Talk:List of Qassam rocket attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Qassam rocket attacks article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Notability criteria

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

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

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

[edit] "Grad"

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

Flayer 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Map should show range of the rockets

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

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

[edit] Article should distinguish between military and civilian casualties

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

[edit] WikiProject class rating

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

[edit] Pet peeves

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

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

[edit] Qassam Attacks Listed in Other Articles

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Break Up Article By Year?

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

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

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

Timeline of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008

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

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


[edit] Some comments

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

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