"
Actually, Nin Einne is right. I'll try to explain why. First thing: all scientific information (i.e. somewhat accurate info...) should be publically verifyable, where verifyable means that one can check whatever is claimed, and public refers to the fact that anyone can do that. Now, if you cite some source, like in the example above, it says ""blah blah near daily""(citation number). Unlike what you might think, that does not mean that the sentence ""blah blah near daily"" is a universally accepted fact  as proven by the fact that you have another opinion. What the phrase ""blah blah near daily""(citation number) actually means is ""in (citation number), someone claims blah blah near daily"", which, you'll agree, is fully correct. After all, that is what's written there and anyone can look at the source (because it's public) and read what is says (verifyable). Now, if you think that blah blah occured daily an not near daily, that is fine. But how should you go about it ? One thing you can not do: change the sentence and leave the citation! Because then it would mean: ""in (citation number), someone claims blah blah daily"". That is not true! If you look at the source, you'll see it says ""blah blah near daily""! Which is just what Nil Einne pointed out. Of course it can happen that what's written in the source is not accurate. But that doesn't mean you have the right to change it as you did.
What you can do is add another source that contradicts the first one. You could write It has been reported that ""blah blah near daily""(citation number), but I think that ""blah blah daily"". The moment you do this, however, you'll find that people will object, because what you have presented is not publically verifyable. So, what is needed here is a source, a pointer to publically verifyable information, to support your claim. The full list of newspapers would be ok, but very unpractical. If there is a single list somewhere, preferably produced by a fairly neutral source such as United Nation observers of something equivalent, that would be much easier.
You might think it's much more important to tell the truth accurately, even if you don't find a source, because, after all, the truth is what it's all about. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the truth, a universally and unanimously accepted version of events, and certainly not in the Israelian-Palestian conflict. Imagine for a moment that everybody would put their version of the truth on the page, and what the page would then look like! So, we are bound by certain rules that allow us to govern information about events without spiraling into chaos, and these very rules that exist to create accurate information state that sticking to the rules is more important that providing accurate information. Strange as it may seem, it works: even when not perfectly accurate, the result will not stray to far from the truth, if there is any one such thing, and that result is usually a fairly useful document as opposed to a flamewar."