Talk:2008 breach of the Egypt–Gaza border

Nothing on Sderot, facebook?

The current crisis is the result of the continued and continuing bombardment of Sderot and other Israeli communities with Kassams and mortars. Though the Kassams are crude, they are also deadly: majority of Israeli civilian casualties last year from were in and around Sderot.

However, nobody would know this from the article. Why has wikipedia held back so basic and vital a fact? This is probably an honest case of negligence, but, given the topic, I think political bias is also a possibility. Please put my mind at ease and include information on Sderot like you should have originally! 141.166.154.61 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

why don't you include such information if you feel it relevant? SJMNY (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added this as an inline q.v. as perhaps the most notable target of the attacks. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Name vs Article content

The artile lead is about the border crossing. The article name is a crisis. They are not one in the same. Discuss --mitrebox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a Gaza Crisis 2008 article? Is there anything different from last years Gaza Crisis? Right now the border crossing is just a footnote to any Gaza article. It only becomes notable on its own if Hamas, Egypt or Israel takes drasitic action to close or keep open the border. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball there is no real purpose for this article. --mitrebox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a separate article. Last year nobody passed through the border illegally, but I'm not certain about the name. I want to make an article about what has happened in January 2008, but I don't insist on the name. Can you suggest a better name.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Title should probably be changed to 2008 Gaza-Egypt border crossings or some such as that is the article topic not the longstanding and ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish version of this article is at es:Éxodo palestino de 2008, i.e. 2008 Palestinian Exodus, which might stimulate ideas for an alternate name. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked google news and found these results:

• "Gaza crisis": 161
• "Palestinian Exodus": 34
• "siege of Gaza": 253

I think "siege of Gaza" is a better title which include broader story and "Palestinian Exodus" or "border crossings" can be a section of it. I should remind that there is another article with the same name: Siege of Gaza but it relates to Alexander the Great.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To my name, the 2008 Gaza Crisis best encompasses the current situation. Strictly speaking, Israel hasn't so much besieged Gaza and simply halted the supplies it usually sent to it. And I do think the current situation is something new for Gaza, Israel, and Egypt. 141.166.154.61 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything special about this article that can't be summed up in one paragraph of the Palestine-Israeli conflict article. --mitrebox (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To me this name seems vague, even biased. What was happening in Gaza was a crisis, and doubly so when civilians start running out of food. But civilians escaping through a hole in the wall somebody put up around them in order to go to the grocery store is not a crisis in any meaningful sense of the term, though some of the associated events might turn out to be. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Breach of the Gaza-Egypt border?--Jiang (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - but haven't there been others in other years? I'm wondering if a 2008 is needed. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right of return

The Palestinian right of return has generally been denied by the Israelis. Do these border crossers face the risk of not being able to go back to Gaza? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

probably not. Israel would have to enter Egypt or occupy Gaza to rebuild the wall, both seem unlikely. Plus the Egyptians won't let the Palestinians stay. For all the talk of Arab brotherhood no one really likes the Palestinians. Jordan and Egypt both occupied Palestine prior to the 1967 war. Then Jordan kicked all the pals out and into the West Bank. Egypt has its own problems with radicals and doesn't need another anti-Israel movement destabilizing the nation. --mitrebox (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need correct information

The first section of the article states that borders were shut down back in September of '07, while the timeline section states it occures on January 17th. Which of these is the correct date? Shint (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is actually since September, I'm looking for a ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My source says October. We were close. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Does anyone else think the introduction is really inaccurate?? The crisis happened because of the blockade and not because of the wall breach. The breach took place as a direct consequence of the blockade. The breach was not the cause of the crisis, rather the end of the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.162 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It was confusing. Should be cleared up now. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. REMcrazy (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing title

Shouldn't this article about the breach be integrated into another one about "2008 Israel blockade against Gaza" like in the spanish article? (Israeli block against Gaza, 2008)--Knadaves (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That might be missing the bigger picture. If the breach becomes long term, it could effectively give Egypt defacto control over the territory (heh, I first typed that "terrority"), as they had before the Six Day War. It's hard to know, as a {{current event}}, how this will play out. I'd rather wait for now per WP:TIND. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A year should definitely be added.Herunar (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

guns?

the article cited as footnote one gives no reference for the weapon-smuggling that this article gives as one of the reasons that people went into egypt from gaza... while i have no doubt that hamas would take the opportunity to bring in more arms it should really be sourced if the article is going to say it. SJMNY (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

q.v.

Call me dumb, but what is "q.v."? If it means "for which, see", can we just use the more standard "see also"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what WP:STYLE says, but based on my childhood Funk & Wagnells I'd say "q.v." is standard for an encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2008 breach of the Gaza–Egypt border. 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/20110813151626/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070783680&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070783680&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?file=%2F2008%2F1%2F27%2Fworldupdates%2F2008-01-27T181529Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-316175-1&sec=Worldupdates
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/israel/comment/0%2C%2C2247606%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F01%2F21%2Finternational%2Fi032311S33.DTL&feed=rss.news
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23111166-15084%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2008%2F01%2F29%2Fwiran129.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0%2C2144%2C3093985%2C00.html

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) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)