Wikipedia

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 12

< Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)
(Redirected from Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Requested Move 4 January 2009)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Aervanath in topic Requested move
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Requested move

Latest comment: 15 years ago308 comments58 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was no action. This is a long and contentious debate, which I can almost guarantee will re-occur once this conflict has ceased. The current title seems to gather a higher proportion of support than any other option, so we will keep it here for now. Any more new suggestions for a new title should be shelved until this is no longer a current event. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Multiple options — Lets discuss in an organized fashion. — Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This discussion appears to be getting rather heated. Please remember WP:EQ when posting. Couchcommander (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Add your own proposals if you do not like the current ones using the same format.

Proposals

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Crisis

  • Support This is what the call it on NBC. It is very neutral, and does not assume anything. There has not been a declaration of war, so therefore it is merely an escalated crisis.--ConstantinPost (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As of January 5th at 12:36am UTC, 7 out of 9 users supported the name "Operation Cast Lead" and 4 out of 7 users opposed the current name. I think it is fair to say that it needs to be seriously considered at this point that "Operation Cast Lead" be the new name of the article. Please continue to state your proposals. Coreywalters06 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This conclusion lacks any methodology, and is another manifestation of the serious rewinding-function illness that some users are suffering from. The count of users dedicating themselves to the support of a doctrine of thought is unsignificant as long as there is a good deal of worthy criticism against it that is not (in any way!) refuted. No consensus can at all be reached in this environment of mediocre communication! People just repeat what they just said over and over again with no addition or further argumentation, and no ability whatsoever to know whether someone has refuted their argument or as how to systematically refute others' argument. This title has a very clear and a very well laid out neutrality problem. How do you respond to this? (briefly and convincingly please, and don't tell me like one other guy said that Israel "itself" named it such).
Now at least we understand why some people repeat the same thing again and again. Brevity is the key, and saying the same thing a thausand times doesn't make it sound more conceptually compelling. Working that way is not correct, you do not literally "plan" results and then dedicate yourself to enforcing them while flooding the discussion page like this. Ideas will have to interact, and the final results must benefit from this interaction of ideas. Amongst all the titles laid down below -regardless of the count of the "dedicated supporters", the only one that qualifies at this time for not having any standing, serious complaints is the "Israeli Offensive in Gaza" title. However, I would like that users work more on criticizing it so that we may be assured of its appropriateness (By either explaining why the current defense is not valid or by providing further solid criticism, not by repeating the same things over and over). Orwa diraneyya (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Currrent name is fine. (If it's fine, why are we debating the name?)

  • Oppose - The situation has escalated with the ground incursion and the name is to vague. I always held it as a temporary placeholder and one of the conditions has changed.--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Even though the ground invasion by the Israeli forces is currently underway, Hamas is still launching rockets at many Israeli cities the past few days. The title should remain as it. Even I read CNN was labeling this conflict as Crisis in the Middle East, which I think is too vague. --Roman888 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • How the "Hamas is still launching rockets at many Israeli cities" related to your argument here? Is this for example, related to the "It involves two parts so it's a conflict" and "As said, it involves two parts so it's a conflict" argument? That is, is it that some feel that getting any closer to declaring the notion of an attack gives incomplete (aka unfair) picture? If that is the case, then I would honestly argue that this is not true, and wholly subjective (a dislike rather than an opposition that is ought to be considered). An "invasion", "airstrike" or "attack" are all merely descriptive (describing the form of an act), and contain no indication whatsoever to the "intent" or the "motive" of the attacker. Hence, there are no perceivable grounds for your opposition. Moreover, someone cannot in the same time invade, attack or bomb while opposing the most ordinary way of describing his acts, this is both unacceptable and misleading. Long story made short, until a "global name" of this historical event is fabricated, a descriptive title is the only way to go, and for a descriptive title of this sort not to have any indication of the very nature of the event is absurd, and totally not understood (while assuming that people are trying to make a point). Avoiding this objective and necessary indication is inconsistent if the wording was appropriate, but I doubt it. I doubt that the phrasing is what creating the problem here. People here will have to be honest, objective, and consistent (for example, not once saying that "it involves two sides so it's a conflict" and once bouncing back to that "this is its name! Israel named it such", which are two arguments that follow totally different premises -different constitutions of mind as to whether hamas participates in the making of the event or not). Orwa diraneyya (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-It involves two side so it is a conflict.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - As User:Tomtom9041 said, it involves two sides, so it is a conflict. And while there is battling between the two sides, it isn't a War because War would traditionally be fought by 2 countries/states. It might be "a war on Hamas" from Israeli POV, but objectively looking at the issue, it's definitely a conflict between the two sides. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In the world POV, it's an "Israeli Offensive in Gaza" that is motivated and is the result of a running conflict between Israel and Hamas. This conflict isn't new and had many manifestations, amongst them are the long-running rockets. Hence, we may have an article on the rockets (we already have!) and another article on that offensive in Gaza. In the world POV the first manifestation of the conflict is "rockets launched on southern Israel" and the second manifestation is an "offensive in Gaza", things are simple, and the argument is, with all my respect, invalid. The rockets in the incident of this event plays the role of the "(advertised) motive" of the attack rather than an "alternative point of view". Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not only is the current title very long, but it is also seems to be an understatement. Hamas has pledged a fight to the death and Israel has called for "all out war" against Hamas. It is not appropriate to call it the Israel-Gaza war because Israel has not declared war against Gaza; they have declared war against Hamas. This is not a conflict, its a huge military operation and a war. I think that Operation Cast Lead is much more appropriate as it is what Israel itself has called this operation and is much more commonly used in media. You don't see people on CNN saying "And now, more breaking news on the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's indeed underestimating what is going on. However the problem with the IDF operation name title is that it isn't neutral since it's the name given by one of the two "conflicting" parties to the event. That is, Israel "itself" calling it something doesn't mean that this has become "the" name of this historic event. People collectivley will reach consensus on the name later after the attack is finished. This problem with the IDF operation name title is inherent and cannot be fixed. Hence, we have for the time being to resort to a descriptive title, which is the current context of the conflict word. I think that this word underestimates as well as obscures the very nature of the event. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was never the right title for what is happening, this is not an "escalation" this is an air, sea and ground attack of unprecedented ferocity. RomaC (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now at a later date we could consider using this title, but at the moment I recommend we refer to it as "Operation Cast Lead", which is (IMO) the most neutral and unambiguous description we can use.
  • Support most neutral name.VR talk 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Only neutral name suggested so far. --Omrim (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word conflict is meant to emphasize a state of disagreement that is more predominent that its sparse manifesting events. This article is not about the conflict between any two parties or any two organizations. It's about one specific, massive military manifestation of one long-running conflict. Any descriptive title resorted to at this time for the lack of a common name approved by the press (a neutral name, not an operational name given by one of the two conflicting parties), will have to indicate this very nature of the event, that being of an attack. Refusing to have this basic, fair and objective indication is questionable. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Imposes an artificial symmetry between the victims and the aggressors. To call a slaughter a "conflict" is grossly misleading. NonZionist (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1. As we all have read an seen, this not a simple debate and just simple 1 or 2 per daye bombings to call it conflict! Palestinian death toll passes 500 as Israeli army moves on Gaza City [1] so it's a real invasion to a homes, home towns and not a country or even armed city. so we face a complicated situation. we have the act of "invasion", on the other hand, Gazza is not country or even an armed city. so 10 years later, when People look at history, deah tolls and what's happening now, can't name it a conflict. 2. Israel had 2 gaol by attacking Gazza, First az it's said by its officials, It's against Hamas and a war to the bitter end. Second, they are attacking and killing civilians on Gazza and they want to capture Gazza.Morosoph00 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't the name of the conflict, but a description. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This was necessitated by the lack of a common name approved by all parties, and is the very reason why we can't take the "Operation Cast Lead" or the "Black Saturday Massacre" as neutral, equally-approved names. Until such a name is available, someone will have to resort to such a discription. The issue now however is coming with a word or phrase that is more definitive, reasonably accurate and less misleading that this "conflict" word. What do you think? Do you think that this article is about the long-running conflict between Hamas and Israel in Gaza or do you think that it's about one military manifestation of such conflict? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - It is neutral, and there is no problem with it. "Conflict" as a word can be used for any issue ranging from politic issues to wars; Note: that replacing "issue" with conflict in the previous statement would make it much better, right ? One last pharaoh (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes but the question is why, why not to state the obvious? You must at least be able to say in brief why you avoid a whole class of descriptions. That is, you wouldn've elaborated on the applicability of this general word while there are many other objective and more definitive words to pick without a reason. Don't convince me that there is no single word that expresses the factual side of what we need without judging the attack morally, is the English language that limited? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the point here is that there is no problem with the word since it does describe the situation; we are not talking about how many other words can be used. The other advantage of this word beside being able to give a good description, is that the other words can be arguable; for example some people would support using "war" while other wont, and so on. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral title, should satisfy both sides. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You misunderstood, this is no voting, saying that it should satifsy both sides will not make it satisfy both sides, people have to reply to others' arguments, not repeat themselves and repeat others. Please do not take it as a rude reply, I am a nice person in actuality, but I keep on seeing this flooding behaviour and I realize how it lessens the efficiency of this discussion and prevents it from reaching consensus in the supposed way. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too vague. Almost Orwellian in its obfuscation of the imbalance between the forces engaged in the fighting. Also glosses over the the fact that this is an Israeli military initiative designed to meet two main objectives, as stated by Israel: an end to rocket fire and the weakening and/or destruction of Hamas. Tiamuttalk 10:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The most neutral title, and had been used by many reliable sources, such as CNN. NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It is most neutral and used by many RS. Reservation : The only problem with this name is that most of the editors do not want to have the article reflect the name, but want to discuss a conflict that they believe started on December 27, 2008. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is really just about Israel's actions. Really. I must say, though, that I don't think the discussion at the MILHIS talk page should have any more weight than this one. Surely, the people editing here have been more closely following the article's developments and the various discussions that have been surrounding this issue. While their advice might be of use, their opinions don't trump those developing here. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply, it's NPOV and has been used in the media.Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The Title Does not blame Israel or Hamas/Gaza/Palestine and just implys that there is a conflict going on between the two. Its not a war as stated before as no side declared war.Knowledgekid87 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War

Sources do use this in their headlines, and it has significantly jumped in use since the ground invasion started.


  • Oppose - I agree with the above argument, Gaza in itself wields no sovereign power, and despite what it will be called 10 years from now, at present it is prudent to abide by logical and well founded definitions of a "state". --Nerd.cubed (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now - until both fighting parties start calling it that way.--Omrim (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose -The Israeli parliament, the Kenesset did not formally declare war against Hamas run Gaza territory, it was labeled a military operation, with Hamas firing back the best description would be an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The labeling of a military conflict as a "war" is a politically-charged issue in Israel, as seen in the debate in that country over whether to call the 2006 Lebanon War a "war" or not. This conflict has not been officially designated a war, and nor is it correct to speak of a "war" against Gaza. Gaza is a territory, not a political entity or armed group. Calling it the Israel-Hamas war would be no better because other armed Palestinian groups are involved apart from Hamas. Using the name of the Israeli military operation avoids these problems. -- Noung (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this right: you oppose "War" because it is politically sensitive to the Israeli public. However, you support an option that is politically sensitive for the Palestinian public. Did I sum it up correctly? I will wait for your answer. --Cerejota (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No. The key issue is not offending Israeli sensibilities, it is a point of fact. Operation Cast Lead is the name of the operation. That is a fact. Palestinians cannot deny that they are the subject of a military operation called Operation Cast Lead. It might offend their sensibilities, but that does not matter. Calling it a war is factually inaccurate and does not even have the benefit of being the official, factual name. I include the point about Israeli naming of wars merely to support the point that it is not called that, not because of sensibilities. Their sensibilities are as irrelevant as those of the Palestinians; what is relevant is that the history books will know this event as Operation Cast Lead. -- Noung (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. War is a formally declared state of hostility between two nation states who recognise each other's existence ('existence' in the sense of having international legal personality). Since neither belligerent in this conflict recognises the other as being representatives of a legitimate nation state (Israel doesn't recognise a Palestinian state, Hamas doesn't recognise Israel as legitimate), calling the 'event' which this article covers a war is entirely inappropriate. Cynical (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Gaza Offensive/2008-2009 Israeli Offensive in Gaza

To clarify: Either 2008-2009 Gaza Offensive or 2008-2009 Israeli Offensive in Gaza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the solution.

  • It is non POV
  • It is being increasingly used by news reports eg. 'Israel continues its offensive'

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support It's descriptive (originally factual I modified it), objective, and reflecting more upon the very nature of the event. Israel did attack Gaza in an attempt to destroy Hamas. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - one sided. Israel didn't woke-up one shiny day and decided to attack. Such title depicts Israel as the aggressor here - an issue which is highly controversial. Even the EU presidency called it a "defensive" action. --Omrim (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Counter-argument: Apparently this is what you feel upon reading the proposed title, but that is not necessarily what it means. This is a factual description, i.e., it has nothing to do with whether the offensive (the aggressive attack) is justified or not. It's an attack, and it's admittedly aggressive (250 people killed in the first day). What this title tells about Israel is that it's the initiator. Note that it can still be the "good guy" while being the one to "take the offensive". It's not one-sided, it's a neutral, objective title that is not as "high-level" or as vague as the conflict title (conflict must refer to a continuous state of disagreement that is more predominent than its sparse manifestation events, rather than one massive military manifestation of a long-running conflict). 94.99.58.164 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Does that mean we have to change the Yom Kippur War to "Arab forces assault to Israel", and the six days war to "Israeli assault on arab air fields"? Also, this "assault" has a name (operation cast lead), this is also very factual - why not use its real name? Why not call it "asaullt on Gaza in response to rockets attacks"? (also factual). Bottom line: "conflict" also depicts facts, but without resorting to POV.--Omrim (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You can't refute a good argument in an article only by bringing examples of other articles that seem not to conform to the stated criterion. The Wikipedia is so free that it isn't even restricted by its own content (for reasons other than consistency and notation, which still can't stand in front of a good argument). Hence, please stop citing meaningless examples... If you have a point then state your point directly. I didn't say it was an "assault", since the word assault may give some implication with regard to the morality of the act (moral correctness). Offensive only means "aggressive attack" (when used as a noun), which is how it's very different, it's only descriptive. Saying that "Operation Cast Iron" is factual (aka discriptive) is absurd... I do not understand how you didn't see that. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - one sided and thus POV. NoCal100 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What people feel it means is what it means. If you get a different vibe from it than someone else, it isn't a good title because it's not neutral enough. A truly neutral title would give every reader the same feeling. Whether such titles actually exist I have no idea, but we should still strive for it. The discussion here indicates that different people are getting different vibes from the title. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree to "What people feel it means is what it means." If you get a different vibe from it than someone else, it isn't a good title because it's not neutral--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The only requirements in a nominated decriptive title is that it be accurate and do not judge the attacks morally (be neutral) which is why the word offensive was used. The word offensive, as a noun, which is derived from the following meaning of the adjective: "(a) aggressive, attacking. (b) (of a weapon) meant for use in attack", means one of the following: (1) An attack, an aggressive campaign or stroke (2) aggressive or forceful action in persuit of a cause. With all my respect, these feeling-oriented complaints aren't of any value. Saying that the word is not descriptive enough and that it involves judging the attacks can always be verified. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - very one sided. okedem (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please stop echoing each other's argument. Repeating an argument a thausand times doesn't make it sound more conceptually impressive. Plus, if someone had to refute this he will have to do it only once, so why repeat and repeat and repeat... 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The attacks are one sided. The Allied Forces didn't "wake up one day" and decide to bomb Dresden, but nonetheless the article is called "Bombing of Dresden," because that's what happened. We can't frame this how we want to we have to reflect reality. RomaC (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per POV concerns, also it's a bit too long. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In your world this counts as ... "argument"?? Plus, I am quite embarrassed to note this out, but the "/" is used to separate two distinct proposed titles, that is, not the whole line is the title. Given that this is clear, how can the "2008-2009 Offensive on Gaza" be "too long"? Especially that the 2008-2009 part is expected to be replaced with a better temporal qualification when the attack is finished? 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's your Anti-Israeli POV, not anything neutral (and considering your username, I don't need to explain anything further). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree on that it's not a good idea, at all, to have such a username while working in the context of encyclopedic edits, where someone is generally supposed to distant his editorial decisions from any unproven beliefs that he may believe in. Plus, it makes it much more difficult for the others to believe that you will ever be fair to them. That is, I would like to know why is this title better than the other ones in your opinion, saying only that it's more accurate doesn't add much, honestly, and replicates the behaviour of the other guys who are echoing each other's arguments over and over without adding much. Thanks. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better if I cloaked my opinions behind some misleading username, e.g., "IsraelFan" or "WikiLover"? Better to be honest and up-front. Clarification: Zionism is an ideology, not a country. I do not subscribe to this ideology -- that is what the "NON-" prefix means. I am, essentially, anti-Fascist. Does that disqualify me from participation here? It would, if this were Germany in the 1930s. Fortunately, we have not regressed to that level yet.
The "offensive" or "assault" title is accurate, because that is just what it is. There is no parity between the occupier and the occupied, and no parity between a nuclear-armed regional superpower and people armed with makeshift rockets. If we can't see that, then our objectivity is so far in doubt that we are not qualified to write a cookbook, much less an encyclopedia page. Put ideology aside and open your eyes to the obvious! NonZionist (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Non neutral, very one sided. Israel is not assaulting Gaza or its people, but in a military operation against terror attacks from Gaza, against Hamas organization and all the terrorizing factions, as a defensive maneuver of a democratic state against an military organization. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever, in either case, it's attacking the whole Gaza strip while trying to do such, that is, while trying to defend herself, and to destroy Hamas and the rockets. Defense here is the (advertised) motive, that is, you can't use it to define or describe the act. This motive is very well stated along with the operation information at the very beginning of the article, whereas the motive of Hamas is not as clear. I think of no way to describe this incident that will not contain the notion of an attack. Refusing this super-fair indication is again, very questionable. I don't understand why would someone commit into something while believing in it and then supress heavily like this the most-ordinary and objective expression of it. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • actually, there has not been a single instance of carpet bombing. unless you have reliable sources to support the claim of all out attack against the entire territory, please refrain from wild accusations. regards --84.109.19.88 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


I don't really agree that Offensive is a non-neutral word. I think a lot of Israelis would be happy with that as a description of the operation. OFfensive is simply a military description. I'm sure I've even seen situations where armies have described their operation as an offensive. From Wikipedia Offensive: An Offensive is a military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to...gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I we're going to refer to this as the Israeli offensive, shouldn't we use the name given to it by Israel? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This has been refuted, the subject of the article is the historical event, which is both conceptually distinct and of a broader scope than the IDF military operation. Naming the historical event after the military operation is not neutral since there are a number of parties that participate in the making of this event other than Israel, including (but not restricted to) Hamas. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why should we use the name given to it by Israel? Military codenames are typically chosen for reasons including propaganda value, morale boosting of domestic troops and population (eg. I'm sure the Iraq war article isn't titled "Operation Enduring Freedom"). As such Operation Cast Lead would be a non-neutral title. "2009 Israeli New Year offensive in Gaza" will probably be the shorthand most historians will use.--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Besides what other people said above, it is just too complicated ! One last pharaoh (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Too complicated, huh? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Support - Supporting 2008-2009 Gaza offensive, and opposing the other suggestion. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If you would try not to be annoyed by what I say then it would be great, I do not wish to annoy you. What I want to say here is that you cannot do this. What you do now is similar to voting, not to discussing (in which someone supports a title based on a criterion). I see no reason why you would exclude the "Israeli" part while supporting this title, since this offensive is actually run by Israel, which is a fact similar to the fact that there is actually an offensive in Gaza now. That is, since we aren't collecting votes, and since your distinction doesn't seem to have a conceptual basis (please provide one!), this cannot be accepted (in my humble opinion), for it being probably related to liking which in turn is irrelevant to the encyclopedic context. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the basis of my refusal to the other suggestion "2008-2009 Israeli offensive in Gaza" have been stated already, but since you asked for one, here comes the explanation; I already think that the first suggestion "2008-2009 Gaza offensive" is already weak. There is not thing wrong with it, but it is not the best one or at least there are other suggestions that are better than it for me. the second suggestion is even weaker, since it restricts the description to the Israeli offensive, and does not include the Hamas killing of the Egyptian officer, and god knows how this situation would evolve, and whether it would even start the fifth major Arab-Israeli war or whatever is to be witnessed in the future. The reason i did not give such explanation from the beginning is that i am too busy with the exams i am having right now. The problem with Wikipedia can be illustrated by this: When you are ready and have the time and effort for Wikipedia, she does not have much for you, yet she gives you some of her best, when you are so busy that you have to choose between her and your real life , and that's what happened, since i am supposed to have a final Microbiology exam tomorrow, it's about 8:00 PM in Alexandria now, and i am still doing nothing but contributing in Wikipedia. In appreciation for my time responding you, would you please hope me good luck in my exams? Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the reasons already stated. ~Asarlaí 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support The Israeli offensive is the central event of the current crisis and labelling it is such is extremely neutral, as opposed to using the IDF's designation. Using the IDF's codename would suggest an adherence to their version of events and would set a bad precedent for neutrality --Chikamatsu (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I do believe that a better name can be found, but this one is the best so far. It is not one sided as it is just naming a fact, Israel is carrying out an offensive on the Palestinian city of Gaza. Maxipuchi (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Below my threshold for "biased". Further, Israeli actions are the primary subject of this article, a fact that should be reflected in the title. -- tariqabjotu 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This "offensive" is not on Gaza, it is on Hamas. It is an inaccurate title. There is civilian and infrastructure damage to Gaza, but that is not the point of the operation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Even Jpost, an israeli source, is describing it as "Israel's military offensive in the Gaza Strip"[2]. This shows that this term is not biased against Israel. It is just a factual description.
Also, to point out again, the / seperates two possible similar titles. It is not intended to use both sides of the /. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Israel-Hamas conflict
  • The "Israel-Gaza" is a POV title because it implies that Hamas' claim that this operation is against the people of Gaza (or Gaza itself...) is true. The operation was started as (and still is) an offensive against Hamas, and (almost) all sources agree on that. Actually I support "Operation Cast Lead" but it seems that it's too controversial, so I suggest this as a temporary fix. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I know Hamas is active in Hebron, yet there's no war in Hebron, so this wouldn't be very accurate.VR talk 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • True, Hamas is also present in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that there isn't a conflict between Hamas and Israel - a conflict (and even a war) may happen even only in a single front. PluniAlmoni (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And Israeli-Hamas conflict is the one-sided POV that the Israeli offensive is against Hamas and not against Gaza, most sources I have seen describe it as an Israel-Gaza conflict. Nableezy (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Which antisemetic "sources" have you been reading?(Raphmam (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
This is a hard topic, but the Prime Minister of Israel has said that they are targeting Gaza's government, Hamas, not the people of Gaza. So if by Gaza you mean the government, thats fine. If by Gaza you mean the people, thats different. People say POV this, POV that...I say that the casualty rates show that this is not an attack on the Gazan people, but rather on the Government. If it were an attack on the people we would see much less discretion on Israel's part and there would be many more civilians dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The terms Israel and Hamas both denote organizations of people whereas the term Gaza refers to a place. A place, being an inanimate object, cannot be involved in a conflict as that would require it have some form of sentience. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not proper English, long story short, regardless of its frequency of use. Couchcommander (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Isn't the Islamic Jihad, a group distinct from Hamas, also involved in the conflict?VR talk 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As VR points out, Hamas is not the only group involved in the conflict on the Palestinian side; indeed, once Israeli forces enter Gaza we have no way of knowing the organizational affiliation of those firing on them. This problem can be avoided by using the name of the military operation, as below. -- Noung (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose POV, the attacks are against Gaza, not against a political party. This is framing for a particular POV, when already we know that perhaps half the Palestinian dead are civilians. RomaC (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
By saying that the attacks are against Gaza you certainly show your POV. The facts however go to show that it is against the Government, Hamas, not against Gaza. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it very clear that their goal is to obliterate the Hamas terrorist group. If Israel was targeting civilians, we would not see the discretion of Israel's rocket targets and civilian casualties would be much higher. Also, Israel dropped leaflets to warn civilians to leave. So how can you say that they are targeting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreywalters06 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course I have a POV, but I edit to make Wiki articles that are NPOV. I think some editors are confusing NPOV with an ideal of "balance," especially when I see comments like "it makes Israel look bad/aggressive." Facts are facts, this is an assault by a military superpower against one of the most densely populated areas on earth. And whether we like it or not, Hamas is the elected government of that area. RomaC (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)C
Like you say, you clearly have a POV but the problem is you are having trouble seperating your POV from facts. Yous stated that this is an assault even tough according to most facts it is a military retaliation against a terrorist organization known as Hamas and coming straight from your words "And whether we like it or not". Yes- Hamas is a terrorist organization viewed by the majority of the world as so and that is FACT.(Raphmam (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose pr Noung above. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this article about the long-running state of disagreement between Hamas and Israel? At least for the length of time of the Gaza blockade (eighteen months)? No. Rather, it's about one massive military manifestation, or one major consequence of this conflict. Refusing to state the very nature of the event (that of an attack) is questionable. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Imposes an artificial symmetry between the victims and the aggressors. To call a slaughter a "conflict" is grossly misleading. Gaza has no ability to make war. NonZionist (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Only a description of the conflict, not the conflict's actual name. Though I prefer it to the current title. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with Noung above.One last pharaoh (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose - This article is referring to a current situation which may change over time, and maybe in time there will be more conflicts between Israel and Hamas, thus this name can become inaccurate. It is also misleading because even though Israel is (allegedly) declaring war agains Hamas, civilians are obviously being involved, the conflict is not as simple as Israel vs Hamas Maxipuchi (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support because it is clear that the conflict has nothing do to do with Gaza as either of the opponents. Israel and many countries have clearly stated numerous times that they are fighting a war (or conflict) against Hamas- a terrorist organization. Israel has done as much in its power to minimize civilian Gazan deaths. Gaza only happens to be the location or setting in which this conflict is occurring. The conflict could be taking place in the Sahara dessert and it would still be between Israel and Hamas, the belligerents. A conflict is defined by the two (or more) sides- NOT by the location in which it is occurring. (Raphmam (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose per my above comment that other Palestinian militias are involved. Also the conflict is between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. There is no conflict between Hamas operatives in West Bank and Israel, nor does Hamas launch rockets from there.VR talk 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Operation Cast Lead

Major events like this take place among the background of constant conflict between groups in Gaza and Israel, but the notable aspect here is the major Israeli military operation. In my opinion the article ought to be named Operation Cast Lead and their ought to be a separate article Israel-Gaza conflict to which articles like this are subsidiary and which contextualize them more fully. Naming it after the Israeli military operation is not POV, it merely represents the fact that this was the most significant event - it was, after all, what precipitated the creation of this article. Operation Cast Lead is also by far the most widely-used term in the media to describe the event, and is its official name. Naming the article 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict makes it sound like the article is going to be a description of the entire conflict in the period 2008 - 2009, which presumably it is not. That belongs elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. That the editors at Operation Hot Winter disregard that guideline means they have a problem, it doesn't mean we should emulate their ignoring the guideline. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - For reasons above. It is also much easier to say and understand. "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict" is way too long. Also, this is not a conflict between Gaza and Israel. It is a conflict between Hamas and Israel. Israel's objectives are to take as few civilian lives as possible and destroy Hamas. Some may even argue that this operation was started by Israel and therefore, anything else that happens as a direct result is a counter-attack to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead". That is why I think we should use this title. Coreywalters06 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. It addresses all your points, speaking against them.--Cerejota (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - As noted above. As a side note, the Israeli operation is clearly against Hamas and not Gaza, otherwise we'd see 500K casualties rather than just 500 (Mostly Hamas affiliated). Still, The operation is supposedly against Hamas but there are other "resistance" (read: martyrdom seeking) groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad - so the best title would be 'Cast Lead' as it avoids the entire Arab claim that the attack is on the civilians and the Israeli claim that they are doing their best to focus on Hamas alone. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So you admit to clearly WP:POVFORKing? You support the name change because "it avoids the entire Arab claim that the attack is on the civilians and the Israeli claim that they are doing their best to focus on Hamas alone". That you feel so emboldened as to make such a transparent attack against neutrality is sad commentary on the state of WP:NPOV in Wikipedia today.--Cerejota (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I now agree this is the most accurate title that's possible given the complicated nature of this affair.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. There is no reason we cannot find in the RS/V some other title, In fact, I proposed one that is mentioned more that the Operation name, which is "War". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still not what most media are calling it, also using the name used by one side is POV-pushing. RomaC (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree that using the name of the military operation is POV-pushing. Whatever your opinion on the situation, no-one can deny that the IDF has launched a military operation called Operation Cast Lead. That is a fact. We enter the realm of opinion as soon as we try to assign a different name to this series of events because we then have to justify this name in some way, and this justification involves our opinions; using the given name of the operation is as NPOV as can be. Especially if the background and contextual events are fleshed out elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, that its why Operation Cast Lead redirects to this article and should continue to do so. It happened, it continues to happen, no one denies it. However, it is one side of the conflict: this operation is against someone, isn't it? So you are saying we should *ignore* the peopel against whom this operation is, and provided an inherently biased view, based on the fact that one side started it. That makes no sense whatsoever. And since the media is giving it much more names than the operation name, which they have overwhelmingly ignored, we have other options that recognize the fact of the Operation Cast Lead, you are basically calling for a WP:POVFORK. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes I understand that however Wikipedia has clear precedents for using what most RS are calling an event rather than what one involved party is calling it. RomaC (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • But this is not just calling it what one involved party is calling it, it is referring to a historical fact. The IDF launching Operation Cast Lead is now historical fact, and no-one on either side can deny that the IDF launched an operation called Cast Lead. It happened, and it precipitated the creation of this Wikipedia article, of which it is the main subject. And for this reason it seems to be the firmest basis for an article name, to me. -- Noung (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, Noung, I am now leaning to the creation of a whole new article called "Operation Cast Lead" which will actually focus on the specific attacks. As it is, the largest Israeli assault on Gaza in decades, which has been top page news for over a week, does not have a Wiki entry. The current article is a synthesis and blatantly original research. RomaC (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Little re-orientation You started by saying that "Israel launched an operation called Cast Lead in Gaza", and that this is a historical fact, which is true, then you jumped, implicitly and mistakingly, into the conclusion that this should be name of the historical event brought by this Israeli military operation, in which a number parties are involved. This is incorrect, the notion of the historical event is conceptually distinct than that of a military operation. Arguing however that this is plausible (naming the historical event after the operation), because it's the main cause that started the whole thing, is clearly one sided. This refutes your argument. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The description of this as a two-way conflict has been far too problematic without an article titled "Operation Cast Lead". We can make this a sub-article of the larger Israeli-Gaza conflict, and move some of the background into the parent article. I have already explained in previous discussions why I don't think this particular name is "point-of-view", but I will add that the name of the operation ("Cast Lead") is vague enough to not be problematic (i.e. not something like "Operation Kill Terrorists"). -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Tatiq above, though I'm not sure if I would support or oppose making "Operation Cast Lead" into a sub-article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    We already have a parent article Gaza–Israel conflict. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought you were referring to making this into two different articles - one for the airstrike, one for the invasion. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose -POV. Operation Cast Lead is a term used by one side of the conflict which is Israel, The other side which is Hamas, Palestinian administration (PNA) and the Arab world calls it "Israel agression" both are POV and thus not neutral terms. The best term is conflict.
    • Disagree as above. -- Noung (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Also Disagree. Of course they're going to call it aggression. The best term is what Israel has called it. There is no "point of view" about it. It is what it is. Its absolutely asinine to say otherwise. Operation Cast Lead IS the operation. I don't understand what is so "POV" about it. If the United States launched an operation called "The Manhattan Project" you wouldn't argue about the point of view. The Project IS the Manhattan Project. Its not that complicated.Coreywalters06 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • INVALID EXAMPLE ALARM: Manhattan Project was not a military Operation, but a scientific one. A more relevant example would be Invasion of Grenada, for which the Operation code-name Operation Urgent Fury is a redirect. If you read that article, you will see that teh reason for the naming is not even neutrality, its RS/V issues.
      • This is not for us to discuss Also, be advised that in fact WP:MILMOS#CODENAME counsels against naming articles for the Operation name of one side of a given situation, unless Historians commonly use it, precisely because it has the effect of potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other.
      • Lastly, calling people asinine is not exactlly civil behavior. Please reafrain from doing so. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that your personal opinions are interfering with your judgment. I never called anyone asinine. I simply said that it was asinine to think in such a way. You need to learn to differentiate between the two. Thanks! Coreywalters06 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, hai, sophism is asinine. BTW, what are my "personal opinions"? --Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Cerejota, I'm done arguing with you. You think you're all high and mighty and the best. You're a stubborn, ignorant fool. And in computer terms that you might understand, your opinions are "read-only"; no one could possibly try to use logic or ethics to change your mind. Thanks! Coreywalters06 (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I request the above statement be deleted for it is in violation of Wikipedia civility polict-thanks
I am always willing to talk and be convinced. Just not by people who call my ideas "asinine" out of the blue. --Cerejota (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • From your statement above "The best term is what Israel has called it" this is exactly what POV is, Isreali POV. Also Manhattan project has no resemblance to this issue neither in nature nor in this context.
  • Strong oppose - If we are going to wipe our asses with the WP:NPOV policy and impose systemic bias, might as well call it Black Saturday massacre, which is the Palestinian name for it. Israel called it something, the Palestinians call it something else, and the media has given us plenty of options. To continue to insist on this name is to continue to impose a point of view over the other. Period. I can't believe the blatant disregard for one side of the conflict I am seeing: regardless of what side you take in your personal opinions, we must write a neutral encyclopedia. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Wiping our asses with NPOV? Sorry, I didn't realize you were the arbiter of what's neutral. If you can be realistic for a moment, certainly you can see how "Black Saturday massacre" is far more sensationalist than "Operation Cast Lead". Your repeated hints that this has something to do with the political opinions of certain editors is unfortunate and unproductive. We tried the WP:MILMOS suggestion of describing the where and when of the conflict; it's not working. As I said earlier, MILMOS appears to be written with the assumption that it will be applied to locations where conflicts don't this frequently and indiscreetly. That's only the case here if we talk about the Gaza-Israel conflict since 2005 (which, as you can see, uses the location formula). But, when we start to get more specific, we get titles like the current one, that just don't make sense; from the title alone, someone who is familiar with the ongoing operation may have no idea its referring to this particular operation rather than the longstanding Gaza-Israel conflict. Changing "conflict" to "war" just isn't going to fix that. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree the "masacre" name is more melodramatic, but my opinion is irrelevant. If Hamas wants to be more melodramatic than the IDF, their problem. Am nto about to start giving them PR tips. What is relevant is that it is one of the names of the conflict, given by one side of the conflict.
      • I am not an arbiter, its common sense: There are two sides, Side A, and Side B. Ok? Side A calls the conflict "X". Side B calls it conflict "Y". The media in general calls it N, M, P, Q, and to lesser level X and even less Y. Neutrality and non-bias eliminate X and Y as possible titles, but we still have N, M, P, and Q to choose from. Your position is like advocating calling the conflict X, which would take the side of Side A, wittingly or unwittingly.
      • I haven't questioned people's motivation except when they make them an issue themselves y their comments (for example, Jaakobou, up here). I hate soapboxing. With a passion. From wathever side. If I wanted to discuss these topics in depth, I would go to a blog somewhere. But I want to write an encyclopedia, call me crazy.
      • As to trying MILMOS, I disagree we have tried hard enough, there are many alternatives that reliable sources provide and we either don't accept them or insist on the codename. We want to sacrifice neutrality in the altar of shortness. And while you do have a reasonable point on the assumptions of the MILMOS people why don't we ask them? Perhaps they have a solution? That said, if someone unfamiliar with the conflict, doesn't know this article includes Operation Cast Lead when reading the first sentence of the lede (regardless of title, well, they deserve to go back to school, and I am putting it midly (are you serious? This is by far the weakest argument I have heard supporting the operation name, and you tend to be solid.) If they know the operation name, if you google search this article is the first hit for it, even before the IDF's own website. That is a thriumph, because while the IDF's website will never be neutral, this article has to be neutral.--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        I said someone familiar with the topic, not unfamiliar with the topic. The title does not describe what the article is about, and even if someone knowledgeable about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what has been happening in Gaza were to visit an article with this title, they might be surprised by what they're reading about. The title does not match the content.
        There are a variety of things that go into the name of an article, and neutrality is only one of them (especially if the argument for bias is as weak as it is here). That why we get names like the Yom Kippur War. Perhaps this is less than ideal, but until the world decides on a more polished name, I think this is best we can do. I'm not going to explain again and again why I don't believe "Operation Cast Lead" is biased, but your statement that it is so, as if that is self-evident, is off the mark. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not simply asserted it, I explained it using an abstract example (ie Side A v Side B). I know what you have argued in the concrete, but what is wrong with my logic, in the abstract? I am really illogical? I do agree we shouldn't be repeating ourselves, but these arguments will continue to resurface, so it is inevitable. The title does not match the content. on that, we agree absolutely. In particular including 2008 (just four days!). However, I can live with it, specially with the redirects, until the world decides on a more polished name. Which, if my crystal ball is right, they will any time soon. --Cerejota (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • [Please defend here] The weaknesses of the current title should not be brought in support of one specific title, while naming it the "only way" to get over an obstacle. Having said that, I ask Mr. Tariq to defend his argument in front of Cerejora. Tariq frequently noted that he explained somewhere else why this title is not "one sided", that is, that it doesn't convey a single point of view, however I failed to find something that really answers that, Cerejota on the other hand provided a very simple, and a solid argument regarding this. Can you Tariq please defend your argument here, even if you will have to repeat something you said? (It's not really correct that we are only repeating ourselves, some are responding to others with meaningful arguments whereas others are just repeating what they or others just said). Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
          • there is a fallacy in your argument.

1. the article IS about the operation. you disregard that simple fact.
2. the Y name is a reaction, while the X name is the original tag. that does not necesitate neutrality, but in current context it does reflect the actual content of the article.
X is just a tag. as such it is neutral. Y is not a tag, it is POV reaction to what tag X simbolizes. regards - --84.109.19.88 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

          • There are fallacies in your argument against his original fallacy, but only one fallacy I will discuss because the other is based on it: The article is NOT about the military operation, people here other than me has also made this clear distinction between a historical event and a military operation, a historical event has a number of involved parties that participate in its making, whereas the notion of "parties" is irrelevant to a military operation, an operation only has "targets" (hello "one sided"! -why I say is this is that because assumedly we have "two sides so it's a conflict"). Regards! Orwa diraneyya (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I would also like to add, on the issue of precedent, that numerous other military operations launched by the IDF in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon use military codenames because it is the easiest way to differentiate the article's precise content from the many other articles about the conflicts involved. Are we going to rename Operation Days of Penitence "September 2004 assault on Gaza? And Operation Hot Winter to "February 2008 assault on Gaza"? And will Operation Autumn Clouds be renamed November 2006 assault on Gaza? And what about Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon? There again, the articles concern single campaigns in long conflicts, and wisely use the military codename to differentiate them from the conflict as a whole. Otherwise we will end up with a tangled, confused mess of articles. As for why this is not "NPOV", I do not think there is much more that can be said. I do not see how this is a problem if we include the background and more detailed information on developments on the Palestinian side prior to the operation in a separate article, and I am not inclined to simply adhere to WP:MILMOS#CODENAME where there are so many examples of it being violated fruitfully elsewhere. -- Noung (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • So because those articles disregarded rules, we should do it too? To a certain extent, this is the best argument (ie, organization - I am always up for it!), however, those where relatively minor events (maybe Grapes of Wrath wasn't, but it was truly unilateral, and with no ground component to speak of). This here is a major event (and water gets us wet! ;). This is 2006 Lebanon War (aka Operation Just Reward) level history. Or 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict (aka Operation Summer Rains) level. Not routine mop-ups like the others, but game changing stuff. The confussion issue is much lower in a historical context. And of course, I just shown you two equally fruitful examples of respect for policy, that directly apply here. BTW, as to your suggestions, don't give people ideas. :D --Cerejota (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I would also support the farming out of 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict to Operation Summer Rains and Operation Autumn Clouds (for some reason the latter exists as a separate article and the former does not) so long as there is a separate article on developments over the year as a whole, so we will just have to agree to disagree here. I maintain that the way we are going, we are going to end up with a load of similarly and ambiguously-named articles called something like "2008/09 assault on Gaza" when there are perfectly good names that differentiate them more heavily, which seems the most important factor to me. Whatever happens we need to avoid the ambiguity evident in the title 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, which is actually an article about Summer Rains and Autumn Clouds (and mainly Summer Rains), not the Israel-Gaza conflict in 2006 as a whole. -- Noung (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Also, I posted this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict.--Cerejota (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • when the rules do not apply, there should be room for change of rules. I have not seen a particularly strong argument why this particular rule in the current context is advancing NPOV more than codename tag. I have seen many good arguments why no other title is appropriate. most noticebly - the content of the article, which presumebly the title should reflect. regards --84.109.19.88 (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
              • The article is not only about the Operation Cast Lead. The events described by this article began with the Operation, and the Operation is par tof this article. But you have repeated the mistaken impression that this is about the operation only. This not supported by the sheer volume of the RS/V narrative, which sees, for example, Hama's escalation of the rocket attacks as a distinct, descrete parte of the same conflict.
              • This is why I argue this title is a POVFORK: it is essentially re-purposing the article to
              • Lastly, I sugegst you guys see the evry interesting discussion the MILHIST guys are having around this, who to a single person have said the Operation Name is really not advisable, pretty much for the same reasons I have argued. ANd yes, many of them, military history freaks, want to rename things like "Operation Barbarrossa" or "Operation Overlord" and others. I was suprised both by the overwhleming response, and the unanimous nature of their voice. I expected some debate. Apparently it turns out, they have been having these debates for years, over articles less politically significant, and have slowly come to realize why naming articles for Operation Code names makes no sense when writting a neutral encyclopedia. Basically for the reasons stated in WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. Right now, seeing the arguments, all I have is the sudden feeling to stick beans up my nose. --Cerejota (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that would mean that this article is about Israeli attacks, and not preceding Palestinian rocket fire. I don't think we can look at the article from only the perspective of the Israeli military operations only, which is what "Operation Cast Lead" implies.VR talk 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I admit that when I'm looking for this article I type "Operation Cast Lead" into the address bar of my browser, but that's mainly because it's easier to remember than the current title. I don't think "Operation Cast Lead" satisfies NPOV, though and do not think it should be the actual title of this article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Noung, and it just creates too much confusion when we need to draw a line between articles like 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, and 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict (which is likely to be merged) and the more general Gaza–Israel conflict. This article describes what Israel finally does to stop Hamas from attacking it, within all this conflict. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This article describes what Israel finally does to stop Hamas from attacking it This action is niether the first nor the last in the series of actions Israel has taken and will take in the future, so it doesn't qualify as final, also it is not known at this point if it will stop Hamas or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I never said it was either the first or last, and did not mean that Operation Cast Lead is the absolute final thing Israel will ever do to stop attacks from Hamas. Whether or not it is certain that it will stop Hamas has nothing to do with what I said. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • For some reason someone has to repeat this with every breath, even with no one denying it around them. It looks to me as if they on the very inside don't believe it, which is why they need to defend it in front of themselves every 30 seconds. Otherwise why would it make anyone feel bad if we called the event an "attack"? it can still be a good thing! but for some reason it makes them feel bad. I say, this is their problem to have felt bad, the article isn't about them at the end. Moreover, the ones arguing in favour of the Cast Iron title are exactly the same ones whose top favourite complaint is "one sided" and "very one sided", which is very inconsistent, actually, because this is one main, inherent problem with this title. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • "Cast Lead". Whatever the main argument is (one sided, etc.) I think that any other title is not accurate enough and does not represent the article sufficiently. PluniAlmoni (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • This proves that you are, with all my respect, unqualified for participating in the discussion, to have planned a target and not know how to refute the argument of others. Saying that "whatever your argument is, I don't care, what only I know is that this is the best way to go" doesn't stand, and is totally unacceptable. You will have to resolve this neutrality issue and then elaborate on the benefits of such title. Thanks. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
However, if "assault" and "offensive" are ruled out as "politically incorrect", then this would be my third choice. It puts the responsibility squarely on Israel's shoulders, which is just where it belongs. This is Israel's baby, from start to grisly finish, so let's tie an Israeli name to it. NonZionist (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NPOV. It is the name of an Israel military operation. It might have worked if it were Day One. By now, few reputable international news agencies refer to it by this name. I just checked BBC News, and it said "Middle East crisis" and "Gaza violence". For CNN, it's "Gaza Crisis". Al Jazeera calls it "War in Gaza". Fox News/Sky News doesn't refer to the conflict as Cast Lead, either. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Basic neutrality issue should be resolved first, mentioned by Cerejota above, then any side benefits of the title can be enumerated (assumedly to support it). Here is another, more comprehensive treatment of this "neutrality issue":
    The article here is about the historical event created in the region by this military operation, rather than about the military operation itself, which is why the humanitarian situation in Gaza is covered, the effects of the continuing blockade at its time, and the reactions of the whole world. Moreover, if other parties were involved in the future in this event, hypothetically fighting next to Hamas for example, then their intrusion will also be covered comprehensively in this article, as they now have become a part in the making of this historical event. Now the question of whether the historical event should be named after the military operation leading into its initiation is bound to the whole world, and not to the Israeli party, which is only in control of its operation but is not in control of the historical event created by it. I think that one reason of why this distinction MAY not so clear in this case is due to the fact that here, an army is launching a massive military operation on a bunch of amateurs, making it look like one sided, allowing someone (on the unconcscious level) to think of this initiating party as the one MAKING this historical event, alone, hence aiding the propagation of this ambiguity. However, Hamas is still thought of as a considerable existence that can alone justify the launhing of this massive operation, which is contradictory, treating Hamas once as not participating in the making of this historical event and once as justifying the whole military operation. What this implies is that both parties are equally participating in the making of this historical event and an article dedicated to this event cannot be named after the the military operation of one of the involved parties. Note that the fact that Israel initiated the whole thing doesn't play any role here. You can't at one time complain about indicating this initiation aspect because it assumedly makes Israel look "like if it were the aggressor", and then unconsciously use this fact to assume that she is alone making this historical event, and hence it can name it, alone. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is the name of the operation. All the other proposals I've seen are just descriptions. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - The article includes the actions of both sides, besides the Hamas killing of the Egyptian Border guard officer. The current name: "2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict" is neutral, and not indicating a specific part of the conflict, yet covering the whole subject of the article which is the conflict itself.
    • Not neutral: because it uses the name of the conflict for only one side.
    • Incomplete: because it indicates the Israeli operation, and not all the actions.
    • Just move on and forget about renaming the article, it really does not need to. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This title is non-neutral. This conflict is way more than an israeli operation. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Hillcock65 above. --Chikamatsu (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: if we dont move the "2008-2009" page to the name of the operation, we should rename, among others: Operation Opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)?

I see coherence naming the offesnives of the IDF under the english translataion of their hebrew names... To those who oppose naming it Cast Lead, well: how should be all those pages be named, then? (Dont make fun about barbarossa being an IDF offesnive, should we also change "operation overlord"?) Gumuhua (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please this discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict. I won't repeat myself as similar points have been raised before. I will mention that if the naming of a given event for the name one side gave to it is not transparent biases, then we need to all sit down and define bias as a word. :D --Cerejota (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Very meaningful. I also suggest that we try to define what "too complicated", "too long", "too one sided" and "makes Israel look like if she were ..." sorts of arguments actually mean, and look into their validity in the contexts in which they seem to be used. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that several of the above "conflicts" are actually between Hamas and Israel. Seems like they were able to put POV aside and give it a logical name. Coreywalters06 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for paying my attention to this, so that we may fix this bias in the naming (That is to say, you hardly make any point, this is the weakest argument someone can ever make). Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Bringing examples of other articles that do not conform to the criterion that your opponent is offering is hardly making any point, and is hardly saying anything about he validity of what you say. Wikipedia is so free that it isn't even obligated to conform to its own content, and believe me, you don't want us to chime in there and start arguing about the basic validity of this naming policy (given that the articles there were not about the military operations themselves but rather like here, about the historical event laid by them, in which a number of parties were involved). If you can use these titles to make a point, then please do so, otherwise this shall not convince anyone. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is the name of the operation. It beeter name then The response to the bombardment of Israely southern cities. Geagea (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Haha, please start where people ended, rather than starting all over, this is no voting, it's a discussion. And hey, regarding that comic title you threatened will impose in case people do not stop arguing, what would you think about this title then: "The Israeli trial to suppress the Palestinian resistance". That is, should we "sit down and define" what a point of view is? The mistake here is that you are embedding the "intent" or the "motive" in the title, which cannot be. I am starting to have a viable, psychological result, which is manifested by the fact that some people here seems to want to either avoid the mention of an attack completely or to embed the justification or the "good intent" of the attack in the title. What this means specifically, in my opinion, is that they are morally-insecure with regard to their conscious-level approval of this attack. Don't get me wrong, I am trying to carry out a serious and an objective analysis here. This analysis may not have been possible in the case of individuals acting separately but it was clear enough to be noticed in the aggregate trends shown by a group of people here. I hope that all the editors pay good attention to this phenomenon because it must be ensured not lead into a non-neutral editing environment, under which all sorts of unintuitive results and decisions can be made. Best Regards. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know where you are live but if you live in Shderot, Ashdod, Ashkelon, beer sheva, ect, you will not find that the title "The response to the bombardment of Israely southern cities" is obvious and natural. I know it is no voting, and I express my reasoned opinion. I don't find the situation "conic", people are dying. It couldn't be "suppress" because Israel withdraw from Gaza strip. and there is not "Palestinian resistance" because but only Hamas terror anainst Israely civilians, while the Israely restraint misunderstanded as weakness or fear. I am also consider my self "objective analysis" and I respond in a liable way. The simple as it, it's a Israely operation with the name "Operation Cast Lead", I am saying it in the begining. any other name is experience to side with one of the sides. Geagea (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, let's try to analyse what you are saying here, if you were living in Gaza right now, given that the count of the children murdered has just reached 216, of which tens were killed at once yesterday at the bombing of the school that belongs to the UNRWA, will you then see it as "obvious and natural"? And given that some other title like the "Black Saturday Massacre" seemed more obvious and more natural to you in that case, do that change the little fact that both are titles imposed by a single point of view? The one class of titles that doesn't fall into this shortcoming is "merely descriptive" class that uses words such as "Offensive", "Assault", "Invasion", etc. These words are only descriptive, which is what we need for there being no common name for this historical event, yet. The matter however of using the operation name has been discussed in detail, if you really think of this as a discussion rather than a voting session then go back, read these discussions carefully and then start where they ended. That is, understand them, and then challenge any ambiguity, inconsistency or logical flaw that you may find in them, this is the only way you are going to help us achieve consensus. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
          • 70% from the people who killed in the UNRWA building were Hamas people. The Hamas use the people of Gaza as "human shield". there leaders hiding safly in bunkers while there "fighters" taking the children of Gaza as shield. I am sorry for any innocent casualties but still if Hamas were bombing your house and your children were under threat, you see it as "obvious and natural". This is the purpose ot the operation and the children injured as a result of Hamas action. I agree that historical event have can the name "Offensive", "Assault", "Invasion", etc. but it for "historical" point of view, not for in going operation. The operation have, side by side, also humanitarian face. Israel sent into Gaza humanitarian assistance, the Israely army make telephon call to people thet live in the houses before they bombiong rokets arsenal thiere. of course the Israely army have evidence to evry bomb event. Geagea (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Quoted from HAARETZ: The United Nations on Wednesday denied Israel Defense Forces claims that there were Palestinian militants in the Gaza school bombed by Israel on Tuesday. Christopher Gunness of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) said the organization is 99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school. What can I say, you absolutely have no credibility. I would love to know where you got that 70% percentage from. I saw shredded pieces of children, a father carrying an arm of one of his daughters and a father running while holding a daughter of him that has lost her head upon the bombing of the school. What did you see? 77.30.8.18 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
              • The only way that Hamas can see himself win is to see alot of civilian casualties from the Israely side or from the Palestinian side. They know that they can not beat the Israely army so if they still be in life after the Israely operation they will say we win, And the civilian casualties of Gaza will announced as shahids. Israel from the other side care the life of Israely civilians and the civilians from Gaza. evey day Israel stop shooting for 3 hours and transfer humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza that stuck in thiere houses, but Hamas shoots the truck that bringing the food and other humanitarian assistance. The Hamas leaders build for themselves underground shelters and leave the civilian to be humen shelter for them. They also throw their brothers through the windows, early in the begining of theire takeover of Gaza. anyway, the number of people that dead were much much less then reported in the media and, according to the Israely minister Dihter, 70% of them were Hamas people. Eventually Hamas use the people of Gaza as a humen shelter an the media to show as though they are "miserable". they start to shoot Israely cities for the purpose that civilian will dead in Israel and in Gaza. Geagea (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mainstream sources do not use Operation Cast Lead in their headlines, and many do not mention the name at all. This is not a military encyclopedia, it's the people's encyclopedia, and the people are not calling this event by its military codename. Wikipedia should not title articles as though it were an organ of the IDF. Tiamuttalk 11:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obvious oppose, as this name is a euphemism used by one side to obscure the horrors, suffering and humiliation being imposed on the other, and thus violates NPOV. Neither is it being used by mainstream reliable sources. There is no justification whatsoever for its use as the title of this article. NSH001 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I support because the editing demonstrates that editors here want it to be about the Israeli offensive that started on December 27, 2008 as opposed to the 2008-2009 conflict, which would require a fair amount of weight on the first 260 days of the year. For those who believe that since "Operation Cast Lead" is the name "Israel" gave it, that it is somehow not neutral....I can only say that it is a description only. The article will be what the editors put into it. I urge people to remember however, that any article, with whatever name, will still have to address the perspective of both sides, ie the "why" of the story... Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please brother, can't you at least differentiate between a description and a name, I get what you say, you say that the editing demonstrates that the article is about the operation (in your opinion), and that this is the name of the operation (Not a description, "Operation Cast Lead" is a descriptions for god sake?? at what level exactly did Israel "cast lead" in this operation?). However, this article again is not about the military operation, this has been argued many times, but still people cannot waste a little time to read and start where the others ended. The fact that the current event features a tragic imbalance, making Israel look like the one and the only "aggressor" must not make us miss the little detail that Hamas is also as much involved in this historical event as Israel is. If the article was about the operation, then in my opinion, all need to even mention the stand of any party other Israel is not important anymore, because an operation has "targets" (asymmetric concept) whereas an event has "participating parties" (symmetric). Resorting to the operation name as a title will put things in a one-sided perspective that no longer calls for this "addressing of both sides" you mention. People like you, by repeating themselves and others are standing in front of consensus. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer or "support" the "Cast Lead" name. It isn't ideal but I think it is better than anything that we are going to wordsmith into existence. I think that we should use an objective name because our work is most subjective (that's what POV is called in the outside world) when we have to describe things.
In any event, I don't think the name reflects an Israeli "POV" per se. In fact I think it benefits the "Hamas" POV more. Firstly it enforces the impression that what's going on is essentially an Israeli campaign -- that it it is Israel's doing. As Nonzionist said "it puts the responsibilty squarely on Israel's shoulders".
Secondly, the name has negative connotations for Israel. I think it strikes one as militaristic or perhaps callous (with regard to the origin). That's in English of course; I don't know how it sounds in Hebrew. Again, like Nonzionist pointed out, the Israelis sometimes use names that sound terrible ("obscene") outside of their country but probably play well internally.
It is also the name of the articles in several of the largest non-English Wikipedia versions: French, German, Russian, Italian, and others. While I realize that they shouldn't constrain us, it does, I think, demonstrate that the name is tenable on its own and not just something that we've rationalized on this single page. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Winter 2008/9 Israeli Assault on Gaza

More Google news hits for "Gaza assault" than "Gaza conflict." "Assault" is a more specific term therefore more encyclopedic.

  • Support Winter 2008/9 is the time; Gaza the place; and air, sea and ground attacks are what has happened. RomaC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not quite NPOV. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Believe it or not, the world point of view now is that Israel is involved in a wide assault on Gaza, can you believe that? (By the way, hundreds of civilians are dead already, so unfortunate you missed the party) Orwa diraneyya (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word Assault makes Israel sound like the aggressor (POV). Also, the Israeli attacks are targeted towards Hamas, not Gaza.
    • 80 kids were murdered, and hundreds of civilians killed, unintentionlly. The Gazans are now as involved in the "attacks" as Hamas is, with or without their will. I am wondering however if we may say that Hamas is responsible of killing these, because at the end you know, Israel is not the aggressor here. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I seem to have been mistaken, 216 kids are murdered and 89 women are killed. Why I say murdered in case of the children is that because I think there is no justification for killing the children (what do you think?). 40 people (mostly kids and women) hiding in a school that belongs to the UNRWA were killed at once. The army said that there were reports that showed that some terrorists were there too, and hence the children were logically participants that deserved to be killed. Israeli army representative on Al-Jazeera, upon heavy questioning by the Arab channel reporters said that "Israel does not need to justify its acts" (in response to the UNRWA school incident). Of course, this part is no argument, I am just ranting. I thought it was quite interesting. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This phrase is one sided (POV) there are two parties to the conflict 1) Israel Defence Force, IDF and state of Israel 2) Hamas and Palestinian militants any phrase should mention both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.241 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only one-sided, but not really supproted by RS/Vs. If we are going to be one sided, lets get Operation Cast Lead over this any time. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NPOV concerns. We're also assuming here that the conflict will only last the duration of the winter. While a lot of people would like that to be the case, and there is historical basis for Israeli operations only lasting a month or so, I think writing that assumption into the title is shortsighted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Kari, I think you can "support" with a condition that the word "winter" is dropped. Maybe "winter" is not necessary, I thought it would specify the time, as the current title could imply a two-year period. RomaC (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support as I said before, Gazza is not an armed city o even a country and they didn't declare war. Israel attacked Gazza by air and ground forces and now start invasion in the city.Morosoph00 (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposing only a word - it is simple, neutral and clear. If only it was "2008/9 Israeli Assault on Gaza", i would have agreed. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I have been indulging others' sensibility so much (let's say blindness), having said that "assault" may might and could give the indication of judging the act morally. I feel responsible today to say that I no longer think this is true. If some people think that such title makes "Israel look bad" then that is their problem, we can do no more than let every entity be defined by its own actions. It is an assault; whole civilian families are getting killed at once, with hundreds of civilians killed so far and slightly less than a hundred child murdered. If Israel thinks it had to do this, and was brave enough to say it and to accept the consequences, then be as brave and stop denying the obvious. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Orwa, thanks for the well-reasoned opinion I think we can get editors to see this if we remain calm and present the facts. I also agree that arguments such as "it makes Israel look aggressive" or not balanced" should possibly be challenged, as opinions and even numbers of editors should not trump Wiki policy. This is an assault by a military superpower, most RS use "assault" or "attack" we have to respect that instead of framing the event selectively so as not to offend some editors. RomaC (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, with or without "Winter". Per RomaC, it's descriptive, factual, used by a large numger of reliable sources. While there are two sides engaged in this latest round of fighting, it is the result of an Israeli initiative, which is using an unprecedented amount of firepower and ground troops to, as it says, stop rocket fire from Gaza. Tiamuttalk 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One sided, ignores the Hamas actions, and therefor quite POV. NoCal100 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Hamas actions are covered in another article, in detail. This article is about the Israeli response to Hamas actions. Embedding the "good intent" of Israel in the title is not objective (i.e. "Israeli Defensive Assault on Gaza"), simply because Hamas also has "assumedly-good intent" behind launching the rockets, that being assumedly "resisting the occupation". When you see that someone replied to a point, start by replying to this reply rather than starting all over again by stating the same original point again, we are working towards consensus here. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have a problem with the "Winter 2008/9" part, too, but I also object to the use of the word "assault" because of the unnecessarily negative connotations of the word (even if we're not intending one of those connotations). -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose POV and accuracy. The attack is on Hamas, not Gaza and Gazans. That would be like calling the so-called Iraq War, the American assault on Iraq. We did not assault Iraq, but its government and other 'militants.' We are in the process of handing Iraq back to the Iraqi people, sans the prisons, tortures and disappearings of the Saddam regime. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You disqualified yourself merely by the example you mentioned, along with the worthy view embodied in it (" ... We are in the process of handing Iraq back to the Iraqi people, sans the prisons, tortures and disappearings of the Saddam regime."). Brother, not to offend you, but you apparently know absolutely nothing about the humanitarian disaster that occurred in Iraq, which I feel ashamed to have lived on Earth at the time when it occurred. People killed in Iraq not during the war only, but after the war have exceeded any number you can imagine. Anyway this isn't our topic, my only commnet is: (1) watch some news to know about the humanitarian situation due to the continuing blockade and due to the attacks in particular, this judges better on whether the Gazans are involved (2) read what people are saying around, and don't write anything that doesn't benefit from the proceedings of this discussion, we are working towards consensus and this behaviour is not anymore tolerable. Thanks. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support strongly - middle-aged Welshman, no connections with either side supports strongly. The Israelis have more than assaulted inocent children and fellow human beings. I'm furious at Israel and America and the total waste of innocent lives. I should be out there shoulder to shoulder as a human shield; but all I can do here is boycott Israeli bananas and vote for this mild word 'assault'. It should be much stronger, but it's the best fit for now. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Time Magazine calls the so-called conflict "Israeli's Deadly Assault on Gaza" [1] and also "Israel's Gaza Assault" [2].

I think this is a suitable name for this event because the term conflict is broad and when has it never been conflict between Gaza and the Israelis? --68.123.141.153 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 Israeli bombardment of Gaza

Just throwing this out there, because some of the other Wikipedias appear to have used something equivalent to this. No opinion on it at this point (except that the year disambiguation is a pain in the butt). -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well since it has now included a ground-invasion, I don't think we can do this.VR talk 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's quit very clear that the assault includes much more than only "bombardment". One last pharaoh (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The violence includes much more than a bombardment, especially since troops have been sent in. ~Asarlaí 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah okay, a repeater. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Regarding your comments in this page only, i think that you should be a little bit more civilized, Orwa. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You minsunderstood, I am making a point here. I did not start using humor to make this point until after I depleted all communication methods I know. The tone here is humorous, believe me, if you feel that it offends you, then it could be that my comments exploits something you do that actually offends you. I am civilized. Saying this or that someone is the "too complicated" officer in indication to the unsoundness of such argument doesn't make me less civilized. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Maybe i did not state what i mean the right way, but i am not saying that you in person are not civilized or not civilized enough. Wkipedia indicates that contribution and discussion on talk pages should be done with a high regard to doing so in a civil way, so basically it does not matter how civilized is some one, what matters is how civilized his contributions in talk pages are. A personal advice from me is just not to bother your self with the opinions and actions or others no matter how silly you might think it is. I you let these leave you with no other communication method you know but for humor -which is not a good one, since it raises personal debates rather than understanding-, do not use it. That's because the only one damaged then would be your self as that might lead into warnings where each one warning puts you a step further more in the road to be blocked. When you deplete every single method of communication that does not violate wikipedia guidelines and rules, stop bothering your self, and search for the problem which might be that some editors are the ones who actually violate wikipedia rules, and when the situation is that, wikipedia rules explain how to act with editor violating them. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not think that there is some thing in this page that even deserves getting in a slight debate with some one. State your point, and it should be taken into consideration no matter how many editors do or do not agree with you. You can try to convince other editors of your point of view, but as long as that is done without violating any wikipedia rule. Finally, if you have not already, check this out WP:civility Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2008–2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza

I reckon «2008–2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza» is a good article name which should cover most aspects. --Eivind (t) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is appropriate, it makes Israel look like if it were the aggressor, I mean, like if it were invading Gaza for god sake. 94.99.58.164 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think it makes a value judgment on Israel at all, and it is very descriptive as Israel has not occupied Gaza since 2006. WP:MILMOS#CODENAME is supported in many articles such as 2003 invasion of Iraq and Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects there), Invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury redirects there). I was strongly swayed by these arguments: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict, in particular on the exception made for Operation Ke by the MILHIST guys (i.e. they are as flexible as we all should be with rules, but they do so with good explanations and an eye on neutrality). I am also supporting the current name for that reason. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, thank you, I appreciate what you do. The problem here is that it's easy to make accusations, "one sided", "too vague", etc. What I was trying to do is to explain how... How this one is not appropriate, how that argument is not valid, how this neutrality problem can be elaborated on, etc. I thought this was the only way to verify accusations and to assess the validity of different arguments, as to reach to that irreducible set of opinions using which consensus can be reached. I wanted everyone to get envolved in this logical macchina that leads at the end into consensus, with results that are as solid as the interaction of this sea of ideas can permit. However, I failed, people could not involve themselves in the flow, they would always not argue and start all over again, using exactly the same old arguments. There were until now very little interaction of ideas, which honestly is beginning to hurt my feelings, because it makes me feel that individuals aren't as faithful and honest as I would expect them to be. Thanks. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough. -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Not. It does make a value judgment--putting the onus on Israel. Did not Hamas "invade" Israel with its rockets and mortars? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: So basically Israeli air strikes become sort of the "background information"?VR talk 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Agree this would do, it says what happened with who, when and where, that's where the article title should focus for crying out loud. RomaC (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this would be my second choice, should "Operation Cast Lead" be rejected. It's more specific than the terms "assault", "offensive" or "conflict". ~Asarlaí 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You said it, "second choice" in case that former choice did not work, it's only a vote. It's a vote that doesn't seem to have any basis other than your personal liking. There is a wide range of things you can say to support your liking, you could've said that it was inaccurate for example, rather than saying that it was more specific. Moreover, leaning towards the operation name gives the indication, assuming consistency, that you will resort to the neutral version of that operation name title (which describes the event as a "military operation"), which is the "offensive" title. However you did not do that, neither. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposing for now - we cannot call it an invasion yet, the hostile activities are still in progress, and any way the Israeli side did not state that the intention of it's action was invading Gaza as much as i know.One last pharaoh (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - invasion implies an intent to occupy territory for a longer time than the immediate conduct of hostilities (e.g. 2003 Iraq invasion) which will not be the case unless Israel does not withdraw its ground forces after the fighting ceases. Cynical (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2008-2009 Gaza war

Just throwing it out there. However, it does have its plus points: short, simple, no mention of political parties, takes into account the heavy ground fighting, and is similar to 2006 Lebanon war. VR talk 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • A war is a declared state of open hostility between two nation states which recognise each other's existence. Therefore there's no question of this being a 'war' as Gaza is not a nation state (or part of one) recognised by Israel and Hamas does not recognise Israel as a legitimate state. Cynical (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Why does conflict start with a non-capital c, while war starts with a capital W? JVent (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Usually, "War" is a given name, while "conflict is a mere description. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME - the much more experienced editors at WikiProject Military History have some interesting things to say around using operation names. I offer we should listen to their experience, which transcends the A-I and I-P conflict.

On forking-

There is a difference between a WP:POVFORK and a WP:SUMMARY fork. Please read it. Be careful because what you might be suggesting might be against policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. We get it. You don't need to keep linking to arbitrary guidelines and policies. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are they arbitrary? They are central to this discussion, this article being part of the Military History project and all. What we can't do is arbitrarily ignore them, and push them aside because our opinion doesn't match them. --Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And yet you're allowed to push our viewpoints aside? I understand the Wikipedia Guidelines. But thats what they are. GUIDELINES. Guidelines don't always apply and I think that at many times such as this, they are okay to be broken. Stop acting like a Wiki-Nazi and let everyone share their opinions without being slammed with 20 guidelines and policies. You clearly have your own opinions as well and they are greatly interfering with your discernment during this time. Why did you ask us to share our thoughts on other titles when you have shut every single one down? Once again, I know your profile says that you "act like an administrator even though I'm really not". Well its really starting to tick people off, so unless you're going to be fair and stop letting your opinions interfere with what you say, stop telling us to do so as well. Coreywalters06 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Godwin's Law *yawn* --Cerejota (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Googletubes test

Search for allintitle:"Operation Cast Lead" - 28 hits, with 20 uniques and 8 of them repeats or variations mostly from rightsidenews.com (which is a right-wing blog).

Search for allintitle:"Gaza War" 136 hits, with only 44 uniques and 92 repeats or variations, including partisan sources such as the Die Jüdische

Doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting that even after more than a week, the "Operation Cast Lead" name doesn't seems to catch on with the RS. I really do not understand the arguments for using this name, over policy, over RS/V, and over common sense.--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Search for allintitle:"Gaza Assault" 1,491 hits. Again, I strongly suggest we respect Wiki policy and call this what the great majority of RS are calling it. RomaC (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    • I really don't think this proves anything. The media are calling it the "Gaza assault" because it is an assault on Gaza; that is a shorthand term which they can use at the moment because everyone knows what they are referring to because the event is happening right now. But we are an online encyclopedia, not a news organization. Future generations are not going to talk about "the 2008/09 assault on Gaza", they are going to talk about "Operation Cast Lead". Are we going to rename Operation Days of Penitence "September 2004 assault on Gaza? And Operation Hot Winter to "February 2008 assault on Gaza"? And will Operation Autumn Clouds be renamed November 2006 assault on Gaza? And what about Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon? There again, the articles concern single campaigns in long conflicts, and wisely use the military codename to differentiate them from the conflict as a whole. Otherwise we will end up with a tangled, confused mess in the name of "objectivity", when in fact we are avoiding the use of the only truly "objective" name available. -- Noung (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, since we are crystal balling, let offer you that the people in the future will refer to it the way the most people refer to it now, which is how the media is calling it. In Israel, it will be called Cast Lead. But in Palestine it will be called a "massacre". Outside, where people really give very little thought to this it will be called whatever the media calls. And this goes exactly into the lopsided WP:BIAS stuff I speak about all the time: on what authority do you think that people are going to call it "Operation Cast Lead" and not the "Great Gaza Massacre" (I am not suggesting the name, nor do I agree with it)? Seriously man, it is transparently taking a POV other than a NPOV.
      • I mean, we both pulled out our crystal balls (ouch!) and came out with different results. The funny thing is, we we don't have a deadline and the reality is NEXT TO NO ONE today is calling it by the operation name. Even "gaza conflict" gets a higher googletube score. If in the future that happens, then we changed it THEN. But crystal balling is a futile excercise when faced with overwhelming evidence in the NOW.
      • Interesting point tho calling it the "Gaza assault" because it is an assault on Gaza; that is a shorthand term which they can use at the moment because everyone knows what they are referring to because the event is happening right now. So why don't we slap in a year, and there we have our identifier? I mean, you think our readers are really so dumb that when reading the first few lines they won't know what this is about? I am sorry, but I respect our readers more than that: I assume them to be minimally intelligent. --Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not think our readers are dumb and I can't see how you can draw this inference from what I have said. Let me state my point differently: imagine you are a student studying this event in the future. All the history books are going to call it Operation Cast Lead. All the military analyses published will call it that. It is, irrevocably, the official name of the Israeli military action. It is the only name possible which could not ever refer to any other event than the one we are writing about. There can be dozens of "Gaza conflicts" and there could be dozens of "Gaza massacres" but there can only, ever, be one Operation Cast Lead. Sure the media call it "Gaza conflict" now. I'm sure they called Operation Barbarossa something like "the war between Germany and the Soviet Union" at the time and they called the American Civil War "the American conflict" at the time. This is hardly the point. -- Noung (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I understood the point the first time around. I got it. Thing is, 1) How are you so sure all the history books are going to call it Operation Cast Lead? Specially if the only people calling it right now is the IDF? 2) There can only be one "conflict" that spanned 2008 into 2009 in Gaza. Or for that matter, there only was one 2006 Lebanon War. The title is not ambigous to the point of crisis, to the point that a fairly smart, but ignorant of the topic, cannot quickly place themselves. That hypothetical, crystal balled (poor thing!), student of the future, s/he will have no trouble finding this. Furthermore, there are nav boxes that connect the articles, categories that allow their listing. Furthermore, this being a wiki and all, if by the time the historic books have a name for this, we haven't change the article's name, then we suck. I mean, this is a wiki, right? --Cerejota (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • But it is not true that "There can only be one "conflict" that spanned 2008 into 2009 in Gaza". Does that mean this article is going to be about everything else that happens between Israel and armed Palestinian groups in 2008 and 2009? Or is it going to be about Operation Lead Cast? Because right now it is about the latter. There have been numerous "conflicts" and even "invasions" into Gaza by the IDF in 2008 and there will be more in 2009. This isn't about them. This is about Operation Lead Cast. Furthermore, one thing we can be sure of is that the name Operation Lead Cast will remain relevant to our future student, because that is the event's name. It will always be a valid name for the event. It is the only title at our disposal with this advantage. -- Noung (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • In response to your first objection (regarding the years), I will repeat a comment I made on a previous discussion: No, no, it doesn't mean that at all. It means there was an event that transcended 2008 and 2009. Much in the same way the [previous title] did not mean the event happened throughout most of December 2008. Or that 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake indicates that the event happened throughout most of 2004. Or that Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event suggests the extinction occurred throughout most of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods (which encompass 144 million years)... -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This event is an assault. I have nothing against putting it into context, that is the strength of Wiki, hyperlinks to other articles lead to fuller understanding. I'm sure many of us have spent much time floating off on Wikitangents and discovering new things. Anyway, the events of Dec 27 - present are an assault/attack on Gaza by the IDF. The matter of precipitating events should and will be dealt with, but RS/V overwhelmingly describe what has happened as an attack/assault. A few editors' votes in a talk page cannot trump Wiki policies. RomaC (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Some authors are dealing with this discussion as if they were collecting votes. This is clearly not the case. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On POV

arbitrary break for length All names are POV. This is impossible to avoid. Someone will always be able to devise a way to see a word or phrase -- "offensive", "Operation Cast Lead", "bombardment", "conflict" -- as biased. Or maybe it's biased that one side is doing most of the work. Or maybe it's biased because Hamas is shooting rockets too. Or maybe it's biased because it says Hamas, instead of Gaza (or vise versa). This is really just a waste of time; we'll always get a quorum of editors who find bias. -- tariqabjotu 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But not really. "conflict" is neutral, the problem has been that it is "non-descript" or "just merely descriptive". BTW most of the MILHIST guys seem to like "conflict", and some want to rename even Operation Barbarossa to something else (wait until they get their dirty hands on Grapes of Wrath)!
But we have an out: since everything is biased, then nothing is biased, to paraphrase the old philosophical rant. Hence, all titles being equal in the non-neutrality, the next thing in the checklist is RS/V and what they tell us, with a stress on the V. So what we do with that?--Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg
Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.
The term "conflict" imposes symmetry on an assymetrical situation. It is dishonest, because it erases the divide between aggressor and the victim. Would you call a "rape" a "conflict" between the woman and the man? There is no parity between occupier and occupied, no equivalence between a nuclear-armed regional superpower and people armed with makeshift rockets. If you think aggression is not an issue or not relevant, then the people who presided over the Nuremberg Trials would beg to differ with you.
The use of the title of John Steinbeck's great novel to name a sordid military operation is obscene -- but no less obscene than the use of a children's toy to name a slaughter in which many children are killed. Truly diabolical! NonZionist (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is such a thing as DEGREE of bias: Some things are more biased than others, unless you think there is no difference between saying "Hitler was a devil" and "Hitler was a saint". We don't have an equivalence of bias: We have an equivalence of pressure from partisan camps and self-blinded ideologues.
As I wrote to Tundrabuggy yesterday (archived), we are trying to create a product that is acceptable to two radically incompatible philosophies. At the same time, we are supposed to pretend that these ideologies do not exist -- that we're all just friends. And we're not supposed to dialogue about the ISSUES and reach POLITICAL consensus. So the only possible result is a lowest common denominator -- i.e., ZERO. Because we do not DIALOGUE and develop an understanding of one another, the only thing left is to annihilate (cancel) one another. After days of effort, we end up with mushy platitudes that are of no help to anybody. NonZionist (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully empathize with the positions you express. However, I then ask you to reconsider your participation in Wikipedia. When we joined, we all agreed to abide by certain five fundamentals, the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. These fundamentals tell us, in terms of content, that we must be neutral. Neutrality, in practice, means in most cases precisely to write in ways that imposes symmetry on an assymetrical situation.

Now, the truth of the matter might be that a colonialist European effort on the part of Ashkenazi Jews that both uprooted the Palestinian Arabs (including Palestinian Jews) and created the State of Israel, and that this State has been engaged, since its founding, in the active displacement, and cultural genocide - to the point of denying the existence of the historic and present Palestinian other -, and has engaged in wars of aggression and expansion on behalf of its allies, principally US imperialism. All of this might be true. Equally truthful is that the European Jewry, not attached to the land for centuries, in the middle of the European re-definition of the Nation-State in the 19th Century, recognized that the way to survive as a People was to return to their ancestral land, and that the petty-crime of displacement of a people who could as well go an live in Jordan with out much ado was a small price to pay to stop the total annihilation of the Jewish people. They are fighting for their survival, and regretable excess will happen, but like a drowning person who scratches the skin of the lifeguard, it is all worth the survival of the Jewish people, as a Nation among Nations.(I think Benny Morris actually argues a variation of this). This all might be true...


But, we are guided by a principle that expressly calls upon us not to tell the truth. The truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the reliable sources verify. If the reliable sources do not agree on an overwhelming narrative, then we most neutrally present the different narratives, with due weight considerations.

One of the reasons I support WikiProject Bias is because it closes a loophole on this policy: by ignoring reliable sources in other languages (ie Arabic) and cultural contexts (for example, English speaking media in South Asia or media with no professional internet presence but that is nevertheless reliable) this verifiability can become compromised. I find it all the time in AfDs around Latin American articles: it infuriates me that we are full of useless Poke-cruft, but a well known, influential, yet minor Poet gets deleted "because notability cannot be established via reliable sources".

In the case of this article, this is illustrated in the fact that the dominant media source in Gaza was bombed out of existence, hence, we are robbed of the reliable voice of one side of the conflict. This is what I call bias, which is different from neutrality: bias is claiming AL-Jazeera is not a RS, simply because it is from a different cultural context. Or that the PNN is not reliable because it is partisan and then wanting to use tje equally Partisan RightSideNews because it comes up in Google News. Or saying Jerusalem Post is not reliable because it is in Israel.

The reason I address your position, rather than the content, is because I feel your interventions are not productive: you insist on a reality that is not verifiable by any RS (and offer no sources), your edits are not productive, and you are filibustering productive dialog in order to eliminate one perspective. You are bordering on the disruptive. That said, you are a smart, thinking person. You can surely understand that the place to make your narrative dominant is not Wikipedia: it is on the streets, on the blogs, and maybe even by going to Gaza yourself. But here? It is futile.

We are a bunch of geeks stuck to our computers, who pretty much already got our opinions on this matter already figured out: you are either preaching to the choir or trolling Zionists. Both are things better done somewhere else. Here, we are writing an encyclopedia. Or at least trying to. As I have said before, I do not expect neutral editors, I expect a neutral article. Common sense tells us this can be better achieved by keeping out of the soapbox, and sticking to the content. Even if once in a while a rant (like this one) is warranted. Good day. --Cerejota (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude stop projecting please. There are many other editors who have very different backgrounds and bring very different qualities to the Wiki project. That's why Wiki has policies, if we follow them things generally work out. RomaC (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So, we've settled on Winter 2008/9 Israeli Assault on Gaza then. Great! Let's move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Where have we settled on this? I don't see it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If you live outside the US turn your TV on. If not, turn it off. You'll see it then. Just kidding. There's no agreement yet...surprisingly. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Tariq, what you say is both misleading and counter-productive, I don't understand how could you not see that. Reaching consensus is all about refining the set of proposed ideas and opinions as to arrive, at the end, into an irreducible set of opinions that cannot be reduced any further by refuting or merging. This irreducible set is then used to reach consensus, via agreeing on a formula that fairly balances each of these worthy opinions and views. This irreducible set contains all the points made by the possibly biased authors that could not be refuted by others, for them making a true point (i.e. while excluding superfluous and flawed opinions). Like Cerejota said, we do not demand that authors be all neutral (although it would be a great thing!), still however, the process is designed to allow these authors having diverse bias to produce a neutral article via consensus. This design allows articles that are the most disputed, when disputed properly, to lead into the production of the most neutral and the globally-valid statements.
What is this all for? It's for you Tariq, to think of the role of what you said in reaching that goal, and to understand why it is counter-productive. What you said made it look like if all the proposed arguments and claims were equally-biased (i.e. equally-flawed), which both counteracts the notion of refining the set of proposed ideas (by assessing the logical support and the conceptual appeal of each of them), and contradicts some of your other writings. If authors were allowed to have a slight amount of bias (which is something I understand as long as they were fair and objective), then they are not, at all, allowed to have any inconsistency (i.e. following any possible route that will lead into enforcing what they think of as the "truth"). What you did was that you first claimed that the "Operation Cast Lead" title was not one sided, i.e., that it only seemed so while in actuality it wasn't, while failing to respond properly to the Cerejota's super intuitive "A B C" argument, and now you argue that all the titles are equally "one sided", and contain an equal amount of unavoidable bias, which is very wrong. The fact that some authors will always say so doesn't mean that this is truly the case, you should be the critic here, and see whether they have a point, since this is what refining their claims is all about. I am not against you supporting this "Cast Iron" title, but supporting it for not being "one sided" and then saying that all titles are equally "one sided" is disappointing. It doesn't make me feel that you are consistent, making me not take what you say very seriously.
Moreover, Cerejota saying that "all titles being biased means that (relatively) no title is anymore biased" is again, the worst thing someone can ever say as we are moving towards consensus. Consensus is not a magical process, it has a number of mechanisms, and without providing a healthy discussion environment that enforces these mechanisms no consensus can be reached. These mechanisms are:
1) Absorbing others' argument.
2) Responding to those arguments in a way that is relevant, challenging and conceptually compelling.
3) Recognizing this proceeding of argument by the rest of authors, rather than ignoring it and just repeating what you (or others) just said, or what you think is the best thing to say regardless of this proceeding of argument, of things that have been already refuted or challenged by others."
That is, you should start where the others ended, and not start all over again. Authors who keep on doing this should be notified, because they are preventing consensus, however we see nothing like it. What we see is an author saying that "everything is biased (because some authors keep on saying so with regard to any proposed title) and that bias is hence inescapable", with the amazing conclusion following that "this makes everything (relatively) unbiased, and hence the biased is today unbiased". Orwa diraneyya (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately real consensus only evolves when editors are open-minded. Editors who come to Wikipedia organized around and armed with a specific POV can use their numbers to dictate consensus, and bulldoze Wiki policies. We see that as the words "offensive," "attack," "assault" and so on have been systematically rejected here despite being the words most reliable sources are using to describe the Israeli assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay RomaC, what I am saying here is that this can be changed (that "real consensus only evolves when (most or all) editors are open-minded"). We can allow consensus to happen even in such a poor editing and discussion conditions like the ones that exist here. The theory behind this is above, we simply disapprove the act of any author who do not adhere to the three mechanisms mentioned above. For example if one author replied to some argument in an irrelevant way, citing irrelevant examples, simply stating the "final word" or saying superfluous things (providing no additional proof or clarification) that only resemble a vote we notify them, and do not allow their replies to cause a meaningless development in the discussion page that is both redundant and unnecessary by definition. If some other authors neglect the current proceedings of the discussion on a specific point and try to start all over again in a way that is either susceptible to or refuted by the questioning laid by those other proceedings, you notify them again, not allowing this redundant development to happen. This way people who are not allowing consensus to happen will not be allowed to do so, and consensus can actually evolve in less-than-optimal discussion conditions (where a considerable amount of bias and close-mindedness exist). An interesting experiment, no? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why some of you waste your time with these lengthy manifestos. We're writing an encyclopedia, not curing cancer. Please don't lecture me with your ten-dollar words; I know what discussion is, thank you very much. And, if you're going to put words in my mouth ("now you argue that all the titles are equally "one sided" ... supporting it for not being "one sided" and then saying that all titles are equally "one sided"), you're obviously less interested in receiving a response than demonstrating that you're a know-it-all. Fine; I won't give you one then. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I had faith in you, but you let me down, first for being inconsistent and now for taking things so personally where you should not. This article is not about you, and not giving me the justification that I asked for will not harm anyone. The one point I need to clarify is that no, I was really expecting a response, and I was expecting it to be good. These "manifestos" I wrote, believe me, tells it all about why things aren't working, there is a group of people here that are practicing non-logic and flooding the discussion page with their dislike-motivated opinions, showing a systematic trend in accepting and rejecting offers rather than following a common criterion or doctrine of thought. How can we reach consensus if people do not care what arguments are going on and will keep on saying the same things (the same way) again and again (not talking about you)? Why should I have so much effort understanding what they say and responding to it while they wouldn't do the same? And finally, why do you keep on being counter-productive where you should be either supporting me or explaining to me how what I said was wrong? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...first for being inconsistent... Not learning, are you? When you suggested this the first time, I said you were "putting words in my mouth". Now, you're doing it again. Real classy. Don't expect a response to your questions. -- tariqabjotu 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! you mean that you did not say such a thing? Sorry, I thought this was some sort of a metaphor that I could not understand. If this is the issue then that was at the "Operation Cast Lead" part above when you supported it saying that: I have already explained in previous discussions why I don't think this particular name is "point-of-view" (a point of view means one sided since to name it from the point of view of one party, you name it from the point of view of its "one side"). Then I asked you to defend this in front of Cerejota's "X Y Z" one-sid(edness) argument mentioned there, which I thought was simple and convincing. He also wanted to understand why his argument was not convincing. Anyway, no a big deal, it's okay :^) Orwa diraneyya (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to be sarcastic? Are you taking a lack of response to a comment hidden between others to indicate that I can't refute it? Seriously, don't bother me. I'm not changing my positions, which have been consistent. Stop harassing me because I disagree with you. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was as serious as hell, I am not a native speaker so I really didn't know what that expression meant (to put words in someone's mouth), no sarcasm was involved at all. So responding now: No I didn't mean that, I only thought that you needed me to quote the sentence based on which I made my claim for you. Now I know this wasn't necessary. Most probably I misunderstood what you said before. There is no need to be bothered, I did not mean it, and so it should not happen. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think quoting some wise words from RomaC is appropriate at this point. "...Wiki has policies, if we follow them things generally work out." although admittedly that isn't obvious right now. Getting back to the point I think it's kind of the knockout blow in the title fight. By the way Tariq, 10 dollars is a lot of money for most people where I live so in my neck of the woods you have complimented Orwa. Well done. I'd like to see more of this kind of thing here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha Orwa diraneyya (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(blushing) Yes my concern is that numbers are trumping policy in these "consensus" discussions, which is addressed above by Orwa. A dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship. So I support the idea of discounting "votes" that apparently ignore the arguments. But who determines (and how do they determine?) whether a particular editor is acting on analysis or POV-pushing? Who judges the judges?RomaC (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If everyone practiced healthy criticism against each proposal and on-going criticism made by others, then this chain of healthy criticism can lead at the end into deciding upon the logical soundness of any proposal, which is supposedly what is needed for working out consensus. Therefore, everyone is invited to be the critic and to be the judge at the same time (as well as the judge of judges). All what is needed is a bit of logic and a good deal of critical thinking. An example of such a chain that is inspired by the current state of the discussion is:
1.1) Someone points out that the title "2008-2009 Israeli Assault on Gaza" ignores the actions of Hamas, which will supposedly make it biased, since it now conveys a one-sided point of view of the matter in hand.
1.2) Someone replies with the following points, which supposedly collaborate in his mind to refute the claim in (1):
1.2.1) Hamas actions (aka the rockets) are already covered in good detail in another article. This article on the other hand is about the very recent Israeli response to these not-so-new rockets.
1.2.2) Based on 1.2.1, the relationship between the rockets (i.e. Hamas actions) and the assault (i.e. the Israeli response) is that of an (advertised) motive, rather than that of an alternative point of view, which is supposed to refute the claim in (1), since not mentioning these rockets in the title is no more missing on this assumedly-valid point of view.
[Now at this time, in this hypothetical sequence, all the authors are invited into criticizing the argument in 1.2. Not doing so will make it look as if it actually refuted 1.1, and hence the complaint in 1.1 will not have to be taken into consideration any further. Moreover, if someone still believes in the potential validity of 1.1, they must be able to elaborate on it in a way that doesn't only fully recognize the logic of the current, assumedly-valid argument of 1.2, but also tries to refute it or to correct it in a relevant and a compelling way. The later validation of this criticism is provided automatically via the reaction of the community of authors, using this same simple protocol]
2.1) Now someone else argues that although this is true, that not touching upon Hamas actions in this title doesn't make it one-sided, the title can still be less unfair and misleading by including the notion of a "response" in it, that is, by indicating the assumed justification of the attacks.
[Note here that this criticism admits 1.2 while showing a skeptical attitude as to the fairness of this assumedly-misleading title, which is a good thing because it starts where the others ended rather than ignoring the current argument and starting all over again]
2.2) Someone replies that the notion of a "response" is not only non-descriptive, but is also purely intent-oriented, which makes it biased. This is claimed to be the case because neutrality doesn't allow you to mention the intent or the stand of one party without mentioning that of the other part(ies) involved (in which case Hamas may be severely effected by the Gaza blockade and that this may be quoted by it as its motive behind continuing the rockets, to make enough pressure to lift the blockade). This response is claimed to be theoretically-valid regardless of the soundness of either intent/stand, since you cannot mention one without the other while holding symmetry/(neutrality with respect to different parties involved).
Now if after this progression of argument someone came and only said "one sided", or "POV and hence is rejected", they must be asked to follow the current progress of the discussion, and not to ignore it, while being notified that judging a proposed title in that way can hardly make any point unless accompanied by any sort of an argument. moreover, it's not very difficult to show that statements such as "too complicated", "too long", and "too vague" do not stand as arguments, but only stands as mere votes that are uncalled for (all of which should not be considered unless supported by a sound argument). It's the responsibility of each one of us to be able to support their worthy opinions by sound arguments, failing to do is not the fault of this framework. The assumption that everyone will be able to do so is what guarantees a neutral and a comprehensive article. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, it's nearly impossible to ignore some of the POV arguments. As stated at the beginning of this thread, "POV" is far too subjective. -- tariqabjotu 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you say RomaC, but hey, even if you don't like me, this isn't about us, it's about the well-being of the whole world! So let me say briefly that most of the guys above would claim the point-of-view status whenever they can, it's just one favourite accusation to them, this has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of such claim. Can you for example, please, examine the hypothetic chain I provided above and try to criticize it (with regard to one-sidedness)? telling me how can the assault title still be considered somehow one-sided regardless of the given defense. I am inviting you to criticize, please criticize... You can't just state the charge and refuse to elaborate. Thanks. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? I know you're indented under me, but your first sentence threw me off because it's either grammatically correct or contains a non-sequitur (or both). -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded to you but that is not important. Please ignore what I said. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused about which of my comments Tariq and Orwa are responding to. . . RomaC (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment that begins with "(blushing)". -- tariqabjotu 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And I was trying to intervene, maybe the phrasing was awkward. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Tariq, and when you said "it's nearly impossible to ignore some of the POV comments" did you mean we should consider dismissing comments ("votes") that simply say "POV"? Because I think that's what Orwa is getting at -- that Wiki policy says discussions and consensus should not be conducted or decided simply by voting. (side note to Orwa -- you present some very interesting arguments, the impact of which might increase if the word count decreased :-)) RomaC (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize this... But otherwise it did not work! If you may go up and follow some of my arguments. A group of people were all along dedicating themselves to voicing one party's side, being irrational while doing so, trying to impose their view using random logic (any argument, sound or unsound they could find) and not responding to any sort of a counter-argument. I tried stating the same comprehensive arguments in simple words, before, but they did not cooperate. I tried to understand how everyone of them deals with the same complaint (they are all basically motiviated by the same sort of dislike) and be adaptive in responding (in presenting essentially the same counter-argument), but again it did not work and they always ignored what I was saying. It's not that I wanted to end up like this, nor that I wanted to appear like a know-it-all while imposing a framework that I think will actually allow consensus to evolve in these poor communication conditions. Rather, what I feel is that I had to. I saw no other option while dealing with irrational people that do not care about the validity of argument as long as it gets them where they want.
Extra clarification of why arguments grew in size: I stated them in simple words. Later, ignoring them made me think they were invalid in the point of view of those who ignored them, so I elaborate. Then, other people ignored them again, so I thought I need to elaborate further. Now, tariqabjuto says (again) that some POV arguments cannot be refuted, which puts the last nail in the coffin of my logic, making me wonder why can't I make a point regardless of how organized and verbose I try to be. I mean, is this fair? to say that you are actually "able to refute" what I say without actually doing so? Can we then, say that being unable to refute someone's argument makes their argument stand regardless of its validity, making it the responsiblity of others to criticize it and show it's invalid (in case it was)? Orwa diraneyya (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Orwa, you might find these wiki guidelines useful regarding the issues facing this article: Wikipedia's naming conventions and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Dunno if you've read these already, anyway Wiki guidelines and policies can be more difficult to refute than personal arguments. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to enforce reason, not guidlines. Guidlines need reason to be applied correctly. They are objecting against proposed titles using weak argument, the only way to handle this is to respond with good argument. How can guidlines help in this circumstance? The only way I see it is to enforce reason and to refuse to deal with authors who do not offer argument. Did any one refute Cerejota's super-intuitive "X Y Z" argument above? No they didn't, they only declared and insisted on that they disagreed with him. They failed to offer a reasonable defense, and said he was making himself the arbiter of what is neutral, like if persons were fighting, not ideas (which is totally irrelevant to this context). Ideas will with no doubt be lost in this sea of persons and implied goals. How can guidelines rescue in this situation? Guidelines all rely on a common platform of rationality. Orwa diraneyya (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it alone

I didn't read the whole discussion, because it's pretty long, but I think the best thing to do is to stay with this name (although I dislike it) until the operation / conflict / war is over. This is the third discussion about the name, and nothing's new. We won't know what's the best name until this is over. Instead of discussing about it again and again, we should just wait. We will be smarted when it ends. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 15:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the lack of any interaction of ideas, that is, while authors are incapable of responding to each other's argument, it's impossible to correctly settle on a title. I am not at all mainly interested in which title will be settled on after all, or at least this is what I claim. I was only struggling so that this may be carried out correctly. The current title is absolutely neutral, and objective, I never said it wasn't, however, it's highly misleading. I think that trying to correct this in the current poor communication conditions may be a disregarded luxury, due to the continuation of the war (my personal way of describing it). Orwa diraneyya (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Truck with Oxygen Cylinders

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

An earlier version of the article had a reference to an event where the IDF uploaded a Youtube video ostensibly showing a missile killing a group of Hamas militants loading a truck with missiles; Human rights groups now allege that these were civilians loading oxygen cylinders on a truck. See here for a mainstream media description. This has now been replaced with a grammatically jumbled version which reads: " ...been challenged by Palestinians and Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem. It is being disputed that the missile had landed on a civilian target and what appeared to be rockets were, in fact, oxygen cylinders.[252] "We don't know exactly what happened, but we think this needs to be the subject of an independent investigation," said Sarit Michaeli, a B'Tselem spokeswoman. [253] Various militant Palestinian groups built in Gaza melding workshops domestically produced weapons for use against the Israel, including rockets to launch into Israel.

This misrepresents the source. (1) As the BBC article above (and indeed the sources linked to here) show, this has been challenged far more broadly and widely reported on by mainstream media throughout the world and in Israel. (2) the B'Tselem statement is taken out of context. It is true that they don't know "exactly" what happened but they seem to be fairly confident that it was civilians and oxygen cylinders that were involved here. In fact, the Herald article linked to above starts with "Human-rights groups say, however, that one attack that Israel claims killed eight "terror operatives" loading a truck with Grad rockets instead killed Palestinian workers who were salvaging oxygen tanks from a welding shop." (3) The final statement about "various palestinian groups" is unsourced and quite irrelevant here. I would like to revert this to a version as close to the original as possible. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just rewrite to the source as you cite it, as succinctly as possible? Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks that all media sources quote B'Tselem as source for this information. Correct me if I'm wrong. Excuse my broken english :) I think that it is worth mentioning what B'Tselem really said. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the initial B'Tselem article, carrying the testimony of the owner of the truck and workshop. It should be refenced in discussion of the event, somewhere near the beginning as this is what brought the event to the attention of the BBC. It is notable to state that the IDF still has the video up on their website and on youtube with the claims that the video showed "Grad missiles being loaded into a Hamas truck." Thrylos000 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://ww4report.com/node/6625
  2. ^ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167284401&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_12&oldid=1134391218"