Talk:2017 Raqqa attack

Facts and Neutrality
A quick glance at the internet fails to support the article's claim. Current news reports 19 ISIS boats, not civilian hit amongst other targets. No reports on number of dead civilian or otherwise thus far. Moreover, the article is incomplete, not detailing the entire event, its scope, purpose, etc. The content could therefore be claimed to be biased. Skingski (talk)
 * See my answer above. --Bensin (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as is does not discuss both sides of the event. SOHR head Abdel Rahman says the bombed boats were taking the same route leading out of the city’s southern districts used by IS fighters (Brietbart link).  A coalition spokesman says, "The coalition takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously and will assess these allegations" (Newsweek link).  With this added information, one can assume the coalition believes that the boats contained in whole or in part IS fighters or as SOHR may believe, it was a mistake.  Information is still evolving.Skingski (talk)

Notability and Overlap Policy
As explained here: WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:BREAKING and WP:OVERLAP this unsourced event by itself is not notable. It along with the referring page Raqqa_attack_5_June_2017 should be merged into the larger article: Raqqa_campaign_(2016–present) Skingski (talk)
 * The event is sourced. See my answer above. --Bensin (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with merge. We dont need an article every time the US drops a bomb, especially a low information article like this. also WP:NOTNP Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's strive to remain neutral, couldn't one argue that this article is as important as any article covering bombs detonating killing civilians in the west? If not, then why? I agree that the article is small, but it is very well sourced and the event was covered in diverse sources. Anyone thinking the article contains to little information is free to expand it. It is explicitly encouraged by the stub template reading "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Skingski's links are worth considering, but I ask that all information and all sources are retained if a merger is performed. --Bensin (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a one-off bombing, but part of many bombings inside an overall campaign. If it was not in the context of an overall war or if it represents a key turning point in a war, then your point would be well taken.  A merge is the best solution.  Skingski (talk)