Wikipedia

Talk:2012 Gaza War/Archive 4

< Talk:2012 Gaza War
Latest comment: 11 years ago by PerDaniel in topic Misrepresentation of sources...again
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

intro paragraph changes

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have some problems with this edit and this edit. I do think the idea of consolidation is a good one, but only if we stick to what the sources actually say. In the next hour or two, I'll be rewriting the paragraph again in a way that consolidates the information but does so in a way that sticks to what the sources say. My problems with this edit as it stood:

  1. It condensed the series of estimates to just "approximately 160." This is true of most of the estimates, and it's totally plausible to me that most of the estimates I quoted were just slightly different versions of the same figure. However, the IDF estimated 177 deaths, not 160. For some reason, the edited paragraph includes the IDF estimate as the upper bound on the number of militants killed (120) but doesn't include the IDF estimate on the number of people killed (which was 177, and would serve as the upper bound.)
  2. It removed information about the number of displaced families. I believe this is significant information and see no reason to remove it.
  3. The second edit changed my original phrasing of "dozens of houses and apartment blocks" to read "homes of individual militants." This is a significant difference. The source cited for this fact doesn't say that the "homes of individual militants" were struck, it says that "Dozens of houses and apartment blocks, including one in which nine members of the same family were killed" were among the targets hit.
  4. I'm also going to change "targeted" back to "struck," because the source uses the word "struck," and their meaning are not identical.

I have a meeting coming up, so it may take me a couple hours to make these changes, but I'll be making them today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The majority of the Casualties section deals with tactics and parts of the allegations of war crimes section seems to spillover in that direction as well, any suggestions? Also speaking of spillover, I don't think that those incidents in the spillover section are notable to the operation, so they need to be covered in such great detail, may be they can be summed up. --Mor2 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

more on bus bombing

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current version of the lede reads "A bus in Tel Aviv was bombed by an Arab-Israeli, physically injuring ten civilians and causing an additional eighteen to seek treatment for anxiety.[53] Hamas' political leader, Khaled Meshaal, denied that Hamas was responsible for the bombing, but stated that he believed the bombing was in direct response to the violence in Gaza." However, a far stronger link between hamas and the bombing was widely reported. Specifically, it was reported that the bombing received an immediate "blessing" from hamas. The current version of the lede misrepresents the position of hamas leadership with regard to this bombing. The lede should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the true position of hamas, which has not only failed to protect civilians, but has actively pursued indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Tkuvho (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of Palestine

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 be mentioned as notable part of the aftermath? --93.136.46.62 (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it directly related to this operation? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The General Assembly vote was planned and scheduled many months before the war. The sources do not link these two events. Marokwitz (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
According to http://www.idag.no/aktuelt-oppslag.php3?ID=21862 several countries changed changed their position shortly before the voting. It does not give any reason for the change of mind. PerDaniel (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I found an article that stated "But it's hard to see their decision as being independent of Operation Pillar of Defence" about the vote the day before it took place: http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/4743-france-pushes-for-palestinian-statehood-at-the-un This links the two events. PerDaniel (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-government reactions and other matters

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

User:Marokwitz has accused me of disruptive editing. Users are invited to have a look on the editing history of the article: he has removed the statement Palestinian Centre for Human Rights did on the hostilities from the section about NGO reactions, he reverted additions on the previously laconic HRW sub-section and he took advantage of mentions to Electronic Intifada's work to also remove some content that doesn't even link to the EI page but to that of Ma'an News, the independent Palestinian website -- and he hid all that from the summary he made about his edit. Guinsberg (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli Army, J Street, and other Israel advocacy groups are not considered WP:RS for facts without attribution. The same is true for Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Electronic Intifada blog. Those are not reliable sources for anything but their own opinion.

Now some questions to you:

  1. Are you denying evading the 1RR policy on this article by using an IP sockpuppet 186.212.115.204?
  2. Are you denying removing a reliably sourced sentence " Al-Dalu was a member of the Hamas police unit charged with protecting important people", which is backed word by word by the cited reliable source? Removing reliably sourced, verifiable material is considered disruptive editing.
  3. Are you denying removing "Clarify" tags twice, in clear violation of the 1RR rule?
  4. Are you seriously claiming that "The Electronic Intifada" is a reliable source for unattributed facts about the IDF?
  5. Are you denying removing the words "despite Hamas' illegal conduct" even though they appear clearly in the cited source, thereby distorting the meaning of B'Tselem's statement to appear more forgiving towards Hamas?
  6. Are you denying adding a fact "Gazan farmers have also come under fire of Israeli forces", while the source actually says "Palestinian farmers said Israeli forces opened fire Tuesday while they harvested olives near the border in Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip, while Israel said it had no record of the incident. "

By your actions you are demonstrating bias and disregard for Wikipedia's core policies. Be warned, this behavior will get you blocked. Especially since you have been warned so many times about the 1RR policy and sockpuppetry. Marokwitz (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I've not been using my own computer for over a week, I don't automatically log on with a registered account on Wikipedia. When I realize that I have edited an entry where controversy is occurring with an anonymous account, I do make a point to call other users' attention to that. You know that because that was just what I did on the Talk Page of the "Al-Dalu family killing" article. Plus, when I removed your POV edit on Mohamed al-Dalu, I was not violating any 1RR regulation; therefore, I didn't even have a reason to use a sockpuppet account to revert that edit. And if I did, and had the intention of being deceptive about it, I wouldn't have logged on with this account to make over a dozen edits in the next few minutes following that of the "sockpuppet". Are you done trying to muddle my character already?
Mind you, the "Hamas police" phrase is found nowhere on the article that you linked to. That is a controversial, perhaps even POV expression, and we already discussed that on the al-Dalu article. Since you didn'r reply to my argument, I assumed you didn't have any objections to it. Plus, the fact that Mohamed al-Dalu was a police officer -- mind you, a Gazan police officer, not Hamas officer -- had already been mentioned before.
IDF Blog posts have been used as source for content all over this entry. About the Electronic Intifada claim that you reference, anyone can look up the IDF video. Why don't you show us that the video is still there, if you don't like the EI claim that it was removed?
And finally, about the Gazan farmers, two articles were used as references for the claim that they have been under fire by Israeli forces. The other one that you didn't mention, that of the HRW, states in no ambiguous terms that Palestinian farmers indeed come under attack with live ammunition by the IDF.
Now that you're done diverting attention from your own disruptive editing, tell us why did you remove the PCHR statement on the "Non-government reaction" section? Why did you edit out the properly sourced HRW content which called on the IDF to not fire at Gazan fishermen and farmers? And why did you fail to mention any of that, including the removal of Ma'an News Agency content, from your self-serving summary?
By your actions you are demonstrating bias and disregard for Wikipedia's core policies. Be warned, this behavior will get you blocked. Guinsberg (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The cited article states clearly as a fact "Mohammed Jamal al-Dallu, 29, a member of the Hamas police unit charged with protecting important people". Please apologize for saying "the "Hamas police" phrase is found nowhere on the article that you linked to." I would hate to report you for constant edit warring and 1RR violations, but it seems you are leaving me no choice. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Just checked article, and you're right. That is, nonetheless, a controversial term, as has already been argued, including with the aid of RSs. I'm still waiting for you to respond to the rest of my questions, including about removal of properly sourced content and your failure to mention that on your summary. As for reporting me over edit warring, I'm not going to bow down to innuendo and threats, and if you think you'll have power over me by doing this, you're mistaken. Do as you please, boy. Guinsberg (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

About yout little tag ([unbalanced opinion?]) about reports of IDF attacks on Palestinian farmers, I fail to see how it applies since HR groups like HRW (just see references) support the claims. Guinsberg (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Marokwitz: Why are you comparing the reliability of PCHR with IDF and blogs? You are misrepresenting the source by stating IDF's claims that "Al-Dalu was a member of the Hamas police unit charged with protecting important people" as facts. Why are you doing this when you stated that the IDF isn't a reliable source? You also removed the source http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=529397 without any explanation. I can understand that it is easy to get confused when you are making changes in 46 different sections at a time, but it can easily be interpreted as trying to hide edits in a wall of text. PerDaniel (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
He was right about the al-Dalu quote, though I still think that this controversial, disputed term should be avoided. About all of the rest of his edits, he has yet to give an answer, though. He'd rather threaten me with a Wikipedia block. As for the PCHR, he calls it an "advocacy group", even though it is actually a Human Rights watchdog. (It tells quite a bit about Israel that, for some of its defenders, standing up for Palestinian rights means the same as advocating against Israel. Guinsberg (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
PerDaniel, read again. It is not a claim by IDF. I give no credibility to claims by IDF, Hamas, Electronic Intifada and so on, especially in such controversial topics they are not reliable sources for anything but their own opinions and statements. Regarding the Ma'an article, read it carefully and see how Guinberg used the source very selectively, along with another directly involved source (a human rights activist group), very selectively in order to insert bias into the article. This removal was not a mistake, and was totally compliant with WP:V. We must not allow such behavior.
Guinsberg, I am still waiting for a formal apology, since this was not a "POV edit", as always I have been one hundred percent faithful to what reliable sources say, and I expect you to man up and admit that. You, on the other hand, are changing reliably sourced facts that you don't like, introducing grossly non-reliable sources as the source for unattributed facts, and distorting reliable sources by cherry picking only the parts that suit your agenda and ignoring others. As people familiar with my edits know I am *always* strictly fair and accurate when voting and editing, but your blatant POV pushing is forcing me to work hard repairing the damage you are making to the article and restoring the balanced point of view, and this is very hard to do while complying to the 1RR rule (which apparently you don't care much about). I hate having to do this. If you are not able to distance yourself from the topic and comply with Wikipedia policies, PLEASE STOP. Marokwitz (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Apology for what? It was already recognized that a mistake was made. That is all you're going to have. Wikipedia doesn't call on me to cry at your feet. Stop trying to make a war of egos out of this and grow the fuck up.
As for my use of sources, you have yet to show how any of the things written there were employed selectively. It's to easy to say -- prove it instead. HRW did say that Israel's forces have attacked Palestinian farmers in Gaza with live fire ammunition, and this has been reported on many places (one old-ish example). This all reminds me of that time you told the al-Dalu article was so imbalanced, but your sole contribution to it, when you had the opportunity to edit it, was to remove the brief NYT controversy section.
And I'm still waiting on you to explain all those edits -- your removal of the PCHR statement on the Non-government section and severe reduction of HRW content -- and why did you not mention any of this on the summary. If you had been honest about your edits, none of this would have happened. Guinsberg (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Marokwitz: After reading the source again, it seems like I might have misunderstood, and that the claim is by Al-Ahram. As they don't mention a source for the claim it comes down to the reliability of the newspaper. You claim that it is a reliable source, but when I looked at its recent history it doesn't look very reliable. They were the source of that famous photoshopped picture of Obama, Mubarak and other leaders two years ago. Calling a human rights group directly involved in the conflict is completely ridiculous. The PCHR is a reliable source. PerDaniel (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Marokwitz's edits are sorely needed to restore balance in this article, as for example in this edit where Betzelem's position was represented as precisely the opposite of what it actually was, until User:Marokwitz restored balance. These efforts should be appreciated. I would support administrative action against 1R violations because unfortunately tendentious edits seem to be a veritable plague on this page. Tkuvho (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In all honesty, I see no difference between the Betselem position in the comparison. In the second column, the points are expanded upon, that's the only difference I see. Guinsberg (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In the left column, Hamas is not mentioned at all, and all the blame is placed on Israel. This misrepresents Betzelem's position. In the right column following User:Marokwitz's edit, Betzelem is reported as squarely condemning Hamas targeting of civilians, and also as appealing to Israel to be careful in this area inspite of the circumstances. But then again we already know that lying is another weapon among others for Hamas and its supports, so the "all honesty" term needs to be interpreted accordingly. Tkuvho (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you read the source: http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20121115_gaza_operation ? 80% of the source is criticism of Israels conduct during the conflict in Gaza four years ago and demands that Israel follows international humanitarian law this time. By carefully cherrypicking from the source User:Marokwitz managed to give the impression that 80% is criticism of Hamas. Calling that "restoring the balance" just shows how severely biased you are. PerDaniel (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
@User:PerDaniel: I was not involved in editing the Betzelem section of the article. My last comment was prompted by User:Guinsberg's claim that there was "no difference" between the descriptions of the Betzelem position before and after User:Marokwitz's edits. This is clearly inaccurate, as I documented above. I do not wish at this time to get into a discussion of the Betzelem source. However, I will observe that, if as you claim, 80% the source is dedicated to a conflict that took place 4 years ago, those 80% are mostly irrelevant to this page, which is dedicated to events that took place last month. I reiterate that I was not at all involved in the editing of the section on the Betzelem report. Therefore your allegations of "bias" and "misrepresentation of sources" on my part are absurd, or more precisely consistent with the use of information by Hamas and its supporters as I already analyzed above. Tkuvho (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
@User:Tkuvho I never claimed that you edited the section on the B'Tselem report. By the way, why are you insisting on calling the organization "Betzelem"? That editing was clearly done by User:Marokwitz. The reason I called you biased was that you claimed that his edits was "restoring the balance". This was abundantly clear from my comment above. Please try to read and understand comments before you reply to them. You claim that 80% of the article is irrelevant, because it is about the conflict four years ago. This shows that you can't have the article thoroughly. It is true that there is a big part that is about the errors Israel did four years ago, when 700 civilians were killed, but the part where they implore Israel to not make the same mistakes this time is at least as large. When you wrote: "Therefore your allegations of "bias" and "misrepresentation of sources" on my part are absurd, or more precisely consistent with the use of information by Hamas and its supporters as I already analyzed above." are you referring to your claim that "But then again we already know that lying is another weapon among others for Hamas and its supports, so the "all honesty" term needs to be interpreted accordingly."? That would be a violation of WP:CIVIL, so I hope that I have misunderstood you. PerDaniel (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Israeli arab recruited by Hamas and Islamic Jihad

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Following the bus bombing in Tel Aviv there were reports that the perpetrator was recruited by Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad. I have a very slow connection making it very hard to look for sources. Can someone try to look up a source for this? Tkuvho (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources virtually all say he belonged to a group based in the West Bank "with links to Hamas and Islamic Jihad" so that rules out being "recruited" by Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Having a link can be said of any Palestinian group. Hamas have denied any connection to the group which as far as I know is still un-named. Wayne (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. If this is accurate, we should make it clear in the lede (or elsewhere) that the Israeli Arab in question was not acting alone, as the current lede seems to suggest. Can you cite a specific reliable source that connects him to a group outside Israel? Tkuvho (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Reprotect?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A couple of anonymous editors have been removing "Occupied territories" and replacing it with "Gaza Strip" ignoring both that the conflict has spilled over to other parts and that the UN is considering Gaza as an occupied territory. I have already undone their edits once, and can't do it again for another 24 hours. Is it possible to protect the article again? PerDaniel (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that describes Gaza as "occupied territories"? My impression was that Israel withdrew to internationally recognized boundaries when Sharon was prime minister. If so, your revert was inappropriate, and was correctly undone. Tkuvho (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
For the same reason, it may be inappropiate to link Hamad's comments in the lede to our page on the territories, so as not to endorse Hamad's apparent position that Gaza is "occupied territories", which seems to be contrary to fact, and consistent with the use of information by Hamas and its supporters as I commented above. Tkuvho (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
According to Amnesty, HRW, the UN and the US State Department Gaza is occupied by Israel: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/07/05/human-rights-council-special-session-occupied-palestinian-territories-july-6-2006 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza.occupation.question/index.html Is that enough reliable sources for you? PerDaniel (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Occupied territories?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Some users insist in describing Gaza as "occupied territories". User:PerDaniel cites as a source a CNN article from 3 years ago that mentions an (unnamed) U.S. government Web sites also describe Gaza as "occupied." This seems flimsy evidence. It would be helpful to have some input from other editors. Do you agree to using the term "occupied territories" to describe Gaza in the article?

Your description is not correct. As anyone can see above I gave 3 links to sources that described Gaza as occupied. 1 to Amnesty, 1 to Human Rights Watch and 1 to a CNN article that said that the UN and the US state department considered it an occupied territory. This "vote" is pointless, it doesn't matter what you or I think about whether Gaza is occupied or not: WP:DEM. We have to go by what the reliable sources say, so unless you can find reliable sources that outweighs the Amnesty International, Humans Rights Watch, the United Nations and the US State Department, we must describe Gaza as an occupied territory. If you think that my sources above are to old, here is a link to the current travel advice by the US state department: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1064.html which says: "...the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza...".PerDaniel (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The question was whatever US see the gaza strip as occupied?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
From the entry for Israel in the same version of the CIA factbook: "West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation" (bolding by me). [2]. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it turns out that applying the term "occupied territory" is subject to dispute, we should avoid linking Hamad's comment to the wiki article so as to avoid endorsing one of the sides of such a dispute. Tkuvho (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Placing such a wiki-link in Hamad's quoted comment is not needed, agreed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. West Bank and Gaza Strip [and Golan Heights] are Israeli-occupied per CIA Factbook last updated November 20, 2012. "Occupied territories" should be the terminology used when referring to the West Bank and Gaza strip collectively. If mentioned individually, the actual names should be used unless it is in the context of a comment. Not using the term when it is appropriate to do so innapropriately endorses Israel's claim they are not. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
@User:WLRoss. You mentioned that when the regions "are mentioned individually, the actual names should be used". Note that Hamad is referring specifically to Gaza, and yet calling it "occupied territories". Therefore Hamad does not abide by the conventions that you outlined above. In fact, most editors in this space also seem to think it is inappropriate to refer to Gaza as "occupied territories". Therefore linking Hamad's comment to our page on "occupied territories" amounts to endorsing Hamad's viewpoint which is rejected by objective observers. It seems to me wiki should avoid endorsing Hamad's spin on the situation. Tkuvho (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Who are the objective observers that do not believe in the occupied territories? Wayne (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree I have included the term Palestinian territories in the meantime although this can be tweaked I do not feel we should use the term occupied to describe them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Size split?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split starting with "Reactions". Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DONE.  Y --GHcool (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Israel vandalism

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User Plot Spoiler has just engaged in an exercise of what he might deem creative destruction. Under the excuse that unreliable sources were used on parts of the entry that he didn't write -- even though many such sources were used for opinion, not facts -- he removed major parts of the text, including those that linked to def. reliable sources (Al Jazeera and The Guardian, for example). Since I can't revert his vandalism without violating 1RR, I removed all content that linked to pro-Israel websites that were not RS (from IDF websites to Zionist watchdogs). If Article Spoiler's acts aren't against Wikipedia regulations, neither are mine.Guinsberg (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH and WP:POINT? Inkbug (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Prior to some edits I made, this article had many references to Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss, both highly partisan activist websites. These sites do not qualify as WP:reliable sources and should therefore not be present in the article. Furthermore, this article is long enough to do without these non-notable opinions, which often express controversial if not fringe opinions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that even sources that are not deemed reliable can be used as sources about themselves according to WP:SELFSOURCE? The material that you removed in this edit: http://Operation_Pillar_of_Defense&diff=528906051&oldid=528905925 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Pillar_of_Defense&diff=528906051&oldid=528905925 was exactly about the organization itself, and is therefore admissable. PerDaniel (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

: Since most take parts between two parties that are highly polarized, all opinions will be seen as controversial. Israeli accusation of human shield use by Hamas is a good example of some such controversial allegation, so why not remove it when it is not found on Reliable Sources? And I fail to see how your post addresses the concerns that PerDaniel expressed on your Talk Page. In certain occasions, Wikipedia provides for inclusion of material, even if partisan, provided they're not used as a source for facts. BilalSaleh (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Ankh.Morpork 17:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name (everything about the article name goes here)

Latest comment: 11 years ago231 comments71 people in discussion

Occupied vs Gaza Strip

Several users have claimed that the conflict occured in Israel and in the "'Occupied' Palestinian territories". I believe the term "occupied" is unnecessary and biased. The Gaza Strip has been under Hamas control since it seized the territory in 2007. Israel and the Palestinians recognize the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

The UN considers the Gaza strip to be an occupied territory. PerDaniel (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Most countries accept the UN's definition, but it is still unnecessary, unless one either wants to make a political point, or needs to distinguish Palestinian territories in (say) Jordan and Syria as "unoccupied". Ketil (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of operation

Why have some sources translated Amud Annan as a pillar of defence? Is this a mistake? Ankh.Morpork 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The IDF Official uses the name. Poliocretes (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm a Hebrew native speaker, and yes it means (lit.) Pillar of Cloud (עמוד ענן). In some Israeli news outlets it was translated "Pillar of Cloud" [3] and some as "pillar of defence"[4] [5]. However, both are mentioned at the begging of the article. And since the IDF website uses the term, as Poliocretes mentioned it should be "Pillar of Cloud". --Midrashah (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems the official Hebrew name of the operation is עמוד ענן (Pillar of Cloud literally). However, the English name is "Pillar of Defense" as used by IDF (on twitter for example: https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson). I'd support a move to "Operation Pillar of Defense". Merrybrit (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. The only real meaning of "anan" in Hebrew is cloud. On the other hand, English-language Israeli media are using Pillar of Defense.[6][7] --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This should really be moved to Pillar of Defense. Remember that we use the most common English name, not the English translation of the most common foreign language name. This press release from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "Pillar of Defense". So does the New York Times, [Israel Today, and many other US and Israeli news agencies. A google search for Operation Pillar of Defense yields 14.5 million results and a similar one for Operation Pillar of Cloud yields 3.59 million. (Take the google search results with a grain of salt, but I still think there's enough to change the title). Ryan Vesey 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should wikipedia subdue to Israeli war propaganda? It is obvious why they use word defense instead of cloud when doing PR with Western media. The proper name is Pillar of cloud. The purpose of the name is to evoke fear and destruction - a smoking pile of ruins. Also it is a could which guides the Jewish people so the semantic purpose behind this is that bombing residential areas somehow expresses Jewish beliefs and people so that people of Israel could identify themselves with it. Defense was included to make the operation look as if it was defense and mitigate religious aspects of the name when presented internationally. of course that google search acommodated to the new PR name because all Western media did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.137 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IDF has a strong affection to naming stuff using the bible, the cloud pillar has nothing to do with destruction, it's a guidance thing, something large enough for everyone to see and follow. (one of them silly bible tales about god and the desert and what not)
So with your propaganda aside I still suggest using the name "Pillar of cloud" it sounds nicer than the meaningless english name.79.180.142.201 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, that in choosing the Israeli military's nomenclature, Wikipedia is taking sides due to Israeli nomenclature. It should be renamed something like "2012 Gaza conflict"; more importantly it shoud STOP. Boleslaw (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)db

Agree. This might be irrelevant, but in Germany the operation has been translated as "Pillar of Cloud", which sounds more neutral in my opinion. Simply taking over the formulation published by the Israeli armed forces is what I would identify as politically biased. I do not want to be polemic, but based on this argumentation we might as well replace the names of some genocides by the ones the murdering forces picked for the respective operations, like replacing "Holocaust" with "Final Solution", which would undoubtedly be highly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.52.79 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~Asarlaí 23:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


Operation Pillar of Cloud → Operation Pillar of Defense – (Copied from my comment above)
We use the most common English name, not the English translation of the most common foreign language name. This press release from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses "Pillar of Defense". So does the New York Times, [Israel Today, and many other US and Israeli news agencies. A google search for Operation Pillar of Defense yields 14.5 million results and a similar one for Operation Pillar of Cloud yields 3.59 million. (Take the google search results with a grain of salt, but I still think there's enough to change the title). Ryan Vesey 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the official name Pillar of Cloud in Hebrew ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but per WP:COMMONNAME we use the common name in English language sources. The official name in Hebrew doesn't matter. The article would mention the Hebrew name and the English translation for that, but the title should be the English name. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of official sources (scroll above to view) are using Pillar of Cloud, as per the official name of the operation. That is to say: It is not just the quantity of sources, but the quality. Unflavoured (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Only consider the name(s) used by official sources. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, Google News generates far more results for "Gaza offensive" [10]. Perhaps, per WP:commonname, after this move, we move the article to 2012 Gaza offensive? Not all operation articles need to have official names. See Normandy landings. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Operation Pillar of Defense" seems like the most appropriate title. I suggest that this move take place shortly rather than wait the 7 days. It appears to be an uncontroversial move to a more accurate title. Seen as this is a massive story it should not be at the wrong name for days. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Futuretrillionaire: Should be named 2012 Gaza offensive. Many RS reports on the topic do not mention the official name the Israelis have given the offensive. Dlv999 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's probably better to do one move at a time, the current title is clearly not a good one. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose that proposed title. This is a situation involving attacks on Israel too not just Gaza, so the "Gaza offensive" is not an all encompassing title either. Also 2012 Gaza Conflict would be more neutral and probably the most widely used of those two proposals. We should make the basic move of this article to the correct official title of the operation.. which appears to have support. Then immediately start a full discussion on a wider change of the article title/scope. If we did make this current proposed move (to defense rather than cloud, i do totally agree that it should not be seen as justification for no additional move to a wider title afterwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support that is a more neutral title than the current one --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with 'Assault on Gaza'? There are various names circulating in Palestinian circles, of which that is the most neutral. I see no reason to use on side's nomenclature over the other's. --130.88.99.220 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The name is dependent on how we frame the article as a whole. What is our frame of reference? If we mean to say that the assassination of Jabari is the beginning of this conflict, then the military operation is probably appropriate as a name, in which case it should match the most common English name in secondary sources (Operation Pillar of Defense). However, if we want to place it in a larger context of recent exchange of fire, we could expand the time frame all the way into October (see background section in article). At that point, we'd have to make it something like "October–November 2012 Gaza Conflict." We will probably have to wait a little while to see what actually happens with this conflict, and if a larger time scale is appropriate. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
We could take it back months and months, because the conflict between Israel and Gaza is constant. But that would be silly. We alredy hav' two articles about the constant tit-for-tat between Israel and Gaza. It's better to hav' a focused article about a particular military operation than an unfocused one about months and months of tit-for-tat. ~Asarlaí 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand. My point is that our frame of reference for the title must also match up with what's in the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In regards to anything related to Gaza offensive and assault on Gaza and similar things. I haven't seen any reliable sources referring to the name of this as the Gaza offensive. It is a Gaza offensive so it is likely that there will be many sources talking about the Gaza offensive; however WP:COMMONNAME doesn't tell us to use the most common description of the subject, it tells us to use the most common name. A similar thing would be President Clinton. His official name is William Clinton, his common name is Bill Clinton, but he is also commonly referred to as President Clinton. We use Bill Clinton because it is the most common term used to name him. (Note that this is my interpretation and I'm certainly open to someone's point if they feel mine is wrong). Ryan Vesey 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To add a little bit of support to my statement that Gaza offensive is used as a reference not as a name, note this Reuters article. It refers to it as the "Gaza offensive" (note that offensive is lowercase so it is not a title) it also mentions that it was Operation Pillar of Defense. A blog from Foreign Policy Magazine does the same. The Daily Beast refers to it as an Offensive in Gaza in the title of the article and uses the lowercased offensive when mentioning the operation in the article. This source, although it uses Pillar of Cloud rather than Pillar of Defense, uses the lowercased offensive. The Times uses lowercase offensive as does Haaretz (which also uses Pillar of Defense). Ryan Vesey 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - "Operation Pillar of Defense" is the one being used on the IDF website. It also gets more Google hits than both "Operation Pillar of Cloud" and "Gaza offensive" (remember to search from 14 November 2012 onward). I think we should avoid vague names like "Gaza offensive" or "Gaza conflict". Israel has launcht other offensives in Gaza this year. This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. Using the IDF name doesn't make us "pro-Israeli" (likewize, calling an article Operation Barbarossa or Operation Overlord doesn't mean we're taking sides) . ~Asarlaí 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree that the article has to be renamed to the Gaza offensive 2012 and why should the page be named with an israeli name, it would be better to rename it with a general name for the article.Alhanuty (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Why should the page be named with an Israeli name? Because otherwise we are making the name up. Reliable sources have referred to this as a Gaza offensive, they don't call this the Gaza Offensive. See my explanation above. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Your explanation is unconvincing because you only discuss one or two sources. You only mention sources that use both terms, but there are four times as many sources using the term "Gaza offensive"[11] than there are using "Operation Pillar of Defense"[12]. This shows that the majority of sources do not use the official Israeli term, thus it is not the common name, nor is it a neutral description of the article topic - so not a suitable name for the article. Also a lot of sources Dlv999 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean one or two sources? I mentioned 6 and a few of them didn't mention Pillar of anything. My point was that those using Gaza offensive is mentioned as a description not a name. I can take some time and explain 100 more if you want, but that is why Google search results don't work well. Has anyone produced a single source that refers to "Gaza Offensive" as the name of this? Ryan Vesey 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that "Gaza Offensive 2012" isn't a very useful name, but keep in mind that Operation Cast Lead ended up just being called the Gaza War. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Why has this topic been split into one article for each belligerent's operation? Surely that's going to create some serious overlap in scope. Where is the central article for this particular clash? Osiris (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify what other article you are referring to. Capscap (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's what I'm trying to work out. Is this the article for the actual clash – the event currently unfolding? Or is this article about the Israeli side of the operations? Because the page's title and introduction would suggest the latter, but the rest of the article is a mish-mash of scope (a lot of it seems to describe the outbreak of violence in general, not specifically the Israeli offensive). If the topic is split into one article for each belligerent's operation, then why are we using {{Infobox military conflict}} and not a {{Campaignbox}} template in this article. Why isn't there just an article describing this particular clash as a whole? Surely that's more manageable for the reader than having one article about the Israeli campaign and another about the Palestinian campaign. Osiris (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the IDF military operation that began on 14 November, and Hamas's response to that operation. The background section is just that: the background to the operation. ~Asarlaí 15:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Then does anyone here mind if we create another article where the whole event is covered (not just one belligerent's operation)? Something like "November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes" similar to other articles. Osiris (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I just explained that this article does cover the whole event. The event is an IDF military operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the Wehrmacht began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. That's all covered under Operation Barbarossa. ~Asarlaí 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but the IDF military operation is obviously in response to a bigger event yes? As you explained, the background – detailing the violence that leads up to it – is not part of this particular operation. The German invasion of the Soviet Union is widely known as Operation Barbarossa, but in this case – are they calling the wider events of November "Operation Pillar of Cloud/Defense" in the media? To use a similar set of examples, the Gaza War is not widely known by the codename for the Israeli offensive (Operation Cast Lead), and by having the article at Gaza War, the perspective and scope is broadened to include the entire event rather than fixing it on one belligerent's operation. Osiris (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: We seriously need to sort the title issue out because it is having effects on the article. An editor recently deleted material relevant to the background of the current out break of violence, claiming WP:SYNTH because the article did not mention the Israeli code name for its operation "Pillar of Defense".[13] This is absurd, because the majority of articles that are reporting on the topic do not specifically mention the Israeli code name; it is not the common name for the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, this move should definitely be made. It is the appropriate name in English and there is no reason for Wikipedia to just translate the Hebrew name to English - especially when the correct term is used across the world, in all respectable news agencies, etc. Itamarm10 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Israel chose to represent the title of this operation in one way in English and another in Hebrew - for a reason. "Pillar of Cloud" is a Biblical reference to divine wrath raining down on Egypt and would be offensive to many in the international community. See http://gawker.com/5960562/israel-names-its-new-war-after-biblical-story-about-god-terrorizing-egyptians Changing the original Hebrew title may introduce serious NPOV issues. "2012 Gaza offensive" or somesuch would be an acceptable compromise, but please keep in mind that "Pillar of Defense" is Israeli PR and an attempt to duck reaction to the name the operation is referred to domestically. Cjs2111 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Wikipedia policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Wikipedia. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name. On Hebrew wikipedia they can worry about the Hebrew name. Just like the name of our article on Bat Yam is Bat Yam, and not Daughter of the Sea or Mermaid. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: This is ENGLISH wikipedia and we are using ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources which use Pillar of Defense far more often. However, considering Interior Minister Eli Yishai state on the goal in Gaza: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years." it may take on quite another name by the time this is over. CarolMooreDC 05:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: This really seems to be more of a technical error. The debate here is misplaced and should be dealt with after. But on the topic of that debate, as of now, Pillar of Defense is the best title according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe it will come to be called something else in the aftermath, but currently, Pillar of Defense is the prevalent, common name. The fact that the alternative name varies for each person that opposed only supports this. Capscap (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's time we make the move. It's been three days and "Operation Pillar of Defense" is the most popular choice by far (17 for, 5 agenst). ~Asarlaí 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I feel strongly that using the "official" English name does not comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The fact that there are two official names, one in Hebrew and one in English, is not neutral, it is value-laden. To support one of these names would be complicit with a deliberate technique of double-meaning. It should not be named Operation Pillar of Defense, and there should be a section on the politics of the name. Mahosian (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.52.58 (talk)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV title

Note: in this thread, "support" means you support renaming the article and "oppose" means you think it should stay at "Operation Pillar of Defense".

Please choose a more neutral title, this reflects just the Israeli POV.--193.225.200.93 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about an Israeli military operation (and, obviously, Hamas's response to that operation). I don't see how it's POV to hav' the operation's name as the name of the article about the operation, especially when it's being widely used in the media (see WP:COMMONNAME). ~Asarlaí 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, i do not accept the current title is biased, however i support a change to the title to pillar of defense as is being debated above. After that requested move is resolved it will be a chance to discuss if there should be an additional requested move. This is certainly not the way to propose a change to the article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Who ever moved that new section on a change to the title up to this section has rather complicated this requested move. This is about a move to Operation Pillar of Defense. it is not appropriate for random additional non specific proposals to be made which people say they support. Lets deal with this current requested move, then start a wider requested move after this one has been resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I asked this in my question above, it certainly seems confusing for the reader to have the whole event covered under one of the belligerent's codenames. It'll be fine if and when the clash becomes commonly known by that name, but it doesn't appear to be. Osiris (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't think calling it 2012 Gaza War is a correct name change at this time. As it wouldn't be following WP:COMMONNAME. I second BritishWatcher's comment that we should handle the current requested move above, and start the wider move after that.
It shouldn't, because (1) Israel has made other attacks on Gaza this year and (2) that name ignores Gazan militant attacks on Israel. ~Asarlaí 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
One has to see the irony when someone complains about being serious on WP:NPOV then suggests an emotive word in the title like "attack" and a clearly one sided title. If we are going to change from going by the Israeli military operation title, it will need to be a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days. BritishWatcher (talk)
Asarlaí, your first point is a good one. I don't agree with your second one. Renaming it according to my suggestion is not ignoring the attacks from Gaza. But as over 90 % of the deaths have been on the palestinian side, that should be reflected in the name of the article. BritishWatcher, do you have any suggestions for "a title that clearly reflects both the situation in Gaza and Israel and the fact more things have happened in 2012 in this area than the the last few days", that are shorter than the article itself? PerDaniel (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Current name of the article is the name of the Israeli operation. This would be ok if article describes only this operation. However, this article describes conflict between some Gaza-based forces and Israel, not to mention that they have names for their involvement in this conflict too (Operation Sajil Stones and Operation Blue Sky). Therefore, it would be better to use an neutral name for this conflict, such as "2012 Gaza-Israel conflict" (which might become renamed "2012-2013 Gaza-Israel conflict" if it lasts long enough), or something better. Any thoughts? --93.139.191.200 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Gaza and Israel this year. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is about Pillar of Defense operation and this is the official name of the operation. Additionally unless you can come up with a better name, this not a move request, but complaining that you dont like the current name.--Mor2 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the German Army began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. Our article about it covers both sides and is named Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames. ~Asarlaí 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is the most common name and more specific than the alternatives. Plus, most of the alternatives offered have huge POV issues. A lot of the debate seems to result from the fact that Israel originally came up with and spread the name that is now commonly used, but it's not our job to judge the name based on where it originated. Capscap (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Suport: I fully agree with users Hillock65 and Nickyfsm, there is important precedent here, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. Whatever the name becomes, it cannot remain Operation Pillar of Defense. This makes Wikipedia complicit in linguistic war tactics. --Mahosian (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that this argument was already addressed:

    The commenter avove (Cjs2111) shows that he has a very weak understanding of Wikipedia policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Wikipedia. Pillar of Defense is the official ENGLISH name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited ENGLISH name of the operation in media and other reliable sources, and therefore on ENGLISH wikipedia we must use that name.

  • To accept the official ENGLISH name of the operation is to wrongly assume that the operation was officially named in a neutral, value-free way. There is enough dissent in this RFC to suggest that many wikipedia users feel that it is not neutral.

    Wikipedia's naming policy states that "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." The fact that the wikipedia page on the previous conflict is not named "Operation Cast Lead" suggests that we can expect something similar with this conflict. Further, the naming policy states that "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." A comparison on Google Trends shows that "Gaza war" and "Israel War" are respectively 8 times and 22 times more popular current search queries than "Operation Pillar of Defence". --Mahosian (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe this was addressed as well

    ...Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames.

    --Mor2 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But you cannot draw from other contexts. Operation Cast Lead (which did not have two separate names) was not the title for the wikipedia page on the conflict four years ago - it was named Gaza war. I've already provided evidence why it likely won't be named Operation Pillar of Defence four years from now, and I've already provided evidence why most users don't refer to it as Operation Pillar of Defence now. And while most of the English-language media uses Operation Pillar of Defense more often than they use Operation Pillar of Cloud, they use neither way more often. --Mahosian (talk) 3:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it all depends on what the scope of the article ends up being. If it is about the IDF operation, the name is just fine. If the event broadens into a war or something and this article ends up chronicling that as well instead of another article being created for the war, then it should be rename to reflect that. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
By now the article has already gone well outside the scope of the Israeli operation. ypnypn (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
How so? The article is about the IDF operation and Hamas's response to the operation. Military operations almost always involv two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. ~Asarlaí 18:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: this is now being discussed in the section below. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to 2012 Gaza Conflict

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no clear consensus to move to the specific new title. Although those supporting a move are in a slight majority, that majority is not in consensus for a specific new title. This article is move protected for 30 days to allow for further discussion if a new title is still desired. Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


Operation Pillar of Defense → 2012 Gaza Conflict –

Four reasons why this should be renamed as 2012 Gaza Conflict:

  • Many users have expressed concerns over the name's neutrality.
  • Wikipedia's naming policy states that "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." The wikipedia page for the last conflict between Israel and Gaza is not named "Operation Cast Lead" because it is not commonly known as such, and we should accept precedents from Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia's naming policy states that "article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." Google Trends results for both web searches and news searches indicate that "Gaza Conflict" is being used significantly more often than either "Operation Pillar of Cloud" or "Operation Pillar of Defense." It is thus the most appropriate name.
  • While "Gaza War" is marginally more popular than "Gaza Conflict," some users have expressed concern that "war" is not as of yet acceptable for the current events. If the conflict escalates, someone should request a name change to reflect this, but right now, the current name is not acceptable as per wikipedia's standards. Mahosian (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporters and Opposers should reference Wikipedia policy Mahosian (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. What the Israeli side or the Gazan side call the conflict should not dictate our title. It surely has two names, and either name is subjective and internationally poorly known. *2012 Gaza Conflict* is a much more suitable name. --Gerrit CUTEDH 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Pillar of Defense is the official name of the operation, it is the most commonly cited name of the operation in media and other reliable sources. There's already an article for the whole conflict and all of 2012 clashed, this page is about this specific event and responses to it. To claims that the name of the operation pertain bias is redicules as much as calling Operation Barbarossa biased and renaming it to German-Soviet June 1941 conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since there is already an article under the name March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes, the article name is not precise enough per WP:PRECISION. I also oppose the name change under the basis that there is a precedence that other articles be named by their mission name within the Gaza-Israel conflict: Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds (2006) and Operation Hot Winter. --hmich176 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There have been many clashes and incidents in Gaza in 2012, it would be too simplistic to call this the 2012 gaza conflict. It also fails to cover the whole issue, seen as the article relates to attacks on Israel too. The current military operation title is the best article title for the time being unless this becomes a far larger operation and conflict. -hmich176 above also makes a very good point about past precedents of Israeli military operations article titles. There is also no single term used by numerous sources. A quick look on my tv i see BBC calling this the Gaza Israel conflict, and online they use "Israel-Gaza violence". There is no one term uses throughout the media, so the official military operation title makes the most sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is about the entire conflict, not just the israeli side of the conflict, therefore it makes no sense to use the IDF's codename unless we remove all mention of rockets from Gaza and israeli casualties.PerDaniel (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The conflict is an IDF operation and Hamas's response to the operation. That's what this article is about. When a military begins a military operation it almost always involvs two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. ~Asarlaí 13:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Using the IDF's codename is not in line with WP:NPOV. If there is a possibility of confusing it with other conflicts in Gaza this year, it could be named "November 2012 Gaza Conflict" or "Late 2012 Gaza Conflict". I would also note that the norwegian newspapers that I am reading avoids calling the conflict by any name. PerDaniel (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. It is a patent violation of WP:NPOV to use the Israeli army's name for its military operation in the Gaza Strip as the objective term for the conflict underway. This is core policy. You cannot denominate a conflict between two parties in the preferred language of just one of them. Unless this obvious violation of neutrality is recognized, I think administrative oversight will be required to ensure that unambiguous policies are applied here.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong? replay, Its an article about the operation and the responses to it, so the official and most cited name for it seems appropriate. If you are interested in the wider conflict see Gaza-Israel Conflict, you can start there a section on the conflicts in 2012, including infarmation on both this operation, March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes and other events that took place thorough out 2012. --Mor2 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Operation Overlord biased because it uses the allied name for the operation? There are numerous examples of military operation articles having a military operation title, including as mentioned above previous israeli military operations. It does not mean it is biased or unacceptable on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Current name is not neutral and not the common name of the topic. The majority of sources reporting the topic do not even mention the Israeli code name for its offensive. Dlv999 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Operation Overlord not a neutral title? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a relevant question to this discussion. Just because certain code names in historical military operations meet WP:COMMONAME requirements, it does not mean this code name does. The majority of sources that cover the topic do not even mention the Israeli codename for their operation (In the past week 3,120,000 hits for "Gaza conflict" [14]; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud [15]) , so it is not the common name for the topic. It would not be neutral for us to adopt the Israeli perspective by using this title when it not supported by source evidence. Dlv999 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There are two different issues here, there is the question of commonname, which is open to debate as there are a number of different terms being used by the media, which is why using the official military name makes sense. The other issue is the claim that by having the military title of the operation we are not being neutral. That clearly makes articles like Operation Overlord relevant because there are numerous military operation titles on wikipedia, including ones by Israel in recent times. Making this title perfectly justifiable. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken, please read WP:POVTITLE. A non-neutral name such as Operation Overlord is acceptable when it can be shown to be used by "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". In this case "Gaza conflict" is vastly more prevalent in RS discussing the topic than "Operation Pillar of Defense" (see my previous comment for links), and it is also a far more neutral term. Thus in our case the current name is not the common name, nor is it a neutral name for the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per WP:COMMONNAME. Inkbug (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For the reasons I gave above: This isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Israel and Gaza this year. This article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to that operation. One military force (the IDF) has taken action agenst another military force (Hamas), which has responded. This article covers actions by both sides. In 1941, the German Army began a military operation agenst the Red Army, which responded. Our article about it covers both sides and is named Operation Barbarossa, which was the German codename for the operation. Naming it Operation Barbarossa doesn't mean we're taking the German side. Likewize, naming this Operation Pillar of Defense doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side. The name is being widely used by news outlets thruout the world and meets WP:COMMONNAME. When trying to find which name is more common, remember to serch from 14 November onward. Even then, terms like "Gaza conflict" may be referring to the conflict as a whole rather than this particular operation. Also, we must think about the long-term. Years from now, do you really think historians will be calling it the "November–December 2012 Israel–Gaza conflict" or somesuch? Look at all the past IDF operations in the occupied territories – today they're commonly known by their codenames. ~Asarlaí 13:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You say it's the Common name, but that simply is not consistent with the evidence. (In the past week 3,120,000 hits for "Gaza conflict" [16]; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud [17]). Using a WP:POVTITLE, like one sides codename for an operation could only be justified, as in the case of Operation Barborossa, when "a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" use the title. In this topic, that is clearly not the case. We are writing this article based on the source evidence for this article, not source evidence for Operation Barbarossa, or any other historical operation. Also I don't think it is useful to speculate on how this event will be viewed in years to come. We should represent sources available to us now, as more sources become available over time, we shall amend the article appropriately. Dlv999 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, when trying to find which name is more common, we should be serching from 14 November onward for "Gaza conflict", "Conflict in Gaza", "Pillar of Defense" and "Pillar of Defence". Even then, the first two could be given as descriptions rather than names and be referring to the conflict as a whole rather than this particular operation. We can't know unless we read thru them all. However, with the last two, we know they can only refer to this operation. ~Asarlaí 13:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This operation is part of the wider Gaza–Israel conflict, so simply quoting the number results for Gaza conflict compared to the operation name is not fair or precise enough to justify changing this article title. We have a precise and accurate title of a military operation, which is what this article is about. Can you say with certainty that every single one of those results for "gaza conflict" is a reference to this specific military operation? and many are not talking about the wider dispute or past conflict? I can find Pillar of Defense referenced in numerous english language articles, including it being mentioned by major news organisations. it is the commonname for this operation, the article details the operation, the causes that led to it and the response by the palestinian militants and views of the international community on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Ankh.Morpork 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per the proposer's reasons and WP:COMMONNAME. Let me humbly suggest that proponents of "Pillar of Defense" search Google News with "Gaza Israel pillar" and "Gaza Israel -pillar." My quick survey suggests that Israeli and some Jewish news sources are using the Operation's name, while the much of the rest of the English language press do not use it to refer to the conflict. If necessary, "late 2012" could clarify the title.--Carwil (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
That's the wrong way to serch. That will bring up every reference to Israel and Gaza in the past few weeks or months. ~Asarlaí 15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The conflict began years ago and has been constant ever since. This article is about an IDF operation (which began on 14 November), which Hamas has responded to. Hamas's response is a part of the operation. Events before 14 November ar' only here as background info. ~Asarlaí 15:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - current title is one-sided. It would be okay if the scope of the article was only this operation, but it is about entire conflict that started in November 2012, and this operation is only one side's part of it. Other have names for their operations in this conflict. Therefore, keeping the current title would be serious violation of WP:NPOV. Also, comment: something like November/Late 2012 Gaza(–Israel) conflict/clashes would be better title name in order to avoid the confusion with March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. --93.136.113.166 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, this article is about an IDF operation (which began on 14 November) and Hamas's response to it. Military operations like this always involv two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. Hamas's response is a part of the operation. Events before 14 November ar' only here as background info. ~Asarlaí 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"this article is about an IDF operation and Hamas's response to it." Then why would we use a name that accounts only for one of those two halves? Mahosian (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Because, as I said, Hamas's response is a part of the operation. When Military A launches an operation agenst Military B, Military B's response isn't part of a different conflict. Furthermore, the name "Gaza(–Israel) conflict" makes it seem as if both sides started the fighting, when in truth it was started by an Israeli military operation. ~Asarlaí 20:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - the fact a lot of media are now reporting that there will be a ceasefire highlights Operation Pillar of Defense is the appropriate name for this article. As has been pointed out above, this is a military operation of the IDF, which is part of the wider Gaza-Israel conflict. If there is a ceasefire and in 6 months time a new military operation kicks off it will be a new article, it will not be continued on this page. (and that would be the case had it been in the same year too). These are all part of the wider conflict, i think a lot of those who are demanding this article be changed are getting confused on this important distinction. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
BW, in your post I changed "this is the appropriate name" to "Operation Pillar of Defense is the appropriate name", just to avoid confusion. ~Asarlaí 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, yes that is clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have already provided evidence why Operation Pillar of Defence is not the most common name. Media sources don't use "2012" but they do use "Gaza Conflict," however "2012" is necessary to distinguish on Wikipedia. Users must provide evidence, not simply state an unsupported argument. Mahosian (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Somewhat support: The conflict has escalated beyond the original operation and immediate results. If all fighting would stop tonight, it might be okay to leave the name as is, but in all probability things will get worse. In any case, it might be better to wait a few more days to see how much things escalate further. If there is a ground invasion, then it should definitely be changed. ypnypn (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Using the Israeli name for an operation just as biased as using the Hamas name would be, even if Main Stream media does it. We can't repeat obvious mainstream bias. Actually, we should rename a number of these articles, using relevant months when there are more than one. (See Template:Gaza crisis which I have just criticized on this and other POV issues.) However, since there IS March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes we might wait and see if it ends in November and name it November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes CarolMooreDC 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NPOV. Hamas also has a name for these hostilities. "2012 Gaza conflict" is an uncontroversial, accurate and neutral name. If a ground offensive follows, then we could change "conflict" to "war." --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC) (relocated)
  • Support rename per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Using the Israeli name for the operation presents significant POV issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

*Support - makes a lot of sense, as the article does cover both Israeli operation "Pillar of Cloud" and the Hamas rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip, while the current name has some unfortunate implications in that regard as if the IDF were the only side which resorted to the use of arms. (I still have some minor issues though, because of the subject of the article being essentially a current event, it remains essentially open to another renaming in the future).-Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Nixed by myself-Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Further comments: After some consideration, I tend to agree with the above comment by Carolmooredc - November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict is much better in a way of description of the conflict without regard to the designations of the respective sides to the conflict, while still describing in high degreee what the fight was about. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Motion: For an autoconfirmed user to make the requested move. Majority are in support, given Wikipedia's policies. Also: I would suggest that the name remains 2012 Gaza Conflict until the dynamics of the conflict change significantly. It ought to be changed to "War" rather than "Conflict" if there is a ground operation or if either beligerent openly declares war. Further, both "Operation Pillar of Cloud" and "Operation Pillar of Defense" should redirect to the newly named 2012 Gaza Conflict. Mahosian (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As myself and other editors noted, this isn't the only conflict that has taken place between Gaza and Israel this year. See March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. Thus "2012 Gaza Conflict" is misleading. Also, for the sake of fairness we should let the poll run for at least three days – the same length of time as the last poll. ~Asarlaí 22:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that a slight majority is in support, see WP:VOTE. Until almost everyone agrees on moving, we should keep things as is. ypnypn (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I really don't believe that there's really enough support for the Pillar of Cloud/Pillar of Defense name (which somewhat implicates the sole responsibility of the Israeli side for the current developments of the armed conflict) of the article at the present time - even if the poll would run for some time - on the other hand, I'd suggest some postponment of the article move, as the "2012 Israeli-Gaza conflict/clashes" name is not entirely supported by neutral sources, given the fact of existence of the March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no justification for making a move at this time, since the vote is very split, there is not even a majority in favour of the proposed change at this time if you actually read what some of those who have said support actually said. This request has lasted less than 24 hours, there are stil 6 days left for this RM to continue. Also i must say, whilst you seem to want to bypass the basic terms of a requested move, you seem to know alot about wikipedia terminology for an account that has been active less than 2 days, and has been entirely focused on this article. What was our old account name? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Has discussion even been open for 24 hours yet? Don't you see the part about 7 days in the template? and have you even read the wikipedia policies or are you just making them up now? Try reading about determining consensus. The fact that the supporters for the change don't even agree on what the change should be calls into doubt any notion that the name complies with WP:COMMONNAME Capscap (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I should point out that the move to "Operation Pillar of Defense" was made when no consensus was reached. Mahosian (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as the current name is POV (shows only one side's perspective), and not very commonly used. Nearly all media outlets use "Gaza conflict" (or a similar form) to describe the events, but a a large number of articles don't use "Operation pillar of cloud/defence".VR talk 06:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is already an article about the Gaza–Israel_conflict and more specifically about the various Events (2012 Events), this article deals with this operation, which is notable enough. The title '2012 Gaza conflict' ignore other events that happened during 2012 like the March 2012 clashes and violates POV , presenting the conflict as Gaza conflict, rather than Gaza–Israel conflict.--Mor2 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, please read WP:MILMOS#CODENAME which trumps WP:COMMONNAME, for the very simple reason, there is 'no commonname by definition for a term invented by one party to the conflict a few days ago. Isn't this overwhelmingly obvious? The abuse is obvious, and this repeated employment of Israeli titles for major clashes between two parties in a conflict is a stain on wikipedia's core policy of neutrality. The sister article on the 2008 Gaza War started off as Operation Cast Lead, which meant a huge quabble with the other POV title (Gaza massacre) leading to the compromise of Gaza War (2008). The discussion we are having is only repeating the Requested Move there and again here. The same principle should apply here. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Mor2 is arguing on my talk page that I have double voted. In my understanding I voted (a) for a name change earlier (b) Here for a motion that the change be effected, two quite distinct issues. Ryan Vesey appears to have done the same above. If there is no distinction between a vote for a change, and a vote for a motion to effect that change, please ignore the vote above as inadvertent doubling. But it should also apply to Ryan's comment above. If someone could clarify where wikilaw applies, I'd welcome such a neutral third party call and apply it, whatever the verdict.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ryan voted once in this RM, and once in the section above which was a general conversation attacking the title, rather than a formal RM. Different things. Your explanation is valid about supporting the motion, however it will have appeared to many that it was a vote for the RM itself rather than the motion,. So it is right that this has been clarified incase the RM closer misread. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nishidan, I nixed the "Support" in your last post as you'd alredy voted "Support" further up and we don't want a miscount. ~Asarlaí 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, where does anything say that WP:MILMOS#CODENAME trumps WP:COMMONNAME? The paragraph does state that operational codenames generally make poor titles; however, it does say there are exceptions. Considering the importance of COMMONNAME, one of those exceptions is when any proposed title would completely violate WP:COMMONNAME. If there are two titles that are both used, of course the non-operational title should be used, but in cases when the operational title is the only widely used one, that's what we go with. See my comment below. Ryan Vesey 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
We do if it's the common name (not a common description). See Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, Operation Summer Rains, and hundreds of others. ~Asarlaí 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name "gaza conflict" does not take into account Israeli civilians taking the brunt of the indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets by rockets launched by Islamic Jihadists and Hamas. For the same price User:NickCT could name this page "2012 palestinian suffering under inhuman zionist occupation and bombing". Tkuvho (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
re Tkuvho - For the same price User:NickCT could name this page "2012 palestinian suffering under inhuman zionist occupation and bombing" - No offense mate, but that's pretty obviously not what I was suggesting or implying. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope - we're discussing the best name possible for the article. Many different opinions have been expressed, based upon many different approaches to the subject given, in accordance with different rationales given by the editors involved. And ... no one going under name Jimbo is involved in the discussion at all, neither he's anything like an "editor-in-chief" of the article.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Don't use government-issued marketing/propoganda names to describe these things. Call it the 2012 Israel-Gaza conflict or something like that. Also "Pillar of Defense" and "Pillar of Cloud" are both bad, you'll be choosing one of the marketing term over the other, Cloud to represent destruction (for the domestic audience) and Defense to represent people's right to defend themselves (for Americans mostly). "Desert Storm" is now called "Gulf War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is now "Iraq War" so there's precedent for using better names.

64.134.223.194 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: We need to ensure that we are not making up a title. Say what you wish about Pillar of Defense being Israeli propaganda, the proposed title and some similar ones suggested in this discussion are not being used in sources. In an overwhelming majority of sources, Gaza conflict is used only to describe what the event was, not to name the event. Wikipedia has never created titles. Supporters are pointing out Desert Storm/Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom/Iraq War; however, both of those situations are ones where there is a common name other than the name of the operation. In this case there is none. Ryan Vesey 07:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, google search trends don't give any indication of what the common name is. We use the common name used by sources, not by people looking for the topic, that's what redirects are for. Ryan Vesey 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a good point. However, when doing a search of English-language news for the past 8-9 days, "gaza israel conflict" is much more popular than "operation pillar of cloud" (about 1.5 million compared to 20 thousand)
  • That's because when you search for gaza israel conflict, you are finding all articles with those words in them. This was a conflict between Israel and Gaza, of course there are going to be a lot of hits. What we need to do is find articles and what they are naming the conflict. In the requested move above, I laid out a few examples of how this has not been named the "Gaza Conflict" and quite a few that showed that it has been named Operation Pillar of Defense. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article has grown too large, with many unrelated out of scope events pushed in, which should be moved to the Gaza–Israel_conflict#2012_Events, which deals with the conflict as whole, dealing with additional events that happened before and during 2012, not just this operation. --Mor2 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: It is inevitable, in any given conflict, that all parts taking part in it will engage in deliberate distortion of the truth so as to improve its strategic position. Part of this campaign is the spinning of one's own objectives and war conduct. Israel's branding of this latest offensive as a "Pillar of Defense" is, no doubt, an attempt to distort truth (bear in mind, I think Palestinian militants have tried the same) and control discourse on the war by assuming as given what is at best a controversial statement (that the war is about self-defense). Guinsberg (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No reason why it should. It should only focus on Military aftermath and Political aftermath of the operation. Any "strategic position" should be discussed within the Gaza–Israel_conflict#2012_Events, where additional context is provided. Also as mentioned before the suggested title violates WP:NPOV by reducing the 'Gaza–Israel conflict' to 'Gaza conflict'. It also inaccurate, since this is not the only event that took place during 2012.--Mor2 (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't understand me. The name Israel gave to its offensive itself hides strategic and geopolitical considerations — it is an attempt to skew discourse on the war to its own favour. There's no reason why anyone not working for an Israeli government agency should abide to this plan. Guinsberg (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree: The operations you have listed did not have two official names in different languages. You cannot equate them here. Mahosian (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This operation has one official name in English - Pillar of Defense. Since this is English Wikipedia, other languages are irrelevant. See discussion above of the previous move. Merrybrit (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been much published arguing why this is not irrelevant but is a deliberate strategy of double meaning that favours one side. Given that this is a calculated alter-translation, it is entirely relevant. Mahosian (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I have already provided evidence as to why this is not the common name. See above. If you have contradictory evidence, please provide it. Mahosian (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Amendment: There is no 100% consensus, but there is majority in support. Given that some partially support the move but only with added specificity ("November 2012 Gaza-Israel Conflict"), and given that the added specificity does not conflict with the reasons provided by other supporters, this requester would support this amendment. Mahosian (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. When you are searching on Google for "gaza israel conflict" or "gaza conflict" etc., you are finding every single article with those words in them, including articles from yesterday, and articles from 1990, and articles from 1980 (just random years). When you Google "operation pillar of defense", you get articles from only about this particular conflict. It makes sense that you'd get more hits with a more general search term such as the first two I mentioned. If you watch TV, read newspapers, and look on online news media, every single one of them that I've seen refers to the conflict as "Operation Pillar of Defense". Not as "conflict". They may use the word conflict to tell the reader what the operation is, but they don't use conflict to name the event. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this name should stay as it is the name the news media is using to refer to it in their broadcasts/artcles/etc. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I pointed this out earlier: When trying to find which name is more common, we should be serching from 14 November onward for "Gaza conflict", "Pillar of Defense" and "Pillar of Defence". Even then, the first is likely being given as a description rather than a name and could be referring to the conflict as a whole rather than this particular operation. ~Asarlaí 03:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had already responded to this earlier - looks like my post did not save. It's a valid point. However, after using a 9-day filter, doing a news search for "Operation Pillar of Defense," 20,000 results popped up. 1,500,000 results popped up for "Gaza Israel Conflict" in the same 9-day period. The disparity is very large. Mahosian (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you link to this? I see the 20,000 results for "Pillar of Defense", but I'm only seeing 7,720 results for "Gaza Israel Conflict." --hmich176 11:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, click here. You will have to click "Search Tools" to toggle between seeing the search parameters and seeing the number of results. The results have gone up since I originally posted that information, it's now at almost 1,800,000. Mahosian (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops. My bad. That search keeps messing up. Here it is with the appropriate parameters. The results are more than 180,000, not 1,800,000. Still about nine times greater than 'o.p.o.d.' Mahosian (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps it would be best at this point to split the article? This one can remain with the current name detailing just the technicalities of the Israeli military operation. A similar one should be created for the Palestinian operation and the bulk of the article (the conflict itself) could be moved to its own November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict article. Gaba p (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not believe there is a clear majority in support of a change even with the amendment you suggest. I also have concerns about some of the voting that has taken place. You have yet to answer my previous question on if you had a previous account? I find it rather suspicious that a brand new account that is almost entirely focused on this article, and indeed this poll is leading the push for this article renaming to take place, when they clearly have certain experience of wikipedia. We also have a couple of IP votes for the support side, and one of the supports is an account that has suddenly become active just for this debate after 2 years. It all looks very fishy to me. And even ignoring these potential concerns... there is no clear majority support or consensus for a change. Not to mention the fact you are now backing a different name change, which some have said theyd support but others have not. Its a mess frankly. And we also have to take into account the fact the situation has radically changed since this vote began.. with the operation now coming to an end. Clearly a fundamental change to what some thought would be a long lasting article and conflict. Also nobody on the support side has explained how it is fair and balanced for an article title to be "Gaza conflict" with or without dates when this also involved Israel. Nor have some accepted the fact this article is one operation that is merely part of the wider Gaza-Israel conflict. so all claims of that being the primary title ignores the fact this is effectively a sub article of that wider conflict anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I did not see your previous question. I have posted here and there before without a username over the last few years, but I felt strongly that the name of this article did not reflect NPOV, so I created a username to participate in the discussion. Seems clear to me that I'm not the only one with this opinion. Mahosian (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If this was just a one-sided operation against another group that would be one thing. However, this is actually about two separate operations, Israel's and Hamas'. Considering that there are two separate, named operations going on in this conflict, it is extremely inappropriate and POV to name the article just after one. A neutral name just describing the conflict is more appropriate. SilverserenC 00:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely every military operation in history has more than one side. which is what happened in this case. Israel conducted an 8 day military operation against militants in Gaza, those militants responded with increased rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities. There only needs to be 1 article, and this is a fair title. Numerous articles with a military title exist on wikipedia. 01:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not a fair title at all. There was not a one-sided operation since the Palestinian militants conducted its own operation. If this article commented only on the technicalities of the Israeli operation it would be fine. It obviously does not so either the title changes or the article is split. As it stands right now it's a clear breach of NPOV. Gaba p (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Everyone, please read the thred before voting/commenting. As I said before, military operations like this always involv two military forces fighting each-other and/or attacking each-other's territories. When Military A launches an operation agenst Military B, Military B's response isn't part of a different conflict. Hamas's response is thus a part of the operation. ~Asarlaí 03:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
People are reading it, they're just disagreeing with you. An "operation" is unilateral. A conflict, war or crisis is bilateral. What happened last week is bilateral. Mahosian (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. The operation and responses to it discussed here and the conflict here: Gaza–Israel_conflict#2012_Events.--Mor2 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There are four official names, two for both sides. This is not 'exact' because you're missing the point I'm making. Mahosian (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
To be precise(again) there is only one English official name for this operation. Also if we could just change names that we don't like, I would have changed "War on Terror", and its various "Operation Enduring Freedom" just for being a kitschy kliches. --Mor2 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find it interesting that some people don't like the current title because it is not neutral towards Palestinians, and some people don't like it because it is not neutral towards Israelis. This is not particularly partisan, there is evidence that it is not neutral on any level. Mahosian (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
To be precise. There are people who don't like the official common title, claiming POV and those who claim that the suggested title, is just as much POV violation.--Mor2 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. "Gaza conflict" or "Israel-Gaza conflict" do actually appear to be in more common use than "Pillar of Defense," but even if "Pillar of Defense" were more common, I think I would have to go a bit WP:IAR because there's a massive neutrality problem in stating in Wikipedia's voice - even though, I know, we're just using the proper-noun it's been given - that this is purely a defensive action on Israel's part. But again, it's not the most common term anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has not been sufficiently emphasized in this space that it is generally recognized that Israel's conflict is not with Gaza, but rather with the current leadership of Gaza. Furthermore, it is generally recognized that the current leadership seized control of this area illegally. The current leadership is considered to be a terrorist organisation by most countries that allow free access to wikipedia. It is the current leadership that Israel has a conflict with. Relating to the Palestinian population of Gaza as a bunch of terrorists of Hamas or Islamic Jihad type is deeply demeaning to this population. Therefore the title "Israel-Gaza" conflict is inappropriate. Tkuvho (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Comment: How is it that the article was renamed from Operation Pillar of Cloud when there was no consensus in that discussion if that is the reason for this move request to be denied? If consensus cannot be reached then status quo trumps majority? Mahosian (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't an official discussion, just a talk between editors. I was the one that moved it, per WP:COMMONNAME. I followed policy due to the discussion ending with, in my opinion, more arguments for Pillar of Defense (and more sources supporting a COMMONNAME move). If you'd like to reopen that, feel free to, but I can tell you that you'll have tons of sources poured against you. Common name not official name. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit) It seems I overlooked that someone had moved it back then the move passed a RM. Sorry for the confusion, but there was an official RM above for that specific move. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Change to November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes

Now that it's December and things obviously have settled down for the rest of the year, it seems sensible to change the name to November 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, just like there already IS March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. Calling it by the military operation name of either side is just too POV for an encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me, but where do you find sources that use "November 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes"? gwickwiretalkedits 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Complete and utter oppose this WP:POINTy request. Just above here, about a week ago, another requested move was denied because there wasn't enough consensus to move it. Face it. This is WP:COMMONNAME. No source I've seen says "There's a ceasefire in the November blahblah and it's holding so far." They say "There's a ceasefire to end Operation Pillar of Defense". This is commonname. gwickwiretalkedits 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my initial move discussion and arguments in other discussions. Primarily WP:COMMONNAME. It isn't a pointy discussion though. Ryan Vesey 04:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Struck that, still believe it's a little pointy though, as previous discussion was ~1 week ago. gwickwiretalkedits 04:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
*Support . Don't even know why is this being voted on again. Majorities already established that current title is POV and should be changed. Guinsberg (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Sock-puppet Inkbug (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Your arguement has no weight, its not our job to sugarcoat history here when the majority of sources are calling it something else, WP:NOTCENSORED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What is this "majority of sources" that is calling it "Operation Pillar of Defense"? I have looked for it but not found it. PerDaniel (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Inkbug (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose common name. It comes across overly reactionary and emotional to me that the common, and yes IDF operational name, is not good enough since it originated from one of the belligerents. The common name was relegated at the previous large scale operation's article and both hinder most readers' experience by putting a road blocks in their navigation.Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

curious

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How come the operation timeline was removed entirely, without a basic summary?! Now we have a spill over events described better than the operation itself!--Mor2 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is bizarre. The article devotes more attention to the ceasefire itself than the actual hostilities thatpreceded it. I would favour its restoration. Ankh.Morpork 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Cast Lead had (has?) this same problem. Editors were more concerned with assigning blame and sensationalism ("war crimes") than actually writing about troop movements, weapons systems used, etc.Cptnono (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Over reliance on highly partisan opinion articles

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, this article is over reliant on highly partisan opinion pieces. This is an encyclopedic article, and as such, should be primarily sourced to neutral reports, not op-eds (e.g. Greenwald, Fisk, Mearsheimer, Huffington Post contributors, Al Jazeera contribuors, etc.). Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC) : Why not remove highly partisan opinion articles or allegations found on Fox News or the Jerusalem Post as well? Or is it only sources insufficiently favourble to Israel that should be removed? And where is the Wikipedia policy that prevents opinion articles and criticism from being included on entries such as this? Can opinion articles be removed even though they are synidcated on reliable sources and are used for nothing other than present an opinion (not a fact)? Is your suggestion followed on entries about other modern conflicts (the Iraq War, other Israeli-Arab conflicts, and so forth)? If your suggestion is based on established Wikipedia guidelines, I'll oppose it. And do not forget of singing your comments, please. BilalSaleh (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Ankh.Morpork 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

bus bombing again

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The archiving on this page is too rapid. Recent reports indicate that the bombing was perpetrated through a concerted action of 4 israeli arabs who describe themselves as Hamas members. The description of this eposide in the lede remains therefore inaccurate. Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a RS for Hamas involvement? I have never seen a source that claims that the bombers were members of Hamas. The IDF claims the group had links to Hamas but Hamas has denied this. The only reliable mention of Hamas was when Muhammad Mafarji appeared before the Tel Aviv Court and a witness claimed that the day before the bombing Mafarji had told another person that he (Mafarji) wanted to join Hamas and fight in Gaza. Wayne (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have more detailed information on this that I do. Did you see something on the involvement of a group of 4 israeli arabs in this? One of them placed the bomb and another ignited it through remote control by means of a cell phone while the first one boarded an intercity bus as usual to get to his place of work in another town in Israel. Tkuvho (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

HRW

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

At http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=297107 there is an article on the position of Human Rights Watch concerning the conflict. The gist of it seems to be the following: "HRW: Hamas rockets from Gaza violated laws of war. 12/24/2012 09:44 Report: Hamas broke int'l law in Gaza operation by firing rockets from densely populated areas to civilian populations in Israel." It may be helpful to mention this in the article. Tkuvho (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's been mentioned already. Tkuvho (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The background section and post operation events contains a lot of original research. Sources must connect mentioned events to this operation, and without them, editors should not insert their favorite Israel-Palestine trivia. Ankh.Morpork 17:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Several users have expressed the sentiment that the page is too long. Perhaps this is the opportunity to trim it down to reasonable size by removing such favorite nuggets if they are irrelevant. Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

kids playing soccer

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The current lede asserts that Israel targeted soccer fields. the source for this is a New York Times article. The article quotes a Hamas spokesman in the following terms:

“There’s a real massacre now,” said Fawzi Barhoum, the Hamas spokesman, who was at the hospital waiting for the diplomatic delegation. “At the same time when the Arab leaders came to Gaza, 10 persons are killed. At this moment, kids playing soccer are hit. It is a clear reflection of the mind and the thought of the occupation, thinking how to kill more and more Palestinians.”

I don't know how much research the NYT did to verify the soccer claim, but it stands to reason that an organisation like Hamas which views deception and misinformation as just another tool in its struggle against "the occupation" may not be a reliable source. Any thoughts? Tkuvho (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede neglects to mention that the IDF stated the football stadium was used by terrorists as a rocket launching site and an arms cache, and the Guardian reports that "They were targeting the football stadium, from which rockets are fired." Ankh.Morpork 17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Given the Guardian report, it would seem that the current version of the lede asserting that children were hit on soccer fields (note the plural) is not fully accurate. Perhaps the editor who put this in in the first place could step forward and explain his sourcing strategy. Tkuvho (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It was an indefintely blocked editor that inserted that detail among others. The lede is anyway way too specific in certain instances and needs improving. Ankh.Morpork 17:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
A brief investigation led me to the conclusion that the lede comment on soccer fields (in the plural) was added by User:Guinsberg in this edit. Perhaps he could clarify his intention here. Tkuvho (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, "Guinsberg" is also a sock for dalai lama ding dong. Wow. The fellow is motivated. Tkuvho (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


I think that the whole sentence should be removed, as it provide repetition of the info above and its only addition is "children[killed], in schools[42], soccer fields" for over sensualization. Additionally I think that the next section about the al-Dalu family is given undue weight in the lead. Especially in light of the fact that it has its own article. I think it should be trimmed to "The single deadliest strike[44] of the entire operation, of which Israel said was intentional,[45] killed ten members of the al-Dalu family"--Mor2 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd support an edit like this. Inkbug (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Guinsberg's comments above should be crossed out the way Galal Sale's were. This is particularly important in "polls" such as the one regarding the name change for the page. Tkuvho (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

al dalu family

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any reason to have a separate page for this? It seems this should be incorporated in the present page. Tkuvho (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

gates of hell

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the flowery language of "the gates of hell", curtesy of the Islamic Jihad, doesn't seem particularly informative. Do we really need this in the lede? Note that there are no direct quotations from Israeli officials in the lede. Tkuvho (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis II

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone look into the possibility of recently created account User:Sepsis II being yet another sock for User:Guinsberg? Tkuvho (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis English seems a lot better than Dalai lama ding dong. but I have not run across him before so am unsure. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sepsis' edits by time of day and day of week are almost the opposite of Guinsberg. Wayne (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources...again

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This was discussed last month and it was a greed to use the name of the organisation responisble for actions rather than keep saying Hamas regardless of what the source says. It seems it needs to be brought up again.

In the lead it says: The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and other Western countries expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself, and/or condemned the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel followed by 11 references. One ref says those responsible, two refs say Palestinian, two refs say militants, three refs say rocket attacks without saying who fired them and three refs say the rockets were fired by Hamas and other groups/organisations.
User:Tkuvho has been continually changing "Palestinian" to "Hamas" throughout the article with comments along the line of the source specifically says Hamas. While other examples have been corrected by other editors the example in the lead was not. I corrected it to read "Palestinian rocket attacks" twice [18] [19] and User:Tkuvho has reverted both times [20] [21]. To avoid an edit war I used his talk page but he declined to discuss it further and told me to bring my "misguided assertions " here.
The references are, without exception, talking about rockets fired by all parties in the conflict. As naming a single organisation being responsible for all rocket attacks is POV, all I can ask is, do we say "Palestinian rocket attacks" or "militant rocket attacks" per the 11 sources provided. Wayne (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not the only misrepresentation of sources in the article. In the section Non-governmental organizations B'Tselems article http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20121115_gaza_operation urging both sides to obey international law, which is 80% criticism of Israel is cherrypicked by User:Marokwitz to look like it is 80% criticism of Hamas. I'm not sure how to remove the bias from that part of the article without increasing the description of B'Tselems reaction, which is already too long. PerDaniel (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
User:PerDaniel's claims are misleading. The 80% he refers to describe events that took place 4 years ago and are therefore irrelevant to the current page dedicated to last month's conflict. Tkuvho (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. The 80% that I referred to describe how to avoid the massive civilian casualties that happened 4 years ago in this conflict. They are therefore not irrelevant. PerDaniel (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Gaza_War/Archive_4&oldid=1232104872"