Talk:2011 Nakba Day

Neutralized phrasing; removed obvious POV quote; Clarified header

This was painful to read at first. Also, it should be added to Portal Israel and Middle East —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam7z (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Discussion 1: Syrian citizens were actually killed by land mines put across the border by both armies - Israeli and Syrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.216.11 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the header; I thought it was soft-balling a few pieces of contextual information; I hope the comments will clarify what I mean:

"on May 15 2011, thousands of Palestinians and Arabs from Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria marched towards and attempted crossing their ceasefire" "...in various incidents that included in some cases attempts to breach the fences" The original separated the crossing attempt from the main statement, neglecting to mention the attempted crossing in parcel with the marching; the attempted crossing were incidents that resulted in fatalities and most of the injuries; given that the causalities are what attracted media (and by extension people who read this page) to the topic, I think its a worthwhile piece of information. However, I kept the descriptive "lethal" leading in the following sentence, since the lethal force is what attracted attention.

"The truck driver has claimed he lost control of his vehicle, but is suspected by Israeli police of having committed a "terrorist attack" in memory of Nakba Day." Again, what is relevant here is the violent nature of this action, which if the Israeli police's suspicions are correct qualities as Terrorism; besides this, that is what the Israeli police claimed; therefore, it is more accurate that they suspect a terrorism motive

I think the suggestions to keep the editing piece by piece are intelligent; for now minor tweaks with the, occasional shuffling of structure, and avoiding POV is best; lets try to keep the edit page civil and avoid calling someone a military apologist or activist (strange the Palestinian got the "activist" label and not the less desirable "apologist) talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Lebanese casualties - possibly also from Lebanese fire

It is disputed who killed the protestors on the Lebanese border.

After the sentence: "The Israeli army responded with live fire against the protestors, killing ten Palestinian refugees and injuring more than 100", it should be written: "although the IDF claims that the Lebanese Army is responsible for some or all of the deaths".

See:

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=220641

http://cea-unh-human-rights.blogspot.com/2011/05/israel-update.html

This should be added, as the article currently contains only the Lebanese viewpoint. Guy Adler (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I added it earlier but it was removed by an IP. I'll add it again. This source has more pdated info on the IDF position. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Adler (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some perspective please people!

I've just started editing on Kurdish issues in Turkey and came across this after editing the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey. I am just writing here to try and remind everyone to take a step back before drastically altering this page. I am sure after the events broadcast on satellite television, many people are going to come to this page to get more information. So, we need to make sure we don't butcher this article. The version created by "Al Ameer Son" differs drastically from the version created by "Adam7z" and the version by "90.2.81.142" and other ip addresses starting with "90." differ drastically to the version created by "Tiamut". The article seems to have oscillated from pro-Palestinian activist version to Israeli military apologist version. Right now the article is very confusing - the chronology is all off, and its unclear exactly what happened in what order. This is a very complicated and emotive issue, and I would remind people that obfuscating the context of "riots" and deaths and casualties can can create a very unbalanced (not to mention confusing and self-contradictory) article. More discussion on this talk page is needed methinks. Thankyou. PRC1920 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I hae reorganized the article into two main sections: "Border marches" and "Other Nakba Day events" in an attempt to address some of your concerns. Are there any specific changes yo can suggest to improve the article? What other context shold be included? Should there be a "Backgrond" section with some information on Nakba Day (and the Nakba) itself? Tiamut^talk 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Border marches or Border infiltration

I think the heading "Border marches" misses the major point and is unclear about what happened. The major thing is that the protestors crossed the line of control, which is what they were aiming for, and provoked a response. I think infiltration is basically NPOV, since it is what happened. Crossing the border was a willful illegal act, which is a fact that both sides can agree on. Whether it was morally justified is a different question - and not one for this article.

If you don't like "infiltration" than maybe some other word could be used like "crossing" or "incursion". However, neither of these words seems good. "Crossing" does not connote that the protestors did not have Israeli acquiescence, and "incursion" sounds POV. Aitch naught (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In Google News, there are 149 hits for "infiltration" and 11,000 for "march". I think we should use the term that's being used by the media, which seems overwhelmingly "march". Okay, so about 10,000 of those hits were referring to generic marches and not this specific day. In the top news article for each search, there are 4,000 articles linked to the top "infiltration" article and only 954 articles for the top "march" article. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "border marches" works either. Maybe "border protests". I think we can combine these headings to indicate that crossings occurred in some places but not in others. However, it is mostly the crossings that have made the news.Aitch naught (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the word "infiltration." It's a blatantly Israeli POV and so far the only government to describe it as such is Israel who also are the only ones to describe the demonstrators as "rioters." See Amnesty International's stance on the issue: Amnesty criticized Israel for its characterization of the events marking the Palestinian Nakba - the 'catastrophe' of 1948 - "as 'riots' and attempts to 'infiltrate' into Israel illegally ... " noting that in no accounts have Israeli officials "claimed that any protesters fired on Israeli troops."[1]. I don't really see what's wrong with "marches," but I have no objection to "protests" or better yet "demonstrations" as long as the word "infiltrations" is not included. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Al Ameer Son. "Infiltrations" and "rioters" are Israeli POV and not what mainstream sources use. "Protestors", "demonstrators" are NPOV. The Palestinian POV would be to call them "returnees". Tiamut^talk 21:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is "Border" the correct term, I understood that Israel doesn't have recognised borders, maybe, "disputed border", armistice line, or Green Line. Mrchris (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the intro, we use "ceasefire borders". I'm not sure if that's clear enough though. Perhaps we need to explain the boundary situation in the "Background" section? Tiamut^talk 16:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook?

To what extent were these events organized by Facebook versus organization by political leaders in the traditional way? It seems that Facebook may have had some role, but it is unclear how important it was and whether it is important enough to go in the lead! The sources cited seem inadequate to prove Facebook's importance, so I am removing it from the lead.Aitch naught (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is mentioned by the Arab and Western press as playing a signficiant role. I've added more sources and information about this. I trust the point in longer in question. Tiamut^talk 21:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

another note from the reserve duty brigade of the israeli army: they were posted alongside the Qunetra line when these events happened. when they reached the Majdel Shams line, already 2 syrian casualties were dead after land mine explosions. TV footages shows the exact route of the Syrian people ascending from the Syrian border to the Israeli one after their dead "Blood painted" the way for them. Still unclear about the rest of the casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.216.11 (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. Residents of the Golan Heights reported hearing gunfire but no explosions. And this article notes: "Elsewhere in Majdal Shams, pizza seller Abdullah Rabah said the protesters had broken through fear of the minefield, in which two locals were killed in 1975. "We've lived for 60 years with the myth of the minefield," he said." [2] I don't think yor reserve duty brigade of the israeli army is a reliable source. Tiamut^talk 21:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories [3]

Its information can not be in the Israel section as that is not neutral or accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is recognized by everyone as rightfully or wrongfully being under Israeli sovereignty. Therefore, it belongs in the Israel section. This is not a normative or legal issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You have confused Israel occupying it with it being part of Israel, these are two speedster things. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You have confused the objective reality with a normative ruling that certain countries support. That doesn't change who is in effective control. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler's statement is a bit flawed. Everyone recognizes East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories; everyone also recognizes East Jerusalem as under Israeli occupation if that's what you mean by Israeli sovereignty. Israel annexed the territory, but that annexation wasn't recognized as legitimate by any other country in the world. The clashes that occurred in al-Issawiya and Silwan belong in the Palestinian territories section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Al Ameer son, belongs in the Palestinian territories section. Mrchris (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a to-do note

The "Background" section should have subsections on both the Arab spring (well regarded as a major impetus of this year's Nakba Day protests) and on the usual Nakba Day commemorations held annually. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. These should precede the section on "Israeli security preparations", which is the whole of the "Background" section right now. Also, does anyone else think that section is far too long? Isn't it extremely odd to have a background section on a Palestinian commemorative holiday accord focus exclsively on and accord so much space to Israeli security preparations? Isn't this a kind of POV framing that portrays the entire event through an Israeli lens? Can we remove this section to the talk page until the others are drafted and it can be worked on further? Tiamut^talk 21:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The second passage seems pretty irrelevant. If "irrelevant" isn't the right word, then "unnecessary" is. We could have a passage like that in every single article on a Palestinian event or protest. Also in the first passage, the strike observed by the shopowners of the Muslim and Christian quarters belongs in the "Other Nakba Day events" section under "Palestinian territories" and is not "background" info. Keep in mind I wrote much of the first passage of the "Background" section in the "Palestinian territories" subsection. As for writing up a comprehensive draft on the talk page, I'm all for it. The youth's planning of demonstrations on Facebook also belongs in the "Background" section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I put the youth protest planning at the top of the Border Protests section because it was related to that rather than Nakba Day events of other types on other days. I see your point though. Anyway, I'll wait for more feedback, but let's move the info out of there for work here soon. Its a terrible way to start the article as it is. Tiamut^talk 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think the "Background" section should include a subsection on the Nakba day commemorations in general and mention those held in the lead up to May 15 2011; these being the May 10 March of Return by Arab citizens, the May 14 Jaffa march, the clashes in East Jerusalem that began on May 13, and perhaps the protest in Nabi Saleh and Bi'lin. It should, as you suggested, have a subsection on the Arab revolutions and call to demonstrate on Facebook. And then, a section on Israeli security preparations. Shall I remove the text that is there now and begin drafting something here? Tiamut^talk 07:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and was bold and moved the info discussed above into the intro. The only content I did not add was not the Facebook stuff which I left at the top of the Border demonstrations section. I also decided to intersperse the text rather than create subsections. And I did not delete any of the info on Israeli secrity preparations (so if people still want to cut that down, let me know). The diff is here. I also reverted User:Reenem's subsequent edits which create a stand alone section titled "Riots in Jerusalem" and added some unsourced info. I invite them to discuss their intended changes here. Tiamut^talk 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I also moved info on the protests in the West Bank against the separation barrier on May 13 into the background section [4]. I heavily copy edited the text which was not reflectie of what the source cited had to say. I also ct out a couple of sentences from a lengthy paragraph on Israeli security preparations. I still think more could be cut, but I'll wait to hear back from others before proceeding further. Tiamut^talk 20:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, I don't have any major problems with the reduced info on Israel's security preparations. I wouldn't be opposed to a near-complete removal of that info either because of my general take on it entailed above. As for the rest of the section, I think it would be helpful if we had subsections for better organization i.e. "Annual commemoration" and "Build up to May 15". They're not great names, I know, but you get the idea. Also, we should relocate the info on the Old City's strike and the clashes in al-Issawiya that's currently in the "Background" section to the "Other Nakba Day events" section since they seem more fitting there (both occurred on May 15.) All that's left is a subsection on the influence of the Arab Spring and Facebook. Al-Jazeera English had a piece or two on the former which I will post here in a little. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the info on the Old City strikes and clashes in Issawiya as you suggested. I don't think the subheadings are necessary, but have no issue with the ones you suggested, so if yo want to go ahead and implement them, do so. Tiamut^talk 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lebanese Fire

How is it being left out of the lede that the Lebanese Army also fired at protesters? If this is not included, I will recommend placing a POV template on the article. It is also seems like Tiamut may be WP:OWNing the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IDF says that the Lebanese Army fired on protestors. Nobody else does. The lead currently states that Israeli forces opened to fire to keep people behind the lines. It does not explicitly attribute all 15 deaths to them. The IDF's claim is included in the body of the article. Given that most media sources report that those killed in Lebanon were killed by Israeli fire, I think its undue to repeat the IDF claim about the Lebanese army in the lead. Thoughts from others? Tiamut^talk 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is also far too vague: "Fifteen Palestinians were killed and hundreds wounded, most by live ammunition as the Israeli Defense Forces tried to hold them back across the line." It begs the question, who else was responsible??? Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The reader can read the article to find out what that sentence means. Its purposefully vague, so as to allow for the possibility that Lebanese Army fire did in fact kill some of them as the IDF claims, or not. As it applies to dead and wounded, it can also refer to the type of injury sustained. Most of the injured were hit by live ammunition. Tiamut^talk 20:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. It's written in a factual way that therefore assumes that some other group also killed Palestinians, but you say that's just based on an IDF statement. I think it requires a re-write. And also what about the other hundreds of wounded in other protests, like Egypt? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Israeli military so far is the only entity to have claimed protesters were killed by the Lebanese Army. Therefore, if this assumption is only based on claims from the opposing army, then why should we write that in the lead? The Lebanese Army denied it, the UN did not mention it, the Palestinians who attended the demonstration haven't said anything on the matter. The Lebanese Army fired shots in the air to disperse protesters. That's all we know for sure of that situation. We know the Israeli Army shot and killed demonstrators on the Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian (Gaza) borders and more important than any of what I mentioned above, the major reliable sources we are currently using (BBC, Al-Jazeera, Herald Sun, The Economist) back that. They all support what the article says: Demonstrators were killed by Israeli fire. If and when an investigation opens up and determines that demonstrators were killed by the Lebanese Army, then we should mention it in the lead for accuracy. As for the hundreds of Egyptians wounded by their army, I agree that it should be mentioned in the lead even though this article is more about the border marches. It's a significant piece of information and if we're gonna mention the Tel Aviv car accident which may not even be related to the Nakba at all, then we should definitely include it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the hundreds of Egyptians wounded by the Egyptian army at the demo outside the ISraeli Embassy shold be mentioned in the lead. Do yo want to add it or should I? Tiamut^talk 06:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Added it. That whole passage might need some copyeditting though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Nakba Day clashes

I propose a name change to 2011 Nakba Day clashes. This is the reason why this event is particularly notable this year as opposed to year's past. Otherwise, why wouldn't there be an article for 2000 Nakba Day, 2001 Nakba Day, etc...? Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all the events of note in the article were "clashes". There is no need to POV-ize the article by adding a descriptive after Nakba Day. It could just as easily be titled 2011 Nakba Day commemorations or 2011 Nakba Day border demonstrations. I think the current title is sufficiently descriptive not to be confused with any other event, is NPOV, and is easily attested to in reliable sources. So I have to voice my opposition to a page move. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Arab Spring influence

Just making these available for interested editors. They discuss the influence of the Arab Spring on this year's Nakba Day events in detail.

• Al-Jazeera 1
• BBC 1
• BBC 2
• BBC 3.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Other sources

• Israel preparing itself for Twitter war over Palestinian state (Search for "Nakba" - interesting info on Internet's role in planning the protests and Israeli surveillance of it). Tiamut^talk 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reintroduction of inaccuracies

User:Reenem has readded information I removed about protestors in Gaza "chanting and throwing stones at Israeli troops" [5]. He has also moved information about events in East Jerusalem to the section on Israel. Please note that the source he cites (without providing the exact url, thogh I did find it online) says nothing about chanting or stones with regard to Gaza. It says:

In the Gaza Strip, hundreds of Palestinians marched from the northern town of Beit Hanoun towards the Israeli border and the Erez border crossing, which has been completely closed to Palestinians since June 2007, except for urgent medical cases receiving special Israeli permits. Israeli forces fired artillery shells, live ammunition, gas canisters, and sound bombs at protesters. PCHR reported more than 100 civilians were wounded, including 31 children, three women, and three journalists, some of them critically. Israeli forces also fired on a demonstration near ‘Abasan village, east of Khan Younis in the central Gaza Strip, resulting in further injuries. Finally, in a separate incident, 17-year-old Khamis Salah Mesleh Habeeb was killed by an Israeli artillery shell in the “buffer zone” near the Nahal Oz crossing east of Gaza City.

Could someone please correct this inaccuracy? Also, what are people's thoughts on removing the sbheadings "Palestinian territories" and "Israel" from the section on "Other Nakba Day events" so that we don't edit war over where East Jerusalem should be discussed. Tiamut^talk 06:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note further that he readded text I removed for lack of source, "An Israeli civilian was also injured in Jerusalem when Palestinians stoned his car," without providing a source. He is repeatedly failing to cite sources or exact urls, and is often misrepresenting source contents. Anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? Tiamut^talk 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's unsourced info than it should definitely be removed. However, I'd rather this not turn into an edit war so I notified Reenem of these concerns. Hopefully, we can deal with the issue here. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have no problem with getting rid of the subheadings in "Other Nakba Day events." It sounds like a good solution that would help avoid a lot of headache and edit-warring over East Jerusalem. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Merged the headings in the section with edit warring. Should I do the other as well? Also, gien the lack of response from Reenem, I went ahead and remoed the nsourced info and did a bit of a copy edit. Needs more though I think. Tiamut^talk 10:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently reverted Reenem's edits where he/she removed "Israeli-occupied" and instead wrote "Israeli" when referring to the Golan Heights. "Israeli-occupied" is the accurate terminology when referring to this territory. "Israeli portion of Golan Height" is both inaccurate and misleading because it suggests the GH is in fact a part of Israel like the Galilee or Negev is for instance. Its "official annexation" is not recognized by any other country and the majority of its legal residents are not Israeli citizens by choice; rather, they maintain their Syrian citizenship. If Israel annexed the West Bank tomorrow and the rest of the world did not recognize it, would we then have to write "Israeli portions of the West Bank" instead of "Israeli-occupied West Bank" in the encyclopedia? Depending on the situation, I would opt for just saying the Golan Heights without indicating Israel's control of it. However, here, per the sources we have, the significance of it all is the fact Palestinian refugees managed to enter Israeli controlled territory. Therefore, we have to mention it and in order to mention it accurately we must indicate Israel's occupation of it. Let me reassure users that although the term "occupied" apparently stirs up controversy for some, it is indeed encyclopedic fact and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia its responsibility is to include relevant facts written in a appropriate manner when describing a subject. As far as NPOV, the overwhelming international consensus is that the GH is indeed occupied and not a part of Israel. We could write in parentheses something like Israel claims it and the world disputes the legitimacy of its claims, but why clutter an article that isn't about the Golan Heights (its about the 2011 Nakba Day events and the border demonstrations) with all of that extra information when we already have a satisfactory description available? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is occupied territory or part of Israel is debatable, though. It is under Israeli civilian law and jurisdiction rather than military administration, and it is officially considered to be a part of Israel by the Israeli government. I suggest that to appease both sides, we simply put in "Israeli-controlled portion of the Golan Heights".--RM (Be my friend) 04:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Paid demonstrators

[6]. I don't have the time for the inevitable discussion about this, but someone should put this stuff in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Israeli Border Demonstations

I've created a new article on the Israeli border demonstrations as a whole, which is currently a copy-paste of the border section, I'm not sure how best to organise the content, so I'm open to suggestions as to how best to do it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to make this a "sub article" of the 2011 Israeli Border Demonstrations one, and significantly cull the content there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Intafada

It should be stressed that what ever people may say, calls for the third intafada ARE violent. Given that the previous two intafadas were defined as a "period of intensified Palestinian-Israeli violence", the article is wrong to state "A page calling for a "Third Palestinian Intifada" to begin on 15 May was started on March 9, 2011, garnered more than 350,000 "likes" before being taken down by Facebook managers at the end of March after complaints from the Israeli government that the page encouraged violence", because this only implies that it may have been interpreted as being violent, rather than actually being a page that incited violence. I and many thousands of people in a counter facebook page acted to remove the page from facebook because it incited violence and posed a credible threat of violence. I am changing the wording on the page myself, and putting this page on my watch list, please reply here if you think my wording is not balanced. Colt .55 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Nakba Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105064911/http://www.france24.com/en/20110517-israel-lebanon-make-rival-un-protests-over-clashes to http://www.france24.com/en/20110517-israel-lebanon-make-rival-un-protests-over-clashes#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Nakba Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721165108/http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=33601 to http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=33601
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624035859/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-29/world/palestinian.facebook_1_facebook-page-social-media-website-incites-violence?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-29/world/palestinian.facebook_1_facebook-page-social-media-website-incites-violence?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4068181%2C00

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)