Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for edits to a protected page". Before listing a request here, please make a request on the protected page's talk page. Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here | |
The article states that the reports of a baby being put in the oven have been proven false. However, the link provided by user nableezy do not prove that, only show that there is controversy surrounding the claim. The sentence should say something like: "In response to allegations that Hamas had killed a baby by placing it in an oven, he responded "with or without baking powder" on Twitter. " This change would indicate that there are allegations that are currently being disputed. Abluehulloo (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Abluehulloo, this is not the right place to discuss the phrasing, please raise this at the talk page.
- Also, the article is already extended-confirmed-protected. Alaexis¿question? 21:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says: Immediately following the surprise attack, the Israeli Air Force conducted airstrikes that they said targeted Hamas compounds, command centers, tunnels, and other strategic targets.
And then there are three sources referenced.
The word "strategic" implies to me (who is not well-rounded in war theory or history) strategic bombing, as opposed to tactical bombing. I can't say I read every single word in the referenced articles, but I couldn't find any info to support a claim of strategic bombing. The closest thing I found was that a building hosting most of Gaza City's internet service providers has been destroyed.
In addition, the word "immediately" does not seem right here. I think the first Israeli airstrike was on October 9? Torr3 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done the adjective "strategic" is being used to describe the targets, and not the bombing or the bombs. As far as a source for "strategic targets", here's one from Haaretz. [1] Andre🚐 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: we had an edit conflict, and I have already removed the words "strategic" and "immediate". Their removal does not change the meaning of the sentence and makes it a bit more concise. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine; I was just leaving a note on your talk about it. Andre🚐 06:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: we had an edit conflict, and I have already removed the words "strategic" and "immediate". Their removal does not change the meaning of the sentence and makes it a bit more concise. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving... Favonian (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
What: Remove the following sentence from the lede: The total includes an unknown, but significant number of deaths from friendly fire.
Why: The notion of a "significant" quantity of casualties from friendly fire in October 7 is currently largely uncorroborated by most reliable sources on the topic. Friendly fire happens in every conflict, and it's likely to have happened in October 7 as well, but claims about its relative significance to the total casualty number appear virtually nowhere else and remains firmly speculative and without basis in evidence.
As such, until things change, I believe that including in the lede speculations about the significance of the friendly fire in October 7 is WP:UNDUE. eyal (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Done Andre🚐 07:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Not done- Requesting immediate archiving... Favonian (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's now an WP:AE thread about this, since it's being claimed that I was reverting with this change. And I can't self-revert, now, either. Andre🚐 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
