Talk:Israeli Defense Force admits to targeting media center in Gaza City airstrike

Review of revision 1703099 [Not ready]

Revision 1703099 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: At first I thought I saw just one, quite awkward, problem; but now I see a second one on top of it, and I'm not sure what to do. The irony isn't lost on me that we had less difficulty verifying a story about a controversial claim by Hamas. My first "last remaining problem" was that there was only one source for the denial. For a while I hoped to overcome that difficulty, based on the denial having been exclusively to the Israel National News; but then I caught the second problem. At least as of now, the Israel National News source doesn't say the IDF denies injuring journalists, it says the IDF denies targeting journalists (for which we do have multiple sources), and oh-by-the-way the spokesperson had initially denied journalists were injured. That makes this story quite different, requiring some sort of substantive change or other to fairly represent the story. I'm not entirely sure how this might best be focused. The article gathers together a bunch of quite interesting material that seems to belong together, but choosing the right focus could be tricky, especially since the current focus appears to be weakened by the fact it's from a single source that now says injuries were only initially denied. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1703099 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: At first I thought I saw just one, quite awkward, problem; but now I see a second one on top of it, and I'm not sure what to do. The irony isn't lost on me that we had less difficulty verifying a story about a controversial claim by Hamas. My first "last remaining problem" was that there was only one source for the denial. For a while I hoped to overcome that difficulty, based on the denial having been exclusively to the Israel National News; but then I caught the second problem. At least as of now, the Israel National News source doesn't say the IDF denies injuring journalists, it says the IDF denies targeting journalists (for which we do have multiple sources), and oh-by-the-way the spokesperson had initially denied journalists were injured. That makes this story quite different, requiring some sort of substantive change or other to fairly represent the story. I'm not entirely sure how this might best be focused. The article gathers together a bunch of quite interesting material that seems to belong together, but choosing the right focus could be tricky, especially since the current focus appears to be weakened by the fact it's from a single source that now says injuries were only initially denied. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Denial etc...

I have to work soon so I can't do anything right now. This source flat out denies that any journalists were injured: [1]. The IDF website statement goes out of their way to acknowledge the attack but doesn't even mention the injuries, instead they only focus on "terrorists" or "Hamas" and flat out calls that building and occupants Hamas. Israel never acknowledged anyone was injured and made no effort to even care on their website and even went as far as to say the whole thing was their fault. Calling the center a "Hamas comm. Installation" then admitting they knew international media was there is denial of what the building really was. IDF knew what they were targeting before they hit it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not in the article, but screams more denial of the truth: [2] "We obviously knew there were journalists in the building, so we did not attack other floors in the building. But my advice to journalists visiting Gaza is to stay away from any Hamas position, site or post for their own safety." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the first paragraph of the Israel National News source, as it now reads, with emphasis added:

"No journalists were targeted in the reported aerial attack on a media center in Gaza, an IDF spokeswoman told Arutz Sheva Sunday morning. She initially said that none were injured."

Hence my discomfort. Is that different from how it read when you first looked at it? I've a suspicion —but am uncertain— it may be different from how it read when I started my review. (The review took a while due in part to the distracting nonsense of the Wikinews closure proposal at meta.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a cached version of that report from when she did say that? It would be quite important. So far I do not see a cached version of that article in at least Google. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1704106 [Passed]

Revision 1704106 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1704106 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.