Talk:Operation Chastise

Operation Chastise → Dambusters RaidDambusters Raid – More common term for the raid. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

OPPOSE on the basis that it fails WP:PRECISION, as there were many other "dambusters" (i.e. 617 Squadron) raids (e.g. Operation Garlic), Operation Chastise is just the best known one. Also, no evidence has been presented that "Dambusters Raid" is the more common term. Overall, I think it's better for "Dambusters raid" to redirect to "Operation Chastise", which is the current situation. Shimbo (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, there were many others, but they are not at all well known, which is why this particular raid is commonly known as the Dambusters raid or something similar. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Still fails WP:PRECISION. "Well-known but imprecise" search terms are exactly what redirects are for. There's already a redirect, so I'm not sure what problem we're solving by making the name of the article vaguer. Shimbo (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

One problem is that using the current uncommon and less recognisable name violates our article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Except it doesn't necessarily, because there are many facets to the naming policy and although the current name arguably fails WP:COMMONNAME, the proposed alternative fails WP:PRECISION and arguably WP:NPOVTITLE, and both fail MOS:CODENAME. So where does that leave us? Shimbo (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It either does or it doesn't... no necessarily is necessary. Yes, there are many many facets to the naming policy but WP:COMMONAME is one of the more important. The proposed name doesn't fail WP:PRECISION as there are no other articles which might use this name (nor are there ever likely to be but cross that bridge if and when we get to it). I've asked elsewhere how the proposed name is "arguably" POV, I cannot imagine why it could be but tell me more. MOS:CODENAME applies to all but the most well-known operations. I think this is one of the most well-known operations, you disagree?

So it seems to me to leave us with no valid arguments against the move, despite many valiant attempts. Andrewa (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

On what basis is WP:COMMONNAME "more important" than WP:PRECISION, WP:NPOVTITLE and MOS:CODENAME? It doesn't say it's more important in the policy. No hierarchy is given.

The operation is well-known amongst British people of older generations (I'd probably say "WW2 RAF enthusiasts" even, which includes myself and presumably you), but to say it's "one of the most well-known operations" is pushing it too far. You could consider that D-Day (surely a better known operation than this) redirects to 'Normandy Landings", whilst the overall campaign is under "Operation Overlord" not "Battle of Normandy". Your argument is analogous to saying the whole thing should be under D-Day, as that's the common name.

I don't agree that you've made your case and 'voting' (I know it's not a vote, but it is indicative of whether there's a consensus) is 2-2. So, either we need to accept that there's no consensus or we need wider input. Shimbo (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

That is entirely up to the closer, who will assess the !votes according to how they reflect existing consensus particularly as expressed in existing policy, and discard those that don't. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, please consider WP:NPOVNAME which states:

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." Shimbo (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that Dambusters Raid is POV? Which POV? Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's an allied propaganda term for the raid. I'm sure it wasn't called anything as flippant as "Dambusters raid" by the thousands of people whose lives were ruined by the damage it caused. It was a catastrophe for them. Shimbo (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This appears to me to show your POV.

Yes the name was used in allied propaganda including in newsreels very soon after the raid. I would even guess the name was invented for that purpose. But that is irrelevant. We should not take either POV.

Yes it was a disaster to the civilian population, and has been suggested to be a war crime (but I see no mention of that in the article, have I missed it?). But none of that is relevant to our choice of an article name. We should not take either POV. Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My POV is pro-British and pro-RAF, so insinuating otherwise is just wrong. However, just because I'm on that side doesn't mean I've not been editing Wikipedia long enough to recognise POV terms when I see them.

I also don't think the raid was a war-crime, so again insinuating otherwise is just wrong. But, the raid doesn't have to be a war crime to recognise that the people affected would not have used a term like "Dambusters" to describe the destruction the attack unleashed on them.

So, clearly it's a POV term, and as you agree we shouldn't take either POV, "Dambusters Raid" is untenable.

The choice then is either "Operation Chastise", which passes WP:NPOVNAME but fails WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CODENAME, or "1943 RAF attack on Ruhr Dams" (or similar) which pass WP:NPOVNAME and MOS:CODENAME but fail WP:COMMONNAME.

None of the options are ideal IMO, but I'd rank them as:

1. "Operation Chastise"

2. "1943 RAF attack on Ruhr Dams", "1943 Ruhr Dams Attack", or similar

3. "Dambusters Raid" Shimbo (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Disagree that clearly it's a POV term. I think this is the issue exactly. To reject the common name on the grounds that it's POV to use it is nonsensical. Some that use it may be expressing a POV, but that doesn't mean that we are. We use it because it is the common name. And to reject it, in violation of our basic and consensus-based policy and practice on that, is itself POV.

This is obviously a passionate issue for you. It's not technically COI so far as I know but I advise caution.

I still rank those as 1. "Dambusters raid" (or a variation of that) and no opinion on the ranking of those other suggestions, but both are less suitable for reasons already given.

It will always be a sensitive subject. Barnes Wallis was later a personal friend of my father, who said he never really recovered from the loss of so many of the bomber crews. He was not permitted onto the base for security reasons, but watched the aircraft return from outside the fence, and knew exactly how many had not returned.

It is hard for me to imagine what those war years were like. Some who were there have told me that the film Battle of Britain came close to the reality. One of my father's closest friends was navigator on a Lancaster bomber (but not on the dambuster raid). One night he and his pilot (there was no copilot in the Lancaster) were in the final briefing, and his own aircraft was next to the building with its engines warming up. The next thing he remembered was people lifting a steel beam to release him from the rubble. The full bomb load of his own aircraft had somehow exploded. He was the only one of his crew still alive, but of course several other navigators had been killed or injured, so he flew with a different crew the following night. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a "passionate issue" for me, I have no COI (what COI would I even have? German relatives?). You are an experienced editor and you know as well as anyone that WP:PA are not okay, so please stop questioning my motives instead of discussing the issue.

We have both made points in favour of our preferred cause of action. You have not convinced me, and clearly I've not convinced you. There is no consensus and so the way forward is to close the move as 'no consensus' or seek further input from others. Shimbo (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The move should eventually be closed by an uninvolved editor, when they decide that either (perhaps rough) consensus has been achieved or that further progress towards consensus is not possible. They may find your advice to them helpful, it's up to them entirely. I unreservedly apologise for any perceived or actual personal attacks, that policy has been criticised as aspirational or similar by some editors over the years but not by me, see User:Andrewa/gentle editor. Andrewa (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now. Shimbo (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

support per MOS:CODENAME—blindlynx 15:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading MOS:CODENAME, it seems to recommend the article name should be something like: "1943 Aerial Attack on the Ruhr Dams" rather than "Dambusters Raid". Shimbo (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What anout 'Ruhr Dambusters Raid' given op garlic was also in 19ř3—blindlynx 01:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. Dambusters Raid (or preferably I think Dambusters raid) is far more recognisable. Anyone with any knowledge of the Dambusters march or the film The Dam Busters would recognise that title, while many would not recognise the official name of the raid. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment. It's The Dam Busters March - the book, film and music from the film all spell it with two words. 617 Squadon refer to it as the Dams Raid, the battle honour is "The Dams", the Bomber Command 60th Anniversary website called them "Dam Busters" (via archive.org) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Very good points. It seems to me a case could be made either way for whether it is one word or two. But it also seems to me that these points all support some sort of move away from the current Operation Chastise. The current name is one which none of these people use. Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: No, one word or two word has no bearing on whether it should move. Battle honours are seldom the names that events are actually called, as a necessity they are abbreviated references. The Bomber Command entry specifically says "For the dams raid- known as Operation Chastise - No. 617 put up 19 Lancasters..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree. One word or two is mainly relevant to where it should move if it does. Question: Which Bomber Command entry do you mean? How is it relevant to this RM? Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I ask, neither our articles Bomber Command nor RAF Bomber Command mention Operation Chastise except in the footer Template:RAF WWII strategic bombing which describes it as Chastise ("Dambusters" raid), which seems to me to combine both the official and common names for this raid... further supporting the use Dambusters' raid in some form as the common name and therefore our preferred article title. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, per arguments by user:Shimbo. PeterWD (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Dams, WikiProject Military history, and Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)