Talk:Roof knocking

Untitled

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)

worldview tag

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--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am changing references specific to Israel accordingly. Feel free to replace if we feel that it is necessary to include every country project that we mention. --Cerejota (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

possible sourcing

Google Scholar has a shit load. I just can't do it now.--Cerejota (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

tags

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)

Due to the fact that there are currently numerous references, I don't see a need for your additional tag.WacoJacko (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag that you added states that the article contains original research, however, the article is full of valid references/sources. Please explain?WacoJacko (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NJGW below, what you are doing is basically tag spam.WacoJacko (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea what is meant by "re-narrowed," nor does it refer specifically to the 2008-2009 conflict. The procedure has been around a long time, though not sure how long the name has been given. It seems to have plenty of references and no doubt more can be provided given a little time. Since it is a new article and has had to justify its existence in the first week or so of its birth by your AfD, there has been little time to provide more reference. But as per the discussion above, there seems to be plenty of references so far. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Context

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

This is tag spam. If the problem is OR, then don't label it a context issue. This is a new article that has seen major revisions. Please wp:AFG that it will be expanded as needed, help, or accept the wikilinks as context. NJGW (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The term is in fact defined using sources : "The IDF has code named such operations "roof knocking," in which the army informs the residents of suspected building that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises." [1] Can't get much clearer than that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am accepting the WP:AGF, in fact, I provided a google scholar link to searhc for sources way before this discussion started. I think this topic deserves to exist, but needs to be seriously expanded and renamed. I proposed a structure that was reverted, to this end. However, the article as it stands today is a WP:COATRACK of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict and that is an urgent issue that needs to be adressed. This has nothing to do with any assumptions on my part, and to assume is not exactlly AGF, in particular because we have never chatted before.--Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this article "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject?" What bias subject is being fronted here? NJGW (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

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.

I see ten (10) different news outlets used as sources, and none of them are "the national press of Israel" (state run). Most of them are not even Israeli. I'm also not sure how you can ever get more verification that the IDF calls something Roof Knocking than the IDF saying, "emm, we call dese 'Roof noking'". How often the technique is used is not the main focus of the article, and thus individual disputed statements should be discussed, not the article as a whole. NJGW (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally Agree with NJGW. Unclear what "facts" are at issue here. If I am not mistaken, it is not up to wikipedians to verify accepted reliable sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken: Who determines what a reliable source is precisely the consensus of wikipedians. We widely believe in accepting sources on a case by case basis, so for example Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source on Paris Hilton, but Wall Street Journal is more iffy if it talks about its owner, Rupert Murdoch. However, you miss the point I am making, which is "verification". For example, a naked claim is made that "since we warned, this is not a crime" or that the warnings actually happened. Since this is a psychological warfare technique, and Israel is a warring faction in the conflict the technique is used, we should verify. The sources say this is the policy, but as I already stated, there is a difference between policy and action.

Amazing! We can't have people talking about their own policies because it might be psychological warfare? You don't seem to hold this position for both sides. We can decide not to accept Israel's word regarding what Israel does, but we are quite willing to accept the word of unnamed medics, the ministry of health in Gaza, hamas spokesmen, and in fact the word the whole Arab world (think: The Gaza Massacre') and stick these things in the lead of an article without question. (In fact this position is apparently irreversible since one side consistently reverts the other.) Apparently you think Palestinians aren't equally capable of psychological warfare? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bright side. You can always learn a second language to read the REAL news. We all know the English-Speaking world was infiltrated by the israelis and all their sources are biased in favor of them. How do I know this? Easy. I live in a Spanish-speaking country where both jews and palestianians coexist in peace. And let me tell you, you are only reading half of the story. While the story the israelis tell about attacks is true most of the time, they usually avoid mentioning that they are retaliations for something they did a few days prior. 2800:150:107:603:A48A:7B84:98B8:BD95 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

If the policy of Elbania is to throw mud in their wars, we do not need to verify the Elbanian National Times when they say so. We do need to verify if they say they actually threw mud at Albenia in their long-runing conflict. Get it?--Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you really think this is an issue. Further discussion here is obviously not going to get us anywhere. NJGW (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

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.

Please mark individual problematic sentences with {{or}}. The whole article is obviously not OR, as you so very well point out. NJGW (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is not necessary to tag a whole article if you have concerns about a particular statement. It seems to me that the narrative does indeed "connect" with the sources. Not clear what you mean by the "borders." Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you both have a point. This is more like WP:SYNTH not OR. I will remove it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Recentism

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.

Tag spam. This is being discussed at the AFD, and there is no point in carrying on the same conversation here. NJGW (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD tag doesn't describe the controversy, it is precisely why the tag was placed. Please do not say it is tag spam, even if you disagree with the reasoning. However, this would be resolved if the article was renamed to something that actually describes the topic with a correct name, rather than a phrase used only to refer to recent events. That is the very definition of "recentism": we are name this with a recent name rather than an old one. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem to me that the claim "recentism" would be OR on your part. As a phenomenon it has clearly been around a while. It may have been "code-named" by the IDF for some time, but simply not reported on, as there was nothing happening that sparked interest in what the IDF named these various tactics. You are suggesting it has only recently been so named but you do not have sources to support that. The policy/tactic exists and has been reported on long before the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Now that we have a name for it, it is appropriate to use it. Other suggested "names" have only been descriptions, not actual names. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no: your explanation that the IDF might have had the term and only now revealed it is OR. The term is recent, just like the sky is blue, if you find a source that says it isn't I will immediately change this view. Otherwise, this is sophism.--Cerejota (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The term may be, may be recent. Not "is." Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The term is now in the public consciousness and it is our job to let people know what it is. It is not relevant how old this term is -- the concept has history. Many concepts have been around before they were named. Once they were so named, they became a household word. Wiki has three articles on the word "Jello" and a long article on the word "bling." Whatever, blinging is, I am sure people were doing it before it was so named. I think roof knocking has a place. "Recentism" is not a wiki guideline and the WP:recentism article itself is ambiguous about the pros & cons of it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, recentism is an essay. Regardless, the article claims none of this, so we're wasting time arguing over it. NJGW (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually tundra, your argument is convincing. NJGW's is not: essays or no essay, it provides arguments for discussion, which is what we are having. Its not about rules, but about having a conversation. Except for the core policies, I cite MoS and essays: they are shortcuts that exemplify one is not alone in that opinion. We agree we are having a discussion, rigth? I mean, you are not wikilawyering or anything?--Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

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.

Again, tag spam. Same issues you have brought up above and which are being discussed at the AFD. This tag serves no other purpose. NJGW (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The tags should be removed. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both NJGW and WacoJacko. Kudos to them for having more patience than I. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag should not be removed. All secondary sources are from this month. The newspaper article from 2006 doesn't use this "code word". More sources are needed to establish that this term was not coined yesterday. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that it was not made up yesterday. You can't request a reference for what the article does not claim. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has that name in the title, yet refers to events that happened before the term existed. See the point?--Cerejota (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state when the term began being used. Do you have a source for when they began using the term? As a matter of fact, the sources imply that the term has been around for a while. However, "implications" are OR and can't be added to the article. Hopefully, this information will come forth at a later date. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked and looked and looked and there is not a single mention of the term anywhere before this conflict. "Implications" are not OR when they are common sense and common knowledge and when a good faith effort has been made to find a source: the term is recent, and everyone knows it. Lets be productive here, OK?.--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Telling an editor "Let's be productive here" while pipe-linking to Wikipedia:Honesty is not a productive way of collaborating with your fellow Wikipedians. Regarding the substantive issue: In previous conflicts, house-bombing did not play a major role in Israeli operations. In addition, newspaper articles from recent years are far easier to find on-line then newspaper articles from previous years. These might be one of the number of reasons you are having a hard time finding mention of this term prior to this conflict. In any case, it surely isn't common knowledge and it obviously isn't common sense. WP:OR and WP:V are two important policies at Wikipedia and I would like to err on the safe side before adding anything into an article that is unsourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V tells us that no source can be found before the current events in Gaza - I think you are not erring on the side of caution here, quite the contrary, you are erring on the side of OR: you are saying that "roof knocking" is appropriate to refer to things that are not called that way RS.--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The article is about a military operation. There are a multitude of reliable sources that state that this military operation is called "roof knocking". When the military operation began taking on the name "roof knocking" is unknown at this point. Therefore, the article does not state when the IDF began using this name for this type of military operation. What do you want the article to state?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again you ignore the point: none of the sources say this used for all the military operations, just for the Operation Cast Lead. --Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more probable that I'm missing your point instead of ignoring your point. But as this is getting confusing I would like to propose another way for you to bring out your point. Please point to a specific line or word on the article and tell us what exactly is the problem with this specific line or word. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good suggestion. NJGW (talk) 09:32, 11 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)

Then lets use another name for the article. There is an implicit claim that the name covers actions before December 2008: in fact the lede reads that the technique has been used "at least since 2006" (which BTW is OR as per brewecrewer's highly original). It is confusing, as it implies that the name applies when it doesn't. And I only see you, brewcrewer and tundra not understanding this point: and incredibly overwhleming majority I see. :D--Cerejota (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not following... if someone long ago for the first time took a pole, ran a distance, planted it in the ground, and used their forward momentum to turn the pole into a lever which propelled them up and over an object/distance, was that pole vaulting? The certainly didn't call it pole vaulting at the time. Now, if we were to write that that person did call it pole vaulting, we wouldn't be being very honest; but if we were to write about pole vaulting and include the fact that someone did the same actions at such and such a date, we are being honest and informative. Similarly, if someone commits genocide before the term has been coined, is it genocide? NJGW (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant examples (ie there is indeed a debate if the word genocide applies even to things that happened after the word was coined - no one in their right mind is should be confused as to what is roof knocking), but see above, I think Tundra was compelling. --Cerejota (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article topic

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.

• Warnings to civilians before air-strikes, across the board
• Historic and current use of the policy by Israel
• The recent Roof knocking policy by Israel

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)

This article is about the Israeli practice. I would encourage another article about the general practice, but the elements in the Israel-Palestinian conflict are very unique and specific.

For how long this practice has been called "roof knocking" is unclear, but (as I posted above) it seems like it's been called this way for a while. In any case, if there are sources out there that state that this name is a new name and that this practice has been going on for a while I would support renaming the article. Somebody who knows Hebrew would be a valuable asset because s/he can peruse Hebrew-language sources.

Lastly, we are not a newspaper that must have all the information out there the next morning. This encyclopedia is built by Wikipedians collaborating with each other to build this great thing we all love piece by piece. Eventually, this article can be merged into a greater article about the general concept. But one thing is forsure, rushing off to nominate for deletion will not contribute to further human knowledge.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

it seems like it's been called this way for a while based on what? I am not talking wikipedia here, I am talking that I can't find a single reference in the intertubes that uses the term for the warning practice before the current conflict in Gaza. None. Zero. Zilch. I mean, reliable sources might get a wind of it late in the game, but not even one reservist, one refusenick, one arab spy leaked this term (for which there of course had to be a lot of secrecy) until now? It makes absolutely no sense. So, why do you say it seems like it's been called this way for a while?

Your last paragraph is hard to disagree with, however, asking to have me blocked was not an example of this open spirit: saying something is different from actually living it out. Fortunately, most admins are reasonable people and see this, even when they might act in haste once in a while. I invite you to re-consider your obvious hostility, in the spirit of furthering human knowledge, Poke-cruft and all :D. --Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing your fellow editor of being hostile is not the most productive way of going about building this collaborative project. As for your substantive point, please find one source that states that the term is new one. I'm sorry, but we can't do stuff around here without the support of sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, name one source that says the term was in use before December 27 2008. One. Just one.--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't have a source. That's why the article does not say it was used before December 27 2008. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, the article should say that the term was not used before December 27, 2009. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Or be renamed and the term mentioned as part of a given conflict. Its simple, really.--Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for "the term was not used before December 27, 2009". NJGW (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you provide me a source that says "the IDF was using this technique as early as 2006". All you have is an article describing the policy that is dated form 2006. If we can infer by the article date, why can't we also infer by the lack of sources? This is done all over wikipedia, ask people, its common sense. Lets not be lame here.--Cerejota (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject: MILHIST

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 think the problem with the one editor has resolved itself. Templates are important, but if there is no article there's forsure no templates. I think we should focus on getting the article kept before resolving template issues. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see you changed your position on MILHIST. This was a given. --Cerejota (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Claiming your fellow editor changed his position when he didn't is not conducive to a civil discourse. When I initially created this talk page I placed the MILTHIST template on the page and I have never removed it and have never argued for it's removal. As a matter of fact I have repeatedly reinserted project templates that were removed by another editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologize, who removed them then? I was always for it. --Cerejota (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this interesting, there seems that there is some weird technical bug at work here. Look at this diff [2], then look at the source. The MILHIST template is in the "source" but not in the "display". Weird.--Cerejota (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is within the scope of WP:MILHIST (which it probably is), we should probably discuss this on the talk page if we all disagree... However, brew, you do have a point - no article, no template issue. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems a consensus has been reached on the excessive use of templates on this article?WacoJacko (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jack: Yeah, a consensus has been reached about the excessive use of problem templates at the article. A smaller issue is the removal of Wikiproject templates at the top of this talkpage. There seems to be consensus that they should stay. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Smaller issue? Hehehehehe.--Cerejota (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What consensus is this? We never even discussed anything about the "excessive use of templates". WikiProject banners help organize articles, and make it easier for users with specific interests to find it and edit it. I will condense the current banners to offer an example of how the banners can be cleaned up. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done, sorry. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:30, 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)

I've seen one tagged by fourteen projects. Just tag for MILHIST and hide the banners using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and be done with this. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

The current format is fine. MoS encourages sectioning. To pile everything into one section would not make for an easier read. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the current format is fine?--Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• How successful in this inconsequential "practice" when the death toll is now 800 and 90 percent of the cellphone network is down? I think we need to look into that. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that sourcing can be found to that effect. However I think there is a rough consensus that this article deserves to exist on its own.--Cerejota (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

stub?

Is this really a stub?--Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely seems like more than a stub to me.WacoJacko (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

unsourced statement

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Roof_knocking. I have explained in the above discussion multiple times, perhaps a fresh set of eyes is needed. --Cerejota (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been serveral compromises suggested there.--Cerejota (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the wiki has moved on from the situation in which the issue first arose. Also, note the section below "'Definition of roof knocking correct?" which affects the issue. If "roof knocking" actually refers to the missile technique of firing a nonexplosive missile at a roof, rather than calling inhabitants on the phone, then "roof knocking" was first used and first reported in the 2008-2009 conflict, since reports state that the missile technique is new. At present the definition is not definite! --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Translating hebrew

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],

תקיפת בתים של פעילי חמאס, המשמשים גם כמחסני אמל"ח, נעשית בשיטה המכונה בצה"ל "הקש בגג".

which the translator converts to,

An attack of houses of Hammas activists, that serve also as warehouses of means of warfare, became in the method of the machine in Israeli Army " press in the roof ".

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)

Agree with the vertigo problem, but that's the norm for articles of Hebrew things and phrases. Most readers don't know Hebrew so they wouldn't even notice that it's going right to left.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but they would notice the difference if they had to cut and paste an excerpt from a hebrew article to put it into a translator. Also, it's a bit difficult because of the different way that the browser treats right-to-left language compared to the regular left-to-right, and the software has quirks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of roof knocking correct?

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]

A new Israeli weapon, meanwhile, is tailored to the Hamas tactic of asking civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings so Israeli pilots will not bomb. The Israelis are countering with a missile designed, paradoxically, not to explode. They aim the missiles at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the buildings, a tactic called “a knock on the roof.”

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)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of it. There actually is another source cited in the article that defined "roof knocking" the same way. I think it's the Australian news article. I ignored it, figuring it's one source that just confused. Now that the Times is defining it this way, I guess something should be done about it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although the NYT article used the phrase "a knock on the roof” and didn't specifically use the term "roof knocking", I see that The Australian article did use the term specifically,[5]

The air force has adopted what it calls "roof knocking", whereby planes or helicopters fire at an unoccupied corner of the roof, which usually persuades the residents to vacate the building.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:16, 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)

I've been trying to make sense to myself out of the definition of "roof knocking" that appears the most in the press, i.e. that it is a warning of inhabitants. Previously I asked the question above, "Why would calling the residents have a code name 'roof knocking'?" Perhaps the answer is that when the IDF chose the term "roof knocking", it was aware that by warning residents by calling them, they may assemble on the roof to try to prevent the bombing and the IDF pilots would knock on the roof to disperse the people from the roof. So they called the whole operation "roof knocking". --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"harmless missile"

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 source provided in the text, the Haaretz article, explicitly states that they are "harmless." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, According to the NY Times article, the missile is not fired at people, "They aim the missiles at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the buildings...".[6]

Also according to the same NY Times article, "The Israelis are countering with a missile designed, paradoxically, not to explode." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I would hope you would bring the same exacting standards to this editing as you have to other discussions. The source you cite specifically says the missiles are "relatively harmless," this clearly a qualification that compares the missile to the balance of the Israeli fighter jet and attack helicopter arsenals. This context has been omitted from the article. Actually, in this context, Qassam rockets would be "relatively harmless" as well.

Bob, my concern is that the primary source for all this is the IDF. Firing a missile at a roof full of people, but at the part of the roof where there are not people... as "knocking"? This is something that should be looked into more closely, I will get on that. RomaC (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, Please note at the bottom of the 1st page of the NY Times article, "Taghreed El-Khodary contributed reporting from Gaza." However, I encourage you in your endeavor to look for more sources and contribute them to this wiki. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Relatively harmless missile"

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)

Criticism section

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)

It's not clear to me how that gives a biased presentation. Anyhow, perhaps the article is too small to be divided into any sections? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article is too small for sectioning. As to biasing by sectioning, this is a problem of many articles that fail to follow guidelines on that regard: criticism is made to seem secondary to the topic. As there are no due weight WP:FRINGE issues, there is no reason to section off, except to introduce bias.--Cerejota (talk) 07:37, 24 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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was raising questions rather than taking a position on the issues, so it's not a matter of agreeing with me. I'm just trying to understand the situation.

• Re the suggestion that it's bias to have Criticism in a section of its own, I still don't understand why that would be true. Specifically the explanation "As to biasing by sectioning, this is a problem of many articles that fail to follow guidelines on that regard: criticism is made to seem secondary to the topic." Could this be explained more? The reasoning is still unclear to me. For example, how does putting info into a section of its own make it secondary to the topic, which I presume means relatively unimportant? If that were true, couldn't that be said of all sections in the wikipedia? On the other hand, couldn't it also be argued that putting info into a section of its own is a way of highlighting the info, instead of burying it in the text?
• Re whether the article is too small for sections, either way is OK with me. I can see points for and against sectioning.--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I might be able to make the article read better by eliminating sections.

Brewcrewer, Could you direct me to the part of the Wikipedia guidelines that encourages sectioning so that I can see if it applies here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In the section below, Section size policies, I copied info from Help:Section. The lengths of the three sections are 1)Criticism - 53 words. 2)Legality - 44 words. 3) Practice - $\approx$140 words. It looks like the sections Legality and Criticism are too small and should be combined with Practice. But this would leave only one titled section which wouldn't make sense. Thus there shouldn't be any sections, if section length and not having only one section were the main considerations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Section size policies[9]

"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)

Relation to the 2008-09 Israel-Gaza conflict and false claims

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)

Hi Nezek!

1) Re the section title - section titles are useful when there are multiple sub-topics. That isn't the case here, so the section title that was just added should be deleted.

2) Re the death and destruction statistics - I've been having second thoughts about the relevance of that too, since it came to my attention today that a lawyer for the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said that only 37 houses were destroyed. So I'll give that some more thought and not restore it for now.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have RS that can confirm all attacks were a form of roof knocking, you should not restore it. I don't see how some new report is relevant. --Nezek (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What????? I only mentioned that new report because I felt it supported your deletion. My Gosh, you don't seem to know when someone is agreeing with you, or do you ;) ..... Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say you agree with me, mate. You said you had your own reasons to believe it should been removed (relevance, lawyer). In fact, by not addressing my one and only point about it being baised, you implied you don't agree with it. --Nezek (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As of now, the article is the way you want it, with respect to the absence of the death and destruction statistics. Are we agreed that is the case for now?

Re bias, could you explain your point more? I'm interested. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're agreed (; --Nezek (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You've also reverted other edits that aren't related to this discussion. whats up with that? I'm restoring them, they are perfectly fine and even have relieable sources to confirm them. You don't revert peoples edits you don't agree with and then tell them to go ask you why you have a problem with it, on the talk page. If you have a problem with one of them you're welcome to use the talk page yourself. --Nezek (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nezek, that's normal procedure if an editor finds a new edit questionable with cause. See for example, WP:BRD.

You have to justify your changes on the talk page when a new edit of yours is reverted.

You removed a perfectly fine part with a reliable source that has been in the article for several weeks or more, and that needs to be justified. Also, you added material that was already in the article. I'm undoing your revert and please don't edit war, but conform to the Wikipedia practices that I mentioned above and justify your changes here. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. But, as I said, you need to explain specifically what you have a problem with, and why.

• [10] - Based on the source. The says article the courts' ruling is that, in the case weapons are known to be in the building, it falls within the boundaries of international law. It's an important detail to add, considering the paragraph goes on, to show an argument that says the IDF has different motives for the strikings.

• [11] - "and there have been hundreds of phone calls to families warning their house is about to be blown up" This is not a WP:NPOV, and does not conform to WP:TONE. The article makes it clear what a warning call is, theres no need to repeat it in this informal way. Also, it wasn't only families, but any household.

• [12] - The facts should be noted in this sequence, as both sentences talk about cancelled attacks. For lack of better phrasing of the article, I briefly repeated it in the second paragraph.

• [13] - I've checked the other sources. The source I used says three children, one wife. The others say 13 family members or so. I guess we can leave it at the number it was, for now. --Nezek (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

10. Here's the relevant excerpt from the source:

The army has recently held deliberations regarding the legality of striking homes used as weapons storages when sufficient warning is given to the residents. It has been decided that this falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate.

And here's the corresponding part in the wiki.

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.       (Looks fine to me.)

Here's your version:

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 when weapons are present in the building.

Perhaps you didn't notice the phrase "striking homes used as weapons storages,"?

11. The quote you gave isn't in this wiki. Perhaps you are confusing this wiki with the other wiki on the Israel-Gaza Conflict?

12. Here's what you propose to add:

IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building.

Here's what's already in the wiki:

Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. 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.

So you see, what you are trying to add is already in the wiki.

13. It looks like we agree to leave this item as is.

Are we agreed that the present wiki is acceptable with respect to the items we just discussed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed your other message above this one and I responded to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

10. OK, I didn't notice the phrase "striking homes used as weapons storages,".

11. It is there, look again. the link I gave for it shows I changed the quoted text into something else.

12. Did you not understand my comment about it? I said I know its already in the article, the problem is its in two different paragraphs. this:

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.

doesn't direcly reference this:

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.

It's good WP:NPOV and important to have that fact in both paragraphs, as they're both talking about cancelled attacks. --Nezek (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I copied the relevant parts of the two versions for reference:

---

Nezek version

However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. 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.

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. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare and there have been hundreds of warning calls, but only 37 have been destroyed. IDF commanders have been known to call off attack when they know residents refuse to leave the building.

---

current wiki

However, Hamas asked civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings to dissuade Israeli pilots from attacking. Some residents that were warned about an impending bombing climbed up to their roof. 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.

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. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the warning of inhabitants by Israeli forces is psychological warfare 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.

---

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)

No, it's not ment to implicit speculation. It's ment to bring that possiblity to the attention of the reader. I never said I'm sure thats the case, and I didn't construct the sentence in a way that implies that is what happened, just that they've "been known" to do so. That is what a NPOV is about, Displaying all the facts side by side, and letting the readers form their own opinion. Since we don't have any sources to verify or deny this, that is where the article should stand. --Nezek (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the main point of your last message, "No, it's not ment to implicit speculation. It's ment to bring that possiblity to the attention of the reader." - That's the problem with what you're suggesting. You're trying to bring something to the reader that may be a false implication. Also, you're going out of your way to do it since you are trying to repeat info that is already in the wiki elsewhere, as I mentioned in a previous message. What you are suggesting would be bad writing and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Citation for the amount of delay between knock and attack.

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)

I'm trying to do this right. Please read the article for citation 8, don't just watch the video. The video is cut for time, the actual delay was 15 minutes, according to the article. (If you care, look at the gap between the buildings at 1:15 in the video; smoke suddenly vanishes, indicating a cut). Citation 12 doesn't support a one minute claim, it says five minutes. Please, lets talk about how to accurately reflect what reliable sources say about this practice in the article. Or alternately, find different reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing stuff and edit summaries. See WP:PRESERVE

@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)

Definition of roof knocking

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)

Civilian homes

@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)

Please bring relevant quotes I didn't find anything in the sources that says about throwing bombs to warn people about more larger strike.--Shrike (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WTH are you saying? Did you even understand what I wrote? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The source says suspected.We should follow the source not WP:OR.Why did you restored sources that doesn't mention topic of the article.--Shrike (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike: The majority of sources agree that 'roof knocking' applies to civilians homes. If there are sources that claim that those civilian homes are "suspect", then you add that comment with appropriate attribution to Israeli officials, but you do NOT remove the fact that they are civilians homes. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Haaretz source says that in direct voice and we should it too without any qualifications .Its unacceptable that you remove sourced information that have direct linking to the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shrike: The claim for "civilian homes" is cited by multiple sources, not just Haaretz. The consensus is that "roof knocking" applies to civilian homes of Hamas members, these are even the words of the IDF thugs. Now, if Israel wants to claim that they carry weapons and what not, that doesn't magically turn them into uncivilian structures. Also, "suspected IDF buildings" is an awful violation of WP:POV. My proposal is to maintain the "civilian homes" wording, but add a new sentence at the end where you put the IDF claims.Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the change myself ("to target the homes of police officers or Hamas political or military leaders"). Let me know if you disagree. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamas asking residents to stand on the roofs of their homes

@Shrike:, Here are quotes from sources you are removing:

BBC

"Netanyahu said Israel had warned people to get out. Some had taken the advice; others had been prevented from leaving by Hamas...I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields."

The Guardian

"Israel also claimed that Hamas had forced civilians to remain in the Gaza City neighbourhood of Shujai'iya after the IDF warned them to evacuate ahead of its assault on Sunday. Civilians were being "held as hostages", said Peter Lerner, an IDF military spokesman.

These claims have not been backed up by independent reporting from international journalists covering the war from Gaza. Instead, dispatches from the ground have presented complex reasons why some residents did not evacuate from Shujai'iya and other areas targeted by the IDF. Many said nowhere in Gaza was safe, so they saw little point in abandoning their homes."

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)

Extra "

After "israeli attacks" in the Amnesty's statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phone calls

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

"knocks on the roof" => "knock on the roof" (incorrect translation) DanBareket (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)