Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Ground Assault

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

The ground assault has began. I am now seeing Israeli armor and personnel crossing the border into Gaza. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good eyesight you've got there, anonymous IP in Ohio. we'll just wait for some reliable sources to report this. NoCal100 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I also heard about 20 mins ago that troops were moving into Gaza. Chesdovi (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Where? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone told me he had received a text from Israel informing him of the development. Chesdovi (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am there but using IP cloaking software so that my position cannot be zeroed in upon by 'hostile forces.' the cloakedfake IP lists me as being somewhere in the US. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I was gone awhile, did Israel invade or not?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not, according to any reliable source. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Eye-Witness and Protests

Eye-witness: Morgues overflow with bodies [1] Yaha Muheisen stops searching for his son's body for a moment to speak to me. "Whatever Israel did it will not defeat us," he says, "It will not weaken our power." [1] Forty-year-old mother Nawal AlLad'a did not find the bodies of her two sons in the medical compound, so she left to look amid the rubble. [2]

Protests: Hundreds in Mich., NYC, LOS protest Gaza attack [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS_PROTEST?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTT ] DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Israel's military strikes on the Gaza Strip prompted pro-Palestinian protests in America, with marchers denouncing the violence in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, New York City and Los Angeles. The crowd outside the embassy in Kensington, central London, carried banners demanding justice for Palestine and were led in chants of "no justice, no peace". [3]

The protest comes after Israel rejected calls for a 48-hour ceasefire. The protest will continue tomorrow before moving on to the Egyptian Embassy on Friday and then on to Trafalgar Square on Saturday. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/embassy-protesters-chant-for-justice-in-gaza-1219455.html


-All the above added by Citizentimes (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009

Who makes this request?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit wounded

Mention should be made of a website affiliated with Hamas claiming that 'Zionist soldier Gilad Shalit was injured in one of the Air Force attacks in Gaza'. Chesdovi (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF, BTW, dismissed it as psychological warfare. But should have a place in the article, I think.--Omrim (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Starting from the title, passing by the infobox, ending with the content of the article, this article is the best example of promoting for a POV, wish that we will add it ot Wikipedia policies to show what is meant by POV!!! Yamanam (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Without details, I'm afraid your complaint is of no use to anyone. okedem (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The neutrality is disputed and the article will be stuck in start class until that gets figured out for sure, I think a reader with a half a brain would realize that the article is beyond flawed. No need to plaster "POV O.M.G" all over...lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
POV towards who? Everyone says its POV, ok? But to who? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean if some one from Mars reads this article he would be under the impression of having a war between 2 countries, each of them had it's own military forces, and one of them (Israel) is stronger than the other, he wouldn't be able to realize that one of the 2 parties is a city (not a country). Moreover, and according to the article what is said by Israel is neutral and should be added, on the other hand, what is said by Hamas is not neutral and shouldn't be added. And by added I mean to be mentioned in the context of the article as a state of fact not as a claim from one of the 2 parties. Are the editors of this article happy with what they achieved? And are they proud of misleading readers?? maybe I am mistaken but this is what I noticed.Yamanam (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Peace. Show us those POV places and let's change or at least have a discussion about them. Complains do not magically translate to edits. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro sucks

It is longer than almost every other section or sub-section. Please people, the intro should be a summary of the sections of the article, and it should be of proportional length of the article. Please people read WP:LEAD:


If you go deeper into the article you see all of these things explained on detail. While we can disagree eon sources and POV etc, we shouldn't disagree on what makes a readable article. Can we do this without adult supervision? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest starting by removing the casualties from the intro and putting them in the "Casualties" section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Propose we trim claims and explanations rather than facts and figures. RomaC (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Background

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211 Flayer (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Omrim (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Flayer (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Public relations campaign and media strategies

i've restored the missing information tag for the public relations section and moved it up and out of the reactions section. One POV might be that the Gaza Strip de facto government does not need a public relations campaign, so they're not carrying one out. However, we don't know that. In any case, as was discussed above, media strategy in any military conflict since at least mid-XXth century has been a critical part of the conflict. Whatever WP:NPOV, WP:RS evidence we have about public relations strategies by the two parties is relevant.

i don't see any harm in leaving the missing information tag there for some time. The info about arab region tv channels constantly broadcasting images of bloodied children torn apart etc. is not a statement that that is a deliberate campaign. Sooner or later someone might come up with something more directly relevant. Boud (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"The 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict involves an Israel airstrike codenamed Operation Cast Lead" This needs to be reworded to something else (not sure what). This sounds like the operation was a single Israeli airstike that is over rather than an ongoing operation. Can anyone fix this please? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Death of Nizar Rayan with his wife and children

On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.

Rayan was killed when a missile crashed into a five-storey house that he shared with his wives and children in Jabaliya in the north of the territory, the medics said. The dead children were aged seven and 10. Three other people were also killed in the raid. [4]--Citizen Times Publication Sweden (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we consider Dawn.com a reliable source? It's a national newspaper of an Arab state...hmmm. Surely we can find a more factual publication that fully demonstrates Israel's thirst for the blood of Palestinian civilians. Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli media too reports that he was killed along with his wife and at least three of his children. So much for "precision". Hamas leader, 20 Palestinians killed in IAF strikes--Omrim (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't questioning the actual event, just the way it was being portrayed. The fact that he was a Hamas militant must be clear, and also the likely possibility that the IDF warned Rayyan's family of an attack: "Prior to striking Rayyan's house the IDF tried to warn his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so."

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dawm.com is not a national newspaper of an Arab state. It is part of Dawn Media Group. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Not "officially" but it's basically the equivalent. I mean, press in the Muslim world is less reliable than the National Enquirer. ..

Moving IDF warning somewhere else

The following statement:

"Gazans say most strikes come without warning. However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.[66]" has been moved around the article several times during the last few times. First it was in the Dec 27 section, then I moved it to the planning area, and now someone moved it to the casualty section without talking about it here (as far as I know). I personally believe it should be moved back to the planning or first day of strike, per order of importance. It's location in casualty section seems awkward and misplaced. I'm afraid to move it back because someone will just revert it. Any advice/opinion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully. And devil knows I do not frequently agree with you. This obviously part of the background/first day. However, this doesn't preclude related news in other sections. --Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What needs clarification?--Cerejota (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Your response didn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you actual read what I said LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What part of "I agree fully" you had trouble understanding? IS it the "I"? Or is it the "agree"? Or perhaps the "fully"? Or is it the shock that someone actually reads what you propose, processes it, and emits and opinion focusing in its contents and context, rather than who said it? :D--Cerejota (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't be a dick. I'm confused because this isn't a matter of agreement, I asked for advice/opinion. There is nothing to agree/disagree without specifying. A-hole. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, please remain civil and strike that. I agree with your contention and so does Cerejota apparently so go be bold and do it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ohh..I was confused with his phrasing. When he said "Devil knows I don't agree with you" I interpreted the previous agreement as sarcasm. Hahaha sorry!.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 January, 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if that confused you, but I see it now. I have reformatted. This is an object lesson on why WP:AGF needs to be followed. :D--Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I was confused about your response and you acted like a dick. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked for clarification and your response was not very helpful. Although I wasn't a dick: I commented on the fact that you seem to think it was not possible for someone who you had differences with could agree with you on something. In fact, you have stated this was the case, as you assumed I was being sarcastic, when In fact I wasn't. --Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This statement: "What part of "I agree fully" you had trouble understanding? IS it the "I"? Or is it the "agree"? Or perhaps the "fully"? Or is it the shock that someone actually reads what you propose, processes it, and emits and opinion focusing in its contents and context, rather than who said it?" is you (Cerejota) being a dick. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That statement came as a response to your I'm not sure if you actual read what I said LOL.. If you are going to go around accusing people of being things, make sure you didn't do them first. BTW, reason I linked to "don't be a dick" is because saying that people are dicks, is a dick move in itself. Of course, you did actually read the article, didn't you?--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You both apologize this minute or else you can go to your rooms. RomaC (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You go to your room.--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Requested move (first)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Section has been created at Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 3#Requested move for further discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: "If, after a few days,". So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war".

Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the "Title" section above: (adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above Boud (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

In favour of referring to "Palestine" or "Gaza" (rather than "Hamas")

  • Hamas is a political party. The attack is on Gaza and Gazans in general, not just the party. (We would not say "In 1939, England declared war on the Nazis" - or rather, we might say it, but the title would be "England-Germany conflict", not "England-Nazi conflict".)
Johnbibby (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In favour of Operation Cast Lead

  • Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different?
    • Counterargument: A precedence of POV naming of articles is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the tradition.
  • Calling the article by its Israeli codename shouldn't be seen as expressing a positive opinion on its morality; Nazi operations are routinely referred to by their codenames, e.g. Operation Barbarossa or Operation Ajax when the USA/UK overthrew the elected prime minister of Iran.
Operation Ajax is a redirect, no one is question using Operation Cast Lead as a redirect and intro, we question its use as the article name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even KNOW the official operation name until I read this discussion!!! It can certainly be mentioned as what the ISRAELI's call it. I'm sure the Palestinians will come up with a name for it as appropriate. But the current name makes the most sense for people searching for what is going on in GAZA NOW and down the road. No one will remember the Israeli name for it.DavidMIA (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Emphasizes that this was a military operation, rather than a civilian attack (like 2005 Amman bombings). [Note, the fact that it is a military operation can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing to different people; this fact doesn't take any side.]
    • Counterargument: SO where is the difference between a military act of genocide and a civilian act of Genocide??

I see no difference , it must called by the fact that people were literally blown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Used more often than any other name (like "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes"), which is a description, rather than a title for this specific incident.
  • If I (or anyone else) wanted to search wikipedia for this particular attack I would type: Operation Cast Lead, not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. The operation is name Operation Cast Lead, why do we need to reinvent the lead.Yamanam (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Other articles use Israeli Operation names, and indeed it would be very strange if one particular incident was re-named whilst others remained. The media may not use the Operation name as freely as Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia is not a news service. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Operation names are not unconventional per WP:MILMOS. The current lead reads "The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes...is an Israeli air strike operation...", which sounds awkward. I don't think there's a neutrality problem here. Besides, the operation might also include ground forces. -- Nudve (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, in favor of the Operation name. The previous israeli operation has been name with their operation name, why this one should be different ?Kormin (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Counterargument: Please refrain from repeating the same argument twice!

It has been refuted at the beginning of this section , Bullying or Forcing the argument will lead nowhere.

  • Further Comment Surely history will remember this is Operation Cast Iron as one part of the on-going Israeli conflict? If these attacks go on into January, our title will need changing, and what better title than its operational name? I sense there is some NPOV issues involved here, bordered by "recentism". doktorb wordsdeeds 13:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the barbarossa one has nothing to do with the IDF... just an historic reference... we dont name that "the beginning of the invasion of the USSR by nazi germany" or something like that (Im still gumuhua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument Against why shouldn't we call it like all the other military operations The question is why shouldn't we call it Operation whatever just like Operation Barbarosa....etc The Answer is blatantly simple , because this not a military operation that can be compared to barbarosa or the D-Day or whatever... In a Military Operation , An Army or a militant party lunches an offensive against another army or armed party.

But Here , We see nothing like it ! What we see , is a brutal and indescriminent murder against the people of Gaza. of course israel claims it targets hamas but these are only lies and propaganda , from the death toll and from the unreasonable amount of aggression and hate that this act was carried out , clearly displays the Zionist Intention to exterminate every single arab palestinian from the lands of palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't respond to such a blatantly antisemitic troll, but I'd like to point out that if Israel really did want to "exterminate" every so called "Palestinian" in Gaza it could carpet bomb civilian population centers like the US did in Japan in WWII. The death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, not the hundreds. In fact, the Israeli military is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, which is very difficult considering that Hamas is taking advantage of Israeli morality by using the civilian population as a human shield (e.g., storing explosives in school and hospital basements, shooting rockets from densely packed neighborhoods). Let's not forget the civilian population democratically elected the Hamas into power, despite the Hamas being a terrorist organization with no rspect for human life that states the destruction of the state of Israel as goal in its official charter. Under similar circumstances, you can bet that other countries (e.g., the US, Russia, China) would have far fewer reservations about using military power to crush the Hamas. LirazSiri (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gumuhua is 100% right, cowmadness. His point is valid whether you believe the operation was indeed an operation or not. A precedent has already been established in regards to calling the sort of action undertaken by Israel the past few days an operation, at least in regards to titles of Wikipedia articles. The title should be changed to "operation cast lead" to coincide with the established precedent that already exists. Cowmadness, If you don't like the way Israel is behaving, I suggest you voice your personal political views elsewhere. This is a neutral source, not a place for personal opinion. - Eblashko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblashko (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there again... glad to know that the debate is still alive... Encyclopedic articles should't reflect the personal POV or editors, but stick to facts: the precedent established is clear...

Cow: during the german invasion of the USSR up to 23 millions of soviets died... how should we call that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Against 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

  • Ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year.
  • Thinking ahead, no one will look up this article under this name. If an event has a name given to it, why refer to it as the [] []ing of []? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.65.229 (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • One question, who called it 2008 Gaza Strip Bombings, or December 2008 Gaza Strip Airstikes. We, at wikipedia, collect the knowledge and list them under there given name, not creating names for certain events. Yamanam (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Counterargument: If you are looking for ones who called this event the "Gaza Bombing 2008" or "Gaza Genocide 2008" you will find the whole independent media

calling it that way. Even CNN does called the Gaza Bombing for example, i think this argument has been refuted as well.Cowmadness (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • There is a possibility that this could continue into January. A time-specific title might not be appropriate. However, I dislike trying to find encyclopedia articles about events like this according to a military name, because the military names of operations are less widely known by the general public. I myself Googled this page with the words wikipedia gaza december 2008, so you all seem to have found what works. It is very likely that December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is the best that Wikipedia can do until this event earns its own name. The same kind of development took place with the Mumbai attacks. With patience, the naming business should settle down here, as well. PinkWorld (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink
  • The article is about the military operation (and its background, planning and reactions), not about the bombings or the airstrikes (which are part of the operation). If it's decided to give a descriptive title, it should be "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza". RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

  • WP:NPOV
  • "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes/bombings" is the more factual title and as for all factual titles is the more npov because all sides would agree this is true : all sides agree it happened in December 2008, in the Gaza Strip and that there were airstrikes (or bombings)... On the other side, giving the name of the military operation as title is not appropriate because the pro-Palestinian side may see the "operation" as "terrorism" and the "military" point of view sounds a little bit as giving legitimity to the action... Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this title; it seems to represent only the action taken, which seems neutral to me. Maybe "Operation Cast Lead" can redirect to a page with this title?Kill. (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • [Against naming the article after the military operation] As long as the Palestinians are as involved in the event as the Israeli's (effected by it, which is very true), it's strictly biased to adopt any party's notion. Therefore, it's equally incorrect to call it the "2008-2009 Israeli Crime in Gaza" or the "Operation Iron Lead", for it expressing one party's view. Whatever title chosen should be either factual as said, or having a name that is approved by both involved parties (regardless of the inequality of those parties, as long as they are both involved equally in the event). If a common name has not been found, then someone will have to resort to a factual title, which is necessitated by the lack of such common name. Asking about what the other Israeli operations should be called then is both irrelevant to the discussion, and hardly making any point. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (old)

  • 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, fails to indicate that Palestinian rockets had previoulsy fallen, and continue to fall, on Israel - the cause of the Israeli response.
    • Non-argument because if the motivations for the attacks are irrelevant in the case of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings, then surely they are irrelevant in the case of Operation Cast Lead too.
  • Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns;
    • Non-argument because it's not up to wikipedians to decide that bombings by non-state actors are fundamentally different from bombings by state actors.
      • You are inferring something that was never said. Anyway, we can, and will differentiate that. The text says this was carried out by the IDF. We use the military conflict infobox rather than the civilian attack infobox. We put this in a certain category. People are going to figure this out at some point; the fact that it is a military incident carries no bias either way. -- tariqabjotu 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we're at December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing.

Are there any suggestions for a better name? Boud (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're intent on staying away from the operation name, why not December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes. That's much more descriptive than the vaguer "bombings". (Edit: I don't mean to sound critical, and the summary you've written up is quite constructive. Thanks) Joshdboz (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The current name is OK, although I stand by my opinion that referring to it as Cast Lead is NPOV. I can see two potential problems if the action extends past the new year (which is likely) or Israel mounts a ground offensive (possible). I agree 'bombings' is vague. topynate (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes... its even more descriptive while remaining neutral and a decent title. Plus if there is ever a ground component, we do a different article: This is not a paper encyclopedia Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not "Late December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing" ? And when they will launch a ground offensive, Late December Gaza Strip Bombing and gournd offensive" ? And what if it spread to West Bank ? Kormin (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Cerejota, it hasn't even be an hour. Let's go back to Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever.

What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" [5] Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change Operation Enduring Freedom to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Operation Cast Lead" already has numerous google results, on blogs, etc. "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" will only give the wikipedia page. Chesdovi (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, virtually every other war is titled according to its operation (Rainbow – Days of Penitence – Autumn Clouds –Hot Winter) on wikipedia. Why should this be any different? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Agree with the points by Chesdovi and Wikifan12345. This was manipulation at its finest. You didn't wait for feedback, and the above points are hand-picked to serve the position of those supporting the current title. WP:NPOV was just slapped under "In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings" with no explanation whatsoever. You didn't wait for feedback or counterpoints, and you ignored a perfectly valid point above that the military campaign name does not indicate support for the action. With certain attacks (like the Amman bombings, Bali bombings, etc, etc), we use a descriptive title because there is no prominent name available. Here, we have one, even if it's not a household name. Let's not make this about drawing sympathy for Palestinians; this is standard nomenclature. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be the only place where Operation Cast Lead features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Wikipedia isn't news. The title denotes the article, hence Operation Cast Lead is necessary. 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is going to be false eventually, because the operation's scope is larger than a simple airstrike. A single report of infantry fighting would completely eliminate airstrike term. Operation Castle Lead is the appropriate title, it is used for every other Israeli operation, this should be no different. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Israeli offensive that began on December 27 at 11:30. That offensive is called Operation Cast Lead. That is a plain fact; there is nothing POV about it. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the article shouldn't be only about the Israeli offensive, because portraying just one side is not neutral. Please read WP:NPOV, POV forks are not allowed and titles must be neutral. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes calling it "Operation Cast Lead" does not show Hamas's position, it should be December 2008 Hamas rocket attacks and the Isreally military responce. (Hypnosadist) 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with how it is phrased in the Main Page (ie Israel launched Operation Cast Lead) nor have it in the article even prominently. In fact, as of now the bulk of the article is about the operation. However, we are neither recentists, nor the media. We must follow neutrality. To the argument that almost all other articles are named for operations, this not true even for the war in Afghanistan. Usually, the events are described and an operation is given. Exceptions are usually as Operations as part of a larger inter-state conflict, such as WWII or the Korean War, but even there, we name the Battle of Chosin Reservoir after the battle, not the operation name. Even in the 2006 Lebanon War or 1982 Lebanon War we use a common name in the format similar to the proposed format. That said, neutrality is in a large extent a result of consensus, and all I am trying to do is prevent a future edit clusterfuck that benefits no one. Way I see it, we all take a chill pill, realize that neutrality is server, that Operation Cast Lead remains as a redirect (and hence a search term) and will remain in the intro. This way, we concentrate on editing the article to achieve GA. Its about not feeding trols and assuming good faith. What is so strange about that? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Stop dancing Cerejota. Respond to my claims and explain your logic again, or shall I simply just paste and copy what you said before? We get it, neutrality is an issue, but you're trying to paint Operation Cast Lead as a topic of neutrality. I, like many people here, are pulling a strong "wtf?!" inside our minds. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I already responded to this claim, please re-read, but the gist is that an operation name is one-sided, and hence non-neutral, its simple, really. And please, WP:CHILL: that we disagree is no reason to get on top of each other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A clarification on the name: when trying to find reliable sources, concentrate on the "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes" part of the name. The December and 2008 are for wikipedia disambiguation purposes, not part of the "real" title. Currently, reliable sources are overwhelmingly calling this "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". Regardless of the opinion of some, we are require to follow reliable sources, which in this case will be mostly news sources (unless books and academic papers are already out!) So what they call the thing, and how it verifies across sources, is central. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Ok, so just so we are all clear, the dismissal of Operation Cast Lead is warranted because other news sites aren't using that title for reference? This is your logic, correct? In response, wikipedia is not news. The article is about Operation Cast Lead, not BBC, CNN, etc.. individual story reporting. Within days the article is going to evolve into something pretty big I expect, and "Gaza Strip Airstrike" is not even close to being the necessary title to maintain the scope of the article. Operation Cast Lead is the official title of the operation orchestrated by Israel. I cannot spell this out any clearer. Also, you fail to explain your neutrality issue. I can't seem to find anything remotely controversial about Operation Cast Lead other than your strange disapproval. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles with Operation [insert weird name here], so I would assume that has set a strong precedent. But according to you, it doesn't? To change a title there needs to be a reason, and you have yet to offer a worthwhile one.

And i will repeat - Airstrikes is a useless term. This war is beyond bombs being dropped from the skies. There have already been reports of infantry fightings, hence airstikes/bombings are false titles. Man I'm tired. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ALSO, need I remind you that you unilaterally changed the title without any discussion in the talk? This is't Cerotapidia. This is a community-based website that requires care when dealing with special articles like this. The argument should be Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever, not the title you as an individual poised. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling it Operation Cast Lead is putting too much emphasis on the military side of the operation, while, as I pointed out above, military is but one aspect of what is happening there right now. As I understand this article is about the whole situation: political, humanitarian and not just about the IDF's operation. The title should be way broader than just about an IDF's operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the title Operation Cast Lead. None of the arguments against it are convincing, and certainly not enough to deviate from a Wikipedia convention. The logic that 'no news sources use this as the title in articles so we shouldn't' is faulty for two reasons:

  1. It's in the claim itself—the word 'news'. Anyone reading news is presumed to understand that the airstrikes are referring to something that happened in the adjacent time period. However, Wikipedia is not news and we should be looking at the title from the point of view of someone reading this 20 years from now. '2008 Israeli airstrike in Gaza' or any variation thereof is completely unclear and ambiguous. Anything more detailed like 'December 2008 ...' is just going too far for no reason at all.
  2. Almost all news sources, pro- and anti-Israeli, that I have seen, do mention the name somewhere in the article. You can't expect them to use the name all the time, because it is not descriptive to the general audience (i.e. a person unfamiliar with the event won't immediately know what 'Cast Lead' is referring to). Calling it an airstrike by Israel is a simple description, not a title, and this is a clarification that the media needs, and Wikipedia does not. There's absolutely no reason or Wiki policy to have a descriptive title—this is what the article itself is for.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


1)What arguments you do not find convincing?
2) Almost all sources describe this as "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". If I understand your point, you are saying that Operation Cast Lead' is a convention, and that it stems from sources. This is valid point, however, it fails to convince:
a)it isn't a convention to name articles by operation names, it is a consensus among a set of editors, and WP:CCC and it cannot happen outside of neutrality. If it is a convention, please name the policy or guideline establishing it so we can learn it.
b) it is not neutral as it is the name that one side is giving to the conflict. This is frank truism, like 2+2=4. If you name something, you have the upper hand in framing it. Hence no neutrality. This like saying the sky is blue or that the Holocaust happened. I first came upon this name as operation thing in 2006 Lebanon War, and then in was agreed not to use it. But I am not oppose to its use, I am opposed to its use when it obviously breaks neutrality. That's the difference.
c)None of the non-partisan reliable sources are calling this Operation Cast Lead, they are saying what we are saying in the lead: That the IDF is calling it Operation Cast Lead. Yet we have highly reliable sources calling this "Gaza Air Strike" with no mention of Operation Cast Lead Time Magazine, Fox News, Associated Press, etc etc etc. And then even inside of Israel, the sources don't use the term Haaretz. I do not know what sources you are reading, but we are reading different ones. And I am reading all the usual suspects for an event like this. (Yeah, Haaretz has useed "Operation Cast Lead", but also has written about this *without* the operation name; if Haaretz can be neutral, why can't wikipedia?
3) AFAIK, in all of the "current event" articles I have worked in, including recently the November 2008 Mumbai attacks (which I proposed its structure, and are its third highest editor) use the "date, place, event - format" which is an informal convention used in conflict articles (for relevant cases see above Lebanon War examples). The only naming convention that specifies a format is the WikiProject Disaster's convention, which uses the "date, place, event format". This is an emerging, informal convention, with which I agree. Now, as to the naming of Israeli operations,
4)The date specificity is a disambiguation requirement due to limitations with the Wikipedia software, and shouldn't be a subject of debate, please see WP:NAME.

I have provided you with sources, and with evidence to my assertions. I believe it would serve us well if we minimize naked assertions, and concentrate on providing evidence. I am very open to convincing, but we'll need more than just our word, we need sources. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1) If a ground component happens, we have many choices, I suggested a separated article for the ground component, but we can also rename this one to reflect that. Its not the end of the world, this is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can rename on the fly. So I do not understand how this is such a serious crisis.

If there is a ground component, then we need to seriously start thinking about WP:SUMMARY, which means a structure with a main article ans then sub-articles with Summaries in the main page. Perhaps in then we can get the operation names, as they are sub-articles of the 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article, which is crap, but its there. However, this here is a new thing, something both unprecedented (when was the last time Israel bombed so massively Gaza?

2) I didn't propose the current title. I simply edited what someone else suggested, changing the one I had proposed, which itself was a rewording of the original title that you and couple-three other editors decided to do. I was as bold as you were, nothing sinister or owny. That said, we can engage on an edit war, or we can realize that it is the most neutral alternative to emerge so far. If you dislike it, then suggest something else that is as neutral and as descriptive. I am open, as surely are other editors. An advantage of this not being paper is that we can afford to change titles with relative ease. However, we do need to discuss, and I recognize I was bold, but so was the change to the operation name, which was not the original name of this article. The original name, while problematic, was more neutral. No two ways about it. Of course, you can always rain upon me with higher authority. :D

3) Yeah you seem tired, because you are becoming exasperated, which you probably shouldn't. We are in disagreement, but we are listening to each other in good faith, I hope! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of debating. Semantics and rhetoric get annoying and pointless after the 12th paragraph. Wikipedia isn't my life. My opinion rests strictly on Ynhockey well-crafted argument. I will come in to add points if necessary, but for now I'll give the fight up to those who wish to fight it. I encourage you to revert the title to its original state so we can debate in the intended environment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article is about a specific military operation, and as far as I know Operation Cast Lead is the only name for this specific operation. Why use a vague description when a precise name is available? Of course it's an Israeli name: it's an Israeli operation. Using the Israeli name doesn't imply approval of the operation, merely recognition that it's an operation for which Israel is responsible. Torve (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree here, I think that it should be called the name of the operation. What if it goes past Dec 2008 (a highly likely event) will we rename the article again to "Dec 2008-Jan 2009 Gaza Strip airstrikes"? It seems to me that the name of the article got unilaterally changed during the discussion, rather than according to consensus. Seems weird that we're stuck there on an accident of history.Lot 49atalk 08:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me Operation Cast Lead is probably the best name for now. If another name develops we can move the article but this seems to be least problematic name at the current time. I'm sympathetic to the view operation names can sometimes be problematic and violate NPOV but it's not as if we have something like Enduring Freedom here so IMHO it isn't an extreme issue Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My Support for title of 'Operation Cast Lead"

1. I agree that the title of this article should be "Operation Cast Lead". This title would indicate that this offensive is an Isreali led MILITARY offensive against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. From a military standpoint, if there are two opposing sides engaged in conflict, each side will have various operations in order to gain the upper hand. Regaurdless of each sides approval of the methods behide the opponents operations, that operation is still known as whatever the opponent who devised the operation calls it. It does not show support for an operation by calling it by the name of the one who devised, it only is used to indicate what operation is being referred to (as opposed to saying 2008 airstrikes on gaza strip, what is this? what type of airstrikes?). I feel that by calling by its codename would indicate that it is a military offensive. I feel that by calling it by a title should as airstrikes on gaza strip could led one to believe that the airstrikes were committed by a private body.

2. However, I do agree that at times an opponent may call an operation by a name such "Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" but this is only used as proproganda used to motivate ones supporters. However, from a strategic standpoint the operation would be known by its codename.

3. I feel that by calling by a such as 2008 airstrikes is actually biased towards Hamas. I believe this becuase it seemly implies that the IDF is an illegitment fighting force and supports the Hamas point of view without being neutral. By failing to title the article by its actual name would take away from the fact that it is a military operation and biases it towards an killing hungry fighting force.

Please give any counterarguments. Virgo1989 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First, welcome to Wikipedia. I placed a welcome message on your talk page, and as I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia, it will give you an idea of what we are, what we do, and what policies we are supposed to be following when editing. In particular, let me refer you to the Five pillars of Wikipedia.
That said, I invite you to be more careful when discussing matters. In particular, be careful when raising strawmen: no one here has seriously suggested ""Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" or some such.
You do raise an interesting point, which is the bias for Hamas. In particular for Wikipedia, where we develop content not based on our own original research, but through a process of verification of reliable sources. I wrote something about this below, please read it as it will help you understand my point.
Almost all reliable sources are describing this as "Gaza Strip air strikes" or "Gaza air stikes". They do so without a value judgment, describing the facts of the event. On the other hand, who gives an operation a codename? One side. Now, if this name was universally used by reliable sources, we might have an argument, but it isn't. Even Haaretz has articles around this event that do not mention the Operation codename Haaretz article. I am sorry, but if you think Haaretz is implying that the IDF is an illegitimate fighting force by not using the codename, we live in separate realities. I think your argument is not only weak, but untenable in the view of evidence, and falls in the realm of fringe opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the the use of gaza strip airstrike in that situation. As someone stated earlier in that sense the term "gaza strip airstrike" is used as a descriptive term and not as the name of the event. As was stated earlier, if you don't know what Operation Cast Lead is this title would not be appropriate. However, as far as a title within wikipedia I believe that the codename is more appropriate, because in this situation it is no longer a "news" article but a explanation of the facts. As far as what most reliable sources use I see that they are using it as a description once again and not as a title. In THIS situation I feel that Operation Cast Lead would be more appropriate as it gives the title of the military operation which is recongnized by these same sources as the name of the actual operation. Given the current situation of this operation I feel that currently this article describes a military operation that may eventually encompass more than airstrikes which as was stated by others would render the current title inappropriate. Thank you for insight I appreciate it Virgo1989 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When that happens, we change it! I mean, that we shouldn't use the operationa name is not the end of the world, there is plenty of reliable sources giving us plenty of verifiable alternatives. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Overturning this

It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Won't act on it, as I have already moved the article, but endorse this view. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I endorse times infinity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should defer to the original name until we have consensus for something else. I do think it needs to be made clear that any move is not intended to shut down discussion but reflective of the fact the original move was out of process Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A reminder to everybody in this section: this is not a private discussion among the people who own the page due to their having worked on it. If you make comments referring to "the original location" like you have here, most "third party" wikipedians who browse through the discussion and just want to find the key arguments will have difficulty knowing what you're talking about, since there have been apparently about 5 name-changes since the first draft was written. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a new party could guess that "original location" means... well... the original location, where the article originally was (which can be determined from the history). -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I never worked on this article other then one single reversion. I didn't even read most of the arguments. I did read enough to know the core of the issue here is that this article was unilaterally moved without consensus. It's not that hard... Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding "heavily outnumbered": wikipedia decision-making on controversial issues like deleting a page or renaming a page is not about voting. Only a clear set of arguments/counterarguments and consensus solution is likely to be accepted by the large number of "third party" wikipedians. Boud (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Such arguments have already made. Numbers are not everything, but they do mean something. Unless one side's arguments simply don't make sense or go against policy, etc, etc, there's little reason to go against the majority. While WP:NPOV has been thrown around, there has been no clear reason why either side goes against policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Lest we forget, Cerejota, or whatever his name is, unilaterally CHANGED the title of the page without even waiting for responses in his little China-trial selection game. The discussion contained 4-5 people deciding on an appropriate title, and Cerejota abuses his powers and changes it. And he is still defending his decision. This isn't simply a matter of whats right, we are obligated as wikipedians to follow the rules and revert the title back to its original form. Then, we can discuss further name changed. Seriously guys, this isn't rocket science. I'm honestly considering getting some heavy admins in here because it's been 13 hours and nothing has changed. A true wikipedia tragedy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
When it is said that this is consensus and not voting it is because our "votes" are constrained by policy. You can vote against policy, but you vote is invalid. Any alternative that is WP:neutral and meets WP:NAME is cool with me. Naming this article for the operation is a breach of neutrality. Hence, it is not possible to support it as an option, because it breaches core policy. Sorry. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
How is naming the article by the operation a "breach of neutrality"? This article is about the operation's background, its planning, the air strike, the possible ground attack and the reactions to the operation. In other words, it's about the operation. Why shouldn't it be called by the name of the operation? The only valid point, IMO, not to change the title to "Operation Cast Lead" is the fact that the name isn't known, but still, "airstrikes" isn't an appropriate description. In that case, "December 2008 IDF operation in Gaza" is the best name IMO. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually that is an interesting name sugegstion but the "airstrikes/air strikes" come from how reliable sources are calling this - a different issue from neutrality. Maybe "December 2008 Gaza IDF air strikes"? but then we are making the title longer as per WP:NAME. I already provided a list of the actual sources, but Time, Fox News, and Haaretz are all calling this "Gaza Strip air strikes" or variations like "Gaza" alone etc. This dismissal of "airstrikes" I find puzzling, as it is what we are covering here, and what every source I have read is saying.
As to neutrality, it is the name of the operation given to one side of the conflict, ignoring the multi-side nature of the conflict. We agree that this is not a one sided conflict, but one with a complex background, and with complex results, that will be covered by RS. In particular, reliable sources see it as a milestone, as a new phase in the political and military engagement, and as unprecedented move by Israel, who had never used air power at this level in the Palestinian territories. Perhaps subsequent use of air power will be less notable as a milestone, and reliable sources lead us to conclude the operation name is correct, but such is not the case now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Can we get an admin in here? I did it once but I'm not really comfortable with the process. This needs to be taken care of, pronto. Cerejota, you, without discussion this in the talk page, CHANGED the title to something you personanally believe to be neutral. Even if the title was Israel Sucks Big Ones, you are still obligated to at least look through the rationale in the talk. Operation Cast Lead is the real title, we should be arguing from that, not arguing to have it reinstated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Raise it at WP:DRAMA as I suggested we do. If this is your main grievance, which I already addressed, we can take it there. I just would like you to calm down so we can discuss in peace. No need to get all upset. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Per your suggestion and the general paralysis over what should be a relatively minor issue, I went ahead and raised it. Lot 49atalk 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I responded. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - If Operation Barbarossa has remained the same, I can't figure why it can't be the same here. Or do we need to change it also? How about "The German (Nazi) invasion of (Soviet) Russia in June 1941"? PluniAlmoni (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Cerejota 20:40, 28 December 2008 - Even if airstrikes is mentioned in the world media, it isn't a correct name. I find it absurd that in an article named "...airstrikes" there's a paragraph called "Ground attack".
About the neutrality, even if it's a long-ongoing conflict, this article is about the operation, not about the whole conflict. We have other pages for that (2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict etc.) RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I support the NEUTRAL title -- "2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict". The title of an article that purports to be objective should not be determined by the chief belligerent! The Israeli war machine must not be allowed to define our reality! The analogy with "Operation Barbarossa" fails, because the German war machine no longer exists: There is no harm in borrowing from something that is no longer a threat, to title a conflict that is long dead. Other operation names -- e.g., Just Cause", "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL, for short) -- should NOT be used as article titles. The codenames are propaganda, and promulgating such propaganda is not the job of wikipedia. An encyclopedia must strive to rise above propaganda! NonZionist (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Gaza Strip war

I see the title as not neutral because it does show the Hamas response to the attacks. 2008 Gaza strip war is neutral and shows a 2-sided conflict with military operations. Earlier on in 2008 it wasn't a war but just clashes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas didn't launch any kind of a military operation (except targeting civilians, for now). This is, as yet, a one-sided military operation with no (military) retaliation from the other party. PluniAlmoni (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
the best name. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3645561,00.html I would prefer however 2008 Gaza War or 2008-present Gaza War--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its not a 'war', therefore this title is inappropriate. Ijanderson (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's pretty one-sided right now. It may have been in response to Hamas actions, but those actions are beyond the scope of this article. -- tariqabjotu 15:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • How long do the Hamas rocket attacks have to continue in tandem with the Israeli bombing attacks for them to be considered not separate events? To me, if it is not currently in scope then it should be. You can't just flatly deny that one sides actions are unrelated to the other sides when so many sources discuss them as if they are. 118.208.59.98 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support this if significant, sustained (ie, not police capture operations etc) ground operations start and/or reliable sources start calling it so. Otherwise, it is a bit premature. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Israel's DefMin Barak called the operation as "an all out war against Hamas" in his address today at the Israeli Parlament. CNN already cites Barak's words frequently. The fact that it is so called "on sided" is not crucial im my view. It is still a war even if one side is "winning" (which is doubtful to stay that way in the next few days, I think. All is needed is one successful suicide attack in Israel to change the whole picture). Lastly, it is not really one sided, as fire is being fired in both directions. Most Israeli reliable media sources are using the term "Ma'aracha" (מערכה), which translates to a "battle".--Omrim (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

An update - Israel's largest news site is now calling it "a war". see [6] --Omrim (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - calling it "airstrikes" or whatever detaches it from its context, making it look as though Israel just got up one day and decided to bomb Gaza. There are two sides to this, with history. If "war" is too strong a word (I think it is), we can use "conflict" instead. Otherwise, it would only be fair to include Hamas's actions, making the name "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes and Southern Israel rocket and mortar attacks"... okedem (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


2008 Hamas-Israel Conflict

Since this is a conflict, brought on by Hamas attacks and responded to by Hamas attacks (both on israel and on egypt) the title should be two sided. Also, the use of the word "conflict" has 2 advantages over other terms:

1)It is a simple, accurate description. calling it a war is not accurate since it is not big enough to be a war.

2) This may very well turn into a ground operation, and in that event this would describe it better than calling it "air strikes". Ben Abooya (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not specific. There have been several conflicts between Hamas/Israel this year. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Gaza (2008) would be a better title, IMO. --84.67.31.215 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Israeli authorities claim that they are just attacking one organisation (political party/de facto government/armed wing). However, that's their POV rather than a more neutral description of a military conflict. It would seem to me rather POV to call this the Hamas-Israel something rather than the Gaza Strip-Israel something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You do have a point, but i find it difficult to call the Gasa strip itself a side in this. More accurate would be to say that this "something" (to use your words) takes place, at least partly, in the Gasa strip. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ben Abooya makes a fairly good point - maybe another word or two could help define it more accurately in addition to what he suggested - perhaps December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Armed Conflict in Gaza or December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict. That last one, for now, would likely serve as a fitting title - the sides in this are understood, and it defines the conflict without having to identify the differing sides (which the current title has effectively done already - one side might favor language that shows that Israel is attacking Palestinians regardless of whether they are Hamas or not, and the other side might favor language that shows Israel is focusing on Hamas militants - the current title "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" does well to avoid all that and should remain doing so in the event of any changes) - and, since ground operations are believed to possibly begin soon (link below), following what Abooya mentioned, the word "airstrikes" may likely soon no longer apply. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstargeneral (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I support "December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict". I like it better than what i said earlier. -- Ben Abooya (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict

Maybe December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict ? Here i'm guessing ahead that the conflict will continue into January. i know it's long, but we will need to find something. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe just December 2008 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict even if the conflict continues into January, with the idea that the name refers to the starting date ? E.g. in France, WWII can be referred to as << la guerre de '39 >> = the war of 1939, without any need to state the end year. Boud (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Boud, I think you might be on to somethnig there is sounds better then most other ideas to me. I don't know about the term Conflict or not but that is more of an issue as we go on. This is a good format. if others agree I could give more defind wording on Conflict/War/Campign/Battle and so on. it could be the Winter 2008 Isreal-Gaza Strip Conflict/Battle (depending opn what term to discribe the fighting everyone decides on)

Ideas thoughts? is this moving in the right direction everyone?

I'll begin with your suggestions and lay out a few alternatives. For one thing, the title looks absurdly long. Seriously. However, I think that can be fixed by dropping "December" and "January". Why, you ask? The "2008" in "2008 Israel-Gaza Strip airstrikes" indicates that the article talks about airstrikes in 2008. That's a huge span there, and that might be mixed up with others. However, if this crosses into the new year, we don't need the month designations anymore because the "2008-2009" in "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict" would describe a conflict between 2008 and 2009; i.e. that spans the two years. This, presumably, will be the only one. This, of course, raises the question: hasn't there been a 'conflict' for awhile? Well, yes, conflict might be too weak of a word. However, we can't be dropping "war" or "battle" until other sources start using that. We're not left with much better. Based on what I said earlier, I don't think there's a need to keep December 2008 (as in Boud's second suggestion) if it crosses into the new year.
Regarding the idea of the person above, "winter 2008" is generally not a good idea because (a) it's summer in the southern hemisphere, so it can sound strange and/or confusing to some and (b) "Winter 2008" can be confused with early 2008. I only think we should bring "winter" into the mix if that becomes a common motif for discussing this conflict.
My suggestions:
  • If Israel takes most of the offensive actions here, keep it as "Operation Cast Lead" (no matter when this ends).
  • If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends before the new year, change it to "December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict"
  • If this becomes more of a two-way event and ends after the new year, change it to "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict"
  • If people start using some common name, we use that.
-- tariqabjotu 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to amend my previous comment. Depending on how this unfolds, I think I'm going to advocate keeping an "Operation Cast Lead" article. If this becomes a bigger conflict, we might want to create an article about the larger conflict, discussing the lead-up, this, and whatever happens, and keep this as a daughter article. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you about the conflict widening then we articulate in that fashion. Lets not get all ballsy (besides my balls are pure adamantium, not crystal :) about it, but if it does widen (and my definition of "widen" is not wide itself: any sustained ground escalation), then this article should be named for the operation, as part of a wider conflict with other operations and sub-articles. But for now, this about the airstrikes as a notable phenomenon within the I-P conflict, and neutrality and verifiability still sustain that the correct name is not the operation name.
That said, and I have said this before , people are already using a more common name: "Gaza airstrikes" or variations. Pretty much every reliable source one reads, Time, New York Times , Times Online, Washington Post, Haaretz, BBC, etc etc etc, either don't mention the operation name, or do so in the same way that we do in the article using terms like "dubbed by the IDF" or "named by the IDF" or somesuch and also call this "Gaza airstrikes" or variations.
Pretty much the only sources that use the name in common reporting are partisan or inside Israel - and not just for reason of neutrality, but because who can fault a National press to speak the language of the National government (for example, calling this by the Operation name in Hebrew Wikipedia is neutral, in so far is has no systemic bias problems as there are in English wikipedia, AFAIK). I am still waiting for someone to provide evidence to the contrary, based on sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Right now the title of the article is December 2008 Gaza_Strip airstrikes. I have a feeling the offensive operations carried out by Israel will carry on till January. But since the airstrikes started in December, the month December should stay in the title. There is no need to add January in the title. With the massing of ground forces at the Gaza border will leave out void the airstrikes in the title. The title December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict is too long. It should just be December 2008 Israel-Hamas conflict, December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict, etc Roman888 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I came here this morning to start this very discussion! I would support changing the name to Operation Cast Lead BUT as this seems to have moved on entirely now, I bow to the consensus of the discussion..."2008-09 Gaza Strip airstrikes" would be accurate if this is the only thing which has happened in January...But if ground troops are deployed, then "2008-09 Israeli/Gaza conflict" would be my preferred choice. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict??? Hillarious:

Im sorry, but, if this suggestions gets accepted, well, how we should name:

Operation Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)? Should we rename Operation Overlord??

Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... What if the conflict escalates and lasts till february??? Gumuhua (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it alone for 5 days

I know that getting the precise name of the article right is The Most Important Thing Possible and all, but currently both the Operation name and the more generic name all point to the same place and both names are covered in the opening sentence of the article. I've already given my own opinion above but honestly, it doesn't really matter in the interim.

This is plainly a developing situation and my Crystal Ball is on the fritz. Let's give events time to play themselves out, and then name the article once things have stabilized. For all we know, this could be a stub of The Beginning of World War III which will start World War III was a major international conflict that was sparked by Operation Cast Lead...

I feel like we're in danger of being featured on WP:LAME Lot 49atalk 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you looked at half of the disputes on WP:LAME, you'd see this is nowhere near reaching that. Debates on Wikipedia are natural and occur all over the place. With one as civil and organized as this one, there is no need to invoke the standard you-guys-look-foolish essays. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm new to all of this. Lot 49atalk 03:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The original name was Operation Cast Lead. One member took it upon himself to change it without discussion and then told everyone it wasn't neutral enough. Expecting us to wait 5 more days is insulting. If anything, the admin who abused his powers needs to be penalized and the title needs to be reverted to its original state. This isn't rocket science, no need for extreme rhetoric or semantics. There isn't much to argue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be moved back to Operation Cast Lead. But I don't think that it's really doing that much harm if we have to live with both article titles temporarily redirecting to the "wrong" page while it's in dispute. In the meantime we can work on the article in response to these rapidly moving events.Lot 49atalk 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikifan, for the umpteenth time, I restored the name someone else created, and then fixed it from a suggestion. Just because you like the original name, doesn't mean it fits our policies on neutrality. The article was started with one name, but that means exactly nothing.
That said, cool down periods are always a good idea, and this is why I tell you to this is not the end of the world and that there is no deadline. We take our time. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Your excuses are on-point. Consensus means nothing. Your opinion means everything. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is this "admin who abused his powers"? -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets wait for five days. But what reflections should it have on Wikipedia's credibility, if for five days the title only refers to "airstrikes" while it is now already confirmed by official IDF sources, quoted by YNET (Israel's largest news website) that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the operation. see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3646818,00.html --Omrim (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we verify this? One source is not enough, and someone claimed something similar (although without a source) two days ago about the ground war and no dice. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
First, YNET was quoting official Israeli IDF sources, and the link I provided shows videos taken by the Israeli Navy firing missiles and cannon fire at the Gaza coastline. Second, Haaretz (which as I recall, you said is a reliable source) reported the same. see http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html. The title translates: "israeli Navy Attack in Gaza: This is how it Looked like". Lastly, the IDF official website reports:

"Israel Naval Forces also struck a number of targets Sunday night, including Hamas vessels and posts. The Naval Forces reported direct hits."

see:http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Its verified... then can we change it to 2008 Gaza strikes? In fact, most reliable sources are headlining this in their articles already. BTW, I think Ynet is of a lesser quality than Haaretz, because it tend to be tabloidy and gossipy (as is its parent newspaper, a sensationalistic rag if I have seen any - if you are ISraeli you know what I mean), but it is a reliable source. That is not the issue. Verifiability has to happen no matter how reliable a source, in particular in controversial articles. We are requiredto do it.

BTW, the same gossipy nature of YNET makes it a great predictor of whats to come (part of its salacious views on news). It seems there will be ground excursions [8]. I am guessing this will be called an "invasion" if history teaches anything. So maybe 2008 Gaza invasion will happen? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Strikes" is porbably more accurate than "airstrikes" even though I can't support both, as they indicate a completly one-sided action, while in our case fire is being shot in both directions. My view is that "battle", "war" or even "campaign" are better. Putting that aside for the moment, I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable source by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked.--Omrim (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support the suggestion to "Leave it alone for 5 days". There is a too much WP:CRYSTAL going on here with suggestions about possible land offensives etc, the main characteristic of the current phase of the operation has been IAF airstrikes and the Hamas response (I'm talking specifically about this operation, not the prior hostilities, so no history lessons please). While I think that December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict might be the best suggestion so far, none of us know if there will soon be a truce, a ground battle or hostilities that continue until February 2009. December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes is o.k. for now. In 5 days, a better answer might be obvious. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"What measures the quality of a reliable source..."

"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."

What this actually means is, if something isn't published my a source backed by the money of a large Western corporation or a Western capitalist government, it is summarily dismissed if it expresses political views opposed to any interest of the former. This is precisely where Wikipedia's usefulness stops. It is simply the echo chamber of the global Spectacle. So if any of you suckers want to change a thing in this world, get out on the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is an ideal, of course. (Above comment relates to Cerejota's quote from some time back). Harami2000 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sickest unsigned comment :) Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What 89.242.239.167 has described in informal words is something like a combination of the empirically supported (quantitative) model of the media in democratic countries, especially the USA, by Herman and Chomsky plus the measured demographic bias among en.wikipedia editors referred to and discussed in WP:BIAS. The discussion above suggesting that PNN is "more partisan" than the BBC, despite me giving one example where the BBC World Service several times acted as a tool of British foreign policy in order to (successfully) overthrow one democratically elected government which wanted to control the country's own natural resources, is most likely an example of WP:BIAS. This does not mean that any of the wikipedians involved in the discussion are consciously biased. It only means that the wikipedians involved (including me) each have limited experience and knowledge of the world limited by our living experiences and statistically matching our demographic profile. This limited experience limits our ability to judge which news sources are "partisan", for example. The BBC does not claim that it aims to overthrow democratically elected governments. However, the evidence is that in at least one case, it did do that. Boud (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is explicitly a tool of British foreign policy. The FCO decides in conjuction with the BBC what services to provide in what languages. Editorial control is the BBC's exclusive territory however, and is often not at all helpful to the immediate interests of the UK government. For a first class example of the issues discussed here see "In Search of Fatima" by Ghada Karmi, Chaper 8, page 280-282 in my 2002 paperback edition.--Milezmilez (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think 89.242.239.167's is a situationist perspective, no? Valid point though Al Jazeera has challenged it to some extent. (unsigned user)

...deleted CSS "art"...

See, I can troll too, except I do it better: War is peace, We have always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. Smoke a Victory. Welcome to the Party. Now, if you think Wikipedia changes the world, LOL. It doesn't. It can help document it tho. No theory, no praxis... --Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Grow up, people. --Darwish07 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, once in a while lame attempts at humor shoudl be allowed. Why so serious? :D--Cerejota (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My eyes hurt after staring on your ASCII art for a while ;-). --Darwish07 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Moar like CSS "art". ;)--Cerejota (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Documenting the world" is a form of preserving past lessons so future generations will benefit from them, and all that commonplace crap. Albeit unneffective, it is a sort of goal towards the changing of the world. I don't know by which standarts you consider your trolling better than his', but I certainly agree with you by mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.56.30.10 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinain civiilian casualty formulation

The figure that the UN is quoting as being the number of civilian casualties, currently 62, is only women and children, not including any civilian adult males, from bbc; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm:

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes; "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," he told a news conference. "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well."

I think that should be noted where civilian casualties are given. Any objections? Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think not. Go ahead and add it, be WP:BOLD. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a little beyond bold, but why you think not? The civilian counts have been used to back up the idea that most of those killed have been militants, but if you assume that all adult males that have been killed are militants you are likely overestimating the proportion. I think that accuracy in these counts should be of the highest concern, as both sides will try to distort them to make their points. But for something as potentially inflammatory as this, I feel it wise to ask the rest of you. Nableezy (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Separating out "militants" is invalid, unless you believe that people should be killed for their political views. ALL of the victims are "civilians". If my house is attacked and I try to defend my family, does that make me any less of a civilian than the other members of my family? The only sensible distinction is that between the aggressors and victims. NonZionist (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this[9] BBC story using the figure 57. I changed the figure in the box to conform to its source but it has since been changed back. A figure has to be the same as the source which supports it. It is dishonest on our part to do otherwise. If there is a good source on 62 could that be used instead? Otherwise it should be 57 or at least leave it unsourced. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all Israelis reservists in the IDF? Or is that no longer true? In any case, in such conflicts it's very difficult to say who's a civilian and who isn't. It's not like there haven't been female suicide bombers.

Calmofthestorm7 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The source provided above in the first post of this sections reports that the UN claims 62 women/children. Nableezy (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the source used in 'The large majority of deaths and injuries have been Hamas operatives.[19]' in the lead says 62 women/children, and nowhere does it currently say the large majority have been Hamas operatives. That claim needs another source or it should be removed. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy above. RomaC (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It does say that 'Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters and says it's careful to avoid harm to bystanders.' But this claim has to be preceded by Israel {says, claims, asserts, stressed, whatever} instead of presenting it as fact as the article being referenced does not. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the source. I didn't mean to step into your more general discussion -- I had just come to the article to read about that issued and noticed the article disagreed with the source. My opinion on your more general point is that you should include the explanation in the casualties section and I'd have the infobox read "more than 62" for now. That number is going to change anyway as the conflict continues and the numbers become better understood. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well hold on a sec - why is it assumed that all the women killed are civilians? It is well known, and publicized by Hamas, that that there are women amongst the ranks of militants - see this as one example. If we are going to be qualifying casualty numbers as proposed above, we should be precise, and state just that UN has confirmed 62 of the dead were women and children, without specifying they were civilians. NoCal100 (talk)`
I would agree, but the UN humanitarian chief did say that 'Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties' then later qualified that with those 62 being women and children. I do agree though that it should just state the 62 women and children have been confirmed dead by the UN without further qualification of their civilian/combatant status. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. If the UN have stated that they are civilians then it is not our job to editorialise what the UN has stated. When can also specify that they are including all women and children but no males, but nothing beyond that. Unless we have sources which dispute the figure in which case we can mention the sources that dispute the figure. Rememer this is wikipeida and an encylopaedia not a news paper and we rely on what the sources say not what we want them to say Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is in fact you who are editorializing. The UN did not say they are civilians, it said it "believed" they are civilians, which is not the same thing. We can say "The UN believes 62 civilians were killed, basing that on the number of children and women", but not anything more than that. NoCal100 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is that the UN or UNRWA? Two different things really. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not, the UNRWA, regardless of what you think of them, is a UN enterprise and what they say will be taken with that weight, but to answer your question the figure comes from John Holmes (British diplomat), recently appointed Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment on content please, not on fellow editors. In relevance to the content: I'm not applying my own feelings but what reliable sources say. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That was a comment on the content of the previous comment Nableezy (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) User:WanderSage has reverted the number of dead women and children back to civilians. The sources explicitly do not say civilian, they say women and children, so yes that counts women who are potentially 'militants' and does not count men that are civilians. But we cannot change what the sources say on this point. Is there anybody out there who objects to citing the wording of women and children for the released UN figure as of now, or is there any reason we should be misrepresenting the source and the UN? Unless somebody objects relatively soon I will be changing the wording back. Nableezy (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed again. Does anybody have any reason why what is properly sourced and cited to be changed? The sources clearly and explicitly say 'women and children,' they DO NOT say civilians. Could anybody provide justification for changing the wording? Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally moved the info in the box from "civilians" to "women and children". I don't know who re-edited it back again. I'll re-type it to women and children. Please people, not to enter in an WP:Edit war, do not modify it except if you have another source that criticize this statements. And we are NOT giving it as a fact, we already said "the UN said", or "according to the UN". It's not our opinion to criticize the UN statements. Done. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This keeps changing. Could somebody at least state their objection to the use of 'women and children' to 'civilians'? The quote that all the sources reference says "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," then further on, "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well." To avoid any ambiguity about whether men can be civilians and whether women can be militants, we should reflect what the sources say. They ALL say women and children, many don't use the word civilian to describe them at all. At the very least can someone please state their concern with accurately reflecting the sources? Nableezy (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
User:WanderSage has, again, changed the wording to 62 "civilians" without even discussing it in here. He says in the log that it's an "emotionalistic pov language- women can be militants, and men can be civilians.". Again, Mr. WanderSage, it's not your call to modify the UN reports. If so, every side can put his biased opinion on other side official statements and a mess begin. Israeli figures are put as is, Palestinian ones are put as is, and UN ones should be put as is. Isn't this overstated enough? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually think this last one was User:Jadorno did this one [10] Nableezy (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nableezy for correction, and sorry to WanderSage. I'll re-edit it back to women and children. Thoughts Nableezy? --Darwish07 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
My thinking is that if somebody disputes the language they should provide a source that does so. There are an overwhelming number of sources that specifically say women and children, and if somebody has an issue with the language to take it up here. Nableezy (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.

Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection&section_id=97&static=0&format=html

AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).

Thrylos000 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Since there is a fog of war inherent to the process, casualty figures are inherently vague. I suggest that if sources contradict themselves, we use all figures as a range. As time goes by, figures would become solid. As long as we source, we will be doing our readers a service. W ejust have to keep updating it with new info. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the info according to this IHT article: [11]
Another interesting thing in it, is that it has a description of Hamas militiamen executing other Palestinians in Shifa hospital because of suspicion of cooperation with Israel. It might be an interesting information. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that all sources for casualties say "according to UN officials the number of civilian deaths...". But, what did the UN officials actually say? "Commissioner-General for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), who said that, conservatively, between 20 and 25 per cent of the known dead were civilians."[2] For this article to be more accurate and less biased it needs to be changed so that number of dead civilians is changed to "the UN estimates between 20-25% of Palestinian deaths are civilian." I will make the changes, but with how hot this topic is I am sure it will be changed back, so I provided this comment to explain the change.--Terets (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, just noticed that the article is locked, so I can't make the changes. Will someone who has access please correct the information in the article? P.S. Don't rely simply on sources who repeat information, check the sources of your sources. In this case many of the news agencies reworded what the UN actually said.--Terets (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Events have changed with the recent ground invasion. We need to generate a fresh look. I am closing and reopening anew discussion, please be patient and helpful while this is setup.--Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

proposed options/local table of contents: #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_strikes - #Operation_Cast_Lead - #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_conflict

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes — Reliable sources overwhelmingly support this option in their headlines, current title incorrect because there is now a naval component — Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)
  • oppose - "strikes" is one sided. Fire is being shot in both directions.--Omrim (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support, because it gives information about the location and time of the events. See WP:MILMOS#NAME and WP:MILMOS#CODENAME JVent (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support - it's relatively neutral, accurate and short - (1) it follows the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict which have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians; (2) because it's a small change from the present title December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, it only removes "air", which is no longer valid because of naval operations and would become more inaccurate if ground operations start; date: - continuation of the strikes into 2009 should not be a problem for the title for at least a week or so when the Jan duration becomes equal to the Dec duration; if this intense phase of conflict continues further, then it will be time to think of e.g. 2008/2009 Gaza Strip strikes; strikes in both directions - "Gaza strip strikes" can mean both strikes against the Gaza Strip and strikes by the Gaza Strip against a tiny fraction of Israel, which is consistent with the content of the article. Boud (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Strikes is ambiguous - it can be interpreted as labour disputes (Cynical brought this up). Boud (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough as to the precedents. But then again - shouldn't we change it to "conflict" rather than "strikes", if we are to rely on these precedents? i.e. December 2008 Israel-Hamas Conflict? Saying that "strikes" is neutral would have been correct if this was an article on the linguistic term of the word "strikes". But we all know this is not the case. "Strikes", in the Israeli-Plestinian context translates in the mind of most readers to "Israeli strikes" (just ad "bombings" translates to suicide bombings), and arguing otherwise is naive... --Omrim (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support for now because it describes what is noteworthy about the situation. Hamas rockets being fired at Israel is not, in recent years, a particularly unusual event. However the launch of an Israeli military campaign (currently airstrikes) is a significant event, and it is this which has attracted media coverage. The one strike against the current title is that it will inevitably have to be changed if there is (as some media reports suggest) to be an operation on the ground by the IDF. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I thought this was the section for supporting the current title. "2008 Gaza strikes" suggests some sort of labour dispute. oppose Cynical (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I stilll think it is early days. Of what would use is a title December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes if Israel launches a ground invasion? Can a ground offensive be included under "strikes"? Maybe it's because Israeli-Arabs called a one day strike in protest?! It's soon January. Wishful thinking if you think this is going to be over any time soon. Chesdovi (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reasons given in #Leave it alone for 5 days. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • So should we change Operation Grapes of Warth to "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes"?. Again, yours is the kind of arguments made to change the original title. None of which hold any merit, and I fail to see how this operation differs for Wiki purposes from Grapes of Warth ot any other Israeli Operations for that matter. This is even without mention to the fact that the current title is both FACTUALLY WRONG (naval intervention had already been verified), and at least "a bit" biased (leaving it only as "strikes", the unwary reader might suspect that fire is only being shot in one direction...).--Omrim (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (shifted from survey section to discussion section Boud (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
Support the objective title. If Israel expands the aggression, then the "strike" in the title can be changed to "attack" or "aggression". I do not believe that the chief belligerent should be allowed to set the terms of the debate: That violates NPOV and disenfranchises the victims of the aggression.
I would much prefer "April 1996 Southern Lebanon Airstrikes" to "Grapes of Wrath" since a reader looking for articles about aggression against Lebanon will is far more likely to search for "Lebanon" than "grapes". The codename, moreover, is a monstrous insult to John Steinbeck. NonZionist (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → Operation Cast Lead — It is the name of the Operation given by the IDF (someone who supports please elaborate a position, and take out my signature, please — Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)
  • Oppose - Haven't we been through all this before? See above e.g. WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes we did, and there is overwhelmingly better arguments to call it that way. --Omrim (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's not neutral: (1a) it's a subjective name (from a poem) chosen by one of the two main parties in conflict and so favouring that party's POV; (1b) the other main party in the conflict seems to use the terms "attacks", "airstrikes", "strikes" or "massacre" and rarely uses "Operation Cast Lead"; (2) the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians, probably by more diverse ranges of wikipedians than those working on individual attacks that retain Israeli choices of names, because they are bigger, more ambitious articles; (3) the Israeli code name is not overwhelmingly dominant in Western media usage (which would be a reason in favour if we wished to be biased towards en.wikipedians' demographic centre in the sense of WP:BIAS in the english language wikipedia). Boud (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (minor corrections Boud (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC), Boud (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose - POV, not used in English-language media, not recognisable by the public. Cynical (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporter Not POV, claims of neutrality hold no water. It was the original title and it shouldn't have been changed in the first place. Cerejota changed it unilaterally after a discussion had occured, which he took NO part in. Yes, maybe his actions would sincere, but a revert should have occurred. Virtually every other Israeli war starts with Operation, this makes no different. Should we retitle WWI to war of 1916-1918? Not to mention, Gaza Airstrikes don't even remotely explain the article. The war is beyond airstrikes and it was never intended to be solely airstrikes. If the article was solely about the airstrikes I wouldn't mind.... Whether the war was named after a poem or not is irrelevant, should we retitle all the intifada articles because it's an Arabic-origin name, meaning "rebellion". I'm sure many Israeli's would prefer "crazy fundamentalist radicals blowing themselves up at our borders and in our cities"...Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is about a fascist state once again trying to impose its skewed definition of reality on the world and deny every other definition. The victims of this aggression certainly do NOT see it as "Cast Lead"; nor do they associate the slaughter with a children's toy, and they do not find the slaughter cute. Why, then, must we do so? Why is it always necessary to deny the perspective and reality of the victims? Can't we for once acknowledge that Israelis are not the only human beings on this planet who matter and have a right to exist? This attempt to hide mass murder behind cute euphemisms and codenames shows the extent to which we have lost contact with our own humanity. NonZionist (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was bad English and poorly written. Sorry guys, it's late. Can barely type. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose. if you used the idf operation name, you must include black saturday massacre to give equal weight, as in "operation cast lead/black satuday massacre"

frankly, i hadn't heard either term and the obvious title will be Gaza attack or Gaza invasion with the date.Untwirl (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • In response to the latest "Oppose" point in the survey at the time of writing, it's inappropriate to describe this event as the "Black Saturday Massacre", even supposing that it is a legitimate title, because that is only a component of the conflict. To describe several days (and ongoing) fighting as one occasion is like having the title "fan belt" for the article on cars - it's an important part of it, but certainly not all of it and it's misleading to assume otherwise. 11:20, 2nd January 2009 (UTC)
There is already discussion about this above. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comment - that discussion, we can all agree, was not structured in a manner according to custom. And while it has helped move the opinions along, we do have an urgent need to solve this matter. The only way we are going to get an admin to look at this is if we structure it better. Does that make sense?--Cerejota (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As the others have said, we've already discussed this so no need to repeat. Plus, what is the reason for the 24hr deadline? Your Silence implies consent link says nothing about 24 hours. What is the urgency to discus something that has already been discussed? Some people have a life outside Wikipedia. I certainly don't login everyday. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Dude, we are saying, we discussed, lets have a survey. Lets see where we stand. Its about trying to organize things. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We discussed before, but my attempt at facilitating by summarising the arguments just led to chaos and difficulty in judging the balance of arguments. :( Cerejota is now facilitating with a structure more likely to lead to convergence, especially in order that people previously uninvolved can read all the previous opinions and give their judgment and arguments. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. This is the 3rd time Cerejota has done non-wikipedia-certified name change game. REMEMBER, He is the one who UNILATERALLY changed the title from its original state (OPERATION CAST LEAD), thereby abusing his administrative privileges, and then telling us it was not neutral. This, of course, after more than 7 users debated through 12 paragraphs about the title. Was Cerejota a member of this debate? NO! Unfortunately, this article's talk page exploded way too fast to keep up with Cerejota's blatant abuse of powers. Maybe when this dies down it will catch up with him...I don't know. Just wait, he's gonna response with some wiki rule like don't soap box, chill out, or my favorite, "thanks!". Psh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. I suggest editors see the evidence here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Interim_naming_of_December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes. Please, stop your disruption and personal attacks, they are not productive.--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
i don't agree with Cerejota on everything, but i certainly agree on no personal attacks. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not participating in this waste of time. We already had a discussion above. Your position was defeated. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then lets display that defeat in a format that is more organized. I am not dogmatic about my views, but I do want to make a good call. Certainly I do not view the previous discussion as my position being defeated. However, since the discussion was so badly structured, I could see why you could see that way. I'll I say is, lets do a strawpoll. I am not letting discussion drop ever, what I might let drop is ill feelings and drama. What is so hard about doing that? What is so hard about having a discussion? In your user page you say you are not dogmatic, I took that at face value, but you are hardly displaying that lack of dogmatism now. Why can't we work together? --Cerejota (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above was not structured in a way for someone to see what consensus was taking shape. Let's not get into games of win/lose. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Remove time limit

Some users have raised concern with the time limit, while other users in the previous discussion raised a need for urgency (mind you, users who have raised a sense of urgency are from all sides). Should we eliminate the suggested time limit? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha. He just told me to basically calm down and stop stalking him on my userpage. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I love how Cerejota edits responses half an hour later. :D Yeah, Cerejota is simply linking to "official" processes, in a clear attempt to hide his abuses. Check the archives. After changing the title, he quickly told everyone it was not neutral, then he wrote some 10 paragraph rambling telling everyone how we are biased and need to follow wiki policy, then he linked to SOAP, CHILL, and every other drama rule when anyone questioned his motives. Then he started another name change again a few sections up, then he started this one. Also, there are several discussions how the name change in various sections not necessarily titled "move, name change, etc.." Notice how he doesn't respond to the fact that he unilaterally changed the title of the article hours after we argued heavily about the title (not its "lack" of neutrality, btw, just its relevance). Please, respond to that.

Also, there is currently an investigation of Cerejota's admin abuses somewhere on on wikipedia. It's in the archive, I don't know what the exact link is though Lol. This entire thing is a sham. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan, Cerejota has not committed any admin abuses; s/he is not an admin. -- tariqabjotu 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Cerejota has started a structured process which within wikipedia culture/mediawiki technology has a reasonable chance of converging on a clear consensus (though it's not guaranteed). Whether or not s/he changed names earlier is irrelevant, since Cerejota is just one person presenting arguments amongst (if we allow the structured process to continue) many. Boud (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


I am not an admin but I am under most objective criteria are a he :D.

As to there being an investigation, this is not true the only people who do that can be called investigations are WP:SOCK investigations and ArbCom, and there is no process going on either that I know of that involves me (I suggest you read WP:BURO and WP:DISPUTE).

What we are doing its called "dispute resolution", not an investigation, in which we get a fresh set of eyes, in particular admins, so they can opine. So far, no uninvolved admins have spoken, but it doesn't mean they won't - however this in general means that while they might find I acted in error, this error is nothing we cannot fix as a community of editors, without having to call upon "higher authorities" to intervene. And while I certainly asked (and continue to ask) you cut the drama, I did in fact explain, at great length, explain my motives when questioned about them. So much that you have expressed exasperation with the length and frequency of my explanations!

So I don't understand why you insist in denying that I did, or that I simply asked you to chill. Please, if you are going to say I did something, contextualize it. Otherwise, expect that I will do it for you.--Cerejota (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush to change the name. We already have a Gaza–Israel conflict with a section on the 2007-2008 conflict [12] 2007-2008 has its own article entitled 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. We also have a 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article. Strikes me that if you want to maintain this 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, then it should actually start with January 1, 2008 and finish on December 31, 2009. That would require that Operation Cast Lead would be a very short part of this article, and the lead should give quite a bit of head to what happened the first 360 days of the 2008. Seeing how the majority of editors here want to talk about Operation Cast Lead and NOT about Hamas' constant rocketing/terrorizing of Israel, I recommend changing the name. & Re the Saturday Massacre -- the source given for that did not support the assertion given Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict — I feel that this title would solve both of the problems with the current one - the fact that Hamas is shooting back, and the fact that naval forces (possibly also ground troops in future) are involved, not just aircraft. Cynical (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Also be sure to read the initial discussions at Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Requested move (first)
  • support due to reasoning above Cynical (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support - it's relatively neutral, accurate and short - (1) it follows the precedents 2004 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict which have already been NPOVed by other wikipedians; (2) because it's a relatively small change from the present title December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, and avoids the "air war only" connotation, which is no longer valid because of naval operations and would become more inaccurate if ground operations start; date: - continuation of the strikes into 2009 should not be a problem for the title for at least a week or so when the Jan duration becomes equal to the Dec duration; if this intense phase of conflict continues further, then it will be time to think of e.g. 2008/2009 Gaza Strip conflict; conflict geography - this is a problem, but i'd rather support December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict unless supporters here are likely to move to e.g. December 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Boud (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure everyone will find your first point compelling. As I'm sure you know, we have many articles (like Operation Hot Winter, which is very similar to this situation) named after [Israeli] operation code names, and I'm sure there are some who'd argue those titles aren't "NPOV" simply because they are in place. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support - because the article is clearly talking about the conflict in general and not just the IDF's campaign. I know some one is going to point out that maybe it should talk only about the Israeli operation, but how long can you pretend that the rockets and the air strikes aren't obviously linked? 72.66.67.46 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

* Support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead" which have no chance to become a consensus. Sometimes--Omrim (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) we must resort to second best options... * Support - There are two sides to this. The current name biases the article from the get-go. okedem (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Upon a second look, I realize this is not what was discussed under #December 2008-January_2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict. That was "Israel-Gaza"; this is just "Gaza". The latter sounds like it could be an internal conflict, and is out of line with the other Israel-Gaza conflict articles mentioned by Boud. Because there seems to be general agreement that this is a two-way conflict, or that the article is talking about a two-way conflict rather than just Israel's actions, I'm staying with "December 2008 [soon to be 2008-2009] Israel-Gaza conflict". See below. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reasons given in #Leave it alone for 5 days. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Second choice, but it's not bad considering that it "Gaza conflict" gets over 200 hits in google news. "Israel-Gaza conflict" gets around 20 only.
  • Oppose The two-way conflict is a larger view of an ongoing event, this article results from and (ought to) deal with a specific campaign of IDF airstrikes. This title does not even mention Israel! RomaC (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as done per owerhelming consensus as at least a temporary solution to eliminate "airstrikes" and take into account the fact that the conflict moved into 2009. Other discussions remain, and most of the supporters of this option prefer other options, but stated their willingness to have a temporary solution. Editors new to the consensus process are adviced to read the ongoign discussion - including those in the archives - before emiting opinions as to the status of the consensus. Consensus can change, but it doesn't change by unilateral declaration.--Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As this article discusses a two-way conflict, provided this extends past midnight (local time), and given "Israel" is a key element in this conflict. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose, since this article can at most cover a few weeks' intense conflict, not 24 months of conflict (nor 13 since we start at December). "2008-2009" (or "2008–2009" in recommended style) suggests most of the 24 months of 2008 and 2009, implying the need for the first sentence in the intro to define what is meant by "2008–2009". IMHO it's reasonable to expect that the definition would initially be something like "from mid-December 2008 to early/mid/late January/February 2008". Another article will most likely be needed for "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" (unless the conflict is miraculously resolved). In that case it would make more sense to have "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "December 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" rather than "2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" + "2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". In the latter case, pressure would eventually build up to find a better name again—either Operation Cast Lead or 2008 Gaza Strip massacre depending on whether we favour the Israeli or the Gaza Strip POV. Boud (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as a needed temporary measure until reliable sources give this a better name. As this is a current event, this will probably not be the title it will have in ten years time, but it is much more descriptive, more neutral, and more relevant to the events as they have evolved. As to date overlaps, a quick per usal of the intro would describe the difference, so I am willing to live with it. LETS SNOWBALL THIS GUYS, C'MON Boud, SWITCH!!! AIRSTRIKES GOT TO GO!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead". The "Massacre" title doesn't even worth a typing stroke to respond. Soon, I believe, we will have to change it again as both side are starting to call it a "war". For the meantime this is the best option --Omrim (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • conditional support. (above "oppose" has been struck out) This title would make sense if we have a well-defined, clearly time-limited, NPOV, first sentence, without favouring either the Israel or Gaza Strip POVs. If the introduction starts something like: "The term 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is used in this article as a neutral term to describe the intense phase of conflict starting late December 2008 between Israel and the Gaza Strip, in particular including airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force against the Gaza Strip, called Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in reference to an Israeli Hanukah song<ref 10><ref 11>," and called an ugly massacre by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh<ref name="BBC" />", then i guess 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict should be OK, at least until the next few weeks give a chance to see if another term becomes widely used. Boud (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I mostly object. There's no need to say "used in this article as a neutral term to describe". This is [the English] Wikipedia; it is assumed that everything is written with the intention of maintaining neutrality. Saying this is breaking the fourth wall of the encyclopedia. Further, this is not an article about the term; it's an article about the event. For that reason, you would be hard-pressed to find an article that begins by saying the article title is a term, unless the article is about the term. Moving on... "an ugly massacre" is not a name for the big salvo; it's a description. The Israeli analog might be "all-out war", but we don't need to say that in the first sentence. Lastly, that's a very long sentence. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is not a totally bad title, but for reasons mentioned in #Leave it alone for 5 days (the main characteristic of the current phase of the operation has been IAF airstrikes and the Hamas response...), there is no urgency to change what we have, even if it is 2009 now (at least where I live it is). In 5 days or so, better names might become apparent - maybe even this one. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems like you're the only one who still thinks this article speaks of a one-way conflict (not just from this straw poll; several sections on this page deal with this same issue). Further, while many have stated that this article needs a name change, you have rejected every proposal, apparently based on the idea that time is unlimited. I hope you realize your position is likely to be overruled within hours. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as this conflict has entered in 2009 as well. This should be the final name as it just involves the Hamas, who are the rulers of Gaza and Israel. I know people were discussing about putting December in the title, but we are now into January 2009. Take out the airstrikes from the title, as the Israeli navy is also involved in the operation, not to mention the impending ground invasion by Israeli tanks and ground forces.--Roman888 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Most neutral and descriptive term for the current conflict. okedem (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support probably what everyone could agree on. Guy0307 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not commonly used in mainstream news sources. A google news search finds only 21 hits, [13] as opposed to 1,500 hits for "assault on gaza". A better option close to this one with more google hits is "Gaza conflict" which gets around 200 hits. Tiamuttalk 19:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict Discussion

Any additional comments:


  • I agree fully. Very neutral, descriptive, and meets MoS. And it is not crystal balling to say this will extend into 2009 :P. However, I have a concern, this is very similar to 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict. Could we find an alternative to "conflict" or even add "post-ceasefire conflict"? Or are you willing to live with the slight confusion until the reliable sources call this a "War", as I am pretty sure they will - or even could we use the increasing amount of verification calling this a "War"? Sources are beginning to see that this a different thing than the rockets-for-airstrikes (and occasional martyrdom-for-snatch-and-captures) that has been going on since the unilateral withdrawal. Having a similar title to articles that cover lated but significantly different in historic meaning for the typical reader can be confusing. Do I make sense?
  • That said, I see no reason why your title proposal shouldn't snowball, thats why I ask you to refactor, rather than propose a different one), and will support your call (even if it is just your original proposal) in order to move forward quickly a keep the snowball going. --Cerejota (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"Conflict" is overused on Wikipedia, but when Israel is calling this an "all-out war" and others (like the Arabic Wikipedia) are calling this a "massacre", it seems unseemly to use "war". "Conflict" is so great because it's so vague! But, maybe we need a thesaurus. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I did a couple of thesaurus (including paper) and all the other words are "lesser" than "conflict", except "War". This here is not a "confrontation" etc. As per my promise then, lets go with conflict, for now ("airstrikes" is long expired, we ALL agree). --Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate crystal balling, but this is turning out to be bigger than initially thought, like what happened to the 2006 Lebanon War. I fully agree that this will be called a War, by historians. This will be a defining moment, a milestone. That said, we know this, but it hasn't happened. So this is the best we can come up with for now. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Its difficult to decide on the best name for this incident so for the time being "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" seems like the best title. Its alot more accurate than the current title which is very one sided. Fully support rename to this atleast until the "incident is over" then it can be renamed again. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There's also "battle". -- tariqabjotu 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought of "battle" too, as per Battle of Gaza (2007). But it hasn't really been a "battle" in the traditional sense it has been air and sea bombardment, with retaliatory rockets. And "battles" isn't really it either. Darn, the English language needs to be updated to fit the new realities. BTW, before anyone says Arabic Wikipedia is fucked in using "massacre", that's what most Arab media are calling it, so I am guessing they have kinda the right to do it by RS (which is a wikimedia policy), as is Hebrew Wikipedia in naming the Operation Cast Lead, as that is what the media in Hebrew is calling it (even those who don't call it that in the English editions). --Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see that an admin has unilaterally decided that it is the best name for the page, while the discussion is still ongoing. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is barely used in the mainstream media, with less than 21 hits in google news. "Assault on Gaza" enjoys 1,500 hits by way of contrast, and "Gaza conflict" over 200 hits. I don't see why Wikipedia has to invent names that are barely used anywhere else when it comes to topics related to the I-P domain. Tiamuttalk 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
By "unilaterally", I assume you mean "on account of the near-unanimous support". Even with your opposition -- which comes out of the blue, given you have not commented on this talk page before -- the consensus is clear. Aspects of the name of the article have been under discussion for days now, and it was clear people did not like the original name. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus. Besides my oppose in this section, there are two others and there are multiple other options being discussed on the page that also enjoy support. Your snide tone is par for the course, but that does make it any more welcome. Tiamuttalk 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza

"Assault on Gaza" gets over 1,500 hits in Google news[14], vastly outnumbering any of the other options listed here. Tiamuttalk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Survey

  • Support By far, the most commonly used name for the events to date with over 1,400 hits in google news. Often appears in headlines on the subject. Tiamuttalk 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word assault has several usages associated with criminality. Israel (or Israelis) has (have) not been convicted in an international criminal court for its (their) actions of the last few days, nor even charged AFAIK. The same applies to Gaza Strip and its residents. So, in order to WP:NPOV this, a title with "assault" in it would have to become something like 2008-2009 assaults by Israel and Gaza against each other, since it's not up to wikipedia to hint at the criminality of a violent action. Courts are there to do that, e.g. ICC. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Oppose - The Google News hits argument is unconvincing (see below). But besides that, this visualizes the article as being about an extremely narrow topic, rather than a broader topic. Also brings a language factor: "assault" in Military Science usually means a short engagement with a narrow strategic or tactical objective, like "assaulting an outpost" or "assaulting the HQ". One of the events related to these events was indeed an assault, which was the disruption of a Hamas tunnel building during the ceasefire. But these are in any case a series of assaults and counter assaults, and you call a series of assaults anything from "battle(s)" to "conflict" to outright "war". I think the jury is still out in the reliable sources, so I think "conflict" is a good temporary solution until recentism is out the door. This is a current event, and we do not posses crystal balls, so the title in all probability will change.--Cerejota (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has already been decided that (at this point in time) this article discusses a two-way conflict. Even still, "assault" is a questionable word to describe the Israeli action. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It wouldn't hurt to brush up on military history, and English language usage before making this kind of judgement. It is a standard term for such operations.
  • Williamson Murray, Robert H. Scales The Iraq War: A Military History‎,Harvard University Press, 2003 p. 18 describes the Anzac landings in nthe Dardenelles as one where the British launched an assault
  • Sir Martin Gilbert,The Second World War: A Complete History‎, Henry Holt and Co., 2004 p.488 describes the Allies as launching an assault on the German front line, specifically at Monte Cassino
  • Norman A. Graebner, Gilbert Courtland Fite, Philip L. White, A History of the American People, McGraw-Hill, 1975 p. 759 , describes MacArthur as launching an assault on Japanese positions in the Bismarck Archipelago.
  • David L. Phillips, Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco,‎ Westview Press, 2005 p. 216, describes the Nov 8 2004 attack on Fallujah, ‘ the First Marine Expeditionary Force launched an all-out assault on Fallujah.
  • Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991‎,, University of Nebraska Press, 2002 2002p. 280 describes the Israeli offensive against Jordanian positions when the Israelis launched their assault during the night of 14-15 July 1948 on the Latrun salient.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is the most accurate descriptor. To call this a two-way conflict is to join in justifying IDF actions. Trachys (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support "Assault/Attack on Gaza" is what the most RS call it. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Extremely one sided. This conflict has two sides, with Hamas doing its very best to kill Israeli citizens. okedem (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: The Warsaw Ghetto Jews were doing their very best to kill German citizens, but that in no way prevents us from speaking of the German assault on the ghetto. The same logic applies here. Israel, in recent years, has been killing Palestinians at a ratio of 40 to 1. How high does that ratio have to get before we can speak of Israel as the aggressor? A hundred to one? A thousand to one? NonZionist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: you clearly know nothing at all about the Warsaw Ghetto so it is best not to speak of it, ie "Better to be thought a fool...", to quote Mark Twain... Obviously if the Palestinians had their way the kill-ratio would be entirely different. Israel has removed itself entirely from Gaza. Virtually all of the rockets and mortars this year have been aimed at Israel, from Gaza, rather than vice versa. We do understand all that about statistics. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please address the "assault" issue, Tundrabuggy. The INTENT of people under occupation is to free themselves, whether in the Warsaw ghetto or in the Gaza ghetto, but this article is about action, not supposed intent, and the Israeli action IS an assault. Israel has NOT "removed itself entirely" from Gaza, since Israel retains control of the borders and the airspace, raids Gaza, and rains bombs and shells down upon Gaza. So the December attack is actually the continuation of an assault that has been going on for decades. This is no more a "conflict" than hitting a punching bag is a "fight". NonZionist (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Assault on Gaza Discussion

Are there any arguments against using the most common name, as attested to by a search of news sources? Tiamuttalk 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. It's about debates on deletion, not titles, but IMHO it's probably still relevant. Boud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Taimut, what search methodology did you use? As I showed early on in these debates, how your search in Google News affects the numbers of hits and the relevancy of the material. Someone suggested that "operation cast lead" had thousands of hits. But this was quickly shown not to be the case: most of the hits were not relevant and related to casting lead actors for movies and theater: the person in question didn't use quote marks. So please let us know what method of google search you used.

Comparison charts. Please, see them and reach your own conclusions.

Now you assert, without evidence, that "Assault on Gaza" is "the most common name". While this assertion can easely contested by reading th source material used as references in this article, most of which do not use this formulation neither in their header nor in their contents, it would be unfair to you not to use Google News hits as counter-evidence.

I will use two methodologies. One would be the term in quotes, with the date limited to the last week (since Dec. 25) in order to weed out articles on previous events. I will also do a "headline" only search. When the results come up, I will read the first page to ensure they are all about the topic and relevant.

  • "Assault on Gaza" around 2,000 hits quoted. 311 in headlines. (baseline)
  • "Gaza conflict" around 1,100 hits quoted. 551 in headlines. (current title has more than "Assault" in titles, which is what we are discussing)

Some others:

  • "Gaza strike" around 32,200 hits quoted. 41 hits on headlines. (hits leader by a wide marging)
  • "Gaza attacks" around 900 hits quoted. 539 in headlines. (More headlines than "Assault")
  • "Gaza war" around 140 hits quoted. 55 hits on headlines. (interestignly, it is not common at all in the body, but beat "Gaza Strike" - the hit leader - on headlines.

That said, I have stated that this thing about counting sources, instead of reading them, is a bad excercise. The process of verifiability requires we compare sources, which we can only do by reading them. We do not do this when we do quantitative analysis of hits in Google News.

Google News also has different standard than we do: it includes news blogs, news aggregators, and blatantly partisan sources - what we call fringe or extremist reliable sources, that should only be used when speaking about themselves, or when talking about them. It is a good tool to find sources, but it isn't a good tool to do quantitative analysis for Wikipedia WP:V puposes. For that, we read the sources themselves, and discuss amongst ourselves to reach consensus.

That said, if you insist we google test the title, "Assault" loses to conflict in the "headline" category, which is what the article name is about. Sorry, but your argument is not compelling in itself, but even if we find it compelling, the math still doesn't fit your view. This is why I oppose this title as a possible title. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If we think the recent IDF strikes on Gaza warrant an article, then "conflict" does not reflect RS as well as "attack" or "assault." Many arguments given against "attack/assault" seem to suggest that events of the last several days do not warrant an article, and should instead be treated as a time slice within the larger context of a two-way conflict. That is not acceptable, the IDF strikes easily satisfy every Wiki article criteria. RomaC (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photos show the Israel usage of cluster bombs against Palestinian targets in Gaza. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.34.110 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/gaza/puffs/mid_left/10270614.html
  2. ^ http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/081231_Gaza.doc.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_3&oldid=1079701477"