Talk:2017 al-Jinah airstrike

The coordinates I added is not accurate. Could any one add the coordinates of the exact place of the incident? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So you know for sure you added wrong coordinates but went ahead anyway in an article in which, if there is anything of substance at all to the suggested culpability of the U.S, is all about the debated exact coordinates. But you decided that pointing to what looks like a very large empty field was the most editorially justified way to work in a well-sourced, verifiable, Wikipedia fact. Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu: No (not exactly!) --Mhhossein ^talk 07:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein: Yawn. One or both of us is asleep. Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

New coordinates

User:HyperGaruda: Please provide the source(s) for the coordinates you added, thanks. I want to check the sources. Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu: I don't exactly have a source for the coordinates. I only compared aerial imagery, clicked on the target location in Google Maps and copied the given coordinates. Basically that makes Google Maps my source. I found a video (first 15 seconds) on this website which you can use to verify the coordinates if you'd like. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, User:HyperGaruda, I do think you have a source - the video shows the location explicitly. In this case I judge that the matching you have performed is quite reasonable and is fully consistent with the source. I do think it would be reasonable to add the link as a source for the coordinates. The website source gives an interesting analysis that reconciles the different viewpoints into an understandable whole. It may or may not be right in part or in entirety but it seems to have been a thorough, academically proper analysis. The source does seem to substantially add to the informational content of the article. Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

what about the U.S domestic opinion?

Karyfhk (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. domestic population gets a heavily propagandized view of events from their government and mainstream media. It's unlikely this event was widely reported in the U.S., since it reflects negatively on the military. 2601:644:0:DBD0:9400:26CA:F08A:1090 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Title

The US claims that a nearby structure was the target of the airstrike so to call this article, "2017 al-Jina mosque airstrike" is misleading because it implies that the mosque was the actual target. A more appropriate and less biased title for this article might be, "US Airstrike, March 16th 2017, Aleppo Syria". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.144.188 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with IP. In fact, this article seems to have serious balance issues. As far as I can tell, the only folks who said this structure was a mosque is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It seems we have to balance the assertion of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights against the assertion of the US Military. Those both seem like equally reliable (or unreliable, depending on your POV) sources to me. At the moment, the article is way too biased towards SOHR's POV. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, but for the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY with other military events, I'd rather rename it to simply 2017 al-Jinah airstrike (added "h" as a more accurate transliteration of the Arabic name الجينة‎). At least none of the sources deny that it was an airstrike near al-Jinah. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like residents, local officials, and third-party human rights groups are more trustworthy sources than the military force who committed the attack. 73.170.41.47 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article presents this as just the SOHR's claims, but in fact there are a number of local sources who have confirmed the SOHR's initial report. See below 2601:644:0:DBD0:9400:26CA:F08A:1090 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great. On WP we have standards for what we consider reliable sources. Unfortunately "a number of locals" don't meet what we'd usually call reliable. NickCT (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

The U.S. considers all military-age men in the vicinity of a strike to be "militants". Is there a way this can be worked into the article? I'd like to avoid WP:SYN but it seems like useful background information to understand why the U.S. has such a wildly different estimate of "civilian" casualties than all other sources. 2601:644:0:DBD0:9400:26CA:F08A:1090 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can it be added in form of 'note'? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Mhhossein's suggestion is good. The note points to the source but avoids taking a stance on the author's position. Iuʌǝɹʇǝp unu (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Cleanup needed in light of more recent information

There was a lot of uncertainty surrounding this incident initially. Now that more details have emerged it seems like the article needs to be updated to remain current. Here is a brief summary of the current information, as far as I can tell:

• Initially, the source of the strike was not clear but was inferred to be the US based on missile fragments. At this time the US military has confirmed the strike and provided additional details.
• The target of the strike is disputed. Locals and third parties have indicated the building was a mosque. The US states it was a community meeting hall. The Pentagon has released a photo of the target of the strike, which analysts have described as a new mosque built adjacent to an older mosque building nearby.
• The nature of casualties is disputed. Local/third party reports indicate the the victims were civilians attending religious classes. The US states that the victims were Al-Qaeda members and that there were no civilian casualties.

The article also seems to over-emphasize the SOHR's role in reporting on the strike. It seems the SOHR was the first organization to break the story in western media, but since then numerous local activists, residents, and news organizations have reported on the strike.

Some useful sources for both local reports and US official statements:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-mosque-airstrike-aleppo-kills-civilians-us-military-missiles-idlib-al-jineh-west-a7634556.html
• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/syria-mosque-attack-170318010309757.html
• https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/03/16/us-missile-remains-reportedly-recovered-from-site-of-aleppo-mosque-bombing/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mounting-claims-of-civilian-deaths-after-us-targetsal-qaeda-in-syria/2017/03/17/350d5838-0ae9-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html

I may try to do this cleanup myself if I have some time in the next few days. 2601:644:0:DBD0:9400:26CA:F08A:1090 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. Best to only include mainstream media sources though. bellingcat and Al-jazeera should be avoided. NickCT (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

While you are right about Bellingcat, Al-Jazeera is generally regarded as a reliable source (see this latest question about AJ on WP:RSN). --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: - OK. Granted. Al-Jazeera should be handled as a reliable source.

Worth noting that so far the vast majority of news sources are being coy about asserting that the building hit was a mosque. As far as I can tell, only al-Jazeeras and the Daily Telegraph are saying it was a mosque in "narrative" tone, but even in those references, they only seem to state it in a passing way such that it's not clear whether the news sources themselves are positively asserting that it was a mosque.

Until there is broader consensus among a wider range of sources, this article should remain ambiguous on whether the structure was in fact a mosque or not. NickCT (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

POV problems fixed?

Have the issues about WP:NPOV been resolved? Is it ok to remove that banner now? Kamalthebest (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: - I think so. The initial issue was that wording made it sound as though there was no dispute about the bombed building being a mosque. I think the wording now reflects a majority of mainstream news outlets which seem to make the issue appear ambiguous. NickCT (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: That's what I thought, so I'll go ahead and remove it. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Militants" explanation superfluous

There's no need to dig into the term "militants" based on this sentence: "The US military claimed the people targeted in the strike were militants belonging to the terrorist group al-Qaeda." Regardless of whether Greenwald's article is correct, it is about the Obama administration's misuse of the word "militant" to describe any male of fighting age. But at issue here is the Pentagon's claim, and not the truth of who the victims actually were, and it's clear that the claim was unequivocal in describing the men as terrorist fighters. If at issue was a Pentagon statement that they were targeting "militants" without any reference to al-Qaeda, then perhaps it would be worth getting into how the term has allegedly been used to impute terroristic intent to innocents. But specifically referring to them as "al-Qaeda fighters" and "senior terrorists" means there is no need for clarification—as everyone agrees that a senior al-Qaeda terrorist qualifies as a "militant". Perhaps Greenwald's article would shed light elsewhere, but it doesn't here and should be removed. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)