Talk:2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has recently been created in order to cover the Gaza arena of the 2011 southern Israel attacks. It seems there might be a problem covering the Gaza arena as a WP:DUE event, outside the context of the southern Israel attacks, as well as WP:RS relation to this arena as such.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• These attacks deserve an article of their own, not just a small section within an already excisting article. These attacks are notable - they led to truce between Israel and Hamas being broken. Polozooza (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do. The first thing google gives me if I type in "gaza+attack+truce+hamas" is this one. Plenty of sources, both online and offline, can be found that mention these airstrikes as the direct reason for the truce to end. Polozooza (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? i asked WP:RS, not "antiwar" blog.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No jokes, just being lazy. ;) It was the first thing that showed up. There are plenty of other sources to be found. Polozooza (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

While you might be currently in some laziness state, i suggest you make notice of WP:SOAP and WP:OR rules in your free time.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty out there, and im sure on that page too

• Im neutral on this, though merging the two and changing the title would make 1 better article instead of 2 shitty ones. Alternatively, to satisfy two possible biases on such 1rr articles, we could paraphrase this on the section f the response on that article and "main" link it here.

Also not to sure that anti-war is the best source, but tehre are plentyLihaas (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

With a little work, both articles could easily upgrade above the level "shitty". The other article isn't that bad, either. This one could be (and should be) just as good. The events described, and the results of these events, are certainly noteworthy. Polozooza (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Both articles seem perfectly justified. I see no reason to merge. Surely we can figure that out later if its appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and while this article is linked on many pages and on the Main Page, we should strive to expand it as much a possible and make it a proper article. All those templates don't look very nice for readers, I think. ;) Polozooza (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the orange tags as they didn't make any sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also think this article should be merged into 2011 southern Israel attacks. קולנואני (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support merger. קולנואני (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the best solution would be to have two separate articles. Or take the Gaza raids information to the 2011 southern Israel attacks article as expansion. But until that is made properly I support two articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The way the article stands this has more Gaza reaction to the attack and that has more of the other (which was dubious per ITN). i now strongly support a merge and name change to something like August 2011 Israel-Gaza militant tensions or August 2011 Israel-Gaza attacks(Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

• Support Move to sandbox or merge per WP:CFORK Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support merger. The two articles are strongly related. They can always be resplit. Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Most people dont seem to agree with the interpretation of fork, hnece consensus generating discussions

Metallurgist, whats the point in that? you havent explained.(Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)).

• Oppose. They look like separate events in separate locations. One in the Aqaba gulf and one in Gaza. Nightw 01:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seem like what? Everything is in this article is in the other one. It is 100% content fork, and arguably a POV one as well. I cannot believe it is being featured. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. Definitely a content fork - the "background" in this article and the "aftermath" in the other mean they cover basically the same content, and the events cannot well be separated either. Also extremely likely (in this topic area) to become a POV fork. One query: what would the article be called? I don't think it's appropriate to treat Israel's retaliation merely as "aftermath," which we would be implying if we kept the current title of 2011 southern Israel attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas's suggestion of "August 2011 Israel-Gaza attacks" seems good. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. One side claims they're related, the other side claims they're not. Therefore per NPOV there is no reason to assume they are related. We simply mention that the Israeli government claims that they are related in both articles, which is sufficient to present their POV. JimSukwutput 05:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support merger. Retaliation to an act of terrorism is not necessarily sufficient for an article of its own when it can be included in the Southern Israel attacks article as response. The air strikes clearly appear to be a response to what occurred near Eilat. This event would not have occurred otherwise.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - just doing this for the record. My reasons are stated above in the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - and would like to make a different suggestion: Imagine that this thing escalates into another round of Israeli-Gaza war. We then *should* one article on this "Nth Israeli-Gaza war", and one separate article on the the thing that started it all (the attack on the road). Just like we have separate articles for World War I and the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which was the reason/excuse for this war. But, importantly, we cannot call the second article the "August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids", because then where will we write about the Hamas's retaliation to those, and Israel's 2nd retaliation, and Hamas's 3rd retaliation, and so on and so on? I suggest calling the second article something like August 2011 Gaza-Israel clashes, with the term "clashes" perhaps replaced by something else which the media will call this. Nyh (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nyh. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a merge if this conflict escalates and the succeeding attacks become more significant (i.e. outright warfare). But right now I don't see any rationale for a merger. JimSukwutput

• Support merged article (with perhaps a different title) - both the the attacks in Israel and the subsequent air raids in Gaza did not take place in a vacuum, they took place within the broader context of ongoing Palestinian/Israeli attack and retaliation, and for the reader to understand this broader context, both sub-events should be discussed together. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But if we take your logic to the extreme, there should only be one article for the seven-decade long conflict. Obviously that'd be silly, so there must be a point where we choose to split up a topic into several articles, right? JimSukwutput 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Now that 2011 southern Israel attacks has been renamed 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks, I think it makes the case for a merge into that article even stronger because that title can encompass both the original terrorist attacks and the Israeli air strike into Gaza rendering the point of this article relatively useless by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.224.106 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. For the reasons stated above. Brmull (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and Rename to 2011 Gaza - Israel conflict. Merger would result a synthesis of two distinct events. The two are related but not a single campaign. Reliable sources are not saying this is a single event. This would immensely confuse the readers. The current name of the article is also confusing, since it appears to document a one-sided attack rather than bidirectional warfare. Marokwitz (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge for the reasons stated above, also the information seem to be contained in one article without a big problem. 92.46.98.66 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge as to the reason that Israel always attacks Gaza after they fire rockets and this time is not really that different or special to deserve an article. (NamflNamfl) 02:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.138.89.253 (talk)
• Comment - due to conflicting renaming proposal this merge proposal is relisted on the noticeboard and due to be discussed according to standard procedures. The conflicting renaming is frozen until the merge voting is closed.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What is going on now?--98.112.224.106 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a conflicting proposal of renaming, while this merging proposal had still been standing, thus your proposal was also disrupting and might even be irrelevant if the merge dicussion outcome is merge. However, if the merging discussion is closed with keep, then we would go back to your renamal proposal. The usual timewindow for each proposal is one week, though it might vary, depending on specific circumstances.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• 10 say to merge (~59%). 7 say not to merge (~41%). Does this mean there will be a merge? Israguy (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really work that way. I/P can be rather partisan so evaluating a discussion based on oppose/supports alone is dubious. As of RIGHT NOW, the article has nothing unique to separate it from the 2011 attacks in southern israel. Literally, virtually everything here - including the infobox - is in the article. A pure fork, POV or not. So if there is anything of worth to merge, fine - but the article needs to be taken down soon. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge - Unnecessary content fork, current article does nothing but rehash information already specified in the other. The raids follow and are a direct result of the southern Israel attack, whatever one may feel about Israel's choice of target. Even criticism of Israel's choice of attacking Gaza would be out of place in an article that divorces the raids from the attack that preceded it, when the criticism is centered on the identity of the attackers. Poliocretes (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reasoning for merge is solid and grounded in policy. Only a few sentences would be merged in that case, because the rest of the article is copy-paste from the original article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request made here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

inappropriate userbox

userbox is civilian attacks (identical to the other attack.)

I've switched the userbox to military attack. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

my edits there were only in relation to what was there, whatever consensus decides is fine by meLihaas (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but the objective is synthesis as raids happened in aug 2011 even before the 18Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I changed it to a different template before reading this. I didn't think "operational" was appropriate. Honestly this article is unnecessary and IMO a fork. Title should be changed as well. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Title should be changed to what, exactly? And why is this a fork? Please elaborate. Polozooza (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a fork of the original article. This is not an independent event, but part of the attacks on Israel prior. All the information here is already in the other article. That is the definition of a fork. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats the basis for this consensus generating debate and hence your opinion. doesnt mean you change things to what you prefer in the meantime while were discussing(Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

All the information were in the other article only because of your relentless POV-pushing and using the article as your political platform. The other users here are simply cleaning up the mess. JimSukwutput 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

me?(Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)).

And rightfully so; the article is linked on the Main Page, after all. Now the other article wasn't too perfect either - the lead was very, very dubious if I recall correctly. Polozooza (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Lihaas, you've done a great job in this article. I was referring to Wikifan. JimSukwutput 12:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

xinhua reference

Is this really a reliable source? The notion that Israeli air attacks is motivated by inner turmoil seems quaint, to say the least. As is the idea that IDF capabilities would be affected by these attacks. Ketil (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Xinhua is a RS. Discussions as such should be at RSN.Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Civailian targets?

An editor continues to say civilian targets were attacked when one of the dead was a Chief Warrant Officer from yammam and "Another fatality was Staff Sgt. Moshe Naftali, 22, of the Israel Defense Forces' Golani Brigade." a bomb by an idf patrol is NOT civilian(Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

added sources et al to article and clarified both civilian and military targets. Done?(Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

Beware of synthesis

Unless we can find a set of reliable sources that agree that separate retaliatory responses by Israel due to separate attacks by Palestinian militants are an single event ("August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids" or similar), then this entire article is a violation of WP:SYNTH. In particular, it's highly doubtful that the earlier Israeli response to a Beer Sheva rocket and the current Israeli response to the Eilat attacks should be considered a single event. Doing so seems to be a transparently POV attempt to make it look like Israel is "attacking" Gaza. It's well known that Israel retaliates in direct response to terrorist (or "militant" or whatever) attacks coming from Palestinians, but each of these needs to be kept strictly separate unless there is clear evidence from reliable sources of linkage. In this case I doubt the Aug 14 rocketing/response has anything to do with the Eilat attacks, esp. as the scope of the Aug 18 Eilat attacks suggests far more time was require to plan this thing than the 4 days between Aug 14 and Aug 18.

I would suggest deleting/merging this article because of this. Benwing (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This article was created in response to concerns about an "in the news" item on the Main Page. That news item said Hamas cancelled the de facto truce due to "attacks on Gaza." This article was created as a target for a wikilnk from "attacks on Gaza" to explain what attacks Hamas was talking about. After this article got started, someone asked for citations about air attacks on Gaza in August 2011 that preceded the August 18 incident. Perhaps "synthesis" arises from the article title's mentioning August 2011. I agree the article should report Israel's claim that each air strike into Gaza was a response to a specific provocation. Sharktopus ^talk 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

this article shouldn't have been created to begin with. no articles should be created "in response" to other articles. it screams fork. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place, in this case Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Israel-Hamas_end_of_truce. Though it's a bit pointless as we already have overwhelming consensus, with only Wikifan dissenting. JimSukwutput 05:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not say this article was created "in response to another article." I said it was created in response to a Main Page problem with In the News. Just to give a bit more context, a few months ago ITN had a similar issue with an item about a frog previously thought extinct. ITN was pointing to an article about the frog in question. People complained the article was substandard; the ITN item vanished from the front page, the frog article was improved, the ITN item linking to it was reinstated. There is currently an item at ITN that originally said it was about "attacks on Gaza" but that linked to a (substandard) article about attacks on Israel. Now the ITN item links to both articles. Ultimately, the two articles will probably merge into a single article which will sadly be about a series of attacks, revenge-attacks, revenge-for-revenge-attacks, etc. in the Middle East and involving Israel, Gaza, and Egypt. But as Jim S points out, that discussion will happen somewhere else. Sharktopus ^talk 11:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

bias

The article, as currently reads, is biased to the side of Hamas. The article clearly uses tones and words such as "according to the Israeli government" "for which they blamed the Popular Resistance Committees, who denied involvement.[1]" ". That incident was said to be retaliation for a Palestinian rocket that landed in Beersheba." "some of the alleged 20 perpetrators." "Defense Minister Ehud Barak accused the Popular Resistance Committees" I suggest that the article be re-worded to a more neutral tone as soon as convient. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Which of these statements are not factually correct? JimSukwutput 05:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ditto, itd be biased the other side if not. theyre all duly sourced on bnoth pages.(Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)).

What you're describing as bias looks like judicious attempts to avoid bias. How is using terms like "according to" (citing a source of a statement) or "alleged" (a term always used in news articles until proof of guilt is established) bias? 70.16.209.81 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A suicide bomber killed several Egyptian soldiers on the Egyptian side of the border with Israel near the Philadelphia Route crossing from where did they got this ? It's quite amusing. Egypt has blamed the deaths on Israel and on wikipedia we find these absurd statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.188.87 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the bias claims - these strikes were in response to the attack on Israeli civilian buses and a private car. They were not the cause of the end of the ceasefire but a response to an attack in which 8 civilians were murdered. User:yoni_bhonker

According to Israel, these strikes were in response to the attacks near Eilat. According to Hamas, these strikes were the motivation for ending the truce. Both statements should be reported and attributed by the article. Sharktopus ^talk 23:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So you illegally crossed into Egypt and murdered 5 Egyptian soliders in response to attacks on "civilian" buses in your country by a group from another nation? Dig that hole, JIDF. Dig that hole. 124.148.207.15 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Requested Move to August 2011 Gaza Strip air strikes

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.

The move request to "August 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks" was postponed, since it interrupted the ongoing merge proposal discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids → August 2011 Gaza Strip air strikes – Based upon references given and the definitions of air raid vs. air strike. 98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

the name of this article and proposed move references "raids/strikes" while the one focusing on the israeli side references attacks. Is this npov? 71.180.64.181 (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A raid is an attack. Both sides see them as attacks. If 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks then I'd be willing to consider that a possibility for the article name. I'd argue that raid is potentially not NPOV as it is. If strike is also seen by others as not being NPOV compliant, I think attack would be best.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Italicized text added in edit for clarification--98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's not npov and it should be changed to "attacks" to match Israeli article.71.180.64.181 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this and re-propose with your suggestion for the most NPOV option.

August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids → August 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks –--98.112.224.106 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

weak oppose per WP article "Air raid refers to an attack by aircraft against ground or sea targets. The term is generally used for strategic bombing, while airstrike is used for smaller-scale tactical attacks." Its not small scale its strategic and much larger than the pre-=aug 18 strikes that preceded it. Although were getting somewhere in the merge proposal above (perhaps) so we should consolidate this there.(Lihaas (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)).

Support. Article is fork from 2011 Attacks on southern israel. If a conflict mutates from that article - then one can be created. But right now this article is 100% linked to the original attacks. No original content in this article, none at all. Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me note that Wikifan is supporting a merger, not a rename. He means oppose here. JimSukwutput 12:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim, and if that rename is unsuccessful for what ever reason? The title is clear POV. Lihaas, if you take a look at strategic bombing or total war two concepts linked to air raid you will see air raid is not a NPOV title. Air raids have a very specific meaning in the historical context. Once again, I must state that I prefer merge before move, but given the fact this is a current event swift actions are needed to clear up present NPOV violations.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the article's title. All I'm pointing out is that Wikifan12345 appears to be confused in that he's actually supporting a merger, not a rename. Not sure if I misunderstood his comment. JimSukwutput 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't quite understand what you meant. I thought Wikifan was supporting a merge yes, but also a rename should the merge fail, but you are right that was not necessarily clear. I think the best way to understand would be for Wikifan to state whatever he feels.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

move

What's the point of the move, if this article is going to be merged? קולנואני (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No concensus on this merge has been reached yet. Both the move and the merge are still being discussed. On a side not: I myself am in favour of a move. The article should be renamed as "August 2011 Gaza Strip attacks". Polozooza (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Polozooza is correct. In the event that consensus is not reached on the merge, this move is the best way to address NPOV for all sides. I once again must reiterate my difference of opinion with Polozooza however regarding the preferred solution as I feel that a merge to the now renamed 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks remains the best option.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"August 2011 Gaza Strip attacks" Why? What ref supports such a title? The title is almost identical to the militant attacks on Israel. No media source is portraying Israel's response to attacks on its own borders as equivalent to the attack on Israeli civilians days before. The article should be merged, all the content here is found in the original article. We don't create articles for military responses to attacks on the Taliban every time they blow up a military or civilian outpost unless its a specific operation. And consensus is not about votes, policy takes precedence and lest we forget this article was created without consensus. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:31, 21 August 2011 (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. Greyshark09 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Accuracy of Using Term "Air Raids"

I'm requesting an RfC at both Politics and History on whether air raid is appropriate terminology given its connection to strategic bombing and total war whereas the Gaza strip attacks seem to be carefully targeted strikes based on evidence originally provided and referenced in this article.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Carefully targeted? Sure. Still, the resulted in the death of several civilians, among whom a child. The people killed in Eilat where also "carefully targeted" and the attacks "organised". So why not call it an attack aswell, like that article? Whether it be by land, water or air, an attack is an attack is an attack. Polozooza (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why the front page says "Israel responds to attacks in southern Israel with air strikes on the Gaza Strip." it was Israel who attacked Gaza first with airstrikes, which killed seven civilians one being a child. As we know, """Hamas was not responsible for the attack""", and therefore Israels attack was unprovoked. The front page should read "Gaza responds to airstrikes in Gaza with rocket fire directed at surrounding Israeli cities".

The front page headline is very misleading and I hope it is changed soon.

Here is the timeline of events:

12:00 pm August 18, 2011 A group of armed militants cross the southern Egyptian border into Israel near the city of Eilat.

12:40 pm August 18, 2011 The 3rd phase of the militants operation is commenced with rocket fire from Egypt.

13:30 pm August 18, 2011 Another attack on a Israeli convoy is staged on the Egyptian-Israeli border, killing 4 civilians.five.

• hours after* Israeli soldiers clashed with the militants along the Egyptian-Israeli border, killing 5 Egyptian policemen.

Israel then launched retaliation air raids against the Hamas run Gaza Strip killing four plus a child.

With rocket fire in response to the airstrikes.

It's all in the link, from your very own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2011_Gaza_Strip_air_raids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.4.168 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're reading the sources wrong. The attacks occurred on Thursday morning, Israel responded after subduing the original militants in a fire-fight. the child (age has said to be 2 or 12) was the son/daughter of a PRC militant. And as far as Israel is concerned, Hamas is responsible for governing Gaza and thus any attacks originating from it is the fault of Hamas. No international organization has disputed this, nor Has Hamas rejected their control over Gaza which they see as legitimate. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

comment: This smacks too much of WP:RECENT to have it's own article. Surely this content should be developed in a parent article and after a few months, a more detached determination on whether this deserves it's own article can be made. aprock (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it "smacks" POV fork. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has not a clue about the topic "August 2011" speaks the loudest. aprock (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks as it should provide some context for what is going on here.98.112.224.106 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral. I don't see a significant difference between "attacks" and "raids". I do however support the merge. Recent events articles get forked way too much, which wastes editors' time, doesn't improve wikipedia, and it's hard as hell to remove even stupid ones later on. Brmull (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "2011 Gaza - Israel conflict". This article is about a two sided conflict, not "air raids". Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not a bad idea and neutral too. then we can merge both.Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose rename as this has not been described as an all-out conflict or war. Recent news suggest Israeli government is about to enter an informal cease-fire with Hamas. Unless an actual operation takes place we can't call it a conflict any less than we can call the various spats in Afghanistan/Iraq unique "conflicts." Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Israeli government is not negotiating with Hamas. Hamas declared a cease-fire, but rockets are still being fired at Israeli cities and towns. Israeli schools and synagogues are destroyed. a 9 months old baby was hospitalized. If this is not an armed conflict - I don't know what IS. Israguy (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename article name

The current name "August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids" is bias, since it is not clear from this name that the raid is a retaliation for murders of Israelis on Israeli land. Also - not only Gaza is under attack. Beer Sheva, Askelon, Ashdod, Sderot, Netivot and other southern towns of Israel are under attack - just not by "air raid", but "only" by rockets and missles launched from the ground. Name of article should be less bias and more neutral. Israguy (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this not clear? The very first sentence mentions that the attacks were declared as "retaliation" by the Israeli state, with a helpful link to that article. JimSukwutput 08:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with you Israguy. We are not alone in this view.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed nationality

Copy-pasted from my section on this talk page: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:2011_southern_Israel_cross-border_attacks

Some parts of the article state the nationality of the attackers as Palestinian, based on sources which claim the attackers were members of the Popular Resistance Committees. This is a disputed fact, as the PRC denies involvement, and there are verifiable sources showing that: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?ID=234512&R=R1

I have amended some parts of the article which state Palestinian nationality, based on claims of PRC membership, and it would be good to see more discussion about and critical analysis of sources which make these claims. Arfed (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated lead to reflect doubts about militants origin, citing this article: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/doubts-emerge-over-identity-of-terrorists-who-carried-out-attack-in-israel-s-south-1.380525 Arfed (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I say, merge this one into the 2011 Eilat attacks because that article has alot more information in it.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Eilat? it happend in south Israel not far from Eilat (not IN), and near the egyptian border... --Max (talk) 17:07 GMT+, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but this article is rubbish and not per MOS and not to mention pov per WTA. How about 2011 southern Israel attacks, if there is another one then we can add th emonth/date. (weve done that before for new delhi in 2008.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 southern Israel attacks it O.K. and correct.--Max (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but just let merge this article into the other one. Because this one is actually rubbish while the other one is on the event and updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem now. the same title with a capital s and lower case s links to the 2 different pages. Proper term is lower case s as its not a proper noun, but the content at capital s is better.

also need to delete Terror attacks in southern Israel, 2011-08-18 and 2011 Eilat attack (we can redirect the capital s and Eilat attacks here).Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

for gods sake what the heck is going on! Theres no consensus at all for this new incarnation since there were THREE attacks at various places.Lihaas (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Lihaas lets merge this article into the 2011 Southern Israel attacks article and move the name 2011 Ein Netafim attacks with it. Easy and best way of solving this.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Title

It appears that there is disagreement about the title and some confusion on how to solve the disagreement. Therefore, I am opening a discussion. Personally I feel that since there is no official name, and the location of the attacks is called Ein Netafim, the title 2011 Ein Netafim attacks should stay (there was another attack in the same location many years ago, if anyone's interested). If you dispute this, please discuss here. I am going to be out for the next few hours. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on the name. and that the content from this article should be merged into the 2011 Southern Israel attacks and the name 2011 Ein Netafim attacks be moved to that article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

per below as well there was no consensus ont he move, thre were MULTIPLE attacks several km from each other. southern with a lower case is better.Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

There were no consensus to move 2011 Southern Israel attacks article into this one.... but anyway its done. But I found the other article to be better.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the article covers all three attacks, in my opinion it is better to change the name of the article to 2011 Southern Israel attacks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have clear consensus on this one. Though may i add 2011 southern Israel attacks. I dont believe "Southern Israel" is a proper noun or official part of teh province or something, its the generic region.Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes lihaas is right change it back to 2011 southern Israel attacks spelling, and merge.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the name, it was a waste of effort to maintain two different articles. The name can be settled later, I've redirected the other article here so that contributions don't go to waste on parallel articles. Poliocretes (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying that we need to maintain two separate articles - apparently the two articles were created without their authors being aware that they have created duplicate articles. Anyway, what in your opinion is the most appropriate name for this article? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to what appears to be the consensus version, even though I disagree with it—it's not as descriptive as the other title, while being the same length. In any case, let's tie up all the loose ends in the article because there were 3 simultaneous articles created and they were slowly merged, but some confusion still exists about the different ones. For now I'll go over all the redirects and see. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Name change

In my opinion, we need to find a better name in order to distinguish this specific event from the many frequent rocket attacks that have been fired by Palestinian militants at Israeli targets in the southern part of Israel during 2011. Any suggestions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How about 2011 coordinated guerrilla attacks in southern Israel? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How about 2011 joint terrorist attacks in southern Israel? Max (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the 2 noms above are a little vague at the moment tille more details emerge 8(first) and pov/wta (second).

it seems both attacks occurred miles apart to say that they were at just 1 place of the border crossing is deceptive on the third attack. Eilat (which was the original name) seemed good to me, but more details from others emerged that it was outside eilat.Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is a "militant"? Are IDF members militants? I think guerilla is probably the best term. Certainly "terrorist" is not a good label as its clear meaning and definition have been lost for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion... 2011 Ein Netafim attacks. I really don't understand the opposition to this proposal. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Ein Netafim attacks is not a bad suggestion at all, but in my opinion, 2011 coordinated guerrilla attacks in southern Israel or 2011 joint guerrilla attacks in southern Israel would work better because the attacks took place out in the wilderness nearby the highway and didn't occur in one specific spot/village/town. What is the most common name/s this event has received in the media? (please specify your sources). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But all attacks are not at Ein Netafim, and we dont even have a blue lijnk for it.Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the attacks took place in that area. Do you have a more precise map of the attacks? (the current coordinates in the article seem wrong too). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont, thats why im asking. not sure what the wider Ein Netafim is. I thought it was generally Eilat. (nice airport, in the heart of the city though id say its quite unsecured. and that ol' russiahn plane parked off to look at ;) Nice swim though, but how does security work at the beach by the Jordan border? Missing 3 MOnkeys..;))Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How about:

• 2011 coordinated guerrilla attacks against Israeli civilians in southern Israel
• 2011 joint guerrilla attacks against Israeli civilians in southern Israel
• 2011 Terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians in southern Israel

קולנואני (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced content and other things

Compare this to this.

I don't understand why editors manage to remove whole sentences of information, merge unrelated content into ambiguous section titles, and then get away with it.

These kinds of heavy, unilateral edits require consensus. Also, this edit is not line with policy. The source explicitly describes the acts as "terror." It is not the viewpoint of the author, it comes from a reliable source. Guideline: "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Also, - not a policy. No shame in using the T word at 2011 Norway attacks so why can't it be used here?

This edit isn't even supported by the source. And this is SYNTH as the source does not mention the The Popular Resistance Committees nor does the source explicitly dispute claims that the perps were in fact PRC members. So again editors are inserting their own views in the article and it shows. I've already used up my 1 revert but I think Lihaas has made at least 6 in the last 24 hours which is sanctionable. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, inm not revertign anything. Im adding content and sources and explaining everything,. At any rate, also comment on CONTENT. the edit conflicts that i happen to overwrite and readded back (take for example the edit that updated 8 deaths, etc)

to explain the edits, the reorg of the section (which is NOT a revert of anything but an original edit) is in line organising content as per other attacks artickes when some sections are nothing but 1 line and unsourced at that. Look at the first link and youll see missing fact tags.

Swarm's edit is right (and it has nothign to do with me) as we dont copy word-for-word from sources, this is not a news service to parrot the media. WTA explicitly says not to use such controversial words unless in quotes. (for which those in the reactions that call it so are duly mentioned)

the original al jazeera page mentioned the soldiers on board heading to eilat, they must have changed the bit. often they change stuff keeping the sdame link. probs we can remove that then. It is in the source, i just read it. "soldiers on their way home from their respective bases for the weekend."

Per PRC see the next section (ill go and tag the source there, there was a jpost source that said so) Done Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas, adding content is one thing - removing content (and their sources) counts as a revert. Compare the first version to the second. ARBPIA is firm on 1rr per 24 hours to prevent issues like this from arising. Swarm's edit is disputable because the link he cites as a reason is a guideline, not a policy, and the guideline explicitly says go with what the sources say. Norway attack are described as terror in nature in the very first sentence. I encourage you self-revert and restore one of the earlier versions of the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What content and sources did i remove? Tell me and ill more than happily avoid this sort of conflict by reverting my edit. I dont think a blanket revert of an entire version would help as it will remove a LOT of other stuff. But if you tell me what i rvted, i will surely self-rvt the controversy.

Norway attack sholdnt say that and ought to be changed.Lihaas (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Split

Okay Lihaas, I'm going to be as brief and concise as possible.

• this needs to go. None of the sources are suggesting a conflict of who is responsible for this attack. Just because a source doesn't mention a guilty party does not mean they oppose sources that previously stated the perps. Get it? It's call synthesis. Understand it. Breath it. Get it. I see this all the time on Israeli-related articles. Unless an RS says, specifically, "while x said these guys did it, y has yet to confirm said journalism blah blah." We as editors cannot ASSUME this, even if it might be true. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly; refrain from NPA you comment on CONTENT "Understand it. Breath it. Get it." Secondly how is that a revert? what was reverted in adding a NEW section per WP:BOLD.

How is it then synthesis to cite EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE SOURCES that security services pblamed PRC. Especially since the infoboxmentions it without a word of prose in the article. That is okay and not synthesis?

See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Attack_in_Israel for more and more sources that OTHER editors too have said dont attribute claims.Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BE BOLD is something not to be used at I/P articles. Editors are limited 1 RR per 24 hours and are expected to gain a consensus or at least explain large removal or expansion of edits made unilaterally in discussion.

I'm looking at the sources, none of them cite a conflict between x source saying PRC is guilty but b source saying "no, that hasn't been confirmed yet."

I'll even post the sources for you.

• Only two mentions of PRC. NO mention of media conflict. Simply military believes PRC is responsible for attacks.
• no mention of PRC at all.
• Third source says "Security sources said that the PRC was behind Thursday's triple attack near Eilat.". Again, no mention of media conflict.
• AJ does not mention PRC as an involved party in the attack. Just says PRC was targeted in Gaza, citing Barak
• BBC source is the only cite that can actually be used in the section. It says the PRC denies responsibility, but BBC quotes Reuters. I don't know where that source is exactly. These news organizations end up lifting journalism from each other so when facts get mixed up they mix each other up in the process. But again, still SYNTH. Padding sections with unrelated cites does not help the article at all. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

Im nost sure if Clinton should come before or after the State Depts reaction. What do others think? is the minister or ministry more important? (which per Yes Minister is mostly civil servants who apparently know more)

Also to explain my reorg per a statement above: i tried to be more neutral in the reactions by saying "regional" instead of involved as we dont yet know for sure whos involved.Lihaas (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well in the US, the reaction of the actual Secretary is the most important. The rest of the State Dept is just beaurocrats meant to write her speeches, process passports, arrange meetings, etc. The US gov is more about the personalities that run the departments rather than the department themselves. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See also

Unexplained and dubuious edit summary by an admin here. The addition was duly noted in the edit summary and explained, this is vandalism if there was one.
Added on the premiuse that its multiple attacks in a city by non-state actors and hence clearly similar, at least without consensus or explanation fo removal.Lihaas (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, "don't be ridiculous" is rather offensive. Suggesting the event is somehow less tragic than the attacks on India. I'm not familiar with the "see also" policy. The only editor-related issue I have is the "don't be ridiculous" which is totally offensive. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While the edit summary is not appropriate, the removal is hardly vandalism: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". In addition, I think that the removal is justified unless a reliable source makes the connection; else, the claim that both events were "multiple attacks in a city by non-state actors and hence clearly similar" is an original conclusion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions...

Is this article going to be part of a potentially greater conflict? three injured by rocket. It seems as though the original attacks have led to further engagements, yet all appear to be connected to the first attack. Suggestions? Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a conflict that has been ongoing for at minimum the past 70 years. There are reactions to reactions to reactions to reactions. So, I'd say let's be a bit conservative here in limiting the scope to what's actually relevant to the attack. I suggest cutting it off at "Israeli retaliation". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting Reports

This Jerusalem Post Article appear to conflict with this BBC News Article. The BBC Article reports the Egyptian policemen were shot by Israeli forces however it's not confirmed by Israel but they've starting an inquiry whereas an Israeli news station reports that Palestinian suicide bombers killed the Egyptian policemen. According to the BBC article Egypt claims they were shot by Israel however Israeli news says they were killed by Palestinians. I can't make sense of whether on not this is biased Israeli news or not. If I'm confusing two separate events then sorry and please correct me on this, I won't edit the article unless someone else will confirm these are the same event. Karlstar (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't make sense of whether or not this is biased BBC news or not, either. Pedantrician (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Israeli news says that Israeli forces were shot upon, near the Israel-Egypt border. The Israeli forces shot back, towards the origin of the fire that was shot at them. It seems that the terrorists located themselves very close to an Egyptian post, and therefor Egyptian policemen were shot, when the Israeli force returened fire. But nothing is 100% confirmed yet. קולנואני (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Retaliation attacks

They now have their own article: August 2011 Gaza Attack. Makes things a lot easier, I'd say. It is these retaliations, after all, that resulted in Hamas calling off the truce. I would be very glad if some of the editors of this article would be willing to help expand the new article. Some of them have already contributed. Thanks already! Polozooza (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Israel was attacked by Palestinians. Israel retaliated, and after that - the Palestinians will also retaliate, which will cause Israel to retaliate again, and who knows when this will end. So, what's the point in spliting these articles? קולנואני (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

On it. But should have been in the sandbox before posting it on the mainspace. Not ready for wikipedia IMO. Also, I'd say its a fork and will eventually be deleted/merged - but not until thousands of readers see it. Sigh. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Israel broke the ceasefire. It's amazing how many times you JIDF think Israel breaking a truce and then being counter-attacked makes the guys who retaliated to be "the ones who broke the truce". It's like Israel is some guy repeatedly punching some other guy in the face and then starts raging about getting revenge for that "unprovoked attack" when he finally punches back...but with an entire nation and nukes. It's pathetic and it's sad you JIDF even think anyone is buying it despite your desperate attempts to troll any responses away. 124.148.207.15 (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

"Defacto truce"?

In what sense is Hamas breaking a "defacto truce"--rocket attacks into Israel from the Gaza Strip have never ceased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.78.176 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In the sense that some/most/all (not sure) of the rockets fired from Gaza to Israel were not fired by Hamas itself, but by other terror organizations. קולנואני (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In the sense that Hamas and its apologists claim to be the elected government of Gaza, and expect to be granted legitimacy as such when dealing with the international community, they can't suddenly claim to be just one many terrorist gangs when it suits them. Pedantrician (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fatalities - undue??

remove Israel detailed causalties list - WP:DUE; no corresponding list exist for Palestinian victims

How is that undue? There is nothing undue about including fatalities of those killed. There were no "corresponding" Palestinian victims, in the sense of Israelis being killed in cold-blood while Palestinians were killed as Israeli bombed militant targets in Gaza.

Plenty of other articles involve fatality lists. I suggest a self-revert, I'm not sure if I can restore it as I may have used up my 1rr in the last 24hrs. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

One killed in Beersheva by a Grad

Gaza terrorists bombarded cities in Israel's southern region Saturday night. One person was killed when a Grad rocket hit Be'er Sheva, and another two were critically wounded. Four others were wounded as well, and are in serious-to-moderate condition. [1]

Is "bombarded" the right word the use? They did not use bombs, but fired long range missles. Israguy (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is, here is the definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary (about as good as Oxford's, and free! ).

bombardedpast participle, past tense of bom·bard (Verb)
1. Attack (a place or person) continuously with bombs, shells, or other missiles: "the city was bombarded by federal forces"  

Also, not to be a pedant, but aren't the Grads medium-range? The long-range ones are the ones that can hit Tel Aviv... :( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved section on 'Other Attacks'

It clearly belongs further down in the chronology. Placing it before the Israeli Air Strike section is misleading, as it would seem to suggest that it was also involved in precipitating those Israeli attacks. 174.91.156.71 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

POV problem with Jerusalem Post as a source about these attacks

This article should be based on news sources that distinguish between partisan claims and established fact. Instead, a plurality of its references come from a single right-wing source, the Jerusalem Post. These Jerusalem Post references parrot the Israeli government claim (that the PRC was responsible for the attacks) as if it were established fact.

• "... the Popular Resistance Committees, the organization who orchestrated the terror attacks near Eilat on Thursday that left eight people dead. "[2]
• "...Israel’s response to the terror attacks from the Sinai Peninsula came swiftly Thursday evening when the Israel Air Force bombed the southern Gaza Strip, killing the leadership of the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), who had orchestrated the attacks."[3]

We don't yet know who was responsible, and the PRC has denied being involved. Articles that claim otherwise are opinion pieces, not WP:RS news stories. Sharktopus ^talk 01:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is an RS. As it stands the article does not say the PRC is responsible, but quotes the views of the IDF, Hamas, PRC (denied), etc. It's not that we don't know who is responsible - it's that other news organizations are slower to respond. This is a regional event, so of course native sources will jump to conclusions faster as information arrives. And the Israeli gov. is just as reliable as the USA/Canada. US news routinely accepts the claims of NATO without challenge. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times in a RS, but we do not treat opinion pieces in the NYT as reliable sources on matters of fact. I don't think Wikipedia should treat US/Canada/NATO/Israel claims as established fact when those claims are seriously disputed. Sharktopus ^talk 02:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorials are an entirely different matter. What op-ed concerns you? I don't see any cited here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The two JP items I linked to above, both with the byline of "Yaakov Katz," cross the line from news to opinion when they both claim as established fact that Eilat attacks were by the PRC. Sharktopus ^talk 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they didn't "cross the line." Jerusalem Post is an RS, the sources you link are not editorials.

Security officials said that the suicide bomber was thought to belong to the Popular Resistance Committees, the organization who orchestrated the terror attacks near Eilat on Thursday that left eight people dead.

While this source says killing the leadership of the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), who had orchestrated the attacks., it is still an RS in spite of potential conflicts with other sources. This is an on-going event. But none of the sources are editorials. In the article no militant organization has been confirmed as the perpetrator explicitly. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh come now, JPost isn't right-wing, and definitely not right-wing to the point of not being an RS (that distinction belongs to Arutz Sheva). Though, we could still broaden our sources. Western media is still reporting on this, as shown by the NY Times article I linked further down on the Talk, so we could use some of those. We could also use YNet and HaAretz as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an ironclad definition somewhere on Wikipedia of what constitutes a RS? The definitions that I've found seem to make it situational: it depends on whether the editor du jour approves of what the source is saying.. If I were defining it, I would include such criteria as, does the source include both sides of the issue and quote opposing views fairly and accurately. By these criteria, Arutz Sheva passes the test. If it is disqualified simply because it is right wing (i.e., it reports on stories that the rest of the media would just as soon the public know nothing about), then of course it fails. But it beats me why CNN, which openly admitted that it was faking the news from Iraq to please Saddam Hussein, the BBC, whose Arab reporters in Gaza openly declare that they see their reportage as part of the Palestinian struggle against Israel, the New York Times, which displays photos of bloodied Jews on the front page but calls them Arabs, Reuters, who happily accept Photoshopped images until caught, or Ha'Aretz, which does not present anything but the left wing side of the issue, are all unquestioned RS. I believe even Al Jazeera is an RS, no? They obviously have a political agenda, but of course they aren't labeled classic right wing (and Arutz Sheva even quotes them fairly, by the way. Pedantrician (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't it seem to you that an article based largely upon a single source is a problem? Especially when somebody points out at least a few cases where that source has conflated opinion with news, failing to identify disputed points? I may well be in error calling it right-wing, based on what I read in Jerusalem Post. Sharktopus ^talk 13:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 80 sources cited which is very respectable, and JP is definitely not a "right wing" source. If you have POV or factual accuracy concerns about specific facts, we can discuss them individually. Marokwitz (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

At the time I first expressed this concern, the article had 57 references, a respectable number; more than 20 of those references went to articles in the J Post, which I thought was a problem. The article is much better now than it was a few days ago. I have identified a couple of problems with a couple of J Post articles in this thread, purely wrt their asserting as "fact" a disputed claim that the PRC was responsible for Eilat attacks. Maybe they were, but international media RS have not asserted that connection as a fact. Sharktopus ^talk 14:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Name Problem

There's a problem with the name as is. As I understand it, this article is about the series of 3 attacks which happened in immediate succession a few days ago. Is that right?

However, the article title makes it sound like it should include each and every attack in Southern Israel from all of 2011.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a better name? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to change the name of this article. South Israel is under attack. The series of 3 attacks were only the beggining. Israguy (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there are still rockets being fired into the South. It's even still being reported in the New York Times, amazingly enough. [4] O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro

The article introduction contains the parenthetical:

"(though Hamas had never actually ceased rocket attacks into Israel)"

On the surface this appears to be editorializing. Our very own article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel itself indicates that such rocket attacks occurred between 2001 and 2009, suggesting that they in fact were significantly diminished. The article goes on to indicate that in 2010 and 2011 there were a number of rocket attacks, but much fewer than before. The editorial parenthetical appears to dismiss this nuance. -x

The relatively non-existant Hamas ceasefire that the article seems to quote appears to be Israelis unilateral ceasefire (link). The article at the start of the so called ceasefire shows that Israel intended to take indefinite action but Hamas was only limiting it to a week. And while the attacks may have died down, they by no means stopped. Truce does not mean a reduction in violence, it means ceaseation. Just because the media used a word does not mean the definition is being used correctly, and just because the other article in question seems not to cover 2010 and 2011 does not mean that a ceasefire occurred. I'd argue that article is incomplete and out of date.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamas stopped firing rockets themselves, but certain factions like Islamic Jihad managed to fire between one and five rockets a month. There was even a two month period without rockets and Hamas said they were cracking down on the various factions within Gaza to make them stop (which they were apparently. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In which section should have include the part that mentions the deaths of the Egyptian soldiers?

Were the 5 Egyptian soldiers killed during the period of the original series of attacks (roughly between 12:00 - 18:00 pm) or were they killed after the original series of attacks? If they were killed during the initial series of attacks - we must move the part which covers the their death to the "The attacks" section instead of the "Israeli retaliation" section in which this section is currently in. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Since I'm already at 1RR, I have placed a POV tag on the article due to CuriousGnome's removal - or rather I should say selective removal, of Palestinian casualties from the infobox. I believe it is sophistry to pretend that this article and its accompanying infobox pertain only to the initial attack, when an entire section of the article is devoted to Israeli retaliations and rightly so. The fact that Gnome (and now Wikifan) have retained only the militant casualties from the Israeli airstrikes makes these edits all the more indefensible. I appeal to the editors in question to restore the full casualty figures. Gatoclass (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, don't mix my edits with CuriousGnome. I did not "retain" only militant casualties. However IMO the infobox should only include casualties from the original attacks. Any Palestinians militants/civilians killed later shouldn't be in the infobox. It confuses the reader. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, could you at least remove the (+7 attackers) from the infobox? I still don't agree with the reasoning, but you (or gnome) can't have it both ways, either all the Palestinian casualties should be included or none. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding the Palestinians killed during the actual series of cross-border terror attacks and following battle which brought an end to the August 18th cross-border attacks is currently included in the infobox which covers the actual series of cross-border terror attacks and following battle which brought an end to the August 18th cross-border attacks (the infobox has been moved to the section of the article which covers this event to prevent confusion). This infobox should not contain additional information related to the subsequent events that took place in the following hours and/or days. If do you think that there are still errors in the information that appears in infobox, please state these errors in an objective and civil manner, and we will fix the infobox in order for it to reflect the reality objectively. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we can certainly consider, as a balanced approach, to add an additional infobox in the "Israeli retaliation in the Gaza Strip" section which would contain data relating to these subsequent events. What do you think of this compromise proposal? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. We may have to address the larger issue at some stage however. BTW, I think your infobox casualty figures are out in any case, I count only six militants killed in the initial attacks, four by Israel and two by Egypt, but the infobox currently indicates a total of nine. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many infoboxes. Assuming the other article remains, explicit information about Palestinian deaths and a unique infobox should be moved there. I added an infobox to that article when it was first created but someone removed it. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The other article should probably be merged with this one, they are obviously covering the same event. And "too many infoboxes" may not be ideal, but it's certainly a good deal better than a single infobox that covers only half the casualties. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly happy with the fact that Gnome has employed a different infobox for the Israeli airstrikes, but as I indicated earlier, this seems to be a problem related to the limitations of the "civilian attack" infobox. We may have to take a closer look at that issue at some stage. Gatoclass (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass that an additional template is needed mainly due to the sensitivity of the subject and as a current more balanced approach. For this reason, and because in this current discussion this is the decision of the majority, I took the liberty of adding a new template to the "Israeli retaliation in the Gaza Strip" section (Gatoclass - if you now object to the use of this template I will remove it immediately). Nevertheless, in my opinion, in the distant future when we would be able to see the whole event and subsequent events in a better perspective, we can definitely considered, based on the decision of the majority in the discussion page of course, summarizing the "Israeli retaliation in the Gaza Strip" section and having the infobox appear only in the August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said CuriousGnome, I am not entirely happy with the infobox you added, but I think if you cleared the "partof" field it would be more acceptable. It looks very odd to me to have Israeli strikes categorized as "part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" while the Palestinian attacks that preceded and followed are not so categorized. But as a compromise, if you would agree to clear the field in question, I could probably agree to removing the pov tag. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the "Part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section to the infobox of the attack. Does this seem as an acceptable compromise to you? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable. I've removed the POV tag. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrators

The lead says that the perpetrators are assumed to be Palestinian while the infobox says flat out that they are. However, Egyptian authorities say that they have identified three of the people responsible and that at least one of them is based in Sinai (see here). As such, I am removing the infobox line. nableezy - 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

US/Israel say Palestinian militants, CNN says Palestinian militants. No one has suggested this attack was committed by some other people. Need a better source to support Egyptian claims. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the US and Israel "say" but Egypt "claims", and an Egyptian newspaper is not a reliable source why exactly? nableezy - 00:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So, did you read my full edit? CNN says Palestinian militants, US intelligence and Israeli intelligence say Palestinian militants (all published in RS), a non-RS Egyptian newspaper doesn't say non-Palestinian, just "three men." More than a dozen were involved in the attacks, perhaps more who planned it. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, why is al-Masry al-Youm not a reliable source? It is a major news source in Egypt, you cant simply dismiss sources you dislike. The source says that one of them men is the head of a Sinai based "terrorist cell", not from Gaza. nableezy - 01:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it, I just assumed it was. And the infobox does not say Gaza Palestinian militants, just "Palestinian militants." Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You just assumed it was why? Because it isnt Israeli or American? The al-Masry al-Youm source contradicts the claim that they were Palestinian. You cant just accept the Israeli narrative as gospel truth and claim any Arab source must be unreliable. nableezy - 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And to alleviate your concern with using an Egyptian source, an Israeli one repeats the report al-Masry al-Youm and says three of the attackers were Egyptian. Though the article currently goes further than the source (Ill correct that shortly). nableezy - 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The "fatalities" section also refers to "Palestinian militants". I'm concerned about such statements. If no-one has taken responsibility for the attacks, then we can't be sure the attackers were Palestinian. They may, for example, have been indigenous Egyptians allied with AQ or another radical group. I think it would be appropriate if the article ceased to refer to the attackers as "Palestinian" as if their identity were known with certainty. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gato, you know better than this. Wikipedia is all about verifiability. Everyone in this section are Palestinians. They attackers may been from mars, right now we just go with what sources say. CNN cite above lists Palestinian militants without citing Israel/Egypt/other sources, so either that is their own independent reportage or something else. Some say Gaza-based al qaeda affliate. No source has suggested any "indigenous Egyptians" of being complicit in this incident. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but since the identity of the attackers has yet to be confirmed, they could have been anyone, which is the point I am making. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not disputing that. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Israel News say that some of the perpetrators are Egyptians but most of them are Palestinian from Gaza. And some of them are confirmed Popular Resistance Committees members. Israguy (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Source? I don't like these claims that the militants were Palestinian, since all of the citations supporting it just make that assertion, without qualifying those claims. Does this not fall foul of some WP rules regarding verifiability? Arfed (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

RS? news.xinhuanet.com

How is news.xinhuanet.com a RS? It seems to me that the link provided is not for a news report, but to a personal colum. Israguy (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal column? That's the furthest from the truth you can get. Xinhua is actually the official news agency of the People's Republic of China. They have a POV of course with respect to issues in China, but on international issues they tend to rely on international sources. They're fast and have the most detailed information, which is why they get used so frequently on recent events articles. As for reliability, the community has previously decided that Xinhua would be a RS regardless of content, unless specifically for contentious issues in China. JimSukwutput 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed nationality

Some parts of the article state the nationality of the attackers as Palestinian, based on sources which claim the attackers were members of the Popular Resistance Committees. This is a disputed fact, as the PRC denies involvement, and there are verifiable sources showing that: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?ID=234512&R=R1

I have amended some parts of the article which state Palestinian nationality, based on claims of PRC membership, and it would be good to see more discussion about and critical analysis of sources which make these claims.

My edit: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=2011_southern_Israel_cross-border_attacks&action=historysubmit&diff=446670143&oldid=446638405 Arfed (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article makes assertions of the attackers nationality, but without any qualifying statements; does this not fall foul of any WP rules? http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/20/c_131062563.htm Arfed (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone cited this article, which casts doubts on PRC origin of militants: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/doubts-emerge-over-identity-of-terrorists-who-carried-out-attack-in-israel-s-south-1.380525 Arfed (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha'aretz: Rocket attacks on Friday, August 19

Hi. According to this news story from Ha'aretz, eight additional Israelis were killed by rocket attacks coming from Gaza on Friday (Aug. 19). The names mentioned are different from those in the article referring to the Thursday, August 18 victims, except for the Gaz and Karlinskis (yet those four fatalities were mentioned as occurring on the Thursday). Are additional references required to back up the claim of Friday fatalities? Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

One Israeli person was killed by Grad rocket, the rest (other eight Israelis) had previously been killed in the cross-border attack.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Merged

The august attacks article has been merged.

Most of the content is already in this article, but if editors want to merge original content from the other article the content can be found here. Anyone can edit that page. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another death

Its unclear if these are being counted in the article or not. They are part of the rocket barrage: 79-year-old Eliyahu Naim of Ashkelon <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147532#.TmRPnJgTN1M|title=Ashkelon Man Becomes 3rd Rocket Victim|last=Miskin|first=Maayana|date=5 September 2011|work=Israel National News|publisher=Arutz Sheva|accessdate=5 September 2011}}</ref>

62-year-old Varda Nachmias <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147161#.TmRVcJgTN1M|title=62-yr-old Israeli Woman Second Victim to Die from Rocket Fire|last=Ya'ar|first=Chana|date=24 August 2011|work=Israel National News|publisher=Arutz Sheva|accessdate=5 September 2011}}</ref>

Metallurgist (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Despicable pictures of a DIFFERENT attack

I see Israel is out in full force trying to make itself look like the victim again. Even IF there is a legitimate argument for including the incident Israel claims began their murder of 5 Egyptian soldiers, the pictures have absolutely no place. It is a sub-section of an article unrelated to that sub-section, PICTURES of the cars attacked from a DIFFERENT incident have no place here. It's a clear, deliberate attempt to push a Pro-Israel justification POV. They must be deleted at once. 124.148.207.15 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Pictures are of the cross-border attack in question. I don't know what other attack you are talking about, you seem to have missed something. Poliocretes (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not. They are of a seperate incident. Perhaps you should read next time, seeing as that sub-section mentions it in the heading. Explain how a bus being egged relates to this article on Israel's attack on egypt? 124.148.207.15 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Have you actually READ the article? The incident begun with an attack on Israel, which the photos depict. I will now reinstate the photos, and if you don't like it, feel free to report me. Poliocretes (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is ALREADY COVERED. But nice try. Those photos relate in no way to this article. Just as pictures of every person killed being posted relates in no way to this article. If those pictures are in sources then they are represented to required amount. Desperately trying to display photos to garner sympathy for Israel in an article about Israel's attack on Egypt, when Egypt played no part in those bus attacks, is not allowed.

So, again, I point out to you that those pictures are not allowed to be posted. They are POV and POV relating to ANOTHER attack, not this articles head-line. That one incident caused another is already covered. Pointless information regarding the other attack has NO place in an article devoted to the attack on Egypt.

And I say again...present a reason why pictures of cars (which do not display anything in relation to the article other than pitiful shock value) and a BUS THAT HAS BEEN EGGED relate in ANY way to THIS article and incident? Pictures are reinstated and you will be reported if you continue to ignore Wikipedias rules. 124.148.207.15 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

IP user, it is usually recommended to read the article before editing it. Marokwitz (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

IP, Egged is the name of the Israeli national bus company, it's not a bus that has been egged. You're completely out of your depth and better stop. Poliocretes (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Marokwitz (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol at the fact you think a buses company name is a reason for it to be included.

• facepalm*

Pictures of a spood found near the site doesn't need its own picture either. Nor would it be allowed to post pictures of those Egyptians murdered by Israel. The latter being part of the direct subject of this article (Israel's attack that crossed into Egypt) and still not allowed. So no, a sub-section relating to a different incident isn't allowed to include pictures already covered in detail by multiple sources. Try again. 124.148.207.15 (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Please point out the wikipedia policy guidelines that support the above assertions. You seem to be suffering an extreme case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and what you're doing on WikiProject Egypt is called WP:CANVASSING, and accusing seasoned editors of being sock puppets is a sure way of getting blocked. Poliocretes (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the infobox to be used should be "Template:Infobox military conflict" as during the latter part of the attack a firefight broke out between the Egyptians and Israelis and several Egyptian soldiers were killed. This was not a simple civilian attack.VR _talk 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead.

I removed the following.

organised by the Popular Resistance Committees,

This is

• (a)denied by spokesmen for those committees in the lead itself. So we have two versions, the IDF's and the PRC's.
• (b) The source for the line makes no such claim (note 2)
• (c) googling rapidly, I see that several sources, one a blog though hosted by Tikkun Olam, assert that the IDF's own enquiry concluded no Gazans were involved.
• Max Blumenthal says this has been disproved.
• IDF Investigation Confirms All Eilat Attackers Were Egyptian, Not Gazan
• Israel's bogus case for bombing Gaza obscures political motives20 March 2012
• See Yaacov Katzalso here Jerusalem Post
• I have no idea where the truth stands, or the facts established by independent investigations on this particular issue stand. Editors should review the page, and ensure that (a) it is neutral and does not espouse one POV, that of the IDF (b)search for further evidence that provides retrospective analysis of the various memes circulating here, from articles printed directly in the aftermath, repeating the IDF claim.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edited Egyptian Protests section

The last line of the original text showed gloating from whoever put it in. Some evidence of this is the reference of the article for Million-man demonstration being an Egyptian news site, while the other about being only "a few hundred" is an Israeli one. If you want to edit it back to the original please reply to me here with your reasons & why I'm wrong. Thank you. StoneCold45 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the sentence. "Instead" instead of "only" didn't make it or the grammar any better, Ajnem (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, couldn't have made it any better myself. StoneCold45 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ajnem (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326235320/http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/03/2011325145817688433.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010234512/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-12/world/egypt.al.qaeda.operation_1_al-qaeda-cells-el-arish-north-sinai?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-12/world/egypt.al.qaeda.operation_1_al-qaeda-cells-el-arish-north-sinai?_s=PM%3AWORLD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

According to the IS-associated media known as "War and Media", ten Islamic State soldiers from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis carried out this attack disguised as Egyptian police officers. They also say only two of them survived, 7 of them died in the fighting and one died while retreating.

Israeli media also reported that there were three assailants in the attack that shot at the bus and used explosives.

Also, there were many more soldiers killed than just one, for example a sniper and a chief warrant officer.

This page just seems weirdly inaccurate and one sided to me. fix this. Sabibivonabdii (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)