This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd like to find out how the airstrikes and battle played out. In particular, I'd like to know who-controlled-what prior to the airstrikes. I've gathered that the Syrian army controlled points 1 and 2 as well as Kroum hill prior to the attack and I've seen some sources say things that strongly indicate that ISIS controlled point 3 (this isn't directly stated in the source so I'd have to conclude this (i.e. do original research), which is the reason why I didn't put this into the article) but I haven't heard anything about any of the other hills or even how far the front lines were from points 1 and 2. I'd also like to add more info about the airstrikes that originates from the U.S. coalition but the only such info that I'm finding is just the same scant info from the U.S. coalition's press conference repeated a million times by different news sources. I know that the U.S. coalition said that they would investigate this airstrike but since then, I haven't heard (or been able to find in any of my searches) anything about the status of that investigation. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places so if anyone know if this investigation has been completed and if the results have been released to the public then I'd greatly appreciate it if you added this info (along with its a source) or left a link informing me and anyone else reading this where this info can be found. Thanks.
selfworm
Talk)
06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be entertaining to read about such official investigations - in general - but that is all their value: entertainment. The public already 'investigated' and passed the judgement: if it was important for the coalition to hit ISIS at that location they could have done so right after the mistake. And also the following years of siege. But they didn't.
Someone put in a Putin quote from RT, which is deprecated. It's not load-bearing in the article, so I've moved it here so we have it to see if a better source can be found - the original note said "This article is giving a TRANSLATION of an interview that Russian president Putin did with French television, which is (presumably) a more reliable source than RT. And because of this, it might be possible to cite a second (more generally accepted) reference from that television station where if this source has its own translation into English, then it might (possibly) even replace the less-desirable RT source."
Source is:
Putin also detailed his version of the breakdown of the long-negotiated joint operation between Washington and Moscow in Syria, claiming the key turning point was the September 16 US-led coalition strike on a Syrian army unit, which the Pentagon maintains was accident. "Our American colleagues told us that this airstrike was made in error. This error cost the lives of 80 people and, also just coincidence, perhaps, ISIS took the offensive immediately afterwards. At the same time, lower down the ranks, at the operations level, one of the American military service personnel said quite frankly that they spent several days preparing this strike. How could they make an error if they were several days in preparation?" said Putin. "This is how our ceasefire agreement ended up broken. Who broke the agreement? Was it us? No." Several western powers have since blamed Russia for what they claim was a retaliatory strike on a UN convoy on September 20.
- David Gerard ( talk) 11:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Who is in the position to 'deprecate' ANY source? Journalists and their handlers have agendas. Governments and military control or do not allow access to areas and content and type of reporting is controlled. What this rule means for the public: Wikipedia is censoring anything that is not in line with their agenda. As a result, Wikipedia is considered opinionated, lost credibility therefore is deprecated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 ( talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd like to find out how the airstrikes and battle played out. In particular, I'd like to know who-controlled-what prior to the airstrikes. I've gathered that the Syrian army controlled points 1 and 2 as well as Kroum hill prior to the attack and I've seen some sources say things that strongly indicate that ISIS controlled point 3 (this isn't directly stated in the source so I'd have to conclude this (i.e. do original research), which is the reason why I didn't put this into the article) but I haven't heard anything about any of the other hills or even how far the front lines were from points 1 and 2. I'd also like to add more info about the airstrikes that originates from the U.S. coalition but the only such info that I'm finding is just the same scant info from the U.S. coalition's press conference repeated a million times by different news sources. I know that the U.S. coalition said that they would investigate this airstrike but since then, I haven't heard (or been able to find in any of my searches) anything about the status of that investigation. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places so if anyone know if this investigation has been completed and if the results have been released to the public then I'd greatly appreciate it if you added this info (along with its a source) or left a link informing me and anyone else reading this where this info can be found. Thanks.
selfworm
Talk)
06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be entertaining to read about such official investigations - in general - but that is all their value: entertainment. The public already 'investigated' and passed the judgement: if it was important for the coalition to hit ISIS at that location they could have done so right after the mistake. And also the following years of siege. But they didn't.
Someone put in a Putin quote from RT, which is deprecated. It's not load-bearing in the article, so I've moved it here so we have it to see if a better source can be found - the original note said "This article is giving a TRANSLATION of an interview that Russian president Putin did with French television, which is (presumably) a more reliable source than RT. And because of this, it might be possible to cite a second (more generally accepted) reference from that television station where if this source has its own translation into English, then it might (possibly) even replace the less-desirable RT source."
Source is:
Putin also detailed his version of the breakdown of the long-negotiated joint operation between Washington and Moscow in Syria, claiming the key turning point was the September 16 US-led coalition strike on a Syrian army unit, which the Pentagon maintains was accident. "Our American colleagues told us that this airstrike was made in error. This error cost the lives of 80 people and, also just coincidence, perhaps, ISIS took the offensive immediately afterwards. At the same time, lower down the ranks, at the operations level, one of the American military service personnel said quite frankly that they spent several days preparing this strike. How could they make an error if they were several days in preparation?" said Putin. "This is how our ceasefire agreement ended up broken. Who broke the agreement? Was it us? No." Several western powers have since blamed Russia for what they claim was a retaliatory strike on a UN convoy on September 20.
- David Gerard ( talk) 11:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Who is in the position to 'deprecate' ANY source? Journalists and their handlers have agendas. Governments and military control or do not allow access to areas and content and type of reporting is controlled. What this rule means for the public: Wikipedia is censoring anything that is not in line with their agenda. As a result, Wikipedia is considered opinionated, lost credibility therefore is deprecated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 ( talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)