Talk:Qassam rocket

message: The bias in the second sentence below can hardly be doubted:
"In the course of these bombardments, which in some cases lasted hours at a time, dozens of shells were launched. The IDF has ensured the fire is very accurate and never aimed at populated areas, in order to refrain from hurting uninvolved Palestinian civilians."
Are we talking about the same Gaza? It's the most densely populated strip of land on Earth. Of course the IDF kills uninvolved civilians. What kind of bubble do you have to live in to not notice that? 
: It's the most densely populated strip of land on Earth. Well, according to Wikipedia that's not correct. Gibraltar density: 4,290/km2 or 11,154/sq mi; Hong Kong density: 6460/km2 or 15,737.9/sq mi; Monaco density: 15,142/km2 or 39,217/sq mi; Macau density: 18,568/km2 or 48,092/sq mi; Gaza Strip density:  4,118/km2 or 10,665/sq mi. I mean it's pretty densely populated but it's not the most densely populated strip of land on earth. 93.149.186.106 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: One fact that your article fails to notice is that at the date of the so called "unilateral withdrawal in 2005 of Israeli forces and civilians from the Gaza Strip" 6000 Kassam rockets had been fired on the Gush Katif area, about one rocket for each civilian living there.
" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.139.222 (talk • contribs) . 
: The regularly quoted 6000 actually includes mostly mortar. Long range kassams were not needed by the terrorists to hit Israeli civilian towns in Gush Katif. --Shuki 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6000 Kassam rockets on Gush Katif 

message: in the west bank fears section, it's mentioned that someone "murdered" two Israeli soldiers. I'm sure some people on here would say that's a fair statement, and so would I, if they're willing to accept Israeli soldiers "murdering" Palestinian militants, as they are called. Speaking of which, aren't all combatants technically militants? why award the legitimate status of "soldier" to fighters of one side and not to the other?
:When the Palestinians adopt a military uniform and declare war against Israel then and only then should their terrorist actions against the IDF be considered an act or war rather than murder.  Their terrorist acts against civillians will never be acceptable under the laws of war.   When the IDF fires at terrorists in self-defense, even if pre-emptive, that is not  murder.  Get it?  --138.162.0.43 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is also well documented is terrorists disguising themselves as civilians and hiding among Palestinian civilians to use them as human shields.  Unlike Palestinian terrorist actions against Israelis, what is not documented at all is the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians by the IDF.  Understand?  --138.162.0.43 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the west banks fears section 

message: this article could have a little more info about the qassam itself -- how it is made, how powerful it is, how accurate, who designed it, where it is constructed, how do these palestinians get the explosives to make them, etc.    beyond that, for the uninformed, could we know us what is actually in range of these rockets?    who gave these rockets the name qassam 1, 2, 3?   do the palestinians have a procurmenet budget with line items with these names?   i personally find it hard to believe that palestinians can manufacture effective long-range rockets.
the npov part of this whole thing is the lengthy section on notable qassam attacks with no context.   some of the casualty reports make it hard to keep a straight face...such as the one where eight people went into shock, including four children.   maybe we could shoot for a summary that includes the number of rockets fired (maybe a graph with # per month) and the number of people injured and killed by the rockets, and a the number of total people killed on both sides for a little context.
: I agree, Other sections on military weapons do not give details of all the people killed and wounded by them. Make this an article on the rocket, start another article if you must giving details of all the attacks on civilans by rockets, bombs and missiles in Isreali-Arab conflicts.
Herne nz 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other military weapons are not targeted nearly exclusively on a civilian population as the Qassam is.   As such those they kill are an unfortunate fact of war.   --138.162.5.9 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the "List of notable Qassam attacks" section suggests POV - it does read like sensational headlines without real context. On the other hand, the "Casualties in proportion" section smacks of the opposite POV.  A discussion of proportionate casualties seems like a good idea.  However, Norman Finkelstein obviously has a strong POV - so, including this lengthy quote without any analysis or balance adds too much bias to a relatively short article.
Casualties in proportion is indeed POV as it treats the deaths of Israeli civilians as equivalent to the deaths of Palestinian terrorists.  There is no attempt to break down how many among the 80 were Palestinian civialians and how many of those were deliberately targeted by the IDF as the Palestinians have directly targeted Israeli civilians.  As such the treatment isn't proportional at all.  --138.162.5.9 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Justforasecond is on the right track. I suggest these two sections be merged - perhaps some kind of analysis of the monthly deaths and injuries resulting from the rockets, with a comparison to the monthly deaths and injuries incurred in the larger conflict. I think this would provide encyclopedic and NPOV data while helping to define the relative significance of the rocket attacks within the larger struggle.--Qball6 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Discussions of that sort belong somewhere in the Arab-Israeli conflict series, not on a page like this.  Obviously there should be a link to the discussion and maybe a couple lines but not more.  This is a page about a weapon, not about the ethics and moralities of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  nadav 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that my recent edit thoroughly de-POVs the article, although the content I removed may need further de-POVing if it is to be used in an article on the history of Palestinian rocket attacks. If there are no objections, I will remove the tag a week from now. Balancer 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: This article needs to decide if it is about the Qassam rocket or Palestinian use of rockets' in general. Multiple mentions are made of other rockets such as the Gladrocket and the Katyusha which seem to have no connection to the Qassam except that they are rockets and used by the Palestinians. Ashmoo 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, in turn, is what is giving this article NPOV problems. An article simply titled "Qassam Rocket" should, like most other articles on bits of military hardware, concentrate on the device itself; who madeit, what its specifications are, how many are produced, when the various models came out, etc. Balancer 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rocket attacks or Qassam

message: On March 28, 2006, Islamic Jihad fired a 122mm (4.8") calibre Katyusha rocket (2.8 meters or 9 ft long, weighing 66 kilograms or about 150 lb) and carrying a 17-kilogram (38 lb) warhead; see BM-21), a much longer-range projectile than the Qassam, from the Gaza Strip into Israel.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4855056.stm Katyushas have never before been fired from the Palestinian controlled areas. It is believed that it was orchestrated by Hezbollah, since they are known to use these rockets in northern Israel. Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Abdullah claimed that hundreds of these rockets were smuggled into the Gaza Strip by ship across the Gaza-Egypt border from Sinai. Israeli officials downplayed Islamic Jihad's announcement and said the militant group was in possession of only "a small amount" of Katyushas.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498764634&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
''
:Here's more:
:*
:*
:Thanks to Doron for wikifying the references, but we shouldn't have a discussion about the extent of current Israeli control on this entry. I've tried to rewrite the paragraph in question to take no position on the issue, instead just stating the most uncontroversial parts, and focusing on how Israeli control relates to the tactical considerations for the rocket. TewfikTalk 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.--Doron 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Katyusha Fears

message: I've added the number of dead and a ballpark for attacks in the lead. If people have a problem with that, I'm open to discussion. I'd also add that I am open to changing the source, since the number originally in the text was uncited. I know that Seale has had trouble in the past with the numbers, but he's still being printed in a reliable source. However, I'd like another reference - preferably not one from a partisan source - if possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I think the netruality of this article is seriuosly disputed. Either a tag should be put on it or extensively edited. I honestly doubt that it confers to the standarts of wikipedia that is observed and enforced in other articles. Which in my humble opinion serves a purpose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.51.198 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article is disputed 

message: "Qassams are sometimes referred to as "homemade" or "primitive", but require "both expertise and dedicated locations to manufacture"." is a quite dubious statement.. I mean, the rockets are obviously made out of the poles from road signs and similar.. Packed with a nitrate and sugar charge as propellant, and then some homemade urea nitrate, smuggled TNT and detononator fitted at the top.. Expertise required to make something like that? Please.. this is nothing but propaganda aimed at making it look like the palestinans have this "horrible weapon" and these "advanced manufacturing plants" to make it.
Anyone with the slightest understanding of chemistry and mechanics could make one of these in their living room, only part that's hard to get is the TNT and the detonator and that is most surely smuggled in.
The so called "source" of this nonsense is "honestreporting.com" btw.. A well-known Israeli propaganda page.. 
So it's nothing but propaganda and so doesn't belong in an encylopedia. I'm going to remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.181.98 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise? More like expertise in lying 

message: The lead section reads: 
"The Gaza Strip has been separated from Israel by a security barrier since 1996, which frustrated infiltration into Israel. During its 2005 unilateral disengagement plan, Israel withdrew its civilian and military presence, retaining control over airspace and maritime access. While Qassam rockets were fired regularly even prior to the Israeli Disengagement, the absence of access to targets on the ground has increased the relevance of the rockets, since they were designed to fly over the barrier and strike Israeli targets outside the Strip. Hamas had difficulty establishing rocket-producing and launching infrastructure in the West Bank."
In addition to the implied POV that the Qassam is somehow ín "increased relevance" because infiltration of Israel is frustrated, I fail to see, that the use of the rocket or its purpose in on ongoing conflict has any relevance to this article about the weapon itself. It should be removed. --Sir48 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Lead section 

message: What about an update of the graph on the number of rockets fired?
.. What relevance does the graph have to the article? None from what I can see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Update Graph

message: - Emergency Medical Journal paper on the medical harm that can be done by a single Qassam. From an Israeli perspective, mind you, but some objective numbers. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: I think the image of the rocketted doll and menorah is totally unnecessary and overly emotive. It shows us nothing useful about the Qassam rocket. Does anyone have a rationale for including it? Jddriessen (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article, offers little value add to the article anyway. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the image should not be in this article as it adds little value. The same is true of :File:A house in sderot hit by Qassam rocket.jpg. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody, who was hurt by hamas Qassam rocket as much as this boy was is notable enough to go in this article. Caption was taken directly from the source.I do not need any benefits from you. I know what you are about. It is not me, but you who is making a point by removing the image for the third time in half-an-hour. @Mgiganteus1 I see you are not only a big specialist in giraffes necking behavior, but also in Qassam rockets. What an amazing diapason of knowledge! Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon Mbz1, you're better than this. There's enough sh!t going on from both "sides" in other articles, that if you wish to lower yourself to that level, there are plenty of other articles to choose from. It's bad enough that people try to introduce emotive pictures and phrasing into what should be factual discourses (ie encylcopedic articles), but now you wish to use poor little Osher's picture (without his permission) to push a point of view. You need to read what Wikipedia has to say about including information relating to living persons. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to include a photograph of one particular individual who was injured by a particular weapon in an article about that weapon. Have a look at Frog-7 for an example of a good article about a rocket-powered explosive weapon. Secret Squïrrel 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really, Secret Squïrrel? And what about White phosphorus? Is this OK to include the image of little poor Ayman al-Najar (without his permission) to push a point of view or it is just double standards?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is general knowledge as to the type of damage caused by military rockets. A picture of a building with some holes in the walls or of a boy missing a leg does not add to the article in any way suitable for an encyclopaedia. White phosphorus is an unusual weapon and its effects are not well-known to the lay person. While it would be equally emotive and unhelpful to include a picture of a young boy in a wheelchair covered in bandages, it is entirely appropriate to include a closeup picture showing the effects of this weapon. The picture you mention does not identify the person and the caption does not indicate that the victim is a child. I have edited the description of the original photograph to remove identifying information, including the boy's age. Secret Squïrrel 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption has many links that identify the person and his age alright. Many people do not know what Qassam rockets are and what kind of demage they could make. They believe those rockets just the toys. So, I repeat once again it is a doble standards in effect here for everything that concerns Israeli victims. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.  We're talking different languages.I would only like to add that I do not respect your opinion, Secret Squïrrel. When you removed my image of necking behavior from giraffe with the summary: "the orig is MUCH clearer, the new one shows a jumble of legs and NO necking" you proved that you're talking about the subjects that you have no slightest idea about. BTW are you and Mgiganteus1 always working in pairs?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I could agree with you about this. Wikipedia is not a good place to discuss conflict. It was not me, who started this "propaganda war", but as long as it is going on I believe Israeli victims images should be used as Arab victims images are, and I doubt very much, you would be allowed to take them off the articles. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It appears to me that the Qassam rocket article is not just about the rocket, but also about the history of the rocket and how it is used.  Because the rocket has been and continues to be used to injure small children, it is only appropriate that the this picture be in the article.  If the concern is for NPOV, keep in mind that the Hamas members who use these rockets aim to injure and/or kill people like Osher.  They are proud to see images like this one.  Nobody is doing Hamas any favors by removing them.  Including a picture of a Hamas "success" is about as neutral as one can get.  Also, Ynhockey, the difference between Osher Twito and Muhammad al-Durrah is that Osher Twito really is what he claims to be (a victim of Palestinian terrorism) while there is increasing evidence that Muhammad al-Durrah was a hoax fabricated to promote antisemitism.  --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Muhammad al-Durrah is a hoax.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suicup, please stop pushing your POV by removing images of Israeli victims from the articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I am afraid then we would need to remove way too many Arab propaganda images and articles like for example Muhammad al-Durrah which is a lie, but I am surely go for this. Lets remove the images of all the victims, not only Israeli ones.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so trigger-happy, Mbz1.  The pro-Israelis have at least as many hatemongering images, if not more, than the pro-Palestinians.  See, for example, Ben Yehuda Street bombings, Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing, Coastal Road massacre. We are talking about a major cleanup effort here that will remove the detritus from both sides. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe I am happy to see victims on any side, you are deeply mistaken. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I beg your pardon, Suicup, but I did not intend to imply that you support Hamas.  Your political/religious motivations for removing images of Hamas victims are of no interest to me nor to the Wikipedia community as a whole.  The only thing I am concerned with is to stop a WP:CENSOR attempt.  I trust now that it has been explained, you will cease this futile campaign.  Thank you in advance.  --GHcool (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, if I warm this up, after nearly four years. Without any special expectation (except some info), as I saw the picture of the boy my instantaneous reaction to the picture was: this doesn't belong here. I am at wiki for information. I agree with suicup, secret quirrel, ravpapa and AgadaUrbanit, they all argue for the cause of wiki and I don't really (want to) understand, why the picture stays in the article.  MenkinAlRire (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osher Twito picture 

message: I don't see it as question of censoring. Clearly there is no WP:Consensus for inclusion. Some editors are bravely honest about their motivation and say this image is a proper answer to "Stop WP", "Gaza Massacre", "International Reaction" (my favorite) images in other articles. I disagree - such images generally should be removed. There is a clear danger of Wikipedia getting even closer to event horizon and falling into Propaganda black hole. Osher Twito image in particular should be removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if I warm this up, after nearly four years. Without any special expectation (except some info), as I saw the picture of the boy my instantaneous reaction to the picture was: this doesn't belong here. I am at wiki for information. I agree with suicup, secret quirrel, ravpapa and AgadaUrbanit, they all argue for the cause of wiki and I don't really (want to) understand, why the picture stays in the article.  MenkinAlRire (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus for inclusion. 

message: The Qassam is an interesting rocket because it is unlike almost all contemporary ordinance in htat it is neither intended to nor is it capable of hitting military targets.  This is because it is not accurate enough to actually target a target.  It can only be used to target a regions.  This makes it practically unique in that it is definitionally a weapon that targets a broad civilian population.   The article, therefore, needs both coverage of this fact and many more photos of the kind of damage these rockets actually cause: to schools, homes and civilians.  To potray it as a military weapon is fundamentally misleading.Historicist (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input, Historicist. May I please ask you to extand the article? My English is not very good. In a mean time I'm going to add the image that was removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is difficult to maintain with such inflammatory subject matter. However, many people (my simple self included) find the photos not so much an instrument or catalyst for hate-mongering but rather fascinating in that we did not, up until recent times, even know that 'sugar' propelled rockets existed! Part of the subject notability is the damage that can be done with simple household items, surely? On all sides, it is interesting to see the results; be it from the design perspective or the victim's. Ernstblumberg (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs major expansion

message: This merge is completely nonsensical. Surely, something about Qassam rockets can be included in the IED article but this is a unique phenomena unto itself that has had seriously implications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suggest that this merge proposition be dropped.ShamWow (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Rwendland (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree (with proviso that) Qassam rockets be included in IEDs page as per ShamWow (talk) suggestion. Ernstblumberg (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely. If there is no disagreement let's proceed with deleting the merge proposal. ShamWow (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Can somebody translate Qassam?  Thx.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  11:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American Bandstand?

message: This is a weapons page, not a place for discussing Middle Eastern conflict. Please keep those items on other pages, which can be linked here of course. Thanks Publicus 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed above already. The sourced relevant material belongs in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, it was wrong. Its a POV image, doesn't belong. Publicus 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably know that "it's wrong" is not a valid argument in the fact of a consensus. The results of the use of the Qassam Rocket are perfectly appropriate for an article about the Qassam rocket. The fact that it's a specific belligerent that uses this type of rocket does not mean it's a "POV problem." For one example, see White phosphorus, which correctly included a picture that depicts the alleged Israeli use in Gaza. Also note that you violated the 1rr restriction by reverting twice in 24 hours. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: White phosophorus is kind of poor comparison since it is a unique wounding weapon. This is just a rocket, so showing a victim of a rocket attack really doesn't add anything--and it's an especially POV image because it's a little kid. Hellfire missiles are used pretty regularly to blow up various people and no one at that article saw fit to include images of the victims, instead those images are on other related pages. Publicus 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and by the way, it's not a consensus anymore, since I disagree. Publicus 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One person does not change a consensus. Qassam rockets are actual similar to white phosophorus because these rockets appear to unique to this specific conflict. It may indeed be a POV problem to place a picture of a victim from one side of a belligerency in an article about Hellfire missiles, that are widely used by different belligerents. This is clearly not the case with Qassam rockets. Regardless, multiple reliable sources discuss the Qassam rocket specifically as it pertains to the Israeli victims so one picture of an Israeli victim is wholly appropriate and consistent with NPOV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: WP is definitely a unique weapon--also the image shown of the victim on that weapons page, only showed the type of wound--not for instance, a person involved in a particular conflict that has a WP wound. The different here which some editors fail to see for some reason--is this is a weapons page. It is an article titled "Qassam rocket" and should only have, like every other weapons page, details about the particular weapon. If editors wish to list all the victims of Qassam rockets and show their pictures--that is another article not this one. The image you keep putting in, has nothing to do with the type of weapon, there is no mention of a unique Qassam-type wound, the victim is not unique in any way. If this is all true, then to me it begs the very simple question why these editors on this article are so dedicated to putting an Israeli victim in the article, but completely neglecting to add say Afghan, Palestinian, etc--victims on the AGM Hellfire page. The basic answer is a POV one, which needs to be removed.Publicus 18:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: It is also pretty telling that those editors who want this image on the article, seem to have little interest in improving the article beyond including POV images--it would be far more helpful to work on expanding the basic weapons info box or other areas related to Qassam use and development. Publicus 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are other weapons that are widely considered to be unique to certain victims images of those victims can be added to that article. I understand this is an article about the specific weapon, but in the real world these weapons do not just exist in a scientific technical vacuum. These weapons have an effect on people and this effect is part of the information an article about the weapon needs to be considered complete. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this weapon, or any other weapon, don't exist in a vacuum--but on no other weapons page (that I've seen) is there an image of a victim of said weapon. Images of victims on a weapons page are POV, simply because the images of victims don't belong on an article talking about the weapon. The exception I would have to this, is if the weapon is unique in some way in its functions (such as WP), but even then you don't need to show a victim of a conflict that used the weapon, you would show a unique wound created by the weapon, as the WP article has done. A Qassam rocket, while a nasty little weapon, is simply a modified rocket type weapon, from what I've seen it doesn't appear to have anything unique about its function. It has the usual shrapnel and explosive damage caused by any other rocket type weapon. Therefore there really isn't any other reason to keep putting a victim image in this article. Especially since the victim image doesn't illustrate the function of the Qassam--it's not as tho the rocket targets people's legs or something special like that. Publicus 16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I see what you are getting at with regards to the type of unique wounds caused by phosphorous.  I don't feel strongly about this - you can keep the image or remove it, if you get consensus. I'm neutral on it. Jeff Song (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the photo of the child victim is POV.  All explosive weapons are designed to kill and maim.--Nowa (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Qassam is a crude unguided weapon that is filled with ball bearings. By its very nature, it is ineffective against small or moving targets. Rockets of this nature are fired indiscriminately and the casualties produced by these devices are not collateral but the intended targets and almost all of its victims are civilians. A 2008 study showed that over half of Sderot's residents are Qassam casuaties, either physically or psychologically . In this regard, Qassam's are different than PGMs because PGMs are precisely guided and their intended targets are high value military targets, justifying their cost. When PGMs cause civ injuries, it is almost always collateral. Otherwise, plain gravity bombs, which are a lot cheaper, would be used. Since the Qassam is primarily and inherently a terror weapon, and since its used almost exclusively against civilian targets, the direct results of Qassam usage should be shown.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what you say is correct, however, it does not change that an image of some one injured by the weapon is POV.  POV content must go.  There is no exception, and even if what you say is correct "Since the Qassam is primarily and inherently a terror weapon, and since its used almost exclusively against civilian targets" it does not grant a free pass.  Demonstrate another weapon article with victim pictures, or provide an argument that actually shows the image to not be POV.  The burden of proof is on those who want to include the POV content, so do so before bringing the image back.Zath42 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: POV images, etc

message: I added a cross reference to Davidka. Both appear to be home made weapons that have played a role in this region.--Nowa (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Davidka

message: Should there not be photos of victims in every article dealing with munitions and other weapons of war??...
seems like pretty clear cut, non neutral emotive propaganda to me...
--Savakk (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful to indicate the effects of Qassam rockets and the reactions to it. --Jethro B 23:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The lack of content on another article should be raised there.  It may be because Qassams are generally unique to Gazan-based militant organizations.  However, it is not a valid reason for removing a picture here. --Jethro B 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a photo of an Israeli victim ? 

message: Can anyone explain what this phrase in the caption to the photo means?  "Operating system" usually referrs to software running a computer.  These launchers look to be fairly basic homemade metal frames. --Jfruh (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Equipped with operating systems"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Qassam rocket. 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/20070403024612/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%2BObstacle%2Bto%2BPeace/Palestinian%2Bterror%2Bsince%2B2000/Victims%2Bof%2BPalestinian%2BViolence%2Band%2BTerrorism%2Bsinc.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/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
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) 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's a relatively minor thing, could we edit the link in the last sentence of the lead to go to Protocol I of the conventions? It's the part the specifically deals with these kinds of actions. Thanks, first time running into extended protection. Gabriel syme (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)
:Oh snap! I can do it myself now! Gabriel syme (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Qassam rocket. 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/20090414193851/http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/qassams.php to http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/qassams.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704070727/http://www.sderonet.co.il/index2.php?id=32&lang=HEB to http://www.sderonet.co.il/index2.php?id=32&lang=HEB
*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
*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/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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Qassam rocket. 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/20090219024648/http://www.me-monitor.com/docframes.asp?file=files%2FThe%20Growing%20Threat%20of%20the%20Kassam.htm to http://www.me-monitor.com/docframes.asp?file=files%2FThe%20Growing%20Threat%20of%20the%20Kassam.htm
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) 03:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It feels like a biased way to describe by downplaying, like they are just overgrown fireworks, when someone is firing military missiles at someone else.
Middle More Rider (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'rocket' a legitimate term? 

message: Hello,
According to the article Date format by country, Israel uses the DMY format. Because of this, should this article not use the DMY format too? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel uses the day month year format; shouldn't this article? 

message: This article should have stayed focused on the history of development and technical aspects of the rocket as one would expect from reading a Janes defence entry.  Instead it devolved into the typical biased pro-israel, Palestinian hate speech with ridiculous and inaccurate propaganda from some dubious sources at best.
And to set the record straight: the rocket is mass-produced by people forced to live in poverty who do not have the means to make an accurate weapon that does kill some civilians who don't heed the expensive israeli warning system.  This is much different than the sophisticated weaponry bought by a wealthy nation which deliberately chooses to target civilians despite having the capability to accurately attack non-civilian targets.
Please re-write this article with a less bias slant towards the jews. 2600:1700:8F60:E580:F02F:488B:AD98:4D1 (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision necessary 

message: Data is 15 years old, please update. Drsruli (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reports that the number of Palestinian rockets fired per year” 

message: "Leading international human rights organizations have called Palestinian armed groups' use of Qassam rockets against civilian and civilian targets a war crime and a violation of international law."
Can someone change the bolded text to simply "civilian targets"? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical line