Talk:List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010

Notability
Rocket firings that cause no damage or injuries are not notable and should not be listed in Wikipedia.

Remember, this is an encyclopedia not not a newspaper. What is the encyclopedic value of listing rocket attacks that did not cause any damage whatsoever? Factsontheground (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think the article is not notable, feel free to nominate if fot deletion. That way you will get debate and a collaborated result whether it stays or goes.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's English Wikipedia, they write about everything. 77.126.72.195 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mortars are not rockets
Mortars are not rockets. Factsontheground (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about rockets, not mortars.

Factsontheground (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about Palestinians shooting various things, mainly at Israeli civilians.
 * Perhaps a name change is in order to prevent people trying to remove information over technicalities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference between a mortar and a rocket is hardly a "technicality". You would not have gone far in the military. Factsontheground (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is is possible to have a discussion with you in which you don't personally attack other editors?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 11:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Brewcrewer, if you just want to attack me and start drama and have nothing to say about the article and no intention to improve Wikipedia, please just go away.


 * BTW if you want to know what a real personal attack actually looks like, click these links:, , ,

Factsontheground (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, mortars are rockets, but it doesn't even matter. These articles used to have "rockets and mortars" in their titles, but the two types of attacks are sufficiently similar that that was deemed unnecessarily cumbersome. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL. No, mortars are not "technically" rockets. Mortars are tubes that launch shells by igniting an explosive propellant. Rockets are projectiles that create their own momentum by reacting chemicals in an onboard engine. Completely different in every way.


 * And what is "cumbersome" about calling the article "rockets and mortar attacks"? It is less cumbersome than putting content in this article that is clearly irrelevant. In fact all the other articles refer to both rockets and mortar shells. This article is different for some strange reason. Factsontheground (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that how a projectile is propelled is really relevant to what this article is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of my comment did you not understand? Jde was arguing that "Technically, mortars are rockets". I was correcting him. And yes since this article is about Palestinian rockets and not mortars the difference is important. Factsontheground (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-correction: in military parlance, the term "rocket" refers specifically to self-propelled objects, which excludes mortars. But, as I said, this doesn't matter. When there is a group of very similar phenomena, the title of the article dealing with them can refer to the main or typical phenomenon and the fine distinctions can be made in the opening (as is the case here). "Rocket and mortar attacks" is cumbersome because it lengthens the title. In this matter, you are mistaken about what all the other articles do: all the articles on this topic use "rocket" alone and have done so for quite some time. The other alternative, to split each of these articles into two, would be even more cumbersome, so I believe the status quo is ideal. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Since there is a request for comment. Some rocket systems are considered artillery just like mortars are. But no, I do not consider them the same weapon and I doubt anyone else commenting is saying that. This is based on them being the exact same thing politically in the case of the I-P conflict. Rocket and mortar attacks are lumped together in the sources (I can list them if really needed but assume it is not) discussing the I-P topic. So this RfC could be asking if the title should be changed. I am under the impression that mortars are used less often in the area (going off a single graph from 2009 and do not if that is correct statement). We could start a separate article but it would be the perfect merge candidate. Cptnono (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos do Exist, you are correct that I was mistaken about the current names of the rocket/mortar attack articles. This is because I assumed that the names used in the parent article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel were correct. This article refers to the by-year spinoff articles as "rocket and mortar attacks" not just "rocket attacks". The parent article needs to be updated with the new, shorter names for the spinoffs.


 * Checking the article history I see that the "mortar and rocket attack" articles were moved to the "rocket"-only titles in September 2009. That's hardly "quite some time" and is a fairly recent change.


 * If "rockets and mortar attacks" is too cumbersome as a title (which I personally disagree with) why not "artillery attacks"? That is both accurate and concise.Factsontheground (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just change it back to "rockets and mortar" so we can get rid of this technical excuse to remove relevant information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that changing it to "rockets and mortar" is necessary (for the reasons I stated), and I don't think cptnono does either. "Artillery" is an interesting suggestion, but inaccurate. The word seems to refer to things fired from vehicles, which is not the case here. Of course, additional attempts by Factsontheground to remove relevant, sourced information, with whatever excuse, will simply be reverted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mortars are clearly not rockets and I doubt that they are used interchangeably in serious politics though they may be in the populist arena. As long as the article clearly states if an incident involves a rocket or a mortar I don't see a serious issue with including both, though I agree that strictly speaking mortar incidents shouldn't be included. I also don't see the problem with having the article name explicitly mention mortar, or as was suggested, artillery. Another option could be to go with indirect fire attacks as this is fairly neutral and encompassing. Unomi (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that mortars are not rockets and it is incomprehensible to me why anyone would object to simply changing the name to List of Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel, 2010. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "list" from the title
Why was the title changed from List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010 to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010 without discussion? If this title is changed, surely the titles of the other articles in the series should be changed... ~Asarlaí 22:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009


 * I agree, and no justification was given for the move, so I moved it back. Certainly, a separate article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010 could be written (and this article could be merged into it), but this article as it stands is simply a list, and its title should reflect that fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a full-fledged article with text and references. It is NOT a list.--Hmbr (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it has text and references, but the text only deals with individual rocket attacks. It doesn't deal with wider issues surrounding the attacks except to the extent that they emerge from the details of each attack. I think it would be great if we broadened our net, but in the meantime "list" seems most appropriate. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

POV and biased article
Looking at the sources, a majority comes from right-wing pro-israel newspapers such as ynetnews and jpost, it seems that the article itself is written by pro-israel that have made this article very biased.NPz1 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)