Talk:2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun

message: Hey how to differ this with Operation Summer Rain?--Nielswik(talk) 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  where this was already talked about. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree with Rangeley. – Zntrip 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Operation Summer Rains suboperations for a chonological list of the subops. El_C 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  ~Rangeley (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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."  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)
replies: text: Is there any confirmation of such definition on IDF official website? -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Feel free to write to them; the link abve is sufficient. El_C 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not sufficient. Feel free to find decent source, confirmed by officials. -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And you don't have an official source for OSR consisting from all following operations?  tasc wordsdeeds 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Really. Are you going to start bolding your text for emphasis? Because I advise against it. El_C 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is an incorrect assumption on your part. Needless to say, I advise against it. El_C 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Have you found one for yours? Please cease from unproductive provocations. Thanks. El_C 02:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have a question: 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  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)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Postscript: If I understand correctly, the outcome above said that Operation Summer Rains would be renamed to . However, it was never moved as described. The redirect at  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)
thread_title: Postscript

message: :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)
replies: text: 2006 Israeli operation in 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 October 2023