This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roof knocking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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.
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here is a reliable source that contradicts the claim that building residents are given far longer than 5 to 20 minutes. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/taking-call-gaza-before-israel-takes-out-building-2021-05-14/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeprice ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I placed the tag on the article because of editors statements at the afd discssion that this type of action and this name has been around before Israel began the practice. Any help would be appreciated-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Google Scholar has a shit load. I just can't do it now.-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this article has been re-narrowed to the specific use of these techniques in the context of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, the tags are placed as follows.
I hope this provides a framework for discussion. -- Cerejota ( talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is about a recently coined term, as clearlty reflected by the title. The term is not defined using sources, and one is left to imply its usage via original research
All sources used, while reliable in at of themselves, are from the national press of Israel and hence the IDF. While this has not bearing on reliability, claims presented as "fact" should be verified by the use of un-involved sources in order to guaranteed factual accuracy of the claims. In the specific I refer to the actual usage of the technique, rather than its abstract inclusion as a policy (ie a policy doesn't require extenral verification, implementation of a policy does.
While the sourcing does sustain the usage of the term, the elebaoration of a narrative based on multiple sources. If this article simply said that the term "Roof knocking" is used, it would be a different thing, but explanations and elaborations are made, and a narrative is created, that doesn't conenct with the sources and borders in the WP:SYNTH.
due to the recent development of the term, it is impossible to find the mos reliable of secondary sources, which are academic materials. As such, the contents of this article would be better placed in the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to evade even the appeareance of undue-weight WP:COATRACK issues.
While sources are okay as content, there is a complete lack of verification that justifies extensive elaboration. Sourcing should be improved, and if this is not possible, then the article should be merged in order to provide context.
I agree with both NJGW and WacoJacko. Kudos to them for having more patience than I. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Where has anyone claimed that "this used for all [instances of] the military operations"? You keep harping on this point, but it is not a claim made anywhere accept by you and J.Mundo. This is an article about a term which is clearly in use. The actions described by the term have been in use also. I imagine some one "did the Locamotive" dance move before it was named too, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about that dance move. NJGW ( talk) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In the AfD as well as here there have been multiple instances of discussing what this article is about... so I want to see where the consensus is.
I want some clarity, as I think all of these are valid topics, that should be handled differently, and are different, even where they overlap. Think of it as an onion, where the first includes the other two, and the second includes the last. I think there could be enough material for good stand-alone articles on the first two, but not just for the last. If the article is about the first, then it should be renamed to reflect a more global view on the subject. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is the MILHIST tag continuously removed from the article's talk page? The article is clearly within the scope of the MILHIST project; the banner should be included. There's a way to condense all the banners, so that there's not a huge list of them. Since it seems that one editor is reverting all the additions, I want to open discussion first. JonCatalán (Talk) 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen articles tagged by seven or more WPs. Adding a third, especially one as germane as MilHist, needs to be done.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The MoS recommends against "crticism" sections. Instead, criticism shoudl be part of the main narrative. Sometimes, specially when the topic of an article is precisely a debate or controversy, this inevitable, but I do not see that being the case here. Perhpas we could eliminate this section, and blend the sourced content into the "International law" section? Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a stub?-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The lede states that "though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict." This is the provided source. The source makes no mention of "the terms earliest usage." The statement should be removed unless some clarification is provided. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For those wishing to check a source that is in hebrew, you can find a translator here.
For example, to check the hebrew phrase for roof knocking, הקש בגג , it appears in the following sentence of the given citation [3],
which the translator converts to,
which is good enough to check the hebrew phrase for roof knocking.
But it's a bit tricky to use because hebrew is written right to left, whereas english is written left to right, and when they are used together, well...... it's like getting vertigo on the written page. : ) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The definition of roof knocking that is in this wiki and is based on earlier press reports may be wrong. Here's an excerpt from the wiki's most current source, [4]
Perhaps roof knocking means firing a missile without explosives at the roof, rather than warning the inhabitants by phone. The missile tactic makes much more sense for the definition. Why would calling residents have a code name "roof knocking"? The earlier news articles may have misreported the meaning of the term. Of course we can only go by the sources that we have available, but I wouldn't be surprised if the definition in this wiki turns out to be wrong because it is based on sources that may be wrong. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the term "knocking on the roof", "a knock on the roof", and "roof knocking". However, "roof knocking" seems to be the term used the most(from what I have seen). WackoJacko ( talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the reliable source that explicitly says these missiles, fired from attack helicopters at people on a roof, are "harmless"? Or that they have been "modified not to explode"? The source cited does not. RomaC ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "relatively harmless missile" is from the source, "...the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd." [7] This phrase from the source makes sense since, although the missile is non-explosive, it can still cause harm by damaging the building with the force of its collision and may also ricochet, break up into shrapnel-like pieces, or otherwise go unintentionally into the people on the roof, e.g. through pilot error or equipment malfunction. So we should recognize the useful information in the phrase and not overrule the source when it calls it a "relatively harmless missile".
Thus I've restored "relatively harmless" and added a citation [8] to support "non-explosive". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be merged with the legality section. Both are too short to be standalone sections, and separating criticism gives a biased presentation.-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BobK, the criticism section does not create any sort of bias. The article is not too small for sections. Sectioning is generally encouraged here at Wikipedia. It makes for an easier read. Moreover, sectioning encourages other editors to add to each section. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"The size of sections may vary, depending on what kind of subject is described and other variables. "Hard" knowledge, e.g. biochemistry articles, presenting many names and mechanisms in a short interval may have shorter section size, while, on the other hand, "soft" knowledge, like articles concerning movies, may have longer ones. There is no strict rule about how long a section may be, just as with
wikipedia article size. Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words. More specifically, "hard" knowledge articles should contain between 80 and 250, while "soft" ones may contain more than 250. Individual circumstances decides — many short sections makes it easier to find the desired information about a subject, but might, when used in excess, disturb the fluency of an article."
--
Bob K31416 (
talk) 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks bob, it looks sooooo much better!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I seperated the articles content about the conflict into its own section, it has been used before it and will probably be used again.
I also removed the following paragarph as it doesn't reflect the citation it uses, and therefore not notable
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, and more than 22,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed.[13] This is a rate of approximately 1 casualty per 3 buildings damaged or destroyed, for this IDF offensive where roof knocking was used.
The IDF, or even the news source this cites, do not claim that all the attacks during the conflict were a form of "Roof knocking". And in general, attributing all deaths, injuries, and damge to this one tactic is completely biased. -- Nezek ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof.
According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare[8] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed.
I copied the relevant parts of the two versions for reference:
However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. [3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. [2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building. [3]
According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate, in the case where weapons are present in the building. [1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare [4] and there have been hundreds of warning calls, but only 37 have been destroyed. [5] IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building. [3]
However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. [3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. [2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building. [3]
According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate. [1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare [4] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed. [5]
11. First, my apologies for forgetting what was in the wiki. I would suggest adding "to houses" to your phrase, i.e., "there have been hundreds of warning calls to houses, but only 37 have been destroyed."
12. I think I understand your point now. Your point is that the houses that were called and not bombed was because the residents stood on their roofs and caused the Israelis to call off the attack. So the calls without a subsequent bombing occurred due to the residents' actions. If the residents weren't on the roofs, there wouldn't have been so many calls without bombing. Thus, it wasn't psychological warfare by the Israelis but just the response of the Israelis to the residents on the roofs. Was this your point?
That's a possible theory, but it could just as well been that it was psychological warfare, rather than hundreds of roofs with residents on them. Another scenario is that there may have been people on some roofs which deterred the Israeli pilots, let's say for example 50. But the other couple of hundred calls without bombing may have been for the purposes of psychological warfare. Unfortunately, we don't have any sources that discuss any of these possibilities.
Without adding that sentence, we have a balance between one sentence for the Israeli Army's claim of legitimacy for the bombings with warnings, and one sentence for the Palestinian Centre's claim of psychological warfare. The addition of a sentence there for the implicit speculation of hundreds of roofs being occupied by residents, when the info about calling off bombing is already in another part of the wiki, would upset the balance and violate WP:NPOV. However, if a source was found that showed that those hundreds of calls without bombings was because of people on the roofs, then a statement should be added there. But it's unlikely that hundreds of roofs had people on them when nothing like that has appeared in any source, as far as I know. Thus, that sentence shouldn't be added.
To sum up, the only change I would agree to of the ones we discussed, is the one in item 11 with the slight modification of houses.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 08:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
References
haretz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYTimesJan10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).guard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
As it stands, the article states "although footage has shown following attacks to sometimes occur sometimes just over 1 minute after the initial knock." and has two citations.
The first leads to an article which describes an attack with a 15 minute delay, and links to a video that has the majority of the delay edited out of it (this is explicitly referenced in the article). The second leads to a document that describes delays of as little as 5 minutes. I see no cited evidence to support the claim that the delay is as little as one minute. I have seen that claim in other places, but none that would qualify as a reliable source.
However, given the contentious nature of the subject, I didn't want to make an edit without giving someone else the opportunity to replace the citations. gnfnrf ( talk) 12:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Aaronshavit: Regarding your two edits, this and this.
In both cases you have done something legitimate, like moving stuff around and adding information, and combined it with deleting sourced information, while not mentioning the fact in your edit summary. This is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTADVOCATE.
I am restoring the stuff you deleted on principle, though I think both of them should be deleted, or at least modified hugely. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The first line states: "Roof knocking is the practice of warning inhabitants of a building before it is bombed to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack."
The source quoted is Haaretz. Here is the full quote.
The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd.
It seems to me the "roof knocking" is referring to the last sentence, namely the firing of a "relatively harmless missile". It does not refer to warnings in general. Elsewhere, this is always the definition which is used, and it is not to be confused with other warnings.
Examples: here, here and here. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Lakryum and Shrike:, roof knocking refers to the targeting of civilian homes in Gaza on the basis that they are the family homes of "Hamas members" (according to statements by the Israeli military). Doesn't matter whether the house stored munitions or not, or whether the alleged Hamas member was in the house or not at the time of bombing, or whether he was actually a militant or not (there are cases where elected politicians were targeted). The building is targeted simply for being owned by a Hamas member, hence why Israel is being generous here to give warnings. Had the house been used for any military purpose, the building or the perhaps the neighborhood would be obliterated in no time, and the people would certainly not be given any warnings. Why? because "weapons" and "human shields".
To summarize: there are 2 separate types of civilian home destruction: (1) those destroyed because of alleged military usage, in this case no warnings are given, and (2) because they are simply the homes of Hamas members, in this case a warning is given and the practice is known as roof knocking.
Conflating the 2 types is disingenuous. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Shrike:, Here are quotes from sources you are removing:
BBC
The Guardian
While they don't mention "roof knocking" explicitly, it is clear that "warnings" here encompasses everything from dropped leaflets, phone calls, radio broadcasts and "roof knocking".
Also worth noting that the MEMRI source makes no mention of roof knocking. Should be removed if you really want to be consistent. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
After "israeli attacks" in the Amnesty's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs, IDF also calls the occupants of the house and warns them of an imminent attack (as mentioned here, here, here and here).
Maybe we should include this detail at the beginning of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:6500:a045:4fde:30f1:6545:6bf:3316 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"knocks on the roof" => "knock on the roof" (incorrect translation) DanBareket ( talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roof knocking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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.
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here is a reliable source that contradicts the claim that building residents are given far longer than 5 to 20 minutes. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/taking-call-gaza-before-israel-takes-out-building-2021-05-14/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeprice ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I placed the tag on the article because of editors statements at the afd discssion that this type of action and this name has been around before Israel began the practice. Any help would be appreciated-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Google Scholar has a shit load. I just can't do it now.-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since this article has been re-narrowed to the specific use of these techniques in the context of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, the tags are placed as follows.
I hope this provides a framework for discussion. -- Cerejota ( talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is about a recently coined term, as clearlty reflected by the title. The term is not defined using sources, and one is left to imply its usage via original research
All sources used, while reliable in at of themselves, are from the national press of Israel and hence the IDF. While this has not bearing on reliability, claims presented as "fact" should be verified by the use of un-involved sources in order to guaranteed factual accuracy of the claims. In the specific I refer to the actual usage of the technique, rather than its abstract inclusion as a policy (ie a policy doesn't require extenral verification, implementation of a policy does.
While the sourcing does sustain the usage of the term, the elebaoration of a narrative based on multiple sources. If this article simply said that the term "Roof knocking" is used, it would be a different thing, but explanations and elaborations are made, and a narrative is created, that doesn't conenct with the sources and borders in the WP:SYNTH.
due to the recent development of the term, it is impossible to find the mos reliable of secondary sources, which are academic materials. As such, the contents of this article would be better placed in the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict to evade even the appeareance of undue-weight WP:COATRACK issues.
While sources are okay as content, there is a complete lack of verification that justifies extensive elaboration. Sourcing should be improved, and if this is not possible, then the article should be merged in order to provide context.
I agree with both NJGW and WacoJacko. Kudos to them for having more patience than I. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Where has anyone claimed that "this used for all [instances of] the military operations"? You keep harping on this point, but it is not a claim made anywhere accept by you and J.Mundo. This is an article about a term which is clearly in use. The actions described by the term have been in use also. I imagine some one "did the Locamotive" dance move before it was named too, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about that dance move. NJGW ( talk) 09:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In the AfD as well as here there have been multiple instances of discussing what this article is about... so I want to see where the consensus is.
I want some clarity, as I think all of these are valid topics, that should be handled differently, and are different, even where they overlap. Think of it as an onion, where the first includes the other two, and the second includes the last. I think there could be enough material for good stand-alone articles on the first two, but not just for the last. If the article is about the first, then it should be renamed to reflect a more global view on the subject. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is the MILHIST tag continuously removed from the article's talk page? The article is clearly within the scope of the MILHIST project; the banner should be included. There's a way to condense all the banners, so that there's not a huge list of them. Since it seems that one editor is reverting all the additions, I want to open discussion first. JonCatalán (Talk) 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen articles tagged by seven or more WPs. Adding a third, especially one as germane as MilHist, needs to be done.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The MoS recommends against "crticism" sections. Instead, criticism shoudl be part of the main narrative. Sometimes, specially when the topic of an article is precisely a debate or controversy, this inevitable, but I do not see that being the case here. Perhpas we could eliminate this section, and blend the sourced content into the "International law" section? Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a stub?-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The lede states that "though the earliest usage of the term "roof knocking" in the press was during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict." This is the provided source. The source makes no mention of "the terms earliest usage." The statement should be removed unless some clarification is provided. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For those wishing to check a source that is in hebrew, you can find a translator here.
For example, to check the hebrew phrase for roof knocking, הקש בגג , it appears in the following sentence of the given citation [3],
which the translator converts to,
which is good enough to check the hebrew phrase for roof knocking.
But it's a bit tricky to use because hebrew is written right to left, whereas english is written left to right, and when they are used together, well...... it's like getting vertigo on the written page. : ) -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The definition of roof knocking that is in this wiki and is based on earlier press reports may be wrong. Here's an excerpt from the wiki's most current source, [4]
Perhaps roof knocking means firing a missile without explosives at the roof, rather than warning the inhabitants by phone. The missile tactic makes much more sense for the definition. Why would calling residents have a code name "roof knocking"? The earlier news articles may have misreported the meaning of the term. Of course we can only go by the sources that we have available, but I wouldn't be surprised if the definition in this wiki turns out to be wrong because it is based on sources that may be wrong. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the term "knocking on the roof", "a knock on the roof", and "roof knocking". However, "roof knocking" seems to be the term used the most(from what I have seen). WackoJacko ( talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the reliable source that explicitly says these missiles, fired from attack helicopters at people on a roof, are "harmless"? Or that they have been "modified not to explode"? The source cited does not. RomaC ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "relatively harmless missile" is from the source, "...the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd." [7] This phrase from the source makes sense since, although the missile is non-explosive, it can still cause harm by damaging the building with the force of its collision and may also ricochet, break up into shrapnel-like pieces, or otherwise go unintentionally into the people on the roof, e.g. through pilot error or equipment malfunction. So we should recognize the useful information in the phrase and not overrule the source when it calls it a "relatively harmless missile".
Thus I've restored "relatively harmless" and added a citation [8] to support "non-explosive". -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be merged with the legality section. Both are too short to be standalone sections, and separating criticism gives a biased presentation.-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BobK, the criticism section does not create any sort of bias. The article is not too small for sections. Sectioning is generally encouraged here at Wikipedia. It makes for an easier read. Moreover, sectioning encourages other editors to add to each section. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"The size of sections may vary, depending on what kind of subject is described and other variables. "Hard" knowledge, e.g. biochemistry articles, presenting many names and mechanisms in a short interval may have shorter section size, while, on the other hand, "soft" knowledge, like articles concerning movies, may have longer ones. There is no strict rule about how long a section may be, just as with
wikipedia article size. Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words. More specifically, "hard" knowledge articles should contain between 80 and 250, while "soft" ones may contain more than 250. Individual circumstances decides — many short sections makes it easier to find the desired information about a subject, but might, when used in excess, disturb the fluency of an article."
--
Bob K31416 (
talk) 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks bob, it looks sooooo much better!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I seperated the articles content about the conflict into its own section, it has been used before it and will probably be used again.
I also removed the following paragarph as it doesn't reflect the citation it uses, and therefore not notable
According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 1,300 Palestinians died and about 5,400 others were wounded during Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza, and more than 22,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed.[13] This is a rate of approximately 1 casualty per 3 buildings damaged or destroyed, for this IDF offensive where roof knocking was used.
The IDF, or even the news source this cites, do not claim that all the attacks during the conflict were a form of "Roof knocking". And in general, attributing all deaths, injuries, and damge to this one tactic is completely biased. -- Nezek ( talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof.[2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof.
According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare[8] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed.
I copied the relevant parts of the two versions for reference:
However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. [3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. [2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building. [3]
According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate, in the case where weapons are present in the building. [1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare [4] and there have been hundreds of warning calls, but only 37 have been destroyed. [5] IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building. [3]
However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. [3] Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. [2] When faced with this situation, IDF commanders have either called off the bombing or launched a relatively harmless non-explosive missile at empty areas of the roof. This was meant to frighten the people gathered on the roof into leaving the building. [3]
According to the Israeli army, striking homes used as weapons storages, when sufficient warning is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is legitimate. [1] According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare [4] and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families, warning that their house is about to be blown up, but only 37 have been destroyed. [5]
11. First, my apologies for forgetting what was in the wiki. I would suggest adding "to houses" to your phrase, i.e., "there have been hundreds of warning calls to houses, but only 37 have been destroyed."
12. I think I understand your point now. Your point is that the houses that were called and not bombed was because the residents stood on their roofs and caused the Israelis to call off the attack. So the calls without a subsequent bombing occurred due to the residents' actions. If the residents weren't on the roofs, there wouldn't have been so many calls without bombing. Thus, it wasn't psychological warfare by the Israelis but just the response of the Israelis to the residents on the roofs. Was this your point?
That's a possible theory, but it could just as well been that it was psychological warfare, rather than hundreds of roofs with residents on them. Another scenario is that there may have been people on some roofs which deterred the Israeli pilots, let's say for example 50. But the other couple of hundred calls without bombing may have been for the purposes of psychological warfare. Unfortunately, we don't have any sources that discuss any of these possibilities.
Without adding that sentence, we have a balance between one sentence for the Israeli Army's claim of legitimacy for the bombings with warnings, and one sentence for the Palestinian Centre's claim of psychological warfare. The addition of a sentence there for the implicit speculation of hundreds of roofs being occupied by residents, when the info about calling off bombing is already in another part of the wiki, would upset the balance and violate WP:NPOV. However, if a source was found that showed that those hundreds of calls without bombings was because of people on the roofs, then a statement should be added there. But it's unlikely that hundreds of roofs had people on them when nothing like that has appeared in any source, as far as I know. Thus, that sentence shouldn't be added.
To sum up, the only change I would agree to of the ones we discussed, is the one in item 11 with the slight modification of houses.
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 08:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
References
haretz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYTimesJan10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).guard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
As it stands, the article states "although footage has shown following attacks to sometimes occur sometimes just over 1 minute after the initial knock." and has two citations.
The first leads to an article which describes an attack with a 15 minute delay, and links to a video that has the majority of the delay edited out of it (this is explicitly referenced in the article). The second leads to a document that describes delays of as little as 5 minutes. I see no cited evidence to support the claim that the delay is as little as one minute. I have seen that claim in other places, but none that would qualify as a reliable source.
However, given the contentious nature of the subject, I didn't want to make an edit without giving someone else the opportunity to replace the citations. gnfnrf ( talk) 12:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Aaronshavit: Regarding your two edits, this and this.
In both cases you have done something legitimate, like moving stuff around and adding information, and combined it with deleting sourced information, while not mentioning the fact in your edit summary. This is completely unacceptable. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTADVOCATE.
I am restoring the stuff you deleted on principle, though I think both of them should be deleted, or at least modified hugely. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The first line states: "Roof knocking is the practice of warning inhabitants of a building before it is bombed to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack."
The source quoted is Haaretz. Here is the full quote.
The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd.
It seems to me the "roof knocking" is referring to the last sentence, namely the firing of a "relatively harmless missile". It does not refer to warnings in general. Elsewhere, this is always the definition which is used, and it is not to be confused with other warnings.
Examples: here, here and here. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Lakryum and Shrike:, roof knocking refers to the targeting of civilian homes in Gaza on the basis that they are the family homes of "Hamas members" (according to statements by the Israeli military). Doesn't matter whether the house stored munitions or not, or whether the alleged Hamas member was in the house or not at the time of bombing, or whether he was actually a militant or not (there are cases where elected politicians were targeted). The building is targeted simply for being owned by a Hamas member, hence why Israel is being generous here to give warnings. Had the house been used for any military purpose, the building or the perhaps the neighborhood would be obliterated in no time, and the people would certainly not be given any warnings. Why? because "weapons" and "human shields".
To summarize: there are 2 separate types of civilian home destruction: (1) those destroyed because of alleged military usage, in this case no warnings are given, and (2) because they are simply the homes of Hamas members, in this case a warning is given and the practice is known as roof knocking.
Conflating the 2 types is disingenuous. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Shrike:, Here are quotes from sources you are removing:
BBC
The Guardian
While they don't mention "roof knocking" explicitly, it is clear that "warnings" here encompasses everything from dropped leaflets, phone calls, radio broadcasts and "roof knocking".
Also worth noting that the MEMRI source makes no mention of roof knocking. Should be removed if you really want to be consistent. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
After "israeli attacks" in the Amnesty's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs, IDF also calls the occupants of the house and warns them of an imminent attack (as mentioned here, here, here and here).
Maybe we should include this detail at the beginning of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:6500:a045:4fde:30f1:6545:6bf:3316 ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"knocks on the roof" => "knock on the roof" (incorrect translation) DanBareket ( talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)