Talk:2017 Umm al-Hiran incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merge[edit]

This should probably be merged to a section at Umm al-Hiran.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute[edit]

Sufficient information has been revealed about this incident that it can no longer be considered to be a terrorist attack. The article as is currently displayed is grossly misleading and should either be removed or amended to reflect information that has come to light since the incident occurred.

To not do so is to publicly label the driver as a terrorist when available evidence clearly points otherwise. CURSURY (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link said sources here either as raw links or with the information you should feel needs to be replaced in an edit request. The article only states that Police suspected he was active in an Islamist group and might have been influenced by the Islamic State as this is what is mentioned in the current sources and as such isn't grossly misleading as it is only alleged affiliation. IVORK Discuss 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple media sources reported that Shin Bet investigation of the driver's background had not been able to find any evidence of terrorist affiliations as alleged by police. Justice Ministry investigation shows apparent grave errors in how the police handled the incident, as well as determining that various claims by police were in fact incorrect.

I had edited the article and provide a number of citations supporting the edits, only to be reverted by at least one user who had his editor access immediately revoked for being a sock puppet. The truth is out there, but the omissions in this page hide that truth. CURSURY (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So can you follow the protocol and make an edit request with said citations? Without them, it can't be added to the article. IVORK Discuss 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CURSURY, Your citations are misleading: the Israeli police had stated he was a member of the Islamic Movement and asked to check connection to the Islamic State(Reseht INN 20il).
But your citation talk about the Islamic State only. Your citation also does not say that MAHASH had finished the investigation or released it's final decision (declaring this event as not a terrorist attack).
Your edit need to reflect the reality and not some author point of view (hint add both narratives, and avoid giving final statement when there are none) 159.253.248.177 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced. And the article needs a new name.[edit]

So far, absolutely nothing has supported the theory that this was an attack. See e.g. Bedouin driver shot by Israeli police was not carrying out attack, probe set to show

This seem to be yet another one of those instances where you cry wolf...

The article needs a new name, what about 2017 Umm al-Hiran incident? ...though I am not much fond of the word incident, when people have been killed, that seem to be the general word in use on WP, Huldra (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’m going to give this a couple of more days, if I don't hear any objections before then, I will move it to 2017 Umm al-Hiran incident.Huldra (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait, the current status is a terrorist attack as it was defined by the Israeli police (and a few WP:RS like already existing in the article).
Even Mahash (the group which investigate the event) does not have the right to change that according to the Erdan (Walla).
As for Haaretz opinion on the subject it is irreverent, and you can clearly see how the same story in Hebrew has absolutely different tone and meaning (when it says that according to the Israeli police it was a terrorist attack, and that an investigation had hinted that it was an attack). You should really wait until it is declared as not a terrorist attack by figure of authority and not some news source 5.144.55.167 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: Nothing indicate that this was a terrorist attack. The "proof" of his ISIS affiliation was apparently his possession of copies of ...Israel Hayom... in which there were articles referring to suicide bombers.</facepalm> User:CURSURY, what do you say? Huldra (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One person recently said that the page should stay as it is because "it was defined by the Israeli police" and that according to Erda, Mahash does not have the right to change that, that being the claim that this was supposedly a terrorist attack on police.

What if the police were wrong? What if their claim was intended to cover up a wrongful act? Even the police chief's words quoted in the Haaretz article hint at a motive, to set the narrative as quickly as possible rather than leave the stage open for others to do so, as per the following line from the Haaretz article: "To date, Alsheich has not taken back that assertion, though he did claim that he couldn’t have left the media scene wide open for two hours after such an incident."

Everything that has been revealed since those words blurted out by a police chief trying to set the narrative of an incident that resulted in two deaths, including an Israeli police officer, runs counter to any indication of a terrorist attack having been intended or committed. Everything points to operational errors by police resulting in two deaths that should not have happened.

For this reason, the incident cannot be definitively labelled as having been a terrorist attack. For accuracy, and for fairness to the slain driver and his family, the article should be substantially changed to reflect the inconsistencies between claims of terrorism and the evidence that has come to light since the shooting. CURSURY (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recall the Beita incident, it was very ....instructive. This looks like another case. Huldra (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't go (only) by what police says since it represents a single POV. Results of search for "Umm al-Hiran 2017" or "Umm al-Hiran vehicle" show that it is called an event or a (deadly) incident by the media. There are also claims that police officer was shot by another policeman. “WarKosign” 07:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you don't mind moving it to 2017 Umm al-Hiran incident? There are at least two sides to this story, the problem with the present title is that it gives credence just to one side, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a start. Another problem is that the opening paragraph explicitly states that the driver rammed into a group of police officers, implying an intentional act. Further down is a line regarding police claims about the driver's affiliation and possible sympathies. The article does note that the villagers themselves disputed police assessments, but it's also been reported in the media that other Israeli security agencies have not found any evidence that the driver was a known terrorist actor or sympathizer. The article is not as neutral as it should be given the ambiguity and uncertainty about what really happened that day.
Instead of saying the driver rammed into a group of policeman, a more neutral reporting would focus on outcomes. "Israeli security forces opened fire on a vehicle being driven by an Israeli-Arab, striking the driver inside. The vehicle subsequently ran over and killed an Israeli police officer, and the Israel-Arab driver died of gunshot wounds while still in his vehicle." This describes what happened without impugning motive on the driver, and then if there needs to be a discussion over the actual mechanics of the event, the article can then briefly outline the initial police narrative and then also mention the inconsistencies of that narrative with evidence and video footage examined after the fact. CURSURY (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion won't do either. You are describing one POV, opposite of the one currently in the article. To be neutral the article should say that there are two versions of the event and describe each of them. “WarKosign” 06:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign How so is it a point of view? Did Israeli forces NOT open fire on the vehicle, striking the driver? Did the vehicle NOT then run over a police officer, killing him? Was the driver not ultimately dead of gunshot wounds in his vehicle? None of this is POV but is instead a brief, neutral chronology of events in those seconds. POV would impugn motive on the driver, on the first policeman to open fire, perhaps on the last policeman to open fire too, and that brief chronology does none of that. As for conflicting versions, I think I was clear enough - once the sequence of events is described (without going into motives on the part of each of the parties involved), then you can outline the conflicting narratives and evidence.CURSURY (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CURSURY: You are presenting one interpretation of events. "Subsequently" in your draft may be understood as "as a result", which is POV. The vehicle was seen steering toward the police officers, possibly with the intention to hit them. Then fire was opened, and then the vehicle accelerated and hit the officers. Either it was an intentional act of terror that the gun fire failed to prevent, or it was an accident caused by the gunfire. Do not pick the version you consider correct, describe both. “WarKosign” 13:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign But are you not putting forth an interpretation of events yourself, in that you say the vehicle was seen (by whose account?) steering toward the police officers? That assertion does not appear to be backed up by the overhead police drone surveillance, which prior to shots being fired shows the vehicle to be travelling quite slowly along a roadway path without any police officers in its immediate direction of travel. Also, my use of "subsequently" does not imply "as a result of". The formal definition of "subsequently" is "occurring after", which is accurate in this case. There is no POV in the opening phrasing I suggested, and it still leaves the room wide open to add competing narratives after and a discussion of the inconsistencies between them and the available evidence. CURSURY (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CURSURY: See here, here and here. The car was moving (slowly) in the general direction pf the police the shooting began. It is possible but not certain that injury to the driver's knee caused the acceleration. Something caused the driver to steer straight toward the policemen - it could be murderous intention or just general pain, shock and confusion.
According to your logic it's OK to write "the car was moving slowly toward the policemen. Subsequently the officers shot on the driver in an attempt to prevent a suspected ramming attack. Subsequently the driver accelerated and steered toward the policemen, killing one and injuring another." - nothing wrong with this, right ? It is correct chronologically, but implies causality which we do not want to imply. “WarKosign” 22:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign You seem to be confusing the meaning of the words "subsequently" and "consequently". The former is indicative of ordering of events, not causality.
By the way, the video in the third link shows the vehicle travelling slowly down a village road, not really towards any soldiers, but just down the road as one would expect a vehicle to travel, with no apparent indication of setting u for a ramming attack. Saying that he was driving "towards" the policemen is a loaded phrase in that it implies he was aiming at the policemen rather than simply driving down the road. You also assign motive to the reason for opening fire, when that is also not clear from the video.
The more neutral way would be to say that "A car driven by an Israeli-Arab resident of the village was driving slowly down the village road when it came under fire from approaching Israeli policemen. Forensics investigation indicates that the driver may have been struck in the knee from that initial gunfire. The vehicle subsequently accelerated down the hill and ran over Israeli policemen, killing one and injuring another. The driver died in the vehicle from gunshot wounds."
That, together with the addition of a brief opener as to why the police were in the village in the first place, would sum up the chain of events without insinuating any malicious motive on the part of the driver or defensive claims by the policemen that would inherently tilt the bias on this wiki article again. You can use a later section or sections to get into the police allegations of shooting to stop a suspected terrorist attack, alleged driver affiliation with radical groups, together with evidence that contradicts the police account, including in particular that third link you provided. CURSURY (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "driving slowly", I would prefer "driving at low speed, not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour (12 miles per hour)." Or just "driving at low speed, not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour", Huldra (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources for "down the village road" ? Out of the 3 sources I provided above only one mentions direction and it's "towards the general direction of the policemen". In the video it's clear that driving down the road is in the general direction of a group of policemen, but deducing it from the video footage is WP:OR. If there are sources for both descriptions both should be mentioned. I think you are confusing fixing POV with changing POV. We should not be saying as a fact that it was an act of terror, but we also should not be saying that it was an act of police murdering an innocent civilian. “WarKosign” 07:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The police drone surveillance video faintly shows what appears to be the outline of the road the car was driving along. In the video at http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/umm-al-hiran/ there are additional video/photographic images that clearly show the car's path to have been along a typical unpaved, rural village or farming-type road. My suggested summation of events does not say it's terror, and it does not say it was a police murdering an innocent civilian. It focuses on distinct events, and does not impugn the motivations behind them. Vehicle travelling at low speed (no more than 20 kmoh as Huldra says) as shown by video, shots fired at it by Israeli police as shown by video, driver hit as per driver autopsy reporting, car accelerating down hill as shown by video, car running into grup of police officers, as shown by video, driver shot dead in car. No hint at motive for driver, so no impugning he was on a terrorist attack. No motive assigned to police shooting, so no impugning that the shooting was of either defensive, negligent, frightened, or malicious intent. In other words, no POV in that opening summation. By trying to introduce an explanation for the police shooting based on the video, you would be introducing a POV. CURSURY (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I think renaming it would be correct. Current title and content reflect initial reports of the event but there have been many conflicting reports since. “WarKosign” 06:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the Hebrew wiki (translation), note the title is really "running over (or ramming) event at Umm al-Hiran" but google mistranslates it as demolition. I think the structure is much better there - lead describes the indisputable facts (a policeman was killed and the driver was shot) and mentions there is a dispute regarding actual events, then the article gives some background and describes different possible sequences of events and reactions. “WarKosign” 06:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have moved it. I have also removed Category:Terrorist incidents involving vehicular attacks. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, for a start, we need to work on the lead, presently it presents one side as if it is undisputed. Suggestions? Huldra (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

"A car driven by an Israeli-Arab resident was driving at low speed, (not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour) away from the village of Umm al-Hiran when it came under fire from approaching Israeli policemen. Forensics investigation indicates that the driver may have been struck in the knee from that initial gunfire. The vehicle subsequently accelerated down the hill and ran over Israeli policemen, killing one and injuring another. The driver died in the vehicle from gunshot wounds."

Other suggestions? Huldra (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree. However, I'm not sure if it can be inferred he was driving "away" from the village. See https://goo.gl/maps/Ki6cmuQWe172 for a satellite view of the areas where the incident occurred. Ignore the dotted gray line. The "316" marker marks the approximate location of the vehicle when it was first fired upon. This view correlates with the image shown at time 2:11 of the video at http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/umm-al-hiran/ .
In the pulled-back google satellite view it seems reasonably clear that the vehicle was not actually travelling in the village but was coming from structures located some distance away from the village center. The car was travelling down a road or driveway leading from those structures to a junction with another road coming from the village center, but there is no way to know whether the driver's intended direction of travel at that junction would have been towards the village or away from it. We do know the car lurched to the right and away from the village at the junction, but whether the driver was even conscious at that time to deliberately make that turn is not known.
It may be better to say that the car was driving "near" the village, not "away from". I think it may also pertinent to note that the vehicle was on a road or driveway. In a Times of Israel article at http://www.timesofisrael.com/video-appears-to-show-police-shoot-at-driver-before-deadly-car-ramming/ police chief "Amar said there were two lines of officers either side of the road". CURSURY (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...(not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour) on the village road in the general direction of a group of policemen." There are conflicting reports to whether the first shots were short in the air, at the tires or at the driver, so "it came under fire" represents only one POV. The rest, starting with "Forensics investigation" looks fine to me. “WarKosign” 11:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A truck, not just any car. It is important since trucks are more suitable for ramming attacks.
Here is a source for policemen becoming suspicious as the vehicle was approaching them. Unless there are sources specifically contradicting it (saying that the policemen intentionally fired on someone they knew was an innocent civilian) it's not POV but a fact; it does not imply whether this suspicion was correct. In this case the middle sentence should be something like "The policemen suspected the vehicle was trying to ram them and opened fire, possibly as warning shorts in the air or at vehicle's tires. Forensics ..." “WarKosign” 14:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the shortest possible NPOV lead into the article, the lead should obviously be expanded.
WarKosign: the "truck" was a Toyota SUV (I suspect the road quality is not very great in the area, so having a SUV makes sense)
And the police did initially make statements which later turned out not to be correct, like that his headlight were not turned on (when videos showed that it was) [1] Huldra (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ WarKosign You said "The policemen suspected the vehicle was trying to ram them and opened fire, possibly as warning shorts in the air or at vehicle's tires." but this combination of assertions does not make sense. If the police thought the vehicle was trying to ram them, they would certainly not be firing "warning shots". Also, in the article you linked, it did not say that the police suspected a possible ramming attack but only that police were suspicious of the vehicle, nothing more. You are making assumptions as to why police opened fire.
Going further, while the police claimed various things after the incident (vehicle speeding, vehicle driving with no lights, driver is a terrorist active in the Islamic Movement, ISIS, etc), I believe that these police claims have all since been shown to be false. If so, false or disproven claims should not be included in the leader unless the refutations to those claims also appears in close proximity so as to not given those claims undue legitimacy.
The vehicle was an SUV, a 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser, which is a luxury SUV and not a "truck" per se.198.254.235.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, warning shots are disputed so we can simply drop it and describe the conflicting versions further along the article. I don't think there is anything disproving the police becoming suspicious. I don't think there was anything else for them to suspect, but we should not write something not supported by the source, so how about something like this? “WarKosign” 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser SUV driven by an Israeli-Arab resident was driving at low speed, (not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour) on the Umm al-Hiran village road in the the general direction of a group of policemen. They suspected the vehicle and opened fire. Forensics investigation indicates that the driver may have been struck in the knee from that initial gunfire. The vehicle subsequently accelerated down the hill and ran over Israeli policemen, killing one and injuring another. The driver died in the vehicle from gunshot wounds.

I’m mostly fine with this. (That is was a 2017 model seems like an unnecessary detail, though?) I think perhaps we should have something about the demolitions which were planned for that day. After all, that was apparently why he was leaving, and why the police were there in the first place. Also, "driven by an Israeli-Arab resident was driving at low speed" is awful English.....What about "driven at low speed, (not exceeding 20 kilometers per hour) by an Israeli-Arab resident"? User:CURSURY, what do you think? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Huldra, but that said, we may be reinventing the wheel here.... Over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Umm_al-Hiran_incident#Events_summary there is the following piece added just nine days ago:
18 January 2017 Incident
Before dawn on the morning of January 18, 2017 when Israeli police officers and a Green Patrol of the Israel Land Authority arrived at the village to implement home demolition orders, they were met by a large group of protesters. A village resident, Yacoub Abu Al-Qia’an, was shot by police while driving away from the scene, and his car subsequently careened into another group of police, killing 1st Sgt Erez Levi. Abu Al-Qia'an was also killed. Police and Minister of Security Gilad Erdan initially asserted that Abu Al-Qia’an was a terrorist, inspired by ISIS, and that he was shot after accelerating the vehicle in the direction of the police.[6]
Video footage that emerged in the hours after the incident showed that officers had fired before Abu Al-Qia’an accelerated, and that, contrary to police assertions, the car’s lights were on. Subsequently, a police autopsy indicated that a bullet had hit Abu Al-Qia’an in the right knee, smashing it, which may have caused the car to accelerate. A month later, Erdan spoke of the "regrettable incident" in which "both a citizen and a police officer were killed".[7] In March, Israeli Minister of Agriculture Uri Ariel publicly apologized for the "grievous mistakes that were made".[8]
If the incident is already covered there, is this article even needed any more? And if it is, can it simply provide a redirect to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Umm_al-Hiran_incident#Events_summary article? CURSURY (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is again very biased. It omits the details of the car driving toward the police thus raising their suspicion. On whichever article this event summary is, it shouldn't be biased in either direction. “WarKosign” 06:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that saying the vehicle was driving "toward the police" is very biased. Using the word "toward" is a loaded term that could imply that the vehicle was driving "at" police when such, at least prior to the first shots being fired, is not supported by the available video evidence. If I am driving down a road and people are walking near or at the side of that road but not in my direct path of travel, am I really driving "toward" the people walking down that road, or are we both simply just passing each other in a common space?
In any case, I didn't submit anything to the other page I referenced, so any bias I may have has had no effect on that page. I simply reference it and suggest that it may supersede and make this page redundant. CURSURY (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which "other page" are we talking about, again ? I think that yes, if you are driving on a road you are driving towards people or vehicles moving on or near the same road in the opposite direction. If you have a problem with "toward", we can go write"in the general direction of", this is a description used in some sources. Your (or my) interpretation of the video is not a source. “WarKosign” 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other wiki page is as mentioned just a few lines above -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Umm_al-Hiran_incident#Events_summary CURSURY (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing this very article, on its talk page. Is there another article on this subject ? “WarKosign” 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the wrong link. Try this one _> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_al-Hiran#18_January_2017_Incident CURSURY (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article isn't needed. Umm al-Hiran is notable mostly because of the demolition attempts and this incident is a part of it. The bias in that section that you quoted should be fixed to something more similar to what we discussed above, but this should be discussed there. “WarKosign” 20:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Ok, shall we merge this whole article into Umm al-Hiran? Huldra (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Umm al-Hiran article appears to already encompass much of this, so merging is probably not needed.. As such, perhaps this article can simply be deleted altogether.CURSURY (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be deleted, a few remaining facts should be added to Umm al-Hiran section. “WarKosign” 06:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I think I’m going to faint: we all agree! Ok, I’ll wait a day or two, then I’ll make this a redir into Umm al-Hiran, if there are no objections. (That is sort of easier than making a full AfD.) Please move anything "salvageable" from here into the Umm al-Hiran article in the meantime.Huldra (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to move over the following facts, however I believe CURSURY considers some or all of them to be violation of NPOV:
  • The vehicle was a 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser SUV
  • The vehicle as moving at 20km/h or slower
  • The vehicle was moving on a village in the general direction of a group of policemen
There are also speculations and disputed facts currently presented there in wikipedia voice, lending it undue credit:
  • The vehicle was moving away from the village
Meanwhile the following speculations/disputed facts are not represented:
  • The officers suspected a ramming attempt
  • First shots were fired in the air as a warning
“WarKosign” 08:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... why wasn't the article turned into a redirect? -2001:48F8:402A:111E:41C5:3BBB:8BEF:DAC7 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because we got distracted by a zillion other things? Ok, Im redirring it now, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold transfer[edit]

The family had told that the driver was transferring the family gold in his car, what could have caused him not to respond to the police officers demand to stop. http://mida.org.il/2017/06/12/%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%a7%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%91%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%9c-%d7%97%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%9f/37.19.116.16 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the article. I don't know how reliable this site is, never encountered it before. Here is its mission statement. Opinions ? “WarKosign” 14:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Umm al-Hiran incident. 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:

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) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Umm_al-Hiran_incident&oldid=1196741942"