP:THREEOUTCOMES ("There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place."), any editor may initiate another move request at any time. If that becomes necessary, please do choose a specific intended target for the move request. Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs → ? – There have been lots of undiscussed moves, so let's try to narrow down the options and come to some kind of consensus on where exactly this should be. The titles that it's been at so far include:

2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs (current title)
2018 striking of Damascus and Homs (to match the link on the English Wikipedia main page)
American-led intervention in Syria (April 2018)
2018 coalition military action against Syria
2018 coalition missile strikes against Syria
2018 United States missile strikes against Syria
April 14 Coalition strikes on Syria
2018 American-led missile strikes in Syria (a duplicate)
2018 Allied strike on suspected chemical weapons sites in Syria

There are also some redirects with decent titles. ansh 666 19:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support April 2018 coalition strikes in Syria and oppose any reference to the US in the title. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the title of the article "2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs" unless more bombings of Damascus and Homs occur later this year, in which case the title of this article should be changed to "April 14, 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs". Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion if you did not like concise (as in, expressing information completely and accurately in necessary words), go for pithy: 2018 Allied military strike on Syria --Mareklug ^talk 20:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, please see discussion under Syria at Errors page. Thanks. Sca (talk)
- Sca I looked over the history at all of the page versions for April 13, 14, and 15. The Errors in In the news was always empty those days and also the word "Syria" never appears anywhere on the talk page on any of those days. The discussion you mention was either subject to WP:REVDEL or you have the wrong link. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MP/E Errors in In the news from 20:52, 14 April 2018 is the discussion Sca mentioned. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My suggestion for the new title is 2018 attacks on Damascus and Homs. – Sca (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - have only clicked on this through front page. I don't find the current title bad. Support pithiness of Mareklug. I oppose any use of the words "American", "Allied" and "Coalition" as being imprecise. United States could be used, but is that putting some subjectivity in the title? The current title is OK, but could the word bombing be made more precise? I would support something such as 2018 missile strikes against Syria - they give a year, a more precise account of what happened (missile strike), and it is clear it is against Syria. An alternative is 2018 military action against Syria. Thoughts? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please narrow this down to two or three titles? Otherwise we'll end up with an abundance of users' personal suggestions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, support narrowing, support narrowing down to 3 titles. From now on, vote for 3. After 2 days, the top 3 vote choices will have a runoff. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some other suggestions have problems. It was not an American attack. The use of the word "bombing" is inaccurate because most of the strike were missiles, not bombs. That would be like saying "2018 musket attack of Damascus". Another problem is that it was not a bombing but a retaliatory strike. Yet another problem is Damascus and Homs are cities and they were spared. Instead, military targets were carefully chosen according to news reports and press releases.

I chose April 2018 military response to Syrian chemical warfare Vanguard10 (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh [3] - @Ansh666: I'm begging you: intervene. I would support unilateral closure of this thread and any other RM you initiate. Anything but this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 military response to Syrian chemical warfare or similar is best. Damascus and Homs were NOT bombed so they definitely should NOT be in the title.--Petebutt (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose page move – The current title is good. The only other title that could possibly improve this article would be 2018 airstrikes in Damascus and Homs, but that title isn't very different from the current one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top 3 voting method, see above

- 2018 coalition military action against Syria, 2018 Syrian chemical attack retaliation, April 2018 military response to Syrian chemical warfare Vanguard10 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be just voting, we should be discussing to try to decided what the article title should be. and we should be using WP:Article titles for guidance, which says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." So what is the consensus amongst the reliable sources? Googling news for just the last 24 hours I see "Syria strikes" and "Syria airstrikes" are used far more commonly than "Syria attacks", so I would start by proposing "Syria airstrikes" as the title, or possibly "2018 Syria airstrikes", and take it from there. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- 2018 air strike against Syria. My suggestion. Appears to be WP:COMMONNAME: GNews. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you don't want to try this, then good luck.

Let's try again

Right, so it's clear that that won't get us anywhere. I'll draft up something a bit more structured. Meanwhile, continue discussing in the collapse if you want. ansh 666 23:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, given the relative success of the naming discussion for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article, I've broken it into sections based on what I'm seeing so far in the discussion. Hopefully we come up with something resembling consensus on each section, then work from there to put it together. Please keep in mind the policy, WP:TITLE, especially WP:COMMONNAME. I see there's already discussion about how the event has been described in the media, which should be a main guide to the result here. Thanks, ansh 666 00:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year, month, date

There have been a variety of combinations for these disambiguators propoesd - from a simple "2018" to "April 14" to a parenthetical "April 2018". What, if any, of the year, month, and date, should be included?

Year--Petebutt (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible none, especially if Douma is mentioned. If not mentioned, then the year is useful because there's been more than one missile strike. If there's another strike later in the year, then April is useful. April 14th should not be used except for possible a Syrian Government martyr's website. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Year - Master Of Ninja (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Event description

Again, a variety of these: "strikes", "airstrike", "bombing", "military action", "missile strikes", "retaliation", "response to Syrian chemical warfare", etc. How should the event be described in the title?

air-strike--Petebutt (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
response to Syrian chemical warfare, especially if smartly done into a good title. One example would be "2018 missile response to Syrian chemical warfare". Airstrike is a bit off because there were no gravity or guided bombs, but cruise missiles. Bombing is inaccurate. Strikes is potentially awkward to understand for the non-native English speaker. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Missile attack - Master Of Ninja (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target

Should the target be included in the title, and if so, how? Suggestions include "against Syria", "Damascus and Homs", and "Syrian chemical warfare program". Of course, the specifics depend somewhat on the description.

Either 'Syria' or 'Syrian chemical warfare program' but NOT Damascus and Homs as they were not targeted or bombed.--Petebutt (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nothing - this could potentially make the title very awkward (like "2018 response to Syrian chemical warfare against Syria..." Vanguard10 (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mention either Syria or against Syria - Master Of Ninja (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

And last: should the actors behind the event be described in the title, and if so, how? The current title doesn't include it, but others have: "American-led" and "coalition" seem to be the most common. (Simply "United States" would be incorrect, so that shouldn't be an option.)

coalition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nothing - There is no coalition. It is not (USA-UK-France-not Germany-not Belgium) because even though Belgium didn't send planes, they supported it. On the other hand, there is not a coalition on paper, just a defacto collection of countries acting. It's not NATO or the formal coalition during the Gulf War in 1991. Again, adding the "winner" of these various sub-sections to form a title is not the way to go. If naming an airport that way, you might get Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall International Airport of Baltimore. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs → Military response to the Douma chemical attack

Missile attacks in response to Douma chemical attacks, suggested above by power~enwiki, is very reasonable indeed when compared to all the other proposals here. But it's also a bit long. So why not just Military response to the Douma chemical attack? I find it not only concise, but also NPOV. That way we don't need to pick between "American-led", "coalition" or "Allied" (no need to specify the location either), and the absence of a date helps avoid potential WP:CRYSTAL concerns in regards to future strikes.

Pinging @Ansh666, Brian Everlasting, Mareklug, Sca, Master Of Ninja, Vanguard10, LightandDark2000, Petebutt, Noclador, Nick-D, Ajfweb, Smeagol 17, BrendonTheWizard, Keith McClary, and Daß Wölf:. Hope I didn't miss anyone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I like the title Military response to the Douma chemical attack. I also like the title April 2018 military response to Syrian chemical warfare which was suggested early in this discussion and already has support of at least 3 different editors including me. 2018 Syrian chemical program missile strike has support of 5 different editors but I could imagine readers confusing that title with the "Douma chemical attack" article. Also I think the current title 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs is better than about 76% of the title suggestions I've read so far. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me? Yes,this is ok. It is much better than the current title. The current title is so bad and inaccurate that it should be changed immediately and the RM continued to see if the best corrected title was chosen. My original vote stands but this is an acceptable substitute. For the sake of compromise, I also vote support for this unless it is down to my original vote versus this one (Military response to the Douma chemical attack). Vanguard10 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine readers confusing that title with the "Douma chemical attack" article - How is that even remotely possible? WP:SPINOFF articles exist for a reason. And we're not counting !votes here. We're simply discussing a new (and hopefully final) proposal. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Him Shinshar and Barzeh missile strike? See 2017 Shayrat missile strike. Or was Shayrat so much more known in the world at large before 2017? Im also against mentioning Douma in the title. It is just opening a can of worms without any encyclopedic need. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain the arguments I cited previously and therefore oppose this title. I still believe that 2018 missile attacks against Syria is the most ideal title proposed so far. This article should be about the limited strike itself rather than having its name reference the suspected chemical attacks. I agree with Brian Everlasting's statement that the current title is better than the overwhelming majority of these suggestions. The criteria I'm looking for in a title are:

Neutral and objective - no POV or buzzwords
Accurately refers to the weapons used as missiles (as not bombs)
Not Americentric (such as American-led)
Refers to the limited strikes themselves, not the suspected chemical attacks that prompted them

For these reasons, "2018 missile attacks against Syria" is a fine title. The argument against it claiming that there are attacks against ISIS that took place in 2018 is awfully poor because it suggests that ISIS and Syria are the same political entity. However, if the title were to become obsolete due to another attack later in the year, it can become "April 2018 missile attacks against Syria" and if another attack is executed in only a couple of weeks (as unlikely as that may seem) then we can simply include the location. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this suggestion; alternatively, e.g. "(April) 2018 (Damascus and Homs missile strike)" if extra clarity is necessary. Matter-of-factly, descriptive, and unambiguous for even the dullest of the readers. Daß Wölf 23:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're nowhere close to reaching consensus on any title move. I can understand why BrendonTheWizard thinks we should avoid mentioning the suspected chemical attack that prompted the strikes. But then again, this was a relatively insignificant on-off operation, and someone already proposed (see below) merging this with the Douma chemical attack article. Since many of us agree that the current title looks "fine", I'm hoping someone non-involved would close this thread as "no consensus", because there clearly isn't. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is consensus to change the word "bombing" to anything other than what it is now because the attack was delivered by missiles, not bombs. 9³ 22:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you would like to, I think we could possibly reach a quick consensus to slightly modify the title from 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs → 2018 Damascus and Homs missile strikes (word order is slightly closer to the 2017 strike as well), but Fitzcarmalan does seem to be ready for a no consensus close which I fully understand. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A missile is a flying bomb. Many explode shortly before they strike, just like falling bombs. Not sure how these ones work, but I know they're designed to deliver bombs (or "warheads") to the approximate vicinity the user wants blown up but doesn't want to fly a plane over or sneak a person into. It's all essentially bombing, and "bombing" is shorter, so "bombing" is alright, except inconsistent with the Shayrat style. Both choices beat "warheading". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale for why the use of the word bombing isn't that problematic, and for that reason I'm okay with this closing as no consensus and therefore keeping the current title. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal of BrendonTheWizard. Mentioning the rationale of the attack is absurd as it would set a precent for articles about past and future warfare. The invasions of Poland, Grenada and bombings of Libya in the 1980s where all "responses" according to the perpetrators. Wikipedia titles should be clean of any excuses and descriptive and brief about what is fully factual. This recipe well save us much work such as having to waste time dismissing people insisting on including "chemical" in this article's title. Mamayuco (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your concerns and the examples you cited. Most every attack in history, whether we go back as far as World War I or the 30 Years' War, was in some way a "response" to something. Putting the casus belli in the title of military operation articles is a dangerous idea. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: + proposed new title: Both Homes and Damascus were bombed several times in recent history; Homes, days earlier by Israeli Air Force; Damascus, days later, ditto. So the current title is just terrible. The salient and distinguishing character of this episode comprises a) western powers' response and b) their punishment of Syria for chemical program application to warfare that resulted in civilian deaths. With an eye at the long and fruitless title search behind us, I thereby propose that Western response to Syrian chemical warfare is a good, open-ended title for content that may need expansion as this response grows over time. We may kill two birds with this one stone: merging the 2017 missile strike article (those 59 cruise missiles launched by the USA). --Mareklug ^talk 04:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not per the concerns previously mentioned by Mamayuco and I. Though it was in good faith that you proposed that title, out of all the proposals I've seen so far that is the one I take the most issues with. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My two cents. I agree that military response is a more accurate phrase than bombing, strike, or attack. Likewise, Douma chemical attack more accurately indicates what, or why, the military response was executed. Syrian chemical attack is not specific enough, hence the use of Douma. The title should also include the year it happened, 2018. So this would produce 2018 Military response to the Douma chemical attack. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this proposal do not address the concerns about including the rationale for the attack in the title. –Mamayuco (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Censorship?

Russian military demonstrated to media some fragments and parts presented as wreckage of Tomahawk, SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles downed by Syrian air defense...

Why was it deleted? It's a fact - they did show them and did call them so. And the video link. This is their evidence or at least so they say. If it turns out later to be another fake of theirs, it should be registered accordingly. But now - they have just made their next move, as was promised. Why do you want to conceal this?-- NavisL (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". The sources you provided did not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now happily includes interception claims previously made by Syrian army, Syrian state media, Russian military, and SOHR - ALL without any proof to them. Now Russian military makes a new claim supported by at least something. Is this support exactly what makes the source unreliable? -- NavisL (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existing Syrian and Russian claims in the article are sourced to, for example, CNN [5]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So my edit will become admissible as soon as CNN shows the same video? -- NavisL (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no, the exact edit you made, which doesn't cite CNN, would still be inadmissible. You would need to submit a new edit that specifically cites CNN as to the Russian military claims, and that states what CNN states. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant delay

...quite a time after Russia foreign minister's promise to 'very soon' materially validate claimed interception...

I do believe it merits inclusion subject to rewording or 'tone' change. What took them so long? Sorting the fragments out or dusting them off is irrelevant to disclosure of evidence. Could it be tampering or even fabrication? -- NavisL (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Violation of international law"

Is there such thing as international law? Who is in charge of and enforces the international law? 1.203.80.198 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for the international law talk page. Sovietmessiah (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such a thing as international law, and this strike violated specifically the United Nations Charter. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not for general discussion, so I would recommend doing research the next time you have questions similar to "does international law exist?" BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God! There is no law since cowboys are destroying the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuadaffiGlorious (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interception of missiles / SOHR

Presumably this will clear up over the next several days and weeks, but the wide variety of reported interceptions is concerning. The report by the SOHR seems to be the only "outside" (only because not a direct belligerent) source, but the linked article is barely in English so I have trouble believing its veracity...feels like it shouldn't be included. 2604:2000:F1C6:A900:D5C2:8334:A141:D8E8 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. On a related note, Storm Shadow -- and variant -- missiles do have a "failsafe" mode, not described in that way, whereby they take a last-minute view of the intended target and compare it to a record already in their computer. If the result does not look like what they should be targetting, they can fly to a pre-established "safe point" and crash or self-destruct there. This may explain a small proportion of missiles landing "off target", or the small craters offered as evidence of failure by regime forces. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon briefings report that no Syrian intervention attempts succeeded.--Petebutt (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a reliable, independent source in this instance. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, how is SOHR a reliable source when it comes to whether incoming missiles were or not intercepted at night? Syrian forces clearly fired a lot of AA in response, but how would civilian observers know the difference between a successful interception and an AA missile self-destructing at altitude? The idea that the vast majority of the incoming missiles were successfully intercepted is about as believable as the claim that none of them were. The reality probably lies somewhere in between, as historically it always. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The source is in English. It is not our editors' job to make such OR questions and statements regarding SOHR, civilian observers, missiles interception/destruction/self-destruction and so on, we quote what reliable sources reported. SOHR has own sources of information, they are quoted in other Syrian articles and being against the regime it's interesting they made such a claim.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Miki Filigranski. Our job is to write the report of 65 intercepted missiles and attribute it to SOHR, just like we insert the Pentagon's claim that none were intercepted, then let the readers decide whether to trust the claims or not. Debating the probability of SOHR's or the Pentagon's account constitutes POV Original Research, which is contrary to WP policy. EkoGraf (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR on missiles being shot down

Current version, which I've tried unsuccessfully to fix, is "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights... stated there was considerable material damage while also confirming that Syrian air defences struck down at least 65 missiles." This seems to me a misinterpretation of [6], which appears to claim unnamed sources told SOHR the missiles had been shot down, although the English is so terrible that there could be any number of other interpretations. In any case it's dubious that SOHR would be an RS for 65 missiles being shot down (how would they even know?) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed in an above section. As for SOHR's reliability, it has been discussed a few dozen times already over the past seven years since the start of the war and general Wikipedia consensus is its a reliable source on Syria-related news. We include all POVs and do not exclude one over the other, thus we present both the Pentagon's, Russia's, SOHR's and Polygraph's (VOA's) reports/analysis. EkoGraf (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the web page does SOHR "confirm" that 65 missiles were "struck down"? The text says "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights managed to monitored interception by the regime forces to tens of missiles which targeted their positions and military bases in the Syrian territory, where several intersected sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory, that the number missiles that were downed, exceeded 65 missiles, of the total number of missiles fired by the Trio Coalition". This is a meaningless, probably machine translation-generated (A human would be aware it's not called the "Trio Coalition"), word salad. Trying to infer that "downed" means "struck down" rather than "landed", or that "confirmed" has the same subtle meaning in machine translationese as it does in English, is WP:OR. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nit: yes, we do exclude Russian government WP:FRINGE POVs except in areas where reliable secondary sources establish that it would be WP:DUE to cover such odd statements. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "general Wikipedia consensus is its a reliable source on Syria-related news". I looked in the RS noticeboard and the most recent match for SOHR was some guy named EkoGraf stating "First, in Syria, basically there are no reliable sources" and arguing that if pro-government Masdar is excluded, SOHR should be excluded too. In any case, the consensus (apart from you) according to [7] seems to be closer to "(SOHR) should (not/rarely, depending on the editor responding) be used directly as a source, only reliable sources that quote SOHR", which would seem to also solve the problem of editors misinterpreting their unintelligible English. Personally I'm fine with SOHR as a primary source for non-controversial data, such as "X people were injured in a chemical attack". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The some guy is me so please lets stick to WP:Civil. Numerous discussion have been made on various Syrian war-related article talk pages over the course of seven years with the end result always being that SOHR is acceptable. When the last discussion took place I don't remember, its been a while. As for the "struck down" thing, I will reworded it so its according to the source which clearly says at least 65 missiles were "intercepted" and "downed", but please lets leave personal interpretations aside. Also, I am adding a BBC source for SOHRs report of 65 intercepted missiles. EkoGraf (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source is acceptable; I'd prefer an actual article rather than a BBC "breaking updates" feed for WP:DUE but it's hardly a hill I'm going to die on. I removed "confirmed" as it implies endorsement as a fact by Wikipedia; we should say "stated it confirmed" or (in line with the BBC) just "stated". I'm glad that we came to agreement on using a reliable secondary source. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the sentence "According to The Telegraph, Russia appears not to have used its advanced S-400 defense system; instead, Syria used only its own Cold War era missile defense systems" because it's already mentioned which systems Syria used and it's redundant to mention others which weren't. Will also remove the paragraph "Polygraph's (VOA's) reports/analysis" because not all fact-checking sites are reliable and used by mainstream media, hence doubt its credibility, as well doubt the third-party opinion analysis by Brian Glyn Williams notability for inclusion. Such opinions, if pass the NPOV and reliability criteria, should be included in some other new section, as the current barely reports on the event and parties involved.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. EkoGraf (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention, I have re-inserted a very brief mention of the S-400, since it was the significant part of the Russian armament that could have been used. There is plenty of detail about what was used, but the inaction of the Russians has drawn comment from many reliable sources, and from the Americans as well of course. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the "65 missiles shot down" should be "65 missiles fired in an attempt to intercept". Though of course there is no proof of that, but it would fit the known capabilities of the Syrian air defences.--Petebutt (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the report from Russian saying 71 missiles downed being merged with the SOHR report of at least 65 downed? These are from 2 sources and there is no proof that SOHR got it sources from Russia besides the independent sources it reported retrieving said info from. To me said change feels like it is to push the amount down as much as possible to make readers believe that Syrian air defences weren't as effective as reported as well as to make it seem that this report only came from Russia alone thus hinting bias. I thus suggest this paragraph be reverted back to the older version where it shows both the Russian and SOHR report on the number of missiles down separately. Nebakin (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to the previous revision. The edit had repetitive statements and confused different sources&parties i.e. WP:SYNTH, as well the sources were not reliable as others.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OH God! Who are we to believe? Italian secret service? LOL After what you done in Libya Egypt Syria you spread propaganda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuadaffiGlorious (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ft.com/content/8ad661d4-3e5e-11e8-b9f9-de94fa33a81e

[2] "Как упавшие в Сирии "умные" ракеты Трампа помогут России".

[3] "Две "умные" ракеты Трампа прилетели в Россию".

[4] "Фрагменты сбитых в Сирии ракет продемонстрируют в Москве‍". 2018-04-25. {{cite web}}: zero width joiner character in |title= at position 57 (help)

[5] "В Минобороны РФ показали сбитые сирийской ПВО американские "Томагавки"".

[6] ttp://www.interfax.ru/russia/610081

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]