Talk:April 2018 missile strikes against Syria/Archive 1
Nancy pelosi
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)
- Marking as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Dailymail source indicating Australian PM's support for strikes
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)
- SBS has something [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- SBS is good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Added.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- SBS is good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
- Australia and Canada supported the bombing, refs are in the article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
[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)
- 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)
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)
- I agree, let's not add this template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I also agree, the article is not long enough to accommodate such a large template.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree.- MrX 🖋 11:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- I also agree, the article is not long enough to accommodate such a large template.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
{{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)
- Still needs fixing; bypassing it peacemeal with two wikilinks is not a general soultion. --Mareklug talk 08:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- See Template_talk:Country_data_France#French_Air_Force. Needs admin action. Greenshed (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
- I agree. I think we should limit it to belligerents and their involved allies.- MrX 🖋 11:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm not sure.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yeah, I think it's time to WP:SPINOFF the reactions as per usual. The article is already overwhelmed by flags and remarks.- MrX 🖋 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I disagree. The article Douma chemical attack also has a reactions section. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yeah, I think it's time to WP:SPINOFF the reactions as per usual. The article is already overwhelmed by flags and remarks.- MrX 🖋 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm not sure.- MrX 🖋 16:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
It's now HALF of a comprehensive article! It's time to act. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Definitely time to create a "Reactions to" split for all the flag lovers. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Definitely time to create a "Reactions to" split for all the flag lovers. WWGB (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- Votes at home. But I know that will never become part of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
No, you need to read https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life Attack Ramon (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- That demands an explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone have a source for all these civilian casualties or are we just making things up now?- MrX 🖋 11:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
- Support: for reasons above - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
Done -- the repeated links using different text have now been removed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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)
- Don't need one, already have a plethora of response to the bombings from irrelevant parties. Sovietmessiah (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Most RS news sites use "strike/s." Sca (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The {2010s} and {Syrian Civil War} (and perhaps Syria) portals are useful here, others are superfluous.--ז62 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- I agree.- MrX 🖋 11:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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 CooperationTASS 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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