Talk:Operation Outside the Box

message: The article mentions several times that there was materials unloaded (I assume parts for the reactor or maybe fuel) and it was labeled as "cement".. and that covert photos were taken of the unloading and showed to the pilots bombing.. but it is not mentioned anywhere exactly what was in the photos.  Anything citeable?  Otherwise its a weird item and should be mentioned but also mentioned that the subject in the photos is unknown due to security or whatever. Cs302b (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos of ship unloading

message: This should be mentioned in the the article about Syria by Current Events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  96.224.30.100    (talk • contribs)  09:10:22, 19 Sep 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An anonymous user has twice erased this sentence from the article:
On September 28 a Kuwaiti newspaper reported that Iranian general Ali Reza Asgari, who disappeared in February, was the source for the airstrike; this was confirmed by the intelligence group Stratfor, which reported that Asgari "gave Israel the intelligence on Syria’s missile program needed for the Syrian airstrike."
Claiming that this information is not useable as it is "commercial."  First of all, this is a reputable source found through Google news, and even a non-subscriber can view the title of the article.  Considering Wikipedia allows sourcing to articles that can only be found in "commercial" databases (or for that matter all printed material that must be purchased), I fail to see how this case is any different.  The full Stratfor report reads:
:Israel: Asghari Gave Syrian Intelligence September 28, 2007 16 06  GMT
:Informed sources have confirmed that retired Iranian Gen. Ali Reza Asghari, who defected in February, gave Israel the intelligence on Syria’s missile program needed for the Syrian airstrike Sept. 6. Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jeerada reported earlier Sept. 28 that Asghari was the source of information for the airstrike. Asghari is a former aide to the Iranian defense minister and a retired general who served for a long time in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
I am going to again reinsert the information, and would be happy for anyone to point out which wikipedia policy this inclusion contradicts.  I understand the need for verifiability, but most published information must be purchased in some way or another, and this situation is no different. Joshdboz 18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit dispute

message: The Times also reports that the mission was "personally directed" by Israeli Defense Minister EhudBarak.
So, can we add Ehud Barak in the "commanders" parameter of the infobox? Do we need another source for that claim? Is that remark too generalized to consider him as an actual commander? VolatileChemical 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  If you look at Iraq War they include country commander-in-chiefs (Bush and Brown), whereas other articles just focus on military officers.  I'd say there's no harm in adding him for the time being - he is Defense Minister after all, so he definitely played some role in directing this. Joshdboz 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: What is the source of this name? I have not seen the event referred to as Operation Orchard by any Israeli official. Is it a media invented name? --128.226.197.86 00:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orchard was initially reported as the codename for the operation, and soon after several respected news agencies began referring to it as such.  This pattern has happened before, see Operation Wrath of God. Joshdboz 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Orchard" (Bustan בוסתן in Hebrew) was given to a number of Israeli air force operations in the past, with a different number. For example "Bustan 25a" or "Bustan 39" in 1969. (See   , in Hebrew) Dove t. (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how Israel has not even acknowledged that this event occurred, how could they have named it? Screen stalker (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Orchard? 

message: states that the US carried out the raid using tactical nukes. --Duk 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting theory, but i've removed that paragraph from the article. As far as I can see, it's one source (al-Jazeera, and I can't find the story on their English site anymore) picked up by one or two secondary sources. This is an extraordinary claim, that the US has used nukes for the first time since World War II, and I think we need to see more evidence before it's given prominence. Maybe if we added a section called "Alternative Theories", it would be appropriate there. But not in the main body until there's some follow-up. Dchall1 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, I couldn't find the al-Jazeera original either. And I really don't think it's possible for a nuclear explosion to go undetected due to the emf/seismic/fallout/and sensors like this. I don't think it should go in the article without more solid reporting. --Duk 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is no truth at all in the report, but it seems interesting as a "reaction" rather than as news that al Jazeera would report such a story. Perhaps you can think of a better way to phrase it to prevent it from being perceived as having any connection to reality? TewfikTalk 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also concur. I can't say I believed it when I added it, but given the nature of information surrounding the event, thought it should go in at the time. Looks like this was just an example of some irresponsible reporting... Hiberniantears 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no harm in including it, so long as we explicitly state that such and such a paper reported it and that it is not verified by anyone else.  Joshdboz 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting news story 

message: According to this AP news story, the US didn't give approval: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/nkorea_syria
"Senior U.S. officials said the U.S. military was not involved in the attack, and the U.S. government, although informed in advance, did not approve it. 
'Israel made the decision to attack,' a senior administration official said. 'It did so without any so-called green light from us. None was asked for and none was given.'"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.130 (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct. This dispute should be reflected in the article. I will add it at once. Screen stalker (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did, feel free to somehow integrate it to the article's flow --BirdKr (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information on wether US Gave approval. 

message: Hello, everyone. I have begun an overhaul to make all references in this article more compact, consistent and complete. Please follow the following pattern for news references (I don't know what to do with the White House press release):
Last Name, First Name. "Title of Article", Source (NOT wikilinked), [[YYYY]-MM-DD. Retrieved on YYYY-MM-DD.
For example:
Mahnaimi, Uzi. "Snatched: Israeli commandos ‘nuclear’ raid", The Sunday Times, 2007-09-23. Retrieved on 2007-09-23.
It isn't as though there is only one right way to do this, but consistency is key. If someone prefers a different template, that's fine, but make sure to change all references to be consistent. Also, what I like about this template is that it is the default of the  shortcut. This reminds me, please don't use . It clutters the editing space unnecessarily, and makes it really difficult to know where you are on the article, and not using it makes no difference to the reader. If you find it more convenient, then free to use it and then copy and paste so that it is not permanently present. I would really rather not go back and fix all the references again. Screen stalker (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Format consistency is nice, but the references now need more serious fixing, as some seem to have been switched and now have duplicate names. I'm finding it difficult to repair them, so you may need to follow up with checks and restorations. --Zigger «º» 02:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Zigger. What do mean regarding beeing switched and having duplicate names? Could you provide an example? Screen stalker (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had fixed up the errors I could find (see the revision history for details), but more ref-checking may be needed. --Zigger «º» 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference overhaul 

message: I don't think this article is objective enough. It seems to have only three types of sources: officials (political, military and intelligence) from the three parties involved (Israel, Syria, USA.) -- and anonymous sources. Furthermore, it seems to state informations from those sources as facts, even thought they are 1) not proven, 2) come from involved parties. What this article is desperately missing is objective, named third party sources. Also, I get the feeling that the article is biased towards the US/Israeli opinion, because it gives almost no room at all for the many views out there which are sceptical about the US/Israeli statements. Offliner (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some modifications and included a chapter about the sceptical views. I think this article is more balanced now.Offliner (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Again made some modifications to the article. This time to make the claims about a North Korean ship in Syria look less like a fact and more like a claim. Whover wrote those lines: next time you write for Wikipedia, please make sure that you don't make claims look like facts. Offliner (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: Coordinates of the site: 35.7078, 39.8333  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: Though referenced Syria does not operate the Tor-M1 missile system, this system is operated by Iran and not Syria which has purchased the Pantsyr-S1 system, this link and point should probably be removed.Typhoon9410 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tor-M1

message: I've updated this section and the lede with more recent information, as much of the article was years out of date. Leuchars (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IAEA Investigation

message: This was a limited and precise air operation, like Opera and Wooden Leg, not a war or a large-scale armed conflict. That's why I changed the main box.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: I have reverted who attempted to remove the phrase "due to Syria's failure to cooperate" from the sentence "An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation reported evidence of uranium and graphite and concluded that the site bore features resembling an undeclared nuclear reactor, but was unable to confirm or deny the nature of the site due to Syria's failure to cooperate." As far as I can tell, the source cited supports the "due to Syria's failure to cooperate" bit. The source mentions that, according to the IAEA report, Syria's assertion that the site was a conventional military site only, could not be verified because of Syria's "failing to back up its stance with documentation or by granting further access for IAEA sleuths to the bombed location and three others cited in U.S. intelligence handed to the U.N. watchdog last year". That seems to me to directly correspond to what the "due to Syria's failure to cooperate" bit says. Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:MUCHERS22]] 

message: The Guardian newspaper has an article about an alleged first person account of the 2007 raid.  A rebel going by the name Abu Mohammed claimed he answered a special glass encased red phone on the night of the raid and was told by the person on the other end of the line (allegedly a brigadier) to not engage enemy jets that were known to be approaching.  Abu Mohammed further claimed that their radar systems became jammed right after the call.
If this account is to be believed, it raises new questions: 1) was the person on the other end of the red phone line actually a brigadier officer? 1a) if so, was he acting under orders from higher up, or on his own for what some reason? 1b) If acting under higher orders, why would Syria passively submit to such an attack?  2) Is it possible that Israel gained access to the Syrian military communication network and impersonated the brigadier on the other end of the line?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/syrian-rebel-raids-military-strongholds
From the article:
The red phone had been silent for more than 20 years, encased in reinforced glass in the corner of the major's office. When it rang just after midnight on 6 September 2007, the startled Syrian officers nearby had to remind themselves what to do.
"I told my colleagues that we had to break the case with a hammer, then answer it," said Abu Mohammed, a former air force major then based at an air defence station near the north-eastern city of Deir Azzor. "It had not even rung during a training exercise."
Abu Mohammed, now a senior member of the rebel movement in the north of the country, broke the glass. What followed, he said, were the most puzzling 10 minutes of his military career.
"I shattered the glass and answered the phone," he said. "There was a brigadier on the other end from the strategic air command in Damascus. He said: 'There are enemy planes approaching, you are not to do anything.'
"I was confused. Do nothing? This is what we were waiting for. We couldn't see them on our radars. And then our radars were jammed. The missile base nearby could not have fired even if it was allowed."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.56.119 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These are interesting claims, but I don't know that adding unfounded speculation by a single source is a suitable role for Wikipedia .... RayTalk 12:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian Air Defense Allegedly Ordered to Stand Down 

message: The site was claimed to be a nuclear reactor with a military purpose. That may or may not have been so. But to imply that the "site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose" is the same thing is wrong. Nuclear facility is not the same as reactor.122.59.167.152 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed reactor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 64 external links on Operation Orchard. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aErPTWRFZpJI&refer=japan
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0%2C%2C2170188%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119007716759630639
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jWIBgbzyBkHnJzQeMi80gXfjX0-Q
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51I45R20090219
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5itI7N4WBk_gmaIJgZsmJAgEwAgyA
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-FM-slams-Israel-over-fuel-tanks
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2512105.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4900816%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8514919/Mossad-carries-out-daring-London-raid-on-Syrian-official.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJugIQvDKwkxupz9eULk1ml6OZ4Q
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3799227%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-23-554340650_x.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-FM-to-discuss-Syria-in-Jlem
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563393/N-Korean-ship-linked-to-Israels-strike-on-Syria.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=76675
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jer-zentrum.org/ViewNews.aspx?ArticleId=1196
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/11/israel.syria/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metimes.com/International/2007/09/30/arab_league_center_denies_it_was_israeli_raid_target/5076/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021986.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html?hp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072478.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Israel-Palestine/David-A.-Fulghum-and-Robert-Wall-/U.S.-Electronic-Surveillance-Monitored-Israeli-Attack-On-Syria
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A2710d024-5eda-416c-b117-ae6d649146cd
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3702807
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0%2C%2C2170766%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/904009.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPSxU5Nlch6Nzo-6RPwuhDbjZb1Q
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5icAEGzS6dKQGlkVrae3wytVA2S8Q
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Olmert-says-he-is-ready-to-make-peace-with-Syria
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=mysterious-airstrike-boosts-olmerts-popularity-2007-09-19
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-lifts-censorship-of-sept-6-iaf-strike-on-target-inside-syria-1.230392
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/04/syrian-rebel-raids-military-strongholds?CMP=twt_gu
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4056748%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7024287.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/09/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Turkey-Syria.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/11/israel.syria/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/27/idUSL27399094
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/world/middleeast/25syria.html?ref=world
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301100611/http://cns.miis.edu/stories/071101.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/stories/071101.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPy7lwFLss3bf17Bancm0qSSNUTA
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2007/200709/news09/12.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18652.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/28/idUSN28442767
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Alleged-Syrian-atomic-reactor-vanishes
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/middleeast/26syria.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/middleeast/26syria.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/world/middleeast/12syria.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31409020080115
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3526056%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7366235.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080424-14.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364269.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/world/middleeast/12syria.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7463044.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/world/middleeast/25korea.html?pagewanted=1
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7366868.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/19/us-nuclear-iaea-syria-idUSTRE4AI4WB20081119
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/19/europe/EU-Nuclear-Agency-Syria-Iran.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5unOYKKK_uObtyARlvuJiY5jU_w
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61H66320100218
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100222_8492.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/04/201142962917518797.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It was more than 3 years, and not less than 2 as this article suggests.  This is a pretty important detail and it should be fixed.
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/OUTSIDE-THE-BOX-Israels-strike-on-Syrias-nuclear-plant-547870 "... captured in 2014 by Islamic State (ISIS) forces and held for more than three years."
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-2007-syria-reactor-strike-prevented-nuclear-isis-2018-3 " ISIS held control of that area for three full years." Wearysnails (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of years of ISIS occupation 

message: Please change "500 lb bombs" to " bombs" Arado Ar 196 (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2021