![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The ground assault has began. I am now seeing Israeli armor and personnel crossing the border into Gaza. -- 24.210.221.242 ( talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am there but using IP cloaking software so that my position cannot be zeroed in upon by 'hostile forces.' the cloakedfake IP lists me as being somewhere in the US. -- 24.210.221.242 ( talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I was gone awhile, did Israel invade or not?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Eye-witness: Morgues overflow with bodies [1] Yaha Muheisen stops searching for his son's body for a moment to speak to me. "Whatever Israel did it will not defeat us," he says, "It will not weaken our power." [1] Forty-year-old mother Nawal AlLad'a did not find the bodies of her two sons in the medical compound, so she left to look amid the rubble. [2]
Protests: Hundreds in Mich., NYC, LOS protest Gaza attack [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS_PROTEST?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTT ] DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Israel's military strikes on the Gaza Strip prompted pro-Palestinian protests in America, with marchers denouncing the violence in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, New York City and Los Angeles. The crowd outside the embassy in Kensington, central London, carried banners demanding justice for Palestine and were led in chants of "no justice, no peace". [3]
The protest comes after Israel rejected calls for a 48-hour ceasefire. The protest will continue tomorrow before moving on to the Egyptian Embassy on Friday and then on to Trafalgar Square on Saturday. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/embassy-protesters-chant-for-justice-in-gaza-1219455.html
-All the above added by
Citizentimes (
talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009
Who makes this request?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mention should be made of a website affiliated with Hamas claiming that 'Zionist soldier Gilad Shalit was injured in one of the Air Force attacks in Gaza'. Chesdovi ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Starting from the title, passing by the infobox, ending with the content of the article, this article is the best example of promoting for a POV, wish that we will add it ot Wikipedia policies to show what is meant by POV!!! Yamanam ( talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is longer than almost every other section or sub-section. Please people, the intro should be a summary of the sections of the article, and it should be of proportional length of the article. Please people read WP:LEAD:
“ | The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first WP:HEAD. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. | ” |
If you go deeper into the article you see all of these things explained on detail. While we can disagree eon sources and POV etc, we shouldn't disagree on what makes a readable article. Can we do this without adult supervision? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211 Flayer ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
i've restored the missing information tag for the public relations section and moved it up and out of the reactions section. One POV might be that the Gaza Strip de facto government does not need a public relations campaign, so they're not carrying one out. However, we don't know that. In any case, as was discussed above, media strategy in any military conflict since at least mid-XXth century has been a critical part of the conflict. Whatever WP:NPOV, WP:RS evidence we have about public relations strategies by the two parties is relevant.
i don't see any harm in leaving the missing information tag there for some time. The info about arab region tv channels constantly broadcasting images of bloodied children torn apart etc. is not a statement that that is a deliberate campaign. Sooner or later someone might come up with something more directly relevant. Boud ( talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict involves an Israel airstrike codenamed Operation Cast Lead" This needs to be reworded to something else (not sure what). This sounds like the operation was a single Israeli airstike that is over rather than an ongoing operation. Can anyone fix this please? BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Rayan was killed when a missile crashed into a five-storey house that he shared with his wives and children in Jabaliya in the north of the territory, the medics said. The dead children were aged seven and 10. Three other people were also killed in the raid. [4]-- Citizen Times Publication Sweden ( talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we consider Dawn.com a reliable source? It's a national newspaper of an Arab state...hmmm. Surely we can find a more factual publication that fully demonstrates Israel's thirst for the blood of Palestinian civilians. Lol. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement:
"Gazans say most strikes come without warning. However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.[66]" has been moved around the article several times during the last few times. First it was in the Dec 27 section, then I moved it to the planning area, and now someone moved it to the casualty section without talking about it here (as far as I know). I personally believe it should be moved back to the planning or first day of strike, per order of importance. It's location in casualty section seems awkward and misplaced. I'm afraid to move it back because someone will just revert it. Any advice/opinion? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You both apologize this minute or else you can go to your rooms. RomaC ( talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: "If, after a few days,". So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war".
Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the "Title" section above: (adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above Boud ( talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
I see no difference , it must called by the fact that people were literally blown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been refuted at the beginning of this section , Bullying or Forcing the argument will lead nowhere.
Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the barbarossa one has nothing to do with the IDF... just an historic reference... we dont name that "the beginning of the invasion of the USSR by nazi germany" or something like that (Im still gumuhua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Argument Against why shouldn't we call it like all the other military operations The question is why shouldn't we call it Operation whatever just like Operation Barbarosa....etc The Answer is blatantly simple , because this not a military operation that can be compared to barbarosa or the D-Day or whatever... In a Military Operation , An Army or a militant party lunches an offensive against another army or armed party.
But Here , We see nothing like it ! What we see , is a brutal and indescriminent murder against the people of Gaza. of course israel claims it targets hamas but these are only lies and propaganda , from the death toll and from the unreasonable amount of aggression and hate that this act was carried out , clearly displays the Zionist Intention to exterminate every single arab palestinian from the lands of palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Gumuhua is 100% right, cowmadness. His point is valid whether you believe the operation was indeed an operation or not. A precedent has already been established in regards to calling the sort of action undertaken by Israel the past few days an operation, at least in regards to titles of Wikipedia articles. The title should be changed to "operation cast lead" to coincide with the established precedent that already exists. Cowmadness, If you don't like the way Israel is behaving, I suggest you voice your personal political views elsewhere. This is a neutral source, not a place for personal opinion. - Eblashko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblashko ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there again... glad to know that the debate is still alive... Encyclopedic articles should't reflect the personal POV or editors, but stick to facts: the precedent established is clear...
Cow: during the german invasion of the USSR up to 23 millions of soviets died... how should we call that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
calling it that way. Even CNN does called the Gaza Bombing for example, i think this argument has been refuted as well. Cowmadness ( talk) 12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this title; it seems to represent only the action taken, which seems neutral to me. Maybe "Operation Cast Lead" can redirect to a page with this title? Kill. ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now we're at December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing.
Are there any suggestions for a better name? Boud ( talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" [5] Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change Operation Enduring Freedom to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be the only place where Operation Cast Lead features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. -- Hillock65 ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the Israeli offensive that began on December 27 at 11:30. That offensive is called Operation Cast Lead. That is a plain fact; there is nothing POV about it. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with how it is phrased in the Main Page (ie Israel launched Operation Cast Lead) nor have it in the article even prominently. In fact, as of now the bulk of the article is about the operation. However, we are neither recentists, nor the media. We must follow neutrality. To the argument that almost all other articles are named for operations, this not true even for the war in Afghanistan. Usually, the events are described and an operation is given. Exceptions are usually as Operations as part of a larger inter-state conflict, such as WWII or the Korean War, but even there, we name the Battle of Chosin Reservoir after the battle, not the operation name. Even in the 2006 Lebanon War or 1982 Lebanon War we use a common name in the format similar to the proposed format. That said, neutrality is in a large extent a result of consensus, and all I am trying to do is prevent a future edit clusterfuck that benefits no one. Way I see it, we all take a chill pill, realize that neutrality is server, that Operation Cast Lead remains as a redirect (and hence a search term) and will remain in the intro. This way, we concentrate on editing the article to achieve GA. Its about not feeding trols and assuming good faith. What is so strange about that? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A clarification on the name: when trying to find reliable sources, concentrate on the "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes" part of the name. The December and 2008 are for wikipedia disambiguation purposes, not part of the "real" title. Currently, reliable sources are overwhelmingly calling this "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". Regardless of the opinion of some, we are require to follow reliable sources, which in this case will be mostly news sources (unless books and academic papers are already out!) So what they call the thing, and how it verifies across sources, is central. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And i will repeat - Airstrikes is a useless term. This war is beyond bombs being dropped from the skies. There have already been reports of infantry fightings, hence airstikes/bombings are false titles. Man I'm tired. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
ALSO, need I remind you that you unilaterally changed the title without any discussion in the talk? This is't Cerotapidia. This is a community-based website that requires care when dealing with special articles like this. The argument should be Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever, not the title you as an individual poised. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the title Operation Cast Lead. None of the arguments against it are convincing, and certainly not enough to deviate from a Wikipedia convention. The logic that 'no news sources use this as the title in articles so we shouldn't' is faulty for two reasons:
-- Ynhockey ( Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have provided you with sources, and with evidence to my assertions. I believe it would serve us well if we minimize naked assertions, and concentrate on providing evidence. I am very open to convincing, but we'll need more than just our word, we need sources. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1) If a ground component happens, we have many choices, I suggested a separated article for the ground component, but we can also rename this one to reflect that. Its not the end of the world, this is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can rename on the fly. So I do not understand how this is such a serious crisis.
If there is a ground component, then we need to seriously start thinking about WP:SUMMARY, which means a structure with a main article ans then sub-articles with Summaries in the main page. Perhaps in then we can get the operation names, as they are sub-articles of the 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article, which is crap, but its there. However, this here is a new thing, something both unprecedented (when was the last time Israel bombed so massively Gaza?
2) I didn't propose the current title. I simply edited what someone else suggested, changing the one I had proposed, which itself was a rewording of the original title that you and couple-three other editors decided to do. I was as bold as you were, nothing sinister or owny. That said, we can engage on an edit war, or we can realize that it is the most neutral alternative to emerge so far. If you dislike it, then suggest something else that is as neutral and as descriptive. I am open, as surely are other editors. An advantage of this not being paper is that we can afford to change titles with relative ease. However, we do need to discuss, and I recognize I was bold, but so was the change to the operation name, which was not the original name of this article. The original name, while problematic, was more neutral. No two ways about it. Of course, you can always rain upon me with higher authority. :D
3) Yeah you seem tired, because you are becoming exasperated, which you probably shouldn't. We are in disagreement, but we are listening to each other in good faith, I hope! Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired of debating. Semantics and rhetoric get annoying and pointless after the 12th paragraph. Wikipedia isn't my life. My opinion rests strictly on Ynhockey well-crafted argument. I will come in to add points if necessary, but for now I'll give the fight up to those who wish to fight it. I encourage you to revert the title to its original state so we can debate in the intended environment. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article is about a specific military operation, and as far as I know Operation Cast Lead is the only name for this specific operation. Why use a vague description when a precise name is available? Of course it's an Israeli name: it's an Israeli operation. Using the Israeli name doesn't imply approval of the operation, merely recognition that it's an operation for which Israel is responsible. Torve ( talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
My Support for title of 'Operation Cast Lead"
1. I agree that the title of this article should be "Operation Cast Lead". This title would indicate that this offensive is an Isreali led MILITARY offensive against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. From a military standpoint, if there are two opposing sides engaged in conflict, each side will have various operations in order to gain the upper hand. Regaurdless of each sides approval of the methods behide the opponents operations, that operation is still known as whatever the opponent who devised the operation calls it. It does not show support for an operation by calling it by the name of the one who devised, it only is used to indicate what operation is being referred to (as opposed to saying 2008 airstrikes on gaza strip, what is this? what type of airstrikes?). I feel that by calling by its codename would indicate that it is a military offensive. I feel that by calling it by a title should as airstrikes on gaza strip could led one to believe that the airstrikes were committed by a private body.
2. However, I do agree that at times an opponent may call an operation by a name such "Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" but this is only used as proproganda used to motivate ones supporters. However, from a strategic standpoint the operation would be known by its codename.
3. I feel that by calling by a such as 2008 airstrikes is actually biased towards Hamas. I believe this becuase it seemly implies that the IDF is an illegitment fighting force and supports the Hamas point of view without being neutral. By failing to title the article by its actual name would take away from the fact that it is a military operation and biases it towards an killing hungry fighting force.
Please give any counterarguments. Virgo1989 ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the the use of gaza strip airstrike in that situation. As someone stated earlier in that sense the term "gaza strip airstrike" is used as a descriptive term and not as the name of the event. As was stated earlier, if you don't know what Operation Cast Lead is this title would not be appropriate. However, as far as a title within wikipedia I believe that the codename is more appropriate, because in this situation it is no longer a "news" article but a explanation of the facts. As far as what most reliable sources use I see that they are using it as a description once again and not as a title. In THIS situation I feel that Operation Cast Lead would be more appropriate as it gives the title of the military operation which is recongnized by these same sources as the name of the actual operation. Given the current situation of this operation I feel that currently this article describes a military operation that may eventually encompass more than airstrikes which as was stated by others would render the current title inappropriate. Thank you for insight I appreciate it Virgo1989 ( talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - If Operation Barbarossa has remained the same, I can't figure why it can't be the same here. Or do we need to change it also? How about "The German (Nazi) invasion of (Soviet) Russia in June 1941"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the title as not neutral because it does show the Hamas response to the attacks. 2008 Gaza strip war is neutral and shows a 2-sided conflict with military operations. Earlier on in 2008 it wasn't a war but just clashes.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An update - Israel's largest news site is now calling it "a war". see [6] -- Omrim ( talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a conflict, brought on by Hamas attacks and responded to by Hamas attacks (both on israel and on egypt) the title should be two sided. Also, the use of the word "conflict" has 2 advantages over other terms:
1)It is a simple, accurate description. calling it a war is not accurate since it is not big enough to be a war.
2) This may very well turn into a ground operation, and in that event this would describe it better than calling it "air strikes". Ben Abooya ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ben Abooya makes a fairly good point - maybe another word or two could help define it more accurately in addition to what he suggested - perhaps December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Armed Conflict in Gaza or December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict. That last one, for now, would likely serve as a fitting title - the sides in this are understood, and it defines the conflict without having to identify the differing sides (which the current title has effectively done already - one side might favor language that shows that Israel is attacking Palestinians regardless of whether they are Hamas or not, and the other side might favor language that shows Israel is focusing on Hamas militants - the current title "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" does well to avoid all that and should remain doing so in the event of any changes) - and, since ground operations are believed to possibly begin soon (link below), following what Abooya mentioned, the word "airstrikes" may likely soon no longer apply. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstargeneral ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict ? Here i'm guessing ahead that the conflict will continue into January. i know it's long, but we will need to find something. Boud ( talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe just December 2008 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict even if the conflict continues into January, with the idea that the name refers to the starting date ? E.g. in France, WWII can be referred to as << la guerre de '39 >> = the war of 1939, without any need to state the end year. Boud ( talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Boud, I think you might be on to somethnig there is sounds better then most other ideas to me. I don't know about the term Conflict or not but that is more of an issue as we go on. This is a good format. if others agree I could give more defind wording on Conflict/War/Campign/Battle and so on. it could be the Winter 2008 Isreal-Gaza Strip Conflict/Battle (depending opn what term to discribe the fighting everyone decides on)
Ideas thoughts? is this moving in the right direction everyone?
December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict??? Hillarious:
Im sorry, but, if this suggestions gets accepted, well, how we should name:
Operation Opera ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)? Should we rename Operation Overlord??
Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... What if the conflict escalates and lasts till february??? Gumuhua ( talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that getting the precise name of the article right is The Most Important Thing Possible and all, but currently both the Operation name and the more generic name all point to the same place and both names are covered in the opening sentence of the article. I've already given my own opinion above but honestly, it doesn't really matter in the interim.
This is plainly a developing situation and my Crystal Ball is on the fritz. Let's give events time to play themselves out, and then name the article once things have stabilized. For all we know, this could be a stub of The Beginning of World War III which will start World War III was a major international conflict that was sparked by Operation Cast Lead...
I feel like we're in danger of being featured on WP:LAME Lot 49a talk 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The original name was Operation Cast Lead. One member took it upon himself to change it without discussion and then told everyone it wasn't neutral enough. Expecting us to wait 5 more days is insulting. If anything, the admin who abused his powers needs to be penalized and the title needs to be reverted to its original state. This isn't rocket science, no need for extreme rhetoric or semantics. There isn't much to argue. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lets wait for five days. But what reflections should it have on Wikipedia's credibility, if for five days the title only refers to "airstrikes" while it is now already confirmed by official IDF sources, quoted by YNET (Israel's largest news website) that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the operation. see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3646818,00.html -- Omrim ( talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"Israel Naval Forces also struck a number of targets Sunday night, including Hamas vessels and posts. The Naval Forces reported direct hits."
see: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Its verified... then can we change it to 2008 Gaza strikes? In fact, most reliable sources are headlining this in their articles already. BTW, I think Ynet is of a lesser quality than Haaretz, because it tend to be tabloidy and gossipy (as is its parent newspaper, a sensationalistic rag if I have seen any - if you are ISraeli you know what I mean), but it is a reliable source. That is not the issue. Verifiability has to happen no matter how reliable a source, in particular in controversial articles. We are requiredto do it.
BTW, the same gossipy nature of YNET makes it a great predictor of whats to come (part of its salacious views on news). It seems there will be ground excursions [8]. I am guessing this will be called an "invasion" if history teaches anything. So maybe 2008 Gaza invasion will happen? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Strikes" is porbably more accurate than "airstrikes" even though I can't support both, as they indicate a completly one-sided action, while in our case fire is being shot in both directions. My view is that "battle", "war" or even "campaign" are better. Putting that aside for the moment, I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable source by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked.-- Omrim ( talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."
What this actually means is, if something isn't published my a source backed by the money of a large Western corporation or a Western capitalist government, it is summarily dismissed if it expresses political views opposed to any interest of the former. This is precisely where Wikipedia's usefulness stops. It is simply the echo chamber of the global Spectacle. So if any of you suckers want to change a thing in this world, get out on the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 ( talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think 89.242.239.167's is a situationist perspective, no? Valid point though Al Jazeera has challenged it to some extent. (unsigned user)
...deleted CSS "art"...
See, I can troll too, except I do it better: War is peace, We have always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. Smoke a Victory. Welcome to the Party. Now, if you think Wikipedia changes the world, LOL. It doesn't. It can help document it tho. No theory, no praxis... --
Cerejota (
talk)
02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The figure that the UN is quoting as being the number of civilian casualties, currently 62, is only women and children, not including any civilian adult males, from bbc; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm:
I think that should be noted where civilian casualties are given. Any objections? Nableezy ( talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this [9] BBC story using the figure 57. I changed the figure in the box to conform to its source but it has since been changed back. A figure has to be the same as the source which supports it. It is dishonest on our part to do otherwise. If there is a good source on 62 could that be used instead? Otherwise it should be 57 or at least leave it unsourced. Thanks. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Calmofthestorm7 ( talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The source provided above in the first post of this sections reports that the UN claims 62 women/children. Nableezy ( talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also the source used in 'The large majority of deaths and injuries have been Hamas operatives.[19]' in the lead says 62 women/children, and nowhere does it currently say the large majority have been Hamas operatives. That claim needs another source or it should be removed. Nableezy ( talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It does say that 'Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters and says it's careful to avoid harm to bystanders.' But this claim has to be preceded by Israel {says, claims, asserts, stressed, whatever} instead of presenting it as fact as the article being referenced does not. Nableezy ( talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the source. I didn't mean to step into your more general discussion -- I had just come to the article to read about that issued and noticed the article disagreed with the source. My opinion on your more general point is that you should include the explanation in the casualties section and I'd have the infobox read "more than 62" for now. That number is going to change anyway as the conflict continues and the numbers become better understood. Thanks. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) User:WanderSage has reverted the number of dead women and children back to civilians. The sources explicitly do not say civilian, they say women and children, so yes that counts women who are potentially 'militants' and does not count men that are civilians. But we cannot change what the sources say on this point. Is there anybody out there who objects to citing the wording of women and children for the released UN figure as of now, or is there any reason we should be misrepresenting the source and the UN? Unless somebody objects relatively soon I will be changing the wording back. Nableezy ( talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.
Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection§ion_id=97&static=0&format=html
AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).
Thrylos000 ( talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a fog of war inherent to the process, casualty figures are inherently vague. I suggest that if sources contradict themselves, we use all figures as a range. As time goes by, figures would become solid. As long as we source, we will be doing our readers a service. W ejust have to keep updating it with new info. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
proposed options/local table of contents: #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_strikes - #Operation_Cast_Lead - #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_conflict
December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes — Reliable sources overwhelmingly support this option in their headlines, current title incorrect because there is now a naval component — Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → Operation Cast Lead — It is the name of the Operation given by the IDF (someone who supports please elaborate a position, and take out my signature, please — Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.Wow, that was bad English and poorly written. Sorry guys, it's late. Can barely type. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
frankly, i hadn't heard either term and the obvious title will be Gaza attack or Gaza invasion with the date. Untwirl ( talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol. This is the 3rd time Cerejota has done non-wikipedia-certified name change game. REMEMBER, He is the one who UNILATERALLY changed the title from its original state (OPERATION CAST LEAD), thereby abusing his administrative privileges, and then telling us it was not neutral. This, of course, after more than 7 users debated through 12 paragraphs about the title. Was Cerejota a member of this debate? NO! Unfortunately, this article's talk page exploded way too fast to keep up with Cerejota's blatant abuse of powers. Maybe when this dies down it will catch up with him...I don't know. Just wait, he's gonna response with some wiki rule like don't soap box, chill out, or my favorite, "thanks!". Psh. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not participating in this waste of time. We already had a discussion above. Your position was defeated. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Some users have raised concern with the time limit, while other users in the previous discussion raised a need for urgency (mind you, users who have raised a sense of urgency are from all sides). Should we eliminate the suggested time limit? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is currently an investigation of Cerejota's admin abuses somewhere on on wikipedia. It's in the archive, I don't know what the exact link is though Lol. This entire thing is a sham. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin but I am under most objective criteria are a he :D.
As to there being an investigation, this is not true the only people who do that can be called investigations are WP:SOCK investigations and ArbCom, and there is no process going on either that I know of that involves me (I suggest you read WP:BURO and WP:DISPUTE).
What we are doing its called "dispute resolution", not an investigation, in which we get a fresh set of eyes, in particular admins, so they can opine. So far, no uninvolved admins have spoken, but it doesn't mean they won't - however this in general means that while they might find I acted in error, this error is nothing we cannot fix as a community of editors, without having to call upon "higher authorities" to intervene. And while I certainly asked (and continue to ask) you cut the drama, I did in fact explain, at great length, explain my motives when questioned about them. So much that you have expressed exasperation with the length and frequency of my explanations!
So I don't understand why you insist in denying that I did, or that I simply asked you to chill. Please, if you are going to say I did something, contextualize it. Otherwise, expect that I will do it for you.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict — I feel that this title would solve both of the problems with the current one - the fact that Hamas is shooting back, and the fact that naval forces (possibly also ground troops in future) are involved, not just aircraft. Cynical ( talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.* Support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead" which have no chance to become a consensus. Sometimes--
Omrim (
talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) we must resort to second best options...
* Support - There are two sides to this. The current name biases the article from the get-go.
okedem (
talk)
13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As this article discusses a two-way conflict, provided this extends past midnight (local time), and given "Israel" is a key element in this conflict. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.
"Assault on Gaza" gets over 1,500 hits in Google news [14], vastly outnumbering any of the other options listed here. Tiamut talk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any arguments against using the most common name, as attested to by a search of news sources? Tiamut talk 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Taimut, what search methodology did you use? As I showed early on in these debates, how your search in Google News affects the numbers of hits and the relevancy of the material. Someone suggested that "operation cast lead" had thousands of hits. But this was quickly shown not to be the case: most of the hits were not relevant and related to casting lead actors for movies and theater: the person in question didn't use quote marks. So please let us know what method of google search you used.
Now you assert, without evidence, that "Assault on Gaza" is "the most common name". While this assertion can easely contested by reading th source material used as references in this article, most of which do not use this formulation neither in their header nor in their contents, it would be unfair to you not to use Google News hits as counter-evidence.
I will use two methodologies. One would be the term in quotes, with the date limited to the last week (since Dec. 25) in order to weed out articles on previous events. I will also do a "headline" only search. When the results come up, I will read the first page to ensure they are all about the topic and relevant.
Some others:
That said, I have stated that this thing about counting sources, instead of reading them, is a bad excercise. The process of verifiability requires we compare sources, which we can only do by reading them. We do not do this when we do quantitative analysis of hits in Google News.
Google News also has different standard than we do: it includes news blogs, news aggregators, and blatantly partisan sources - what we call fringe or extremist reliable sources, that should only be used when speaking about themselves, or when talking about them. It is a good tool to find sources, but it isn't a good tool to do quantitative analysis for Wikipedia WP:V puposes. For that, we read the sources themselves, and discuss amongst ourselves to reach consensus.
That said, if you insist we google test the title, "Assault" loses to conflict in the "headline" category, which is what the article name is about. Sorry, but your argument is not compelling in itself, but even if we find it compelling, the math still doesn't fit your view. This is why I oppose this title as a possible title. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Photos show the Israel usage of cluster bombs against Palestinian targets in Gaza. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.34.110 ( talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The ground assault has began. I am now seeing Israeli armor and personnel crossing the border into Gaza. -- 24.210.221.242 ( talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am there but using IP cloaking software so that my position cannot be zeroed in upon by 'hostile forces.' the cloakedfake IP lists me as being somewhere in the US. -- 24.210.221.242 ( talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I was gone awhile, did Israel invade or not?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Eye-witness: Morgues overflow with bodies [1] Yaha Muheisen stops searching for his son's body for a moment to speak to me. "Whatever Israel did it will not defeat us," he says, "It will not weaken our power." [1] Forty-year-old mother Nawal AlLad'a did not find the bodies of her two sons in the medical compound, so she left to look amid the rubble. [2]
Protests: Hundreds in Mich., NYC, LOS protest Gaza attack [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS_PROTEST?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTT ] DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Israel's military strikes on the Gaza Strip prompted pro-Palestinian protests in America, with marchers denouncing the violence in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, New York City and Los Angeles. The crowd outside the embassy in Kensington, central London, carried banners demanding justice for Palestine and were led in chants of "no justice, no peace". [3]
The protest comes after Israel rejected calls for a 48-hour ceasefire. The protest will continue tomorrow before moving on to the Egyptian Embassy on Friday and then on to Trafalgar Square on Saturday. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/embassy-protesters-chant-for-justice-in-gaza-1219455.html
-All the above added by
Citizentimes (
talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009
Who makes this request?-- Tomtom9041 ( talk) 18:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mention should be made of a website affiliated with Hamas claiming that 'Zionist soldier Gilad Shalit was injured in one of the Air Force attacks in Gaza'. Chesdovi ( talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Starting from the title, passing by the infobox, ending with the content of the article, this article is the best example of promoting for a POV, wish that we will add it ot Wikipedia policies to show what is meant by POV!!! Yamanam ( talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It is longer than almost every other section or sub-section. Please people, the intro should be a summary of the sections of the article, and it should be of proportional length of the article. Please people read WP:LEAD:
“ | The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first WP:HEAD. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. | ” |
If you go deeper into the article you see all of these things explained on detail. While we can disagree eon sources and POV etc, we shouldn't disagree on what makes a readable article. Can we do this without adult supervision? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34211 Flayer ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
i've restored the missing information tag for the public relations section and moved it up and out of the reactions section. One POV might be that the Gaza Strip de facto government does not need a public relations campaign, so they're not carrying one out. However, we don't know that. In any case, as was discussed above, media strategy in any military conflict since at least mid-XXth century has been a critical part of the conflict. Whatever WP:NPOV, WP:RS evidence we have about public relations strategies by the two parties is relevant.
i don't see any harm in leaving the missing information tag there for some time. The info about arab region tv channels constantly broadcasting images of bloodied children torn apart etc. is not a statement that that is a deliberate campaign. Sooner or later someone might come up with something more directly relevant. Boud ( talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"The 2008–2009 Israel-Gaza conflict involves an Israel airstrike codenamed Operation Cast Lead" This needs to be reworded to something else (not sure what). This sounds like the operation was a single Israeli airstike that is over rather than an ongoing operation. Can anyone fix this please? BritishWatcher ( talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Rayan was killed when a missile crashed into a five-storey house that he shared with his wives and children in Jabaliya in the north of the territory, the medics said. The dead children were aged seven and 10. Three other people were also killed in the raid. [4]-- Citizen Times Publication Sweden ( talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we consider Dawn.com a reliable source? It's a national newspaper of an Arab state...hmmm. Surely we can find a more factual publication that fully demonstrates Israel's thirst for the blood of Palestinian civilians. Lol. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The following statement:
"Gazans say most strikes come without warning. However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.[66]" has been moved around the article several times during the last few times. First it was in the Dec 27 section, then I moved it to the planning area, and now someone moved it to the casualty section without talking about it here (as far as I know). I personally believe it should be moved back to the planning or first day of strike, per order of importance. It's location in casualty section seems awkward and misplaced. I'm afraid to move it back because someone will just revert it. Any advice/opinion? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You both apologize this minute or else you can go to your rooms. RomaC ( talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, two hours to discuss a name change is insufficient. Note the text in the tag above: "If, after a few days,". So let's top reverting name changes and give time for a calm, NPOV discussion. Let people's emotions cool off. i actually think that December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing is probably not too bad, but i've put the tag in in order to stop a "renaming revert war".
Arguments i can see so far, mostly quoted from the "Title" section above: (adding signature to clarify who "i" means since the sections below may evolve - it was i who put in the {{moveoptions}} tag above Boud ( talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
I see no difference , it must called by the fact that people were literally blown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been refuted at the beginning of this section , Bullying or Forcing the argument will lead nowhere.
Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... all named under the english translation of their hebrew names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the barbarossa one has nothing to do with the IDF... just an historic reference... we dont name that "the beginning of the invasion of the USSR by nazi germany" or something like that (Im still gumuhua) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Argument Against why shouldn't we call it like all the other military operations The question is why shouldn't we call it Operation whatever just like Operation Barbarosa....etc The Answer is blatantly simple , because this not a military operation that can be compared to barbarosa or the D-Day or whatever... In a Military Operation , An Army or a militant party lunches an offensive against another army or armed party.
But Here , We see nothing like it ! What we see , is a brutal and indescriminent murder against the people of Gaza. of course israel claims it targets hamas but these are only lies and propaganda , from the death toll and from the unreasonable amount of aggression and hate that this act was carried out , clearly displays the Zionist Intention to exterminate every single arab palestinian from the lands of palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Gumuhua is 100% right, cowmadness. His point is valid whether you believe the operation was indeed an operation or not. A precedent has already been established in regards to calling the sort of action undertaken by Israel the past few days an operation, at least in regards to titles of Wikipedia articles. The title should be changed to "operation cast lead" to coincide with the established precedent that already exists. Cowmadness, If you don't like the way Israel is behaving, I suggest you voice your personal political views elsewhere. This is a neutral source, not a place for personal opinion. - Eblashko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblashko ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there again... glad to know that the debate is still alive... Encyclopedic articles should't reflect the personal POV or editors, but stick to facts: the precedent established is clear...
Cow: during the german invasion of the USSR up to 23 millions of soviets died... how should we call that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
calling it that way. Even CNN does called the Gaza Bombing for example, i think this argument has been refuted as well. Cowmadness ( talk) 12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this title; it seems to represent only the action taken, which seems neutral to me. Maybe "Operation Cast Lead" can redirect to a page with this title? Kill. ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now we're at December 2008 Gaza Strip bombing.
Are there any suggestions for a better name? Boud ( talk) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed as it seems a minor refactoring, the main debate seems to be over the use of the IDF Operation name. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the logic behind Operation Cast Lead? Well, according to you, Cerejota: "It is the name given by one side of the conflict to the conflict, it is one-sided, hence non-neutral" [5] Operation Cast Lead is the official title designated by the Israeli military and recognized by the world. Therefore, it is the only valid title for the article. We might as well change Operation Enduring Freedom to something that we all as a biased and flawed people can agree on. I understand there is some intense resentment for Israel, but this is a moot argument. Operation Cast Lead is the title of the article, period. Anything other than that is simply false or ambigious. If we're going to lie, we can at least come up with something a little more creative than Gaza Strip Bombings. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to be the only place where Operation Cast Lead features so prominently. You won't find this on CNN, BBC or other main news sources. If IDF classifies it as such, it is fine, but the whole world knows about this event as the Gaza Strip airstrikes, Gaza assault, Israeli Gaza operation. If the ground offencive evolves from it, than it needs to be changed again. But so far, the Cast Lead Op needs to kept in the text, not in the title, this article is about the whole event, including humanitarian and political aspects, not just an Israeli military operation. -- Hillock65 ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the Israeli offensive that began on December 27 at 11:30. That offensive is called Operation Cast Lead. That is a plain fact; there is nothing POV about it. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with how it is phrased in the Main Page (ie Israel launched Operation Cast Lead) nor have it in the article even prominently. In fact, as of now the bulk of the article is about the operation. However, we are neither recentists, nor the media. We must follow neutrality. To the argument that almost all other articles are named for operations, this not true even for the war in Afghanistan. Usually, the events are described and an operation is given. Exceptions are usually as Operations as part of a larger inter-state conflict, such as WWII or the Korean War, but even there, we name the Battle of Chosin Reservoir after the battle, not the operation name. Even in the 2006 Lebanon War or 1982 Lebanon War we use a common name in the format similar to the proposed format. That said, neutrality is in a large extent a result of consensus, and all I am trying to do is prevent a future edit clusterfuck that benefits no one. Way I see it, we all take a chill pill, realize that neutrality is server, that Operation Cast Lead remains as a redirect (and hence a search term) and will remain in the intro. This way, we concentrate on editing the article to achieve GA. Its about not feeding trols and assuming good faith. What is so strange about that? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A clarification on the name: when trying to find reliable sources, concentrate on the "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes" part of the name. The December and 2008 are for wikipedia disambiguation purposes, not part of the "real" title. Currently, reliable sources are overwhelmingly calling this "Gaza Strip airstrikes" or "Gaza Strip air strikes". Regardless of the opinion of some, we are require to follow reliable sources, which in this case will be mostly news sources (unless books and academic papers are already out!) So what they call the thing, and how it verifies across sources, is central. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And i will repeat - Airstrikes is a useless term. This war is beyond bombs being dropped from the skies. There have already been reports of infantry fightings, hence airstikes/bombings are false titles. Man I'm tired. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
ALSO, need I remind you that you unilaterally changed the title without any discussion in the talk? This is't Cerotapidia. This is a community-based website that requires care when dealing with special articles like this. The argument should be Operation Cast Lead vs. whatever, not the title you as an individual poised. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the title Operation Cast Lead. None of the arguments against it are convincing, and certainly not enough to deviate from a Wikipedia convention. The logic that 'no news sources use this as the title in articles so we shouldn't' is faulty for two reasons:
-- Ynhockey ( Talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I have provided you with sources, and with evidence to my assertions. I believe it would serve us well if we minimize naked assertions, and concentrate on providing evidence. I am very open to convincing, but we'll need more than just our word, we need sources. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1) If a ground component happens, we have many choices, I suggested a separated article for the ground component, but we can also rename this one to reflect that. Its not the end of the world, this is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can rename on the fly. So I do not understand how this is such a serious crisis.
If there is a ground component, then we need to seriously start thinking about WP:SUMMARY, which means a structure with a main article ans then sub-articles with Summaries in the main page. Perhaps in then we can get the operation names, as they are sub-articles of the 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict article, which is crap, but its there. However, this here is a new thing, something both unprecedented (when was the last time Israel bombed so massively Gaza?
2) I didn't propose the current title. I simply edited what someone else suggested, changing the one I had proposed, which itself was a rewording of the original title that you and couple-three other editors decided to do. I was as bold as you were, nothing sinister or owny. That said, we can engage on an edit war, or we can realize that it is the most neutral alternative to emerge so far. If you dislike it, then suggest something else that is as neutral and as descriptive. I am open, as surely are other editors. An advantage of this not being paper is that we can afford to change titles with relative ease. However, we do need to discuss, and I recognize I was bold, but so was the change to the operation name, which was not the original name of this article. The original name, while problematic, was more neutral. No two ways about it. Of course, you can always rain upon me with higher authority. :D
3) Yeah you seem tired, because you are becoming exasperated, which you probably shouldn't. We are in disagreement, but we are listening to each other in good faith, I hope! Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired of debating. Semantics and rhetoric get annoying and pointless after the 12th paragraph. Wikipedia isn't my life. My opinion rests strictly on Ynhockey well-crafted argument. I will come in to add points if necessary, but for now I'll give the fight up to those who wish to fight it. I encourage you to revert the title to its original state so we can debate in the intended environment. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article is about a specific military operation, and as far as I know Operation Cast Lead is the only name for this specific operation. Why use a vague description when a precise name is available? Of course it's an Israeli name: it's an Israeli operation. Using the Israeli name doesn't imply approval of the operation, merely recognition that it's an operation for which Israel is responsible. Torve ( talk) 05:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
My Support for title of 'Operation Cast Lead"
1. I agree that the title of this article should be "Operation Cast Lead". This title would indicate that this offensive is an Isreali led MILITARY offensive against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. From a military standpoint, if there are two opposing sides engaged in conflict, each side will have various operations in order to gain the upper hand. Regaurdless of each sides approval of the methods behide the opponents operations, that operation is still known as whatever the opponent who devised the operation calls it. It does not show support for an operation by calling it by the name of the one who devised, it only is used to indicate what operation is being referred to (as opposed to saying 2008 airstrikes on gaza strip, what is this? what type of airstrikes?). I feel that by calling by its codename would indicate that it is a military offensive. I feel that by calling it by a title should as airstrikes on gaza strip could led one to believe that the airstrikes were committed by a private body.
2. However, I do agree that at times an opponent may call an operation by a name such "Brutal Airstrike on Gaza" but this is only used as proproganda used to motivate ones supporters. However, from a strategic standpoint the operation would be known by its codename.
3. I feel that by calling by a such as 2008 airstrikes is actually biased towards Hamas. I believe this becuase it seemly implies that the IDF is an illegitment fighting force and supports the Hamas point of view without being neutral. By failing to title the article by its actual name would take away from the fact that it is a military operation and biases it towards an killing hungry fighting force.
Please give any counterarguments. Virgo1989 ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the the use of gaza strip airstrike in that situation. As someone stated earlier in that sense the term "gaza strip airstrike" is used as a descriptive term and not as the name of the event. As was stated earlier, if you don't know what Operation Cast Lead is this title would not be appropriate. However, as far as a title within wikipedia I believe that the codename is more appropriate, because in this situation it is no longer a "news" article but a explanation of the facts. As far as what most reliable sources use I see that they are using it as a description once again and not as a title. In THIS situation I feel that Operation Cast Lead would be more appropriate as it gives the title of the military operation which is recongnized by these same sources as the name of the actual operation. Given the current situation of this operation I feel that currently this article describes a military operation that may eventually encompass more than airstrikes which as was stated by others would render the current title inappropriate. Thank you for insight I appreciate it Virgo1989 ( talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious those in favor of this name are heavily outnumbered. It's time to move the article back to its original location. If anyone is actually interested in letting the move request last a full five days, it should be with the original name as the default, not the name decided by one person mid-stream. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - If Operation Barbarossa has remained the same, I can't figure why it can't be the same here. Or do we need to change it also? How about "The German (Nazi) invasion of (Soviet) Russia in June 1941"? PluniAlmoni ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the title as not neutral because it does show the Hamas response to the attacks. 2008 Gaza strip war is neutral and shows a 2-sided conflict with military operations. Earlier on in 2008 it wasn't a war but just clashes.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 07:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
An update - Israel's largest news site is now calling it "a war". see [6] -- Omrim ( talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a conflict, brought on by Hamas attacks and responded to by Hamas attacks (both on israel and on egypt) the title should be two sided. Also, the use of the word "conflict" has 2 advantages over other terms:
1)It is a simple, accurate description. calling it a war is not accurate since it is not big enough to be a war.
2) This may very well turn into a ground operation, and in that event this would describe it better than calling it "air strikes". Ben Abooya ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ben Abooya makes a fairly good point - maybe another word or two could help define it more accurately in addition to what he suggested - perhaps December 2008 Israeli-Hamas Armed Conflict in Gaza or December 2008 Gaza Armed Conflict. That last one, for now, would likely serve as a fitting title - the sides in this are understood, and it defines the conflict without having to identify the differing sides (which the current title has effectively done already - one side might favor language that shows that Israel is attacking Palestinians regardless of whether they are Hamas or not, and the other side might favor language that shows Israel is focusing on Hamas militants - the current title "December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes" does well to avoid all that and should remain doing so in the event of any changes) - and, since ground operations are believed to possibly begin soon (link below), following what Abooya mentioned, the word "airstrikes" may likely soon no longer apply. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802515.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstargeneral ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict ? Here i'm guessing ahead that the conflict will continue into January. i know it's long, but we will need to find something. Boud ( talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe just December 2008 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict even if the conflict continues into January, with the idea that the name refers to the starting date ? E.g. in France, WWII can be referred to as << la guerre de '39 >> = the war of 1939, without any need to state the end year. Boud ( talk) 23:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Boud, I think you might be on to somethnig there is sounds better then most other ideas to me. I don't know about the term Conflict or not but that is more of an issue as we go on. This is a good format. if others agree I could give more defind wording on Conflict/War/Campign/Battle and so on. it could be the Winter 2008 Isreal-Gaza Strip Conflict/Battle (depending opn what term to discribe the fighting everyone decides on)
Ideas thoughts? is this moving in the right direction everyone?
December 2008-January 2009 Israel-Gaza Strip conflict??? Hillarious:
Im sorry, but, if this suggestions gets accepted, well, how we should name:
Operation Opera ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera), Operation Orchard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard), Operation Barbarossa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), how should we name then Operation Wrath of God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God)?, and Operation Entebbe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe)? what about Operation Wooden Leg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg)? Keep reading, theres more to come: Operation defensive shield ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield), how should we rename that? What about Operation Rainbow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rainbow)?, what about Operation Days of Penitence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Days_of_Penitence)? And Operation warm winter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warm_Winter)? Should we rename Operation Overlord??
Some coherence when namimg the actions of the IDF... What if the conflict escalates and lasts till february??? Gumuhua ( talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that getting the precise name of the article right is The Most Important Thing Possible and all, but currently both the Operation name and the more generic name all point to the same place and both names are covered in the opening sentence of the article. I've already given my own opinion above but honestly, it doesn't really matter in the interim.
This is plainly a developing situation and my Crystal Ball is on the fritz. Let's give events time to play themselves out, and then name the article once things have stabilized. For all we know, this could be a stub of The Beginning of World War III which will start World War III was a major international conflict that was sparked by Operation Cast Lead...
I feel like we're in danger of being featured on WP:LAME Lot 49a talk 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The original name was Operation Cast Lead. One member took it upon himself to change it without discussion and then told everyone it wasn't neutral enough. Expecting us to wait 5 more days is insulting. If anything, the admin who abused his powers needs to be penalized and the title needs to be reverted to its original state. This isn't rocket science, no need for extreme rhetoric or semantics. There isn't much to argue. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lets wait for five days. But what reflections should it have on Wikipedia's credibility, if for five days the title only refers to "airstrikes" while it is now already confirmed by official IDF sources, quoted by YNET (Israel's largest news website) that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the operation. see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3646818,00.html -- Omrim ( talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"Israel Naval Forces also struck a number of targets Sunday night, including Hamas vessels and posts. The Naval Forces reported direct hits."
see: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Its verified... then can we change it to 2008 Gaza strikes? In fact, most reliable sources are headlining this in their articles already. BTW, I think Ynet is of a lesser quality than Haaretz, because it tend to be tabloidy and gossipy (as is its parent newspaper, a sensationalistic rag if I have seen any - if you are ISraeli you know what I mean), but it is a reliable source. That is not the issue. Verifiability has to happen no matter how reliable a source, in particular in controversial articles. We are requiredto do it.
BTW, the same gossipy nature of YNET makes it a great predictor of whats to come (part of its salacious views on news). It seems there will be ground excursions [8]. I am guessing this will be called an "invasion" if history teaches anything. So maybe 2008 Gaza invasion will happen? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"Strikes" is porbably more accurate than "airstrikes" even though I can't support both, as they indicate a completly one-sided action, while in our case fire is being shot in both directions. My view is that "battle", "war" or even "campaign" are better. Putting that aside for the moment, I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable source by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked.-- Omrim ( talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"What measures the quality of a reliable source is the amount of verifiability other reliable sources give to that source."
What this actually means is, if something isn't published my a source backed by the money of a large Western corporation or a Western capitalist government, it is summarily dismissed if it expresses political views opposed to any interest of the former. This is precisely where Wikipedia's usefulness stops. It is simply the echo chamber of the global Spectacle. So if any of you suckers want to change a thing in this world, get out on the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 ( talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think 89.242.239.167's is a situationist perspective, no? Valid point though Al Jazeera has challenged it to some extent. (unsigned user)
...deleted CSS "art"...
See, I can troll too, except I do it better: War is peace, We have always been at war with Eurasia Eastasia. Smoke a Victory. Welcome to the Party. Now, if you think Wikipedia changes the world, LOL. It doesn't. It can help document it tho. No theory, no praxis... --
Cerejota (
talk)
02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The figure that the UN is quoting as being the number of civilian casualties, currently 62, is only women and children, not including any civilian adult males, from bbc; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7803711.stm:
I think that should be noted where civilian casualties are given. Any objections? Nableezy ( talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also on civilian casualties, the infobox noted the UN had counted 62 of them but was sourced with this [9] BBC story using the figure 57. I changed the figure in the box to conform to its source but it has since been changed back. A figure has to be the same as the source which supports it. It is dishonest on our part to do otherwise. If there is a good source on 62 could that be used instead? Otherwise it should be 57 or at least leave it unsourced. Thanks. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Calmofthestorm7 ( talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The source provided above in the first post of this sections reports that the UN claims 62 women/children. Nableezy ( talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also the source used in 'The large majority of deaths and injuries have been Hamas operatives.[19]' in the lead says 62 women/children, and nowhere does it currently say the large majority have been Hamas operatives. That claim needs another source or it should be removed. Nableezy ( talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It does say that 'Israel has stressed that most of the deaths and injuries were Hamas fighters and says it's careful to avoid harm to bystanders.' But this claim has to be preceded by Israel {says, claims, asserts, stressed, whatever} instead of presenting it as fact as the article being referenced does not. Nableezy ( talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the source. I didn't mean to step into your more general discussion -- I had just come to the article to read about that issued and noticed the article disagreed with the source. My opinion on your more general point is that you should include the explanation in the casualties section and I'd have the infobox read "more than 62" for now. That number is going to change anyway as the conflict continues and the numbers become better understood. Thanks. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) User:WanderSage has reverted the number of dead women and children back to civilians. The sources explicitly do not say civilian, they say women and children, so yes that counts women who are potentially 'militants' and does not count men that are civilians. But we cannot change what the sources say on this point. Is there anybody out there who objects to citing the wording of women and children for the released UN figure as of now, or is there any reason we should be misrepresenting the source and the UN? Unless somebody objects relatively soon I will be changing the wording back. Nableezy ( talk) 08:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Please change all casualty counts to indicate that "civilian" counts do not include male deaths. This is well documented but is not reflected in the current page. Specifically the infobox claims that ~25% are civilians (figure from the UN, does not include men) and then extrapolates that ~75% are members of the security forces, police etc and sites some NY times article that says nothing of the sort. This is clearly wrong. No one has released a total count of civilian deaths that include men. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, which the UN cited at least once for its death count (on 12/28 see UN document: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2008_12_28_english.pdf see AMCHR source: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/press_room/press_detail.php?id=919) publishes death counts daily but only states TOTAL, and WOMEN AND CHILDREN counts. The only exception is the 12/28 release which states 20 women, 9 children and 60 civilians were killed that day. It is unclear if the civilian count there is additional civilians or includes the women in children. In any case the count on 1/3 by AMCHR has 363 total dead, 77 women and children. The women and children casualties represent 21% of the dead in their estimates, close to the UN's claim that ~25% of the dead are "civilians." Clearly, male civilians are NOT being counted in any death count so this needs to be CLEARLY stated every time a death count refering to "civilian" deaths is refenced. Please make the necessary changes and monitor to make sure they remain.
Daily death counts can be found in at least two places: 1. Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/index.php 2. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection§ion_id=97&static=0&format=html
AMCHR is consistently lower then OCHA. The recent figure of >400 deaths that the UN is citing (as of 1/3/09) is from the Ministry of Health in Gaza (see: http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_situation_report_2009_01_03_english.pdf).
Thrylos000 ( talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a fog of war inherent to the process, casualty figures are inherently vague. I suggest that if sources contradict themselves, we use all figures as a range. As time goes by, figures would become solid. As long as we source, we will be doing our readers a service. W ejust have to keep updating it with new info. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
proposed options/local table of contents: #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_strikes - #Operation_Cast_Lead - #December_2008_Gaza_Strip_conflict
December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip strikes — Reliable sources overwhelmingly support this option in their headlines, current title incorrect because there is now a naval component — Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → Operation Cast Lead — It is the name of the Operation given by the IDF (someone who supports please elaborate a position, and take out my signature, please — Cerejota ( talk) 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.Wow, that was bad English and poorly written. Sorry guys, it's late. Can barely type. :D Wikifan12345 ( talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
frankly, i hadn't heard either term and the obvious title will be Gaza attack or Gaza invasion with the date. Untwirl ( talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol. This is the 3rd time Cerejota has done non-wikipedia-certified name change game. REMEMBER, He is the one who UNILATERALLY changed the title from its original state (OPERATION CAST LEAD), thereby abusing his administrative privileges, and then telling us it was not neutral. This, of course, after more than 7 users debated through 12 paragraphs about the title. Was Cerejota a member of this debate? NO! Unfortunately, this article's talk page exploded way too fast to keep up with Cerejota's blatant abuse of powers. Maybe when this dies down it will catch up with him...I don't know. Just wait, he's gonna response with some wiki rule like don't soap box, chill out, or my favorite, "thanks!". Psh. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 08:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not participating in this waste of time. We already had a discussion above. Your position was defeated. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Some users have raised concern with the time limit, while other users in the previous discussion raised a need for urgency (mind you, users who have raised a sense of urgency are from all sides). Should we eliminate the suggested time limit? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, there is currently an investigation of Cerejota's admin abuses somewhere on on wikipedia. It's in the archive, I don't know what the exact link is though Lol. This entire thing is a sham. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin but I am under most objective criteria are a he :D.
As to there being an investigation, this is not true the only people who do that can be called investigations are WP:SOCK investigations and ArbCom, and there is no process going on either that I know of that involves me (I suggest you read WP:BURO and WP:DISPUTE).
What we are doing its called "dispute resolution", not an investigation, in which we get a fresh set of eyes, in particular admins, so they can opine. So far, no uninvolved admins have spoken, but it doesn't mean they won't - however this in general means that while they might find I acted in error, this error is nothing we cannot fix as a community of editors, without having to call upon "higher authorities" to intervene. And while I certainly asked (and continue to ask) you cut the drama, I did in fact explain, at great length, explain my motives when questioned about them. So much that you have expressed exasperation with the length and frequency of my explanations!
So I don't understand why you insist in denying that I did, or that I simply asked you to chill. Please, if you are going to say I did something, contextualize it. Otherwise, expect that I will do it for you.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes → December 2008 Gaza Strip conflict — I feel that this title would solve both of the problems with the current one - the fact that Hamas is shooting back, and the fact that naval forces (possibly also ground troops in future) are involved, not just aircraft. Cynical ( talk) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.* Support - Second best option after "Operation Cast Lead" which have no chance to become a consensus. Sometimes--
Omrim (
talk) 12:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) we must resort to second best options...
* Support - There are two sides to this. The current name biases the article from the get-go.
okedem (
talk)
13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As this article discusses a two-way conflict, provided this extends past midnight (local time), and given "Israel" is a key element in this conflict. -- tariqabjotu 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.
"Assault on Gaza" gets over 1,500 hits in Google news [14], vastly outnumbering any of the other options listed here. Tiamut talk 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any arguments against using the most common name, as attested to by a search of news sources? Tiamut talk 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Taimut, what search methodology did you use? As I showed early on in these debates, how your search in Google News affects the numbers of hits and the relevancy of the material. Someone suggested that "operation cast lead" had thousands of hits. But this was quickly shown not to be the case: most of the hits were not relevant and related to casting lead actors for movies and theater: the person in question didn't use quote marks. So please let us know what method of google search you used.
Now you assert, without evidence, that "Assault on Gaza" is "the most common name". While this assertion can easely contested by reading th source material used as references in this article, most of which do not use this formulation neither in their header nor in their contents, it would be unfair to you not to use Google News hits as counter-evidence.
I will use two methodologies. One would be the term in quotes, with the date limited to the last week (since Dec. 25) in order to weed out articles on previous events. I will also do a "headline" only search. When the results come up, I will read the first page to ensure they are all about the topic and relevant.
Some others:
That said, I have stated that this thing about counting sources, instead of reading them, is a bad excercise. The process of verifiability requires we compare sources, which we can only do by reading them. We do not do this when we do quantitative analysis of hits in Google News.
Google News also has different standard than we do: it includes news blogs, news aggregators, and blatantly partisan sources - what we call fringe or extremist reliable sources, that should only be used when speaking about themselves, or when talking about them. It is a good tool to find sources, but it isn't a good tool to do quantitative analysis for Wikipedia WP:V puposes. For that, we read the sources themselves, and discuss amongst ourselves to reach consensus.
That said, if you insist we google test the title, "Assault" loses to conflict in the "headline" category, which is what the article name is about. Sorry, but your argument is not compelling in itself, but even if we find it compelling, the math still doesn't fit your view. This is why I oppose this title as a possible title. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Photos show the Israel usage of cluster bombs against Palestinian targets in Gaza. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.34.110 ( talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)