Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

External links

The external links will need to be cleaned up after the lock is lifted. There is a list of news sites with special coverage. It looks like one of them just goes to a main page and some others go to a Middle East seciton.Cptnono (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ideally, we only have a handful of links (ones without redirects). The Squicks (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed a couple of random articles and a press release (inline cites) and links to "special reports" that were not about the specific conflict

• Hamas's arsenal of rockets, Reuters.
• Rebuilding Gaza: Poor Prospects for the Economy
• B'Tselem's Guidelines for Israel's Investigation Into Operation Cast Lead by B'Tselem
• Christian Science Monitor
• Financial Times
• The Guardian
• Haaretz
• ICRC
• Jerusalem Post
• Los Angeles Times
• Palestine News Network

Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

another source

Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year. Any problems with this one? nableezy - 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has this South African paper said it twice while no one else has? The sources in general contradict it. Al Jazeera and the other large Arab news companies doesn't say it. It just makes no sense. They haven't responded to emails asking for clarification and all of the sources we have do not point to its prominance except for these two from the same publisher. Can't argue that they printed it but it is still confusing.Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned circular referencing earlier. On July 6 (when the first one was publishthis page read "...and known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab world..." "been called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎)." was the version used before that in June. I lean towards circular reference but it is indisputable that they published that. Cptnono (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To make it worse, I popped over to Arabic Wikipedia (article is titled (War on the Gaza Strip (December 2008) according to google). Massacre is in the lead there as well. However, the first section of on the talk page is a dispute over use of the term massacre. There is are a couple passionate editors (one of them as really put some work in) over there who have provided 8 sources. Most of them are in English and they are not very good: "Why the Massacre in Gaza Continues" "The massacre in Gaza is..." The Blogger News Network calls it "Gaza Massacre". Why is this being disputed at the Arabic Wikipedia article and why are several of the sources in English for this one inline citation (most other citations are not English) and why do those not spell it out as a title either? It makes no sense to me.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That section was from January, and it was instigated by the same user that demanded that we not have the interwiki link to the Arabic wiki. And our sources are better than the Arabic wiki ones, I think Ill go fix that shortly. nableezy - 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont really feel like answering those questions because they dont really matter. Is there a problem with this source? Capitalized and everything. nableezy - 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a WP:RS secondary source to me and it states that Gaza Massacre is a term used in the Arab world. I also think that the discussion on this term has now been overlong. --Dailycare (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Dailycare, there are numerous primary official and secondary RS. I know of no other article where such diverse arguments and demands have been advanced and the goalposts have shifted so many times. Time to close this and move on. RomaC (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite closed, this source without question supports it being bolded and capitalized. nableezy - 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Cptnono:s argumentation about title it should be bolded. We should start from the old consensus version and work from there. BashBrannigan input shold alsa be considerd imo and I suggest OCL included in the second paragrph as shown above. Another Israeli prefered name, not OCL, bolded, in first paragraph will be fine Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The goal posts have not been moved. There have been disputes over the use of the term as a primary title and how it is presented. That has been the case for the last several weeks. Some people have also complained inherent POV with the term but I never had a problem with that. The validity and wording of non English sources was also part of the discussion. It was claimed that there would be over a dozen instances of Hamas leaders using the term and official press releases were available. These were never presented despite multiple requests. One newspaper was finally found that said it was a title in the Arab world. This goes against what Arab news sources present and could easily be a circular reference. Arabic Wikipida shows English source for the term that do not use it as a title and it was even disputed. I would assume that the Arabic Wikipeida would have Arabic sources and not have a dispute for the supposedly common title. It sucks that people are sick of it but there is an obvious concern with using the term as one of the primary titles. And just because a handful of editors have stuck around long enough it doesn't mean it is only me who has a concern. Multiple people have expressed that they feel it is inappropriate. If it is used (which looks to be the way this is going), the other major titles need to receive as much prominence. I've mentioned that before. It should be bolded with the other titles used more frequently. Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand your last concern. The RFC-version had OCL bolded. That must adress that concern of you. (I find OCL better put in second line and another Israeli name, bolded, in the first line with Gaza Massacre but that another question). So article seems unlocked. Will it be reverted if I reinstall the RFC version of text? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You really do not know what you are talking about. The Arabic wiki has not had any problems other than the same user who did not want us to have the interwiki link here making a fuss over there, and it was in January that this issue was discussed there. I put this source in and I consider the issue resolved. 10 Arabic sources were provided with Hamas using the name, yall said it was not enough but did not say what would be enough so I stopped looking. There are over a dozen (really, I only need 2 more) but as you never said how many I needed to provide, and indeed your saying the over dozen were not provided seems arbitrary and it would have been said if I gave 20 sources that 25 sources have not been provided. And just because a handful of editors dont like seeing the word massacre associated with an action of Israel does not mean their objections are based in policy or reality. nableezy - 13:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. Not sure what you are talking about about Arabic wiki and interwiki and January, but the points that have been made by those editors who disagree with your POV editing center around WP:CCC and WP:NONENG, as well as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You on the other hand have used the argument WP:NOTCENSORED and lack of WP:CONSENSUS. It is clear from the evidence that the name "Massacre" is merely one Israeli Gaza massacre in many. We have agreed that there is no issue of censorship since we have agreed there is enough evidence to say the Arab world considers it a massacre. Put it in the body of the article. There is no consensus for it in the lede. Stellarkid (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you dont know what you are talking about dont say anything. The Arabic wiki and interwiki talk was with Cptnono and he would know. And it is clear from the source cited that it was called "the Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world. Stop removing it. WP:NONENG does not support your idea that it needs to be an English source, but it does not even matter as it is an English source cited that says "has been called the 'Gaza Massacre' in the Arab world". The source says exactly that so there is no OR. And it is not non-neutral to say what the Arab world has called something, we are not calling it the Gaza Massacre so that is also a bullshit argument. And consensus can change, but it has not. And my argument is not WP:NOTCENSORED or a lack of consensus, what an incredibly stupid thing to say. My argument is that this supported by the sources and NPOV requires us to include this information as the POV of the Arab world. Please dont pretend my arguments are as silly as yours. nableezy - 20:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you want to use the other titles I think you have to meet the same thresholds that were set for this name. A reliable source that says who called it that name. Apparently examples of use are not sufficient for one name so it would not be sufficient for the other names. nableezy - 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for putting it in the lede was that it is a name such as Operation Cast Lead so named by Hamas as the official other party to the war. It has been demonstrated that a half dozen ops since 1994 have been given the same "name," which makes it a bit far-fetched to keep up this charade. It should be dropped from the lede months ago and put further down in the article as a statement of how some Arabs liken it. By now if you can't dig up a reliable English source that claims what you say, then it is simply not so. Time to acknowledge this and work on improving the article instead of insisting on a POV! I say shame on those editors who are gaming the system like this. Stellarkid (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You just completely removed it again. And for 10 months it said it was called the Gaza massacre "in the Arab world". ATwo sources have been presented that explicitly says that. You have no cause for removal other than you not liking it. And you removed it completely without any consensus for that. Stop. Time for you to acknowledge that the source cited supports what is in the article and for you to move on to disrupting other articles. nableezy - 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That didn't last long. The source you provided contradicts everything else we have seen as I have said. As sick of people are of discussing it is how sick i am of editors asking for a deferral when there is clearly a concern. Even if it is used, War in the South, War on Hamas, and War on Gaza will need to be bolded as well.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, so long as you can provide sources that meet the same threshold you set for "gaza massacre". Namely a source that actually says it is a common name for a set of people, not a collection of sources that use it as the name. nableezy - 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I provided a source up above for War on Hamas and War in the South. War on Gaza does not have a source but is the title used for the in depth content section by AlJazeera. Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You provided a source that defined "War on Hamas" and "War in the South" as a common name and not just using it as the name? That is what was demanded for "gaza massacre". I have not seen such a source yet. nableezy - 01:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)I see it now. By all means include it if you wish. nableezy - 01:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This "Gaza Massacre" source is fine. Let's go with OCL and GM which everyone can now agree are what the two sides called the conflict and stop the "fuss" (as JME said). Respectfully, Cptnono, a problem with this discussion can be illustrated by a hypothetical regarding the terms you brought up, "War in South" and "War on Gaza": for example, if you believe inclusion improves the article and if you have reliable sources that say "the Dec-Jan conflict was called 'War in the South'", and post them here, then Nableezy will fashion a metric to decide if and when sufficient quantity and quality of sources have been presented. Until he gives his approval we "discuss." The problem emerges when one editor will decide when other editors have satisfied their personal criteria. SeanHoyland above is correct if we have no agreement on the criteria, structure and purpose of our "discussions" they will simply bloat with content. RomaC (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Boobies are fine (see I can randomly say things are fine, too). The source is not good enough for me but I am not consensus. War in the South and War on Hamas have a source right above. Since they were used more often than Gaza massacre they are a primary title that needs to be included. This goes for Operation Cast Lead since it is one of the belligerent's titles. We don't seem to have a title from Hamas the source says Arab world.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, I am not consensus so we wont be going by a when I say ok fine, but Cptnono did indeed provide a source that meets the same threshold that was set for "Gaza Massacre" for "War in the South" and "War in Gaza" (but not "War on Hamas"). I see no issue with including it. The only thing I expect from other editors is being consistent with their arguments and standards. I dont think we need "War in Gaza" as it is the same thing as "Gaza War". But if you want to include it go ahead. nableezy - 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"War on Hamas" and "War On Gaza" meet the same criteria "massacre" did for some time in that they are commonly used descriptions used as titles. I still disagree with the Times of ZA source so am mentioning this for the sake of consistency. I think War in Gaza is different enough and was used enough that the "in" makes a trivial but neccasary difference. I also am not confident in the longevity of "Gaza War" (it is better then so many others but another round of dispute over it sometime int he future would not surprise me) as a title so would like to keep them separate.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You and others said that it was not enough having examples of use for "massacre", so you cant now say that it is enough for "war on Hamas". Consistency is bitch I know, but if you wish to set the standard for inclusion to a source actually saying that X is a name for something then you need to meet that same standard for names you want to include. nableezy - 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty for War on Hamas. However, most of them are like massacre as in they are a description only potentially used as a title (which I have argued is not sufficient). 1 quick search comes up with the New York times as the first hit. It has more results in a standard google search (with less blogs) as well as a news search than massacre. Consistency is a bitch.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was argued that sources using the name were not sufficient, that I needed to provide a source that actually defined the name. You did that for War in the South and War in Gaza, but nobody has provided such a source for War on Hamas. If examples of use were not sufficient for Gaza massacre then they should not be acceptable for "War on Hamas". nableezy - 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your source is sufficient. The way I figure it, if we are using one hardly used term than we have to use others that were used more.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care that you think the source is insufficient. I honestly dont think that any source I provide for you will be "sufficient" in your eyes. That said, there is a verifiable reliable source that explicitly says that this was used as a name in the Arab world and there is not one policy based reason why it should not be included. Such a source was demanded by a number of users. As the standard set ruled out examples of use for "massacre" it also then rules out examples of use for any other name you wish to insert. Get a source that actually says that a name was used as a name and by who that name was used. Until then I think I will be taking the Cptnono approach and just saying "no, not good enough". nableezy - 20:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> The source is not good enough for me either. One source that has been so avidly scrounged for that finally something that you have want it to say. Tens of other English sources did not support it. Your original contention was that it was Hamas' name and thus had to be in the lede and emboldened next to Israel's name for it. The rules of English grammar demand that a name of a war be capitalized. Thus to insist that this is a valid name and not a description defies the rules of English grammar. Your insistence that this is not the case has led you to search the Arab press for translations against WP policy of WP:NONENG. It has also been shown that this is a non-notable when it comes to RS news sources -- you can find only the ONE source that says what she says with no supporting references. You have had to go back and forth in the article as to whether it was "Hamas" or "the Arab world" that names it as such. Since this individual (reporter?) said it was the "Arab world" that so calls it, you have had to change the lede from "Hamas" to "The Arab world." Of course the "Hamas is the other party to the conflict and we have to use their name" argument is shot, but never mind. I suspect this new source has made a capitalization error since you cannot find any others. There have been reports of "Gaza massacres" for over a decade in the news and the use of the term for this confrontation is dwindling, especially in Google news sources. The term is offensive and POV, and editors are willing for it to be used in the body of the article as a defining characteristic per "the Arab world" but not in the lede so to claim as you have that it is censorship is mistaken. None of this seems to matter to you as you don't want to hear it. Stellarkid (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can speak your mind but I can't? I honestly would be willing to accept a source if it didn't defy common sense (Jalepenos said it pretty well), didn't defy what we have seen in thousands of other sources, didn't look like a circular reference, and didn't have what appears to be various red flags on the Arabic Wikipeida. One source said it after months of searching. Not good enough. And Stellar again summarized it very well just above.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying nonsense about the Arabic wikipedia. There are no "red flags" there. A discussion there was initiated by the same user who wanted to remove the Arabic interwiki link here, the same editor who said BBC Arabic was not reliable because it is written by Arabs. I dont pay attention to people who say the term is "offensive". I am offended that the Israeli government took the name from a Hanakkuh song for an "operation" in which hundreds of children were killed. There is no policy based objection here. It is not non-neutral to say it has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. We can take that point to the NPOV noticeboard if you wish. It is not OR to say it has been called this in the Arab world, we can take that to the RS noticeboard if you wish. It is a verifiable statement sources to a reliable source and any number of example of its use can be provided. Stellarkid has done nothing but edit-war at this article about this issue, has added nothing of substance at all. Say which policy is violated and how and we can discuss that rationally. But this wont go anywhere unless each issue is addressed. I tried to start that below but Stellarkid would rather hunt through the history of my talk page rather than actually say which policy is violated and why. nableezy - 22:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And just for the hell of it I researched this writer that refers to the "Gaza Massacre" cap "M". Mostly she writes tacky stuff for the Times and a blog, like It's official --handbags are the new shoes and Youngsters' hot salsa wows showbiz bigwigs. But then we have this gem - Zionist Fed muzzles objector Zionist Fed? Is she talking about Israel or the Zionist Entity? This is the RS we are going to use to put a contentious edit in the lede? I hope not. Stellarkid (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read the links you google? "Zionist Fed" is a reference to the SA Zionist Federation. nableezy - 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"And just for the hell of it I researched this writer..." ...you know, someone might connect that with Netanyahu's PR directive issued yesterday: "We will delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us." Of course, you were not trying to delegitimize a journalist, you were just havin' fun, for the hell of it. RomaC (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has ordered officials to prepare for a long diplomatic, legal and public relations battle explaining Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism. As Mr. Netanyahu put it, "We will delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us."

You are implying that I am an Israeli official now? No, I see "Someone might connect me" with (what you are calling) a "directive". Nice, really nice. Stellarkid (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, as you note, you were simply adding comments that might be seen by some as an attempt to delegitimize a journalist and a newspaper "for the hell of it" weren't you? That's what you said. That's what I said. I'm just trying to follow your fanciful thrust here. But you should be aware that Talk pages are not here for our own amusement. There's a notice to that effect at the top of Talk pages. So if you want to be serious now, suggest you either strike those comments or else go to the reliable sources noticeboard with any attempts to delegitimize a journalist and a newspaper. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are calling my "fanciful thrust" was to investigate the one source that appears to support your POV as distinct from the dozens that done't. That is appropriate for WP editors. Stellarkid (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that there was a concern with bias from the writer. Editors are allowed to say that so striking out is not necessary.Cptnono (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was an unfounded accusation based on the results of a google search and not reading the article. nableezy - 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Actually, I acknowledge that I did not read the article closely, since we were only dealing with one particular aspect of the article. On a close reading, I see that this article actually does fit in with the hypothesis that Ms Cohen is a local writer for the So Africa Times. She is covering a story about a local upcoming (controversial) and event and it appears she has interviewed Mr Achmat and one or two other local individuals for her article. She is either mouthing Mr Achmat's opinion or her own in this story and it is unlikely that an article about upcoming events would have editorial oversight or be reliable for international issues. WP:V also says that just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. This is particularly true for controversial POVs. "One swallow does not a summer make" Stellarkid (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "controversial POV" and your assumptions about inserting her opinion into the article is unfounded. And the source is reliable specifically for this statement, there is consensus for that at the RS noticeboard. nableezy - 14:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Who hit what

The list in graph two "Israeli forces attacked Hamas training camps, arms smuggling tunnels, rocket launching sites, weapons depots, police stations and command and control centers." seems arbitrary and in any case is not supported by the sources. Also disagree with the "Mosques, private homes and schools, which Israeli maintains were utilized by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit.". Framing civilian targets as military targets is Israel's POV. Reasons, explanations and excuses can be covered in the body but should not be in the lead, especially not only from one side. Another option would be including Hamas' statement that their rockets were in self defence and aimed at military targets, which would lead to more lead bloat and edit warring. So how about just saying who hit what? RomaC (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The "framing" explicitly presents itself as Israel's POV. I think a line from either AI or the Goldstone report on the lack of substantiation for the allegations could be included as well. nableezy - 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We do say that this is Israel's reasoning/explanation/justification/excuse yes, so I think we have to either a) provide Hamas' reasoning/explanation/justification/excuse; b) provide AI/Goldstone report countering Israel's reasoning/explanation/justification/excuse; or c) drop the reasoning/explanation/justification/excuse and just say who hit what. I favor "c)" as it is leanest. But the others could work too. Also first concern, there are no sources for the list of targets did someone compile that themselves? RomaC (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead does not need sources, it should be summarizing sourced text in the rest of the article for the most part. nableezy - 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That part need work. A suggestion is to only keep few targets and remove intentions and it will be more NPOV (Well its kind of is NPOV allredy but in a way of different POV ballansing echother). Also it will look better, more encycloperic ond less journalistic. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If a few targets are mentioned all should be mentioned. I say cut it all.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Thats to black-white. I have no problem stating the fact both parts attacking civilian targets, specially now in light of the Goldstone report. Just encyclopedic and dont in excess. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On 27 December Israel began a bombardment of the Gaza Strip with the stated aim of stopping rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip, although other motives have also been forwarded. Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and goverment offices. Huge devestation on civilian targets was also done. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, including civilian targets, throughout the conflict. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. States civilian but a long list is not given. I like having police stations mentioned since there is debate as to if they are civilian.Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Something like this could work, but we still have intent and rationalizations. Also grammar is weak here and there and "intensified" is not neutral, but it is a start, as the current version is affected by "Enola Gay Blister" syndrome. Clearly the attacks, casualties and damages were overwhelmingly from Israel against Gaza. It is not "neutral" to give as much space to the relatively small-scale attacks from Gaza into Israel. (Eg warning intentionally extreme example, "Some 186,000 people were vaporized, burned or died of radiation when the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima; while the battle also left a very painful blister on the thumb of the Enola Gay bombardier, which required medical treatment when the plane returned to base.") We should not try to impose symmetry where it does not exist. RomaC (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt there a 'lull' without Hamas fireing at Israel before the Gaza War started? If so we can use 'Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, including civilian targets, throughout the conflict. (the bold is just for talkversion, not for the article). About intent. I didnt think of the 'with the stated aim of stopping rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip, although other motives have also been forwarded' as intent. But you are right. Maby it can be removed. If so I support it. Btw, anyone can fix spelling and grammar in the following sugestion.

On 27 December Israel began a bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and goverment offices. Huge devestation on civilian targets was also done. Hamas resumed rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, including civilian targets, throughout the conflict.

But now, look at this:

On 27 December Israel began Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) with a bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and goverment offices. Huge devestation on civilian targets was also done. Hamas resumed rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, including civilian targets, throughout the conflict.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rocket fire continued throughout the "lull" so resumed is not correct.Cptnono (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rocket fire by Hamas? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using foul language on this or any other page. This is a civil, clean discussion. Please try to contain yourself--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There were strikes from Gaza against Israel during the "lull" also there were Israeli strikes against Gaza during the "lull." Do other editors believe we should note or detail both cases? Or neither? RomaC (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agrea to use 'resume' if there is consesus. Can you check spelling and grammar in lead. specially 'Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, also hitting civilian targets, throughout the conflict'

might better be

Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict, also hitting civilian targets.' or better reworded. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we fix a clear consensus around this part of Lede. Jiujitsuguy have his idea that I strongly dislike.

• On 18 December Hamas declared the end of a six-month ceasefire with Israel and on 24 December began an intensification of rocket fire towards Israel.[22]
• Hamas training camps, arms smuggling tunnels, rocket launching sites, weapons depots, police stations and command and control centers Mosques, private homes and schools, which Israel maintains were utilized by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit Hamas rocket attacks were indiscriminate and caused damage to synagogues, private homes as well as medical clinics.

Bloating lead yes? The first is out of the scope of the lede. It predate December 27 and belong in background section. It lack NPOV. No mention of Israels part of escalating the conflict. Locks like we are up to editwar again if we cant agrea about someting better. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked it for the most part. I was a little concerned to see that Hamas talking smack and increasing attacks was removed to such an extent but that detail can be expanded in the background section. I think it is a good base. The first paragraph and third paragraph still need attention but decent start in my opinion. Instead of blanket reverting editors can poke around with it here on the talk and we should be able to figure it out.

In regards to those lines in particular, it needs to be made clear that Hamas was being naughty and Israel still continued to completely lift the blockade. [67] is a great source to look at. I do like removing the extended list of targets since that can stretch forever.Cptnono (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not really sure if you like '*On 18 December Hamas declared the end of a six-month ceasefire with Israel and on 24 December began an intensification of rocket fire towards Israel.[22] ' or not. I claim its not NPOV written like that. And to ballance it with Israelis part in the increase of tension and warring it will be to much text. Best is to start lead with OCL and noane is pointed out as responsible in the lead. In background section is much better. Lede shold fairly short and strictly NPOV. By that I mean NPOV not with ballanced POV. Only intention acceptable, if any is 'with the stated aim of stopping the rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip'. Yupp. But now lead:s 2:nd part look terrible. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blast! I am on the fence. My thinking was that it should be stated that Hamas said no to the continuation of the ceasefire. Keeping that would require reasoning (blockade and even more history) and then all of the shenanigans (will it be renewed? will it not? the lull. And everything else) so maybe it is best to keep out. I say go for it. I think Jiujitsuguy might have been a little quick to revert. At first glance I can see it looking like we are not providing the info but per the POV tag discussion, it is clear that everyone reads an article different.Cptnono (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert Jiujitsuguy then. I think he have to give this one upp. If I do it he freak out.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And give it a last check regarding spelling and grammar. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that "Huge devastation on civilian targets was also inflicted" is too emotive. I get that. Trying to fiddle with it.Cptnono (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been there sinse many versions, see suggestion above, and its a fact and ballancing with Hamas rockets hitting civilian targets. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya. I redid the line. If expansion is needed there is nothing wrong with updating the wording. I also added in "military" to the rockets. There is a fun table at the Arabic Wikipeida breaking down the "targets" (structures cannot be targeted with the rockets but general areas can) and thought it was necessary to mention.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of even attempting to work together if editors are going to revert and add in what they feel is needed without discussing. Thanks for your efforts on this one Anon.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revert in International Law

This

'The report was met with mixed and contradictory reviews by Hamas. Hamas at first called the report political, unbalanced and dishonest.. However subsequently, Hamas spokesman Ahmad Yousuf, said the report at least highlights the Israeli war crimes'

looks better than this

'The report was met with mixed and contradictory reviews by Hamas. Hamas at first called the report political, unbalanced and dishonest.. However subsequently, Hamas spokesman Ahmad Yousuf, said the the organization was glad that Israel was the focus of the report'

from same source. 'the organization was glad' feels really strange and also look bad, possibly not a NPOV picking. Change back? Its not first time its reverted by the same editor Im in kind of in conflict with [[68]] so I adress it here before.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If u want to add the latter former comment, I have no problem with that but both comments were made and to revert one at the expense of the other is wrong. As far as the lead is concerned, this was debated and discussed at length and consensus was reached. It is well sourced and you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it to much to ask you to read the text above and section about the 2:nd paragrapf lead above? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Can you be more specific please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Just a inch above. 'the organization was glad' sounds bad, maby a missunderstandin or wrongsaying during the interview. You are usually not slow in remarking language inconcistensys. I revert back to the other line. In the section above, which you so correct found a tiny profanity we discuss that part of lead. The late addition of it is about event predating Cast Lead so it stays in the background section. After this explanation I will revert your last revert and hope it stays so untill better versions without bloat, you know, we can go back discussing IP-conflict pre Abraham. But not in Lead! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (that "the language "sounds bad") that is precisely how it's written in the cited source and that is precisely how I noted it in the article. Moreover, the language that I quoted sets the tenor for the entire article. Adding additional quotes is verbose, redundant and UNDUE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

closed per WP:TALK. this has nothing to do with improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the latest ironical twist in this article,User:Mr Unsigned Anon has taken User:Jiujitsuguy to the Administrators noticeboard with a huge list of charges : "editwarring, disruptive editing and personal attacks. Possibly 3RR and GAMING the system" [69]. The reason I call this ironical is because Mr Anon's contribution page shows him to be a single purpose editor who arrived at wiki and the article about a month ago and is already showing himself quite able to wikilawyer and create drama. See: [70]. I think Mr Anon knows well how to use the system to push his WP:POV into the article. Too bad he doesn't know more about collaborative editing. Stellarkid (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Stellar it appears both Mr Unsigned Anon and Jiujitsuguy arrived about a month ago and have both been active almost exclusively on I-P articles. While Mr Unsigned has made more Talk Page contributions, Jiujitsuguy has been more active editing the article itself. Why, you've been here four months and are also mostly active on I-P articles, and may have even "created drama". What's the point of singling out one editor? RomaC (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Because people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Jiujitsuguy isn't the most polite editor but I don't see how he is gaming the system as he is accused. We obviousley do not need to discuss it here but the heads up on something ongoing that could have implications on the building of this article is appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 13:47, 19 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. [71]

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)

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)