Talk:January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

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 sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Neutral wording in objective

Concerning these changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_2015_Mazraat_Amal_incident&diff=654501375&oldid=654408273

"presumed" and "allegedly" was removed without any reason. These are Israeli claims and not facts, so both words should be re added. "planning an attack on Israeli-occupied territory" was changed to "Israeli communities along the border" this should also be reverted back because the later sentence makes the reader believe the alleged attacks were planned against legitimate Israeli communities in Israel, when in fact it was allegedly an attack on an area that is an israeli-occupied territory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that would make civilian communities within those territories fair game? That is what is implied here. We must find a better wording which would avoid that disturbing impression. Irondome (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in "allegedly planning an attack on Israeli-occupied territory" does it say anything about "fair game" ? We are talking about accuracy here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then civilian communities in Israeli-occupied territory should do it. Or does that spoil the narrative? Irondome (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The accurate way to call Israeli communities in Israeli-occupied territory is "Israeli settlements". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, according to the narrative. The term for a group of people living together is a community. Civilian settlements in Israeli occupied territory. How about that? Irondome (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "according to the narrative" ? The term for a group of Israelis living together in occupied territory is: "Israeli settlement". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are distinct narratives in operation which both sides employ. I was referring to one strand. Now, do you object to the mention of Israeli settlements, communities or whatever, in the wording? That would actually give balance. Irondome (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to "Israeli settlements" but I do object to "Israeli communities" based on that they are on occupied territory, so "settlement" is the most accurate term. Al Manar has also said that they were on a field reconnaissance mission [1]. We can not only follow the Israeli pov here, we have to attribute and also ad Hezbollah's view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as we get a balance of sources, conflicting pov is sadly natural. I think our job is to attribute pov accounts with strict equality, even down to the number of sources deployed, if possible. Good to work with you, User:Supreme Deliciousness. Cheers Irondome (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both POVs are in the article content. I think in the infobox we should just have "To destroy a Hezbollah field unit". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry SD I have been at my friend's for a couple of days and have been mostly offline. I would support that wording. We cannot have excessive or potentially disputed stuff in infoboxes.. The theories of possible potential targets is mentioned in mainspace. regards Irondome (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150728194411/http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/58288-150119-israel-deploys-iron-dome-batteries-and-raises-level-of-alert-on-northern-border to http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/58288-150119-israel-deploys-iron-dome-batteries-and-raises-level-of-alert-on-northern-border

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) 07:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]