Talk:April 2018 missile strikes against Syria

Alphabetical listings?
Where the three allies are listed there seems to be some dispute about ordering. Two options, I think: strictly alphabetical, or according to level of deployment (the latter being US, then France, then UK?) 31.52.167.150 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. USA, France, then UK, seems the logical ordering in all cases. MPS1992 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think alphabetical is better as it is more objective and there is less room for disagreement. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that alphabetical is a more balanced, finalized approach. Thelovelyconch (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe alphabetical is the best approach here. Qaei     &#9742;  19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Listing by degree of involvement makes the most sense. The alphabetical ordering would mean that the US is listed at the bottom, despite the operation being American-led. It can therefore be misleading, so the claims of it "being more objective" are not valid.Vhstef (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very true. The listing should be in order of involvement. Since we don't know, we can use the number of cruise missiles as the measure. If so, the order is USA, France, UK. Broken down by branch of service, it would be US Navy, USAF, French Air Force, Royal Air Force, French Navy.  This should be the order in the infobox. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "!Do not change order. France launched the 2nd most number of missiles." This shows up in editing source mode next to the list of countries involved but doesn't make much sense since it confirms USA was the most involved party but leaves the alphabetical order anyway. Shouldn't we change the order to USA, France, UK? Utryss (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move at this time. I would note that since this discussion began, there have been widely reported Israeli missile strikes against alleged Iranian targets in Syria, and would suggest a process to determine whether just "American" should be added to this title. bd2412 T 23:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 missile strikes against Syria → April 2018 American-led missile strikes against Syria – Better name to distinguish this specific attack from other missile strikes against Syria in 2018. There has been several other missile strikes against Syria this year, most of them by Israel. One happened just today. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 23:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Relist comment. Editors in all of the WikiProjects that are listed near the top of this page have been notified of this debate.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. So that this can avoid going in circles, please be aware of the discussion above at Talk:2018 missile strikes against Syria when making comments here. In my close a week ago, I summarized the discussion as follows: "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." Dekimasu よ! 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have stated before This is not the first missile strike against Syria in 2018, nor it will be the last. Naming the article as it is right now is just adding to the confusion, it will be changed sooner or later. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, clear failure of WP:Concise, adding more information without advantage. Disambiguation by month if and when required, I believe that is common, and preferable to the more common counting method I see for example at Category:Battles of the Isonzo.  Do not disambiguate by adding details likely to be replicated in the hypothesized future events.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC).  When required, I suggest Missile strikes against Syria, April 2018 as preferable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a "clear failure of WP:Concise" since adding more information does provide the advantage of clarify and disambiguation, as Paine Ellsworth Editor abcdef explained. selfworm Talk ) 17:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Title is clear and concise as-is. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 08:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per Editor abcdef and Sgnpkd, it would be good to be more precise, and so I support something starting with "April 2018 American-led missile strikes" or the more concise "April 2018 missile strikes" but I oppose the "against Syria" bit (also in current unsatisfactory title), as that pushes a point of view, given this is a civil war, not (just) an inter-state war. The target was not "Syria". Can we find a more neutral wording? Even "on Syria" would be better, or would "in Syria" work, or something like "April 2018 American-led Syria missile strikes"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation. If and when the need arises, we can disambiguate further. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems to be unnecessary. If a more specific title becomes necessary, it is cleaner to just disambiguate by month. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Supportive Argument. (Reason 1: No good argument against it) At the time that I'm writing this, I've read no valid and convincing argument from those who oppose this change while Paine Ellsworth's Editor abcdef's arguments remain valid.
 * Supportive Argument (Supporting Reason 2: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure") If a missile strike as large (or larger) than this one happens again in 2018 (don't forget that none of us can predict the future - yet) then the article on this newer attack could also be deserving of the title "2018 missile strikes against Syria" (if it's large or important enough, then it could even be more deserving of this title). In this case someone would have to make this article a disambiguation page and go around appropriately changing internal links to this page (or else just say that it's not important enough for readers of other articles to link to the correct missile strike). I think that the reason that I just gave is NOT by itself enough to justify a renaming and nowhere did I say that it is. It does however provide support for the renaming this article and should be taken into consideration together with the other reason given elsewhere.
 * And if such a new missile attack against Syria never materializes in 2018 and if in 2019 or later there's consensus that there is no benefit to using Paine Ellsworth's Editor abcdef's more precise title, then this article's title can always be changed back to "2018 missile strikes against Syria" while the page April 2018 American-led missile strikes against Syria becomes a redirection page (per WP:Concise).
 * Supportive Argument. (Reason 3: There's a reason for it, not a big deal) Consider this BBC news article reporting on what could also arguably be described as "2018 missile strikes against Syria": Syria blames Israel for missile strike near Damascus. This is clear ambiguity and this is a problem because a reader not familiar with the Middle East or the Syrian war could potentially think that these April missile strikes constituted all of the "2018 missile strikes against Syria". Also, I think it's best to sometimes just step back and realize that renaming an article with an appropriate name is not a big deal in any way. If Paine Ellsworth Editor abcdef was proposing an inaccurate or non-NPOV title then it would be a big deal but this is not the case. Renaming this article is not a "big deal" and it will obviate a potential problem (a clear benefit). Using Paine Ellsworth's Editor abcdef's proposed new name hurts no one, potentially helps readers, and potentially causes less confusion and work in the future.
 * Comment I'd like to remind everyone that this is NOT a vote about whether or not the article should be renamed. This decision should come down to the quality and correctness of the arguments given and not to the number of times that the words Support or Oppose appear. selfworm Talk ) 17:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia is not a democracy, counting votes (and thereby determining how editors arae divided on the correct the application of policy) is an important part of determining the rough consensus. Each person is entitled to one vote, and your decision to mark your vote three times was deceptive. I've struck all but the first instance. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing deceptive about it. I clearly numbered them "(Reason #:...)" and then wrote a comment about how whether or not the article should be renamed should not come down to the number of times that the words Support or Oppose appears. Do editors no longer even have to read more than the first bold word? You said: "Each person is entitled to one vote" and justified it by linking to WP:rough consensus, but that very page that you used in your justification clearly states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". Arguments matter. Not "votes." To clarify, and to make sure that people understand that I have not rejected my own argument, I am changing " Support " to "Supportive Argument" selfworm Talk ) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The disruptive part, perhaps, was bulleting and signing your comment five times as though it was five independent comments (and adding another signature later) instead of a single comment. Part of Wiki etiquette is properly threading comments; see Tendentious editing. Your reply to SmokeyJoe was also improperly threaded above. I'd advise something like what I just did, but revert as necessary if this offends you; editing talk page comments of other editors, as I've done here, is also often frowned upon. The important thing is to comment in ways that allow discussion here to remain focused on the subject at hand, which is the article title. Dekimasu よ! 03:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Your reply to SmokeyJoe was also improperly threaded above." To be clear, it was considered by some to be improperly threaded because I used a colon instead of a double asterisks? Or were you referring to something else?  "(and adding another signature later)" Presumably you're talking about this edit. Is this correct? If so then the reason why I added this signature was for the time stamp. If I edit one of my comments immediately or almost immediately after I post it then I don't add a time stamp because there's little risk that someone would be in the middle of replying to the old version of my comment rather than my new version. This time however, I made the edit about 16 minutes after my initial edit so for the sake of caution, I added it below my original comment instead of merging it into my original comment. I added my signature so that the time stamp would show that this new comment came a significant time after the original in case.  "signing your comment five times as though it was five independent comments" One of them was a reply, the next three are independent arguments so each deserves to be debated independently. And then I had one comment not arguing for or against a name change but rather simply reminding everyone about Wikipedia's policy that the decision is to come down to the quality and correctness of the arguments given and not to some kind of vote (although unfortunately, instead of arguments, a count of the number of users who support or oppose a change usually does make the final decision, despite Wikipedia's policy). Since Wikipedia's policy emphasizes the quality of arguments over the quantity of "votes", it makes sense that users should not be restricted to having only one bullet point and also that each bullet point should correspond to a unique argument (rather than to a unique user's personal opinion), does it not?  selfworm Talk ) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion at User talk:Selfworm indicates that you may not be very familiar with how move requests usually proceed. It is not a bad thing to question the way things are usually done, but further discussion of move request procedures here may hinder discussion of this article's title. Briefly, move request discussion is not usually so extensive as to require that an editor's "independent arguments be debated independently," and attempting to require editors to do so can make a response appear to be a Gish gallop. Editors are capable of replying to whichever part of your comment they feel needs to be addressed. If you would like further replies related to something other than the article title, I would suggest continuing this at user talk. Best, Dekimasu よ! 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

What infobox should be used
I've recently noticed that the article uses template Infobox operational plan and I'm not quite sure whether the Infobox military conflict wouldn't be more appropriate here - as the strikes were actually executed, not only planned. Thanks for any constructive responses. --ז62 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It probably does not matter, but I feel that the current usage (plan) is better than (conflict), because this is not a war or battle, it's not comparable to the Bicholim conflict or whatever, it's just a planned missile launch with rather limited casualties for the weight of armament deployed. Drawing up tables of losses and such would be silly... 9 people injured and US$400 million of buildings destroyed on the one side, and US$97 million of missiles expended and US$40 million of fuel used and some fellow hurt his thumb and other fooling around, on the other? Let's stick with plan, unless there is a good reason to change. For example if, 20 years from now, a reliable authority says that it was this that persuaded the Syrian regime never to use chemical weapons again. MPS1992 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, using infobox conflict would allow to include the opposing forces, for one thing. (Although reliable information on Syrian and/or Russian forces involved is very sparse.) That's what hit me yesterday - the whole article deals with the military operations executed, forces involved, some rather dubious claims (about Russian submarines) etc. yet the article still use infobox on operational plan. Any comparison with the Bicholim conflict makes really no sense here, as these strikes were very real. Neither I got why you proposed your other criterion for (non)change - there're tons of inconclusive military conflicts, battles and so on in history, yet no one claims they were "actually not conflicts" and therefore articles on them should not use the proper infobox.--ז62 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's just not a battle, still less a conflict. Still, would you like to mock up what a (conflict) infobox would look like, here, and see what people think? MPS1992 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain for what reasons exactly you still do think that it was not a battle nor conflict? I mean, per sources available, it seemed like a rather serious combat operation, viz. many cruise missiles launched from the allied aircraft and ships, Russian/Assadist Syrian propaganda videos purporting to show their succesful intercept etc.
 * As for the mocking up a infobox, I'd rather wait for more opinions before I'd try it - as I've mentioned earlier, this whole thing just kind of struck me when I suddenly noticed the use of the operational plan infobox in the article, and I'm still not quite sure which one should be used, at least not without hearing at least some reasoned opinion on this whole thing first. It would seem to be a bit premature to proceed to mocking up a infobox now.-ז62 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean - using the infobox "Operational plan" makes it perhaps a bit more difficult to comprehend the whole thing for some readers (and even for some Wikipedia editors), at least for some of the more literal-minded ones. E.g. the difference between parameters named "Executed by:" and "Forces involved:", for one thing. (Not to mention again that the infobox "Operational plan" has no provision for the opposing force(s) involved in the combat action.)-ז62 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of "Aftermath" section is gruesome English
The final paragraph of "Aftermath" section, just before the Analysis sub-heading is almost incomprehensible. I am not an expert on what is going on, and was simply reading this out of interest. Can someone with the knowledge, and with decent English skills, please make that text a bit more encyclopaedic? HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Nobody except the editor who added it shortly before you read it actually understands what it was intended to say. It's been removed though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Correctly called it violations of international law"
My issue with this statement is the source it has cited in the text does not ever state whether it was "correct" for the Syrian government to call it a violation of international law, only that they did so. What is defined as "correct" in international law is significant enough that it needs a citation from a third-party source. The wording "correctly" should be re-added if a suitable source is found. ShanganiPatrol (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)