You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
This page is related to a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles 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.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don’t believe Eliot Cohen’s Jewish background is relevant in the context of the paragraph where he is mentioned. His ethnicity has no clear bearing on the assessment he made about the impact of the attack, which falls within his area of expertise. Stating that he is Jewish comes across as an attempt to flag a potential bias, which plays into the stereotype of Jews (regardless of their nationality) having "dual loyalty" with Israel, which is widely recognized as an antisemitic trope. I doubt that was the intention, especially since the page is protected, but I wanted to raise the concern. However, if the intent really was to suggest that Cohen may have a strong pro-Israel stance and that this could influence his judgment, and if that is something supported by his record (which I don't know), I think it is more appropriate to instead refer to his record, or his political conservatism. FelixDeClercq (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree. I've removed it. If his article had included a sentence like 'as a Jewish-American...', maybe it would be relevant, at least from his perspective, but there is currently no source-based reason to include it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Replace the Infobox civilian attack with some infobox relevant to military operations, because that's what this was. Jerdle (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
You distorted the entire section to lean even more heavily in the "it was justified" POV, the opposite of what the person you are responding to was complaining about. There is also no reason for you to so extensively cite the POV already disproportionately presented on the page by detailing their arguments at such length. I have added more POVs that say it was not proportionate and fixed the paragraphs so each POV is in the same parts. Lf8u2 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Remove "Land" from West Point international law institute name. Causes a dead link.
Diff:
−
An analysis published by the Lieber Institute for Law & LandWarfare at West Point concluded that while not all relevant facts are yet known, if Israeli officials were of the "genuine and good faith professional opinion" that most of the people impacted by the attack were lawful targets, the operation may have been legal.
+
An analysis published by the Lieber Institute for Law & Warfare at West Point concluded that while not all relevant facts are yet known, if Israeli officials were of the "genuine and good faith professional opinion" that most of the people impacted by the attack were lawful targets, the operation may have been legal.
.svg){kind=small}
