Jump to content

Talk:List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2008

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

Sources

[edit]

the overwhelming majority of "sources" are israeli, not credible ones, partly from government institutions! --Severino (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article currently lists 67 references. 32 of them are not Israeli (IHT, Reuters, NYT etc..) - so it is factually incorrect that "the overwhelming majority of "sources" are israeli". Of the sources that are Israeli, "the overwhelming majority" are Ha'aretz and Ynet, which are mainstream newspapers, every bit as credible as teh New York Times or USA Today. NoCal100 (talk) 05:11, 30 December

2008 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with IHT but hardly have the time or energy to find non-IHT sources for everything referenced by IHT. If I find the occasional non-IHT western source, perhaps I could note it in the discussion? I do not know how to add something to an artciel and then refernce it at the bottom. PinkWorld (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

of course, and the "global news service for jewish people" is a credible and neutral source as well, isn't it (you counted it to the sources which are not israeli)? ynet and haaretz are (of course) not as credible as NY times or quality newspapers just because they're mainstream in israel. --Severino (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "global news service for jewish people" is not an Israeli source. If you can;t make a distinction between "Jewish" and 'Israeli", you should probably rethink your participation in editing Israel-related articles. Ha'aretz and Ynet are mainstream publications, with a editorial oversight and a record for correcting mistakes when the make them, they are every bit as credible as the New York Times or USA Today. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ynet even for israeli norms is right wing and sometimes they make it vividly clear [[1]] how biased they are.--Severino (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite is not any evidence of bias - it is a news report about a group that supports Israel. Even if Ynet were 'right wing", that would not make it a non-reliable source, just like the Guardian is a reliable source despite a pronounced left-wing editorial stance. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what i rethink is to exchange arguments with you as the purpose of this discussion should be to improve the article. the sources on which this article is based are clearly one sided. oh, and the cited ynet article is indeed about a group that supports israel, but it's the way they report about it (for example: "they decided to help balance the results").--Severino (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources of there article are made up of roughly one half international news stories, and one half mainstream Israeli newspapers, which are reliable sources. We are done here. NoCal100 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Severino (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No." is not an argument that is likely to impress many people. NoCal100 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha'aretz reports frequently on Israeli government mistakes, contradictions, lies, etc. As a pro-Palestinian person, I am pleased with the openness of its journalism. Just recently, Ha'aretz revealed that the current Operation Cast Iron was being planned for the past six months. I can understand being suspicious of certain sources, but casting aspersion on a source simply because it is Jewish or because it is Israeli goes beyond the normal need for caution in using sources. We really need to check ourselves for our own racism. PinkWorld (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

found an IMEMC article describing homemade rocket not listed in the article Homemade shell fired at a Kibbutz in the Negev http://www.imemc.org/article/55802 July 03, 2008 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies Israeli sources reported on Thursday that one Palestinian homemade shell was fired from the Gaza Strip at a Kibbutz in the Sha’r Ha-Negev Regional Council; no injuries were reported. So far, armed groups in Gaza have not issued any release claiming responsibility for the attack. ... The sources added that the shell landed in an open area in the Western Negev area, causing no damages or injuries. This is the second time a homemade shell has been fired since the beginning of this week. A homemade shell was fired earlier this week by a group calling itself the Hawks, one of the armed groups of Fateh movement. PinkWorld (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

I'd say, that we should look for alternative sources to Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which I wouldn't call unbiased on this issue. --Raphael1 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JTA is a perfectly fine source, but info coming from ITIC should be qualified, e.g.: "According to ITIC, blah blah blah". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

[edit]

what is the total death tall? can that be given? does it compare to the 300 palestinians the demons killed? Great Gall (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No demon attacks were reported in the last 2,000 years afaik. Lastdingo (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove this, seems like propaganda

He may be biased and wishes the information for propaganda purposes, but the total death toll is a useful fact that should be included. Is anybody aware of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.171.129 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am, and so I made you people aware of the fact it is not on the article's main space. It should be clearly seen because it is perhaps the most important thing. I may have given a biased and innapropriate personal opinion here but I am I not right to assume whatever my reasons may be, the death toll (and number of wounded not to forget) should be clearly stated in the article? Great Gall (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the information, add it. NoCal100 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have it. But I strongly suggest someone to go and have a look at this: it looks very unprofessional this way. I'll re-add my info: you fill out the blanks. Great Gall (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the request on the Talk page, which is the place for it. This is an encyclopedia, and the article space is not a shopping list - please don't deface it with a 'fill in the blanks' sentence. NoCal100 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 2001 when the missile attacks started until 27 April 2008, 13 Israelis were killed by Qassam rockets. I think there have been a further five fatal casualties since then but currently can't find a source. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13 against +600, how come the israelis still take themselves seriously? Now then, go ahead and put the 13 in the lead. No, wait, I'll do that! Great Gall (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the 2008 total number of deaths in Israel from rocket and mortar attacks is six so I've amended the opening section to say this. I can understand the temptation to compare this with Palestinian deaths but I don't think it's appropriate or relevant to this article. You might as well pick some other random statistic as a comparison (444 Israelis killed in road accidents in 2008 for example...) 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... checking a couple of sources and the text of this article, it seems that the body count is eight. There were four killed at the end of December. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency

[edit]

Qassam qassam kassam What's correct? Lastdingo (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the terms are interchangeable due to the fact that we are translating from Arabic. There are also multiple versions of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.171.129 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title

[edit]

I propose changing the title of this article to "List of rocket, missile and mortar attacks on Israel in 2008". This is a more accurate description of the article as at the moment it does not only feature Qassam attacks but also mortar attacks, general missile attacks, and A Katyusha attack.Directionless (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Missile" is usually reserved to describe guided rockets, and none of those used in this conflict have been guided. I'd support renaming it to "List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008" NoCal100 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008

[edit]

English: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

Hebrew: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/Hebrew/heb_n/pdf/ipc_007.pdf

Flayer (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a graph with the data. I'll do one with the mortar statistics as well. // Liftarn (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Flayer (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I recommend using http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/ for various graphs (bars, lines, pies et.c.) and save as an SVG. You can create graphs online and download the finished file. // Liftarn (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reciprocal article anywhere (List of rocket and mortar attacks BY Israel in 2008)?

[edit]

Is there a reciprocal article anywhere (List of rocket and mortar attacks BY Israel in 2008)?

It seems to me that in the interests of neutrality there should be (tho' the list would sadly be rather long!)

Johnbibby (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think on here it's only expected that articles are written from a neutral point of view. This does not mean that any article that might be seen by some to show one side in a conflict in a bad light needs to be balanced by an equal and opposite article about the other side. Neutrality and balance are not the same. However if you want to create an article naming every Palestinian killed by Israeli forces in 2008 please go ahead... it'll be quite a task: there were 225 killed in just one day in December. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3000 rockets in 2008 or 1700?

[edit]

The article has the sentence "According to the Israeli military's count on December 27th, 3,000 rockets hit Israel since the beginning of the year." But if you add up the number in the "visual summary" table provided, you get 1704 rockets. Maybe this discrepancy should be explained. Perhaps the number is derived by adding rockets and mortars, or because there have been rockets fired from somewhere other than Gaza. It's unclear from the article.

The graphic table of rockets provides numbers that are inconsistent with the "visual summary" table. For example, table lists January as 136, but graphic as 241; February table 228, graphic 257; March table 103, graphic 196. Most of the numbers fail to match.

The heading of the "visual summary" says "Rockets and Mortars Launched from Gaza May-Nov '08." Yet it provides data from January to December. This may frustrate some readers concerned with accuracy.

There are other inconsistencies. The paragraph describing August lower down in the article lists numbers different from those in the tables at the beginning of the article.

pete212 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why count rockets in relation to the 6 month window of the cease fire?

[edit]

From the paragraph on Dec. 19th: "During the six month cease fire 329 rockets and mortar shells were fired."

Counting the rocket attacks against Israel in relation to the six months of cease fire seems to me to be a dubious move for wikipedia. This number comes from the source "The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement," produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center.

This number is accurate. But it would also be accurate to write that between the beginning of the cease fire in June, and the Israeli operation against Hamas members on November 4th there were less than two dozen rockets fired.

If one is not reading carefully, it makes it seem that 300 plus rockets where fired over a six month period equally dispersed across those months. In fact, the vast majority of those attacks came after November 4th. We could be accurate and yet still be even more misleading if we said, for example, "3000 rocket and mortar attacks occurred during the year in which Hamas pledged a cease fire." That would also be true. And of course, we could count up the tonnage of munitions dropped on Gaza by Israel from November 4th to December 19th, and write, "during the six month cease fire X tonnes of bombs were dropped on Gaza."

I think this statement should be removed. Also, I don't advocate putting in anything regarding the lull between June 19th, and November 4th. Just provide the numbers in a clear way.

pete212 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, as I was reading a bit more closely, in the November section there is a reference to rockets being fired between October 29th, and November 6th. This period is arbitrary, and again, reading quickly it is difficult to tell that the rocket attacks on Israel mostly occurred after November 4th. I think it is important not to obscure this fact. It's not necessary to highlight it either. The main issue that picking these arbitrary time periods raises is the possibility of obscuring the actual distribution of rocket attacks against Israel. I don't think this article needs to highlight the November 4th date, before which there were few rocket attacks, and after which rocket attacks increased dramatically, however, the article should not make this fact hard to see. pete212 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I added quotation marks to the sentence which reports on the "operation" on the evening between Nov. 4th and Nov. 5th, because it is verbatim from the I.S.A. report. pete212 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being confused not just by this question, but by the article itself. How can there have been a cease-fire if there were rockets to count in the first place?? If there are rockets fired, there is no cease fire!!FlaviaR (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cease fire" is commonly used to refer to a particular kind of agreement, contract or truce. Normally people don't use the phrase "cease fire" in the way FlaviaR is suggesting. You could say that if one party to a cease fire does something, say fires a rocket or maintains a blockade, that party has broken the cease fire (obviously, assuming that those actions are in violation of the terms of the agreement). However, assuming there was some kind of agreement between the two sides to refrain from attacking each other, one still calls this a cease fire. So, following the normal usage of the phrase "cease fire," there was a cease fire and it was broken. (Although, as I believe is reflected in my earlier comments, we should be transparent about the violations of the cease fire. I think the article, as it is, obscures somewhat the order and nature of the violations.) pete212 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a minor point - your description of the cease fire is exactly what I meant - i.e., someone breaks it - so, obviously, normally people do mean it the way I mean it :-) FlaviaR (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal names of the dead

[edit]

Looking at this article it seems to me that it mostly complies with WP guidelines and policies. However I am concerned that some of the dead are named, making those small sections able to be criticised as a possible memorial. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is important, the more so since this article has been cited in an AfD on a substantially different article as being "deletion fodder" too.

Is there a reason why some names have been left in? And might they be removed? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Fiddle Faddle's interpretation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Please see User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 200 --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring NPOV

[edit]

In line with [Talk] discussions under the umbrella article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel NPOV needs to be restored in these one-sided articles focussed solely on rocket attacks on Israel, without any context, motivations, response reasons or other balancing data. I will embark on a correction of this unacceptable NPOV imbalance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there does not appear to be any consensus for your desired changes over at Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, so don't make any changes here, w/o first discussing them AND getting for consensus for them here. All Rows4 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 00:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2008&oldid=1198415817"