Talk:September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid

Request for more details

I'd like to find out how the airstrikes and battle played out. In particular, I'd like to know who-controlled-what prior to the airstrikes. I've gathered that the Syrian army controlled points 1 and 2 as well as Kroum hill prior to the attack and I've seen some sources say things that strongly indicate that ISIS controlled point 3 (this isn't directly stated in the source so I'd have to conclude this (i.e. do original research), which is the reason why I didn't put this into the article) but I haven't heard anything about any of the other hills or even how far the front lines were from points 1 and 2. I'd also like to add more info about the airstrikes that originates from the U.S. coalition but the only such info that I'm finding is just the same scant info from the U.S. coalition's press conference repeated a million times by different news sources. I know that the U.S. coalition said that they would investigate this airstrike but since then, I haven't heard (or been able to find in any of my searches) anything about the status of that investigation. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places so if anyone know if this investigation has been completed and if the results have been released to the public then I'd greatly appreciate it if you added this info (along with its a source) or left a link informing me and anyone else reading this where this info can be found. Thanks.selfworm^Talk) 06:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It could be entertaining to read about such official investigations - in general - but that is all their value: entertainment. The public already 'investigated' and passed the judgement: if it was important for the coalition to hit ISIS at that location they could have done so right after the mistake. And also the following years of siege. But they didn't.

Putin quote

Someone put in a Putin quote from RT, which is deprecated. It's not load-bearing in the article, so I've moved it here so we have it to see if a better source can be found - the original note said "This article is giving a TRANSLATION of an interview that Russian president Putin did with French television, which is (presumably) a more reliable source than RT. And because of this, it might be possible to cite a second (more generally accepted) reference from that television station where if this source has its own translation into English, then it might (possibly) even replace the less-desirable RT source."

Source is:

"Putin: West responsible for Middle East instability and terrorism in Europe". Russia Today. 12 October 2016. Retrieved 13 October 2016. Putin also detailed his version of the breakdown of the long-negotiated joint operation between Washington and Moscow in Syria, claiming the key turning point was the September 16 US-led coalition strike on a Syrian army unit, which the Pentagon maintains was accident. "Our American colleagues told us that this airstrike was made in error. This error cost the lives of 80 people and, also just coincidence, perhaps, ISIS took the offensive immediately afterwards. At the same time, lower down the ranks, at the operations level, one of the American military service personnel said quite frankly that they spent several days preparing this strike. How could they make an error if they were several days in preparation?" said Putin. "This is how our ceasefire agreement ended up broken. Who broke the agreement? Was it us? No." Several western powers have since blamed Russia for what they claim was a retaliatory strike on a UN convoy on September 20.

- David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So let me give the full version of the original justification that was in the comment:

"NOTE to editors: Please do NOT remove the following DEPRECIATED REFERENCE (at least not yet): RT is a justifiably depreciated source but it can still be used for two reasons: (1) According to Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources "a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB)" which is the case with this particular reference because RT is a well-known mouth piece for the Russian government, which is headed by Putin. (2) This article is giving a TRANSLATION of an interview that Russian president Putin did with French television, which is (presumably) a more reliable source than RT. And because of this, it might be possible to cite a second (more generally accepted) reference from that television station where if this source has its own translation into English, then it might (possibly) even replace the less-desirable RT source."

At the time that the information was inserted, there was agreement that Russian News agencies were acceptable sources for information about the Russian government's claims/positions (although rightly, not acceptable for most other information). Has this policy been changed?  selfworm^Talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That it was put in before RT was deprecated does not mean that it's somehow grandfathered in - this is not an argument that has worked to keep deprecated sources in the encyclopedia previously.

Having a really long comment attached to it doesn't make it any more worthy of inclusion either, and the extra words don't add any more convincing reasons except to say that the editor really really wants it in.

The quote isn't load-bearing in the article - it's functionally just decoration. There's no good reason to decorate the article with quotes from a deprecated source. Is there any less fundamentally untrustworthy source for the quote, which would also justify its presence more? - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

---

"The quote isn't load-bearing in the article - it's functionally just decoration"

This particular quote is not strictly necessary (although IMO it helps readers to better understand the position of the Russian government and I think it also helps with English Wikipedia's long standing WP:NPOV problem with controversial subjects). It does not need to be included. I will not argue for this quote's inclusion or for the inclusion of the reference: <ref name="RT 11Oct16 Putin">{{cite web|url=https://www.rt.com/news/362554-putin-west-syria-war/|title=Putin: West responsible for Middle East instability and terrorism in Europe|work=Russia Today .....

"Having a really long comment attached to it doesn't make it any more worthy of inclusion either"

The length of the comment was never supposed to be a factor. I do not understand why you think its length is relevant.

"That it was put in before RT was deprecated does not mean that it's somehow grandfathered in"

Fine. I will not be argue this. However, I'd like to make it clear that just because this particular argument does not justify the inclusion of the source does not mean that the same is necessarily true of other arguments for its inclusion.

"the extra words don't add any more convincing reasons except to say that the editor really really wants it in."

You do not have to be rude. And "the extra words" that you chose to omit form part of Wikipedia's policy towards use of depreciated sources and also part of my main argument for keeping the references in the artucle. You still have not justified why this particular Wikipedia policy (i.e. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, WP:NPOV#Bias in sources, WP:RELIABLE#Biased or opinionated sources, and Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources) does not apply to the other citation you removed, which to be clear is the following:

<ref name="RT Plot Accusation 12-Oct-2016">{{cite web|url=https://www.rt.com/news/362559-syria-iraq-mosul-isis/|title=US, Saudis to grant 9,000 ISIS fighters free passage from Iraqi Mosul to Syria – source|work=RT|date=12 October 2016|access-date=12 December 2016|quote=The PMU's attack on Mosul's western flank will close-off the Islamic State's pathway to the Syrian border, contrasting reports that the Iraqi Armed Forces are allowing the terrorist group to freely retreat to Syria.}}</ref>

and not the "<ref name="RT 11Oct16 Putin">..." reference that I mentioned before.  selfworm^Talk) 18:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a deprecated source; I'm not the one who has to justify its exclusion. Could you make a case at WP:RSN for this source? If so, that would be a good place to get a broader consensus, and check that your reasoning is sound - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated source

Who is in the position to 'deprecate' ANY source? Journalists and their handlers have agendas. Governments and military control or do not allow access to areas and content and type of reporting is controlled. What this rule means for the public: Wikipedia is censoring anything that is not in line with their agenda. As a result, Wikipedia is considered opinionated, lost credibility therefore is deprecated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)