Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mustafaahmedhussien (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 28 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveoptions

Was the Egyptian President Informed?

I reviewed many statements of the parties involved & I didn't notice that they said that the Egyptian president was informed. The foreign affair minister denied that. I think this section needs citations.

Palestinian casualty figure

It appears that the user LOTRules insists on re-adding a death toll of 225 to the article. Where is the source? I have read the article and watched each video on the linked page 3 times, and there is no indication of the number 225 anywhere. Either I've missed something, and will gladly be corrected when the precise location of the figure is given, or please find another source/stop adding incorrect figures. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it appears that the article has been updated (I refreshed). My apologies. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Debka" is not a reliable source... linking to Reuters instead.PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link to the BBC previously. What is this "debka" nonsense you speak of?. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PluniAlmoni was referring to DEBKAFile, an Israeli news website. Whether it is 'nonsense' you should decide for yourself. In my personal opinion, Debka is usually flogging a right-wing agenda and I do not consider them a serious news source. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Could we discuss the Title of this page because all other pages about the attacks on Gaza strip by Israel are in Hebrew Operation Names.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The operation has a name. Happy138 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The current "2008 Gaza Strip Bombing" seems fine. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other IDF operations' articles are called by the name of the operation. Why should this article be different? 77.127.144.240 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we change this one we'll have to change all but that's ok. It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem. My problem with the gaza strip bombing is that there were many bombings in 2008 against gaza, see 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. So we should find a better name or leave this one but not return to the operations name as it is only called that way by the IDF and the rest of the world calls it gaza bombings or something... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Late 2008 Gaza Strip bombings"? I think it avoids both ambiguity and the not-widely-known operation names. Darwish07 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is bad. Very, very bad. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is very ambiguous, because this was not the only bombing to occur in Gaza this year. Further, opening a can of worms here, it sounds too much like 2002 Bali bombings or 2005 Amman bombings... those were not military campaigns; this was. There is probably no overtly prominent name for this event, but if there was one, it would certainly be Operation Cast Lead. "2008 Gaza Strip bombings" is just a description -- and not a very precise one. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Operation Cast Lead" would be actually better than 2008 Gaza bombings, but it isn't known for that name, internationally I mean.It's fine with me if u return it to that name but wait until 3 more Users or the majority of the biggest contributors agree.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Military History project has been over this countless times, so I'd suggest checking their discussions before adjusting other articles. Joshdboz (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. The article was started at Operation Cast Lead and has been moved twice. I don't see a compelling reason to call it something less specific, like '2008 Gaza Strip bombings'. topynate (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait and see what unfolds between the two sides. Its current name, 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. Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the name change. Seriously guys, "Gaza Strip Bombing"? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm in favor of the Operation name. That make sens for me. The other israeli operation have a name. Number of casualties isn't a reason for the name of the article.Kormin (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. It's mentioned by "operation Cast Lead" on the Main Page, in news articles, and elsewhere, the "2008 Gaza bombings" title was uninformative/unspecific, and the original move was performed without discussion by a user with less than 50 edits, the majority of which weren't even this year. So, there was also a bit of WP:BOLD. Plus, we've got a little bit of consensus here already. Let me know if I did it all correctly! RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Operation Cast Lead informs me how, describes what? It provides no information at all! It describes nothing! Please make sense. I fixed it: December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing clearly descriptive, clearly neutral. If you want alternatives, please provide them but Operation Cast Lead is neither neutral nor descriptive or specific. Please see November 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2006 Lebanon War etc, etc, etc. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY persuasive Cerejota. I object to the sudden name change AGAIN. Why is the Operation Cast Lead not neutral? Are we offending Cast Lead??? Is this some mysterious element that deserves some special sensitivity? Sometimes I laugh at how partisan wikipedia is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral. We can all have a laugh at how partisan wikipedia can get later, but the sooner we eliminate the potential trouble spots that these I-P articles have, the better we server the encyclopedia. This isn't the first time we have been around this block, and experience teaches to eliminate the trouble at the root generates a better article. We have managed more or less at 2008 Lebanon War (which was initially named after the Israeli name for the operation). What makes me laugh is why we have to have to engage in this edit warfare every time instead of realizing that one-sideness is not productive. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By YOUR LOGIC we should thus revert Operation Enduring Freedom to something a little more neutral, because it was coined by ONE SIDE. You're using false logic and watery claims to eliminate conflict that isn't there. Operation Cast Lead is the NAME of the OPERATION, which, if you didn't know, is the topic of the article. I know, caps represent yelling, but I'm only using caps to emphasis the importance, which some here tend to ignore. Now, we (as in the people who discussed this) went through a lengthy 4 paragraphs arguing the previous titles, and then you unilaterally change the title without even waiting for a response....since when did this process become the norm? Even if the title was "Yet another nazi evil jew attack on the innocent", you are still obligated to jump through all the hoops just like the rest of us. You or someone please revert the title to its original form or I will be forced to seek the opinion of a higher authority who might not be so cordial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges: 1) We already have War in Afghanistan (2001-present), of which Operation Enduring Freedom is a sub-article 2) I agree it should be changed to US involvement in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which is both more descriptive and more neutral, it hasn't happened because of a certain WP:OWNy crap that goes on over there. 3) The nature of the conflict is different - notice how I do not oppose the naming of certain small scale operations that have happened in Gaza (although the whole set needs a serious rewrite, because its ugly), I do think that the major events, the milestones if you will, have proven to turn out better if we edit with extra carefulness for neutrality. Its about not feeding trolls, about not letting systemic bias creep in, etc. Neutrality is paramount if we are to promote a positive editing environment, which should be our goal. I am sure that if you take wikipedia at face value, as I do, you can both empathize, and join me in productive editing.
Please, if you feel it necessary get the higher authority. I do not respond to threats, which are a million. My words are on the record. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enduring Freedom for whom? Certainly not for the Afghans. Only thing they're "enduring" is an endless and pointless war. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Article Should be called "The Isrealian Gaza Massacre 2008" , just like the countless brutish atrocities of the Zionist regime.

See the Sabra and Shatila Massacre for example and then dare to be stupid enough to say to me that this is NOT a massacre ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop soapboxing. Thanks!

This discussion is continued further down in the Requested move section. i notice that on the history page, an admin said that s/he had frozen any further renames for some time. This should give people time to come up with consensus on what would be NPOV for the long term title of the page. Boud (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations campaigns

i've started off the section on public relations campaigns with info from a Haaretz article on the Israeli govt PR campaign. i've added a {{Missing information}} tag warning about the need to get info about any similar campaign by the Hamas de facto govt of Gaza Strip. i would imagine that because the latter do not have a massive international network of embassies/consulates, they cannot carry out a campaign using anything like the same techniques with any chance of efficiency - i.e. they cannot get their ambassadors etc. to put pressure on local media groups around the world and on national politicians around the world. However, what i imagine is not an NPOV fact. Anyone with a non-original-research, referenced idea for what we can put here to balance the section?

Just to clarify the tag: IMHO we certainly should include info about either the Gaza Strip de facto government's public relations campaign (whatever that is) or the lack of such a campaign if it is documented to be absent. i don't (presently) know which is closer to the wikipedia (NPOV) version of truth. Boud (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have two options. First is waiting for the Arab League response and public relations activities (if they'll ever be one!). Second is to consider renaming the section to "Israili Public Relations Campaigns". I'm with the second option till any new activities appear from the other side. Thanks for assuring neutrality. Darwish07 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this relevant now? this better not be a white-wash attempt to portray the IDF as if it is trying to sell the war to the international community, or give the image that Israel is trying to cover up something. this is a friggin war, not a paparazzi scam. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point. Is this criticism for including such information, or criticism for the acts themselves?Darwish07 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criticisms for the motivations. why is an anticipated PR campaign relevant at this juncture? I've seen countless articles on and off wikipedia where many users try to give the appearance that Israel is at the ready to spin whatever war their in, like the country is some coiled up celebrity publicist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan: i think you missed the point of the {{Missing information}} tag and my two whole paragraphs at the beginning of this section. Public relations and the media clearly have an important effect on the effectiveness of military/political conflict during the late XX-eth and early XXI-st centuries. At the moment we (wikipedians on this page) don't know if the Gaza Strip de facto government is planning a comparable campaign to that of the Israeli government. However, we do know that the Israeli government has announced that it will carry out such a campaign in parallel with the military campaign. You might also have missed the fact that the source for the paragraph is Israel's oldest daily newspaper, founded in 1918. Boud (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss the point. giving the impression that Israel is trying to spin the war is not an activity that is part of wiki policy. second, i read the source, quite thoroughly, and your paraphrasing is grossly incorrect. for starters, israel new "pr campaign" goal isn't simply to defend this operation: "Livni instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign, in order to gain greater international support for Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip" so the root of the section is misleading. i will revise...Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Spin (public relations) to see what "spin" means according to the Wikipedia. i don't see anything in my original paraphrasing that suggests that the Israeli public relations campaign will be "disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative" compared to public relations campaigns in general, for the good reason that Haaretz didn't make such a claim. Thanks for working on the paraphrasing. i noticed that the "media campaigns" part dropped out, so i reverted it, getting closer to the actual text. It seems a bit excessive to make the whole thing just a single quote, which is why earlier i wrote "media campaigns", since "mounting public relations campaigns ... focusing on local media" seems to me accurately summarised as "carrying out media campaigns" - isn't a public relations campaign focusing on the media the same thing as a media campaign? Anyway, hopefully you and other wikipedians will be happy with the new version. Boud (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine News Network

It is used as a reference and source, yet it is far from unbiased. It is pro-palestinian, pro-Hamas website and it is against any sort of peaceful solution. It also engages in egregious anti-semitism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PNN is the only source for the 780 wounded figure, CNN just said over 400 wounded, and they didn't say whether the 400 wounded were civs or militants.[reply]

Probably most news media sources from country X used in any wikipedia article are pro-country-X and pro-government-of-country-X, so that's not any higher degree of bias than is typical of CNN, NYT, BBC, etc. As for "against any sort of peaceful solution", i'm sceptical but you could try to find an external, reliable source for that if you thought it to be relevant. i'm also sceptical regarding the claim of racism, but again, even if it were true, then at the level to which it's true, that would apply to a large majority of news media generally considered reliable in the english language wikipedia. i also strongly suggest you read through and think about WP:BIAS, which is a Wikipedia meta-page that discusses the issue of systemic bias in quite some detail.
In any case, given that the bombings are happening to people in the Gaza Strip, maybe you could recommend to us some different news organisations in the Gaza Strip that you judge to be reliable. The closer a news organisation is to the physical location of the event, the more likely it is to have in-depth information on what's happening rather than N-th hand reports by someone sitting in a comfortable hotel in another country. It will in general also be more biased in favour of the local culture, but that's the case for all news sources. We do not exclude US newspapers for events in the US or British newspapers as sources for events in the UK, so we cannot exclude Palestinian newspapers for events in Palestine. Boud (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes PNN doesn't even meet blog standards. deleted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Boud (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PNN is akin to a radicalist blog. It's rooted in nationalism and prone to extreme bias pending subject (most notably, Israel). It's like using a fundamentalist Christian site as evidence in determining the pros and cons of atheism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we keeping Debkra file out, right? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of crossing

There are two conflicting reasons for the reopening of the crossing given in the article. The first is that it was in response to international pressure; the second is that it was a deceptive act taken to reassure Hamas. Do we have a conclusive source one way or the other? topynate (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On review of the sources (the NYT and Haaretz) for the respective claims, there is no source at all for "bowing to international pressure", whereas the Haaretz article is a classic no-names 'leak' from the Israeli defense department. Modifying the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topynate (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Does someone know where to get free pictures or can someone help with the fair use rationale in the available picture please. I will add another picture of the air strike after a minute. Israel has released a video of their air strike can someone get. It is in the public domain if it's by the government right?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist with copyright tags...

before adding to article! Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 2.jpg and Image:Gaza 2008 bombings 1.jpg

Requested move

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))[reply]

Against Operation Cast Lead

  • It seems actually unfair to have an article about a military act with that many civilian casualties named after a poem.
    • Counterargument: "Unfair", "civilian casualties" and "poem". Is this about emotional blackmail? The source name of an military operation should not be linked with the outcome of action taken. They are two completely separate things! Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only called that way by the IDF.
    • Counterargument: In historical documents and books the offensive will be called by this term. Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term used mostly by the IDF and is not used by major news sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • 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.]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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[reply]

In favour of 2008 Gaza Strip bombings

Discussion

  • 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.
      • Counterargument: It is not a case of motivations here. If confrontation continues a conflict may evolve and may turn out as Hamas-Israel Conflict 2008. Chesdovi (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [1] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Careful about POV

Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[6]

This kind of statement can start nationalist edit wars in Wikipedia. To avoid this, the above statement should have more than one source. All sources must be of impeccable reliability. This comment is to help Wikipedia, not support or oppose one of the combatants. Ipromise (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine News Network citation

Several users insist on reverting my passage revision: "Palestine News Network reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives." TO: Palestinian Medical Sources reported at least 230 Palestinians dead and about 780 wounded.[9] Most of the casualties were Hamas operatives.[7] To begin, PNN isn't even close to being a reliable source, but because few have been reported, I'm willing to let it slide until another more reliable reference can be obtained. Second, PNN is not a base for Palestinian Medical Sources, nor are these sources cited in the article. The statement isn't even exaggeration, it is simply false. To be perfectly honest, however, the article would be better off without the citation at all. The number cited by PNN could be as high as 10,000 and it still doesn't merit any weight, for their reporting is highly unregulated or recognized by any remotely professional media entity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345, if you could give us the names/URLs of some Palestinian "remotely professional media entities", then that would help to understand your claim here. Thanks. Boud (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are none, as far as I know. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutality tag

I added the tag in light of the recent discussions involving the title, important passages, and various controversial elements of the article. Until those are revolved, I think it's important we warn the reader that there is a strong will to improve the article but several critical points aren't fully cleared. Therefore, a neutrality tag is necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"destroyed in 4 minutes"

The source is this, [2], the title does say "Most Hamas bases destroyed in 4 minutes" but it is not elaborated in the article (e.g. who says that, what is the definition of "most") JVent (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some have framed it as a neutrality issue, but it isn't. If it happened, it happened. But it is a verifiability issue. Other than the IDF, and the press that supports it, any other media is verifying this? If there isn't, perhaps we should start quoting, because it does seem quite extraordinary a claim: not even the USA with significantly more resources pulled that in the Shock and awe phase of the war in Iraq. And BTW, nothing sinister is implied, but there is this thing called Fog of war which makes me weary of such exact figures until a few months later. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities

This is what is said by the Isreali officials, it should not be considered as a fact and treated the way we treat the description of what is happening in the strip, I'll add, Israeli officials are justifying this massive offensive as a retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral wording

"The massive offensive is in retaliation against near-daily Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities."

"Israel began targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group."

I think the bolded terms need to be reworded, removed, or preferably quantified. The sources do none of these, so perhaps a rewording is in order. Alternately, they could just be quoted. The same basic facts are used elsewhere in the article with different sources without the unquantified portion.

Jokeyxero (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=260456073"