Misplaced Pages

• Agreed. Pillar of Defense is clearly most common English-language title. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:46, 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)

• Comment – while I personally like Pillar of Cloud more (to avoid confusion, since this is the correct translation of the real name), the official name is actually Pillar of Defense. See http://www.idf.il/english/ . —Ynhockey 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support the move. Use the authorized name in English rather than a literal translation of the authorized foreign (here, Hebrew language) name. Explaining the latter in the lede is warranted and sufficient, plus a #REDIRECT page, of course. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support the move, too. official name always better than anything else. Soosim (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Google news results supports this: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Google News generates far more results for "Gaza offensive" . 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  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  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" than there are using "Operation Pillar of Defense". 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  21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• No opinion on whether Operation Pillar of Cloud or Operation Pillar of Defense should be used, but I think that regardless of which is chosen both names should be mentioned in the lead. --Yair rand (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer "2012 Gaza clashes" or "2012 Gaza war" etc. Some sources don't mention "pillar of cloud" or "pillar of defence" at all.VR _talk 05:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Other articles on the same sites use Pillar of Defense 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Support google search for operation pillar of defense = 102,000 results. google search for gaza offensive 2012 = 63 results. It's not about what a few people prefer, it's about what it's name actually is. This is about a specific operation, not attacks generally. I also don't see why this should take a full week. 128.103.7.171 (talk) 06:22, 16 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". 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)

• Strong and Speedy Support, it should still be mentioned of course that the translation of the Hebrew is "Cloud". --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 09:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, this move should definitely be made. It is the appropriate name in English and there is no reason for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Misplaced Pages. 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[REDACTED] we must use that name. On Hebrew[REDACTED] 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)

• Oppose: Pillar of Cloud is the correct translation. Gaza offensive is POV. If this escalates further, Second Gaza War or 2012 Gaza War may be more appropriate.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This is ENGLISH[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Support, as Pillar of Defense fits WP:COMMONNAME, while Pillar of Cloud does not. --hmich176 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per "Pillar of Defense" fulfilling common usage criteria, while maintaining "Pillar of Cloud" as an alternate name in the article's lead paragraph. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support "Pillar of Defense" - this is the more common name. Inkbug (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support "Pillar of Defense" - per common name. Ankh.Morpork 20:27, 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)

• Agreed.: I'd do it but I'm not autoconfirmed. Not to mention that I think there's only maybe 1 vote in favor of the current title. Capscap (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I feel strongly that using the "official" English name does not comply with Misplaced Pages'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)

• Suport: It's a blatant violation of neutrality. --Polmas (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suport: There is a precendent in WP when these types of conflicts were named without bias. Operation Cast Lead was rightfully changed to Gaza war. This is the same conflict, just different date. It should be named in similar fashion: Gaza war 2012. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:59, 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)

• Support - The Israeli code name for its operation is not even the common name, the majority of articles that cover the topic do not even mention it, and when they do it is usually attributed as the Israeli code name for its operation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Article title is fine the way it is.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The requested move above is to a reasonable and better title. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 18 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.

• Support: If we are supposed to be serious about WP:NPOV it should be called "2012 Attack on Gaza". PerDaniel (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Support, though "war" might be more accurate if there is a ground invasion - see 2008-2009 Gaza War. ypnypn (talk) 13:55, 18 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)

• Oppose: It is too early to tell. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Using the name of the Israeli operation and one that by its definition introduces bias is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, one which the site is constently and currently making efforts to protect. This policy clearly outranks WP:COMMONNAME. Nickyfsm (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)nickyfsm
• Oppose: This article should be on the Israeli operation since that is how the article was set up. Ryan Vesey 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This RFC is redundant and inappropriate considering the finalised one immediately preceding it. Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies with his argument. The fact that he doesn't like "Israeli PR" has nothing to do with how we choose article titles on Misplaced Pages. 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] users feel that it is not neutral.

  Misplaced Pages's naming policy states that "Notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

• Support Busha5a5a5 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should use WP:COMMONNAME and the name of operation is used by most of the sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Vast majority of sources use this name according to my survey. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 5 December 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.
• Misplaced Pages's naming policy states that "notable circumstances under which Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages.
• Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages policy Mahosian (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the above statement. The current title is bowing to Israeli propaganda. Boleslaw (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)db

• 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 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As per WP:COMMONNAME. If not, change it back to the official name: Pillar of Cloud. Unflavoured (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's not precise enough under Misplaced Pages:PRECISION and is certainly more likely to need to be changed than the current title. There's already March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, which is a separate event. Regarding precedent, it cuts both ways. Capscap (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is too early to tell whether this will be an accurate name. As of now, "Pillar of Defense" is sufficient. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 09:02, 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)

• Disagree: Pillar of Defense is one of two official names of the operation, and it is not the most commonly cited name, as already indicated in the move request. And in looking for precedent, Gaza War is more appropriate than Operation Barbarossa. Mahosian (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• We are at the English Misplaced Pages and 'Pillar of Defense' is the official English name of the operation and is the most common cited name. Similarly to Operation Summer Rains (2006). While Gaza war gained its name following the ground operation and we are not there yet.--Mor2 (talk) 09:27, 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" ; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud ) , 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" ; 70,800 for "Operation Pillar of Cloud ). 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)

• Stong support -NPOV is vital here. The conflict began before the Israeli operation. Also many news sources don't even mention the name of the operation. We should follow WP:commonname. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:39, 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)

• Oppose No source use name 2012 Gaza Conflict but many sources mention the Israeli operation name hence per WP:COMMONNAME the title should stay.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:42, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

• Strong oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is nothing with the current title that violates WP:NPOV. Ryan Vesey 00:27, 21 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)

• Support. As per WP:COMMONNAME. It shouldn't be limited in scope to just an Israeli security operation, there are wider issues here as well. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - General we don't name large conflicts by the operational name that one side has assigned to the conflict. See Operation Desert Storm for example. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 21 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)

• Oppose - The current title is appropriate for now, and the proposed change is far too vague. Lucien504 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is Misplaced Pages giving in to Israeli war propaganda? Is Jimbo a Zionist like everyone else in the media?24.231.78.74 (talk) 19:35, 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)

• Comment: I retract my support for the move - I still believe that the "Operation Pillar of Defense/Pillar of Cloud" name lacks much to the desired, as it - by using the IDF codename - essentially assigns the whole guilt for the conflict on the Israeli side only, but I really can not support the move to the proposed 2012 Gaza Conflict as this name does not describe the situation as a whole adequately. The November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict or November 2012 Gaza-Israeli clashes would be much better as per my previous contributions here. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose move. This is the official Israeli name for the event, and also is the name referenced most in the US news media. We have to go with most sources say it is, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. Also, this name is not, imo, against neutrality because it is the official name used.. It's not like we made this name up, as then the may be some neutrality issues with it. Also, sorry for any formatting or other errors here, I'm editing from an ipad right now on the road. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the above statement. The current title is an Israeli title and Misplaced Pages should be neutral as the conflict envolves two sides militarily. Cutedoctor (talk) 23:07, 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 - Operation Pillar of Defense has now come to an end. It would seem inappropriate for the article title to be changed to 2012 Gaza Conflict when this was an 8 day event, especially as there had been previous violent outbreaks between Israel and Gaza in 2012. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 22 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

• Oppose Im not seeing 2012 Gaza Conflict being used widespread here, agree that this title is too broad and goes against WP:COMMONNAME for the current title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Current name is a violation of NPOV and furthermore the article has clearly grown into a much bigger description of events than just that particular Israeli military operation. I believe November 2012 Gaza-Israeli conflict would be better tough than just 2012 Gaza conflict. Regards Gaba p (talk) 15:35, 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)

• Oppose: Per reasons above and WP:COMMONNAME. Using one side's military name for its operation does not violate WP:NPOV (see Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa) Merrybrit (talk) 18:51, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and as my predecessor. MathKnight 18:53, 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. Silverseren 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME the name should stay at Operation Pillar of Defense The POV for calling it a military operation is an opinion and goes into WP:OTHERSTUFF - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Mahosian (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me, but where do you find sources that use "November 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes"? gwickwire_edits 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. gwickwire_edits 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. gwickwire_edits 04:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. See WP:COMMONNAME. Using the common name of the operation is the normal policy on Misplaced Pages and does not imply support for either side. See for example Operation Odyssey Dawn. Marokwitz (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title is most accurate to describe what this article is about. There are numerous examples on[REDACTED] of operational titles, including Israeli ones as pointed out above by others and also other military operations... like Operation Overlord, is that article title biased? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 6 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)

• Support . Anything is better than the current IDFPOV title. PerDaniel (talk) 14:30, 9 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)

Misrepresentation of sources...again

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 and User:Tkuvho has reverted both times . 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)

Pro-Israel vandalism

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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/search/?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, Misplaced Pages 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)}

Over reliance on highly partisan opinion articles

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

curious

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)

HRW

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)

kids playing soccer

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, in schools, 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 of the entire operation, of which Israel said was intentional, 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)

Synthesis

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)

Israeli civilians

The line Palestinian groups launching over 100 rockets at Israeli civilians over a 24-hour period is cited to this JPost article. Would Inkburg, who reverted my change on the grounds that source mentions civilian targets, please quote what in the source mentions civilian targets? The line The stated aims of the operation are to halt the indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian targets originating from the Gaza Strip has other problems, including the sources. Could somebody please explain to me how somebody can indiscriminately fire anything at any specific target? nableezy - 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Indiscriminate fire includes all manner of targets including civilian ones, so I would agree that also writing "civilians" is unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 22:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article mentions "a barrage fired to coincide with the morning commute to work" – that seems to me to be an intent to harm civilians. In addition, the other text you removed in your edit, can be found almost word for word in the source. Inkbug (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If a source states that the operation's objective was to halt rocket fire targeting civilians, then include it. Where in the source does it state this? Ankh.Morpork 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence 'Pillay also condemned "the continuing indiscriminate attacks and targeting of civilians in Israel by militants from Gaza"'. I now see that it is Pillay who said that (and not necessarily IDF opinion). I see that the words are currently not in the article, and I'm not going to press the issue (unless I find better sources). Inkbug (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is sourcing the claim that Hamas and other terror groups target specifically civilian targets, then certainly the latest HRW report is an excellent source. Having said this, User:AnkhMorpork's point may be well-taken, namely that "indiscriminate" already implies civilian targets so that there may not be any need to elaborate. Tkuvho (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the word "indiscriminate" is removed from the lead, and the intended civilian targets of the rocket fire as the HRW report makes clear is mentioned instead. Having both is unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 14:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Tkuvho (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That is OK with me too. Inkbug (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not okay with me, because it isnt true. AM, do you seriously think if Palestinian rockets were targeting Israeli military positions that Israel would say "oh well thats fine by us"? nableezy - 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

al dalu family

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

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)

Timeline

I can sum up the first paragraph to:

On November 14, 2012: Israel launches the operation. The offensive, began about 16:00(Israel time), with an airstrike killing Ahmad Jabari, the military commander of Hamas; he had been long on Israel's most wanted list for "decade-long terrorist activity" and the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit in 2006. The attack was part of 20 airstrikes against Hamas targets, including underground rocket launchers and an ammunition warehouse. Gaza's health minister said 10 were killed in the strikes. Gazan militants continued to fire rockets towards the Israeli population centers, while Israeli authorized a partial call-up of reservists in case they were needed for a large ground-based operation. On November 15, 2012:

However I suspect that most people will find issues with this summary and in the result will end up just as large as the original . So how about we skip the process and re instate it? --Mor2 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maan News

It is in the same class of reliability as Arutz Sheva and both should not be used. This is a publication that prints vile antisemitic slurs. Compare how the left wing Haaretz reported the incident regarding "IDF tanks fired toward a man suspected of attempting to place an explosive device" and how this was distorted by Maan who described an innocent 22-year-old Palestinian who witnesses said was a farmer. Ankh.Morpork 20:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I was hoping for an accurate translation of the sixth paragraph of this Maan article, perhaps you would be able to help? Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats an editorial, what does it have to do with this article? But no, I am not willing to help you. You want to compare how the BBC and JPost report material? You want to measure the level of distortion in JPost, or terrorism-info.org, or the Times of Israel? How does removing Palestinian sources do anything to accomplish the supposed goal of this place to representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources? Do Palestinian not represent a significant view? Or are only Israeli views significant? nableezy - 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you not notice that I agreed certain Israeli sources should not be used because of their slanted perspective. In the tank firing incident, do you not see how Maan omitted the small detail of the person shot setting off an explosive, and instead suggested he was a peaceful farmer? And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false. There are numerous sources that contradict their version of events. I am not against any significant point of views that is reliably reported, however this manifestly is not one of them. Ankh.Morpork 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you agreed that voice of the settlers shouldnt be used. You want a cookie for that? As far as the rest of that noise above, if there are sources that contradict Ma'an then add them too. I am unaware of a reliable source that contradicts that Palestinian fishermen have been rounded up and several killed by Israeli forces, which is what the source cited is used for. Did you notice that, or was looking for the translation of an op-ed a more important task? nableezy - 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to rebut all the proposterous claims that Maan makes for them not to be considered reliable. Maan reports that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards and a nation of agitators. Must I similarly only disbelieve this once a contradictory RS is produced? You demand that the Palestinian voice is included, yet dismiss out of hand that the voice of the settlers should be similarly treated. Maybe your inconsistent approach would have been more obvious to you if you had not been preoccupied following my edits. I repeat that who the mouth belongs to makes no difference but the voice must be of a reliable tone. Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt true. Ma'an doesnt report that, an op-ed by Sawsan Nageeb Abdel Halim says that. See if you cant figure out what the difference is. nableezy - 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you should probably read your supposed smoking gun again. It says An Israeli military spokeswoman said forces fired on "a suspect apparently placing an explosive device." Unlike Haaretz however, Ma'an doesnt take the Israeli military's favored narrative as though it were gospel truth. nableezy - 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

mosque hit

Why was On 8 November, residents of the town of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip said an Israeli tank wounded four children and damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower removed? And why did the edit summary make no mention of the fact that it was removed by a user who has complained of unexplained sourced content removals and that others should add additional content or make changes by introducing constructive edits + summaries? nableezy - 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you really looking for an answer you can always ask the "user" directly ;) The diff in question doesn't remove the content, it added to it. The most important info is the effect of the Israeli strike. The 4 wounded children are there, to which I add another wounded from that attack, as well the event of the previous day(same source). Removing that it was said by "residents of the town of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip"(unnecessary), that it is an "Israeli tank"(because those are two incidents, the other strike is air strike, so both were condensed into strike) and the "damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower" amount of detail that we avoid for all the entries(like 'pregnant' woman, etc) which is only used for over sensualization.--Mor2 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What was hit isnt sensualization, sorry. Its not sensualization when we write an apartment building in Kiryat Malachi, and it isnt when we write damaged a mosque minaret and a water tower. Explain to me the difference please. nableezy - 05:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for Nableezy

Do you think an RS would publish an article saying it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires? Ankh.Morpork 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason you keep opening sections to ask irrelevant questions? And do you know what you are linking to? nableezy - 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

To the point, I dont believe I have ever said that Sawsan Nageeb Abdel Halim is a reliable source or that her op-ed should be cited. Please try to get back to the point of this page, that being to discuss the content of the article, not what some random op-ed said. nableezy - 21:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that your translation AnkhMorpork? As you are clearly unable to read and understand a simple english text, I seriously doubt your skills as an arabic(?)-english translator.PerDaniel (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reread the question. "Do you think an RS would publish an article saying..." I want your view on the newspaper itself. Ankh.Morpork 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reread the answer, that is an irrelevant question. Or, as irrelevant as the question on whether or not a source who continues to publish material by the author of a "work" derided as racist is a reliable source for news. nableezy - 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant; you inserted this "news organisation" into the article that happens to publish articles about those nasty Jews. I will ask you for the third time: Do you consider this newspaper a reliable source for this article? Ankh.Morpork 22:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the newspaper is reliable, what kind of question is that? Do you think the source you used is usable? Really? Thats what you come up with? And again, try to distinguish between one persons op-ed and a news organizations articles on, oh I dont know, the news. nableezy - 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any paper which would print that is hardly reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Says you. Not WP:RS. Is there any evidence, any at all, that the material that they actually report is inaccurate? nableezy - 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you would reconsider after you saw its disgusting content. Ankh.Morpork 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks? nableezy - 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material on Palestinian fisherman being killed

Ill be adding several more sources to render moot that rather ansurd objection in Darkness Shine's edit summary. This doesnt even need a source, it is a well known fact, a fact being removed because it makes the Greatest Country in the Whole Universe look less than perfect. nableezy - 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? Absurd? Let me know were in that source it says the IDF are pinching boats. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Common knowledge, not exactly a freak occurence. For example this or this or this or this or this or this should suffice. nableezy - 22:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not respond to my question, how strange. First source printed 12.03.05 when did POD begin? Second source also 2005, same question applies. Third source, 2009. last one 2005. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize what section you removed that material from? You think you are proving your point by showing that this goes back many years and is not a surprising turn of events? nableezy - 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that unless it is about POD then it has no place in this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You really are out of your depth here. And by the way, why did you remove what was in the cited source? That Israel killed a fisherman? Is there a reason for that removal? Or are you just here as backup? nableezy - 23:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am on dry land, so nope not out of my depth. It may serve you well to stop right now with insinuations as I will deem it a personal attack, M'kay. What happened five years ago has nothing to do with this article, so no it does not belong here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

lol. If you feel that way, you can start removing the sentence on Hamas being designated as a terrorist organization, cited to several articles from 2005, 2003, 2010, ... nableezy - 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And if you want to actually learn something, you could read this or this or this or this or this. Those recent enough for ya? nableezy - 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with operation pillar of defense? Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they are directly involved in POD. First source, after the ceasefire. And is about a guy who sailed into restricted waters. Second source, the same it is after the cease fire. Third source, 2005 (do you not look at dates?) The last two sources are also from after the ceasefire, in fact I think other than the 2005 one they are all the same story from AFP. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that the post ceasefire section isn't a continually growing section to be updated as more events occur wholly unrelated to the ceasefire. You need a source that links them to this operation. Ankh.Morpork 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The section this material was removed from was Pre-operation events. The paragraph this was removed from was about Palestinian grievances (silly of them to think that counts, but dems the breaks). The sentence immediately following the removed material Fishery provides Gaza with a large share of its food production, and Israel has imposed limits on Gazan fishermen's work. The source for that sentence is a dead link, but is in fact this AFP article about, you guessed it, the very same fisherman that the Ma'an source was about. There is no reason why the fisherman being killed should be removed from this article. Ill restore that bit. As far as sinking boats, if you all want to pretend that including background material in a background section is verboten I can play along. Ill just site this Haaretz piece on the limits that Israel places on Gazan fisherman, along with a sentence about that specific killing. nableezy - 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with this at all, shit like that happens all the time, where in the sources does it say it is tied into this operation? A lot of that coatrack crap need to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What shit happens all the time? And how is it connected? Are you serious? Do you know anything about this issue? Do you know one of the grievances of the Palestinian population and government of Gaza was the restrictions placed on Palestinian fisherman? Do you know that he ceasefire included the easing of these restrictions? This is what I was talking about with depth. nableezy - 05:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrorists lob hundreds of rockets at Israel. That is not a Pre-operation event it is the usual. Israel retaliates, also business as usual. Half the crap in that section has no place there at all. Given none of the sources mention this operation, it is pure coatrack. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Business as usual, zionist editors distorting reality, stating that Palestinians fighting a forgiegn occupation are terrorists, Israeli attacks, even as an invading force, are retalitory or defensive, zionist editors slowly chipping away at the neutrality of the article, such as removing the fact Hamas was elected for the purpose of deletimizing Palestine, zionist editors removing the fact that Gazan rocket attacks decrease due to a peace treaty and increased AFTER Israel being bombing Gaza again - replacing this with a false narrative that Israel started bombing Palestinians because the Palestinians were fighting back first. Editors placing claims in the first paragraph that Hamas' goal is to kill civilians, making well documented facts into "alleged" facts. I won't stand for it, and I know I have much support from the non-zionists, so I have reverted some of these more blatantly bias and despicable edits. Sepsis II (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis II

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)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles