While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)).
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids → August 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks –-- 98.112.224.106 ( talk) 08:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the point of the move, if this article is going to be merged? קולנואני ( talk) 21:56, 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How about:
קולנואני ( talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Okay Lihaas, I'm going to be as brief and concise as possible.
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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]
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"
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)
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)
The article introduction contains the parenthetical:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
Lol at the fact you think a buses company name is a reason for it to be included.
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
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)
I removed the following.
organised by the Popular Resistance Committees,
This is
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)).
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids → August 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks –-- 98.112.224.106 ( talk) 08:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the point of the move, if this article is going to be merged? קולנואני ( talk) 21:56, 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How about:
קולנואני ( talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Okay Lihaas, I'm going to be as brief and concise as possible.
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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]
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"
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)
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)
The article introduction contains the parenthetical:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
Lol at the fact you think a buses company name is a reason for it to be included.
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
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)
I removed the following.
organised by the Popular Resistance Committees,
This is
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
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)