Talk:2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun

Untitled

Hey how to differ this with Operation Summer Rain?--Nielswik(talk) 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. But I think that Operation Summer Rain is still ongoing and that this is like an umbrella operation. --Spoil29 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not, see namegiving. Autumn commes after Summer, while several of the smaller operations were called differently or took the rain, e.g. Rain Man a couple of weeks back. IDF-Website is no help. Nvertheless, there is a short statement in an old Ynetnews article Gaza: IDF kills 4 Hamas members, saying, that: the IDF admitted during the war in the north that Operation Summer Rains had ended, military officials made it clear that the operations against terror organizations in the strip will continue.. --213.155.224.232 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Summer Rains to say it ended.. however people continually revert. Operation Summer Rains has ended, its not going to be stated everywhere because it basically ended without accomplishing its goal of freeing Gilad Shalit. But its over, the Summer is over, and they have moved on to other operations such as this one. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we do with the casualties section that we kept updating (and still do) ever since summer rain began?--Spoil29 21:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously only the casualties up to the point that it ended should be kept, everything after that belongs to other operations or simply the general Al-Aqsa Intifada, which is the conflict that all of these operations are a part of. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem, that Summer Rain ended while all were focussed on the July War/Lebanon War 2006 and I don't remember to have seen an explicite statement about the end. I think, however, that I have read a notice by AP about the fights between Israel and Hezbollah that they ended Summer Rain for the moment and to come back later. In the German version of Summer Rain we'd covered the events which happened after Summer Rain still as ongoing part of Summer Rain. Nevertheless, I plan to put up a new article of the Autumn Clouds, since it is a totally new campain and a simple look out of the window confirms that it isn't summer anymore, either. --213.155.224.232 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

There should only be one article titled 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict (beginning from June 28, 2006), that should include all the operations. --Spoil29 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Operation Summer Rains and Operation Autumn Clouds are both Operations in the wider Al Aqsa Intifada, which is a real conflict. There is no such thing as the 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict, and attempting to classify something as this is inherently misrepresenting reality. Please see the discussion here [1] where this was already talked about. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree with Rangeley. – Zntrip 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Operation Summer Rains suboperations for a chonological list of the subops. El_C 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia's articles, here is an Israeli news site where a general states that Operation Summer Rains had ended [2] ~Rangeley (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Wikipedia is an excelent source for Wikipedia articles; I've translated countless ones. A General is not stating that the operation is over. A reporter tells us that, if anything, the claim it had ended was in error and that operations continue, as they did. Did you happen to look at the date? This piece was written on Aug 28, two days after Operation Locked Garden (Aug 26), which followed Operation Southern Shalit (June 28), Operation Bashan Oaks (Jul 2), Operation Feedback (Jul 12), Operation Final Grade (Jul 16), Operation Samson's Pillars (Jul 26), and Operation Horizon Line (Aug 2). And, of course it did not end there, but was followed by Operation Rain Man (Oct 14), Operation Four Kinds (Oct 16), Operation Sqeezed Fruit (Oct 17), and Operation Autumn Clouds (Nov 1). El_C 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are an admin and know very well that Wikipedia articles need reliable sources, and getting information from other Wikipedia articles (which are in turn not sourced) is not a way of doing this. This is the exact quote from the article "Although the IDF admitted during the war in the north that Operation Summer Rains had ended, military officials made it clear that the operations against terror organizations in the strip will continue." It seems pretty straight forward to me, this operation ended but that is not to say the anti-terror effort has ended. While your idea that OAC is part of OSR is interesting, it is totally contradicted by this article which states it has ended, and this article which state OAC followed OSR [3]. It would be much appreciated if you just settled this by finding reliable sources which back up your view if they indeed exist. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, no General, then...? Here is a source which says: "Operation Autumn Clouds is another chapter in Operation Summer Rains. In northern Gaza it was preceded by Operations Bashan Oaks, Feedback, Final Grade, Samson's Pillars, Locked Garden, and Four Kinds. Concurrently, within the framework of Summer Rains, in southern Gaza and especially in the Philadelphi Route, the operations Southern Shalit, Horizon Line, Rain Man [Oct.], and Sqeezed Fruit [Oct.] were launched." [4] Now, if you can cite an official statement that OSR ended, I will revise my position. But the onus is on you to produce it, as you're the one claiming it ended in Aug. El_C 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any confirmation of such definition on IDF official website? -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Feel free to write to them; the link abve is sufficient. El_C 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not sufficient. Feel free to find decent source, confirmed by officials. -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is decent. Again, do you have an official source that announces OSR was concluded in August? Or is it a guess? El_C 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have official source that OSR still ongoing and recent operation can be considered its part? or it just what i described on your talk page? You not wondering why last update about this operation was published on 7th August?  tasc wordsdeeds 12:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I take that as a no, you don't have an official source that proves OSR was concluded in August? El_C 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't have an official source for OSR consisting from all following operations?  tasc wordsdeeds 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is, then. I have a reliable source saying they were all launched within the framework of OSR. El_C 13:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? do you intentionally missed official in my question? in my opinion it's rather combination of wp editor's nightmare and poor journalism. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Are you going to start bolding your text for emphasis? Because I advise against it. El_C 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the only way to make you notice what is you're opponent saying. -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect assumption on your part. Needless to say, I advise against it. El_C 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, stop throwing around your adminship in places it shouldnt. There is no reason to try and intimidate people into not bolding... of all things. Tasc has done nothing wrong here and any actions taken against him would be corrupt and without base, two things that you would not do. I showed you a reliable source stating that the IDF has admitted OSR has ended, you say you found one in Hebrew stating it hasnt. You discredited mine because it wasnt "official," yet yours is no more official and is merely from a news page. I cant find anything saying that OAC is part of OSR on the IDF website, and until you produce one we cannot merely assume your point of view. The need for proof is always on the side of the individual making the claim, you are claiming that its a part and we are saying its not. As I have found several english articles stating it as not and you found one in hebrew stating otherwise, there is a clear contradiction which could be solved a couple ways, but not through an admin doing something so unbecoming as to lead a revert war. In the easiest way, you could try and find an official source stating it as a part which would trump any 3rd party source. This would clear it up and end the issue entirely. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that neither of you are conducting yourselves in an intellectually honest manner. Also, I am entitled to revert and I am entitled to hold an opinion on bolded text. Stop trying to intimidate me. It is not working. El_C 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out what you are doing is neither intimidation nor intellectual dishonesty. Have you found any official sources backing your claim? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found one for yours? Please cease from unproductive provocations. Thanks. El_C 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a complete English translation of the Hebrew source I cite above: It is located here. Looks like it was fairly close to my own translation (I think mine is more accurate, but note the emphasis): "Autumn Clouds" is just another installment of operation "Summer Rains" that began in June, following the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. It was preceded by other northern Gaza Strip operations: "Valley Oaks", "Feedback", "Final Grade, "Pillars of Samson", "Locked Garden" and "Four Species". Parallel to these, and considered part of "Summer Rains", different operations were conducted in the southern Gaza Strip, particularly the Philadelphi Corridor: "Southern Ruler" [ Shalit is "Ruler" in Hebrew], "Horizon", "Rain Man" and "Squeezed Fruit". El_C 03:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you are one to speak of provocations after your sneaky sock puppet accusation directed towards me. I have never doubted your translation skills, but instead questioned why we would assume your point of view when we have contradicting information. Your source is not the IDF, and doesnt claim to be, whereas mine has a reporter stating that the IDF admitted OSR had ended, therefore making it impossible for OAC to be a part of it. As we have contradicting information, unless you can provide an official IDF source stating it as a part, we cannot merely assume your point of view that it is a part. You are the one making a claim - and you are the only one that needs to find an IDF source to back it. The IDF does not need to state that it is not a part for it to be not a part, this is a silly requirement you seem to be setting. But they would need to say that it was a part in order for it to be a part, and this is the not so silly requirement being put onto you. As the person making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not accuse you of being a sockpuppet. You are also the one making a claim: that the sizable OSR was concluded, but even your own (outdated) source hints otherwise and we have no other official confirmation (maybe it exists). Whereas my (recent) claim is backed by a reliable source, which confirms everything I said in Operation Summer Rains suboperations; namely that post-Sept. ops are part of OSR. You have not even agreed that the pre-Sept. ones are part of it, even though I have references from the IDF and IAF. El_C 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not attempting to claim that I am someone else, why did you refer to me as a similarly named someone else in this edit summary? [5] And where does it hint otherwise? Here it is again "Although the IDF admitted during the war in the north that Operation Summer Rains had ended, military officials made it clear that the operations against terror organizations in the strip will continue." I said it before, I will say it again, this is clearly stating OSR has ended but operations against terrorists will continue... which would not be OSR. This isnt disqualified as a source just because its from August. The source you have given appears to be somewhat of an editoral, rather than straight news. While editorials can be reliable sources, it most certainly does not trump the news sources stating OSR has ended and at best brings it to a tie. In the case of this tie, the best we can stay at is to not accept the claim - which in this case is that it is part of OSR - until we have a more definitive source which would settle the debate. For us this would be a source from the IDF website, rather than something similar to what I produced, a reporter stating what the IDF has said, or what you produced, an editorial making a claim (but not even citing where this information was gathered.) I do recall reading on Jpost and Haaretz that Bashan Oaks was a subop of OSR, something which has not happened for OAC, where they have not made this claim. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't an accusation, I just confused the two usernames. I suppose we can claim the post-Sept. are not officially part of OSR, but I would like a more specific citation. Otherwise, it is intuitive that it follows the same framework cited in my source. El_C 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what we know from sources, the operations which are listed that occured before the article I provided could be part of OSR, though a source outside of that editorial would be optimal. Again, as it contradicts other sources and does not cite where it got its information, I dont know that that specific editorial can be considered reliable. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is as reliable as your source, perhaps more so. Your source does not cite anyone specific, only refering to the IDF generically and therefore less than reliably, esp. considering the statement was issued (by whom?) during the confusing days of the Lebanon War. Other mentions of OSR being over are equally ungrounded. It'd be usful to have more definitive citations. El_C 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question:

Does the war on terrorism cover the invaders of Beit Hanoun and the rest of the Gaza Strip, on do the people have to be specifically Muslims in order to be called terrorists?

no. see ETA, PIRA, etc. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg

Image:Logoprc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: already closed. The close was done out of process (please review WP:RMCI), but I don't think there is a significant problem with the interpretation of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 10:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Amended proposal below

– Most sources do not use the Israeli military operation name as the primary descriptor of these events. Many of our articles go for neutral names such as Gaza War (2008–09), 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun, Beit Hanoun April 2008 incident, Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019), Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2019), Israeli raid on Beit Hanoun (2004), March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. There also appears to be emerging consensus amongst interested editors such as Bolter21 (who opposes one sided names), Île flottante (who opposes names which are “the common name by one side of the conflict only”) and WarKosign (who opposes names “given by one side of the conflict” unless used with quotation marks). Onceinawhile (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, except for the last one which I’m fine with. Raid and siege are non-NPOV. Invasion would give the reader the false impression that Gaza/Palestinian territories are a sovereign state, which is debatable. I propose that these proposals all be rejected. Île flottante (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get you here (although I feel some negative tone in how you tagged me and WarKosign). Indeed Israeli operation names in the context of Gaza are quite POV (as opposed to say, 1948 war, where they are generally accepted as the names of the events, but that's not the topic here). I would choose "offensive" instead of "invasion/raid/shelling". Another way to phrase it would be the year followed by "Israel-Gaza conflict", because these offensives are usually an Israeli response to something the Palestinians did - which is usually a response to something Israel has done but the point being - since the article doesn't only deal with the offensive itself but with the background and aftermath. In Israel, these events are seen as "combat rounds", as if, the reality is that there are "rounds" of violence between longer periods of temporary calm, which in my eyes doesn't seem too much like an Israeli POV. So calling it "xxxx Israeli-Gaza conflict" has the same fashion and is quite neutral (and if there are two rounds in the same year, just put the month/months there, even though it is a bit clunky. If not, I think maybe deeper research can be done to find suitable names. Let's not forget that this is only the name that appears in links, and there is always a lead paragraph that (should) have all of the information, including the defunct operation name.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I tend to agree with NPOV titles, but there is nothing NPOV about the titles you proposed. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally concur with Bolter's reasoning here. I don't mind which way this goes, as long as the decision has general force for all articles. I.e. state a principle of NPOV naming and stick to it everywhere. A vote against 'Great March of Return' in short, should lead to a name change on all these articles on exactly the same grounds. A confirmation that IDF brand names for their offensives are okay automatically should require that editors approve of the same with articles using a Palestinian definition. As to Gonnym's remarks, the problem is not in the proposed alternative names, but in the fact that the several Israeli names are not NPOV. For Israel Operation Pillar of Defense proclaims as biblically 'defensive' an event which many secondary sources consider 'offensive' in both senses of that word. Weather names (Operation Rainbow) for what turned out to be operations inflicting massive one-sided casualties, conjure up nice memories of Judy Garland singing 'Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true,' but the Palestinian POV would think those dreams are more properly nightmares. It's always struck me as obscene in its lighthearted teasing of what for the others was tragic.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended proposal

See above proposed amended names reflecting comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term offensive implies that the incident was initiated by Israel and not, as was actually the case, by Palestinian terrorists firing projectiles into Israeli territory. The term offensive is non-NPOV. One could also go for Israeli anti terror operations 2012, etc. I therefore oppose to that proposal and suggest either merging the topics within the broader topic, e.g. the second intifada article, or labelling it on the lines of Israel-Gaza Conflict November 2012. Île flottante (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Hundred Days Offensive and Budapest Offensive as examples disproving your suggestion. I doubt you can find any examples of events labelled “offensive” which were not part of a wider cycle of conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to historical events which occurred at a time and in a situation where the word offensive is understood in a purely military context. The analogy to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is however erroneous because the present conflict is not between two or more sovereign states but rather between a sovereign state (Israel) and a non-state actor (Palestinian militants of various affiliations). Furthermore, the word conflict is more appropriate as it will allow the article to better describe the bilateral nature of the affair, namely that Israeli military force was deployed in response to Palestinian acts of terror. By using offensive, editors will need to create a new, separate article in which to explain the terror attacks that had required an Israeli intervention. In sum, I maintain that any renaming should be done on the lines of Israel-Gaza Conflict November 2012, etc. Île flottante (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory articles you are suggesting already exist here. Alternatively, we could rename for example “List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2007” to “List of Palestinian rocket conflicts with Israel in 2007”, since every Palestinian rocket firing has a preceding Israeli attack which the militants claim as their justification. Or if we are fine with “attacks” for Palestinian-led events, we must be fine with the much softer and more technical “offensive” for Israeli-led events. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the IDF's armed responses always come after the initial act of Palestinian aggression, justified or not, it is wrong to mislead a reader into thinking that the situation is anything other than an Israeli response to initial Palestinian aggression. Again, I reiterate that I think the best solution is to unite both perspectives into one article for each timespan, on the lines of Israel-Gaza Conflict November 2012, etc. Île flottante (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested names are POV, except Operation Summer Rains. "Offensive by Israel" implies that Israel attacked for no reason. All these operations were conflicts with militants and casualties on both sides. Operation Hot Winter, for instance "was an Israel Defense Forces military campaign in the Gaza Strip, launched on February 29, 2008 in response to Qassam rockets fired from the Strip by Hamas onto Israeli civilians." You can't single out Israel's response without mentioning what triggered it. Indeed these operation names are given by a single side of the conflict, but unlike "great march of return" most of them do not carry any inherent meaning, they are just code names. “WarKosign” 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the IDF's armed responses always come after the initial act of Palestinian aggression Île flottante

You can't single out Israel's response without mentioning what triggered it.WarKosign

Unfortunately for your POV assumptions, there is a technical literature that challenges this, starting with Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki, and Nancy Kanwisher'sarticle whose sampling shows that both sides retaliate, i.e.'refute the view that Palestinians are uncontingently violent, showing instead that a significant proportion of Palestinian violence occurs in response to Israeli behavior. Well-established cognitive biases may lead participants on each side of the conflict to underappreciate the degree to which the other side's violence is retaliatory, and hence to systematically underestimate their own role in perpetuating the conflict.' The terms are loaded in Israel's favour in innumerable articles, in violation of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental protocols.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

both sides retaliate Nishidani

Hence it is not a single-sided offensive by Israel. Thank you for agreeing. “WarKosign” 13:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear no, no agreement. Your smart crack ignores the point made. I can hardly reciprocate, thanking you for not understanding the import of my argument. Please note that over all articles up for a proposed name change, both you and the other editor stated that the IDF acts in all such cases listed when the ensuing act of war is 'triggered' or follows an 'initial act of Palestinian (read Gazan) aggression. I.e. you both explicitly state that Palestinians provoked Israel into responding in the instanced acts of wars. I state that the technical literature challenges this Israelocentric POV you both underwrite. In all of those cases, the respective justifications must be in the article, but the titles must not prejudicate the issues by using only the Israeli operational name. Jeezus.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the proposed name changes, or any other variant on Offensive. These are major military operations, military interventions (all possible alternatives) and should be called thus, and certainly not by the sassy marketing brand names Israel's defense establishment likes to think up.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the editor’s desire to change the name, but I share WarKosign’s reservations as the word proposed. I therefore, again propose a comprise consisting in renaming the mentioned articles on the lines of Israel-Gaza Conflict November 2012, etc. This solution will allow readers to see both perspectives in one article whilst also using a more neutral appellation which will hopefully be acceptable to a greater number of follow editors. Île flottante (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli military operation covers them all. It is what all of those titles explicitly refer to, since they are the brand names for exactly such actions. Something like this would clear the custard and leave the meringue standing. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal doesn’t, in my opinion, ameliorate the articles in any way and could lead readers to mistakenly believe military force was first used by the Israeli armed forces, whereas it is of course the case that violence was first committed by Palestinian terrorists. For these reasons I oppose your counter proposal wholeheartedly it is worse than the present titles. Île flottante (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Île flottante: ”whereas it is of course the case that violence was first committed by Palestinian terrorists”?
That opinion suggests a hyperpartisan inability to identify NPOV. Everyone here is lamenting the cycle of violence perpetuated by both sides, whereas you allocate responsibility to only one side.
If you cannot move away from this extremist rhetoric, your views will be ignored.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one’s views are truly ever NPOV, and yes I agree my rhetoric was perhaps a bit excessive and I’ll tone it down. But I’ve made a counter proposal which aims to meet both side’s criticism of the current article titles and one therefore cannot suggest that I’m not discussing the matter in good faith. Île flottante (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended proposal 2.0

I initially offered "offensive" to replace the terms "raid", "invasion" and "shelling". I like this term since in my ears it sounds exactly like Onceinawhile's World War II examples. But other users here have brought a decent concern that I must agree with. Indeed "Israeli offensive" marks Israel as the initiator of such event. Île flottante says that the operations are a response to Palestinian terrorism, which is quite true, and Nishidani says that the Palestinian acts of terrorism (which he might prefer a different wording to describe them, his right to do so), are also responses to Israeli activities, which is also, true. The reality is that almost any serious military confrontation between Israel and Hamas, an army and a militia, is a response to a response to a response and so on. Since at the moment you will not get a consensus for "offensive", let me bring another suggestion:

I don't think there are many problems with these names. It seems that the common name would be the actual name of the operations for most cases, as they are smaller in scale than the 2014 and 2009 conflicts, which are already branded as wars by western media. I think this is a nice compromise and shouldn't upset anyone. Also, judging by my history of reading this articles, I don't think anyone really search for them and they only reach them by seeing them as links in other articles, so it doesn't really matter. I believe Nishidani has already kinda accepted this phrasing, because he said he supports "any other variant on Offensive". Removing "Israel" is a technical move, but it doesn't really push any POV or make it ambigues. The lead section already explains everything. Besides, the Hundred Days Offensive doesn't say whose offensive is it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any POV problem with the word campaign but the meaning isn't quite correct. Military campaign is defined as a "large scale, long duration, significant military strategy plans incorporating a series of inter-related military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war". I think "operation" would describe these events better. “WarKosign” 21:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedias definition. According to Google Dictionary, it is "A series of military operations intended to achieve a particular objective, confined to a particular area, or involving a specified type of fighting." You can say that these operations are series of operations since Israeli operations in Gaza are not a single military maneuver, but more correctly a framework for many smaller attacks by air and ground, that are not entirely connected to each other. I chose "campaign" because it is the closest translation to מערכה, which is the neutral Hebrew word for it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I warmly welcome @Bolter21 ‘s suggestion, but equally I have a few reservations. Namely, the articles pertain to the Israel-Gaza/Palestine conflict, so I think it’s important both names feature, otherwise one could think the article is referring to internal strife, e.g. Palestinians protesting against their government. For this reason, I think the format “Israel-Palestine conflict MONTH YEAR” or “Israel-Palestine conflict in PLACE NAME” may be more fitting? Unfortunately there a few Hebrew words that sounds very neutral in Hebrew but have a particular connotation in English, amongst others I think מערכה is an example. :) Île flottante (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is too clunky. Some of these are spread among several months so it might just be "Israeli-Gaza conflict in September-October 2004". And besides, I don't really think these need "Israel/Gaza" in them. The "best" titles would be the operations' names, since these are the common name, even in western media. But for the sake of neutrality and balance within Wikipedia, we wish to change that. So having these is fine, since when you click on these blue letters, everything you want to know lies there. By the way, the state of these articles is horrible, so that's also a thing that needs to be fixed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you want to call these operations? “WarKosign” 05:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. To sum up, if there is a consensus for "2004 operation in Northern Gaza", it would be great. If Onceinawhile and Nishidani and maybe other new members of the discussion will prefer "2004 campaign in Northern Gaza", it would also be great.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no problem with that proposal. :) Île flottante (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with "...Israeli operation in..." (it needs the term Israeli to be consistent with all our other similarly-titled pages). I still don't like the comparison of Palestinian "attacks" and Israeli "operations", but it's better than before. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why I preferred "campaign" over "operation", since the former can easily be used without "Israeli" while the latter will probably need it. Onceinawhile, will it not be fine to have "operation" without "Israeli"? No one disputes that it is an Israeli operation, but having that on the title might imply it is a solely Israeli act while Israelis here say that according to Israeli POV it was a response. If not, I think "campaign" should be chosen.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with “...operation in...” are that it is not precise (operation can mean surgery, amongst other things), it is not natural (readers searching for these article will include the word Israeli in their search) and it is not consistent (most of our other similarly named articles include both the words “Israeli” and “Gaza” (or equivalent sub-location)).
“...Israeli operation in...” is fine. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how is it better than current "Operation Autumn Clouds"? Yes, current name is the moniker given by the IDF, so what? I can understand objection to loaded names such as "Pillar of defense", "Protective Edge" or "Great March of Return", but if the name carries no connotations and is the name usually used by the sources - what's wrong with it? "Operation Barbarossa" and other WW2 Axis operations articles use code names given by the bad guys. As long as the name is not expressing ideology of either side, who cares who thought it up? “WarKosign” 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you – loaded names are problematic, others are not. The challenge is identifying where to draw the line. Autumn Clouds doesn’t mean much to me. Days of Penitence is clearly loaded. Rainbow is a horrific name for an event in which 11 children were killed, a zoo was destroyed and 300 family homes were flattened. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is warfare don't expect it to be nice. "Operation Overlord" is currently one of the most celebrated things in humanity and still this operation included the rape of more than 3000 French women by allied soldiers. We once had an operation in my battalion which was named "Operation Birthday" for the birthday of one of our officers. During that night two of our men were injured, one Palestinian shot with live fire and a few others from rubber bullets, probably dozens inhaled teargas. Let's not forget the three families whose teenage sons were picked up in the middle of the night by armed men. Everything related to the army isn't nice. Every military operation involved destruction, killing, and damaging human life as well as buildings, animals and nature. Would it please you more if Israel called the 2014 war "Operation Kill Civilians"? Becuase it would imply the side of the story you sympathize with more? The brave "Great March of Return" in which Gazans are uniting against the Israeli oppression includes the Gazans burning half of the fields next to Gaza ("half" as in - a lot of them). People in the south are living in the shades of rocket fire, their kids grow up in shelters and now their crops which is one of the few sources of livelihood are being burned by kites and balloons. Operation Dani includes the forced deportation of Ramla and Lydda's Arabs. But this is the name of the operation, this is the framework that we are talking about right now. We are talking about the events that led, happened during and in the aftermath of an Israeli operation. The Palestinian actions and the impact on them are recorded as well. We have two sides here, which is why I urge you to simply support "2004 Campaign in Northern Gaza", which refers to warfare in Northern Gaza, what caused it, and what it caused. Please?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naming has been erratic because Wikipedia articles have been and still are composed incrementally. In the meantime we have guidance on principles that, ideally look for a certain uniformity, and over time, the contradictions would be ironed out. We are examining how to find a principle here that is prejudicial to neither party in the conflict that has endured a half century, which is not comparable to the naming of Operation Overlord that formed part of not two sides with POVs that are to be 'balanced'. It's a conceptual problem: one can imagine all the time anomalies, and never get anywhere, unless we oblige ourselves to find a minimum definition that cleans up most of the mess. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani do you have any problem with "campaign"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign implies a planned sequence of operations, I don't think operations many years apart qualify.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good suggestion Bolter, and I was tempted, till Selfstudier's point reminded me to think the usage through. I don't think we should exclude it as an option, perhaps it may fit some articles. I'm busy offline but will give it some thought in duke horse.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you will not find a different option it is going to say as the operations' names. And you know what, I can live with "2004 Israeli operation in northern Gaza" despite what I've said above. In Israeli discussions, we refer to these recent events as "operations" so I drop the claim it implies an Israel-only action. Those who understand it are condemning themselves to ignorance because they judge the book by its title.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with it too. I still don’t like the juxtaposition of Palestinian-led offensive moves being “attacks” with Israeli-led offensive moves being “operations”, but I can’t see us reaching consensus on anything more balanced at this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely ignoring your comment which I highly dislike, and focusing on the important part. Are we in for a consensus for "2004 Israeli operation in Northern Gaza", while acknowledging that it is the job of the lead section to clear any misleading that the title might create for an innocently ignorant reader?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WarKosign, Selfstudier, Nishidani, Île flottante what do you say?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really get involved in this discussion, I just think good for goose, good for gander. I'll go with consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote before, I can live with a short description of the operation instead of it's name, but I think that current name is better. “WarKosign” 13:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support your proposal, @Bolter21. Île flottante (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me, Bolter.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I call it a consensus to change the titles to:

We keep Summer Rains as "2006 Israel-Gaza confict" becuase of its long nature (4 months).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it tommorow unless there's any further objection.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Postscript

Postscript: If I understand correctly, the outcome above said that Operation Summer Rains would be renamed to 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict. However, it was never moved as described. The redirect at 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict has not been modified since 8 February 2013. I am not so sure that moving it would be desirable, since the 2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun also fits the description of a "2006 Israel–Gaza conflict". — BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This isn’t it. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun → 2006 incursion into Beit Hanoun – Not much point having a WP:NCE descriptive title and then sticking with the vaguery that is "operation", with descriptive titles often being employed for such pages specifically to avoid 'operation' names, per WP:CODENAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "incursion" may not provide a neutral point of view as it inherently identifies one party as the aggressor. Therefore, it may not be the most accurate or unbiased descriptor for the situation at hand. Operation, on the other hand, is more neutral. Marokwitz (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: It was a military action, was it not? What would you call it? A stroll in the park? I know the media adores the word "raid" (and it's used in the body) - would that work better for you? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing "Israeli" from the title, its a useful identifier. Neutral on operation/incursion, both are fine to me. — MaterialWorks 18:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Israeli_operation_in_Beit_Hanoun&oldid=1196484062"