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 118.208.59.98 (talk) at 20:14, 28 December 2008 (→‎arbitrary start time?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveoptions

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]

I found an AP article that mentions civilians: "Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead." Hereis the article info: Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer Ibrahim Barzak And Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) oops: PinkWorld (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[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]


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]
I agree on this. If something happened and topic-relevant, then it must be reported. Advertising and media is a critical component of any war. No ill intentions exist on reporting this, this is even an Israili source! 41.235.82.113 (talk) 14:44, 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]
PNN is obviously a highly partisan reference, in the same way that WorldNetDaily and ei are. Try to keep the references to less contentious sources. Betacrucis (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacrucis - you are describing your personal POV claiming that PNN is "highly partisan". If you are an "average wikipedian", then you (and probably most people editing this page) probably satisfy the documented systemic bias in the English language wikipedia. If you really believe that you are an exception to the "average wikipedian" profile (see WP:BIAS for details), then it should be easy for you to provide some reasonable range of alternative, online Palestinian news sources that you consider less partisan. That way we would have an alternative to PNN. (Warning: WP:BIAS does not claim that you, Betacrucis, are individually biased, it documents and discusses the systemic/statistical problem with the community of en.wikipedians as a whole. We each have limited knowledge and experience - that's not our fault nor intention to be biased.)
IMHO it's a reasonably objective fact that the imbalance between Israeli and Gaza Strip media sources (Israeli having better financed media organisations which have easier access to the outside world and vastly better material conditions) has worsened during the last 24 hours with the destruction of a TV station apparently (by al Jazeera) linked to the Hamas de facto government. AFAIK, no Israeli media headquarters have been destroyed by Hamas rockets recently. Boud (talk) 12:44, 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]

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.--Mustafaahmedhussien (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I added the tags to the images can we put them back?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this is the wrong tag as the images are of a non-transformative nature. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Using the Name "Operation Cast Lead" ist un-encyclopedic , Why?

Because users will never find this article that describes an act of brutal genocide. Wiki readers are civilians mostly and Not military personnel so that you can expect them to cope with silly military codenames. This event is a bomb massacre , and the title must reflect this fact. Besides , using the codename is a clear violation of wikipedia's or any other media's Neutral Point of View.Cowmadness (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Counterargument: Violation of the Neutral Point of View? What? Then please, go change the articles on Operation Downfall, Operation Just Cause, Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa, and the list goes on. Using the codename is the offical designation of the attacks. Retitling the article to reflect a 'bomb massacre' puts quite a bit of bias it. You're assuming that it was a 'massacre' although the attacks were against Hamas military infrastructure that was the aggressor against Israel. Not everyone considers these actions to be of brutal genocide, and is thus better to go by the offical operation name that will appear on all offical documentation involved in these events. The 2008 Israel invasion of Gaza, or something along those lines would work as well. But that should probably be held off until (if) there is a ground incursion. --Halo tru7h (talk) 16:11, 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.
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[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]
    • 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)[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]
  • 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)[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.
  • 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]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[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]
I endorse times infinity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2008 Gaza Genocide

I'm here declaring the necessity to enroll this event as a brutal act of genocide, and as a crime against humanity , compared to the Sabra and Shatila massacre compared to Siege of Sarajevo and Srebrenica massacre , and compared to numerous other israelian war crimes like the historical Qibya massacre

Besides one should outline the extraordinary brutality of this crime. imagine 100 tons of tnt falling on the most densely populated areas of the world btw 100 tons of tnt is equivalent to small nuclear warhead like the m65 nuclear rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killing terrorists is genocide? Tiger Trek (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of such utterly inflammatory statements is reserved for extreme cases of violence and when such terms are used by many published sources, historians, and political figures, etc; this is clearly not the case, and the suggestion of such an inflammatory title does not help much to keep this discussion civil and POV free. (And throwing about the word terrorist doesn't help either) Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joshdboz 90.231.60.96 (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a genocide, nor should Wikipedia use this in its title.
Unless the term "genocide" has been applied to this particular operation by the majority of reliable sources, genocide cannot be used in the title of this article, as it would violate WP:NPOV. Terrakyte (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not specific. There have been several conflicts between Hamas/Israel this year. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Gaza (2008) would be a better title, IMO. --84.67.31.215 (talk) 20:06, 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]
In that case being unrecognised by a non-existent "remotely professional media entity" is irrelevant. Boud (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, setting up strawmen doesn't help your case. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota what is your problem? PNN is NOT a RELIABLE source. I know you did some freaky deeky rationalization b.s in this discussion which I refuse to respond to, but whatever logical fallacies you use, PNN. Is. Not. A. Reliable. Source. Period! I'd be surprised if any of their "reporters" went to college. The articles scream sensationalism, opinions slush with watery facts throughout paragraphs, and there is rarely a sense of true objectivity. I don't see how you can defend that. And I know for a fact wikipedia does not condone the use of those types of sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, calm down. Thank!--Cerejota (talk) 20:08, 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]
Your comparison to Iraq is greatly flawed. Gaza is much much small than iraq. The Gaza strip is about 360 km2 and Iraq is over a twelve hundred times bigger at 438,317 km2. In addition Israel has much great intelligence ability in Gaza than America did in Iraq. I think that the claim that Israel could destroy most of Hamas' building in 4 minutes is plausible. Jon513 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Israeli journal is not a neutral point of view. Obviously they will put their "victory" under a lot of "extra light" in the newspapers. I prefer avoiding this statement till it exists in other international and more neutral media like Reuters or others. I'll re-edit if such biased claim did not appear in any other international and neutral media 41.235.82.113 (talk) 15:04, 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]

The following two news snippets might add details to the article. I do not want to add them myself for fear of making some stupidly huge mistake. I hardly know anything about adding material to Wikipedia articles with the referencing, and this is no place to experiment, Sandbox or no.

  • Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asat10j06fLdzogLL4jbmSKs0NUE By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer 28 Dec 2008 The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week, and 10 times that number over the past year. ... A second wave was directed at squads who fired more than 110 rockets and mortars at Israeli border communities.

  • Hamas rockets pound Israel as truce hopes fade

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081224/wl_afp/mideastconflictgaza_081224215711 by Sakher Abu El Oun Sakher Abu El Oun (AFP) Wed 24 Dec 2008 "Hamas gunmen launched more than 70 projectiles, the largest barrage since before an Egyptian-brokered truce went into effect in and around Gaza in June but expired five days ago. ... Hamas...said Wednesday's rocket fire was in retaliation for the killing of three militants the day before..."

I included the second because it quotes Hamas's reason for launching rockets in the days after the termination of the 19 June 2008 truce - a potentially useful detail for this article. PinkWorld (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[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]

I changed "near daily" to "daily", which reflects the reality of the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. These happened daily during the last years. This is reliable and verifiable information. -- Gabi S. (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is reliable and verifiable, then please cite your sources. In particular, please don't change cited information of the references don't support the claim as this leads to the highly misleading situation where the information appears to be references but is not. This is imperative in such a contentious article. I have reverted your change and it should stay that way until this 'reliable and verifiable' information is actually verified by reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can pick any Israeli newspaper and check the daily headlines to see the timeline of rocket and mortar attacks. Many of them carried casualties. A partial list, including only notable and/or newsworthy Qassam rocket and mortar attacks, can be found in List of Qassam rocket attacks. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. We need reliable sources which say the attacks were daily. What you are describing is a form of OR. Incidentally List of Qassam rocket attacks doesn't describe daily attacks which is perhaps not surprising since it should only cover notable attacks but reflective of the fact it's pointless bringing it up Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand... Do you think that the attacks didn't occur daily? Or that the 80 rockets fired on 24-Dec alone are insignificant? I don't get your point.
A simple web search yields many reliable sources stating the daily attacks as fact (such as this one), but they are not needed, since it's a well-known fact. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I am sorry, but I really don't think that what Nil Einne said makes much sense. It's like saying "we need a reliable source saying that people who work are receiving salaries". There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of sources about dates and targets of Qassam rocket lauches. It happens almost on daily basis, quite literally, and targeted towards civilian towns (which is another well known fact), and it happens for years. I doubt you need 30000 sources for each attack.
Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you don't understand. We need sources which say these attacks happens daily. Not sources which describe individual attacks. Using sourcesd for each attack to try and make the claim they happen daily is a classic case of OR. Also almost daily is not daily. I never understand why people always insist there are thousands of sources but then are unable or unwilling to find one. As yes, if we are going to say people who work receive salaries we do need a source. I suggest you take a look at core wikipedia policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:RS Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source you mention semi supports the claim but in an offhanded fashion. We really need better sources which explicity mention the attacks happen daily. Actually even better, since what we are describing here is not how often the attacks happens but Israel's justification for the airstrikes then what we really need is a source where Israel justifies the airstrike because of daily rocket strikes. P.S. I don't care if the attacks happen daily or not. That's beside the point. The point of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve an article, not to to try and convince other editors of facts Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Nin Einne is right. I'll try to explain why. First thing: all scientific information (i.e. somewhat accurate info...) should be publically verifyable, where verifyable means that one can check whatever is claimed, and public refers to the fact that anyone can do that. Now, if you cite some source, like in the example above, it says "blah blah near daily"(citation number). Unlike what you might think, that does not mean that the sentence "blah blah near daily" is a universally accepted fact -- as proven by the fact that you have another opinion. What the phrase "blah blah near daily"(citation number) actually means is "in (citation number), someone claims blah blah near daily", which, you'll agree, is fully correct. After all, that is what's written there and anyone can look at the source (because it's public) and read what is says (verifyable). Now, if you think that blah blah occured daily an not near daily, that is fine. But how should you go about it ? One thing you can not do: change the sentence and leave the citation! Because then it would mean: "in (citation number), someone claims blah blah daily". That is not true! If you look at the source, you'll see it says "blah blah near daily"! Which is just what Nil Einne pointed out. Of course it can happen that what's written in the source is not accurate. But that doesn't mean you have the right to change it as you did.
What you can do is add another source that contradicts the first one. You could write It has been reported that "blah blah near daily"(citation number), but I think that "blah blah daily". The moment you do this, however, you'll find that people will object, because what you have presented is not publically verifyable. So, what is needed here is a source, a pointer to publically verifyable information, to support your claim. The full list of newspapers would be ok, but very unpractical. If there is a single list somewhere, preferably produced by a fairly neutral source such as United Nation observers of something equivalent, that would be much easier.
You might think it's much more important to tell the truth accurately, even if you don't find a source, because, after all, the truth is what it's all about. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the truth, a universally and unanimously accepted version of events, and certainly not in the Israelian-Palestian conflict. Imagine for a moment that everybody would put their version of the truth on the page, and what the page would then look like! So, we are bound by certain rules that allow us to govern information about events without spiraling into chaos, and these very rules that exist to create accurate information state that sticking to the rules is more important that providing accurate information. Strange as it may seem, it works: even when not perfectly accurate, the result will not stray to far from the truth, if there is any one such thing, and that result is usually a fairly useful document as opposed to a flamewar.wateenellende —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

israeli newspapers are definitely NOT reliable and neutral sources. (except maybe for the football results of their league).--Severino (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, some are, some are not. Haaretz is a world-class newspaper, with excellent editorial controls and very high standard of journalism. That said, I will do a section on sources, because this bears explaining. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second intifada?

Why is the second intifada template included in this article? Does anyone have a reliable source claiming this is part of the second intifada? Yesterday, hamas leaders stated that this operation might lead to a third intifada. Liransh Talk 10:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... Didn't the second intifada end a few years back? Surely before Hamas took control of the strip... PluniAlmoni (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. I couldn't understand why that was there either. Removing... -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"In June 2008, a six-month Egyptian brokered cease-fire agreement was signed between Hamas and Israel[14], Hamas kept firing moderately and Israel reacted with an economic blockade, leading to a shortage of gas, electricity, water, and medicines, among other goods."

I'm editing this due its bias - the economic blockade has been ongoing since January 2007, and was the result of Hamas' election and not their firing. There is no reference for Hamas "firing moederately", and it is worded in a biased manner.

I think the entire section needs to be worked on to be more reflective of the actual background, and to reflect both the Israeli blockade and its effects as well as the firing by Hamas of rockets. Amjra 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amjra, the fact is that rocket fire from the Strip preceded the reimposition of the blockade. I'll grant that the statement needs to be adjusted, as the firing was primarily done by non-Hamas militant groups, but it isn't biased to observe that Hamas violated the truce, leading Israel to reciprocate. 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

With this reaction, do you think it is appropriate to move this sentence further up the article?

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on December 28 , ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks "in any way possible"

doktorb wordsdeeds 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it should? -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be as relative as any other country reaction, since Iran is not one of the involved parties. If we're going to re-order countries statements based on those statements power and/or nerve-touchiness, then we'll go through endless debates. Alphabetical re-ordering works best and it's something everyone agrees on. Darwish07 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a serious threat with a relevance to the region? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a threat until it's proven that a real military backing by other Islamic countries occurred on response. Again, if this statement produced any game-changing events, then it has a higher precedence. Until now, it does not. Darwish07 (talk)
Hardly. The Supreme Leader is not the Muslim equivalent of the pope; his statements don't dictate Muslim practice. If there is any backlash from Muslims, it probably won't be because of Khamenei's statement in particular. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Iran's financial support of Hamas enter into the equation here? 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26 December Crossings openings, A recession or military deception?

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]

On the page Background section it's said: "On 26 December 2008, in an apparent concession, Israel reopened five crossings between Israel and Gaza".

On the planning section, it's said: "Several actions were taken purposefully to deceive Hamas, including the reopening of border crossings"

On Haaretz, it's [said]: "In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued.

We should have a single opinion on this. Ideas? Darwish07 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darwish that we should have a single opinion on this question. I think there is now no doubt that the opening of the crossings was diversionary. But I think the meaning of "apparent" here is that it was meant to look like a concession, but really wasn't. The wording is poor. Perhaps we should change it to "in what appeared at the time to be a concessionary move," or something like that. 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote that line, I apologize if I left it unclear. I'm pretty sure that the reopening had no intent other than to deceive Hamas, but we don't have a source saying so explicitly. News reports at the time interpreted the reopening as a humanitarian gesture, hence my use of the word 'apparent'. I should also point out that the section was originally written so as to imply that Israel made a reconciliatory gesture, Hamas rejected it by continuing rocket attacks, and then Cast Lead was initiated. That seems a clearly false interpretation to me, and perhaps the material doesn't belong in the 'background' section at all. topynate (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas seals in the wounded

Any idea on where this should be mentioned? Perhaps a "casualties" section would be appropriate at this point? 24.81.65.229 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two important passages from NYTimes December 28, 2008 story

The source article:

Taghreed ElKhodary, Ethan Bonner. "Israeli Attacks in Gaza Strip Continue for Second Day". New York Times. December 28 2008.

The "Hamas" casualties included many who did not share Hamas' core belief but were those desperate for work:

"Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. But with work here increasingly scarce because of an international embargo on Hamas, young men are tempted by the steady work of the police force without necessarily fully accepting the Hamas ideology. One of the biggest tolls on Saturday was at a police cadet graduation ceremony in which 15 people were killed."

Hamas's goals with regards to the ceasefire:

"Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’s main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s real intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday, some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity."

Both of these key facts should be added to the article. The New York Times is a very reliable source with the two reporters who wrote this story operating both Gaza and Israel. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and neutrality

See also: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH

Neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources are the combined matrix from which all content should come in English Wikipedia. These policies are not negotiable, and all content must conform to them.

As quoted, the key point is that we are not seeking the truth as seen by any of us, but that the information is a verified fact or opinion. A fact in Wikipedia is anything published in a reliable source that is a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.. An opinion is what is subject to controversy, but there are facts about opinions. And we must present these verified facts in a neutral fashion, further more, we are required to assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. The policies couldn't be more clear.

This verifiability is a changing value depending on the amount of controversy and disagreement. So for example, less verifiability is needed in order to say that "the sky is blue", that what would be needed to explain the process that makes the sky blue. No one denies that the sky is mostly blue (except for clouds) during daylight hours, but there might be disagreement on what the process is. Hence, less or more verifiability.

There seems to be a misconception around reliable sources: they are not required to be neutral.

A reliable source can be partisan and non-neutral. What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source. The more controversy around a topic, the more need for verifiability. Hence, there needs to be more sources and more variety of POV in sources.

The ones required to be neutral in the presentation of sources are us.

Also, please keep in mind that reliable sources are classified in primary, secondary, and tertiary. In general secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used to provide verifiability to known facts.

Primary sources should never be used if they contain opinion, except as quotes to verify the facts of the opinion. So even closely linked to the belligerents are to be allowed (such as partisan media, like the Jerusalem Post or the Palestinian News Network) but they must be verified by other sources more distant from the conflict, or be quoted, rather than cited. There is no doubt they are reliable sources: in a discussion of atheism, what the Catholic News Service has to say is an important source in order to provide balance and neutrality - so is the PNN in this case. However, we must not give undue weight, in particular if the information doesn't verify.

The insistence of some of using only one source or one group of partisan sources to provide information in the encyclopedic voice is in total violation of policy. If there is controversy, is unacceptable to allow non-neutral text to remain as a fact, rather than a fact about opinion. Likewise, just because one source is not-neutral, it doesn't automatically make it unreliable: a good faith effort to find verifiability in other sources must be done. If this effort fails, mentioning the information from all sources, using due-weight criteria, mentioning is the best way to ensure neutrality. Removal of reliable sources is discouraged, more sourcing is better sourcing.

We have to speak for the other side. Period. Not negotiable. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia.

An argument has been made regarding Wikipedia not being "news". This is true, but in the context used, it is a total fallacy and editors are advised to stop using it in good faith. Since this is a current event, there will not be any tertiary sources (like encyclopedias) or secondary sources (there are no books or academic papers) other than news and primary sources. So in "current event" and "recent events" we MUST be necessity be guided by what news organizations are saying, because they are the only ones providing verifiability.

In fact WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is not about not using news sources, but about making Wikipedia a news source itself. It has nothign to do with sourcing, but with no original research. This argument is fallacious and disruptive, and continued use will be considered WP:POINT.

To the partisans, I remind you that this is not a soapbox. Article quality would be better served if we refrain from emitting opinions in support of, or against any of the sides of the matter. We would also move forward better if we do not appeal to motive: most of us already know where we all stand on this conflict, there is no need to remind each other. If you are going to dispute the reliability of a source, do so using the guidelines in WP:RS, not your personal opinion of a given source: blogs are out, professional organizations are in, what a government says of itself is primary sourcing etc, etc. If you think X source is a rabid nest of thieves, that might be true, but its irrelevant. Kindly keep it to yourself, or open a blog somewhere else in which to emit your opinions.

This is a good faith effort to try to bring clarity. Some of the arguments here have been pretty creative interpretations of policy, and some of the editing has been done in total disregard of policy, and some cases, common sense and decency. Don't. This not another battlefield in your battles, this is an encyclopedia done by geeks. Who for the most part don't care about your beliefs, just want facts. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page.

Could we get people to at least agree with automatic archiving of discussions via bot?

Its already getting a bit long, and bots are smart enough not to archive ongoing discussions. They also are less error prone than archiving by hand.

Please opine so we can set it up. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we should only archive sections which have not been edited in 7 days Ijanderson (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the archiving until we resolve the name change. There are some crucial arguments against Cerejota's editing activity and archiving could potentially drag out the discussion as many points would have to be repeated/clarified. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary start time?

Is there a source to backup the idea that the conflict started on December 27 and hence casualties immediately preceding that date due to Hamas rockets won't be included in the death toll statistics? The ceasefire did run out on December 19 so why wouldn't that be a more suitable date given that the rocket attacks started increasing at that date? 118.208.59.98 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=260542202"