Talk:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the number of the dead Israeli civilians in the 2014 column of the "Annual Number of Attacks and Fatalities" table from 1 to 3. Three civilians have been killed so far during Operation Protective Edge. One was a Thai agricultural worker, so he probably wasn't a citizen, but he at least had a work visa, and so his might be counted as a civilian death. Sunraining (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This entry is pure pro Israel propaganda 90.244.30.32 (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Indeed the entire concept of "facts" was created by Israelis to perpetuate their propaganda. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the talk and came across the following unresolved problems:

“Why are these attacks happening?”: [Talk: Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met] which was brushed off with a “too difficult”, notwithstanding the wealth of PCHR and OCHA data.

“This article is completely biased. There are plenty of Palestinian and neutral sources you can draw from to present a balanced article. You really need to give the Palestinian rationale for these attacks”: [Talk: One-Sided], which ended with "the information isn't there" / "Yes, it is".

But what astonishes me most is the acceptance of a blatant built-in imbalance in the article. Beyond the above “sub-points, @Nishidani: – he has referred to the amazing one-sidedness of this theme. There is absolutely no attempt to provide context for the rocket attacks, as mentioned above, but the real carbuncle is the fact that absolutely no attempt is made to establisn balance, which is core to Wiki, by providing a record of the ordnance that went in the other direction. I find it astonishing that there has not been an insistence in the past that neutrality be brought to this article by providing a record of the artillery barrages, air strikes and drone attacks launched by Israel. Could someone please explain the astonishing anomaly cause by this article not being entitled “Israeli-Palestinian airborne Assaults”, with appropriate significant addition of Israeli attacks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note support for this criticism in [Talk: Propaganda] above. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, I am presuming that there is indeed no justification for the existing non-NPOV imbalance. I would therefore like to propose a change of name as provided for in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Since I am aware that not all interested editors routinely visit this Talk page, I anticipate that there might be as yet unvoiced disputes and disagreements with the proposal. I am therefore initiating a Single Page Move request under WP:RM#CM, as follows: Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel → High-Altitude Attacks between Israel and Palestine since 2005 – The current title is inherently non-NPOV, being confined to attacks on Israel.

The balance required by WP:NPOV is automatically thwarted by the constraints imposed by this title. There has been no acceptance of the need for balancing text to record the reasons for the rocket launchings (if any), plus there is no counterbalancing article entitled Israeli bombardments and aerial attacks on Palestine, and, if there were, a merge request would seem appropriate, once again so as to provide immediately contrastable WP:NPOV. The reason for starting with 2005 is multiple: First, February 2005 is the acknowledged end of the Second Intifada; it was marked by a Ceasefire agreed to by all major parties; Palestinian attacks prior to that date had an intrinsically different nature (suicide bombings); the ceasefire was relatively robust for over a year and represents a natural "break" in hostilities as evidenced by the chart. There are ample data of the (balancing) Israeli bombardments on Gaza in www.ocha.org; http://www.pchrgaza.org/; and http://www.btselem.org/, plus analyses and syntheses of attacks and fatalities in http://www.globalresearch.ca/; www.bbc.co.uk; www.vox.com; http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/; http://america.aljazeera.com/; and www.hrw.org Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting proposal, and I'd support it, not necessarily in that phrasing ('Aerial attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict' or something like that. Anything that would allow the articles to be integrated by representing both sides actions per NPOV). Either that or integrate all of this material in the I/P timeline articles.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ping Erictheenquirer Nishidani

Suggest and support

WP:UCRN. This is based on scans through searches on israel AND palestine (rocket OR missile OR bombardment OR "high altitude") and (israel OR palestine) (rocket OR missile OR bombardment OR "high altitude"). If another article needs to carry information on bombings on Palestinian occupied (meant in non military sense) locations then such an article can be linked to. GregKaye 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that a solution to this NPOV imbalance should be open to any subtlety of title wording, as long as that allows application of WP:UCS / WP:COMMON, and would not, for instance, deny the recording of a rocket barrage on Israel being resultant from prior strafing of collectors or farmers in the "buffer" zone or of a cross-border violation by military vehicles, based on (hypothetically) the reasoning that the latter were not aerial attacks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is clearly a reasonable request, although I would suggest a less cumbersome name be adopted, such as that which Greg has suggested. Flynn58 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I do not know what Palestine is mentioned in this proposal. Thanks to IDF, there aren't yet rocket attacks from the East, only from Gaza. And the title just names what is happened since 2000 till now: rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli territory. The rest is already in article's body. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The title describes the subject of the article. If the Israelis were attacking Palestine with rockets then we could have another article about that. There's nothing POV about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this proposal per
  WP:COMMONNAME: nobody calls rocket attacks from Gaza "rockets between Israel and Gaza". The attacks are clearly one-directional, there title should be as specific as possible describing all the certain facts. I would consider a rename that would add mortar shells into the name, the article describes rockets as well as mortar shell attacks. “WarKosign” 12:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support move to "Rocket Attacks between Israel and Palestine since 2005" - as per reasoning by Gregkaye above. Mbcap (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as this is the mirror image of articles like
  List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, I could be persuaded otherwise. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen. Byutiful Kampus (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Per WarKosign. Holy shit, "High-Altitude Attacks"? Thanks for the laugh. Keep your feet on the ground! Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Igorp lj: - If we change the word 'Palestine' to 'Gaza', presumably you will be OK with that?

Using (specifically) the word "Rocket" attacks is too restrictive. The IDF does not use (much of?) such attacks, instead it uses mainly more powerful 155mm Howitzer-type aerial bombardments. It also uses airstrikes, drones, gunboats and cross-border 'incursions' with military vehicles. Gaza militants, on the other hand, also use mortars; some throw stones. By restricting the type of attack that dominates the Wiki on the topic of cross-border attacks, a transparent bias is being introduced to an overall appreciation of the cross border conflicts. In other words the core Wiki principle

WP:NPOV

is being violated by the very definition of the article scope, as provided by the title. I find this situation to be totally unacceptable. Hence this proposal

@

WP:NPOV

?

Let us say that one solution is to create a similar series of articles entitled "Israeli attacks on Gaza" in which all the IDF assaults are listed. Sure, that IS a possibility, but it is a very weak one. And the reason is that, by having two separate series of articles, we deprive user readers of the very core character that Wiki tries to achieve - the ability to have at our disposal different views on a topic. Not only that, but keeping them separate deprives users of an option that has been criticized in many Talk pages on Israel/Palestine, namely cause-and-effect. "Who fired first" is currently completely obscure. Hands up who are striving to keep it that way; who wants the cherry-picking to continue; who wants to have the OCHA data on Gaza rockets highlighted, but not the 155mm IDF bombardments of Gaza?. You should "Oppose" (or have Opposed) the proposal. But is that what Wiki stands for? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you bother to actually read my post you'll notice I never once mentioned mortars! I also said that I'm quite happy for another article about Israeli attacks on Palestine. However, the current article (and title) is valid as the rocket attacks are the focus of considerable attention internationally and are therefore clearly a distinct topic. Before you get started on a rant, please try to accurately reflect what others have actually said as opposed to what your POV thinks they may have said! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:POVFORK and it would be better to unify pairs of such articles into something like List of attacks between Gaza and Israel. “WarKosign” 12:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Erictheenquirer: No, "Gaza" not helps. Again: we're talking about very specific & recognized phenomenon: rocket attacks from gaza ("-wikipedia", 2,250,000, 13,700 results, books). --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is indeed to merge ALL of the articles that are specific to Israeli attacks on Gaza, and vice versa. And rockets, mortars and stones will all be included, also small arms fire into the buffer zone, staffing of fishing boats, extra-judicial drone assassinations, air strikes, artillery bombardments and cross-border invasions. Those who only want rockets reported have a very clear agenda, and it is NOT to seek WP:NPOV. As I have mentioned repeatedly, there should be no bias. Just reporting one side remains not-NPOV, irrespective of which side it is. Regarding the "international focus on Gaza rocket attacks on Israel" that is EXACTLY the problem. It is one-eyed. And as claimed above by Necrothesp (talk · contribs) aove, it is NOT an international view, but promoted by idealogical interests and biased persuasion; a promotion by pro-Israeli quarters. When I lived in Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, there was equal attention to both directions. There is a very specific wish in this Talk section to record only the Gaza rocket attacks. I ask you to be honest in answering WHY? I also ask again, is this slant really WP:NPOV. I do not view the upholding of Wiki core principles to be subject to a vote. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate just how one-eyed a restriction to rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel is, take the very specific period from the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005 up to May 2007 when Hamas finally took over Gaza from Fatah. It was the period in which Hamas unilaterally agreed to observe the Feb 2005 ceasefire; won the 2006 PA elections; was prevented from governing by Fatah, Israel and the USA; when Gaza was subject to crippling sanctions and embargo by Israel; the escalation after the June 2006 IDF assassination of a Hamas leader; the Gaza beach killings; leading to conflict escalation and the kidnapping of Shalit, etc. One would expect the rocket attacks "raining down on Israel" from Gaza during this period of pressure on Gaza, to have far outweighed the bombardment by the IDF going in the other direction. Right?

But the UNOCHA data shows this preferred "international" focus on Gaza rocket attacks to be completely unjustified. 'The real fact that is obscured by the myopic focus only on rocket attacks from Gaza is as follows:

Source HRW: http://www.hrw.org/node/10911/section/3 - "From September 2005 through May 2007, Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 rockets into Israel. Over EXACTLY the same time period, the IDF fired 14,617 artillery shells into Gaza - shells that are an order of magnitude more destructive that the Qassam rockets.

Now explain to me again, why a focus on only the Gaza rockets is justified. "International" attention? I ask for the 6th time; is this WP:NPOV? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a consequence of keeping the current format of this article, i.e. only rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel. If that reasoning were to be upheld as a Wiki standard, then we would have separate articles on each of the following; each with its Fatalities and Injuries data; each with its own triggers and chain-of-events. Really?:

• Mortar attacks from Gaza on Israel
• Israeli strafing of fishermen within Gaza territorial waters
• Israeli unilateral creation of Buffer zone in Gaza - strafing and cross-border incursions
• Israeli extra-judicial assassinations in Gaza
• Israeli artillery bombardment of Gaza
• Gaza kidnappings of Israelis
• Israeli kidnappings of Gazans
• Israeli air-strikes on Gaza
• Gaza stone-throwing at Israel
• Gaza suicide bombings in Israel

What about multiple causes in the chain-of-events: e.g. Gaza rocket fire leading to IDF bombardment? Obscured forever in Wiki?

And, although I am quite willing to be the initiating author of all of these, what would be the natural consequence of this plethora of articles? To combine all of them EXCEPT for Gaza rocket launchings at Israel, because THAT is 'special'? Ridiculous. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a very specific wish in this Talk section to record only the Gaza rocket attacks." Since this is clearly not true, I have come to the conclusion that you can't actually be bothered to properly read anything written by any other contributor that conflicts with your very particular point of view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: Let's see what coverage we have for your list of subjects:

• Mortars from Gaza are covered in this article, despite the name
• Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Effect on the fishing industry - note the name, it's not "Blockade between Gaza and Israel"
• The buffer zone is mentioned briefly in
  Israel–Gaza barrier
  , together with many terror attacks it helped to prevent. I do not see mention of cross-border incursions in any article, if it's a widespread phenomenon with sources perhaps we should add it somewhere.
• List of Israeli assassinations
• Was there bombardment not related to a specific military operation that has an article ?
• Gilad Shalit was the only kidnapping to Gaza as far as I know, along with a few failed attempts.
• Were there kidnappings by Israel in Gaza ? Certainly there were
  International Red Cross
  .
• List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
  is a rare example of a unified article listing civilian victims on both sides.
• Palestinian stone-throwing
• List of Palestinian suicide attacks
• You missed
  terrorism by Israeli citizens
  - it's (thankfully) rare but exists.
• You can find more subjects under Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict-related lists

While there is certainly room for improvement in organization, I don't think you can say that the representation is one-sided. The subject of "Violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is way too big to be represented in a single comprehensive article, so it has to be split in some way, and this is the structure that evolved so far.“WarKosign” 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to withdraw my request for a name change to this article, not because the non-NPOV nature of the article is not a fact, but because it would become massive and unwieldy were details of all types of Gaza-Israel attacks to be listed. The request is most certainly NOT being withdrawn because it is a topic of "international" acknowledgement. Instead I propose to examine the text carefully and to provide the

WP:NPOV balance that Nishadani (talk · contribs) correctly highlights below, and to create, where necessary, articles in a similar vein that deal with 'attacks going the other way', plus to ensure that main articles are completely reflected in this one and that other sources of attacks are listed under "See Also". Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• User: Byutiful Kampus, biased, one sided pov-pushing
• 134.181.222.42

The statement I deleted was biased and not fit for an encyclopedia

UUm, Wikipedia is dedicated to the balancing of POVs, not their elimination. Please explain your successive elisions of material introduced.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

I agree that this version is better. There is too much bias here when it comes to rockets attacks, where some are writing it to look like Israel only responds (as it was here before it was changed) and also don't mention the context (such as the incursions, buffer zone and attacks on fishermen in Gaza, which continue until this day). --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the deleted bit. It's well-sourced, and appropriately weighted, given how we note the Palestinian side is also accused of war crimes, immediately above it. Without it, it seems like they're criminals and Israel is the police. In reality, both sides are up to nasty shit, one is just better equipped for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert

• 2nd revert

No one can miss the ARBPIA 1r sanction. It's on the article talk page. Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article from top to bottom. It had no mention of context, background, for one party to the I/P dispute. There is an

WP:NPOV

problem. I'm all for lists. But they require a preface that sets out both points of view, and the material I added attempts to provide some of this.

As to statistical clashes. There is not one article with statistical details that doesn't meet my worried eye. The various tables we have are skewed by different premises and timeframes. The solution is to add more sources, not to eliminate existing ones.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani. In B'Tselem and other websites they have different civilians-militants numbers (much higher than 850 militants). And the "39 Israeli civilians and 87 IDF soldiers" is not about the rockets and refers to those killed inside Gaza only, and doesn't include those killed within the green line, so is it relevant at all here? Also, "All of these included the same sort of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures..." is POV and it's best to have here the obvious, what the sources say, that both sides were criticized by different organizations. Yuvn86 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the numerous criticisms of this article as being extremely un-NPOV, I took the first step to restoring balance by adding a [Background] section to provide the historical context for the rocket attacks from Gaza. I apologise up-front for the weakness of the Israeli perspective, but I was unable to find much that outlined an Israeli view of the reasons for the rocket attacks. Most works are heavily non-NPOV, referring to 'terrorists'; 'rockets raining down'; 'war crimes' etc, with very little encyclopaedic content. Perhaps the pro-Israeli advocates can assist. I will continue by adding balancing content to the detailed entries. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer and Plot Spoiler: Since we agree that this section was not NPOV enough, let's draft it here. I can point to two major problems I see in the (now removed) version:

• The "key events" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are completely cherry-picked - only events that are supposed to justify the rocket attacks appear.
• The assertion that the embargo/blockade on Gaza in 2006 "forms the background to rocket attacks" contradicts the fact that Qassam rocket were introduced in 2001 and quotes 1 extremely biased and 2 irrelevant sources.“WarKosign” 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any consensus that, as you phrased it, "this section was not NPOV enough". What on earth does that mean? Please explain.

When I read the Talk, I see reasoning not to rename it (about 50:50), but in addition, elsewhere, there are lots of complaints about non-NPOV in other Talk sections, so the NPOV accusation stands. I will challenge the reasoning of Plotspoiler's deletion. He is establishing a fine record for unsubstantiated deletions based on one-liner accusations laden with his own POV. Regarding your claim that my edit was laden with cherry-picked key events for the decision by Palestini9an militants to engage in rocket fire on Israel, please justify: Note - it was intended to explain their willingness to undertake rocket attacks, not to provide a balanced summary of 100+ years of history. If you can think of other historical reasons for them to engage in rocket fire, you are welcome to add them. Erictheenquirer (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: You wrote "I apologise up-front for the weakness of the Israeli perspective", which I understand as admitting that it's not balanced enough. Plot Spoiler wrote in their comment "POV disaster". I also think that it requires much work before it can be a part of a proper balanced article. So far it sounds mostly like justification to the rockets attacks given in wikipedia voice.

If you whish to give the reasons for the rocket attacks, let's find sources of the militants explaining their actions, we don't need to

WP:WikiVoice "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them". It can be something in the spirit of Israeli's perspective that you wrote. Of course some comments by neutral analysts are also welcome. “WarKosign” 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please reply to earlier questions before starting new ones. I am awaiting your evidence for concluding a) The article entirely focussed on Palestinian attacks is not grossly skewed; b) that in providing background reasons for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, specifically to explain the source of the Palestinian discord, it is not necessary to give a full and balanced account, only the major sources of THEIR antipathy. I will wait a short while longer. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: a) The article describes a certain type of attack. It is not skewed as long as there are other articles describing different events in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

b) The article should report what the people firing the rockets say their reasons are. It should also report how Israel sees these attacks. It should also report how scholars or other notable people see it. It should not cherry-pick through historical background, selecting only the facts that apparently justify the rocket attacks as legitimate reaction to oppression and occupation - just like we should not cherry-pick only the facts that show the rockets as yet another vector of attack by terror groups determined to destroy Israel. Both POVs exist and we should report notable people expressing them, not express our own views. “WarKosign” 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: - in response to your post of 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC): Your conclusion that my contribution of the Israeli view as to the reason for the rocket attacks "is not balanced enough", is utterly without foundation. I clearly wrote in [Talk] above that I was unable to find succinct non-POV responses from Israeli sources. That gives you absolutely no basis for supporting the deletion of the Background. Instead, and also as I noted previously, I welcomed contributions from editors of your persuasion to provide more scholarly reasons than the standard "terrorist"; "destruction of Israel" rants. As we shall come to see when NPOV is established regarding specific peaks in rocket launchings, most of these were triggered by prior Israeli actions, so those POV rants just mentioned are clearly untrue; they just don't stand up to historical facts. I leave it up to you to find those scholarly Israeli analyses I failed. That is not non-NPOV. Please apply proper logic and reasoning. I find it very illustrative that you critique me for not finding Israeli sources and providing them in [Talk] (your protocol also), yet at the same time fail to provide them yourself. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV.“WarKosign” 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@WarKosign: - I am gratified that you no longer view the section on the Israeli point of view as non-NPOV. Note that my version of the Israeli view contains a string of unsubstantiated POVs by Israeli politicians. I find it ironic that you approve. Or maybe not. I intend to improve it. I am tired of Netanyahu's word being taken to be "the truth". Rockets did NOT rain down on Israel in the months after September 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza. In fact the period between February 2005 and June 2006 was the quietest since 2000. Check the graph above. Netanyahu lied. You approve. But let us wait for the detail to appear; then we can rewrite the Background section. I am not overwhelmed that a piece that is clearly background appears under "Views". That obviously needs to be corrected. But I will not revert now, and rather wait for the detail to emerge. Fair enough? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

impartial tone. Pairing it with a similar paragraph describing the views of those supporting/performing the rocket fire will achieve an NPOV section. It's not for you or me to decide who lied and who told the truth, if there are notable sources that say that we can report it as well. “WarKosign” 10:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@WarKosign: Fair enough. In the final version of [Background] I will make sure that his statement is reflected as a claim, and will strive to find sources to show that his claim was a lie. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SOAP territory here, it doesn't really matter what either of us thinks. “WarKosign” 10:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@WarKosign:That is purely a function of your fixed focus only on rockets. There was a dribble of rockets during the period that I mentioned after Israel's September 2005 withdrawal. Hamas fired none. Take a look again at the injury levels on the graph. It is undeniably a quiet period. Sorry. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: You seem to believe that there is some amount of rocket attacks that can be justified, and tried to do that in the section you wanted to add. I personally can't disagree more, but it's irrelevant. We (as WP editors) don't justify or condemn the rockets, we report what the people involved (mostly those firing and being fired upon) have to say or do about the rockets. “WarKosign” 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: - if you want to PROVE differently, it is your turn to step up to the plate with facts, and show the DETAILED development of rocket fire statistics between September 2005 and past early June 2006 to the end of Operation Summer Rains (preferably weekly figures, but monthly might do). Please don't waste your time and mine with the non-analytical lumped annual data so beloved by Shabak and the IDF. That would be like trying to dismantle a watch using a jack-hammer. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a PROOF that the attacks are unacceptable, read the views section. These attacks are condemned nearly universally - by Mahmoud Abbas, UN, USA, EU. Only the terror organizations who fire the rockets and some of the Palestinian public support these attacks on civilians. It is your right to support terror, but I don't think it's something to be proud of. “WarKosign” 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, WarKosign. Instead of the subjective opinions of victims, we must look more at how Shabak, the IDF, JPost, OCHA, HRW, PCHR, the Guardian, Mondoweiss, Vox, Global Security and other political, military and current affairs analysts interpret the raw data. If you are correct, we should see the articles related to the 1948/1949 Nakba and the 1982 war in Lebanon replete with the views of the victims. Instead these have been religiously exorcized from Wiki. How do you explain the difference/double standards? Do we need to correct this? I am moving onto the analytical detail of the article now. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that we should include personal opinion of every individual in Israel affected by these attacks, it would include millions of people. We need the position of the legally elected representatives of the people ("a string of unsubstantiated POVs by Israeli politicians"). “WarKosign” 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current text [4th Paragraph]: “Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, a Salafi group in the Gaza Strip, emphasized in explaining its rocket attacks on Sderot in 2012 that "Jihad for the sake of Allah against the criminal Jews is an obligation that we draw closer to Allah whenever we find a way to that, in any place, by what Allah facilitates to us from the reasons of power and repelling".[184][185]”

Observations: Citation [184] is a (dead link). On trying to fix this I realised it was a video. Are videos permitted? Anyway, I failed to fix it – all I got were quotes from the Quran. Citation [185] is far more serious. The citation does indeed provide the specific reasons for the launchings, but these are different from those quoted in the text. That is fraudulent editing, because it substitutes some text later in the article as though that other text was the reason given for the launchings. Not pretty!! Here is my substitute draft:

“Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, a Salafi group in the Gaza Strip, emphasized in explaining its rocket attacks on Sderot in 2012 that the reasons it fired the rockets were “ a military ceremony held at the Cave of the Patriarchs, the continued “Judaization” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the persecution of Salafi activists in Gaza”.^[1]

Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Current text: "Attacks began in 2001. Since then, nearly 4,800 rockets have hit southern Israel, just over 4,000 of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. The range of the rockets has increased over time. The original Qassam rocket has a range of about 10 km (6.2 mi) but more advanced rockets, including versions of the old Soviet Grad or Katyusha have hit Israeli targets 40 km (25 mi) from Gaza.[34]"

Commentary: In the BBC citation there is no evidence whatsoever for the first sentence. Nonetheless, it would indeed be valuable to know how many rockets were fired during 2005, before and after the Israeli withdrawal in September that year.

Current Text: "Some analysts see the attacks as a shift away from reliance on suicide bombing, which was previously Hamas's main method of attacking Israel, and an adoption of the rocket tactics used by Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.[35]"

Commentary: The Fox News citation does not use the adjective "Militant" for Hezbollah. This was inserted by an editor. Suggest deletion. In anticipation, whether Hezbollah is a 'terrorist', a 'militant', a 'national' or a 'liberation' group or any other adjective, should be discussed elsewhere.Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overview [Sub-section: Participating groups] First paragraph: Hamas has been the de facto governing authority in the Gaza Strip only since June 2007. This article spans 2001 to 2015. Needs editing, since the current text implies that Hamas was in control of everything in Gaza over the entire period. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Second paragraph: This is a cherry-picked mess, especially once the entire YNet article is read. The final sentence is off-topic. Provide balance or delete. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After no objections, made changes to [Overview] text to properly reflect the cited source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2001-2006

One of the key aspects of the period 2001-2006 was the end of the 2nd Intifada. Where is it? Another was the signing of a ceasefire in February 2005 with Hamas unilaterally agreeing to abide. Where is it? A third and perhaps most important was that Hamas refrained from launching rockets 100% until the Gaza Beach killings in early June. Where is it? Is the excuse that they had nothing to do with rocket fire but that Sderot psychology issues did? Some improved sense of reality required, methinks. This section is appalling for its bias. The worst I have seen in all my time here. I suspect that the main page is also an insipid list, barely informative of the give and take in tensions, aggression and action.

WarKosign When I create the article on Israeli Aggressions against Gaza that you have invited, in order to balance this non-NPOV article - goods embargo, artillery bombardments, fisherman strafing, dictating by Israel of a no-go zone within Gaza, restriction of border movements, dictating who may enter Gaza, cross-border small arms fire into Gaza, cross-border violations by military vehicle incursions, drone assassinations, arrests without trial, IAF air-strikes, etc., you can be sure that cease-fire agreements and violations will also be addressed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is 8 June 2006? You know, the rocket fire from Gaza after the IDF resumed extra-judicial killings by assassinating Jamal Abu Samhadana, and which was followed by the killing of the Ghalia family in a Gaza beach, which led to ..... etc.? I am now going to check

This reliable source (unlike the unreliable opinion you are citing from Counter punch) Says rockets were fired on June 8th, unrelated to the killing of Samhadana - http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/5.htm . You are POV-pushing on multiple articles subject to severe editing restrictions, this will have consequences. All Rows4 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@All Rows4: I challenge you to show me support for your claim "unrelated to the killing of Samhadana" in the HRW citation that you provided. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, where does it even mention Samhadana? Are you aware of the concept "Logical Falacies", especially the utter weakness of an

Argument from Silence? And based on your flawed logic, you choose to threatened me for the third time? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Erictheenquirer: In your last edit you wrote about abduction of two Palestinians a day before abduction of Shalit. I think we discussed it on some other page before, but I can't find any mention of it in any of the sources. Can you please point to it ? “WarKosign” 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06: "June-August peak of 2006 Rocket Attacks". I believe that it was a compromise to a long discussion about why Galit might have been kidnapped instead of 'captured' (the verb used in the JPS), versus why the Palestinians were 'arrests' and not also kidnappings or 'administrative detentions', which would have had to have opened up the whole can of worms about the legality of such detentions under the Geneva Conventions, etc., and how the IDF was authorized (or not - with attendant implications) to make 'arrests' in a foreign country. Months would have passed, adding very little extra value, compared to just using 'abductions' in both cases. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Erictheenquirer: I'm not disputing the word choice at the moment, I would like to see a source for the fact of the abduction/arrest/kidnapping. “WarKosign” 17:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: - Did you check the Journal of Palestinian Studies citation?. I found the 'chain-of-events' link to Shalit's capture on page 149. In the Lin source, I found reference to his "kidnapping" (Lin's quotation marks). So as to forestall low-added-value debate, I will add additional citations. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erictheenquirer: Thanks, now it's clear who the two people were and why they were arrested. “WarKosign” 07:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Shalit in JPS page 149 and Lin, but nothing about Muamars or any other Palestinian civilians the previous day. However, with a wikilink to Muamar family detention incident I think it's fine. We can always copy some references from there if someone is picky. “WarKosign” 07:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Yet again, thanks for the positive critiques and participation in attempting to find a

WP:NPOV way to represent these complicated, often interlinked, and highly politicized events. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

There needs to be some discussion on the validity of the last paragraph of the overview. The debate is to figure out if sources like the BBC and Haaretz constitute sources and if there is bias in stating that Israel attacks civilian areas indiscriminately. There is a bit of an edit war brewing about this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel&oldid=659583730

Iwant2write (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That BBC is used for ten other claims in this article, and Haaretz is used for twenty-two, suggests they're alright here, notwithstanding their being the most established news organizations in the UK and Israel.

Citing what they report about Israel is no different from citing what they report about Palestine. Omitting the info is biased, as we're left with just one side looking like the bad guys, contrary to the reported reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph makes a sweeping statement ("All of these included the same sort of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures they were purportedly intended to punish").

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

. None of the provided sources supports this statement:

• Mezan report is a dead link, but the reference gives its title as "A Report on Human Rights Violations Perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation Forces in Rafah From 18 to 24 May" meaning that whatever it says refers to a very specific period.
• Haaretz says that Israeli High Court started hearing a petition.
• BBC is a collection of quotes, not one of them mentions war crimes or violations
• Reuters says "U.N. Security Council urges end of Gaza violence"
• Second Haaretz source says "IDF downplays action against officers"
• OHCHR report expresses "concern" about "possible violations" in November 2012
• middleeastmonitor reports that one specific organization (Euro-mid Observer) expressed "great concern" about a specific practice in the 2014 war

These sources are nowhere near enough to back up such a statement, especially not presented in wikipedia voice as an objective fact. One could write "<list of organizations> expressed concern that in some of these conflicts there may have been violations of human rights", followed by a long list of relevant citations from these organizations. “WarKosign” 06:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a more sensible objection.

• The Mezan report is indeed dead, and should be replaced. Summarized here and at
  Operation Rainbow#Human rights violations
  . Only refers to a specific period in Rainbow, because it was meant for that operation. These are in chronological order.
• Haaretz also says "According to Adalah, the two operations constituted a violation of humanitarian laws as well as the Geneva Convention of 1949. They claim that the IDF also violated the Hague Convention of 1907 and international law." Also, as fact, "Dozens of Palestinians - 44 of them children - were killed in the two operations, and 258 houses were destroyed." The operations are Rainbow and Days of Penintence.
• The BBC reactions include "These massacres of children, women and civilians are unjustified and incomprehensible and unexpected. Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories have gone too far" (Arab League Secretary), "Israel has a right to defend itself, but not at the price of the lives of the innocent" (EU External Relations Commissioner) and "The UN Security Council must stop these massacres and punish Israel for its repeated crimes" (Syrian Foreign Ministry). These, and others, don't specifically say "war crime", but the condemnation as such is clear.
• Reuters quotes Ban Ki-moon, "I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children".
• The second Haaretz is admittedly weak. Not sure what I was thinking there. There are likely replacements in
  Operation Cast Lead#Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel
  .
• "OHCHR's findings raise a number of concerns with regard to the IDF‟s respect for the basic rules on the conduct of hostilities, including distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack." The specific condemnations are too varied and numerous to summarize here, but are clearly there.
• MiddleEastMonitor quotes Euro-mid Observer, "Holding civilians accountable for an act they did not commit amounts to collective punishment, which is a war crime under International law." That's explicit, and that Israel did such a thing is documented.

All in all, especially combined with the Wikilinked operation articles, it's clear that each retaliation killed civilians and destroyed homes indiscriminately, did so to a greater extent than the Palestinian attacks, were purportedly intended to punish the same, and were condemned as war crimes (whether the charges stuck in court doesn't matter). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I second what WarKosign is saying. As such I will only add that the BBC be treated with caution. It is not hard to find claims that they have a history of being biased and omitting details.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/04/27/bbc-conveniently-fails-to-report-on-rocket-attack-from-gaza-strip/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict

The real issue here is that it is not hard to find a news article from even the most reputable sources to corroborate an opinion. As such I suggest the following solution(s):

• Move the content to the controversies/ dissent section and use neutral language (plenty of allegedlies and reportadlies)

Or

• No longer consider news sources as valid in particular cases

Neither of these are perfect but do keep in mind that this is a type of page that lends itself to a narrow perspective due to its content. There are many anti-israel pages like this so it is not surprising that there would be a Pro-Israel page like this.

Iwant2write (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want any pro or anti-Israel articles. Just ones which disinterestedly reflect the sources. I'd have no problem moving the Israel war crime allegations from the lead to a dedicated section, if the same is done for Palestinian war crime allegations. One of the sources we use for those in the lead (Human Rights Watch) also accuses Israel. There's no need to pick a side; fine to call both spades spades. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SYN. If you want to include this statement, you need a source (preferably several) that supports this statement explicitly, and even then -a claim so controversial has to be attributed to whomever is making it. “WarKosign” 03:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I can understand the case for calling it synthesis, as is. Not that I don't argue it, but I understand. I don't understand how the same would apply to eight exact quotes from eight reliable sources, though. Do you suggest each operation would need its own sentence and attribution? Seems wordy.

Also not sure what's so "Seriously?" about the Arab League or Syrian Foreign Ministry. Sure, they're not exactly friendly to Israel, but couldn't you say that about anyone who accuses it of war crimes? That sort of thing is inherently adversarial. Doesn't make it inherently unreliable.

I'll take a look for an all-encompasssing quote that says something to the same effect, but I'm getting the feeling that'll be shot down, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it sit better with either (or both) of you to omit the war crimes part? Simply note that each response killed far more civilians and wrecked far more buildings than the crimes they were purportedly punishing did? That much, I think, we agree is accurate. We'll probably disagree that it's leadworthily significant, though. I think it's a key component of the "Why?" in the situation, and this is currently discussed in the Motives section. Lead should summarize the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you had a statement regarding war crime in each of the 8 operations, the conclusion that "war crimes were committed during all of these operations" would be your own. A completely reasonable conclusion, yet

original research

and therefore not allowed.

Arab league and Syrian Foreight Ministry are "not exactly friendly" to Israel, so their condemnation may be less than 100% genuine. Even condemnation coming from an organization not known for its inherent hostility to Israel can't be stated in

relevant

) , but you can't simply report Y as a fact unless it's universally accepted to be so.

Do you have a source saying that any of the operations' goals was punishing crimes ? Israel usually announced that the goal of an operation is to prevent further attacks and to weaken the militants, not to "punish the crimes".“WarKosign” 05:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion wasn't that war crimes were committed in all, it said they all included indiscriminate attacks on civilian people and structures. That's clear as day. These were "likewise condemned as" war crimes. That's a sourced allegation in all cases, but a disputed one. To say that war crimes were indeed committed would be synthesis, yes. Not trying for that.

What you say about Israel's enemies also applies to Israel's friends. Liking or disliking something creates a bias about it, real or perceived, intentional or not. A truly neutral observer will be the most genuine reporter, yet, because of how humans work, truly neutral observers don't exist. We have to work with what he have, on both sides of the fence.

Here is a New Yorker piece, saying "What Israel is doing in Gaza now is collective punishment. It is punishment for Gaza’s refusal to be a docile ghetto. It is punishment for the gall of Palestinians in unifying, and of Hamas and other factions in responding to Israel’s siege and its provocations with resistance, armed or otherwise, after Israel repeatedly reacted to unarmed protest with crushing force."

As the Wikilink and a quick Google show, that's not a fringe view or only that one time. From the same piece, "The pretexts change: they elected Hamas; they refused to be docile; they refused to recognize Israel; they fired rockets; they built tunnels to circumvent the siege; and on and on."

The stated intention is along the lines of prevention and weakening, and collective punishment is the means to that end. There are ways to prevent attacks and weaken resistance besides punitive violence. All eight operations predominantly avoided these, so their tactical intention is clear, and not contradicted by their strategic goal. Something like how saying "I intend to buy ice cream" includes "I intend to go to the store" more than it precludes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: The statement added to the article mentioned war crimes as well as indiscriminate attacks, so to be kept it had to have proper sources. The New Yorker piece presents a view of a single researcher who used to be an advisor for Palestinian officials, hardly an objective outsider. I have no doubt that you can find a long list of impressive names that support this view, there are however many researchers that hold the opposite opinion, both opinions can be reported, neither can be stated as an objective fact in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely didn't mean to imply The New Yorker was an impressive name. Just near the top of a quick "collective punishment" Google. The New York Times is the distinguished one.

More importantly, what do you think about omitting the war crimes part, and just noting the recurringly disproportionate response? Nevermind whether it was punishment or prevention. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: This is a case of Confirmation bias. You are finding sources supporting collective punishment because this is what you are looking for. Try looking for "Israel is justified", you'll find opinions like this.

My opinion is not relevant to editing wikipedia, here we go by sources and policies. If you are interested, in my opinion Israel's response is absolutely proportional. As long as Hamas continues firing, Israel government's duty towards its population is to stop the attacks. Similarly, it is Hamas's duty to protect Gaza population, and it could do it at any moment by ceasing the fire or at least by not launching rockets from close proximity to civilians. Gazans still support rocket attacks on Israel however, so apparently they are happy with the way Hamas protected them, who am I to tell them otherwise?“WarKosign” 10:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for "collective punishment" because you asked if I had a source to that effect. "Israel is justified" gets plenty of good stuff, too. I'm not saying they aren't justified, just that they're trying to punish.

Justification is a tricky thing, and an endless debate. Numbers of deaths, injuries and dollars in damage is just cold, neutral math. Israel has a disproportionately large share of those, in each round. I didn't mean they were morally or strategically overreacting.

Sources and policies matter, and so does editorial judgment. Your opinion on the conflict isn't relevant, but your opinion on how (or if) to work this numerical imbalance into the lead matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We report the number as they are available (and since they are conflicting reports on percent of militants among casualties we report all the versions), and we report different views on the casualties. I doesn't matter which numbers we consider correct or which views we are more inclined to agree with. “WarKosign” 12:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and in each of the eight operations, the civilian numbers, varied as they are, are always higher than in the rocket attacks that triggered them. So is it safe to note this in the lead, in place of the old version, minus mention of war crimes or intent? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it falls under

WP:CALC (allowed). Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. “WarKosign” 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps. I think it's routine math, but outside opinions never hurt. Mainly curious as to what sort of wording you'd be least likely to revert. You've been active on this article for a while, and will probably be here longer than I or the editor assistors. Makes sense for me to leave a version you don't hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

dispute resolution.“WarKosign” 10:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Iwant2write, every media gets criticized, not at least in this conflict. You could easily find pro-Palestinians criticizing BBC, just as the ones by pro-Israelis. Here is one just recently by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: BBC hands airwaves over to Israel's minister for war and Deconstructing the BBC – Radio 4 interview with Israeli defence minister. Does this really say something about "treating BBC with caution"? No, BBC is a very respectable source, no matter if both sides complain sometimes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is be careful with news sources as they are prone to bias and hearsay. I suggest you use journals. Google scholar appears to work for this, it even provides citation info.

An example: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=rockets+gaza&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

On another note I suggest we create a causes section rather than a controversy section and subdivide it into the two main views. This may help resolve the issue and perhaps set a more sustainable precedent. Thoughts? Iwant2write (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it'd have the potential to be extremely controversial. Right off the bat, which two views are the "main" ones, and what good does looking at it like a dichotomy do? This conflict is probably the longest and most complicated one Wikipedia covers. Since the beginning, it's been a world issue as much as a local one. When one cause dies down, another flares up. Sometimes the old ideas come back, but tweaked for the new generation. In amongst the varied rational decisions, there's also pure madness.

That said, it might be worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a corresponding article the other direction.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like

any of these ?“WarKosign” 06:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219122503/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6rs26JRbqL-VgDfyw0EzwJXmKygD96CO10O0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6rs26JRbqL-VgDfyw0EzwJXmKygD96CO10O0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417043108/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?hp to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?hp

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.

• 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.—

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel&diff=763081450&oldid=762969973 This editor has evidently gamed ARBPIA3 (see contribs-All sandbox games) and should be reverted on sight. Obvious sock In any case the summary gives a motivation that, checking the sources given there, is

The soldiers killed inside the Gaza Strip likewise were not killed by a 'rocket attack' on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by rockets fired from Gaza with the intent to kill/injure/terrorise Israelis, wherever they happen to be. Similarly, 11 Palestinians killed by the same rockets are equally notable, even though they were (probably) not the intended targets of the attacks. It would be more correct to rename this article "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israelis", but I prefer simplicity of the current title. "Attack on Israel" is not necessarily "attack inside internationally recognized borders of Israel", but also "attack on interests or citizens of Israel". “WarKosign” 15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Those soldiers killed in war while fighting inside the Gaza Strip are not properly to be considered as targets of some Gaza Hamas campaign to kill Israelis over the border. The 2/3 soldiers killed by rockets inside that area were not killed by 'rocket attacks on Israel'. Palestinians again are not targeted by Gazan rockets: for all we know, some may have been killed as militants firing defective rockets. Trying to fudge the numbers upwards is POV pushing.

I'm not fudging the numbers, I'm correcting your POV push. Read the source carefully: "... were killed in Israel by Palestinian rocket and mortar fire. In addition, five soldiers were killed, three in Israel and two in the Gaza Strip." "Palestinian rocket fire also killed at least 11 Palestinians (eight of them minors)." Do you have reasons to believe the 8 minors were militants ? “WarKosign” 13:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has evidently gamed ARBPIA3 (see contribs-All sandbox games) and should be reverted on sight. Obvious sock In any case the summary gives a motivation that, checking the sources given there, is

The soldiers killed inside the Gaza Strip likewise were not killed by a 'rocket attack' on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue would be

WP:AN/I some admin claimed that its OK to do 500 edits in sandbox though there were a minority.--Shrike (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Commonsense is required, Shrike. Firstly, there is not a shadow of doubt that someone who suddenly enters, dabbles a couple of hundred times making tiny adjustments to a sandbox to meet a 500 edit rule and then jumping into the I/P articles is in bad faith and gaming the system. Secondly, the editor falsified the last cite from 2006 which does not mention white phosphorus. Thirdly, the 6 articles cited were in good part overlap, saying little or nothing. Three articles were sufficient. The editor is wasting our time. Serious editors should not haggle over the obvious, which is one reason why I and WarKoSign never really descend to hairsplitting despite fundamental differences. To check that bad edit and discover its flaws took 20 minutes, though the

WP:Undue) but I don't fuss about that. Yesterday I simply corrected the citational form, which I don't regard as an 'edit' or alteration. Today I have fixed the falsification. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nishidani, why did you replace "according to the militants" with "said" ? "Said" sounds like a

weasel word, we know who made this statement and there is no reason to hide it. “WarKosign” 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There's an unnecessary (additional) space between the second and the third paragraph--Yschilov (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You owe the page an explanation of your revert because the edit summary nostensibly justifying it is subjective, if not, policy-wise, empty.

• User:Debresser Edit summary,'Not relevant in the way it is cited. Also, information about only 4 years is not representative.' at Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

This is both meaningless in policy terms (what is meant by 'not relevant in the way it is cited'?, and contradicts the practice of the lead which has several statements that have a restricted time period. E.g.

’Another poll conducted in September 2014 found that 80% of Palestinians support firing rockets against Israel if it does not allow unfettered access to Gaza,’

’In 2012, Jerusalem and Israel's commercial center Tel Aviv were targeted with locally made "M-75" and Iranian Fajr-5 rockets, respectively,[15] and in July 2014, the northern city of Haifa was targeted for the first time.

’prior to the 2008–2009 Gaza War, were consistently supported by most Palestinians (8 years):Please tell the page why 'it is not relevant in the way nit was cited, and why, instead of moving it down somewhere on the page, since it is unchallengeably related to rocket attacks on article, why you erased it. Are you saying that shouldn't be anywhere on the page?Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who started this thread already opened an Rfc below, so I commented there. In any case I reject the statement that I owe an explanation. My editsummary was clear enough, and only Nishidani's eternal POV blinds him from seeing it. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following material relevant to the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel article?

Between June 2004 and the end of 2007, 12 Israelis were killed by rockets and mortar fire from Gaza, and over 1,100 Gazan Palestinians died from Israeli strikes.^[1]

Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The connection is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, of course it is somewhat relevant, No, it should not be included here. It's cherry-picking. As Debresser wrote in the revert comment, the information refers only to 4 specific years out of 16. It does not distinguish between dead civilians and militants. Please follow
  WP:BRD and make an attempt to discuss the changes that you like to introduce before staring an RFC. “WarKosign” 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you please explain why it is cherry-picking? The pages you edit with me are replete with statistics like this. As to your other remarks, you are asking a valid scholarly source to finesse information along lines you would prefer. We don't do that. We add, bit by bit, the information available as it comes to hand. It is immaterial if those 12 or 1,000 killed were civilians or soldiers. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You had to open an Rfc about this? Before even allowing me to respond in the section above? The problems of this sentence are 1. that it relates to a very limited period of time 2. it is meant to promote a certain POV by presenting raw data that are not connected causally in a direct way, a bit like comparing apples and pears 3. the place of the sentence is wrong, since the first part of it relates to the sentence above it, but the second to the sentence following it. This last point is what I meant when I said that there is something wrong with "the way it is cited". Debresser (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 4 years is not a limited period of time. (b) Statistics are given, and you say their use is to promote a POV. The whole page is edited to promote a POV that Israel is 'under constant attack'.Read it. Wiki editing is a science. (c) If the place of the sentence is wrong, (which in my view it isn't) then a serious editor would find the correct place in his view. (d) eliding this statistic from a page where, somewhere, it must be cited, is censoring valid information with no policy ground given, as in the comments above.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (a) and (b) we obviously disagree. Regarding (c) please review

WP:TE which says something about editors who demand other editors do their work for them. In this case the best solution would be to split it, and I didn't want to do that without input from other editors. Regarding (d) please cut the Wikidrama. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 13 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122000000/http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html to http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200911915455957756.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013092026/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terror_07e.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terror_07e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001163523/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1235410720483 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1235410720483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105054434/http://www.oref.org.il/sip_storage/FILES/9/1309.pdf to http://www.oref.org.il/sip_storage/FILES/9/1309.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135621/http://mz11.mediazone.co.il/mediazone/34/2166%210.wmv to http://mz11.mediazone.co.il/mediazone/34/2166%210.wmv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115162200/http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291954 to http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291954
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380747715&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001163124/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1230456538695 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1230456538695
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224113742/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424908523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424908523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122154137/http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/13/1002206/israeli-schools-reopen-as-rocket-fire-declines to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/13/1002206/israeli-schools-reopen-as-rocket-fire-declines
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/449431/president-bushs-visionary-hero.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027040955/http://www.pcpo.ps/polls/poll176.htm to http://www.pcpo.ps/polls/poll176.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016045307/http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 to http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197

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.

• 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) 02:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307234534/http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27ejoint.html to http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27ejoint.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498754886&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307234528/http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2004/p13epressrelease.html to http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2004/p13epressrelease.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307234539/http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/p21ejoint.html to http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/p21ejoint.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414193851/http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/qassams.php to http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/qassams.php

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.

• 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) 01:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two subpages aren’t under 30/500. However, there hasn’t been a vandalism issue or other issues, and IP editors have been making good faith contributions. Thoughts? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30/500 or any other limitation on editing is not needed until it is needed. “WarKosign” 10:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing two related issues. The two subpages, like all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, are subject to

WP:ECP, which is a technical means of enforcing that ArbCom decision. (The "undo" button is another means of enforcing it.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just modified 6 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316215716/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056490.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056490.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/184282/rocket-from-gaza-hits-s-israel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724171718/http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/history.php to http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824131146/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200501/ai_n8608427/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129112323/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/27/content_10723544.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/27/content_10723544.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610034006/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-03/01/c_13193064.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-03/01/c_13193064.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613143811/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/rocket_threat_e.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/rocket_threat_e.pdf

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.

• 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) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

these are shocking facts. Terrible to see what happened und still happen in Israel. But i feel kind of manipulated with all these photos of children as victims. This really has nothing to do with a wiki text. It doesnt give facts, but only emotions. In my opinion, these images should be removed. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:8888:7CF6:B079:C2C4:1EC8:7B67 (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This NPR story at least acknowledges that some rockets fired from Gaza fell short and landed within Gaza. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995875422/28-reported-dead-in-gaza-from-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-rockets-kill-2-in-israel

Sorry, I forgot to sign. Socialresearch (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source originates from B'Tselem, an organization widely known for its extreme anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian bias. Not only is quoting it in an any article against Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources, but quoting it in an article regarding Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis is nothing short of lunacy. As per Wikipedia's mission to be reliable, unbiased and truth-conforming, I request that the source used would be replaced with a more neutral source with no heavy political bias. 2.55.140.118 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular claim in the article attributed to B'Tselem that you dispute? “WarKosign” 11:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are incredibly low, as expected from a biased source trying to downplay the effects of Palestinian terror. 2.55.156.87 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

reliable source that provides different numbers? “WarKosign” 15:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This article has a heavy bias in which the defenders(Palestinians) are being worded as the offender during a conflict. It needs to be made clear that Palestinians are merely defending their native lands, while violent immigrants from Europe and Eurasia are occupying ane stealing their ancestoral lands. 27.55.95.26 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RGW sums up your "arguments". This article describes Palestinian tеrrоrism against Israel, not the historical status of Palestine. 212.3.150.201 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This contrib by @Cloud200, referring to the Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion, wrongly claims that it was definitely Hamas behind it. Surely this must be reverted while this is not yet verified? Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the word "definitely", the wording reflects reporting by Guardian. Feel free to change to more cautious wording but exactly the same source and similar wording is used in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion article. Cloud200 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian did not report that it was a Hamas rocket. They are reporting what Israeli officials are trying to sell. It's not definitively clear who is responsible so why would you include it in here? Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "what Israeli officials are trying to sell". The current evidence is composed of Al Jazeera videos of the rocket, Palestinian photos and videos from the hospital lot and eventually IDF aerial photos. These independent pieces of evidence are all consistent with the Hamas rocket version and provide zero corroboration for IDF airstrike version. I very much recommend reading the article on the hospital explosion itself, as it discusses the evidence in depth. And since it's also being discussed by a number

WP:RS, it's also fully justified here, because there will be never a "definitive" answer as Hamas will never admit such failure. Cloud200 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

By the same token I can find a number of investigations by WP:RS (Channel 4's video for one) that point towards the Israelis as the likely perpetrators.

Regardless, if the cause of the explosion still considered disputed in the main article, why attribute it to one side here? See 2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to adjust the wording, but how does the current wording differ from the current lead in that article: "There is evidence that the explosion was caused by the failed launch of a Palestinian rocket laden with fuel, with the majority of independent experts and analysts stating that the damage is more consistent with a fireball from a rocket than an Israeli bomb." Cloud200 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence you quoted doesn't reflect the sentiment in the article's talk page, that there is no consensus about who did it, and it seems to be removed. See Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Time to start saying it was a Palestinian rocket? . I think it's not WP:NPOV to claim one side did it when it's not clear yet Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say this. Current wording gives the impression that it was almost undoubtedly due to a failed rocket, when it is definitely not that clear. 149.248.103.115 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no reason to include unconfirmed/speculative information.

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure what you mean here. It is very well reported by RS that a number of credible sources other than Israel have determined it to be a failed rocket fired by Palestinian militants (PIJ, not Hamas, IIRC). There are also other reliable sources reporting determinations that it was an Israeli attack. We should report what is in the RS, and if that means reporting that there have been determinations both ways, then that is what we do. We certainly don't pin it as an Israeli attack or a Palestinian failure on their own without stating what is in the RS, that both are currently suspected. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources that have speculated about it being a misfired rocket. Without physical evidence, there will unlikely ever be more than speculation.

Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I'm aware of the facts as they stand, I said them myself after all. That doesn't answer my question. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]