Talk:List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2002–2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability criteria[edit]

I removed this information from Qassam rocket, where this list was cluttering an already too-detailed article. I question whether this detailed list belongs in Wikipedia at all. It looks like an attempt to memorialize the victims or emphasize the effect of this weapon's employment.

What is a "notable" rocket attack; does it have to meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria? See also Wikipedia:List guideline. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 02:03 Z

I agree. Lists on Wikipedia need an inclusion criteria. I have chosen one to start, hopefully people will agree with it. It's a terrible state of affairs when rocket attacks from Gaza/West Bank militants are a regular occurrence. Fortunately, most of these attacks only inflict psychological damage or property damage. So I chose the inclusion criteria of killing someone or injuring at least 5 people, inducing shock is not considered injuring. I also kept entries where the attack itself was notable, such as the first long-range Qassam. I removed the seperate list of victims, as they now appear quite clearly in the list of attacks 81.179.176.97 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a perfectly good set of criteria to get rid of the non-notable events. Comments? Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Immediate context of the attacks"[edit]

The inclusion of the Israeli security zone in Lebanon as the "immediate context for the attacks" and the failure of the Camp David talks cannot be correct because it is very clearly not "immediate". This is an article about Qassams which started to be fired in October 2001, "immediately" following the outbreak of the Second Intifada. It is also not made clear what the Security Zone in Lebanon has to do with Qassams from Gaza, or how the failure of the Camp David talks led to the beginning of the rocket attacks almost a year and a half later, in the description of these events as the immediate context. Nor does this appear to be the position of any neutral commentator or any other encylopedia. See, e.g. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Qassam-rocket or http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm. Nor has a single source been cited with respect to this position.Directionless (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Grad"[edit]

http://www.omedia.org/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=1855&MenuID=603&ThreadID=1014010

Flayer 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortars - Recommend with Re-title article List of Rocket and Morter Attacks[edit]

This is an article about Qassam rocket attacks. If someone wants to move it to a page about Qassams and mortars, then they should do so, failing which, the information about mortars and their fatality or casualty statistics is irrelevant to this page.Directionless (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we ReTitle This Article List of Rocket and Morter Attacks in Israel. This is in keeping with the other Articles in this series (See Below). I can then add back in the Morter attacks that were deleted:

2008 Main article: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008

[edit] 2009 Main article: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009

ITBlair (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have been coming here for information on anything fired from Gaza to Israel. If someone were to fire off a piece of scrap metal and aim it towards Israel, I would come here to learn more about it. I would not mind at all if this article were to expand its scope and reflect that broadened scope in its title. PinkWorld (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

ReTitled the Article to be in keeping with the rest of Series. Will start to Add back Mortar attacks. ITBlair (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Criteria[edit]

I have just undone an edit which removed a large portion of the list. The author who snipped large portions of the list did so under the premise that certain incidents did not merit inclusion or that the present selection demonstrated POV. To the contrary, choosing which articles to include and which articles not to include automatically brings about POV issues. The title of this article is "List of Qassam rocket attacks"; any attacks listed in the news should be included in the list. One cannot choose to omit articles without the issue of who decides what to include and what not to include, what criteria determines inclusion, etc. For example, do we only include articles in which the attack results in a fatality or do we also include articles about attacks which result in hospitalization? If it does result in hospitalization, must it be for a period longer than an hour, a day, three days? What about attacks which contribute to PTSD in the residents of Sderot? Don't all attacks fall in that category? All articles are fair game, in my opinion. ← Michael Safyan 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My problem with this page is it appears to be memorialising; that is to say, this appears to be a special Wikipedia-approved tribute to the victims of Qassam attacks NEVAR FORGET. I'm particularly appalled by the fact not only are those who were killed listed once in the list of all attacks, but because the list is indiscriminate and lists everything, being listed once is not good enough, so the victims are listed again in a special section. To me this is a clear breach of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. To a person who thinks the Qassam attacks are great, this page should not exist. To someone who thinks they're the worst thing in the world, this page is not enough. I think the neutral position is somewhere in the middle, and I welcome debate on where that neutral, dispassionate, objective position is.
Lists on Wikipedia are not indiscriminate collections, they need an inclusion criterion. The page as a whole needs to be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, separate from the general article on Qassam rocket attacks themselves. Thus, I selected what I think is an inclusion criteria that lifts the list to an acceptable level of notability. Not everything that makes it into the newspaper is notable. For example, there aren't lists of all cars broken into or all cats that got stuck up trees and had to be rescued. It appears to me more people die in Sderot from traffic accidents than from Qassam attacks, yet we don't have a list of all road accidents in Israeli towns. The defence minister called the Qassam attacks statistically insignificant and not worth spending more money on.
As so few people have actually been hurt by the Qassams, it seems to be clutching at straws to include every slight injury or "treatment for shock". It's my opinion that, since the Qassam rocket attacks have been so underwhelming from an actual damage perspective, the only notable attacks are those which kill or significantly injure, or ones which are notable on their own merits, e.g. the introduction of a new long range rocket. The long term traumatic effect the attacks are having on Sderot and other areas is itself a notable subject, but then you do not need an actual list of all attacks to discuss that, just statistics. 85.210.159.1 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, seriously; you think this should be included in the list? Five Qassam rockets struck the Western Negev with three striking near Sapir College. The attack did not result in any reported casualties and caused damage to a building undergoing construction. . What is notable about an attack that caused no injury and damaged a building that was still being constructed? 85.210.159.1 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously notable enough to make the news. Most attacks do not appear in a newspaper at all. ← Michael Safyan 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of rocket attacks that do not inflict physical damage or physical injuries, and mention of non-physical injuries, weakens the impact of the article, regardless of POV.
From the Israeli point of view, where the leaning would be to emphasize the seriousness of the attacks, listing anxiety, shock and PTSD as types of injury makes the article read like propaganda. Everyone, including all Israelis, knows that the rates of anxiety, shock and PTSD suffered by Palestinians in Gaza as a result of the conflict are massive, leading the reader to think that the POV of the article is that the wellbeing of Israelis is fundamentally more important than the wellbeing of Palestinians. That gives a clear impression that the POV is Israeli. Because neutral readers would find an imbalanced weighting of the importance of injuries objectionable, not only would they dismiss the article as propaganda, they would also be left with a very low impression of Israeli thinking on the subject.
From the Palestinian POV, the inclusion of non-physical injuries like anxiety, shock and PTSD appears to be intended just to make the list longer. For Palestinians especially talking about Israelis suffering from anxiety, shock and PTSD as a result of the conflict would be offensive because it trivializes the impact of the conflict on Palestinians, particularly those living in Gaza. I would look for standard criteria for compiling war injury statistics from a neutral source, such as the International Red Cross, and use that alone. No other "injuries" should be mentioned in this list.
It is, of course, legitimate to write about the psychological impact that the rocket attacks have had on Israelis, especially since by all accounts that is largely what the impact has been. That has been done well in the article on Qassam Rockets, and it would be more appropriate for this article to refer readers to that article for more on this topic. That would replace all mentions of anxiety, shock and PTSD in the list itself, and the small section at the end about PTSD. In my opinion that section (actually one sentence) is too brief in the information it provides on this topic. If the original author finds that article does not provide enough information on the topic, then editing of that article should be considered.←Tony7896 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Inclusion criteria should be that the Attack occurs and was reported in a verifiable media outlet. Since these attacks are (whether they kill someone or not) are the basis for War. They all are notable. This is how Israel justifies its attacks on Gaza. For example, if Mexico launched Rocket attacks on the US. THe US response would most likely be immediate and very violent, even if no one was killed. Since the attacks are the basis for going to War, Wike should so note all these attacks as Notable. ITBlair (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the second post. I have a pro-Palestinian political perspective, and yet I can see the importance of listing the firing of projectiles from Gaza aimed at Israel. One thing that I do question is the listing of shock as if it were an injury. I would not question it so much if there were a section or an article on the psychological impacts of the projectile attacks, and if PTSD or some other stress factor were listed in an article describing Israeli attacks against Palestinians. I also think that the listing should be as brief as possible - mention of details such as unraveling truces or Israeli attacks on Palestine not related to (or mentioned by militant groups in Gaza as causal to) projectile attacks adds bulk to the article that takes away from its usefulness as a list. Elsewhere on this discussion page, someone requested a clarification of the number of military deaths as distinguished from civilian deaths. I would second that request, where it would be possible to get such information. Civilian/military is a common category in the listing of deaths. PinkWorld (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

A scale of distance on the map would be helpful[edit]

The map that is included in this article has no scale of distance (kilometers or miles). The map should be replaced with one that does, or enhanced with the addition of a scale or distance. The distances are critically important to the article because distance determines the effective range of the rockets, and therefor the area within which the rocket attacks took place and might take place in the future.

--Tony7896 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map should show range of the rockets[edit]

A map of the landing point of each of the mentioned rocket attacks would be extremely helpful, but may be unavailable and too difficult to produce to be practical; however, there are other possibilities that would be much easier and still helpful. Specifically, I suggest that a map be provided or created that indicates the area within Israel that is in range of the rockets. The article on the Qassam rocket shows the range of each model of the rocket as it has been enhanced: first 3, then 8-10, and now 10 kilometers. There could be a line or shading for each model of the rocket. This would help people visualize and conceptualize where the rocket attacks were located, and the possible location of future attacks, in terms of cities, towns and other settlements within Israel.

--Tony7896 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should distinguish between military and civilian casualties[edit]

The article should make a clear distinction between military and civilian casualties. The entry for the September 11, 2007, attack says that the rocket landed in a military training camp and that soldiers were injured. It is not clear if these were the only military casualties. If all of the other casualties have been civilians it would strengthen the impact of the article if this was stated. If any of the other casualties were military it important that this be stated, since identifying the victims of the September attack as military creates an impression that all other causalities were civilian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony7896 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeves[edit]

Can we try to keep the tense consistent? Most parts are written in the past tense, but recent additions have been in the present tense. Also, can we try to keep the dates consistent. Either all entries should contain the year or none of the entries should contain the year; there shouldn't be a mix of both. Lastly, this article is simply supposed to list Qassam rocket attacks; other information belongs in the Israel-Gaza conflict, not here. Adding anything beyond the Qassam rocket attacks, depending on your point-of-view, 1.) either makes it look like more attacks took place than there actually were or 2.) dilutes the list of attacks with information about the Israeli response to such attacks.
← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we stick to WP:ENGLISH? Please use English sources, only, for the English version of Wikipedia. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qassam Attacks Listed in Other Articles[edit]

I noticed that other Wiki articles would list Qassam attacks (See 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict). I have been gradually copying these into this article as well.

Also see: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/01/january-qassam-calendar.html

I will try to add a paragraph on the Separation Wall. My guess is the Qassam attacks picked up when the separation wall made Suicide Bombers too difficult.

"Twenty-two Israeli's have been killed"[edit]

The article states: "Twenty-two Israeli's have been killed".

  • The article only lists 12 killed. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website lists 14 [1]. If the 22 figure cannot be substantiated, it should be removed.
  • Not all casualties were Israeli, some were Palestinian or foreign workers.

--128.139.104.49 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Is this article supposed to be a timeline of the entire Israel-Gaza conflict or a list of Qassam rocket attacks, specifically, during the Israel-Gaza conflict? Also, the format is not that of a proper list. I propose that we reorganize the page as follows:

Date Number of rockets fired Location(s) hit Organization(s) responsible Consequence(s) Source(s)
September 11, 2007 ? Zikim Military Base Nasr Salah al-Din Brigades
Islamic Jihad 		66-67 moderately to severely wounded [1][2]

Michael Safyan (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This approach seems useful to me. I have no objection in principle. It would be nice to note the following (a) where the Rockets come from (Gaza or West Bank), (b) note those that fall short and land in the disputed territories, (c) note the distance traveled (at least from the border), and (d) Where possible provide the names of the victims. We should probably look at the format used the the Iraq Body Count web site. In addition, where a news report mentions a mortar attack I leave it in. Since the focus is on Qassam Rockets this may not be appropriate. Still, it gets a the context of Cross-Border attacks via indirect fire.

Also, sometimes I have left in or added context notes. For example, some attacks are the result of an Israeli assult and often the Israeli's attack because of a specific assault. A number of major Israeli operations have been the direct consequence of Qassam attacks.

Another nice to have would be a graph of the Total number of attacks and then for each year a separate graph for the attacks by month.

There are more general context notes, such as Gaza being declared an enemy entity or Abasas stating that the Qassam attacks are stupid. These could be left in an introduction section or cross-referenced from another Wiki page. ITBlair (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "At least 66 wounded in Kassam attack on Zikim military base". JPost. September 11, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "67 wounded in Qassam attack". YNet. September 11, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Break Up Article By Year?[edit]

This article is getting too long. I was wonder about keeping a header article with years 2002-through 2006 and then have separate Years for 2007 and 2008. ITBlair (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little arbitrary. If we split the article at all, there ought to be some logic behind it. For example, "List of Qassam rocket attacks before the Gaza disengagement" and "List of Qassam rocket attacks after the Gaza disengagement." However, I prefer to keep it in one article, and I don't think length is currently a big problem. --GHcool (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave it as is for the moment. Eventually (e.g., 2009), I think this article will be too long. There are a long series of articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict done by Year (see below). I was suggesting we follow in this tradition.

Timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

An alternate approach might be 1. Attacks during GAZA OCCUPATION 2. Attacks after GAZA DISENGAGEMENT 3. Attacks After HAMAS Takeover. Although a few attacks may originate in the West, which would not be covered in this Israel Gaza breakout.ITBlair (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of 2 articles (before and after the Hamas takeover). It doesn't matter where geographically the attacks originate because they will belong on the timeline either before or after the Hamas takeover. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first Qassam rocket fell on Israel on April 16, 2001.

Why are there list items from before this date? It's not clear to me what direct relation the earlier entries have with Qassam attacks. Rich (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

  • If the next news articles are added please use the <ref> tag. The article was mixture of hyperlinks and references. Now there a 3 hyperlinks left leading to dead articles.
  • Should we rename the article to Qassam and mortar attacks? The article has lots of information on other attacks unrelated to Qassam rockets.

-- Panoramix303 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the proposed Rename, but I am not sure how to it.

ITBlair (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the rockets[edit]

Just reading this article for 5 minutes, references have been made to launching at least 100 rockets. Unfortuantely, we have no section explaining where these rockets come from. The Gaza Strip is rectangual in shape, surrounded by Israel on two sides, Egypt on the south, and the sea on the west. Now, I can assume that Israel is able to control its border with Gaza, which tells me that the weapons can only be brought in from Egypt, the sea, or dropped from the air...

Someone with enough knowledge about this issue: would you please include how these rockets make it to the Gaza Strip and possible counter-measures that could be taken. We know that some nations, such as Syria and Iran are actively involved in assissiting Palestinian terrorists, but it would be useful to know how these dangerous weapons are transported into Gaza. Thank you very much. (Einstein00 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've read somewhere that they are civil-made, but citation needed 78.40.176.241 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this purpose of this page is to discuss improvements of the article and not to speculate about how one side could be helped. by the way, it would also be interesting to know how the "zwa hagana le israel" obtains the dangerous weapons they are using currently, which states assists them and how they are transported.--Severino (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation is more like "Tzva" than "Zwa" (unless you pronounce your 'w' like a 'v'). While it is true that this is not a discussion and that the talk page is to be used to improve the articles, I believe your response was completely inappropriate. To answer Einstein00's question, Hamas smuggles many of their weapons into Gaza from Egypt using underground tunnels. Both Egypt and Israel have tried to put a stop to this smuggling by searching for and destroying these tunnel systems. Many of the weapons are Iranian-made (e.g. the Katyusha Grad rockets) and are smuggled into Egypt and then to Gaza through Syria. If you would like this information to be included in the article, then please be bold and add it, using appropriate citations (use: [2][3][4]). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this bit (don't know how to format/indent it, could someone do that for me?) The Qassam rockets are made in Gaza. There's an article on them on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.221.223 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Totals[edit]

I found a quote while reading the news: "...rocket fire by Hamas on Israeli towns, that have killed 22 people since 2000." Article information: "UN calls for immediate Gaza truce, attacks go on," by Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, 09 Jan 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL9116659._CH_.2400 PinkWorld (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

and this

[S]ome 8,000 rockets and mortars fired into Israel from Gaza, killing 18 people from 2000 until the offensive began... ["Q&A: Face-to-face in Gaza: tactics of Israel and Hamas,"Reuters, 12 Jan 2009, at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LC332057.htm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) PinkWorld (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

Lack of variety in news sources[edit]

Almost every reference is from either Reuters, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, or [Haaretz]]. The sources are also overwhelmingly Israeli. Thanks --97.113.23.80 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redefining the article[edit]

To my knowledge there is currently no article on Wikipedia dealing with Qassam attacks as a phenomenon. I suggest renaming this article to something like "Qassam rocket attacks" and adding information about effectiveness, Qassam-induced psychological trauma, Qassam refugees, Israeli methods of coping, etc.; then moving the actual list of attacks (which ends here in 2007) to "list of qassam rocket attacks in 2007", "...2006" and so on, similarly to the current articles "list of qassam rocket attacks in 2008" and "...2009". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

referenced data[edit]

"7,000...the rockets since 2005, according to the Israeli military" ("Israelis Announce Cease-Fire In Gaza," by Craig Whitlock and Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Page A01, 18 Jan 2009, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/17/AR2009011700592.html?hpid=topnews) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala (Ella) Abukasis reference: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4710636

Proposal to cut down[edit]

I propose this article be cut down significantly. After all, the lead says the article is meant to list only "noteworthy/newsworthy" attacks, not every attack, as it appears this article strives for. I propose many of the minor attacks (such as the one for Dec. 2, 2007, and others like it) be eliminated, and that most of the Palestinian deaths in response be removed (is this article not about attacks in Israel?). Thoughts? PBP (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there was never a negative response to this. Here comes support. What I would suggest is to add an annual total of rocket numbers, casualties and deaths, and then to get rid of the insignificant chaff, leaving only the key events. Seriously, reporting rocket launchings that land in an empty field, and perhaps scares a passing goat, is a bit of oxygen theft. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each rocket is potentially deadly, triggers the Red Color system and contributes to accumilating trauma of the residents. If the rockets were trivial and pointless surely nobody would put so much resources, effort and risk their lives to manufacture and fire them. “WarKosign” 07:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split off 2007?[edit]

By my count about 80% of the incidents listed in this article are from 2007. Would anybody object to splitting off that content into its own article, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2007, similar to the existing List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Crickets chirping). OK, I'm doing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change name?[edit]

Does anyone object to changing the name of this article to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001-2006, and similarly changing the names of the articles on 2007, 2008 and 2009? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Attacks "on Israel"[edit]

Sure are a lot of rocket attacks occurring OUTSIDE of Israel in this article. Strange. 124.169.163.201 (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]


POV-pushing[edit]

1. Counterpunch is not a reliable source. 2. A reliable source, HRW, gives a different timeline - saying 4 rockets landed in Israel on June 8th, unrelated to any Israeli attack. The source you used - Xinhua - clearly identifies the Hamas person killed as a military leader- the leader of the PRC. I will be undoing these POV-pushing edits shortly, and if you persist, reporting your behavior. All Rows4 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Rows4 Congratulations on finally using the [Talk] pages, as a form of reaching consensus, before deleting existing text. If you disagree with this protocol, then I invite you to carry out your threat to report me. I invite you to substantiate your claim in greater detail. Did I post something unrelated to the rocket attacks? Were citations lacking? I would point out that I failed to find any mention in your quoted source - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/5.htm - that the rocket fire was, as you wrote, "unrelated to any Israeli attack". You made incisive deletions and it was based on a faulty reading of an HRW article. Please show respect and exercise greater diligence, instead of making threats even before you received a [Talk] response. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made 3 points, above. You are falsifying sources (Xinhua identifies this person as a military leader of the PRC) - which is a violation that could easily result in topic-banning. Your time line is based on a non-reliable source, while a reliable source says rocket fire began a day earlier. I strongly suggest you undo that last edit of yours. All Rows4 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 April 2006 Jamal Abu Samhadana was appointed to the post that he occupied when he was assassinated by the IDF; he was a minister in the PA. And it was the Israeli media that confirmed that for me when I originally wrote the edit - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3241844,00.html. So, when he died, Samhadana was the director-general of the Palestinian Interior and National Security Ministry. And THAT is what I wrote.
You may now stop threatening me. That was your second one, and I don't take kindly to it. I make mistakes, but I am honest. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All Rows4 Congratulations on finally using the [Talk] pages, as a form of reaching consensus, before deleting existing text. If you disagree with this protocol, then I invite you to carry out your threat to report me. I invite you to substantiate your claim in greater detail. Did I post something unrelated to the rocket attacks? Were citations lacking? I would point out that I failed to find any mention in your quoted source - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/5.htm - that the rocket fire was, as you wrote, "unrelated to any Israeli attack". You made incisive deletions and it was based on a faulty reading of an HRW article. Please show respect and exercise greater diligence, instead of making threats even before you received a [Talk] response. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your claim that Counterpunch is not a reliable source - on what do you base that unsubstantiated claim?:
Lin states that "The following chronology of major events was compiled from Associated Press, New York Times, Financial Times, The Observer, and other established news agencies." I have just rechecked his entries on actual rocket fire and related events against OCHA weekly data and against additional analysts' reports and confirm the quality and reliability of Lin's synthesis. I added other citations in support of this. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: You violated the WP:1RR:
Please self revert and achieve a consensus before you continue. “WarKosign” 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: My apologies for this n00bish question, but why does WP:1RR apply to this particular article and not WP:3RR? I do not see the customary WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES in the Header on this Talk page, with subsidiary text signalling that WP:1RR is active for this article (see for instance the Talk page for Origins of the Six-Day War ). Any advice appreciated from a veteran editor such as yourself. I await your response before taking immediate corrective action. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: I do not know why the template is missing and perhaps it's a good idea to add it, but regardless WP:ARBPIA applies to "entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" - I don't think there is any way to interpret the subject of this article as not being related to the conflict. “WarKosign” 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, my account may be relatively old, but I began actively editing maybe a month before you, so we are at about the same level of n00bness. I added the warning template to this talk page just in case. “WarKosign” 09:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition. With that in place the WP:1RR rule is now clearly active. Now - an advice request, please: What do you do when one or more editors continuously revert your fully-sourced contributions without any recourse to Talk pages, especially when the WP:1RR rules is clearly active. It could take weeks to unwind the effect. Such actions seem to verge on vandalism *pout* Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found a satisfactory solution, but trying to ping the user on the talk page is a good start. Assuming that you are referring to the content you added here, per WP:BRD, once your WP:BOLD edit got reverted the burden is on you to convince others that it's a worthy addition. “WarKosign” 09:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My responsibility, even when ithe reverts occur without [Talk] discussion? That seems to be an excessive and unfair burden. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is. It is certainly more polite and civil to make it clear why you are reverting, since otherwise the reverted party is forced to begin the talk page discussion with "why did you revert ?" instead of replying to the reverter's objections. Nonetheless WP:BRD sequence is bold edit, revert, talk page discussion - it doesn't really matter who begins the discussion, the result is what matters.“WarKosign” 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: If you do not revert your last edit, I will have no choice but to take measures. You made your last revert in violation of 1RR, some of the content is not based on sources and is very biased. “WarKosign” 11:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosin: - There was no WP:1RR prohibition on this article at the time of my post. I checked. You added it later. This is fully documented on this page. Nonetheless, I will respect your reference to the non-evident WP:ARBPIA and will revert my last edit. Please prepare yourself in a day or so to fully defend your claim that the post is not based on sources, and/or that the sources are biased. I have become very hard-nosed about one-liner claims as to non-WP:RS / bias / etc and will demand exhaustive proof in full compliance with Wiki protocols and discussions. In anticipation, and so as to save time, perhaps you could be open enough to actually provide some detail in support of your claim. Otherwise this is an utter time waste. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: 1RR limitation applies to this article because it is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict subject, regardless of any template on top of the talk page. It was set by the Arbitration Committee in 2008 and you have been alerted about it in January. If you haven't read the decision of the committee, I recommend you do before making any further edit of any page in the subject area. Thank you for reverting, now I'll gladly describe some of the problems I saw in your edit:
  • "extra-judicially assassinated" is a loaded term that does not appear in the source. Even if the source did use it, "killed" is preferred as a neutral word, it is correct whether the killing is justified or not.
  • " allegedly in revenge for a 2003 attack" - I did not see the source making this connection
  • "Hamas’ Inspector General in the Ministry of the Interior" - factually correct, irrelevant as a reason for his killing. I preferred to wikilink to the full article on the person, without giving any description here.
  • Biggest bias is stating in wikipedia voice that victims of Gaza beach explosion (2006) were killed by an IDF bombardment.
I'm not sure that all this content belongs in this list of rocket attacks, but I agree with you that there has to be some context to the events. Perhaps the solution is to convert this (and similar ) articles to "timeline of attacks" to allow us to provide relevant context. “WarKosign” 12:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: I removed several of the events that you added, mostly because of the connections that you made apparently without a source. I agree that the events (without connections or with properly sourced connections) are important and I would like to introduce them in some form, but they do not belong in this list of rocket attacks. Also, some of the events jumped ahead of the chronology of the list. I suggest splitting away a part of this article (2006 or maybe June 2006) and dedicate it to timeline of Palestinian-Israeli conflict in that period, listing every significant event in chronological order. “WarKosign” 13:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herewith my draft for a sub-section on the peak period of rocket attacks in 2006, on this occasion, separate from the list of individual attacks, and providing for the inter-relationship of Palestinian and Israeli attacks, a deficiency that has been the subject of various past discussions in Talk pages of the “mother”-article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06. I previously suggested that the “Palestinian rocket” articles be merged with articles on Israeli assaults. Some editors preferred a pure list of rocket attacks, which in turn has been criticized as non WP:NPOV in various articles and on the notice board for Reliable Sources. I find the current structure to be clumsy and very inefficient, and I note WarKosign’s recent efforts (below) to rationalize these failings.Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June-August peak of 2006 Rocket Attacks[edit]

During 2006, the main concentration of qassam rocket attacks occurred between June – July. [1]

At the start of the period of peak hostilities, the ceasefire of February 2005 was officially still in place.[2] On 4 April, Israel declared the Hamas-led PA a “hostile entity”. In May 2006 the IDF resumed ground incursions into Gaza. Although Israel acknowledged that Hamas was largely sticking to the February 2005 cease-fire, it recommenced assassinations of Hamas leaders with the killing of Jamal Abu Samhadana on 8 June.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). He was a commander of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), and on 23 April had been appointed Director General of the police forces in the Hamas government’s Interior Ministry. He was considered a wanted militant by Israel,[3] being suspected of an attack on a US diplomatic convoy, three years previously.[4] The PRC denied involvement in the 2003 attack. Contradictory reasons were given by Israeli sources as to the objective for the strike on the PRC camp, the Israeli military claiming that the strike was an attack on the camp, while an Israeli security source said that it was prompted by Samhadana’s presence. [5][6]

Samhadana was killed along with at least three other PRC members, by four missiles fired by Israeli Apache helicopters, guided by Israeli reconnaissance drones, at a PRC camp in Rafah.[7][8] Palestinian human rights sources called the killings extra-judicial executions and assassinations. They reported that Israeli media sources stated that Defense Minister Amir Peretz had personally approved the operation.[9][10] Al Mezan Center for Human Rights condemned the assassinations, particularly the fact that they had been adopted as official Israeli policy. It said that assassinations were war crimes according to international humanitarian law, mainly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans all types of extrajudicial capital punishment.[10]

Based on a synthesis of media reports, Lin points to a ‘chronology of crisis’, which includes Samhadana’s assassination by the IDF.[11] Samhadna’s supporters threatened to revenge his death.[6] The next day, in response, Islamic Jihad fired rockets at Israel from Fatah-controlled Gaza, and a few hours later the IDF retaliated in turn with a bombardment of alleged launch sites on a Gaza beach. During the time span of the IDF bombardment, a civilian Gaza family, the Ghalias, was all but wiped out. In response to the assassination of its Ministry official and the civilian 'beach' deaths, Hamas announced that it was going to recommence rocket attacks.[2] On 15 June Hamas offered to reinstate the ceasefire, but Israel refused, requiring Hamas to stop the fire first. This led to more Israeli counter-measures, Hamas, PRC and Army of Islam rocket attacks, the kidnapping of two Gaza citizens by the IDF, [12] and the abduction the next day of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June 2006. [4][11][13] On 28 June Israel launched Operation Summer Rains with the stated objectives of securing the release of Shalit and preventing the launching of Qassam rockets. [14] By 27 August the IAF had conducted 247 aerial assaults into Gaza, destroying Gaza’s electicity network and killing over 200 Gazans (including 44 children), for the loss of one Israeli life. [15] End of Draft Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)4[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: In my opinion it lacks a few points:
  • Israel officials said that Hamas planned to break the truce and used Israel's action as a pretense.
  • " On 4 April, Israel declared the Hamas-led PA a “hostile entity”" - what's the source for that ? Sounds like a strange claim, when was PA lead exclusively by Hamas ? Even if this statement is correct, it needs clarification.
  • Here is a Haaretz article (auto-translation doesn't for me for some reason) saying IDF did not know Samhadana and some of his associates were at the training camp and IDF attacked there to stop a planned large-scale attack.
  • No link to Gaza beach explosion (2006) and it still seems from the text that Israel's bombardment necessarily was the reason for the death, although you did not say it explicitly.
  • Muamar family detention incident was not kidnapping.
  • Missing link to Gilad Shalit.
Generally much more detailed and somewhat more ballanced than your previous texts, but still needs work. If you wish I can make amends as I see fit, or you can have another go.“WarKosign” 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your contribution user:WarKosign.
  • I am astonished how often a claimed intention ('planned') is accepted as justification for killings, since it is clearly not so under international law. If you want I can supply quite a few very scholarly articles on this topic.
  • Oh dear; yet a third IDF version as to why the precipitatory attack was made. I wonder how these sources all come by different explanations. Still, it sounds pretty similar to mid-2014 (which I still need to finish) which has at least four reasonable triggers, except that those were identified by different sources. I will certainly add your additional detail on the IDF reasons for the attack. TY.
  • 'Hostile entity source' - the Journal of Palestinian Studies, page 147.
  • Oops - my bad. Give me a few seconds and I will find confirmation of this well-established fact that the beach shellings were linked to the IJ rocket attacks. Many thanks for your diligence.
  • It is indeed debatable whether the detention of the Muamar family, presumably against there will, was not a kidnapping, yet the abduction of Shalit is often referred to as such. I am willing to change 'kidnapping' to something else - accepted. How about also the neutral "abduction"? Given this agreement, we need to ensure that Shalit's "abduction" is not definitively referred to in Wiki as a "kidnapping", but is instead reported as someone's opinion. In both cases it has too much of a civilian ring to it. With time, I will let you know if I find any such examples.
  • Excellent. Many thanks. I will incorporate the Wiki link.
  • I am pleased to see that you seek balance as avidly as I do. As it stands the article is astonishingly unbalanced. Together I am sure that we can improve that greatly.
Regarding the current balance of the sub-section draft, indeed, it is interesting how often historical detail can come as a surprise. It all depends on where you define the initiation point; Samhadana or Shalit. I very much favor Kingsindian's point that periods of calm should act as the defining separation, and that hostilities breaking that calm should be examined for cause-and-effect. Many thanks for your constructive assistance in improving the draft. I will immediately implement the changes, and then start working on the chain-of-events pertaining to the November 2006 peak in rocket attacks.Erictheenquirer (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer:
  • A bit of OR: The tunnels are dug at 4-5 meters a day, the tunnel used to capture Shalit was 300 meters long, which means they began digging it at least 2 months before the capture, therefore there must have been some plans to use it, so it's not unfeasible that IDF knew something - although probably not specific details - before the attack that kill Samhadana. Anyway, we do not need to believe IDF's statement or even to consider it a good justification for an action to report that the statement was made. Is "revenge for Samhadana" a good justification for firing rockets ? It is a statement the militants made, we report it.
  • Not really a new version, it is already quoted at Jamal Abu Samhadana's article
  • Again OR: the difference between an arrest and kidnapping is whether they have basic right, most importantly access to some form communications. We go by the common name used by the media, were Muamar family members usually refereed to as kidnapped ?
  • Which issue of Journal of Palestinian Studies ? I do not see a mention of it here or on any other related article. “WarKosign” 07:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting speculation on the tunnel. Could well be true. Question (equally speculative) is why they chose to use it then. I think we already have the answer.
  • I have no idea whether an assassination is a good idea for firing rockets which injured no-one, just like I do not know whether the abduction of one soldier (subsequently returned alive) is a good idea for airstrikes that killed over 200 people. What I can suggest (subjectively) is that the latter seems WAAAAAYYY over-the-top compared to the former. But that is, of course, also not fit for Wiki.
  • I disagree with your definition of 'kidnapping'. The entire concept is fraught with western POV. Also, do we really need to start discussing here the Israeli 'administrative detention' process affecting 500 Palestinians versus one so-called kidnapping of a soldier?
  • Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), - page 147; second highlighted section - "April 2006: Israel Declares the Hamas-Led PA a “Hostile Entity”
We seem to have run out of improvements, so I will make the agreed changes and post the sub-section. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: Thank you for pointing the exact source. Indeed the quote is correct, but it lacks background:
  • January 25 - Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006.
  • February - The ceasefire of February 2005 was officially still in place, however Khaled Mashal said "Anyone who thinks Hamas will change is wrong" and that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations. In February 13, 2006 he stated that that Hamas would stop armed struggle against Israel under certain conditions.
  • This offer actually is not new, in 2004 Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year Hudna under similar conditions and it was rejected by Israel: "Israel says any talk of Hamas moderation is a smokescreen for military preparations by a group at the forefront of suicide bombings and shooting attacks."
  • March 20 - Hamas unveiled its cabinet, consisting of 18 Hamas members and 6 independent technocrats.
  • March 25 - Abbas endorsed the cabinet
  • April - "Israel Declares the Hamas-Led PA a “Hostile Entity”"
  • May - Hamas leaders threatened a new Intifada, The IDF Resumes Ground Incursions into Gaza
As you can see, there was quite a lot missing between your "the ceasefire of February 2005 was officially still in place" and "Israel declared the Hamas-led PA a “hostile entity”". “WarKosign” 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have outlined before, when analyzing peaks of conflict, I suscribe to Kingsindian's strategy (which no-one disagreed with in Talk:Israel-Gaza Conflict at the time) of going back to the last period of calm, and analyzing forward from there as to how it was disrupted. In Main articles, he advocated going back to the previous ceasefire to start the analysis, in order to create a Background. In this case you questioned the need for a Background, but feel free to add one to the start of the article. So the last flurry of activity was in March 2006, when militants responded with rockets to the killing of a Palestinian. Since then relative calm had prevailed - relative in the sense that Israel recommenced incursions into Gaza and continued strafing the 'buffer zone' and Gaza's territorial waters, killing 8 Gazans in April and May according to OCHA.
So, based on this, and in response to your accusation, no, I don't need to fill in anything between Feb 2005 and June 2006. The place for that is the Gaza-Israel Conflict, and/or Timeline of the Gaza-Israel Conflict and/or a Background to this article (see your questioning above - if the Israeli-view now needs a background, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be a two-way street, and the Israeli aggressions in that earlier period will also be provided - your choice). Regarding ceasefires - Israel has in fact accepted (and broken) many since Feb 2005. The offer mentioned in the draft is one that was made WITHIN the period being discussed. So, indeed, I believe we are finished, and the draft can be added to the main text. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: - I see that you added the "fill-in" section without presenting it for discussion in Talk, as you have required that I do. Is the Palestinian-Israeli playing field always unlevel? Is the Israeli viewpoint somehow special or sacrosanct; not requiring discussion? Now that we have a "fill in", it is clearly once-again, incomplete. Where is the Israeli prevention of Hamas governance and its support of the minority Fatah opposition clinging to government? Where is the Embargo/Blockade? Where is the witholding of revenue? WK, if you want such a section, please attempt to retain a vague semblance of balance. I will provide it, but then I don't want to see the sub-section plundered because it is getting too bloated. I still FAR prefer a 2006 Background section and ask you to consider that before I start to balance your latest editing. Main reason: Your infill has nothing to do with the June-August conflict peak. It applies to all of 2006. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: I presented this content here, you decided that we don't need to add it and that the discussion is finished. What do you call a level playing field, when you can cherry-pick only "background" that supports your favourite POV? “WarKosign” 16:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to the same degree, I have also made my presentation already. I presume your silence on the topic means that you are OK with a bloated sub-section on peak attacks and forego a 2006 Background. Fine by me. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - Re your "infill" inset timestamped 12:50, 4 April 2015‎: I was unable to verify your text "In May and April Hamas leaders repeatedly threatened a new Intifada.[37][38]" since those two links both fail to provide anything meaningful. Please check and remedy, or remove. @All Rows4: - please note, I give an editor fair notice and time to correct; I don't just delete without resorting to [Talk]. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: Indeed the references are bad, I will find the sources I had and add them today. Thank you for giving me some time, I was away for a few days with limited access to internet. Meanwhile, I made a few corrections in your "infill" in my "infill" to better match the source you used. “WarKosign” 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: What's the source for "where is refused to be subjected to the Hamas government." ? I assume it comes from the Vanity Fair article and is supposed to be paraphrasing of Khalid Jaberi's statement, but I don't see anything similar nor do I understand what it's supposed to mean. What refused to be subjected, and what does "where" have to do with it ? “WarKosign” 13:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - You are absolutely correct. I wrote 'is' instead of 'it', and also omitted a reference. Mea culpa x2. I have fixed both. Many thanks for your constructive contributions. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT

November 2006 Rocket Fire Peak[edit]

During November, the second most intense flurry of rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israel took place.[16]

On 12 October 2006, after Hamas had refrained from rocket launches for a month, the IDF failed in an attempted assassination on a senior Hamas commander. [17] Later on the same day, IAF strikes killed 8 armed Palestinians and wounded 20. [18] In response to the Israeli assassination attempt, Hamas resumed rocket fire from Gaza, lightly injuring 4 Israelis over the next 2 weeks. In turn Israel responded on 1 November 2006 with Operation Autumn Clouds. [19]

On November 8, the IDF killed or mortally wounded 23 and injured at least 40 Palestinians, all civilians. [20] A volley of tank shells hit a built-up civilian area. Israel apologized and attributed the Beit Hanoun shelling to a technical malfunction. Israel said the shells were fired in response to the firing of qassam rockets, probably from a car, the previous day (7 November). [21] By 8 November, the 240 airstrikes in 8 days, ground clashes and destruction of land and buildings, had left 82 Palestinian dead, compared to 2 IDF members.[17]

END OF DRAFT Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: At last I had a chance to review the draft and respond:
  • Most intense flurry of rockets - in which period ? I assume you meant in 2006. I did not see this statement made explicitly in this source (btw surely there are better sources for these statistics). I can see it in the graph titled "Qassam Fire Since Disengagement to Mid June 2006", but not sure we're allowed to draw this conclusion by ourselves.
  • What's the source for Hamas refraining from launches for a month ? You only wrote JPS, and I do not see it in the JPS article you used later. On the contrary, it says "Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza into Israel also continued at a rate of around 1 rocket/day, injuring 3 Israelis between 9/1 and 10/12"
What is the purpose of these "background" sections ? This period falls under Operation Summer Rains or Operation Autumn Clouds, so it should be covered fully there. If this article is merged into a timeline article as is being discussed, we only need to write a short summary here and link to the appropriate articles. “WarKosign” 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - I would welcome your 'better sources' so that the improvements that you suggest can be made. All that I could find were Israeli statistics on annual rocket attacks, which are of as much analytical insight into specific conflict flurries of a few weeks' duration, as a jackhammer is in dissecting a mouse. If there are no more detailed (weekly or monthly) data, then I would invoke WP:COMMON in viewing the graph, because of the (potential) data deficiency.
Re 'Hamas refraining from launches for a month', the JPS repeat-citation had been cut-off from its source - my apologies. Here is the full reference - see page 150, second column, first paragraph: .[22]
Re 'background sections': It is not clear to me what you are referring to. If you mean the two 'draft' subsections, then they are a response to numerous complaints that the series - "List of Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel"-series, is unbalanced/one-sided, doesn't provide context, and does not strive to achieve neutral-POV. Those are all pretty serious deficiencies which warrant remedying. Not so?

PS: Many thanks for your support in promoting discussion rather than mindless deletion. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer:
  • Here is a more detailed report of rockets, with numbers and results for every date.
  • Indeed the source says that Hamas resumed fire after a month. It also collaborates the other article in saying that the fire by other fractions never stopped. I must be mentioned that rocket fire continued through the month, albeit at a relatively low rate. I wonder if there is a source saying when exactly Hamas stopped the fire, and why. It seems to coincide with "Israel allowed fuel imports through Nahal Oz crossing to return to normal levels, reopened the Qarni crossing to limited imports and very restricted exports, and allowed more humanitarian goods and some construction materials (for repairing Gaza’s power plant) through the Kerem Shalom and Sufa crossings". It makes sense, but we can't assume it's connected without sources.
I am referring to these two section, one that is already in the article and one that we are drafting here. I would like to include this information in the merged timeline article, but I would prefer to put each even with its date in the list and not imply causal connection unless it is given by either side ("A said that this attack was in response to that B's attack") or is given by analysts ("according to X, A did this in response to B doing that"). We also need to set an objective criteria that would decide whether an event warrants inclusion in the timeline article.“WarKosign” 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - Regretfully I am unable to agree with your strategy. And I am not the only one who believes that "Ending violent international conflicts requires understanding the causal factors that perpetuate them." - http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_et_al_PNAS_2010.pdf; If we were to 'unlink' causative chains in the case of Palestinian attacks, then we would have to trawl Wiki and remove all references (just two examples of many) in the case of the 2014 Operation Protective Edge to the kidnapped/murdered Israeli teenagers; and in the case of the 2006 Operation Summer Rains, we would have to remove all references to the abduction of Corporal Shalit. I would be equally firmly against any such removals which favor the pro-Israeli narrative. The causative links are key to a scholarly understanding of the various conflicts. To keep the 'links' just quoted, but to remove those leading to Palestinian reprisals, would be a clear case of anti-Palestinian bias. I would never want to see my signature attached to such blatant non-NPOV on Wiki. I therefore oppose your suggested format for a merged article.
I fully agree with you on the need for filter(s). The only proposals that I have seen to date are 1) Deaths and 2) Deaths and Injuries. If we start embracing events with consequences beyond those, we could end up with events leading to unhygienic water quality, or loss of agricultural capacity, disturbed sleep patterns, or hens that stop laying eggs (just kidding). Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: We are not here to end the conflict. Wikipedia's part in ending the conflict is providing correct and neutral information to anybody interested, in the hopes that it would better humankind - including putting an end to this conflict.
I did not say that we can unlink the causal chains - Duck test applies, if event A happened a day after event B and everybody (including both sides and outside observers) say that A caused B - then that's that. In some cases the relation is not so obvious, so we as editors should not be putting events together simply because we believe they are connected. We should put all the relevant(*) events in their chronological order, noting when someone notable said that they are connected. Specifically, in the case of the teenagers - Israel stated explicitly that Operation Brother's Keeper was caused by the kidnapping, so we report that Israel said so. Hamas repeatedly announced that rocket fire was in response to this and that action by IDF, so we report that Hamas said so.
(*) Death or injuries are quite obviously in. I think that violent but non-lethal events such as arrests and unsuccessful attacks by militants as well as non-violent but notable events such as elections and new statements by the leaders also belong. Accumulating psychological trauma or damage to agriculture in my opinion do not belong in the timeline, but rather in summary articles because it's impossible to attribute them to a single point in time. “WarKosign” 12:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - I believe that we are close to agreement on this issue. Your 'filters' seem to be eminently realistic and logical to me. Regarding the chains, you seem to conclude that they were submitted simply because the events occur in chronological order. I agree that such a justification would be based on a logical fallacy. Instead, they have been included because these causal chains were identified twice in the prestigious Journal of Palestinian Studies (University of California Press - "it is the oldest and most respected English journal devoted exclusively to Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict"), and also in a synthesis of a large variety of mainstream media publications by a ME analyst. The analyst tied together, for instance, the Samhadana assassination, the call for revenge, the firing of rockets and the IDF response to those launchings - not my original research, but his. For instance from USA Today: "Rockets fly after Palestinian militant faction leader killed in Israeli airstrike" - http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-08-israeli-airstrike_x.htm; plus various other media sources which have identified overlapping sub-portions of the Samhadana-Shalit-Operation Summer Rains chain [The Guardian; NYT; HRW; CBC; The Independant; etc. I have pointed out other articles in which the causal chain has also been identified, and in which the need for analysis of preceding events is demanded for good scholarship. We can add them to the citation sources if required, but I believe the three already submitted are sufficient. Need more? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are not further contributions nor objections, I will add the text of the draft to the Article. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: Once again I have to correct the version to match what we discussed here. “WarKosign” 08:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks WarKosin, your edit was entirely appropriate, except that in the process, you deleted valid text. I presume that the deletion was inadvertent, so I have reinstated it. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: Please see if now it's ok with you. I think this way it conveys the same meaning but sounds better. “WarKosign” 11:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence - "... had left 82 Palestinian dead, compared to 2 IDF members" - is somewhat awkward and lacks a source. If the source tells how the IDF members died it can be reworded to be " ... 82 Palestinian dead, while 2 IDF members were killed by ...".“WarKosign” 12:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like you version far more. Grats 'n thanks.Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source of deaths numbers is, as stated in the text, the JPS "PRELUDE TO OPERATION CAST LEAD", page 150, column 2, paragraph 3. Since you are a far better wordsmith than I am, if you want to make the data more eloquent yet retain the source meaning, be my guest. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: This new section only quotes "PRELUDE TO OPERATION CAST LEAD ISRAEL’S UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT TO THE EVE OF WAR". Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 148–149, ISSN 0377-919X. 2009, and neither there nor on page 150 I can find a mention of the two IDF casualties. It Can you please check it again ? I also see that you used JPS text directly ("240 airstrikes in 8 days; ground clashes; destruction of land and buildings"), we must paraphrase it and use only small portions from a single source each time. Thanks for the kind words, but I consider my mastery of English to be sub-par, so perhaps someone more skilled (like -sche) will be willing to help us.“WarKosign” 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - you are 100% correct; not in the JPS article. No idea of the source. Shabak does not provide data back to 2006. Remove the reference to Israeli deaths? Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erictheenquirer: You added this content, I suppose you didn't just make the 2 IDF soldiers up, so there must've been some source. If you can't find it, we have to remove the unsupported fact. “WarKosign” 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: - I will edit the text and update the citation in line with the YNet News report on the finalization of OAC. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Qassam Rockets - Background and Statistics". Zionism Israel. 2006. Retrieved 1 April m2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ a b Aaron Klein (2006). [http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36560/ "OFFICIALS: HAMAS DECIDED TO END TRUCE WEEKS AGO"]. WND. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ Amos Harel and Arnon Regular (2006). "Wanted militant tapped for post in PA Interior Min". Haaretz.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference JPS2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Laura King (2006). "Israeli Missile Kills Palestinian Fugitive". Los Angeles Times.
  6. ^ a b "Palestinians Protest Against Israeli Targeted Killing". Xinhua News Agency. 2006.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fox News was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Xinhua News Agency was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Serious Escalation in Israeli Attacks". Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. 2006.
  10. ^ a b "Al Mezan condemns the assassination of Abu Samhadana". Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. 2006.
  11. ^ a b Sharit G. Lin (2006). "Who started it? - Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East". Counterpunch.
  12. ^ "Israel captures pair in Gaza raid". BBC. 2006.
  13. ^ Rena Bivens (2006). "Competing Narratives Exposed". Variant Magazine. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
  14. ^ "Operation Summer Rains". Global Security. 2006.
  15. ^ Itim (2006). "UN: 202 Palestinians killed since operation 'Summer Rain'". Haaretz.
  16. ^ "Qassam Rockets - Background and Statistics". Zionism Israel. 2006. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  17. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference JPS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Greg Myre (2006). "8 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Raid". The New York Times.
  19. ^ "ISRAELI MILITARY OPERATIONSAGAINST GAZA, 2000–2008" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 122–138 ISSN: 0377-919X;. 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  20. ^ "Indiscriminate Fire". Human Rights Watch. 2008.
  21. ^ Peter Beaumont (12 November 2006). "How Israel put Gaza civilians in firing line". The Guardian.
  22. ^ "PRELUDE TO OPERATION CAST LEAD ISRAEL'S UNILATERAL DISENGAGEMENT TO THE EVE OF WAR" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (Spring 2009), pp. 148–149, ISSN 0377-919X. 2009.

Context[edit]

I opened a discussion on giving context to this and similar lists. Please come over and comment there. “WarKosign” 06:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This is a "List of..." type article. Such lists are intended to be just that - lists. There is no need for lengthy (and from where i sit, extremely one-sided) "context". I am being bold and removing this entire section, pending consensus here. All Rows4 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@All Rows4: Please comment on the subject in the discussion and not here. If you find the context biased, you can contribute to fixing it rather than blank an entire section. “WarKosign” 07:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@All Rows4: Your personal opinions on the classification of this article and your consequent view on what that might or might not be permitted have been noted. I have no comments because you have failed to show that they are Wiki protocols. You are making a distinct habit of breaching Wiki procedures for reaching consensus, especially on Israel-Palestine articles, and making deletes not preceded by any [Talk]. I am recording them, and 'the List' is getting quite long. Instead, there are numerous [Talk] contributions accusing this article of not providing a neutral point of view. You are invited to partake in the following of these discussions (which you have not done to date):

On then, when balance and context are added, you appear for the first time claiming "BOLD delete right". Bold indeed!! Where were you in these discussions? Or is your speciality only "deletions without [Talk]"? Certainly seems so. So, as WarKosign wrote - DISCUSS - which does not mean your personal POV about why unbalanced articles should exist because they are 'lists', and how lists should be / are constrained. Many thanks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i doid not see that discussion, and will continue it there. All Rows4 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2018[edit]

The word escalated (escalted) is misspelled under the header "June–August peak of 2006 Rocket Attacks."CalliopeMuse (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC) CalliopeMuse (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2002–2006&oldid=1205645032"