Talk:Operation Infinite Reach

Cruise missile strikes is it too weak?

The problem not settled, so 911 could succeed. Maybe should have a critise chapter in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynxlea (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring Out Your Dead

The page on the US Embassy Bombings says 212 PEOPLE were killed at Nairobi, INCLUDING 12 Americans. This page says 224, INCLUDING 12 Americans. Having made a serious study of parallel errors in other contexts, my money is on there having been 212 killed in all; I could cite other instances in which a number like this has been swollen by having one component added twice. In other words, reporting too many is a more probable type of error than reporting too few. Still, I note this in the hope that someone with more ready access to first-hand sources will correct it and save me the trouble of digging. (I always say that. It hasn't happened yet, but hope springs eternal.)

Terry J. Carter (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower puts the death toll at 213 in Kenya, including 12 Americans, and 11 in Tanzania, for a total of 224. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.158.78 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice on Daily Show

I'm not sure this belongs here:

Notable Misinformation
On November 1st 2011, Condoleezza Rice stated these attack were targeted against Iraq and as lending legitimacy for the Iraq War during her interview segment [25] on The Daily Show. No such attacks were launched at that time.

Also, this seems to have been posted in response (under the wrong subsection).

Does anyone else have an opinion on the suitability of this content for this article? KConWiki (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

CW in al-Shifa

It would be great to use this article for information about the strikes and al-Shifa in particular. GAB^Hello! 01:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/sudbous.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998) → Operation Infinite Reach – Operation Infinite Reach is the event's common name, and the current title is simply far too unwieldy and implausible for anyone to search. "Operation Infinite Reach" also has over three times the number of Google hits than "Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan," and over seven times the hits of the current title. In this case, WP:MILMOS#CODENAME may not be the best guide, since "Operation Infinite Reach" is far more widely used and the operation is very well-known and covered. GAB^gab 14:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 ^talk 17:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: current title is too vague. Also, as per Commonname, people interested in the operation, know it by its codename. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Infinite Reach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kabahaly (talk · contribs) 10:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Article is overweighted/unbalanced by extensive POV coverage of perspectives of Western anti-war partisans, anti-Western activists, and sympathizers of Islamism. Not to mention a lot of pure (sourced) speculation about what was going on inside Clinton's head. The remedy would be adding balance with discussions of context on the place of this incident within the rise of Al Qaeda and more discussion of strategic considerations as apply to this incident. I was flagged ot comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Infinite Reach/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are appropriately licensed

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Looks fine to me. Passing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

POV

The section declaring the attacka a failure and an al-Qaeda propaganda victory is subjective opinion and not neutral POV.

It doesn't matter if a source also gives that opinion--plenty of people have opinions--that's not a neutral fact that belongs in an encyclopedia.

If nobody wants to rewrite it objectively, it should be removed,24.93.185.231 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek, "Our target was terror"

As of 2022-12-06 this article includes the following:

Following the strikes, Osama bin Laden's spokesman announced that "The battle has not started yet. Our answer will be deeds, not words."

I'm concerned that the article in the URL has the same title but different dates and authors:

• Date: citation = August 31, 1998. URL: 8/30/98: Presumably, the date should be August 30, not 31.
• Authors: The URL says, "Newsweek Staff". The citation says Watson and Barry.

I suspect that the article was first published August 30, as indicated in the link, then updated the following day to add the byline. If someone can find a link to the August 31 version by Watson and Barry, it should be corrected here.

This article is currently cited in 4 places as reference [8]. Might someone confirm that the information for which this article was cited is actually in the URL? It would, of course, help if it were the same person or people who added those citations to the article. If that can be done, I suggest the date be changed to August 30 and the authors be deleted. (In support of this suggestion, I found pages for both "Russell Watson Newsweek" and "John Barry Newsweek". Both contained articles by these authors in 1997 and 1999, but I didn't see this article.)

Can someone help fix this? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

References

DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: I just created a Wikidata item for this:

• Russell Watson; John Barry (31 August 1998). "Our Target Was Terror". Newsweek. ISSN 0028-9604. Wikidata Q115613392.

If someone fixes this item here, it should also be fixed in Wikidata.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)