Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

issues with gaza massacre

part 12

Could we come up with a way to rationally discuss whatever issues anybody has with the inclusion of "the gaza massacre" in the lead? I propose anybody who has a policy based reason to not include it in the lead make a subsection below. The ones I remember seeing recently I will include now. nableezy - 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid has just compiled a list of nine policy and novel categories which he suggests can be employed to argue for removal or relegation of the Gazan term. Adding and wikifying those categories below to structure our discussion if some editors want to reopen/pursue such policy discussions/debates. (late sign) RomaC (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad joke, right? I didn't "just" compile that list. We have all been talking about these issues for months. You are merely throwing up another obstacle course. If you were serious you would try to fill this in yourself. If you had been paying attention you should be able to do this in ten minutes. But you aren't serious. As I have said time and again, this is just another obstructionist move, meant to strongarm your POV into the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, but if you could please explain in each of the sections below why the phrasing "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" is a violation of each of the linked policies instead of just asserting that it is. nableezy - 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If, after all the breath that has been spent on this issue, you still have no idea, you never will. What is the point of this charade? You have rejected any and every argument as nonsense,lies, and "bullshit",[1] [2][3][4][5][6][7] and even insulting your fellow editors for making the very case you are now asking us to make again! . You will continue to do so and whenever anyone is BOLD and reverts you or one of your cronies will be there to revert them back, with edit summaries without substance, or "rvt bias" or "no consensus for this change." It is a strategy on a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality [8] [9] that has apparently worked for you, ie you keep the contentious edit out, while attempting to knock off any opponents through editwarring or sheer tiredness. Stellarkid (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has made any case. In an effort to avoid future edit-warring I asked that those who feel that this is in violation of some supposed policy to actually explain why instead of assert that it is so. You obviously do not read half of the links you throw up as evidenced in your contributions of sources and policy arguments. While you have been hunting through my contributions for things from multiple months ago that have no relation whatsoever to the topic you could have read WP:V or WP:NPOV and tried to understand those policies, and even try to make a case as to how the phrasing "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" violates any one of those policies. I suggest you leave the diff hunting to those who know what they are talking about. nableezy - 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Perhaps instead of demanding that we repeat our arguments an endless number of times for your amusement, you start by explaining in a policy based way what is mistaken about the arguments that we have already made. Why don't you add your own arguments in? Seems your main one is WP:CENSOR. Do you have any others? Why don't you make your case, not looking for a handful of sources to support you when the vast majority do not. Make your case based on what you have brought forward instead of your constant argumentation and insults. Stellarkid (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of digging through my contribs going back a year you could finally make an argument rather than an assertion. You want a policy based response? It cannot be a violation of WP:V as you have the links to the WP:RSs right in front of you, they clearly say "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza M/massacre'". It likewise cannot be a violation of WP:OR as the sources directly support the sentence. It is not a violation of NPOV as we are not saying in Wikipedia's narrative voice that this was a massacre, the significant POV, which NPOV requires we include, is attributed to the holders of that view. You want to give that a try, or are there more diffs from January on unrelated topics you would like to bring up? (and what exactly is supposed to be objectionable in those diffs?) nableezy - 06:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop dodging the issue. There is a single news provider who says that it was called the Gaza Massacre. We dispute the source. The information in thousands of other sources contradict it. It is also clear that editors are no longer interested in improving the article but winning. 2 proposals were made which might have been the first step for inclusion. Both were rejected. Too many people disagree with inclusion. Consensus has changed or does not exist anymore.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not "dodging the issue". You dispute the source, we went to the RS noticeboard and it was agreed that the Sunday Times is a reliable news source. You disputing it dont mean shit. If you get a reliable source that disputes it fine, but you just saying "I dispute this source" is meaningless. It is a reliable source that made a statement of fact, repeated in fact. Primary sources using the name have been given backing that statement up. Not one person has been able to give a policy based reason, just naming random letters hoping that they become meaningful acronyms is not a policy based reason. If you dispute the source I am afraid you will have to take that up with the source, but it is a reliable source and the sentence is verifiable. That is the threshold for inclusion, editors agreeing with the source is not. nableezy - 06:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, which policy supports the removal of this term and how does "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" violate that policy. All the ones that have been mentioned are below, please make the case. Just saying "I dispute this" is not enough. Just saying NPOV is not enough. nableezy - 06:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained to you over and over again. You refuse to accept the reasoning and the proposals for amended text. It receives way too much weight that the single news agency cannot support in the face of contradicting information. There is no consensus for inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not presented a single contradicting source. A source using another name is not a contradicting source. It is evidence that there is another name used. It is not evidence that it is not known as the "gaza massacre" in the Arab world. nableezy - 06:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was just called "Israel attacking". I don't know. What I do know is the largest Arabic news networks rarely use the term. I do know that on the date the blogger wrote the article this article here stated it. Even if it was a source that was not in question, titles used thousands of times more should also be included. Per the RS noticeboard discussion, I will now be adjusting it.Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The person is not a "blogger" and your repeated attempts to portray each of those reporters as merely a blogger is both disingenuous and irrelevant. But here is another source: the Israeli military assault is described as ‘Gaza Massacre’ by many especially in the Arab world. nableezy - 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. Your repeated attempts to say they are not is disingenuous. The other source is also by a blogger or whatever http://www.kukiforum.com/ is) and is published by a source that does not have a reputation. It does give more weight to your argument, though. I'm curious to see how someone based in the US was able to come to that conclusion but I do like the wording better since it does not assert that it is the primary title. "Bloggers have said...." would certainly work but that might be obnoxious. It could also potentially be used if titles that are better sourced and used more often were included.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the first source is a foreign editor, the second is a reporter. They are not "bloggers", the fact that they also have a blog is irrelevant. It is not an attempt to say they are not, they simply are not just "bloggers". The first has a job description from the Times as a "foreign editor". Which of these results is a blog? As for the first, is this, or this a blog? They are both not just "bloggers". It is a lie to call these people "bloggers". Please stop lying. The first time is understandable, but once corrected it become less so. nableezy - 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you provided that information before? If you did I did not see it. Stellar successfully showed that she wrote many blogs. Yes, you have now (or earlier if it got lost in the mix) shown that she has also written some paces that are not blogs. That hardly matters though. You have one RS saying something that is not shown in the other sources and is contradicted by the other information out there. You got me thinking with your last article. Asia Tribune is certainly not RS despite their cute name and the submission is from someone who has a blog/forum and not a professional writer or trusted researcher of the subject. If so many bloggers are saying it and one RS (who still looks inaccurate) there probably is something there. Gaza Massacre has been used. It is still less than other titles. If the other titles are in I have much less of a concern. I can find a source that says it was the Gaza Victory and that should not be sufficient for a bold title in the lead. Massacre deserves the place of something that sources show is used thousands of times less. That could be in the lead but the other names need to be provided as well.Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, not one single contradicting source has been presented. If you can find a source that says it was called the Gaza Victory by all means include it. Have you seen me argue against including other names? And the fact that any of the authors also has a blog is irrelevant. The place of publication is what matters, and the fact that the author of the source also has a blog does not change the fact that this source was not published in a blog but rather in a reliable source. (and yes I have provided that information before, both here and at the RS/N) nableezy - 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How the hell did I miss it? I'll blame it on so many conversations (in fact I am going to right a mean comment below which I assume was caused by it). It has been shown that she does both real articles and blogs. That is settled. However, I still don't buy the accuracy that it is the title in the Arabic World. Just like Stellar just said, controversial stuff int he lead sometimes requires multiple sources. This is exactly why. The blog you did just provide did get me thinking. It is a title/used description (blogs use it on the web and it may have been used in the Arab World). It is not used to the extent that it deserves prominence over others (which I have said 100 times). Yes it was used. Was it used alot? That has not been shown. Stellar just provided you links. I have previousley provided you links. These sources use other titles or discuss other titles. That information contradicts the source. Please stop saying we haven't provided contradictory evidence and sources. Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are attempting to contradict something I am not saying. I am not saying that this is the most common name used by all Arabic sources. I am however saying that it is a common name used in the Arab world. I have no idea where it ranks, I dont live there and I see maybe 20 minutes of Arabic news a day. But another name being used is not in any way contradicting that "Gaza M/massacre" is a common name used in the Arab world, and specifically by Hamas (who I still maintain used this name more than any other in all of the quotes I have been looking through, both in English and Arabic sources). My point is that common names for both "sides" should be in the lead. That is common practice across a number of articles. Can we at least agree that common names used by each "side" should be in the lead? nableezy - 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Common names by international media or media in the belligerent's region are important too. I don't see Hamas using it as a common name so I don't understand what the reason for going back to that argument is. To prevent a long list I thought removing them all would work. Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a long list. Look at Six-Day War. nableezy - 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a long list doesn't look as nice but it will guarantee we are not leaving anything out. The names used more often including "War on Gaza" would need to be included. You would also need to get to the bottom of Hamas or the Arab world saying it is a massacre. At this point, it still does not appear to be the primary title for either. Stellar might have some reservations about using it as a title at all and that is something that will have to be addressed.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Even if it were true that the whole world except Israel called it "The Gaza Massacre" it would still represent the opinion or "point of view" of just one side. Nableezy is well aware of this as he is always confusing "name" with "POV" in his arguments. He is trying to get his POV in the backdoor, by pretending it is an official "name" by one side and thus is somehow "balanced" by "Operation Cast Lead." We have ample evidence that Arabs call this the Gaza War as it is now named. It is certainly not appropriate to put this POV in the lede of the article, by claiming that this is the Arab/Hamas/Palestinian "name," when we have exactly one supposed RS that makes that claim, as opposed to hundreds that clearly do not use it as a proper name. Furthermore, I challenge the idea that that is a RS on the grounds that the author is writing local-interest stuff and is not subject to editorial oversight, as this article is not about the middle east, but about a local speaking engagement. All in all this is simple POV-pushing into the lede. I have asked Nableezy to take it out while we take it to the NPOV noticeboard as a show of good faith, but he has so far neglected to comment on that. I think it fair, and appropriate to WP policy, since it is not in consensus. We have a number of editors who have complained about this lede, including me, Cptnono, Jalapenos do exist, Brewcrewer, AgadaUrbanit, and others in the past. But the point for Nableezy (and one or two other of the constant reverters) is not to get consensus, but to get the opinion in. They are hoping to bury the argument in verbiage so that no admin would want to wade through it, and hoping that the debaters will tire and that the opinion will stay in until someone else challenges a few months down the road, as has just happened, and then they can continue to revert it claiming stability and consensus. With luck they can knock off a few unwitting editors who disagree with them by taking them to the 3RR board, or some other board, along the way. I think this could be considered a clear case of gaming the system. Stellarkid (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument has also been buried in a flood of conversations (more than one editors fault, of course)) and ignoring certain arguments. I think the lead is ridiculous and could easily be fixed to be a concise and factual summary without this "title". There is also not consensus for inclusion but that has been warped into not having consensus to remove (which is really against the principles of burden and not healthy for the project). As I have said I could see a solution of listing titles but that seems like such a cop out to have to do it that way. It also doesn't address all of the issues. There have been so many attempted compromises (which is a concern in itself) and it is just a shame that it is being pushed and pushed.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, even on the part about taking responsibility for the endless verbiage :) but none for ignoring certain arguments. Heaven knows there has been at least one of us that has responded to each one, and probably some that haven't been made yet! But yes to all that. Stellarkid (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the long explanations at all. The endless number of subsections might have caused a disconnect, though. I noticed I started responding in several subsections all saying about the same thing! I don't even know what to do. Seek additional administrative oversight, foster compromise, stand ground while looking for someone to slip... this sucks.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden has been met, a verifiable source has been presented. There was consensus for inclusion back in Jan/Feb, with only a few (some since banned) editors saying it is POV. The idea that if the whole world except for Israel called "the Gaza Massacre" it would not belong in the lead shows that this is simply a POV effort to impose Israel's POV before and above and to the exclusion of any other. I have no respect (literally none) for any of you anymore so I will not be editing this page. Bye. nableezy - 16:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

(somebody who thinks "known as the gaza massacre in the arab world" is non-neutral please explain why here nableezy - 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

NPOV for this phrase has not been argued for the entire article, only for the lede. It has not been established that it has met WP requirements re WP:LEAD. If it does not then to insert a derogatory term in the lede (whether or not used by the "Arab world" or "the other party to the conflict" ) is inappropriate and "non-neutral". This is particularly true is there is not consensus to include it.

• WP:LEAD:

Relevant portions, italics mine:

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible ..... The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

According to some of us, notability for the this suggested alternate name ("Gaza Massacre") has not been established via reliable published sources, nor is it carefully sourced. As WP:LEADCITE goes on to say: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

On the use of alternative names WP:LEAD says: "Although Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines recommend the use of English, there are instances where the subject of an article is best-known in English-speaking sources by its non-English name. When the subject is best known by an English title, its alternative names may be included; however, the editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability.

The argument is that

1. It has not been established through a preponderance (as demanded by the fact that it is controversial) of reliable sources that it is, in fact, a commonly used Arabic "name",
2. If established as a commonly-used alternative name, it may be included, but the WP:BURDEN is on the editor that wishes to add it to demonstrate that it is adds to the "readability" of the article.

To establish "Gaza Massacre" as an "alternative name," it should (generally) meet the requirements of WP:NC which it does not on the grounds that

1. It is not the most commonly used - per search engine test
2. There are insufficient RS - per search engine test
3. English preferred
4. Descriptive names should be neutrally worded
5. It must be added through WP:consensus

Stellarkid (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "derogatory term" and if it were a "derogatory term" it would not matter. And a search engine test is meaningless. The name is presented neutrally. And there as consensus for inclusion when it was introduced in January. And there are reliable sources for this sentence, the one cited and the 10 in the RfC. How could it be any more reliably sourced when a reliable source says exactly this? And for the last time, read WP:BURDEN. There is a verifiable reliable source that says exactly what the article does, the burden defined in that policy is met. nableezy - 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One can see that this silly charade of yours to appear reasonable by making a chart for your "opponents" to fill so that you might appear rational and collegial is really just more POV obstructionism, as I said earlier. You are continuing the same pattern. Simply denying, saying it "doesn't matter," saying that the arguments presented are "meaningless" yet giving no policy based argument. The WP:consensus issue should not be addressed here since it is another category, not NPOV. What you are saying is that the fact that something is called a "massacre" is not a derogatory term since it is "presented" neutrally? Please demonstrate with the appropriate wiki policy since you are insistent that others do so. Please demonstrate with wiki policy how one source written by a reporter of local and entertainment issues is sufficient to put a controversial and derogatory term in the lede when the vast majority of RS do not use such terminology? Once again, if "Gaza Massacre" were a proper name, both Gaza and "massacre" would be expected to be capitalized according the rules of English grammar. As it stands, it is at best a descriptive, alternative POV name. WP:NCON -- "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." Implications, hmmm.... Stellarkid (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When you make bogus arguments my response is that they are bogus are bogus arguments. And this is not used as the name of the article. And the main point of the "derogatory" claim is that it does not matter if you think it is "derogatory", that is not a valid reason to remove it from the lead. And it is not "one source", many sources supporting the phrasing have been presented. 3 different sources that say flat out it is called the Gaza M/massacre in the Arab world have been presented. And people agreed at the RS noticeboard that the source is reliable to make the statement of fact that it has been called this in the Arab world. And the capitalization argument is both bogus and moot, bogus because the use of "the" in the title clearly makes this a noun phrase referring to a specific thing and moot because the source does capitalize "massacre". nableezy - 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You still are not making policy based arguments. You are attempting to put this into the article as an alternative name. That is how you are justifying it being in the lead, emboldened and capitalized. It is also called the Gaza War in the Arab world as well, with no mention of "the Massacre": [10]. Here's an Arab source that uses "massacre" as a quote: "Meshaal charged that the eight-day Middle East tour by the US president that ended on Wednesday "gave cover to this massacre,"..." Al Jazeera calls it The War on Gaza, Lebanese paper Daily Star calls it [the Gaza war. It is called the Gaza War by Arabs as well. This is neutral and consensus based. What you are trying to do to insert your POV in the lede is not neutral and is against wiki policy. As to the RSN [11], you misled them by not explaining that you want this edit in the lede, not merely in the body of the article. In fact this whole section is misleading since you are implying that no one wants this statement in the body of the article which is simply not true. There is absolutely no reason to add "massacre" to the lede except to inflame and disrupt, in my opinion and in the opinion of others already expressed. Stellarkid (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not mislead anybody about anything, the RS/N is a place to determine the reliability of the source. It makes no difference if it is in the lead or not to determine the reliability of the source. A common Arabic name for this conflict is the Gaza massacre. That has been shown by the quotes from Hamas officials specifically, but if we were to open it up to Arabs period thousands of more sources could be provided with them using the name "the gaza massacre" in English and Arabic. This has also been sourced to a reliable source that specifically says "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'". You mistake NPOV with "neutral". NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant POVs. Those POVs must be presented neutrally, but the POVs need not be "neutral". If I were to make the argument that the article itself should be titled "Gaza Massacre" then you would absolutely correct that "Gaza Massacre" is a non-neutral name and cannot be used in Wikipedia's narrative voice unless a substantial majority of English sources use that as the name. But I am not making that argument, the argument that I am making is that a common Arabic name is a significant POV that NPOV requires us to include. Common names used on each side of the conflict belong in the lead and in bold. You can see that is the case in any number of articles on conflicts in this area. It has been proven, both by direct examples and by a reliable source making the statement of fact, that this is a common Arabic name for the conflict. That being the case it needs to be included and presented as a common Arabic name. That means in the lead and in bold. nableezy - 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is confusing anything it is you confusing "a common Arabic name" with "a common Arabic name that is a significant POV" - reread your own post. You are certainly right that it is a significant POV, though not such a "common Arabic name". I agree it is a significant Arab POV and that is exactly why it does not belong in the lede. It is not so common as a name in RS as can be shown through ghits in news. Significant POVs should be added to the body of the article and clearly established as such. Stellarkid (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that a source says it is a common Arabic name means that for Wikipedia it is a common Arabic name. nableezy - 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we come up with a statement to post at the NPOV noticeboard? My suggestion would be something along the following:

A number of sources with various Hamas officials and Arab news agencies have been presented that show "Gaza M/massacre" being used as the name of the Gaza War. Many Arab news agencies used different names such as "War on Gaza" or "Assault on Gaza". Another source explicitly says that the conflict is "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'". Is it a violation of NPOV to include in the lead of the article that this conflict is known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world?

Any problems with that? I dont want to be accused of misleading anybody. And a reminder that the NPOV noticeboard is for answering this question, not arguing the entire thing again among the same people. nableezy - 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

with regard to your "reminder" it is you who put this up here to begin with. So perhaps you had best take your reminder to heart. I am not sure yet about the idea of the NPOV noticeboard as you have written it. For one thing your very first sentence allows that it is a "given" that it is a "name" and not a description (or POV), and that you have presented the appropriate sources to prove that. It is not clear to me or others here that you have made your case with RS. You would need to provide the sources and allow others to determine it has been determined to be a name. Once, (or if) it is determined whether it is indeed a proper and quite common name via appropriate rs, only then does the issue of POV come up. If it is determined not to be an name but rather a POV, then it belongs in the body and not the lede. If it is determined to be either an alternative proper name or a alternative descriptive name, it should determined if there is sufficient usage to have enough notability to be in the lede, whether it is POV, and whether their is consensus for its inclusion. So I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Perhaps mediation would be a better way to go than a noticeboard. At least for the first part.Stellarkid (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of A number of sources with various Hamas officials and Arab news agencies have been presented that show "Gaza M/massacre" being used as the name of the Gaza War it instead says A number of sources with various Hamas officials and Arab news agencies have been presented with "Gaza M/massacre" being used to refer to the Gaza War and one source that explicitly says "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'"? But as a point, again, the fact that a RS says it is a name makes it a name as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And it not being a name would be something to go to the OR noticeboard with. If you want to do that first fine. nableezy - 00:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/N#Gaza War. (Though please let us all try to remember the point is to get uninvolved opinions about the neutrality of the statement, it does us no good to argue amongst ourselves there as well as here) nableezy - 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR

(somebody who thinks "known as the gaza massacre in the arab world" cited to this article that says Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year. is original research please explain why here nableezy - 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

WP:V

WP:Vsays

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Verifiability in this case means we should be able to check the material added and if it is not a RS it may be removed. WP:Burden falls under the WP:V umbrella.

WP:SOURCES is a subset of WP:V

• Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] ...
• Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made:
• exceptional claims require high-quality sources.
• Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

In my view and I think in others, this edit could be seen as a WP:REDFLAG issue, thus requiring high-quality sources. Stellarkid (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable, third-party published source, a quality news source that has consensus as a reliable source. And a name used by Arabs, as the verifiable source says "Gaza Massacre" is, it is a significant viewpoint that must be fairly represented. nableezy - 05:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that a local-interest writer about local-interest events would be covered by the newspaper's editorial oversight? How does using an article like this represent the 100's of reliable sources (including Arab sources) that do not indicate that this is the Arab name for this event? I maintain it is a questionable source based on lack of editorial oversight and does not need to be included since it does not represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." If we accept it as a significant viewpoint it may be included in the body of the article, not in the lede as a "name." Stellarkid (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. I dont have to prove that this article is covered by the newspaper's oversight, you have to show that it is not if you wish to make that case. The hundreds of reliable source that use the title use it as the name, I dont feel I have to prove this any more. A common Arabic name, as reported by a reliable source (and I dont plan on arguing about "local-interest" and similar distractions, there is consensus as the RS/N that this is a reliable source for this sentence). A common Arabic name is supposed to be in the lead, but that is weight question that we can get opinions about at the NPOV noticeboard. But WP:V is not an issue and your attempts to make it an issue betray your motives. This is not about the sources with you, it is simply about a name you do not like and want to remove. Making such fallacious arguments that are clearly twisting policy shows that. A verifiable statement sourced to what consensus says is a reliable source meets WP:V. nableezy - 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't silly at all. It is simple one more reason out of so many why this arguably doesn't belong in the lede. Nor have you made an significant argument that "a massacre" is "a common Arabic name," only that it is a common Arabic description of the event. Aside from the fact that there is no WP:consensus for this edit, that it is not a WP:NPOV edit, Wikipedia policy does not require that any and every RS belongs in an article in the first place. There is a place for the argument I made... and I may take it up to the board for future reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not "a massacre" as you repeatedly have written here and in the article. It is called "the gaza massacre". Stop pretending that the sources just call it "a massacre". nableezy - 16:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCC

This one is just basic:

:Consensus can change

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

As soon as material is challenged, it becomes no longer consensus. This is relevant to the reversions made by Nableezy and others insisting that there was no consensus for removal. This was a direct violation of WP policy. Per WP:CCC if there were no other policy based or reasonable reasons given, it should have been left alone. Then consensus should have been attempted on the talk page, and the WP:BURDEM burden on those who wanted to keep the material in. Instead, you have successfully turned the tables on WP policy, demanding that those who believe the material should not be in - provide the reasons. The policy also says it requires special attention to NPOV and V. Stellarkid (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but it had not. And the fact consensus can change is not a reason itself that the article should be changed. What WP:BURDEN discusses is the verifiability of the material, and with a reliable source cited that burden is met. nableezy - 05:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONENG

WP:NONENG is a part of WP:V says:

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

I think this is clear that English is preferred to allow readers to "easily verify" content. The only time that non-English is acceptable is when there is no English equivalent available. The least preferable option is a translation by Wiki editors. Of course this policy in itself does not disallow translations by editors. For this issue I believe that there are sufficient references to "Gaza massacre," "Hamas" and "the Arab world" in the English press that we do not have to go to the Arab press for this. There are English language Arab presses that we can use so there is no need to be looking for local translations. By keeping a contentious edit easily verifiable we boost WP credibility with the English speaking world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is English and a number of English sources for the quotes have also been presented. But sourcing an Arabic name would warrant using an Arabic source, even if it is only for the Arabic words. nableezy - 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

WP Burden states clearly: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[2]

What I believe that this means, is that until WP:consensus is reached to add material, the challenged material does not belong in the article. Also note that BURDEN says that the source must unambiguously support the information. That the sources do not unambiguously support the information is in question. Keep in mind that this is not the only issue here, but mainly that it addresses the idea that the material should be out of the article until the burden of evidence is met and consensus for its inclusion is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that the burden is providing a reliable, published source that unambiguously supports the information. That source has been provided. The burden that this speaks to, which is a part of WP:V has been met. nableezy - 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If that were the only applicable WP policy, perhaps. However there is also this applicable to the WP:LEADCITE : "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." There is also WP:REDFLAG Stellarkid (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many sources have been provided, both saying it is what Arabs have called the conflict and of Arabs calling it this. nableezy - 06:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

disingenuous section

The section above is more than a little disingenuous, implying as it does that this has never been "rationally addressed" until now. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as it has discussed not only on this page and the two archives listed above, but also in the archives listed below. It is hardly fair to require once again for editors to express their opinions in order to maintain the not-really-consensus (and in my opinion not really supported) contentious edit that Nableezy and some other editors prefer. I suggest Nableezy go mine some of these links and find out some of the objections that have been made in the past. It is high time to start trying to see things from others' point of view instead of this thinly disguised battlefield mentality.

- [12] - [13] - [14] - [15] - [16]

Furthermore, more discussion has been written on various user pages, in particular Nableezy's, see for example, [17],[18], [19] and I believe that each of the following archives have "massacre-related" discussion as well:

Specific complaints by editors re "Massacre" - [20] - [21] - [22] - [23] - [24] -[25] - [26] -[27]

Specific complaints by editors re "Lead" -- very likely "massacre-related" Specific complaints by editors re "Lead" -- very likely "massacre-related" - [28] - [29] - [30] - [31] - [32] - [33] - [34] - [35] - [36] - [37] - [38] - [39] - [40] - [41] - [42] - [43] -[44] - [45] - [46] - [47] - [48] - [49] - [50] - [51] - [52] - [53] - [54] - [55] - [56] - [57] - [58]

It is one more attempt to tie people up until they get so fed up they give up, at the same time giving the appearance of being reasonable and civil. As it stands now it has been edit-warred into the current contentious version, and all the editors who have expressed their concerns and not edit-warred have had their opinions dismissed and disregarded. Stellarkid (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Having participated in each of those discussions I dont particullarly feel the need to "mine" those links. If you have an actual policy based objection please provide it. And read the policies you link to. And explain how it is a violation of the policy you are linking to. nableezy - 22:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, other English language sources noting that the conflict has been described as the Gaza massacre, expressing two very different POVs on the subject:

• This conflict had generated very high levels of agitation throughout the Muslim world, including Australia, where the conflict was described hyperbolically as the Gaza “massacre” and “holocaust” (which, of course, means “sacrifice by fire” or “burnt offering”), large demonstrations were held, and high levels of resentment against the Israeli and Australian governments were expressed.
• I write this at the time of the Gaza Incursion now being called the Gaza Massacre (660 hundred dead on one side 6 dead on the other) and am fiercely but ineffectively pro Palestinian. Tiamut^talk 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not being disputed that massacre was used. It is disputed that it is a primary title and/or description.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a verifiable source that gives that as the name used in the Arab world. If you have a reliable source that disputes that point by all means present it. nableezy - 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also watched most of the past discussions, and was struck by the ultrawide range of disputes raised and arguments deployed against including the Gazan/Arab term. It can't be said that some challenges didn't seem like reverse-reasoning, that is, some editors had begun with a conclusion ("We don't like this term") and then Wikilawyered back through premises, testing then summarily dropping one point of attack just to pick up and press with another. So it seems important that we focus a bit, as has been suggested to Stellar above, editors should first identify the particular policy they believe supports their argument, and then show how it does. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no counter needed. As explained, that source is poor. I also don't care what the reasoning for people not wanting it is. It is not a title or description used more than several others. We could also go into tactics for inclusion if you want to go into arguments against. That has already caused stress.Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is not poor though if you wish to bring it up at RS/N feel free. And tactics for inclusion my ass. The only tactic has been finding source after source first using it as the name and then sources saying it was the name used. If you are arguing the source is wrong then my response is verifiability not truth. If your argument the source is not reliable my response is we can go to the RS/N and find out. Though I hope for the sake of actually getting uninvolved opinions we do not go off topic and argue amongst the same people as we are here. nableezy - 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the source is poor because you explained it is poor? C'mon this discussion is becoming a parody of itself. RomaC (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked for someone to refute what I was saying and didn't get it. Editors keep on skipping half the argument. And you are the one who said it was fine without providing reasoning. Why can't editors stop running around in circles on this?Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think Tiamut needs to open up an arbitration enforcement for your accusation of Wikilawyering and Nableezy assuming bad faith just a bit ago.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono if you feel arb enforcement is required please proceed with it. 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomaC (talk • contribs)

Of course I don't. Just don't appreciate the double standard. So is there a rebuttal to my reasoning for not accepting the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rebuttal is that your "reasoning", if that were even accepted as "reasoning", is not a reliable source, and there is a verifiable reliable source that point blank says "called the 'Gaza Massacre' in the Arab world". If you dispute the source as reliable RS/N would be the place to go. And we can talk about double standards when somebody says that because you have self-identified as "pro-Israel" you should not be allowed to edit this page. That you dont see the problem with what you wrote earlier does not change that it was grossly out of line and should not have been written. Double-standards my ass. If I had written what you did but replaced "Palestinian" with "Israeli" I would have been banned from Wikipedia as an anti-semite. nableezy - 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you wish to discuss that further off of this talk page or can we talk about it here? I also don't care if you are an anti-Semite or not as long as you edit in a neutral fashion.

I responded above regarding your request for a counter source. It is contradicted by the lack of usage in thousands of other sources and Arabic media. It appears to be a circular reference. The writer typically writes blogs unrelated to the subject so any expertise in the subject is clearly called into question.Cptnono (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You can come to my talk page if you want to discuss it further. Regarding the rest of the message, it is not contradicted and there is not a lack of sources in the Arabic media. And you will say "circular reference" for any source I provide. The writter is not the concern here, the publication is. You argued before that the first source was an opinion piece, you were wrong, but this is certainly not an opinion piece, it is a straight news article from a reliable source. Again, if you have a problem with the source RS/N is thataway. nableezy - 15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since my reasoning is based on facts and intended to be neutral I would be happy to not say other sources are circular references but you have only been able to provide the Times of South Africa as stating "it was called Gaza Massacre" after months of searching. You also have not addressed the concern with it being a circular reference besides asserting that I am trying to win. It looks like a circular reference from the date along with the contradiction of other sources and common sense.

You also just said something else false. Al Jazeera does not label it as "the Gaza Massacre" nor do other Arab based news providers listed above.

Both writers are typically bloggers who do not write about this subject usually. There is supposed to be a vetting process for publication and it appears that this newspaper has failed. Sometimes professionals screw up.Cptnono (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say al-Jazeera labeled it anything? And it was not "months" of searching for this. It took me 2 hours to find the first source and and 1 hour to find the second. You have no basis to say that either writer is typically a blogger, as the first was written by a "foreign editor" for The Times who also has a blog hosted by The Times and the second written by somebody who even a simple search will show writes news articles. Your imaginations about the supposed failure of a "vetting process" is not relevant. But as the argument now centers on the reliability of the source, I will bring this to the RS/N. nableezy - 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I found "War in the South" within a minute. If it takes hours you should second guess inclusion. And I bring up Al Jazeera because I assume they are a reliable source for stories in the region. Post the Wikilink if you don't mind. Please also make it clear that accuracy of the article is the concern and not reliability of the newspaper in general.Cptnono (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

laugh all you would like. WP:RS/N#Sunday Times of South Africa. Would the editors here please not flood that noticeboard with arguments not related to the reliability of this source? That is not the place to repeat the same arguments among the same participants, but rather to get uninvolved opinions on this specific aspect of the issue. nableezy - 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe you presented the complete story so I attempted to clarify.Cptnono (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It also looks like the three of us failed to realize that individual articles are beyond the scope of that noticeboard. I made a mention after posting. Here is what I posted last if you wish to respond (Nableezy had just provided three Arabic sources that had "Gaza massacre" and I was responding) Three sources. "yada yada Gaza massacre" in the title of an article is not good enough. Have you tried finding ones that say "Gaza bombing/assault/insert juicy term here"? Are we going to list them all? We certainly can't assert that it was the primary title with what has been provided. Al Jazeera clearly labels its special report section "War on Gaza". Is that going in, too? "الحرب على غزة" gets 3,140,000 standard google hits. It also yields 7,170 hits in a google news search since the start of the conflict. "مجزرة غزة" receives 182,000 (millions less) in a standard search and 833 (thousands less) in a news search. No one is arguing that it wasn't used. Was it a title in each instance is argued and even if it was a title, does it deserve prominence as a bolded title in the lead? Mentioning "there were calls of it being a massacre" was a fantastic proposal in my opinion. I also think it has been demonstrated thorugh what we have found that the news source in question is fine but they may have made a mistake or it might even be circular. Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG I suck. I thought the disclaimer meant individual news articles not articles in general. Fixed over there and here. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name?

It has been argued, mostly by Nableezy, that the "side" that is in favor of excluding "The Gaza Massacre" as a name, has not made any policy-based arguments. Well aside from WP:OR - WP:SYNTH - WP:NPOV - WP:V - WP:CCC - WP:NONENG - WP:BURDEN I guess that might be right. Arguments have been made concerning English grammar, however. One further argument that can be made is a name in relation to uniqueness. A war or historical period would have a name that is unique: as in the Boer War or the Battle of the Bulge or even World War I (also known as The War to End All Wars). No two wars have the same name. If you were to say, "War is bad," for example, you would be referring to a generalized war, But if you were to say "The Vietnam War was bad" then you are referring to a specific war with a unique name. "The Gaza Massacre" has been postulated to be such a unique name. I would ask the other side, then, if that is so, how is the following possible, according to your logic?

1994 - "We could say that after the Gaza massacre Israel had made an important progress in the implementation of its criminal plot which is aimed at killing the Palestinians and eliminating their cause."

1994 - It can be safely assumed now that Arafat's Israeli apologists will use this comparison to justify the Gaza massacre. JP [59]

2002 - Israeli troops accused of Gaza massacre [60] A statement by the Hamas Palestinian organization military wing, Izzidin Al-Qassam, annouced the responsibility of group for the explosion that killed seven and injured seventy Israelis in the Hebrew University, in West Jerusalem, today. The statement mentioned that it was the organization's first retaliation to the Gaza massacre of 7/23/02, in which 15 Palestinians were killed and 170 were injured as a result of a planned Israeli attack on Al-Daraj neighborhood, in Gaza city. [61]

2003 Palestinians call for UN Security Council session over Israeli "massacre". Asia Africa Intelligence Wire (From BBC Monitoring International Reports) Nabil Abu-Rudaynah, adviser to President Yasir Arafat, said the Gaza massacre should not go unpunished, and he held the Israeli government responsible for the serious provocative escalation. The [Palestinian] National Authority has asked the UN Security Council to convene an extraordinary session to discuss the continuous Israeli massacre against our people.

Nabil Abu-Rudaynah, adviser to President Yasir Arafat, said the Gaza massacre should not go unpunished [62]

2003 - Gaza, 3 March: The Israeli occupation forces committed a new massacre at three refugee camps in the centre of Gaza Strip at dawn today. This took place during a large-scale incursion, which resulted in the martyrdom of eight citizens, including a pregnant woman in her ninth month. ... From Eight Palestinians killed in Gaza "massacre" [63]

2004- Hamas leader brands Israel's Gaza "massacre" as "true terrorism". Egyptian students urge Hamas to respond to Gaza "massacre"

Cairo, 24 September: Hundreds of students of Ayn Shams and Cairo universities demonstrated this afternoon against the attacks carried out by the Israeli forces on Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza Strip yesterday, during the celebration of the [Israeli] withdrawal by the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas. The demonstrators called on Hamas to respond to the aggressors and on Palestinians to close ranks against the Israelis and avoid divisions, and not be fooled by the Israeli claim of... [64]

Abbas blasts "Gaza massacre" Palestinian president condemns Israel for killing of seven Ghalia family members in Beit Lahiya Saturday; sets July 26 as date for referendum in PA; Hamas rejects vote. Meanwhile, thousands attend funerals in Gaza. Masses call for revenge, Jihad against Israel [65]

2008 - By KHALED ABU TOAMEH. JP The Palestinian Authority threatened on Tuesday to suspend negotiations with Israel in response to an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip that left 19 Palestinians - most of them Hamas gunmen - dead. The PA also called for deploying international forces in the Gaza ... From PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks - [www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200308089888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowF]

[Rayyan] Mr Al-Rantisi, paradoxically, the operation of the Israeli army [in Gaza] today comes approximately one day after the Palestinian-Egyptian meeting to discuss a cease-fire. Why?

[Al-Rantisi] In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. This is a predictable situation and a predictable result constantly produced by the terrorist mentality of those gangs.[66]

I maintain that "the Gaza massacre" is not a unique name referring only to the Gaza War, but rather a description or judgment. The fact that you can find one or two reporters who would capitalize it isn't sufficient. By leaps and bounds English language reliable sources do not capitalize "massacre" clearly indicating that it is not a proper name. The weight of evidence is that it is a common descriptive noun and not a proper name. As a description or judgment it does not belong in the lede alongside of the Israeli name or the common name, ie Gaza War. This is not to say that the Arab view does not belong in the article, it does. This is not an issue of WP:CENSOR. It just doesn't belong in the lede as parallel to the name that Israel calls it, since it is not a "name." Continuing to insist that it is despite all the evidence to the contrary makes this a case of WP:OR WP:SYNTH. The fact that many editors have seen this as a POV judgment and not a proper name makes the inclusion a POV edit against consensus. These arguments have been made over and over again in the archives above by different WP editors, and any attempt to exclude that language is reverted summarily. Stellarkid (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a single source that contradicts the statement in the verifiable reliable source cited that "Operation Cast Lead" is called the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world? It is not possible to call this OR or SYNTH, a single reliable source made the statement "called the 'Gaza Massacre' in the Arab world", to say those words is by definition not original research or synthesis. Can you please explain what in any of the policies that you linked above this violates? You saying WP:NONENG when that does not even say it must be an English source but especially when it is an English source cited is silly. You saying WP:OR when the source cited says this exact thing is silly. You saying WP:V when you can click the link to the source cited is silly. You saying WP:SYNTH when a single source makes the statement cited is silly. You saying WP:CCC when the fact consensus can change meaning that it has changed or that we should change the article is slightly less silly, but still silly. You saying WP:BURDEN when a number of verifiable sources have been presented supporting the wording is silly. NPOV is also a bogus argument as we are not presenting it in the narrative voice, we make it clear which POV it is that the name is used by. NPOV requires us to include all significant viewpoints, and the Arab world is certainly significant. What is OR is your entire argument. "No two wars have the same name so if this name was used before it cant be the name now". That is what OR is. Come up with a source that disputes this or argue why this violates any one of the linked policies. Dont just say it is when you clearly have not even read the policies. If you had read them you wouldnt say OR, SYNTH, BURDEN, NONENG, or CCC. And if you read and understood NPOV you wouldnt say that either. nableezy - 06:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the 2000th time, this is not a name but a description and all but one or two of your {English] sources makes that clear by using small letters. If there was but one source that used small letters and the rest that used caps would we be justified in saying that it was not a name? It is not a name because of the rules of English grammar. It is not a valid name because it is not unique. It is a POV that should be included in the article as a POV, but not in the lede as a name. As for not reading the policies, you are mistaken. I have read them carefully and insisting on putting this in the lede is a violation WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Compromises have been offered, such as moving the name Operation Cast Lead from the lede as well, but you are insistent on your WP:POINT. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have not read WP:V as there is a verifiable source that says it has been called this in the Arab world. You obviously have not read NPOV as you seem to think that removing both "POVs" is a compromise compliant with NPOV; that is actually trying to force something in violation of NPOV which says that we must include all significant viewpoints, not pretend that if we suppress one "sides" POV we can then suppress the other "sides". nableezy - 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One minute it is a name by Hamas and belongs in because it is a unique name by a party to the conflict. The next minute it is a commonly used name by Arabs and or Muslims. When it is demonstrated that it is neither, it suddenly becomes a viewpoint that is being suppressed. Leaving out both viewpoints from the lede does not cout as "suppression." Time and time again it has been acknowledged that the Arab view can go in and that the Arab views this episode as a "massacre." Please read WP:YESPOV "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides." This Arab viewpoint belongs in the background section. Please cite the appropriate WP policy that says that removing something from the lede is not compliant with NPOV. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not one minute, for 10 months it was the name used in the Arab world, in an effort to appease you and a few others I changed it to by Hamas. You would not let that be, after first accepting it, so I found sources that explicitly say used in the Arab world. This is not an "endorsement" of a POV, this is the reporting of it, and obviously the name reflects the POV. This is a name used by an involved party, namely Hamas and the Palestinians. nableezy - 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, how much does Electronic Intifidah pay you per hour?--64.61.104.250 (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP 64.61.104.250 are you headhunting? RomaC (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a single source that contradicts the statement in the verifiable reliable source cited that "Operation Cast Lead" is called the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world? was already answered above. Please respond to the answer before asking it again.Cptnono (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You may think you have answered it but not a single source has been presented that disputes this source. nableezy - 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Every RS that you have offered that has "Gaza massacre" in small letters disputes the idea that it is a proper name. You have provided the contradictory sources yourself. This is not OR but simple and correct English grammar, which is what we want WP to reflect. Stellarkid (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, try again. That argument was bogus the first time you made it and remains bogus now. nableezy - 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it bogus? It is a description in many sources and not a title. Simple. In a few uses it could be argued that it is a translation thing but most it is simply a description so there is nothing bogus about it. To make it factual and accurate while trying to make what someone called "propaganda" earlier today OK for everyone concessions were made but for whatever reason we are still screwing with this.Cptnono (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it bogus that two people who know nothing about Arabic are going to tell others who do whether or not the Arabic words form a proper name? This is a difference in translation and one that does not make much of a difference as proper nouns do not have to be capitalized. And it has been offered any number of times for it not to be capitalized in the lead. You keep saying it was used as a description without any proof of that. Each of the quotes is calling it "the gaza massacre". That is the name used in those quotes. nableezy - 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to know Arabic to see that the sources used at the Arabic Wikipedia are in English and at least one says "massacre in Gaza" and that Gaza bombardment and Gaza massacre can be descriptions. Thousands more sources say "the war on gaza" in Arabic than "gaza massacre" in Arabic.

Only thousands of sources not saying it.Cptnono (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Gaza massacre" should be removed until it can be agreed that WP:V and other tests have been met. Those who believe it should be in the lede owe it to the rest of us to bring forward the sources you want to use to assert it, and demonstrate that the sources say what you say they say according to WP:V and WP:LEAD. Tell us the sentence you want in (ie "Hamas says" -or -"known in the Arab world as," ) and on what WP:policy you consider it appropriate to insert it, (ie both parties to the conflict, alternative name, whatever...) and try to achieve consensus here on the talk page rather than insisting that the other side come up with a reason to remove it. WP:BURDEN clearly puts the burden of evidence on he who wishes to add something, not vice versa. Stellarkid (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, some editors claim that we need to balance OCL. The same editors also noted that we should be really careful about what one side says about its enemy. Since Cptnono suggestion to touch military codenaming in military campaign section instead of lede to avoid this fuss was rejected, I kind of skeptical about some editors motives. But that's just me ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That burden has clearly been met. A verifiable reliable source is cited that unambiguously supports the wording in the article. WP:V is in no way an issue here. It is a verifiable statement supported by a reliable source. nableezy - 13:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You kind of deaf and/or hard of hearing other editors. Still ready to fight on. On unrelated issue Sean.hoyland - talk noted: The sources say many things depending on their perspective... Apparently editors sample the sources according to their systemic bias... IMHO might be relevant also in this particular case. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We are again sitting at editors completely disagreeing that burden has been met but Nableezy repeats it over and over assured he is right and expecting it to go away. Editors disagree that the criteria has been met. Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Which criteria? The criteria has changed more than once. Naturally there will be no agreement as long as editors who are against something believe they can set and re-set the criteria for its inclusion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, criteria of being a name rather than description of one side of its enemy actions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That has been discussed, RomaC. Sorry if it upsets you but the goal posts have not been moved. Certain arguments were just ignored by some editors to the point that they forgot they were still a big part of the concern.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of sources in Arabic for this name that has been translated from Arabic i.e. are Arabic sources accepted or not ? Genuine question as I have lost track of this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is "Operation Cast Lead" a name for the event in this article? If a Gazan fired a rocket was that action a part of "Operation Cast Lead"? No it was not. The impression I'm getting is some editors feel we can include the qualified "Operation Cast Lead" (it's what Israel called its attack on Gaza); but we can't include the qualified "Gaza Massacre" (it's what Gazans and many in the Arab world called the attack on Gaza). And I'm not "upset" Cptnono, what in my statement above made you say that? And yes, the "criteria" do keep changing. Some editors don't like having "Gaza Massacre" in the lead, and have so far attempted about a dozen different arguments to try and remove or relegate it. RomaC (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact a dozen different quite honest arguments that can be made for removing it. None of which seem to be taken seriously by those who are determined to see this in the lede of the article. When in fact the compromise to remove OCL from the lede along with Gaza Massacre was offered, by another editor here and seconded by me, the edit was immediately reverted. Perhaps you could explain that? Stellarkid (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We go round and round in circles (more generally conic sections) around this issue for some time. IMHO it is silly to use OCL as an excuse: (a) there was clear proposition to move Israeli military codenaming to military campaign section (guerilla war edited) and (b) editors disagree about name fact. Bottom line, no hope to convince each other or to bridge the great divide. The best thing that we can do, considering the circumstances, is to agree to disagree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you said. However, agreeing to disagree is not fixing what is a problem for some editors.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This one is a particularly big hurdle for me. In researching the issue of consensus around this term in the archives, I think it was this diff from User:Rabend that best illustrates where I am coming from in terms of the argument of NPOV. There are as has been amply pointed out, plenty of other issues involved including WP:V as so well noted by User:Oren0. Both editors were making these arguments (as others of us have made more recently)in January of this year. Stellarkid (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been shown "vote" wise that it is divided. However, consensus is different. The fact that it has to do with neutrality makes it even more important that we get this right. Some people have argued "no it is POV" while others have said "no its sourced" but I disagree with both. The sources have not shown it enough to present it as is while it also is not POV just because it is an inflammatory and emotionally engaging term. I think their have been enough concerns over a long period of time for its reworking. Cptnono (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I put a POV tag on the article for obvious reasons. People who have not been here before have been reverting the lede, for starters. Just imagine Stellarkid (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You should present those reasons clear as you are the tagger. How do you think your conserns will be adressed? This is a good section for it. Else the tag is easy disputed and easy removed Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it. The edit summary that screamed about no consensus was enough to show that it is clear. The rash of edit warring has not been fixed either. An editor attempted to make grammatical changes and they were reverted in a knee jerk fashion. Since several editors think that there is a neutrality problem it should stay.Cptnono (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stellarkid (talk) and Cptnono (talk) There appears to be little consensus and edit warring continues.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What to say? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF........................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern is the overall tone of the article. It was a military conflict but the article still reads like a rap sheet. Since the massacre thing is being discussed and there is so much bad faith I thought I would start with an easy concern. Is the infobox for Palestinian rocket fire needed? A simple wikilink will suffice and it is eye catching to the point that it is a concern.Cptnono (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give a summary of what the dispute is about? The POV tag alone isn't very useful. Offliner (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Use of "massacre" as a bolded title
• Information in the lead (what and why things were hit is a current discussion)
• Continuous mentions of international law based information or allegations of misconduct throughout the article to discredit one belligerent or the other has been an ongoing problem. This looks taken care of for the most part but a quick run through might show up more. This has also upset the tone of the article in general in my opinion.
• Whose at fault is a similar concern that has plagued this article. The charts in the background section are an example that needs to be addressed (size, layout, appearance of being in to counter each other)
• The rockets fired into Israel info box has been mentioned and I personally agree.

Overall, the article does not read in a neutral manner but an attempt to assert who the bad guy is. This is something that is easily seen in the talk page archives and will be much harder to address. The continuous edit warring and failure to reach consensus shows that this will continue to be a concern.

Cptnono (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Nableezy has convincinly shown that the term "Gaza Massacre" is popular in the Arab world, so including it in the lead is approriate (although Nableezy's claim should be confirmed by another Arabic editor if this hasn't been done already.) I think writing the names in bolded font is a common procedure.
• About the lead: I think it should definitely mention that the terms of the pre-war ceasefire were not followed (according to many sources.) Now it reads like Hamas intensification of rocket attacks come out of the blue with no reason.
• I think it's unavoidable that the article will try to establish "who was responsible for what." Probably the best solution may be to use the most neutral sources (I think this is the UN report now) and quote their conclusions in several places (and pretty much ignore other, less-neutral sources on the "who is responsible" question.)
• I think both charts about rocket attacks and killed Palestinians are relevant and OK.
• The lead appears to have a slight pro-Israeli bias right now, since it emphazises that Isreal only attacked private homes "used by Hamas" (Isreali claim), while the hamas rocket attacks against civilians were "indiscriminate." Here, I think, we should quote the UN reports conclusions of what was actually hit (if there are any.) Offliner (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"War on Gaza" is used thousands of more times in the Arabic media (in Arabic). Google shows millions of more hits. Nableezy has shown it was used but not to the extent that it deserves to be bolded over other terms. Also, only one news agency says it was used and its accuracy is disputed (potential circular reference by a blogger).

I read the lead completely different than you. The mentions of schools and religious sites are emotive when it isn't needed. This goes for both lines and I like that part of Anon's proposal on this talk page. Indiscriminate was actually "untargeted" (since the intent was not to hit Israeli schools) but was recently changed. The replacement has caused friction. Anon wrote up a nice alternative that limits the listing of every heart string tugging building.

It certainly is avoidable to not assign blame throughout the article. Both sides clearly think they are justified. Who are we to say they were not? I do agree that the sources used in the article are an issue. There was more media coverage on allegations than the military aspect. I think that the sensational nature of these news sources have set the tone for the article.

The charts violate the image MOS. Its a style guideline and not opinion. Furthermore, one is sized larger. I know that sounds silly but that is par for the course. I assume moving one and not the other will cause concerns but it is not up to standard as is.Cptnono (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried and tired arguments. It is not a "blogger" who wrote either story and it is not a "blog" that it appears in but rather in a reliable news source. It being a "potential circular reference" is likewise a red-herring as there is no evidence that the source for the story was in fact Wikipedia. The statement is verifiable in a reliable source. If no source is presented that disputes that this is a common Arabic name for the conflict then you do not have a leg to stand on and only can repeat the same bogus arguments. nableezy - 18:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of it, too. And again I will mention that it was one source contradicted by thousands of others. I will continue to repeat it since I disagree with you. You are making the same arguments yourself so your snide tone doesn't make me feel bad. I'm not the only one. I think there are more people now against its inclusion as is. Not positive but it is certainly close. Too bad so many editors got kicked out (for improper editing) or sick of the running around in circles since that would be interesting. Unfortunately, there is not consensus either way and now there is a POV tag.Cptnono (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not one source that contradicts it has been presented. A source not using the name is not a source that contradicts that this is a common name in the Arab world. And I may be repeating the same argument, though I am not repeating the same debunked argument about bloggers and other such nonsense. And I dont even care about the POV tag, I would put it up myself. A large portion of this article reads like an Israeli government press release. Neutrality concerns, sure there are a ton here. Editors think that "neutral" means giving organizations such as the ICRC and the UN "equal time" with NGO-monitor. I got some neutrality concerns of my own here. nableezy - 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't say "it was not called the Gaza massacre". They simply don't say it at all. That contradiction is good enough for me. And to top it off the biggest Arab news agencies don't confirm it and Al Jazeera calls it something else. Oh crap, we are repeating arguments again. Go ahead and bring up your other concerns. I personally hate the forced balance and would eb happy to see things cleaned up.Cptnono (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a contradiction. nableezy - 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Funny, I think the thing sounds like a Hamas press release. There are a dozen reasons why massacre does not belong in the lede any more than if it were to read that "Israel responded to Hamas' terrorism." In fact, that is Israel's view. I say this should be divided into Palestinian view and Israel' view, and let the reader decide. Things like "terrorism" or "massacre" are POV even if the whole world agreed with them. Keep the POV out of the lede and into sections clearly labeled as such. Allow each "side" only to edit their own "view". The rest is a he-said, she denied sort of thing. Very boringly written and no one is happy with it. Stellarkid (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a cop out. We also already have that to a certain extent by dividing each sides military ops.

Also, I do have a source commenting on Al Jazeera's label of the war (It was in the article already). Wasn't sure if I should put it on every single discussion or not but at least I can assure you that it is not just my observation. Decent read, too. [67]

I agree with Anon's adjustment to the lead for the most part and made the change. (discussion ongoing in that subsection)Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said that the primary name used by al-Jazeera was not "War on Gaza"? I dont see what that is supposed to show. (Though I do note that your source translates the al-Jazeera name as "war on Gaza" and not "War on Gaza", but then again it was not me who made an issue of capitalization) nableezy - 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are only now responding to that? That has been one of my biggest concerns in the various discussions. Al Jazeera is one (if not the) largest news services in the region. They call it War on Gaza not Gaza Massacre. The no cap was the first thing to jump out at me. Although I appreciate you trying to make me look like a hypocrite, I thought it would be best to word the assertion that it was a title (as the source does) exactly as the source does without any run around of poking through various web pages that show different versions. I personally would be happy with all of those gone but a huge Arabic source calls it something and a source discusses it so it is important enough by the logic we are currently using.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to make you look like a hypocrite, only pointing out inconsistencies in your argument that may be interpreted as hypocrisy. And al-Jazeera is the most well-known Arab source in the West, but it is not the "largest". And as nobody asserted that this is the name used by al-Jazeera I dont see why it would need to be responded to. I dont have a problem with including it or having it be with lowercase "war", I already said the capitalization "issue" is not an issue at all. I just find it, oh lets just call it interesting, that it does not seem to matter to certain editors for this name that it is not in caps. nableezy - 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't dance around it. Speaking your mind straight would be alot less insulting. It is also completely different and if you do not see that then you haven't been paying attention. If it were my decision it would be in capped since Al JAzeera caps it. Unfortunately, to be extra cautious I decided to copy and paste it from the source so there was no disputing it. The source is also obviously saying it is a primary description/title so it is OK for me. My concern with your use of massacre is that it was not asserted as a primary title and or description. You had zero sources providing direct commentary and were trying to assert that general use of the term meant it was worthy of inclusion as if it were. I am still concerned that the Times inaccurate but figured this might be a way to provide factual information in a factual context.Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not "dancing". How is it your source "obviously saying it is a primary description/title" but The Times source is not "obviously" saying the same thing? nableezy - 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You certainly changed subject. The lower case discussion has nothing to do with the Times source.Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that didn't last long. Exactly why there is a POV tag.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned since there have been two reasonable options presented to put massacre in the appropriate context. Since its use is still disputed by several editors this should be addressed. A proposal was presented that kept the term in but stripped it of the primary title status. I still think this is appropriate since the accuracy of the Times in South Africa is in question. Alternately, an attempt was made to provide the reader with other titles/descriptions that good sources discuss and specifically mention. This was also rejected. POV and potentially to win/knee-jerk reverting is taking place since editors are refusing to find options to present the information in the context that is factual and deemed appropriate by some editors.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The accuracy of the Sunday Times is not in question, it is clearly a reliable source. You questioning it and it being in question are two entirely different things. This is not OR, it is a verifiable statement printed in a reliable source presented in a NPOV way. Several editors having a problem with "massacre" being associated with an action that saw over 300 children killed is not a reason to suppress a significant POV. Several editors having a problem with a certain country's actions being called a "massacre" is not a reason to suppress a significant POV. There are many things that I do not find "appropriate" in this article, that is not a valid reason to remove something. nableezy - 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellar and I both question it so yes it is in question. it also looks like Jalepenos does as well if I am reading the talk page correctl;y. If you look at the talk page you'll see that the concerns are with it being a title or receiving too much weight as well as the potential POV of the term itself. Stop ignoring the issues and only debating part of it since that is causing things to go in circles. You also just failed to address that there have been two proposals to include it in some form and you and Roma continue to decline any collaboration and revert. Also, no one is stopping you from bringing up concerns if you have them so again: go ahead.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia editor is not in the position to question a reliable source. If you can present a reliable source that disputes this, and a source calling it something else is not disputing it, you can present it. And I have offered any number of compromises that have likewise been rejected. The "form" you wished to include it disregards that every source using that as the name says "the gaza massacre" and instead wish to change that to "a 'massacre'". That is not a compromise, that is the same edit Stellarkid had originally tried pushing in during the RfC. Yes, nobody is stopping me from bringing up concerns I have, except for me. I recognize that my discomfort is not a reason to remove it from an encyclopedia article. I wish others would come to that realization. nableezy - 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We are certainly allowed to question accuracy if there is sufficient reasoning. One suggestion already provided to you at the RfC was to name the source in the text. Since this appears to be a claim and not a fact and other sources do not affirm the information this might be appropriate. This is We also have the responsibility to present the source with the appropriate weight. An extraordinary claim is receiving extraordinary weight without an extraordinary source or a significant amount of sources.

In regards to your concerns, either you see a neutrality problem or you don't. Get it straight.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is presented as a fact in a reliable source, not a "claim" and it is not an "extraordinary claim" that Arabs have used this as the name, a huge number of examples of Arabs using this as the name can be provided and have been provided. And a significant amount of sources have been presented. And it is not that I see neutrality concerns, it is that I understand that not everything that I find objectionable is a neutrality concern. That is what is being done here, a few users do not like the name and jump up and down shouting NPOV NPOV. But not one person has been able to say how "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" is non-neutral. nableezy - 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That statement is not POV, just not verifiable. We all agree it is known (at least in parts) of the Arab world as "the Gaza massacre." It is also known in Israel as part of Israel's "war against terror" but we don't put that in the lede because it is POV even if Israel does call it that. It is not a proper name. There are a couple of other users who agree I think, Jalapenos and Brewcrewer and others. Stellarkid (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? It is not verifiable? There is not a source that says exactly that? Sources that flat out say it is known in the Arab world as "the Gaza Massacre" and another that says "the Gaza massacre" have not been provided? Can you not click on two sources to verify that statement? Are you able to access the websites provided? Because if so it is a verifiable statement. nableezy - 03:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is JG is blocked doesn't mean there isn't a POV concern. Massacre is still a concern along with several other things mentioned above. Nableezy also says he has concerns. he tag needs to stay until neutrality is not disputed by multiple editors.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per a recent discussion, there are still unaddressed concerns besides massacre as a term and/or massacre in its current context (that is a big one though). Overall the article reads punch - counter punch which is a forced balance offering POV concerns from both sides. This is something I have attempted to have worked on in the Background section but the need to fix this is currently disputed. Specifically, I will reiterate:

• The two charts at the top are a pending POV concern. The left aligned one needs to be moved per MOS. This will start a concern I assume so I have been holding back on it but will gladly remove it if that will illustrate the neutrality concerns.
• Victory in the infobox has had a slow edit war over the last week or so. An IP just added it again.
• International law is still going back and forth with edits. I think its proliferation throughout is a concern but the fact that UN stuff is still being thrown around around without clear resolution shows concerns amongst editors that there might be neutrality concerns.
• I was under the impression that the recently added rocket infobox was a concern
• Nableezy apparently has additional concerns from his earlier comments.

It is indisputable that some editors have concerns with what is perceived as bias. The tag is ugly and it sucks but it and the previous lock have resulted in one issue being addressed. The second paragraph looks to be stable now. A single thing fixed can be looked at as a shame or a sign of things looking up. It is a shame that Anon has a pending check user and arbitration enforcement case out of it and JJ has a block. That is what happens with knee-jerk reverts and people taking offense to comments sometimes. It was almost done right and the outcome was a paragraph not being edit warred over right now at least. I would like to see the rest of the lead brought up to par which will assuredly cause further cries of POV pushing if editors do not discuss it.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Having the tag seems reasonable to me but curious about some of the POV concerns. I may have missed the discussions and perhaps you should answer this question in a new section. I'm curious about POV concerns for the charts mainly because they strike me as very high quality, inherently neutral visualisations of highly pertinent numerical data. They are exactly what this article needs more of in my view, data without commentary. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I still would like to see two sections each blatantly POV for each side. A clear pro-side would be the only ones to edit each side. The material would be the same length. It would describe each side's viewpoint. Then the rest of the article would be strictly neutral instead of each editor trying to make an edit sound more pro-XXX and more anti-XXX. The viewpoints would be in there as viewpoints and what would be left would be the (simple) verifiable facts. It could be an interesting experiment, if nothing else. Stellarkid (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - These 'sides' you refer to seem to be editors. Editors can't take sides in their editing. The notion of implementing a kind of POV apartheid in the article to formalise some kind of information battle when in fact editors are obliged to comply with the discretionary sanctions and numerous other rules like WP:BATTLE is exactly the opposite of what we are obliged to do as wikipedians. The sanctions make it quite clear that editors who cannot edit from a neutral point of view should step away from the article. This is a very simple thing to understand and yet again and again I see editors who only seem to be interested in promoting a particular POV, quite often the POV of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That kind of behavior is meant to be dealt with via Arbitration Enforcement rather than by implementing a kind of Group Areas Act to segregate editors (although I acknowledge that Ravpapa's idea of having completely separate articles is interesting). Our main focus should simply be on describing what actually happened to real places and real people in the real world according to reliable sources. Most of this article need have nothing to do with 'viewpoints' because pretty much everything important that happened that is pertinent to this article is undisputed. Details, intentions etc are disputed but the major events, actions, weaponry, effects etc are not. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The "sides" are the two sides of the conflict. It is evident that there are POVs involved with the editors as well, and perfectly natural and acceptable to WP. It is only biased editing that they are referring to. (like "Israel claims they are saints" or "Hamas/Gaza/Palestinans claims they are saints"). The editors within the section would be those with acknowledged POVs (you know who you are, lol) and they would work together well to express the view of their "side." This would at least give a cohesive viewpoint on both sides, it would be recognized as a viewpoint only from each side, and it would give the reader an incredible amount of real information about what is going on. If most of the article is undisputed, then you would only have a short section on this, but if Ravpapa's idea of separate articles is interesting, there must be enough differences in your mind to warrant a whole other article? I was just throwing it out as an idea. Whatever. Stellarkid (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a bad road to go down. We should be able to make a neutral article. If not we shouldn't be editing. In my opinion this article needs to be completely deleted ad retooled from the ground up but that is so against the spirit of a collaborative project that I should feel a little bad for admitting it.

In regards to the chart: There have been edits to give certain images top billing. I think it might have started when I moved an image of expended rockets into background since they were before the conflict but originally improperly placed in the International law section (funny how there is no such image now). This style of kindergarten jockeying for position in line even came up with what belligerent was named first before the name change. So what we have now is a chart of rockets into Israel. To counter that, a chart clearly showing the huge difference in deaths between the two. Tit for tat editing. One of them needs to be moved. The left aligned image is against image MOS being under the subheading like that. It also pinches the text. The difference in sizing is a potential flashpoint since the rockets one is thumbed but is not easily viewable while the deaths one looks to be at 200px (pissing contest). It causes an error in Firefox 5 (but not IE or current Opera). So the images need to be adjusted. I would assume removing one and not the other will be a concern. I know the sky isn't falling but I also have see how editors react to such edits.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No two sides povsections please. I though understand the idea. Its from a journalistic way of writing where different view is presented and strengthened against eachother, not necessary correct but attributed. Reader decide what to believ or which pov to support. Those view are hopfully ballansed in an article or different articles in same newsmedia ballansing eachother, in good journalistic products. We are very used to this as reader of news. Unfortunatly often news of bad journalistic quality additionally. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia have the NPOV ideal. That ideal should be hold as stringent as possible but still have to be compromissed to some extent for readabillity. I see there is a missunderstanding about this by some editors but mabe by making it clear that this is *not a journalistic work* when explaining NPOV things will be much easier editing Wikipedia. Specially articles like this one. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Status

Israeli Military Victory (easily sourced) +/vs Hamas victory (easily sourced) +/vs Ceasefire (easily sourced). Did I miss a discussion about this ? Any thoughts on how best to approach this ? Please remember that using words like shit when discussing an article about warfare can cause distress so try to limit yourself to no more than 5 shits per sentence. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded this double sourced edit and if two sources are not good enough for you, I can add an additional two sources, one of which includes the New York Times.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we need an "Outcome" subsection of the Campaign section? It can discuss the cease fires, Israel's military victory, Hamas claiming victory for being defiant. Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, both Israel and Hamas claimed a military victory. Can you understand that there are alternative ways of looking at the same information and that those alternative ways can have equal validity from the wiki NPOV perspective no matter what you or I think of them ? My opinion is that we should either just say that the outcome was a ceasefire or that we should reflect the perspectives of both parties to the conflict rather than just one. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean, with all due respect, noone treats Hamas victory claims seriously. It's kind of "ha-ha shameless Hamas" thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From our wiki perspective Hamas are a set of someones and they seem to take themselves quite seriously. Many things that are said about this conflict are shameless but editors don't normally let that stand in their way. My point is simply that Israeli Military Victory is one way of looking at it but there are others. The infobox obviously isn't a place for complexity which is why I prefer status=ceasefire. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)....just like in the 2006 Lebanon War article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean raises good points. Again, "double-sourced edits" notwithstanding, both sides claimed victory, and that is sourced whether we regard it as "shameless" or not. If one had issued a surrender that might change things, Wiki-wise. Incidentally, the editor who added "Israeli military victory" to the infobox is now on a one-week block, so if someone else wants to revert I would support that. Comments? RomaC (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to ceasefire. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, sides claim, some editors get blocked (WP as shooter game) and other editors have preferences. How is it all relevant? What the hell happened though? What do sources say? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What definitely happened without a shadow of a doubt was that ceasefires were declared. The sources say many things depending on their perspective about what constitutes a victory. Apparently editors sample the sources according to their systemic bias, obtain the outcome they desire and insert that outcome into the infobox happily ignoring their obligations to be neutral as mandated by the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

True, ceasefire and 1 week ceasefire were declared by sides. My concern is nearsightedness. If a tree falls in a forest... Generally, I still believe objective reality exists though. So who are those bad editors? Who to judge? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the article containing statements like Israel claimed victory because the rocket launch rate fell below n/t and Hamas claimed victory because the rocket launch rate exceeded n/t with n/t probably being the same in both cases :) or whatever but not in the infobox. Avoiding pointless editing disgreements over subjective opinions about things that are not objectively measurable using standard criteria seems better to me e.g. the IDF/Hamas are great [1][2], however, no they aren't.[3][4] It's easy to find sources to fuel these subjective disputes. Editor's compliance with policy is objectively measurable for the most part so the bad editors are the editors who make puppies cry by not following policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly approach. Puppies cry out loud, ants go on with building their colonies. Still what happened from military history point of view? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kristalnacht was considered a victory and great success by the perpetraors and also by some of the victims who didn't lose everything. German newspapers reported it dead pan and hi-lighted kindnesses shown by Germans. The rest of the world reported it as a pogrom which is the same as we should do here. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Regarding this edit by 24.46.74.122 and my revert, 24.46.74.122 why not expand the info a bit and put it in the article body ? I won't revert that. I'm only concerned about the infobox which as I've said before is no place for complexity. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Background and subsections

I want to trim the background sections of the article. They are a perfect example of attempting to place blame and there is so much information that it detracts from the primary subject matter. There are already internal links for further information and those should be utilized. There is no reason to not have lull and escalation combined into the main background section. Escalation should get a decent amount of space since there is not an article directly discussing it. Israel and Gaza don't get a long. Israel continued the blockade. Hamas continued to fire rockets. There was a ceasefire. Both broke it from time to time. Ceasefire not renewed. Talky talky. Smash. If it is up to me it will be a sizable cut so I thought it should be brought up first. Is there anything anyone needs to see in?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with the first two subsections in "background", and I object to cutting them down, as the background is very important for understanding the conflict. If anything, the "conflict escalates" section could be shortened a bit, as probably not every item in it is essential. But I would keep the background section mostly as it is. Offliner (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree the "conflict escalates" section could take priority for cleanup. RomaC (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We should be emulating articles that have achieved higher levels of excellence. A background section is important for the reader to understand the subject and is common. This particular conflict is one of many discussed in articles that are Wikilinked. Some information is needed of course but it has been overcomplicated by adding in points and counterpoints. I would bet that it detracts enough from the main body of the conflict and its ramificaitons to the point that most readers don't even get past the multiple subsections explaining the history in such detail. Take a look at some of the articles based o different operations. There is usually a good amount of detail but we are in obvious need of some tightening.Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

International law

The International law section should be a summary of International Law and the Gaza War. It isn't. Is there a good reason why this section can't be condensed down to a copy/paste of the lead from the main International law article and stay as a periodically synchronised copy of that lead ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! But remember United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. It could be a combination/synthesis of both leads. ******, exept the shortening down of the corresponding section of lead this was the main reason I started to edit this article a month ago. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A crude c/p of both leads, little redundansy cut away from International Law and the Gaza War lead. A larger part of reactions from United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict lead also removed in this 'draft'.

---

Accusations/ snip / controversy.

---

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been away from the entry for a while, but as long as my opinion counts - since the whole section was spun off to separate entry, I'd rather leave just a sentence or two, not more, and redirect. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes good sense. It isn't as if this article is too short or lacking material. Stellarkid (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good start with 'inter alia' fixed. Now, how shall we make the section better? I was probably to bold before Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu if the last NGO's critical of Israel, 'As of September 2009, some 360 complaints had been filed by individuals and NGOs at the prosecutor's office in The Hague calling for investigations into alleged crimes committed by Israel during Operation Cast Lead.[317]' is removed, do you accept the version on [68] (with Stellarkids 'inter alia' fixed?? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

libido-increasing gum

Yes, the history happened but is it notable enough for this article? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the incident that is notable - it is whom the Goldstone committee chose to believe were a credible and reliable witness. After they designated the Gaza police official as credible witness, they accepted at face value his explanation that the order to help the resistance fight the IDF invasion was actually meant to say that the police should continue distribute food to the civilians. And after they reinterpreted this order in such a way, they concluded that police was civilian forces and it was a war crime to attack them. So in the end, the moment Nableezy inserted mission's conclusion on police, I felt obliged to cast doubt on the committee's proceedings - and I feel like I made damn good and valuable contribution. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand, what exactly in this article is based on this witness? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

the goldstone's report conclusion that the Gaza police forces were a civilian police force. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to who? Its less than clear.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, where in Goldstones report do you find this? Second, what do the UN watch blog claims?Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

read this. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that allready and it dont support your claim that "the goldstone's report conclusion that the Gaza police forces were a civilian police force" is based on this witness. It just claim that this witness is the same that taked about the gum. I think you better selfrevert. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And what kind of editing is this: "JCPA researcher speculated that... He also suggested ...". What are you doing? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole gum thing is dumb. Sorry, it's not notable. RomaC (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the gum thing as FUD from a blog and the JCPA researchers speculations as vague and unecessary for that part as somewhat better critic is just above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not "a blog", it is inherent part of the NGO's site - NGO that is notable, even if some doesn't like it. Sentences are well-attributed, no problem here. Wording was tightened up and reinstalled. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel announces international PR campaign

"We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us."

-Benjamin Netanyahu, October 16, 2009 [69] (adding) Is this notable? RomaC (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely in reference to the Goldstone Report. It is not exactly appropriate to put such comments here on the talk page, especially when an earlier "connection" was suggested to another editor here. [70] It could be considered inflammatory and the first reference a personal attack. Especially since no context was offered. Here is the context in which the PR campaign is mentioned:

The prime minister instructed the forum to prepare for a "lengthy fight"; one that would include an extensive campaign explaining Israel's right to defend itself against terror, as well as taking diplomatic, legal and other steps in order to undermine those who wish to delegitimize Israel's actions.
"We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us. We will not tolerate it and we will respond on a case by case basis," he said.

In other words, if there are known conflicts of interests by the parties, (those directly involved in the mission) those conflicts will be exposed. Israel believes that it "right to defend itself" and that its "existence" within the community of states is attempting to be "delegitimitized" by some within the UN and elsewhere. This is really not news, nor unsurprising. Any other state in the world would do the same thing under the circumstances, at the very least. Stellarkid (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Gaza's government issued such a statement? Also, when you quote "existence" above, where are you quoting it from? The article says "actions". Does criticism of Israel's actions equal a threat to its existence, is that the view you wish to advance? It is not exactly appropriate to put such comments here on the talk page. Let's just look at the sources please. RomaC (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP lets not. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what Hamas has said lately with regard to this issue. However, when one refers to "delegitimatizing" it means "existence" (as used in the above sentence) by definition. As for what is appropriate, I was asking RomaC just exactly what he was getting at with this new section, and providing context and interpretation for what was put up, based on the article itself. If RomaC did not want context and interpretation added, he should not have put the link up without commentary, imho. Stellarkid (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked, here is a link to a Hamas press release (in English) on the subject: [71] (not sure if it is an RS or not)-

"In a press release, Hamas said that this victory is the outcome of the determination of Arab and Islamic countries, and other countries around the world “to ensure the prosecution of Zionist war criminals at the International Court”.

Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum, said that approving the Goldstone report is a victory for justice and the victims of ‘Zionist crimes’.

Barhoum added that Hamas welcomes the approval as it is a victory for the Palestinians rights and people.

He also slammed the countries that voted against the report and said that ‘those countries claim to be defending Human Rights and democracy'." Stellarkid (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, we can see that Israel has announced what some might term an official smear campaign targeting those critical of its actions. That's a significantly distinct way of answering or addressing criticism. And as for "existence", if you are going to include a link, kindly ensure that it says what you say it says. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where in the article it says official smear campaign targeting those critical of its actions. "We can see..." I am sure you believe you are correct, but I assure you this is your interpretation speaking, what some might term bias, or at WP as POV. As for my link, in fact it does say what I say it does. Stellarkid (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this playing with words helps. The Israeli government, organizations and individuals that support Israel are carrying out an international PR=propaganda (in the technical sense) campaign. It's very broad in scope, broader than just the the Goldstone report and covers all sorts of areas like human rights groups (funding/visas), campaigns/activities by all sorts of groups like StandByUs etc along with all of the usual orgs like JCPA, NGO Monitor, CAMERA, an army of bloggers etc etc. It's all quite open and obviously notable within the context of the Gaza War. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And you don't think that Hamas, Gazans, Palestinians, organizations and individuals that support [Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians] are not doing this? You think there is not an army of bloggers, NGO's, groups that call themselves "peace groups," Palestine Solidarity Movement, Jews against Zionism, Electronic Intifada, Divestment groups etc etc are sitting idly around and not bothering to pump out propaganda? Or perhaps you are convinced that they are pumping out the facts, and only CAMERA, JCPA, NGO Monitor are doing the prop? Don't kid yourself. Your bias is showing. Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

um..there is no information whatsoever in what I wrote that addresses the issue of non-Israeli propaganda. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

of course not. Stellarkid (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This, together with statement about who won, could be a new section. Subsequent Developments. And if it become a big thing, is noteworthy enough, an article on its own. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact Box IDF Military Victory

Regarding the edit, I have four sources to back up the claim of IDF military victory. 1)Aviation Week 2)The Jerusalem Post 3)The washington Institute for Near East Policy 4)The New York Times.

The Israeli aim was to reduce rocket fire against periphery towns. In the year prior to Cast Lead, Hamas fired over 3,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israel. Post Cast Lead saw just under 300, a reduction of 1000%. By any objective standard, that's an unqualified success. Hamas took a thrashing during the campaign and they don't want a repeat. Additionally, several senior Hamas cammanders and experienced bomb makers were killed. Hamas military infrastructure took a beating (over 95% of targeted infrastructure was destroyed or sustained heavy damage) and the combatant kill ratio (even when judging by Palestinian numbers) was heavily in Israel's favor. If you use Israeli figures, it's about 80 to 1. Please provide me with some RSs that contradict my claim.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu you have just returned from a one-week block to resume exactly the same stubbornly aggressive editing of the infobox. It has been pointed out patiently that "double-sourcing" your contentious edits does not necessarily qualify them for the infobox summary, as both sides have claimed victory. Also, User:24.46.74.122 made the same edit with the same summary two days ago. I'd like to assume this was a coincidence? RomaC (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, I find it difficult to understand why you would lecture others on "comment on content not the contributer" and at the same time make the above comment. Please try to follow your own excellent advice to others. Thank you. (Not to mention WP:AGF) Stellarkid (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced information. I am actually happy with "military victory" instead of an all encompassing "Victory". The numbers and sources say it all. For the benefit of the article as a whole, it would be better spelled out in the prose as well or instead. Hamas's claim to victory for standing their ground would deserve a good mention in such a subsection as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I purposely noted "military victory" because there is a political component that is much more difficult to quantify. I'm glad Cptnono, that you picked up on that nuance.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Roma, first off, I didn't double source it, I quadrupled sourced it because I anticipated this very response from you. Second, it doesn't make a difference what either side claims concerning victory. What matters is that there are reliable, independent sources that provide factual grounds on which to base their claims. I provided four. I challange you to find one RS that claims that Hamas scored a tactical military victory on the ground. Sorry about the IP thing, I just forgot to log on, no ulterior motive--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Stellarkid (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully support spelling out the details of the military victory assessments in the article based on your sources. We should also briefly mention Hamas' victory claims in the same section as both Cptnono and I have suggested before. These are however just opinions based on wildly different decision criteria. There may be less flattering military assessments out there. I haven't looked but the important thing is the assessment rather than the soundbite. I'm still very skeptical about putting a soundbite in the infobox for the same reasons that I think putting a big sign on an aircraft carrier saying "Mission Accomplished" is a little bit of an oversimplification and not very encyclopedic. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Right but Gaza Massacre in the lede is perfectly OK, right? (Sorry, off topic) Stellarkid (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I provided four credible sources detailing the reasons why from a tactical perspective, Israel won the ground war. Now Hamas can say they won. They can also declare that the earth is flat and that Lindsay Lohan is a superb actress. Now I do agree that from a political perspective, it's difficult to quantify a win or loss becuase you're dealing with abstract intangibles. But from a military perspective you can at least quantify it with bare statistics. Kill ratios, damage to infrastructure, losses to senior command structure, steep reduction in post Cast Lead rocket fire from Gaza, etc.. So again I say that Hamas can say what it wants in terms of winning their great battle against the "Zionist imperialist entity" but the facts and the dry statistics say otherwise and I have the credible sources to back it up.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess if we can find RS that also claim that Hamas won from a military perspective then we can claim it's a draw. And in the long run and from a strategic angle, it probably is. Stellarkid (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the lost Ark before you'll find an RS that posits that view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, yes but the difference for me is that the non-flatness of the earth is something that can be established because there is a standard metric space in which the measurements can be made (they aren't opinions, it's just math) whereas the outcome of OCL is something about which people like the director of the Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process can say complicated things like "a preliminary assessment reveals some concrete achievements. But the durability of those achievements will surely be tested in the post-conflict period." In other words, Fact Boxes are for facts. To answer Stellarkid's not entirely off topic comment, I have no way of properly deciding whether Gaza Massacre (a non-factual descriptive term that represents the opinion of a subset of something) is okay in the lead because there is no decision procedure in place. The lead isn't a fact box. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we to accept self-serving proclamations by Hamas politicians over hard facts and reliable sources? Again, you'll be hard pressed to find one RS that states that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over the IDF. I provided you with four that state the opposite and I can probably find more with ease. Just as an aside, if Hamas considers this to be a military victory, I shudder to think what they would consider to be a military defeat.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we to present opinions as facts in a fact box ? A fact is a fact rather than a set of competing opinions. Anyway, I've said what I think. I'm happy to let (policy based) consensus take it's course. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Those "opinions" are based on hard quantifiable facts; Kill ratios, reduction in rocket fire, loss of top commanders and bomb makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc... These are all matters that could easily be quantified and tactical success is measured by utilizing these metrics. Other than self serving proclamations designed to satisfy a demoralized constituency and para military, Hamas can not point to a single success on the battlefield. They did not destroy a single IDF armored vehicle and their losses relative to the IDF were beyond extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth you continuing this kind of from first principals argument especially with me given that in my world presenting an opinion as a fact can have dire consequences. I'm well aware of the difference. Many people look at the hard quantifiable facts surrounding them, draw all sorts of conclusions using various decision procedures and passionately believe in the opinions they form. So what ? They're still opinions rather than facts and they should be presented as such. I think you should have a look at and consider what The Squicks said below. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of just something like "military victory" label is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, possibly misleading. Take, for example, this article from Xinhua titled "Israeli ties with key players in Mideast worsening"

Much of this icy view of Israel goes back to Israel's major military offensive on Gaza in December and January. There has been considerable international condemnation of Israel's actions... On the face of it and given international criticism of Israel in the post-Gaza operation period, that there is room for assuming the reactions to Israel from Cairo and Ankara are purely objective.

Or take this analysis from noted Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who remarked, "that war made peace-making harder."

Or this report from BBC's Panorama program, which reported: In wars between small groups like Hamas and big national armies like Israel's victory is in the eye of the beholder. It is all a question of how you define it.

From the other side of the political spectrum, FrontPage Magazine has noted: criticism of the war’s conduct is heard as well from various commentators who supported the campaign but feel that Israel erred in not pursuing it to what they argue was an achievable, more comprehensive, victory entailing the destruction of Hamas.

My point here is that when the facts are in dispute, an infobox cannot take sides in the matter. All an infobox can do is report. The Squicks (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument does nothing to rebut my claim. The two former articles deal with alleged political fallout. I am focusing exclusively on tactical military success on the battlefield and I was very specific in noting "military success." The political component is more difficult to quantify. Thus, I did not state victory but rather "military" victory. Cptono picked up on this subtle nuance. The latter article posits the theory that Israel did not go far enough but does not militate against the tactical success of the operation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An argument that the infobox should declare an Israeli military victory based on "hard quantifiable facts; Kill ratios, reduction in rocket fire, loss of top commanders and bomb makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc..." is problematic. First of all, the qualification "military victory" might be original research here. Secondly, is "military victory" a relevant metric in an asymmetrical conflict? Thirdly, that list of criteria almost certainly is original research.

Based on kill ratio and overall degradation of opponents' ability to fight, it could be argued that Japan won the Pacific War. But Japan surrendered. Based on kill ratios and loss of top commanders and weapons makers, damage to military infrastructure, etc., the United States won the Vietnam War. But that Wiki article infobox says "North Vietnamese victory," probably because although the United States did not surrender, they withdrew.

On the other hand, the Invasion of Grenada infobox says US victory, because the US accomplished its objective of regime change. It is from this perspective that we could take a look at "Israeli victory", as Israel says it accomplished its goals. But then we'd be making our own interpretations. So, we should go to reliable sources. In the end, an important distinction is although there are sources which note that Israel claims victory with regard to accomplishing its objectives; Hamas survived, and there are sources noting that in this regard, Gaza also claims victory in the conflict. So, it isn't infobox simple.

"One of the most important things in this conflict between state and nonstate actors is what is the meaning of victory?" says Eitan Azani, a former Israeli Defense Forces colonel and a deputy director at the Institute for Counter Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. "A lot of people from [Hamas] dying? A collapse? Or most of the operational capability destroyed? This is up for debate. We are in a very complicated situation." [72]

So, for the infobox, we look at what we do know for sure. We do know a ceasefire was declared by both sides. Suggest we leave that in the infobox and explore the Pandora's box in the body of the article. Respectfully. RomaC (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The article that you cite was written on Jan 5, two weeks before the cease fire. How can anyone assess victory or defeat before the battle is over? I have provided you with concrete sources written after the cessation of hostilities when one has the ability to engage in Battle Damage Assessment and assess the results of the action by other metrics as well. As far as kill ratios, you misconstrued my words. Kill ratios are but one factor to consider in a myriad of factors. The sources that I provided lay out those factors in a methodical fashion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, your Vietnam War analogy is equally misplaced. The stated war aim of the U.S. was to prevent the fall of Saigon and prevent the spread of Communism. In both of these, the U.S. failed miserably becuase not only did Saigon fall, but Laos and Cambodia as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, can I suggest that you might want to consider adding "Status: God exists and is great. Atheists defeated" to the God article too. There are plenty of refs to support this view which are based on assessments of the hard quantifiable facts of the observable universe apparently. No need to wait for consensus to emerge on that page. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to find me one RS that establishes that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over Israel. I quadrupled sourced my edits and that's still not good enough for you. While consensus is a good thing, it's not a prerequsite for an edit, an edit that is well sourced. You may not like what is said but the fact is that it's sourced with verifiable, reliable sources and that's the Wiki standard. Your revert was inappropriate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before verifiable, reliable sources are controlling, not consensus. However, since you're so focused on consensus, judging from the comments on the discussion pages, consensus for the edit is evident here [[73]] here [[74]] here [[75]] and here [[76]] Now I'm sure you've got your people lined up so I'd say it's just about even.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, yes that's me, making inappropriate edits all over wikipedia. Try not to misuse words. As you surely know you need to gain consensus for controversial changes before making them. Do not edit-war them in repeatedly. You have already been blocked once for "aggressive editing" so why are you doing it again ? Several editors (and by the way they are not my "people", this is not a football match or a tribal war) have tried to explain to you why presenting a set of opinions as a fact in a fact box is inappropriate. They have even provided sources and lengthy explanations to support their positions which you have rejected out of hand in my view. As far as I'm aware everyone supports adding details about the military victory assessments to the body of the article, that is the important thing but there is no agreement so far about what to put as the Status.

It seems to me that you are having difficulty understanding the difference between opinions and facts. I don't understand why. Please consider these statements both of which can be supported by many reliable sources and consider whether they are statements of fact and therefore suitable for a fact box or whether they are the (widely held) opinions of a set of people/organizations.

• Hamas are terrorists.
• The IDF committed war crimes.

If anyone thinks either of those are facts they shouldn't be editing fact boxes.

I'm sorry but you can't seriously expect me to respond to statements like "find me one RS that establishes that Hamas achieved a tactical military victory over Israel" when it should be perfectly clear to you by now that even if I had 100 sources voicing opinions based on various assessments I wouldn't put it in the fact box as a fact because it isn't a fact. The Squicks BBC Panorama source stating "In wars between small groups like Hamas and big national armies like Israel's victory is in the eye of the beholder. It is all a question of how you define it." should be enough for you to realise where you are going wrong. It is a simple fact that 1000 cubic cm of water weighs 1kg and that ceasefires were declared. It's a simple fact that sources exist that say that Israel achieved a military victory. It is not a simple fact that they actually achieved a military victory so please, let's not present things as simple facts when they are not. None of this has anything to do with what I like and what I don't like by the way. Seriously, I don't care about who thinks who won and that is exactly why I monitor I-P articles.

I'm going to ask you nicely to self-revert your fact box edit and return it to Status = Ceasefire etc until such time that consensus on the wording has been reached in a collaborative, non-aggressive way. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions. First, do you think the statement, "Israel won the Six Day War" is a fact or an opinion? Second, if I included the cease fire declarations along side "tactical victory" would that be sufficient?

Also I hope you took note of the fact that based on your criticisms, I changed the wording from "Israeli Victory" to "Israeli Military Victory" and yet again to "Israeli Tactical Military Victory" to encompass the narrowest definition possible.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a thought. Suppose I took my wording out of the fact box, leaving the original wording (of mutual cease-fire declarations) and instead inserted it in the lead with phrasing like, "the war concluded with a tactical battlefield victory for Israel followed by mutual cease-fire declarations by the belligerents," would that be satisfactory for you?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There can be a new section in article as Cptnono propose 'Assesment, Victory, Result, Outcome' or 'Subsequent Developments'( my suggestion) Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire in the infobox is correct though Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not support anything except Mutual cease-fire declarations', given the contentiousness of the issue as both Sean and I have pointed out. I really suggest that you read the BBC piece that I linked. The Squicks (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at "Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel" from Haaretz as well. It notes=

The initial objective of the war was to put an end to the firing of Qassam rockets. This did not cease until the war's last day. It was only achieved after a cease-fire had already been arranged. Defense officials estimate that Hamas still has 1,000 rockets. The war's second objective, the prevention of smuggling, was not met either. The head of the Shin Bet security service has estimated that smuggling will be renewed within two months.

Levy concludes thus that the conflict was a military failure. You can see that it is a heavily debatable issue. The Squicks (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The writer that you cite is neither a defense analyst nor a military expert. He is however an editorialist and unabashed critic of Israel whose opposition to the war is well known. Unlike, the sources that I supplied, which provided in-depth analyses, his statements are conclusory without hard facts to back them up. Moreover, The article was written on 22 Jan 2009 before anyone had a chance to assess whether in fact, rocket fire would decrease after the war. We now know that rocket fire decreased substantially and life in Southern Israel has returned to normal. In addition, much of his focus is on political fallout and I stressed on several occasions that I was referring strictly to tactical battlefield success and nothing more. Why don't you take a look at Senior Shin Bet official: Hamas completely lost Gaza war and Hamas dismisses commanders on Iran order and Israel And Hamas Both Declare Victory and New Tactics Yield Solid Victory in Gaza and Hamas seeks new doctrine after Gaza War failures and Preliminary Assessment of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead and Hamas Shifts From Rockets to Culture War I have now provided seven sources that maintain that Israel scored a major battlefield success in Operation Cast Lead. This is the consensus among military analysts and defense strategists and it absolutely should be in the fact box.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Prose

Assesment, Victory, Result, Outcome? I think the best place for claims of victory is a new subseciton in campaign. Any thoughts on the title, text, where it shoudl go.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea is good but probably not easy to keep objective. A section with 'Subsequent Developments' might work? It can have differnt attributed povs on the outcome (if they are noteworthy) and take that away from the infobox. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The intent is to say "Israel had a military victory according to xyz. Hamas claimed victory for 123" It is not supposed to be about Subsequent Developments.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The statements was made after the war by the diferent parts. Or notable experts, notable opinionmakers or notable loudmouths. We can leave the NPOV little if we use attributed and ballansing statements representing both sides or even more parts interested in defining the outcome. Anyhow they are making statements 'subsequent' as the war is over. Objectivly and from npov the answer is ceasefire, noone won. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment potentially. The sole purpose is to present claims of victory within days of the ceasefire. We can even put it as a paragraph after the ceasefires mention. We can even call it VICTORY???? Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli tactical military victory, Hamas tactical defeat"? Could someone explaine. --Ezzex (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a dispute where a user recent changed it from ceasefire without consensus. Hopefully he will revert himself Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the others requesting Jiujitsuguy self-revert his infobox edits. RomaC (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Lead starts to swollow up again. Event before December 27 better stay in background sections. Futher I suggest this part to be removed to keep lead focused and within 4 pararaphs.

'by 25 votes for, 6 against and 16 abstentions/failures to vote. Hamas and the Israeli government rejected the report's findings as being biased.[36][37] Against Goldstone's recommendations, the Council singled out Israel exclusively for reprimand without any mention of Hamas.[38]' Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And this paragraph 'Between 750 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed...' above this 'A UN mission headed by Judge Richard Goldstone was established...' so the timeline of events not disturbed. I fix that now Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The UN vote is immensely important and that's why it is in the lead. The Squicks (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

bombardment?

let's read the Anon's source: "Israeli forces continued to bombard the homes of Hamas leaders"; .... "Israel began the offensive on Dec. 27, following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19." so, either the lead says that Israel started its offensive on Dec. 27, or it says that Israel started bombardment of Hamas. either way, the lead can not say that Israel started to bomb Gaza. this is not Luftwaffe bombarding London, unless you can prove otherwise. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As a general point, use of the word bombardment to describe the actions of the IDF anywhere in the article is fine. It's a technically accurate term that was used quite extensively in the media. Look it up, do a google search and you'll find many interesting articles. The MFA also use the word bombardment to describe rocket and mortar attacks against Israel because that's what it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

using term in the article, providing context to the specific action is fine. saying in the lead that Israel started bombardment of Gaza is not. I wasn't so successful with Google search, can you show me articles published in supposedly neutral RS (exclude Al-Jazeera) that say that Israel started to bomb Gaza on Dec. 27? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying in the lead that Israel started bombardment of Gaza is fine. I'm not suggesting we use that word, I'm just saying get over it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/29/world/fg-arab-protests29 http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/topstories/Israel-ignores-global-pleas-as.4836817.jp http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/britain-punishes-israel-for-gaza-naval-bombardment-1744969.html http://news.aol.ca/article/israel-pauses-gaza-bombardment/475896/ http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-01/2009-01-02-voa27.cfm?CFID=313860630&CFTOKEN=13802768&jsessionid=883015d3ee7292a8e402144558162e2e5592 http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/further-protest-planned-against-gaza-bombardment-1595916.html http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24886583-2703,00.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/02/world/main4695928.shtml http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLG514136 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4013026/Israel-pounds-Gaza-for-third-day-Interior-ministry-destroyed.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5586968.ece Sean.hoyland - talk 16:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

who started the war?

As the name suggests, this entry is not about Cast Lead, but about Gaza War. Israel started military operation on Dec. 27. Hamas started military operation on Dec. 23 - commencing an operation code-named "Oil Stain". let's get the facts straight, including the lead. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As a avid reader of the pro-Israel Elder of Ziyon blog I'm concerned that on Saturday, December 27, 2008 they noted that No media outside this article ..(they mean the Maan article)..even mentions "Operation Oil Stain," although quite a few have mentioned Israel's response, "Operation Cast Lead.". If this is indeed the case, I'm curious why you have just put it in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

..and I reverted it here with the edit summary "see Talk:Gaza_War#who_started_the_war.3F. no indication as to the weight/significance/causal relationship of this based on RS as opposed to say the killing of militants the previous day". Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "Operation Oil Stain", but there was a six-month truce between Israel and Hamas, Hamas declared the end of the truce and intensified its rocket fire at Israeli towns, and a week later Israel lauched Operation Cast Lead. Regardless of when we define the war as starting, these are elementary facts without which the outbreak of the war cannot be understood, and they almost always appear in mainstream media accounts of the war. I have added the info several times to the lede, sourced to some of said media accounts, and it keeps getting removed without discussion. Naturally, I think it should be returned. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas declared the end of the truce and intensified its rocket fire at Israeli towns, and a week later Israel lauched Operation Cast Lead". No, that is not what happened. What happened is described in the Conflict escalates section and it includes actions by both parties. That should of course be reflected in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, that happened. It is described in the "Conflict escalates" section, along with the November breach of the truce. We seem to agree that the section should be summarized in the lede. I don't think the mid-truce breach is important or relevant enough for the lede, but whatever, that would also be better than the status quo. So I'm not really sure whether you disagree with me on anything, and if so, what and why. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to re-phrase then. Yes, it happened but to present the information in that way ignores the Palestinian perspective on things like the blockade and it's role in their decision making. We agree that the section should be summarized in the lede but can we make sure it doesn't oversimplify, give undue weight to the perspective of one belligerent over another or detach perceived causes from effects ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To adopt Amnesty narrative, who says that Israel started a war on Dec. 27 out of the blue - this is oversimplification. On days preceding Israeli attack rocketing intensified and this could be verified independently. The fact that only one source referred to it by its factual name is quite unfortunate - but disproves nothing. Who were supposed to report on it before Dec. 27? I can live with Jalapenos version though. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about an event that took place within a certain time frame, beginning with the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip on December 27. We can add background information, but we can't re-frame the event itself. RomaC (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I have no problem including Hamas's stated reason for resuming and intensifying the rocket attacks, assuming there was a coherent stated reason. Beyond that would be wading into speculation. Roma, it's not actually clear that the Gaza War started on the 27th, but for our purposes it doesn't matter. Whether a war started one day or nine days after a ceasefire between the two belligerents expired, the existence of the ceasefire, the circumstances of its expiration and the subsequent hostilities are critical background information and should be in the lede. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The change is without consensus. It should be reverted to this version [77] regarding 2:nd paragraph in lead. I revert later if not Sceptic and Jalapenos selfrevert. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

JDE you are right about the vagueness of the term "Gaza War," but it is absolutely clear that the event that this article is about did start on December 27, corresponding with the start of the Israeli military's "Operation Cast Lead." Whatever happened prior to December 27 is background information which goes into the body of the article. As requested above please self-revert and make your case for a novel framing device here before pushing it into the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names

I've restored these to the first sentence, per WP:LEAD. They should not be removed again, because they're needed for balance. Indeed, I doubt the article should be called "Gaza War": the view that this was a war is a minority one. I've also removed a few citation templates again, because they make the article hard to edit for flow, and the page even harder to load than it already is at this length. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely, you're not saying that you prefer that this whole page is renamed "Gaza Massarce", are you? The Squicks (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the time frame and what happened, it could be more accurately termed something like "Attack on Gaza", as it covers events beginning with the Israeli air bombardment through the land invasion and ends with the Israeli withdrawal. Supported this early on but some editors insisted that because Gazans had engaged in combat then it should be called a "war." RomaC (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Attack on Gaza" is horrifically slanted and POV- making this sound as if its an ethnic cleansing campaign against all the people living in the Gaza strip.

What about the Israeli citizens under rocket/mortar barrage, what about that? And what about poor Gilad Shalit, held hostage with a gun to his heart? And what about the fact that the Israelis did not attack all of Gaza but seperated civilians from militants?

We can't pick one sides ideological slant and then use that as Wikipedia's slant. By your logic, would you support renaming the article Mexican-American war as the American attack on Mexico? The Squicks (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Gaza is full of refugees who've already been ethnically cleansed out of Israel, and they were not allowed to esape this time, then ethnic cleansing is the wrong word. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, it appears you were not around for the last month or better of discussions regarding this "name", though it has been argued almost consistently since the day it entered the lede. It is a name that is not a name. It does not have verifiable sources that identify it as a name, ie, there are merely one or two usages where this "name" is capitalized. Wars are appropriately capitalized (you will find that all the most respectable sources do indeed capitalize "Gaza War" and most RS (English) sources refer to such things as "massacre in Gaza" or "Ahmadinejad refers to it as 'a massacre'" etc. Further, it has been demonstrated by Google news that this is not a common name at all (RS), certainly not anywhere near as common as "Gaza War" or even "Israel's attack on Hamas" or "Israel's attack on Gaza" etc. It is of course very commonly used in unreliable opinion pieces and Israel attack sites. As for "balance" that is not an appropriate concept here since a compromise was made to remove both CastLead and "massacre" from the lede which was rejected. Further both Gaza War and OCL are non-judgmental, non-descriptive "names". The only way that balance would be achieved by including "massacre" would be if we were to call it "Israel's war against Hamas' terrorism" which of course a non-starter if providing an appropriate "balance" to "massacre." Finally, the only vaguely valid RS source that supports your edit was the last one put up by Nableezy -- just one, which capitalizes "Massacre" indicating that it is a name. The problem with that one is that this source was covering a local event and is not a foreign affairs editor so is probably not covered by the blanket of editorial oversight in this area. Add to that that a contentious edit in the lede needs to be supported by several, not just one, RS. These do not exist as you will see if you do the research. I might add that if you check dates in Google news for "Gaza massacre" you will discover that there have been a series of Gaza "massacres" since 1994, demonstrating that "The Gaza Massacre" is not a unique name for this event. You will also discover that the name is dwindling in usage in RS. There are in fact just a handful. Finally, it is the opinion of a number of editors here that this is a POV addition to the lede, and as such misleading. No one seems to disagree that it is commonly called a massacre in the Arab world, but not that it is an official name that belongs in the lede. Perhaps you want to give some more flesh to your assertion that "Gaza War" is not common and that "Gaza massacre" somehow is through RS? As before, it is generally accepted that someone who wants to put material into an article is the one with the burden of evidence, particularly when that material is highly POV and contentious. Stellarkid (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Many Arabs—and we are speaking of the Arab name here—don't see this as a war, merely as the latest massacre in a decades-long war waged by Israel against the Palestinians.

Regarding sources: Since this is an Arab term, I searched Google News using the Arabic expression "مجزرة غزة" and found 7,000 hits between December 2008 and October 2009. Of course we don't know how well Google indexes the Arab press, so those 7,000 may be merely the tip of the iceberg. (I hope somebody who can read Arabic can help out; maybe there's a better way to search Arabic news sites.)

Finally, your assertion that Operation Cast Lead is neutral is laughable. It's the Israeli name for their military incursion into Gaza, and including it implicitly favors the Israeli narrative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Many Arabs....see this...as the latest massacre in a decades-long war" -- I don't dispute that. But again, that makes it the Arab POV...not an official name. WP:NONENG speaks to the preference for English in WP and there are plenty of translations so that we do not have to go to the Arab Google to find an expression which is amply translated in English by RS as "a massacre" with a small "m." Even your post just acknowledged that it is how the Arabs "see" it, not an official name. There is plenty of English-translated Arab text that calls this the Gaza War as well. This POV is acceptable in this article but not as an alternative name. As for OCL being neutral, of course it is. It is just a name, not an accusation (POV) like "massacre." Just because Israel calls it a name, doesn't mean that the Arabs when referring to it as a massacre has to have that particular "name" in the lede. Why is this so hard to get across? Stellarkid (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's so hard to get across because you're wrong. First, WP:NONENG clearly permits the use of non-English sources. The article says the Israeli incursion into Gaza is known as the "Gaza massacre" in the Arab world and in case you hadn't noticed, most of the Arab world doesn't speak English. Also, I didn't use "the Arab Google", nor even Arabic Google—I used plain old English Google with an Arabic search phrase.

As I wrote, the fact that you see Operation Cast Lead as a neutral phrase is indicative of your own bias. The word massacre isn't an accusation. It's simply the name by which the Israeli incursion is known in the Arab world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The central problem here is that it's devilishly hard to gauge what the Arab media says since (a)virtually no WP editors understand the language and (b)internet sites may either overestimate or underestimate reactions. The Squicks (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, we don't need to use Arab sources for this since there are plenty of English sources available. Arabic does not use capital letters and so there is no way we can understand that this is a name or simple a pov based on the Arabic. Nor should we have to since WP is supposed to be "easily verifiable" per WP:NONENG. Stellarkid (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we could use the language that's used in the English speaking world - there are over 2 million results for Gaza Massacre and a British MP calls it that. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

fyi -"gaza massacre" Googled News for 2009 134 usages mostly not RS On most RS referring to Gaza "massacre" the word "massacre" is put in quotes. There is some significance to this.

"gaza war" Googled News for 2009 3750 hits mostly RS such as [78] [79][80][81] and the following 2 Arab sources including Al Jazeera [82] [83] If Al Jazeera is calling it the Gaza War, and it is a RS for the Arab street, why are we insisting on the other? Stellarkid (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not remove the alternative names from the lead. This is basic information every reader should know. Offliner (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic (ie basic information) the only real other 'name' that is used is OCL. [84] which in 2009 had 4700 GNEWS hits. So we have Gaza War at 3750, OCL 4700, and Gaza massacre at 134. Gaza massacre weighs in at roughly 1/28th of Gaza war and 1/35th of OCL, most of the 134 not being RS or actually saying it is a "name" at all. The idea that this is an official name or even a popular one is not really supported by RS. Israel's "war in the south" has 164 GNews hits for 2009 [85] and as such does not belong in the lede any more than Gaza massacre does. Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I see no objection to adding the descriptive terms "Gaza massacre" and "war in the south" somewhere in the body of the article as background. But these are descriptions, not "alternative names." Stellarkid (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I showed you above that there are more than 7,000 Google News hits for Gaza massacre. That seems to be more than either Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Please stop edit warring over this while we discuss it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You presumably showed this on the Arab wiki. This does not conform to WP:NONENG which asks that information be easily verifiable and prefers English translations. I used English news Googled "Gaza massacre" in quotes for that particular phrase. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't find it on the A-rab wiki or even the Arabic wiki. I found them on the English Google. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There are said to be 200 Israelis editing Wikipedia, the highest concentration in the world. I don't know how many are obsessively trying to get articles written to their nationalist preference and POV. Wanting "Operation ast Lead" in and "Gaza Massacre" out would be a significant clue as to what is going on. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the above comment should be struck. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, leaving the C out of "Operation ast Lead" is unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't see anything wrong with a comment that starts "There are said to be..." and referring to Israelis as "obsessive" ? Israelis are like people everywhere. They have different opinions about different subjects. Many Israelis are probably editing articles about math and science - law and the arts. It is a personal attack and a gross over-generalization. Stellarkid (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let me get this straight. You said, "Since this is an Arab term, I searched Google News using the Arabic expression "مجزرة غزة" and found 7,000 hits between December 2008 and October 2009." So you used an Arab expression which says "gaza massacre" in quotes and googled news, correct? (I don't use caps here because I have been told that Arabic does not use caps). We do not however know in what context this was used unless we read the usage in the articles ourselves. How many of these sources would WP consider reliable? How many are quoting others? (For example, some reliable English sources in Google news use "massacre" in quotes.) How many of those are describing it as a massacre? What indication do we have that this is considered a name and not a description? I believe this is exactly the kind of case where WP:NONENG would be appropriate, since it says " English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article." Arabic wiki google is hard to verify. I agree that there is enough material to suggest that some Arabs refer to the Gaza War as "a massacre," but this does not belong in the lede as an "alternative name" based on an Arabic Google search that is not "easily verifiable." Finally, the concept that "the Israeli name for this implicitly favors the Israeli narrative" is way over my head -- makes no sense to me whatsoever. I guess that is what all the warring is about, come to think of it. This is the Judea/Samaria/West Bank argument -- it's the "illegal settlement" vrs "Israeli community" argument -- it is the idea that each "side" must get in its preferred "name" right at the top of everything. Bingo! It becomes clearer. Still, I think to favor the Arab narrative in this case is then to put in the Gaza Massacre as a name to "balance" OCL? What kind of balance is that? Seems to me that there are a whole lot of folks sitting on the other side of this see-saw. Stellarkid (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Denials of White phosphorus use" section

Can someone pls explain the encyclopedic value of the section in the 1st place? WP is not a weapon of mass destruction, not an incendiary or a chemical weapon, it is perfectly legal in the urban area - and I will prove it shortly. The only reservation, which is true for every weapon, is that each use withstands the principle of proportionality. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. WP usage is perfectly legal under international law. It is designed to produce instantaneous smoke to cover troop movements. In addition, WP usage by the IDF is covered in other sections of the article and a separate section dedicated entirely to WP is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, the source cited does not mention the name of one IDF rep who denied its usage. The IDF was forthright and upfront about its WP usage.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Below is copy-pasted excerpts dealing specifically with WP from col. Lane and prof. Newton who testified for the Goldstone report in July. As said, its use in urban area is generally legal, some specific attacks might violate rule of proportionality, but that is true for every sort of weapon too. I don't see a point to focus here on WP; this section does not belong here (maybe in WP entry - if someone explains why is it important). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's weight here comes from the extent to which it was covered in reliable sources. I presume it was covered extensively because it caused millions of dollars of damage to UN humanitarian aid infrastructure/supplies and killed/injured civilians. All sorts of organizations heavily criticised it's use in enormous detail noting possible illegal usage. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP usage is covered in other sections and a separate section dedicated to WP usage is redundant and unnecessary--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be true. I've often felt that too much time and effort is wasted on WP usage. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we have consensus for reversion of the entire section dealing with WP--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus, it stays Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was the war between?

The war was between Israel and Hamas, not between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Here are 132 Google news archives results from the beginning of the conflict until today for "fighting between israel and hamas". The same search for "fighting between israel and the gaza strip" yields 0 results. This is a proportion of infinity to 1. The same or similar is true for "conflict between israel and x", "war between israel and x", etc. The reason for this is presumably that the Gaza Strip is not a political entity but a part of a political entity (the Palestinian National Authority), and can no more be a side in a conflict than Kaliningrad Oblast can. Of course, to be even more precise, the war was between Israel on the one side and Hamas and various minor (in this context) Palestinian militant groups on the other side. I have no problem putting the other groups in the lede and the infobox, but saying that the Gaza Strip was a side in the conflict is simply wrong. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Israel did not wage war against the Gaza Strip. It waged war against the entity that controlled the Gaza Strip, Hamas.

Israel and Hamas are entities whereas the Gaza Strip is a geographical location. Entities interact with each other. They make war, peace, engage in commerce, etc. Therefore,Jalapenos do exist (talk) is correct. It makes more sense to state that the war was between Israel and Hamas as opposed to a war between Israel and The Gaza Strip.

As an illustration, Israel fought a war with Syria in 1967 in the Golan Heights vicinity. The war was between Israel and Syria, not Israel and the Golan. Similarly, she battled Egypt in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The battle was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and Sinai/Gaza Strip.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza" and some variants are often used as shorthand names for the de facto state that Hamas controls in the Gaza Strip. We often use these convenient geographic based shorthands like Taiwan or even China for that matter. Or as another example, in 1967 Israel fought a campaign in the Sinai against a state called the United Arab Republic. But a lot people will use a shorthand and call the UAR "Egypt". --JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a defacto state called the Gaza Strip and Hamas is the government there. An attack against a government is an attack against the place, we can't push the Israeli MFA line that they were neutralizing Hamas terrorists, just as we can't we use the Gazan line that they were resisting the "Zionist entity". Two places fought, we name the two places. Also, many Gazan groups other than Hamas were involved in the fighting. Reverting. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

experts testify on WP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The international law applicable to white phosphorous ammunition, in particular to their use in urban settings Col. Lane - Phosphorous, military applications are smoke generation so that when you go into conflict you can hide your own position from the enemy. Phosphorous will burn. ... It’s, em, it’s horrible stuff. The Irish Defence Forces stopped using phosphorous 20 years ago. We now use hexachloroethane or titanium tetrachloride as our smoke-producing ammunition. From a military perspective if you use white phosphorous in a built-up area, where you are concerned about the presence of EFPs or time initiated rockets, one way of reducing the threat to your forces is to saturate that area with white phosphorous. And hopefully you’ll push the people away and maybe burn or disrupt the device that might be waiting for you. [The] quality of smoke produced by white phosphorous is superb. You will never match it. So, if you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorous will give it to you. Prof. Newton – Question 3 deals with the use of white phosphorous. And I can talk you through some examples of white phosphorous, but again, the basic legal analysis comes down to that same duality of legal considerations. One, is it a lawful weapon? Because if it’s not a lawful weapon in the first place, I simply won’t use it, I’ll find other feasible ways of accomplishing the military objective. One, is it lawful? Two, even a lawful weapon can be misused in an unlawful, illegal manner, particularly challenging in the context of white phosphorous in urban area, because the law is clear that there some authorized, perfectly valid uses of white phosphorous munitions. The most common uses of course, as I’m sure you’re all familiar with, are to mark targets, for one example. As an Armour Officer, if I wanted an air strike to come in, tanks, mini tanks have white phosphorous rounds or they used to in our inventory. And you could simply fire a white phosphorous round to mark a location where you wanted an air strike to come in or artillery fire or the location of the enemy. If you’re trying to vector in, there’s a number of forces spread out across a geographic area, and you want to very quickly vector them in so that, they’re all looking at the exact same place where the enemy has been located. No better way to do it than a quick white phosphorous round, right there, and you’ve done it. The most common uses of course, are both, and I hesitate to put them in order because they’re both coequal, but of course, for illumination which works. And the most effective use is to shield movements, as a smoke screen, very effective, very dense, very effective. One aspect of this is that white phosphorous in an urban area, if you are in fact trying to move forces through an urban area, of course there are snipers in second story windows. There are sometimes, explosive devices planted along the way. There are sometimes trip wires. So, one option, of course is simply bomb buildings, simply level areas or with incendiary or with high explosive munitions. They call it covering fire. I’ll simply lay down a base of covering fire along the pathway that I want to go. The obvious drawback to that of course, is that you’re destroying civilian houses and civilian buildings and civilian property which later must be rebuilt. If I’m a commander and I want to do what’s feasible, of course I can simply launch high explosive rounds. Another way of potentially achieving the same thing is to simply mask those movements using white phosphorous. But, and here’s the key “but.” In an urban area, remember I’ve always got that underlying residual proportionality analysis to be made. What is the military advantage to be gained? If it’s simply moving from this point to that point, the relevant question is not simply where do I want to be? The relevant question is what’s the best way to get there? I can get from Point A to Point B and minimize collateral damage, minimize incidents to civilian damage going another way, possibly. Is that, feasible? Is it practicable? What’s the offset? What do I know of how many civilians are left in that area? A very common tactic which was used during operations in the spring of course, is to do warning, warning the civilian population, but it doesn’t satisfy the proportionality analysis to simply assume, “Okay, I have warned the civilian population.” Experience tells me that most of them won’t leave. Most will get some food – get as much food as they can. They’ll go to their basements. They’ll try to ride it out. That’s been the practice from Stalingrad forward. I can’t simply say, “Ah, I’ve met my proportionality analysis because I’m going to use white phosphorous in an urban area. And there won’t be any civilian lives endangered because I’ve asked them to leave.” You can’t assume complete compliance because experience tells you that you’ll never, ever have complete compliance. You simply don’t. So, you must undergo the proportionality analysis on a detailed basis. Some people – and I just want to be clear about this, some people would simply assume that white phosphorous because it has aspects of chemical compounds in it, would per se constitute a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, not true. Because the, effects of white phosphorous, all munitions in some way or another have a chemical process. White phosphorous is not intended to cause damage. It’s not dependent on the use of the chemicals in order to achieve its effect. It’s simply a collateral effect. It’s not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Similarly, Protocol 3 to the Convention on certain Convention weapons which bans incendiary weapons has this flat prohibition that says you can never have air-dropped incendiary weapons, meaning napalm, in an urban area. So, again, some people would simply extrapolate from that and say, “Well, you have an air-dropped incendiary weapon, because white phosphorous does cause fires". The question was about area weapons. Well, it’s essentially the same legal analysis as with white phosphorous. Is there proportionality analysis? I can never use indiscriminate weapons. I must always target military objectives. So, even in an urban area there are pockets where I may use area weapons when I’m focused on a military objective, provided same legal analysis. I’ve done what is feasible to minimize or eliminate damage to civilian lives or civilian properties. The principle of proportionality includes not just the direct with specific reference to white phosphorous. The military advantage anticipated does not just include the mere, immediate ancillary military advantage. There’s also a humanitarian dimension of that. If in fact, white phosphorous on a playground for example, is different from white phosphorous in another area. The humanitarian implications of that are vital. I believe the commander has an obligation to do what’s possible to minimize or eliminate. So, in some senses, again, to restate, you may have a perfectly lawful weapon that is used in an unlawful manner. And that comes down to the precise circumstances of it’s use, not in general, generically, but based on that target, at that time, based on the information available to that commander. Again, the keyword is “anticipated.” end The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. To much povediting now Specially in the lead. I going to revert lead to rev [86] specially conserning 2:nd paragraph in lead which up to now been fairly stable. Discuss and build consensus BEFORE changing lead. actually that goes for whole article but specially for lead. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)