This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Violations of 1RR should be made to the edit warring noticeboards.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Yes, I know it's been discussed before, but it's time we discussed it again. The recent conflict in Gaza, even if it wasn't widely dubbed a 'war', makes Wikipedia's decision to title this article as though it was the first, only or most significant military conflict in Gaza look sillier than ever. There were 'Gaza Wars' before this one, and there will be more 'Gaza Wars' in future. It's just far too vague.
(Given the number of incoming links, I'd be happy for Gaza War to remain as a redirect for the time being. In the long-term though, I think there's a reasonable argument for turning it into a disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC))
A proper google search in "news" gives only 147 hits for "Operation Cast Lead" compared to 905 for "Gaza war" & 2009.TMCk (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for now. First, this obviously was the biggest "Gaza War" with most deaths and let us think positive thoughts it will remain so. If not, we can deal with it.
Secondly, not all the various Israeli incursions/attacks are named after the propaganda name operations of the dominant military powers and perhaps there should be a broader discussion of how they should be named. I personally would prefer month/season and year, which currently many are named instead of an operation, but obviously this one is 3 odd weeks over two different years which makes it a big clumbsier. CarolMooreDC 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Support As formal move requester per Robofish. I've supported Gaza War in the past and probably it should remain as redirect and perhaps eventually a disambiguation page. Robofish's rational refers to applicable naming convention and search engine results. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC) edited for formal request move at 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Rename to something "Gaza War" should be a disambiguation page -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. It should not be called by the name given to it by one country, especially when it is not widely known by that name outside that country. I'd support something like 'Gaza Conflict' + year, (or month and year). Imc (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - there has been no evidence that Operation Cast Lead is the most common name used by reliable sources. The past move discussion that resulted in this change brought several sources from a wide array of sources that use Gaza War for the name of this event. A google search does not restrict itself to reliable sources, and as such is not of much use for deciding the name of the event. Until it can be shown that most sources use this name for the event the current name should be retained. Also, per WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa), or for military actions that were never carried out (such as Operation Green).nableezy - 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Long time coming. Although I respect the intention of MILMOS it discounts that is is an unambiguous and common name used by sources in at least this instance. Overall navigation and the common name standards of Wikipedia trump that project's suggestions for smaller scale events. The move also has the benefit of being inline with other articles in the topic area. In response to Imc's valid concern: The proposed move is better than what we have now and a move that is improvement should not be hindered by what should be handled in yet another discussion.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any evidence, any at all, for the unsubstantiated claim that OCL is an unambiguous and common name used by sources? Because the move request that brought this article to this title actually provided evidence from reliable sources, I dont see that being done here. nableezy - 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reeason why we don't title it the "Gaza Massacre" or "Battle of al-Furqan".TMCk (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding a timeframe to the title would be a good idea of course.TMCk (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Not the common name and not a neutral description of the topic. I would support a change to Gaza war 2008/09 or something similar to differentiate between other incidents to address the concerns raised by the proposer. Dlv999 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Support - Firstly, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Google has 18,300,000 hits for "Operation Cast Lead" and 271,000 for "Cast Lead Operation"; compared with 5,610,000 for "the Gaza War" and 1,160,000 for "Gaza War" (discounting Wikipedia hits). Secondly, "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza War" has been used for other conflicts, and some of those hits refer to those other conflicts. Thirdly, the name "Operation Cast Lead" is consistent with other articles like Operation Rainbow (2004), Operation Days of Penitence, Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter and Operation Pillar of Defense. Naming it after the Israeli codename (the most common name) doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side; likewize, naming Operation Barbarossa after the German codename (the most common name) doesn't mean we're taking the German side. ~Asarlaí 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if Google is saying that there are 5 and a half million pages containing "the Gaza War" but only 1 million containing "Gaza War" I think that is telling us a lot about the reliability of using google hits, but not much about the common name of this topic. Also claims should be verifiable so you should provide links for your searches, none of the searches I tried came up with the numbers you quoted.
As I've already pointed out further up in response to the first "Google argument", if you search "news" only, the numbers are quite the opposite in comparison. Backfires so to say.TMCk (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Searching Google News between 27 December 2008 (beginning of Cast Lead) and 13 November 2012 (the day before the beginning of Pillar of Defense) yields 4,680 for "Operation Cast Lead" + 127 for "Cast Lead operation" (or 4,807 altogether), compared with 4,550 for "Gaza War". Note that the hits for "Gaza War" also include terms such as "Gaza's war...", "Gaza war crimes" and "Attack may spark Gaza war". ~Asarlaí 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's be frank, editors on this article and in the topic area have feared that naming an article based on Israel's operational name somehow gives validity to Israel and/or disenfranchises the Palestinians. No reader will actually think any more or less of either side based on the name of the article, though. Google News shows RS and provides a sample for what they commonly cal the conflict. I may support "Gaza Conflict (xyz)" in another discussion but both are better than this.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The protests against Israel's attacks far outnumbered, in number and attendance, those in support. The imagery of the section should reflect that. nableezy - 02:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Image documenting Hamas rocket range in 2012
Use of an image documenting Hamas rocket range in 2012 is WP:SYNTHESIS, I see no evidence from the source document that it is relevant to the Gaza war or the situation in 2008. It is very likely the image is not accurate for 2008 seeing as in the intervening years Hamas were supposed to be increasing the range of their rockets. Dlv999 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
But In 2008, the Israeli foreign ministry says that the range of the Palestinians Grad rocket is 20km, while in the 2012 image it is presented as 30 miles. The most likely reason for the discrepancy is the well documented improvement in the Palestinian arsenal in the intervening years. It should be fairly obvious that it is problematic to portray the 2012 arsenal as something that was available in 2008 and relevant to the 2008 Gaza war. Dlv999 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not true. By the end of 2008, Grad rockets had a range of 30 km. Read this paper, written during the Gaza War: However, the Israelis are not alluding themselves about their opponent's capabilities, and are preparing themselves to absorb more and heavier hits in the coming days, as operation "Lead Cast" continues. Emergency Martial Law has already been declared by the Home Defense Command covering almost 30 kilometers range of possible rocket strikes.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
30 kilometers is not the same as the 30 miles in the 2012 image. Dlv999 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Then get a picture from this conflict. That one isnt related. nableezy - 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Did not we have a map like this in this article for ages? Probably established editors do remember. I guess all is needed is looking into older revisions of this page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This article, beside the fact that it is too long and beside the fact that prioritizing and favoring chapters/sections and amount of informations on the basis of pro-Israel bias, has also issues regarding POV and notability of sources:
- on one side, almost all of the allegations, reports, quotes, against Palestinian side comes from WP:PRIMARY which is also a single source (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SPS), mainly IDF, while few secondary and tertiary sources, such as media reports, are also almost entirely based on reporting the same IDF primary source, not to mention that media outlets itself are mostly from Israel;
- on the other side, majority of the allegations, reports, quotes, against Israeli side comes from variety of sources corroborated with primary sources, secondary source and tertiary sources, and which are mainly impartial/nonpartisan notable international organizations and agencies, while secondary and tertiary sources reporting on the basis of these primary sources are various notable international media outlets.
This MUST have some significance, right ?!--Santasa99 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the same as the above poster, certainly much of the single pro-Israeli sources still remain as of my post: WP:PRIMARY, as well as WP:NPOV for lack of other sources. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I FELT I MUST AMMEND THE ABOVE WITH CAPS, BOLD AND ITALICS DUE TO THIS SUGGESTION FOUND WITHIN THE TEXT:An IDF probe, released on April 22, 2009, stated that a UN vehicle was attacked by Israeli forces because a Palestinian anti-tank squad was being unloaded from the vehicle.SUCH INSINUATIONS ARE SERIOUS TO THE POINT OF PURSUIT OF LITIGATION, AND SIMPLY CANNOT BE REPRESENTED WITHOUT DUE CORROBORATION, THE U.N. REPRESENTING THE HIGHEST GLOBAL BODY CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of the article reads as zionist propaganda.Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Apart from tricks such as two large sections under different headings about Hamas' alledged use of human shields, this article is mainly a successful Israeli propaganda story because it hides the fact that the real cause of the conflict is the ongoing occupation.
Even the stupid title is misleading, as it was not a war at all. Essentially the assault was a cowardly series of bombardments and shellings with clusterbombs and white phosphorus from the air, the borders and the sea, on a defenceless people. After a week followed a repetition of Operation Rainbow (2004) and Operation Days of Penitence, incursions which also were not wars. Tanks, drones and helicopter gunships against guns. For many it was an eye-opener with respect of the real intentions of Israel toward the Palestinian people.
I am not going to propose a renaming for the third time, but after all a title like "Gaza war 2008/09" "Gaza assault 2008/2009" is the most neutral and usefull name, although this onslaught for most people is known under the cynical name "Cast Lead". Cynical and non-neutral like all Israeli operation names. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I wish neutral editors were as bold and as aggressive as those pushing the Israeli POV. I see so much Israeli propaganda in this article, then I come here and see that that is the consensus view, yet we don't act against them. I'll try to be back to boldly edit the terrible intro. Sepsis II (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Although I am hesitant to wade into many biased articles involving the Middle East, I like to think I can add a little to the discussion when it's really warranted. The simple casualty numbers tell the story of this "battle" well enough: between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians dead compared to 13 Israeli dead, 4 of those from friendly fire. Historically, events with these casualty ratios are described as massacres in Wikipedia and given a paragraph or two in the intro describing the massacre. I would refer the reader to the Wikipedia articles on The Little Bighorn (268 U.S. Cavalry dead to maybe a hundred natives), the Waxhaw Massacre (113 dead to 5 dead), the Tripolitsa Massacre (8000 dead to 100 dead), the Moro Crater Massacre (600 dead to 18 dead), or any of the other massacres on the List of events named massacres Page on Wikipedia. Of course, when Israel is involved the introduction to the slaughter has to be four paragraphs describing all the reasons Israel devastated Gaza and the "restraint" they used ("Israeli forces attacked police stations, military targets," etc, "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets" ((Gasp! They weren't very effective, were they?)), the back and forth about the Goldstone Report, etc). Who are the admins overseeing this? MarkB2Chat 15:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)