Talk:List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2012

Move
This article currently contains Israeli attacks on Palestinians. I think that should likely be moved to another article (e.g. Palestinian casualties of war), as it may be irrelevant here.VR talk  11:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POV without any shame
This article is a great example of one-side-POV and the propaganda war of the Israel-Palestinian confict. Wikipedia shouldn't be a part of this. Dnm (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No POV here as the article show facts, also you should read the Wikipedia definition for terrorism prior to changing information taken from sources109.226.48.129 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I only restored previous information. The article is one-sided and the information mainly comes form or are based on military press releases. These can not be regarded as impartial and must be handled accordingly. I will restore the POV-tag yet again, and i hope it will be respected this time. Dnm (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is incorrect information as Ynet, Nrg jpost haaretz have no relation for the military press (more then 70% of the sources in this page) otherwise you need show what you mean of what you believe is POV.
 * Unless both sides are shown, this is a farce. A one-sided POV. Where are the Israel-launched attacks listed? At least put a link on this page. Disgusting, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.27.82 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hasbara Propaganda This article is being daily linked to Google News and appears with every article on Israel. Even with all their nukes and the American bully in their back pocket the Israelis still can't play fair and have to run their cheap Hasbara propaganda game everywhere. I can't believe a word out of their mouths anymore because of this. They're so used to lying that truth sticks in their throat and chokes them.Nasty Celt (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * this article show facts with link to sources if you can prove something different from what is stated here this is one thing otherwise you just put baseless accusations, you don't believe what exactly ?109.226.48.129 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's you who should prove the article's neutral nature. This article is a good example of POV. Dnm (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dnm Wikipedia defines few rules that as far as I can see are followed - put only facts and have references to each text you add, this article complies for this. talk accused that every type of media coverage of rocket attacks (what this page refers) is related to foreign affairs (or PR ?) and are lies and I qoute They're so used to lying that truth sticks in their throat and chokes them <- this is his baseless accusations otherwise he needs to proove his claim. ?109.226.48.129 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find...
I was led to this article from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2012_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_clashes#March_13-14 I was wondering if Israel retaliated at all since the 14th, however there doesn't seem to be any pages which are called "List of Israeli attacks on Gaza, 2012"... could anyone direct me to one (maybe also should be linked in the 'see also' section)? Thanks. Lionfish0 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * you have a page at List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.101.250 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any. The more I look around wp at these issues the more bias the articles seem. We need more editors to start work on fixing this. I think most are frightened off by the extreme views of some. How do we resolve this problem? Lionfish0 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * could you explain what you call bias on a list of activities defined by the US, UN and EU as terror operations by operatives defined by the same list as terrorists ? 109.226.49.230 (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, maybe the "terrorist attacks by Palestinian terrorist" originating from an official standing Government and their official standing, uniformed military upon military bases and outposts of the IDF. Or do you really think you can redefine "terrorism" to be anyone who attacks Israel? 58.7.198.176 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Recent (18/19 Nov) changes to November section
Hello, I would just like to justify my recent edits to the November section of this page, including one reversion of a reversion of my first edit.

First of all, let me say that the whole premise of this page is fundamentally biased. Not just biased but almost completely one sided. Allow me to qualify this. While I accept the utility of an article summarising for convenient reference all Palestian rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, this article is not in the form of a statistical summary containing only the bare facts of numbers of rockets fired. The contributors have chosen to embelish at their discretion some of these incidents with supplementary information about motivations, details of people injured or killed, property damage, international responses and so on. Thus, the article is in the form of a narrative, but the selective inclusion of this supplementary information means that the narrative is almost completely one-sided -- I can give specific examples if necessary, but the unifying theme is that the wording is constructed in order to explain and justify Israeli actions. This is not just bias. A biased coin has a tendency to favour one side of an argument or dispute in favour of another. This coin lands heads up almost every time. As a narrative, it makes about as much sense as writing a novel in which the first 12 chapters consist of all the statements made by one character and the next 12 consist of all the statements made the other. One solution would be to write a parallel page cataloguing Israeli offensive actions in Gaza, counting bullets, shells, airstrikes, assassinations, civilians killed and injured, properties damaged and so on, but frankly, that page would be as unsatisfactory as this page is. Ultimately, I do not think that this would serve the goals of the Wikipedia project or the interests of Wikipedia users. Rather, I believe that an enycopoedia article like this can serve as a collated record of border activity that would otherwise be scattered across multiple news reports from multiple sources, difficult to find and difficult to thread into a coherent narrative.

Moving on to the reversions to my edits in particular, the first concerned the killing of a Palestinian civilian man near the border on 5th November. The most pertinent fact is that a civilian was shot and killed. Three pieces of supplementary information are involved in this edit. Firstly, that the man was unarmed; secondly, that he was warned to approach the border but did not stop; and thirdly, that he was not killed instantly but died later, allegedly because Israeli actors prevented medical staff from reaching him. Not mentioned here but reported at the time by medical staff and the man's family, he is also said to have suffered from mental illness and been picked up and released by Israeli soldiers several times before. Although one could argue the details, I would judge all of these pieces of information to be roughly of the same importance. Some of it, to put it crudely, makes the Israeli position look bad and some of it makes the Israeli position look reasonable. All such information, of course, should be attributed to the correct sources which the reader can then judge to be trustworthy or otherwise. In my opinion, we should either include all of this roughly equal importance supplementary information or none of it. Including all of it would turn this paragraph into a report on a killing of a Palestinian by Israeli forces, which is not the primary topic of this page. Hence, in my reversion, I removed all the supplementary information leaving the bare fact that a civilian was killed to serve as minimal context to the Palestinian rocket fire for the next few days.

In the second reversion to my edit, justified by the editor as making the article 'more neutral', the temporal order of events was inverted, moving the description of the context (an Isreali incursion into a Palestinian village and the killing of a 13 year-old boy the previous day) into a secondary clause after the statement that Palestinians fired rockets. In wording the paragraph as I originally did (with the preceding events summarised at the beginning of the sentence), I was following the precedent of the paragraph on 14-17 November, where a similar formulation is used to describe the assassination of Ahmed Jabari. In addition, elsewhere in the article, where Israeli actions are described as 'responses' to Palestinian actions, the events are always described in temporal order. I believe that in a complicated situation such as this, reversing the temporal order of events only serves to obscure the story and is an obstacle to understanding.

Regarding the other changes made during that reversion, the introduction of the word 'reportedly' is unnecessary and incorrect. Firstly, there was no report that the rocket fire was in retaliation for the incursion and killing the previous day, only that the incursion and killing did occur the previous day and therefore form the relevant context. Those events are not contested, being reported by many news outlets. More generally, all the events described on this page were 'reported' and therefore the inclusion of the word 'reportedly' is redundant and, I suspect, merely a rhetorical device intended to undermine the content of the following clause. My inclusion of the name of the village ('Abbassan) is justified on the grounds that the names of specific localities in Israel coming under rocket fire are included throughout the article. It is neutral, factual information that takes up very little space and therefore there are no grounds for removing it. Finally, that statements that the boy was 13 years old and was killed by Israeli gunfire are brief and unembellished statements of the story as reported widely in the media. In particular, the statement that the boy was 13 years old is a simple, atomic statement. To change this description to 'a Palestinian teenager' serves only to hide information. On the level of connotation and subtextual analysis, it suggests that the boy may have been an unruly teenager, maybe 16 or 17, perhaps throwing stones at the Israelis or making a niusance of himself. There is no need for subtextual analysis or uncertainty here -- all reports state that the boy was 13 years old and was playing football. This event forms the essential context for the Palestinian attack on the IDF jeep the following day, so that it important that we are accurate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistronaut (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaza Strip launched 12 rockets into Israel during the hour after a ceasefire
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/21/palestinians-israel-rockets-idUSL5E8MLM8220121121

http://news.yahoo.com/gaza-rockets-hit-israel-ceasefire-police-202633773.html

I want to thank you for this time line it is helpful

--OxAO (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

comments on the page
Great page, very stick-to-the facts, very thorough. I was very frustrated trying to understand the origins of the last round of fighting in November 2012 based media sources from both sides. Your timeline was very enlightening, and it clarified a lot for me. Congratulations for your hard work!

Szwed (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nov retaliation figures
The November "retaliation" figures do not appear to include those killed as part of Operation Pillar of Defense. According to that article: "According to the Israeli government, the operation began in response to the launch of over 100 rockets at Israel during a 24-hour period...". For consistency, these attacks and injuries should be included in the count.

In general, I believe that using the header "retaliation" is confusing. All kills/injuries by the IDF are in some sense a response to Gazan rocket fire, but I'm unclear which would be considered a "retaliation" and which would be considered preemptive strikes.

Also, retaliation has an unfortunate anti-Israel connotation. Per dictionary:


 * the action of returning a military attack; counterattack.
 * "the bombings are believed to be in retaliation for the trial of 15 suspects"
 * synonyms:	revenge, vengeance, reprisal, retribution, requital, recrimination, repayment; More
 * the action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge.
 * "protectionism invites retaliation"

I do not believe the IDF would describe their counter-attacks as motivated by revenge, vengeance, reprisal, retribution, requital, recrimination, or repayment. Instead, the IDF is focused on the safety of Israeli citizens. Because of this and other difficulties, I suggest removing these figures from the page and instead linking to a separate page on IDF attacks on Gaza, 2012.

Thanks for your time. Martin (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. 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/20131016030252/http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/32417e27-www.wgme.com.shtml to http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/32417e27-www.wgme.com.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219192940/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Victims%2Bof%2BPalestinian%2BViolence%2Band%2BTerrorism%2Bsinc.htm
 * 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

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)