Talk:Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi/Archive 1

ISIL, ISIS, Wlinks
Any particular reason none of these acronyms are linked? Also, shouldn't it be the same acronym everywhere, and if so, which one?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks to have been fixed now. The article only uses ISIL, except for direct quotes like source titles. The article also introduces ISIL with the full name which is wikilinked before using the acronym. Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Three children
I already modified this in the article on the person but as I'm on a mobile device can't be bothered doing it here. Our article currently says Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed three of his children when he killed himself as this is what Trump said. However I'm sure I recall that sometime during the long rambling press conference he expressed some uncertainty of who's children they actually were. Definitely there have been no reports of confirmation of paternity via DNA testing or similar that I've seen. And reports of multiple followers suggested the presence of other people's children may not be that unlikely. The White House PR also only calls them children [//www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-death-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/] and given Trump's PC style it frankly seems a better RS. So the article should be modified to simply say 3 children IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Found a transcript of the press conference which confirms my memory [//www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-death-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/] "" Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Russian support?
I don't know if allowing US forces to fly over a Russia-controlled airspace is to be considered "support". Russia didn't share any intel though, but the operation would not have been possible otherwise if confirmed. Azerty82 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Russians question Trump's account about the airspace stating "Firstly, on Saturday and in recent days no air strikes were made on the Idlib de-escalation zone by US aircraft or the so-called ‘international coalition’ were recorded. Secondly, we are not aware of any alleged assistance to the passage of American aviation into the airspace of the Idlib de-escalation zone during this operation." (CNN). They haven't detected it and they haven't provided access. --Cold Season (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've used your link and added "alleged" until further information are known. Azerty82 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an active attempt at covering up the Russian reaction to the Barisha raid due too questioning the entire events validity. The US President stated Russian compliance for the operation but, the Russian military has denied any cooperation. This is the worst problem with Wikipedia and current events. Active politically motivated journalism is not a record of historic events. Eventually, there will be an entire section on "conspiracy" in this article when it's validity is no longer useful to agents of falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C100:6840:213:20FF:FEE0:AEE7 (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Take your soapboxing somewhere else. Flaughtin (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't at the very least we need sources that say this unambiguously. I've removed the whole thing from the infobox. Flaughtin (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't at the very least we need sources that say this unambiguously. I've removed the whole thing from the infobox. Flaughtin (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing most of the predictable "Reactions" section
As many of you know, these Reactions sections are actively disliked on an aesthetic basic (the abuse of flagicons) and the list format. Also, the vast majority of the material is useless politician-speak, and violates WP:UNDUE. Worse, the sections are a Quotefarm and are sourced to primary sources, not secondary source analysis. The section should be rewritten in prose, the quotes paraphrased, and the extraneous material condensed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the section in its current format for consistency, but limited it to quotes from only the relevant players in the region. Readers aren't likely to care about what the foreign minister of, say, Cambodia said about it unless Cambodia has some sort of involvement with Syria in general or the raid in specific. This would eliminate a lot of the concern about the formatting of these sorts of sections. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right now, but I will be trimming the useless verbiage and removing the flagicons. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I condensed it heavily. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's never good to have a bloated reactions section that takes up too big a chunk of the page. RopeTricks (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually nothing of value would be lost if it were removed wholesale, but I have a feeling such an edit would quickly be reverted. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Never liked the flag list of quotes as if this or that official spoke for an entire nation of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C100:6840:213:20FF:FEE0:AEE7 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it got by  anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The flags are present on other pages reactions section and only add quality and data, and make it easier to identify specific reactions instead of having to read specifically for the name of the entity in question, the flags serve a purpose and are better aesthetically, your opinion and action on behalf of it is NOT improving the articles quality but rather detracts from it, and aside from that in regards to reactions to "insignificant" countries or entities they are still relevant and deserve a spot and should not be removed in any hypothetical sense and it would be vandalism to remove sourced relevant information, this is a neutral, academic and encyclopedic site and should be treated as such with the best interests of the information in question and its readers in mind first, the most ammount of information possible should be present, and detailed clearly and fully in the most objective and informative fashion possible, allowing individuals to form their own opinions and learn more on the subject for themselves with as much information as possible present.Takinginterest01 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Anyway, I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:ONUS, which says While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. More information is not always better. The edits you have reverted were also clearly WP:NOTVANDALISM (Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards is not vandalism.), and it is a form of WP:Personal attack to falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. TompaDompa (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know i'm an unsigned nobody but, all that matters in reaction to this particular title is Russia's denial of the activity or cooperation with USA. Generally, I find the flag bulletin reaction sections to be clumsy and not encyclopedic in nature. More like a school book of ignorable crib notations than the effects of a historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C100:6840:213:20FF:FEE0:AEE7 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In view of the clear WP:CONSENSUS here, I condensed it again. TompaDompa (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Trading Trump for Esper, little help?
It's come to my attention (and maybe yours) that a lot of people take virtually anything Trump says with a grain of salt and a pound of skepticism. To keep Wikipedia ostensibly honest, I replaced him as our lead's exemplary US official with supposedly apolitical and unsullied Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, effective immediately. But I can't paste, so couldn't replace the citation to a Politico piece with Esper's ABC interview transcript or some news report thereof. Can you? Or, alternatively, do you think Trump does a better job convincing readers they're learning a fact here? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just say the USG said it forget about mentioning Esper or Trump. Flaughtin (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That works, too. "U.S. officials" might sound a bit anonymous (thus sketchy), that's all. How do you feel about about attributing it to the impersonal-yet-familiar "Department of Defense"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

SDF participated in the raid
This is not confirmed by neither sides officials. SOHR source says a source told them that SDF did participate in the raid. This is very dubious considering SOHR is very biased and favors SDF in the conflict. It may as well made it up that SDF participated due to its bias since not even SDF themselves announced any direct participation. US side confirmed that SDF provided intelligence support, as well as SDF themselves. KasimMejia (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Participation" is a very vague thing, in any event. An SOHF source can say SDF participated and not be wrong because actionable intelligence invariably precipitates military action. A Pentagon source can say only American actors took part and be right in taking the two parts as distinct events within the same chain. Mazloum Abdi represents the SDF and didn't make anything up, to the best of my interpretation. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. They did provide support via intelligence, but were not present in the raid, by means of armed confrontation etc. Trump said only American personel were involved in the raid but he did say they received intelligence support. KasimMejia (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there something in the article to the contrary that I'm not seeing? I agree with your facts. Just a bit unsure of why you're bringing them up. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)