![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"[...] 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
The sentence in question:
@ 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 the Israel airstrike is relevant (as the creator of that article). Ethanbas ( talk) 05:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fix the untruth.
60 cruise missiles launched, not 59. — Preceding unsigned comment added by April Fools Day After ( talk • contribs)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
@ 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 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)
@ 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 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)
@ 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)
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)
I believe that history has absolved me, ip. SamHolt6 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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? [1] 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"[...] 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
The sentence in question:
@ 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 the Israel airstrike is relevant (as the creator of that article). Ethanbas ( talk) 05:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Fix the untruth.
60 cruise missiles launched, not 59. — Preceding unsigned comment added by April Fools Day After ( talk • contribs)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
@ 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 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)
@ 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 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)
@ 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)
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)
I believe that history has absolved me, ip. SamHolt6 ( talk) 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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? [1] 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.231.221 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)