Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

"War against Hamas" and "Gaza massacre"

1

Each of the sources cited are using that phrase as a description, none of them are using it as a name of the conflict. If sources can be found using it as a name it can go in, but these sources dont. nableezy - 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it as a description, not a name, at the end of the paragraph with another commonly used name "assault on Gaza". nableezy - 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Explain please how it differs from the use of Gaza "massacre" being used as a description and not a name? Where are the sources given for that? There are over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas. I think it would be appropriate to describe it as Israel does as Operation Cast Lead, one operation by Israel in Hamas' war against Israel , or Hamas' terror war against Israel,. Operation Cast Lead is the name of an operation and is only part of the actual Gaza war. It is a subset of the larger war against Hamas. I would appreciate the answers but particularly to the one about the sources given for "massacre" being a distinctive name and not a mere description/opinion. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) ps. "Gaza Massacre" (in quotes) only gets some 88,000 ghits, as opposed to over a million for "Israel's war against Hamas." In English it is apparently not the most common name by far, so why should it be emboldened and enshrined in the lede in the English Wikipedia? Stellarkid (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For interest can you post a url for the 'over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas"' result ? I can't replicate it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How is it different than "the Gaza massacre"? For one there are numerous statements by Hamas officials calling it, as the name of the conflict, "the Gaza massacre". This had many more sources that were removed as it was argued they were not needed. There are also numerous Arabic language media using the Arabic words "مجزرة غزة", again, as the name of the conflict. Some of the sources for this that are not in the article are this, this and this. In each of those sources it used as the name, not simply a description. nableezy - 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as "Cast Lead" being only a part of the "Gaza war", sources call the "Gaza war", in its entirety, what the Israeli government calls "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And also regarding your google hit argument, the news search for "Israel's war against Hamas" over 2009 results in 39 hits, with "gaza massacre" over the same period having 285, with the Arabic words (which is what we are looking for) resulting in another 643 hits over 2009. A general search of the Arabic words gets another 203,000 hits. And it is not "enshrined" in the lead, it is placed in bold because that is the name one of the belligerents used, the same reason Operation Cast Lead is placed in bold text. nableezy - 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For Sean.hoyland, for "Israel's war against Hamas" see:  : [1] and for "Gaza Massacre" see: [2] Stellarkid (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is correct. I would modify it, though. "Israel's War Against Hamas" yields 42 hits in a Google NEWS search between 12/27/08 to present. "The Gaza Massacre" has 75. Interestingly, Israel's war against Hamas is most often used to describe the events and is not used a proper noun (capped). Removing "The" from "Gazza massacre" causes the hits to increase to 4,800 showing that it also is used to describe the conflict and not as a title. I think both need to go and expansion on "massacre" can take place in the prose. 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, by some "Gaza massacre" is used as a description. By Hamas, and the other sources in Arabic I listed above, however it is used as the name. nableezy - 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>For Nableezy - your ghits in news (not counting regular google) for 2009 alone: For "Israel's war against Hamas"[3] yields 39 (basic) hits including such a blue ribbon cast as Canada.com, Time, Spiegel Online, Montreal Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Times of India, International Herald Tribune, ABS CBN News, NY Times, NPR, Kansas City Star, USA Today, Toronto Star, National Post, Times of India, Tehran Times, and of course Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Haaretz. pardon my spelling.

"Gaza massacre" using the same perimeters (2009 news stories only) yields 129 hits. [4]. I would remind you that google news stories are not the only ones to determine what something is commonly called, we can also use regular ghits. Be that as it may, the 129 includes BBC, Pacific Free Press, Islam Online, several Arab presses, WorldBulletin.net. CBS uses the expression in quotes to quote Ahmadinjad, and then includes some 30 more hits in their comments page. Other sites like BBC and Guardian use "Gaza massacre" either in quoting or in opinion pieces. Subtracting quotes and opinion pieces, I say that under your perimeters, "Israel's war against Hamas" has the edge for well-respected news reports, as well as for general usage as I pointed out in the above regular ghit to Sean.hoyland. Stellarkid (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader. Stellarkid (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Arabic sources are perfectly acceptable, and Hebrew sources are commonly used. And the idea we should exclude Arabic sources when looking for the name. And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as. Take a look at other articles like Yom Kippur War, you will see names used by each of the belligerents. This is an English language encyclopedia but that does not mean we ignore what the rest of the world says. nableezy - 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding why the names are there. We give the common English name of the event, the "Gaza War". Then we give the name each of the belligerents used, "Operation Cast Lead" and "Gaza massacre". We are not saying these are alternative English names or descriptions of the event. We say these are the names each "side" used to refer to what we call the "Gaza War". If you are trying to convince me that "Israel's War against Hamas" is more common than "Gaza massacre" as an English description of what we on Wikipedia call the "Gaza War" then consider the goal accomplished. But "Gaza massacre" is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza. The only relevance the most common English name has to this page is the title of the page. And the most common English name for the event is the Gaza War. Other than that I really dont see why you would compare an English name with an Arabic name as if that means something. nableezy - 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to common names by the belligerents, I don't believe Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre. It may have been referred to as such in a few PR events/releases but they also labeled it a victory in others. I don't read Arabic and I don't have any publications from Hamas so it I am relying on what I would consider common sense. It looks like the massacre term was cherry picked. I see nothing wrong with using a foreign source but it is frustrating that I cannot verify it personally to get a better picture. Not using foreign language soures all together woult be terrible, though.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The victory label, in every single original Arabic quote I have seen, was called the "victory in Gaza". That is not the case with the "Gaza massacre". But at least that is the correct argument to make, not that another phrase is more common in English. nableezy - 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And there are still new sources with Hamas using this as the name: (hope yall trust me on the translations)

وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية".
translation: Abu Zuhri (Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman) said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre [مجزرة غزة] on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)^[5]

nableezy - 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Absolutely not true?" Please see this policy.

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.

If it is true what you say

"But 'Gaza massacre' is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza."

why would it not be equally important to include what the government of Israel calls it and the newspapers of Israel as well as the presses of several other non-middle eastern countries (ie NPR, Time, NYTimes, India Times etc)? I have provided a link that demonstrates that the Israel refers to this as "war against Hamas." See also this. Further, the "Israel's war against Hamas" does not include a value judgment by one side, nor does the use of the (highly loaded, highlighted, value judgment, opinionated, one-sided, arguable) term "massacre." I cannot see how you can justify including such a term in the lede on the basis that the "government of Gaza" refers to it as such (source, please), but at the same time have no problem relegating (the benign) "Israel's war against Hamas" (what Israel calls it) to the bottom of the page. Stellarkid (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read that line again. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. What sources do you expect to publish the Arabic speeches of Arab politicians and spokespersons? Sources have been provided showing that the government of Gaza used this as the name. I just provided another one. And your sources on "war against Hamas" are not naming the conflict that, they are using it as a description. It is absolutely not true that we should not use Arabic sources. When you say Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader you are saying something that is false and the policy you quoted proves that. And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians. We put the name each side used, that is inherently NPOV. To disregard the name one side used is inherently non-NPOV. And since you seem to miss the point, we do include what the government of Israel calls it, Operation Cast Lead. And the link to the MFA you provided shows that the name used is "Operation Cast Lead and it is described as "a military operation against Hamas" or "22 days of war against Hamas" nableezy - 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as." You are mistaken here. The reason that it is presented in quotes is because it is "quoting another speaker", in particular Amadinejad. You can see the particular story from CBS which generated at least 3o news ghits for "Gaza massacre" here. Take a look: [6]. It quotes someone's opinion, does not offer it up as a name. Is English your first language? Stellarkid (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources quoting Hamas spokespeople, such as this or the one provided above from al-Jazeera. And excuse me, but what kind of moronic question is that? You are here saying that people describing it as a "war on Hamas" are naming it as such and you question my English comprehension? nableezy - 05:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not drunk this evening but I am trying to quit smoking so if I come across bitchy just say so!

I have disagreed with you for months now about massacre going in the lead since it is almost never used as a proper noun in English sources. It gives it weight that I fell isn't needed. Maybe it would pop out less to me if the other titles were used. It looks like War on Hamas is kind of used (I wouldn't think it would warrant inclusion if I wasn't considering expanding the names) and I know a similar situation is the War in the South moniker. Maybe it needs to say "was called x,y,z,etc". I hate bloat but it would be factually accurate, add relitvley important information on the topic, make it easier to search, and give less weight to the massacre term/name.

Also, the thought of not using foreign language sources is just terrible.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They describe it as "Israel's war against Hamas," similar to the "Sino-Japanese war" sometimes capitalized, sometimes not [7]. I do question your English competence (not "comprehension") when your own link above says :

"We cannot blame any Palestinian faction and we don't know who fired the rockets," Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, Raafat Morra, told AFP. ..... Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."

Wikipedia policy says clearly "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Since the translation made by the reliable source does not capitalize "massacre", thus indicating to English readers that they are translating it as a description, not a name. Not clearly understanding of the use of quotations marks and capitalization in English may indicate that English is not his first language, that's all. Stellarkid (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono. I agree that there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources. No one is banning all usage of this. The argument is that a reliable source should be doing the translating, and editors with strong English competence should be making the interpretation. That is what the policy WP:NONENG clearly says. A sentence like this "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel Thursday of committing "massacre and aggression " in the Gaza Strip, and blasted the United Nations Security Council as beholden to U.S. and British influence" cannot be interpreted as: Ahmadinejad says, as a representative of Muslims? Arabs?, that they say the name of the Gaza war to those Arabs and/or Muslims is "The Gaza Massacre." It defies comprehension. And then to use the argument that we must call it that because the "government of Gaza" calls it that, but not to permit the "government of Israel" to have what it calls it, equally highlighted in the lede, instead to relegate Israel's name for it to the back of the bus just blows me away! Isn't that the very essence of POV and POV-pushing? Stellarkid (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians." But in fact it isn't. Israel did not declare war against the Palestinians. That is simply not a fact. It has however acknowledged that it is at war with Hamas and all terror groups. Hamas is the government of Gaza. To that effect Israel is at war with Gaza. However, Israel is not at war with her Palestinian (Arab) citizens or the Palestinians of the "West Bank." This "Gaza War" was not a war against Palestinians. Not a value judgment, a fact. If you are still unconvinced, I urge you to find support for your position in RSs. Your argument is not holding water though your POV is clearer. Nothing wrong with a clear POV as long as it does not get in the way of your reason. Stellarkid (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have had this argument before, and there is no requirement that a proper noun be capitalized. You really are not bringing any new arguments here, this exact point has been argued at least three times and probably more. But a few things. "Israel did not declare war on the Palestinians", (my bold) waging war does not require declaring war. And you may want to read this, and as you wish, the description implies it is a war against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. But I am not making this about my position on the usage of "War against Hamas", it is still in the article, after removing it as the name almost immediately I put it in as a description. What is it that you want to argue, that either the Gaza massacre should not be in the lead even if it is the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not a name period, or that the War against Hamas was used as a name and not a description and should be listed bolded as a name early in the lead? I can answer any of those arguments (and have multiple times for most of those arguments) but I'd rather not have to do it all in one response. nableezy - 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Cptnono, the "war against Hamas" is in the article currently as a description, are you arguing that those sources use it as a name? The MFA link that Stellarkid posted above is a good example, it is named "Operation Cast Lead" and described as a war against Hamas. Is there really an argument for saying that it is used as a name? nableezy - 06:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Stellarkid, I suggest you look up what is a proper noun, as long as you are trying to give grammar lessons. nableezy - 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually did bring a new one this time if you reread up above: the prominence of making it a title (or appear as one). In regards to war with Hamas: So why isn't it bolded and used as a title (but not necessarily a proper noun for whatever reason) as massacre is?

Further more, we don't need to balance the operation name with another term if we are forcing it in this manner. It is barely used as a title. "War in the South", "War with Hamas", and oh shit they are bombing us could all go in its place. It leads the reader to draw a conclusion just like putting in the Gaza victory would. I understand balance is necessary but it can be achieved without this "title".Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Let's take a look at the sources. Starting with this. It uses the phrase as "22 days of war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip" under the heading of "Operation Cast Lead - Israel Defends its Citizens" on a page that is titled Operation Cast Lead - Gaza, Hamas and Israel. This was provided which contains the phrase "The Hamas terror war against Israel", but Stellarkid apparently did not notice that the line is referring to Hamas attacks in all of 2008. That link does fortunately give us an answer to the question what is used as the name, it contains a link to a page titled Operation Cast Lead: Israel strikes back against Hamas terror in Gaza. I think it is fair to say that these sources don't use "war against Hamas" as a name but rather as a description. Now the sources that were used in the article. This Times piece contains the phrase "war against Hamas" in the headline, but the full headline is telling. It reads "Israel set to begin ground war against Hamas in Gaza". That is the only place the words "war against Hamas" appear on that page. In fact I cannot see how this was even used as a source to begin with. This source does not even describe the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas" much less name it that. It does describe it as a war against Hamas so it could be used to cite that, but not much else. Next is this Telegraph piece which contains the headline "Israel takes war against Hamas to the city streets of Gaza". The words appear nowhere else. Again, there can be no doubt that this source does not use as a name of the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas". It is again describing it as a war against Hamas but does not support what it was, and even what it still is, used to cite. Next is the Time piece. Now this one actually contains the phrase "Israel's war against Hamas" in an article titled "Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza". This phrasing is linked to another article which contains the phrasing "Israel says its military offensive in Gaza" in an article titled Despite Gaza Attacks, Hamas Thinks It Has the Upper Hand. But lets take a look at more of the context in the cited source. The source also contains the wording "The offensive in Gaza", "Israel's deadly assault on Gaza", "the Gaza offensive" (a few times), "the Gaza war". The most common set of words that could conceivably used to form a proper noun is "the Gaza offensive" with "assault on Gaza" coming in a close second. But this is the one source that actually supports quoting those words, but there is no way an off-hand mention in a 3 page report that is not repeated a single time can be considered a name, much less commonly used to merit consideration. Most of the sources don't support that it is named "war on Hamas", though they do support that it has been described as such. What we have with the statements from Hamas are them referencing the event both during, and now even 8 months later, using the same name to refer to it specifically. This is not a singular mention and if need be many more sources can be provided of Hamas referring to the attacks specifically as "the Gaza massacre".

(after ec) You are saying that the Gaza massacre is not needed for "balance"? You serious? This is not about "balance". Why on earth would we not include what one side calls a war? nableezy - 09:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And for all this arguing not a single source cited actually supported the sentence. It is almost as if Stellarkid googled "war against Hamas" and took 5 random results without reading them, or at least one would hope that it was not an intentional misrepresentation of the sources. nableezy - 09:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they didn't. They called it a victory at one time even. It was described as a massacre by the media and on a few occasions (few when comparing its use as a description or or the operational name). I get why we should attempt balance but cherry picking isn't the way to do it. Why not use terms like "the Gaza offensive" which it was used 2000 more times according to Google news? Your argument of them calling it is poor unless you have sources where Hamas (not newspapers) are shown to consistently use it as their title for the conflict. Pushing this for what appears to be the sole purpose of balancing out an operational name is not right and degrades the article.Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not about what the media called it, much less what the English language media called it, it is about what Hamas called it. And they called it a victory like Bush called it a victory in Iraq. An offhand mention does not come close to the number of times the words مجزرة غزة are used by Hamas, it does not even compare. This article cannot be allowed to only represent what one side says, from the name to the casualties to the war crimes. This article cannot be a repeat of one sides claims and justifications without any type of response. NPOV is explicit, representing all relevant and notable POVs. There cannot be serious argument that a name that used consistently by Hamas should not be in the article, that only the name used by one of the belligerents should be included. You cannot be serious. nableezy - 09:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The English sources typically use it as a description. Your statements have not disputed that. Al Jazeera doesn't title it as the Gaza Massacre. The title at their website's special coverage section devoted to the conflict call it War on Gaza. Replace it with War on Gaza if you want. I've yet to see an official document from Hamas where it is titled Gaza Massacre. It has been described as the Gaza massacre. It has also been described as "sad" but we don't bold that in the lead to balance the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up Al Arabiya and Al Alalam are both showing plenty more instances of "Gaza war" over "Gaza massacre". Sensationalist blogs, a relativity low percentage of RS, and lack of the continuous application of the title by Hamas means it shouldn't be in. If the term is used, it certainly should not be a bolded title to counter a documented operational name. Let the casualties in the info box and prose speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, are we doing this again? Lemme go get some Tylenol, or maybe smack. Israel's name for the event was "A" Gaza's name was "B". We note both, no POV, no problem? RomaC (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not about what the media has used, I dont care what Al-Arabiyya called it (though there are plenty of instances where they called it the "Gaza massacre"), and the English quote of the Hamas spokesman is not using it as a description. And wtf is an official document from Hamas? Can you say how the quotes cited from Hamas are using it as a description? And how would you like me to demonstrate "continuous application" by Hamas? nableezy - 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more from Hamas:

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[8][9]
Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[10]
Mussa Abu Marzuk: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[11]

nableezy - 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Currently it is being referred to as the Gaza War and will probably regrettably go down in history as such," Norman Finkelstein said at University of Texas at Austin. "What happened in the Gaza Strip doesn’t meet the minimum conditions of war." He defined the conflict as a massacre, citing greater Palestinian than Israeli losses. WTF? massacre is neither neutral nor a name. It is a description of Israel's actions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "neutral" have to do with it? The name Hamas used does not need to be "neutral" and for us to comply with WP:NPOV we have to represent all notable viewpoints, and the Hamas viewpoint is certainly notable. It has indeed been described as a massacre, but by Hamas the words "Gaza massacre" have been used as the name of the conflict. Those quotes above from Hamas are all using it as the name of the conflict. And the sentence that is in the article is neutral. Us saying "Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre" is a neutrally worded statement. We do not say it is a massacre, we are not naming it the Gaza massacre, we are saying that Hamas did. That is neutral. nableezy - 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"been described as" is more exact phrasing. Both Gaza PM and Hamas head of politburo called the event Gaza War in their victory speeches. massacare being a name is disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed without cause. There are a number of sources where they use this as the name, not as a description and no rational reading of those sentences above can dispute that it was used as a name. nableezy - 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it being described as isn't a title. How many over descriptions could have been chosen? It has been called and described many things and Gaza M/massacre W/war on Hamas are not at the bottom of the list. It reads like POV pushing by leading the reader. You are attempting to force balance when it can be achieved through other methods. I said months ago that I disagreed but was curious to see what time would tell and the reasoning behind its inclusion has not improved. It has also been modified since then to read "called" (which implies it is a title) instead of "described".Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to argue the sources cited in the article and above are not statements Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre? Pick any of the ones I put up and argue that they are not calling it the gaza massacre. nableezy - 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is difference between being described and belligerent name. So far there is no secondary sources supporting such claim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Cptnono is correct. Nableezy claims that I don't know what a proper noun is. This from the gold standard, Strunck & White [12]

proper noun The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized. Common nouns name classes of people (singers), places (cities), or things (books) and are not capitalized.

Israel refers to OCL as an operation/response in the wider Hamas War against Israel [13]. If we consider it important to put the name of one of the parties involved we should put the name of the other. Only, since RS do not capitalize "massacre" it cannot be considered a name of a particular thing but only a general class and description but not a "naming" ie "proper" noun. Stellarkid (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a common noun used in a proper noun, which is often capitalized, but not always. Any number of definitions of "proper noun" contains "often capitalized". And any number of the sources for "Gaza War", in fact most, also do not capitalize "war". The requirement of a proper noun is that it is a noun that refers to a specific thing, and there is no requirement that each word within a proper noun, including common nouns, be capitalized. nableezy - 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And one of your sentences betrays your point. This article is not about the wider "Hamas war against Israel" that Israel says OCL is a part of, this article is about what Israel calls OCL itself. nableezy - 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that, it is not the most common description. It is a description. We are giving it prominence as if it were the most often used description. It also isn't an official description which means balance between the two terms (in all reality trivial when compared to use of such an extreme term) may not be possible.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Cptnono. So will someone remove this and put it somewhere out of the lede where it doesn't have such prominence, at the very least? Stellarkid (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper nouns are always properly capitalized. [14] "They always start with a capital letter." This is doubtless one reason why WP says that translations (and interpretations) of non-English sources should come from reliable sources and NOT from Wikipedia editors. Stellarkid (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate it and think our reasoning is water tight, it is appropriate in this case to give others the opportunity to chime in since it has been a longstanding edit with several many back and forths.Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Always caps is actually not the rule, the first word yes but common nouns following do not have to be capitalized. And Cptnon, you keep saying this wasnt the name used by Hamas, but no other name comes anywhere close to the usage of this one. nableezy - 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And you are both completely ignoring the Arabic sources. Countless Arabic sources use this as the name of the event and you are trying to remove it because you find it personally objectionable. WP:NPOV requires the representation of all notable POVs and the idea we should ignore what Hamas used as a name, and if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it because many sources have been provided, is beyond ridiculous. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a problem with including what is a common Arabic name for the conflict in the lead. For some reason they apparently think it is important to reflect the opinions of both sides and not only highlight what one side says. nableezy - 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources out there that say Hamas calls it the "Gaza Massacre" or are we using snippets from the Hamas spokesperson to come to this conslusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughing my ass off at Roma's comment! I have been double and triple checking. No: massacre is from snippets not documented as the primary title for the conflict by Hamas representatives. A previous argument was that Hamas did not have official documentation of this which is fine. Consistent use over other terms (Gaza war, war on Gaza, etc) would be sufficient but this is not the case.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Define "consistent use" as they have used this name consistently over others. nableezy - 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been over the google thing dozens of times. Start googling and looking for terminology used by Hamas representatives. Since there is not consistent use of a title and descriptions vary widely, google Arabic news agencies. Massacre is not the most often used term. It is certainly a "balance" to the operational name but it is forced and given too much prominence because it is not the consistently or most used term by that belligerent or commentary.02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is not the terminology used most often by Hamas? Here is a search of the Arabic words, in quotes as given here in English, for "spokesman" Hamas "Gaza massacre": 11,700. There have been like 2 quotes of a Hamas spokesperson saying "Gaza victory" or "victory in Gaza", there are a ton with them saying the "Gaza massacre" and from the beginning of the conflict up to last week they have called it the "Gaza massacre". They have used the name consistently. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I could argue reversed burden of proof (essay) and that the burden of evidence for inclusion is upon you (WP:VERIFY). You haven't shown that it is used enough or more than other descriptions through either secondary or primary sources. I'll just mention that and also do better. Google searches clearly show Gaza massacre (in several different forms) is used less than Gaza war (again in several different forms). Furthermore, three of the largest Arabic news agencies use the term much less. You can go through the archives and up above or do the searches for evidence. I'll provide further sometime this evening (going to store real quick and a few other things).Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to revers the burden, I am asking you what it is that you want me to show you to satisfy that burden. You say "consistent use", how would you like me to demonstrate that? How many times over how long a period would you like sources for? nableezy - 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For it to balance the operational name it would have to be used by Hamas as the primary term or description for the conflict. Not "the Israeli attack", "Gaza war" or anything else. If you prefer to use it as not balance but as what it is alternatively titled or described as it needs to be shown that it is primarily used over War on Gaza, Gaza war, and the others that are used by RS.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Google News 12/27/2008 - 09/26/2009 searches show that it is not used often. Primary subjects don't seem to mention it hardly at all. I also recommend common sense and reviewing many sources. Gaza Massacre is simply not a common term for this conflict or at least not as common as others. If Hamas did not assign an operational name then they did not assign an operational name. Try some other searches: Gaza victory, War in the South, ect.

• gaza "is sad" 68

• "the gaza massacre" (trying to get more title hits with "the" but many are still descriptive and not titles) 75

• "hamas "Gaza tragedy" 80

• "gaza massacre" 151

• "gaza war" 2,760

• "war on gaza" (Al Jazeera's label) 1,450

• "war in gaza"2,170

• hamas gaza massacre (no quotes) 4,150

• hamas gaza war (no quotes) 24,200

• "Khaled Meshaal"(and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 1

• "Khaled Meshaal" "gaza victory" 5

• "Ismail Haniyah"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• "Mahmoud Zahar"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• allintitle: (in the last year) مجزرة غزة (gaza massacre translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 1,250

• allintitle: (in the last year) حرب غزة (gaza war translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 23,900

• Al Jazeera does not have a search function but their project page is "War on Gaza". I also recommend poking around Al Alam, Al Araybia, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx, and other sources that cover the region.

Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue for me is not what is commonly used in the press, but what Hamas used. Could you spell out what I would need to show to demonstrate that this is "the primary term or description for the conflict". Spell it out for me, what would I need to show to demonstrate that this is the case? nableezy - 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And they didn't use it often as shown above (the 3 names were the few I tried). You would need to show that it is used as common venacular and not in a couple speeches. They say "attack" and "war" more. The fact that "victory" was used by officials makes it even worse.Cptnono (talk)

But that is not the case, you are restricting your searches on the names for English sources. Here is the search for "Khaled Meshal" "gaza massacre" in Arabic. here it is for "Ismail Haniyeh" "Gaza massacre". nableezy - 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source for Meshal:

واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة".^[15]

Translation:He (Meshal) stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier Shalit."

nableezy - 06:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

True. You are also cherry picking, though. There are obviously some sources but there are others that say tragedy, war, victory, attack, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you want me to demonstrate the usage other than going through the sources. Here is a partial list, some of these are already listed above:

• Sami Abu Zuhri: "وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية.
  Translation: Abu Zuhri said "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre [مجزرة غزة] on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)^[16]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[17][18]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[19]
• Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."^[20]
• Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
  Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit."^[21]
• Khaled Meshal: "وأضاف مشعل خلال برنامج "لقاء مفتوح" بثته فضائية الجزيرة الإخبارية مساء السبت أن "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع
  His remarks came during the "Open Meeting" broadcast on the al-Jazeera Saturday night news that "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."^[22]
• Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
  Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[23][24]

I'll continue tomorrow. nableezy - 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioning a handful. How many of the sources from the officials say the "war", "attack", or "fight". Also, "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different. Please make sure that the direct translation (I have no way of confirming besides a few online tools which I don't completely trust) says it is a title. If it is a description, the prose will have to be ammended to "described it as a massacre". That will also open the door to adding the dozen other descriptions. Make sure it is a title if it is to balance out the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here, there is no capitalization (uppercase lettering) in Arabic. RomaC (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different in English but may be the same in the original Arabic. Translators don't always agree, nor do media, who follow different style manuals with different guidelines and rules concerning, for example, capitalization. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If "massacre" in any variety got as much coverage as other terms then I would be concerned. As is, there still isn't enough for inclusin in its present form.10:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound of air-raid siren

Nab I suggest you stockpile (and classify and cross reference) a formidable library of unshakable sources supporting the usage of "Gaza massacre" by the Gazan government and in the Arab and Muslim world. Then get provisions, dig in and hold your fire. I hate it but seems you have been drawn into (another) war of attrition. Conserve your energy and resources. One can find numerous similar concerted assaults on other I-P articles, for example see Deir Yassin massacre -- which has a title that is irksome for some but undeniably qualifies as the best choice under Wiki policy. Regardless, replacement titles like "Battle of Deir Yassin" or "Deir Yassin Incident" (or maybe "Unfortunate affair" haha) have been fervently advanced again and again.

Expect to encounter every imaginable argument. And when one of them fails it is never buried but rather assigned to the archives for possible later resuscitation (you know, according to his son Omri, Ariel Sharon is now "marginally responsive"!) Then an entirely different argument is deployed. Expect herculean persistence and head-spinningly sophisticated wikilawyering. Do not attempt to counter with reason, logic or policy, as your adversaries will be immune to these. Just stand by your sources and know that a few disinterested and pro-Wikipedia editors will eventually weigh in. When the assault is finally beaten back, expect kind and conciliatory "compromise" suggestions. (*sound of a march, played on snare drum with bugle*) We got your back, buddy! RomaC (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably remove that as it may be taken as a not so subtle call for a WP:BATTLE. nableezy - 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly hope not. You bring up a point with battle, though. You have been the main proponent for massacre and it has been kept because other editors against it gave up, didn't know the guidelines or all of the issue, or wanted to wait and see what continued coverage would say. Some also wanted it out for the wrong reasons. Take a quick second and check yourself on WP:WIN. I've done it and can say I am adamantly against it because is not appropriate. If you think it is then that is OK I just want you to make sure it is to better the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, and I dont appreciate the insinuations. There have been countless times where it has been admitted that some of the loudest voices against using the term is because they feel it is "defamatory" or "emotive" or "propaganda". That feeling, while understandable, has no place here. Some of the people here take great offense at the words being in bold in the lead as it apparently seems that we are "enshrining" the words. The real problem here is that these people who say these things seem to think that NPOV means we treat the two governments involved differently. There are an abundance of primary sources for Israeli views in this article, go count how many Israeli MFA citations you see here, or how many ITIC citations. This is a bullshit issue only because the sensitivities of some editors makes it so we need to censor information they find personally objectionable. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I guess some might consider RomaC's comments to be humorous, but it sure sounds like unproductive soapboxing to me. This article is about a specific point - it's not about Deir Yassin or the Lavon affair or the physical or mental state of Ariel Sharon. This serves to advance your POV, while at the same time belittling/ridiculing other editors who do not share the POV that your post demonstrates. The issue here is whether the (English) sources support the terminology as written, (with WP:NONENG as relevant policy) or whether the point at issue is in fact an example of WP:OR and/or of advancing an agenda. Please try to stay on-topic. Stellarkid (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going to apologize for ensuring diligence, Nableezy, and the intent wasn't to insult you. I hope you would do the same. Like I said, some of the reasons mentioned for removal were the wrong ones. Thanks for saying it twice :) In regards, to RomaC's comment, it was inappropriate but no one here is a little girl so we should all be able to take the humor in it. The discussion on the subject is up above and we can continue it there. (would you mind copy pasting your last comment in the above section so we don't get too sidetracked?)Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My air raid post is meant to satirize what has happened and tends to happen here. Not going to remove it because it took awhile to craft. And per Cptnono yeah thanks, we're adults. I would however say actually Nab has not been a proponent so much as an opponent of removal of massacre, a cause which the archives suggest has been mostly pushed by pro-Israeli editors. Actually I very much hope Nab would not be drawn into a war of attrition, as the question of removal of this name has been thoroughly discussed and decided already. And I would hope editors would point that out when young guns ride into town making good faith edits, instead of taking their edits as an opportunity to reopen old (and divisive) discussions.

In one way it boils down to respect. Israel calls it "Operation Cast Lead" and Gaza calls it the "Gaza Massacre". So Wikipedia has come to use a relatively neutral term for the article title, then notes and attributes the two aforementioned terms to Israel and Gaza. It doesn't matter that one side's name quotes from a children's song and the other's includes an inflammatory word, as both are attributed to the respective sides. What matters is a reader benefits from information on how the event was named, ergo viewed, by both of the involved parties. I sincerely wish editors could stop trying to fuck with that. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, however cleverly written, I for one find it offensive. But no mind. It does not merely boil down to 'respect' for what Israel and what Gaza calls it. It comes down to knowing exactly what it is that both parties call it. For one thing, Israel calls it a "war against Hamas", or "Hamas' terror war against Israel". OCL is the name of one operation within the wider war, which for all I can see continues to this very day. The Gazans and others describe it as a massacre within the set of massacres but one that occurred in Gaza. It is not a matter of respect to accurately reflect what RS's say. And RS do not seem to say "Gaza Massacre" but rather something describing the situation (that is, opining) as a "massacre" and belonging in the class of massacres. Sorry if you feel that someone is trying to "fuck" with your firmly held position, or that young guns are opening old wounds. Perhaps those wounds were septic and required special wound care. Stellarkid (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about what Israel calls "Operation Cast Lead" not the "wider war" that Israel says this is a part of. The sources treat this as its own topic and so do we. So Israel calls the topic of this article "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 06:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, my point still holds. Stellarkid (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesnt because it doesnt address why the name is there. It is there not as the name used by the press but by the name used by Hamas. You really want to say that statements from Hamas are not reliable for sourcing what Hamas said? nableezy - 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stellar! Do you have some RS that back up your assertion that Israel specifically terms the event that took place December 2008 to January 2009 as "war against Hamas" or "Hamas' terror war against Israel", if so can you please provide them here for other editors' benefit? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, RomaC. Provided it earlier but here it is again from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel: "The Hamas terror war against Israel" "Hamas War against Israel": [25] Stellarkid (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are fine using primary sources from the MFA but not Hamas for a name? And the removal of long standing text require consensus, please dont continue removing it unitl there is consensus for that. nableezy - 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The first argument falls into the category of WP:Otherstuffexists, and the second is not valid under WP:CCC Stellarkid (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, other stuff exists? Showing that you are making the opposite argument in the very same thread is other stuff exists, not demonstrating intellectual dishonesty used to advance a POV? And consensus can change, though you have to show that it has changed. nableezy - 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>WP:CCC says, if you read it

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.

Your argument that we have to demonstrate consensus in order to challenge and edit is not acceptable. It is up to you to show that our argument is not reasonable. We have made plenty of argument that yours (and past consensus, presumably) is not. It is also clear from other editors that what you called past consensus was not so much so. Stellarkid (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not "my argument", that is how things work. To change a consensus you need consensus. The name has been there for more than 9 months, it is the "current consensus". And do you have anything to say about applying the opposite arguments depending on your POV? And it being current consensus is not why I say it should remain, it is why I say you shouldn't be edit-warring to remove it. nableezy - 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed but it doesn't need to be done this very second. I'm OK with a couple more people chiming in as long as they hurry up. We shouldn't be edit warring and if this gets removed I would prefer that it is done the right way. We can get into a discussion on consensus if needed but that strays too far off topic for now. I commented in the section above, Nableezy. Unfortunately, WP:NONENG is coming into play as mentioned after doing some online translating.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How so? For the translations provided by English sources they are translating it as "Gaza massacre". The thing is "the massacre of Gaza" is the same thing as "the Gaza massacre" in Arabic, they would both be "مجزرة غزة". But the sources that do translate it are translating it "the Gaza massacre". One of the examples I gave above has both the original Arabic and an English translation from a different source, they are translating it as "the Gaza massacre". nableezy - 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stellar, I read your source but can't find a corresponding time period terming, it seems "Hamas' terror war against Israel" and "The Hamas War against Israel" are two general terms Israel uses in the document in reference to the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. The other term you initially cited, "war against Hamas", does not appear in the document. Anyway an apparent problem here is that this article focuses on an event that took place from December 2008 to January 2009, and the terms in question do not. I see no problem with these terms being in the "background" section if properly cited. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy and pasted from up above. Translations addressed along with your inquiry as to what is needed after listing sources: You are mentioning a handful. How many of the sources from the officials say the "war", "attack", or "fight". Also, "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different. Please make sure that the direct translation (I have no way of confirming besides a few online tools which I don't completely trust) says it is a title. If it is a description, the prose will have to be amended to "described it as a massacre". That will also open the door to adding the dozen other descriptions. Make sure it is a title if it is to balance out the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono has asked for more opinions, so here is mine: the Hamas has consistently called the war the "Gaza massacre", in its press releases, in its statements, in supporting demonstrations. Just as Israel calls this Cast Lead, Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre. Nableezy has brought numerous citations of this, and he could certainly bring dozens more without a lot of work. So arguments that this is not what Hamas calls the war are completely specious.

On the other hand, the last sentence of the paragraph ('The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza"') is pretty idiotic. Of course it was an assault on Gaza. Does anyone argue that? The sentence adds nothing.

I must say I really admire you guys for your ability to churn out the text. If you were Dickens (who got paid by the word) you'ld all be millionaires. Ravpapa (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some statements from officials in Hamas that say "Gaza massacre" and "massacre in Gaza". They also refered to it as an asault and a victory in others. However, if you can provide press releases that show Gaza Massacre was commonly used over other "titles" then I am wrong. Can you provide those?Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ravpapa, if there were evidence that as you say "just as Israel calls this Cast Lead, Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre" there would obviously be little issue or point of argument. And perhaps it is entirely true that Nableezy has brought numerous citations of this. However, the citations I have seen do not it. They mainly describe Israel's attack as a "massacre." You yourself seem to be confused on this as in one sentence you refer to the "Gaza massacre" (one massacre among many, this one in Gaza) and in another the "Gaza Massacre." We use English grammar rules to help us to make our meaning clear. Proper nouns are therefore capitalized, and unless Nableezy can demonstrate that reliable sources have translated Hamas' statements re "massacre" with caps; it does not equate with a name like "Operation Cast Lead." If it does not, it should not to be emboldened in the lead, giving the decided impression that the concept of "massacre" has the stamp of approval from Wikipedia. To your second point, the "war against Hamas" does indeed add something: it clarifies that Israel was not in a war with the Palestinians or the people of Gaza, but rather the governance of Gaza, Hamas. As for your comment re Dickens, no one is sorrier than I to be expending so much (free) verbiage on such a relatively simple point, but I do so as a point of integrity. Stellarkid (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of citations above with quotes from various Hamas representatives, from spokesmen to Meshal, using this as the name, not a description. And again, why do your requirements shift depending on the POV? Why is the lack of capital letters in "war on Hamas" not an issue for you? And Cptnono, massacre of Gaza is the same thing in Arabic as Gaza massacre though it is different from massacre in Gaza. Stellarkid, take any one of the examples above and show how it "describing" it as a massacre and not naming it "the Gaza massacre". And a common noun used in a proper noun need not be capitalized. nableezy - 05:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I ran them through translators and they were not "Gaza massacre". That is why there is a language concern that Stellar kept on bringing up. And I have said it several times, they also call it other things (victory, war, assault, attack). You need to show that it was the preffered and common term used by Hamas. You are failing to do that with a handful of sources. The google news searches shows it is well below the prominence of other terms in general. If there are offical documents saying "Gaza Massacre" as Ravpapa asserts then they need to be considered. Lets see them.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The google news source does not actually say that, and I have asked how you would like me to show you that it is the common term, you keep saying that other terms were used. I showed Arabic results comparing "Gaza massacre" and "Gaza victory" with the names and there was no comparison. And if you question my translation you are free to ask another, but again I gave at least one example above where the Arabic is given in the source and another source with the English translation with the source using "Gaza massacre". There is no difference in "massacre of Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" in English and an online translation would pick one of those two. Ask somebody on this list to verify my translations. nableezy - 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have responded twice to that request. I will do it for a third time: You need to show that it was the common and preferred title by Hamas. All of the data I have provided and verified says it is not. If there are official documents saying "Gaza Massacre" as Ravpapa asserts then they need to be considered. And there is a difference between IN, OF, and not having either if you are asserting it is a title. If you are asserting that it is a description we need to provide the numerous descriptions more commonly used. The quotes you show say that yes it was used but not in prominence which means it cannot be given prominence here. Furthermore, since I dispute your translation after google translating it I am forced to rely on "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." (WP:NONENG) I personally do not want to except anything contentious unless it is verified by a reliable source. Since google translate and editors make errors in translations they both should be excluded if challenged per WP:BURDEN. I am challenging both the translation and the amount it was used compared to more common terms, descriptions, titles.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you like me to "how that it was the common and preferred title by Hamas", and editor translations are perfectly acceptable. If you dispute the translation fine, but half of a google translation from either Arabic or Hebrew is gibberish. I will ask somebody else to verify my translations. And none of your google searches show anything as far as it being used as a name by Hamas. Here are some comparisons "ismail haniyeh" "gaza massacre": 12,400 "gaza victory" "ismail haniyeh": 1,520. "hamas spokesman" "gaza massacre": 29,100 "hamas spokesman" "gaza victory": 3520. My translations are accurate, but as you have disputed that I will be asking for another editor fluent in Arabic to look verify them. nableezy - 05:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Gaza government had termed this event, say, "Our Due", we wouldn't be having these discussions every few weeks. Let's face it the problem is not that Gaza has their own term for this event, it's that some editors don't like the term Gaza has for this event. RomaC (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I already said: present official documentation that Ravpapa says is available. If that is not available, you need to provide more sources saying massacre than terms like victory, attack, and assault. If it is as common as a term as is asserted with its current prominence in the article, there should easily be many English sources. With all of the human rights and media reports this should be easy to prove. Massacre is a juicy term that was instantly picked up the few times it was used (as victory was) and if it was not reported often (as the google news hits show already which I have provided above) then there is a reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The google results above in Arabic show the difference. We are looking for the Arabic name, there is no obligation that every instance of its use be in English. nableezy - 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree that foreign sources are OK. Unfortunately, your translation differs from that of online translators. That is why [[WP:NONENG] has been mentioned a few times. You are also cherry picking again since other Arabic words yield more results. I see no reason why the Western media or human rights organizations would not report the use of the title at the extent you assert is used. Many of the human rights organizations have people on the ground in the region and some are primarily looking out for the welfare of the civilians in the strip. Why are they not asserting this title? Why does Al Jazeera (who was criticized for imbalanced coverage) use War on Gaza and no Gaza Massacre? Why have repeated requests by editors for documentation from Hamas not been met? You are pushing a term or title into a prominent position in the article when it simply does not merit it. If you want to bold it we need to bold all of the descriptions (which I think would be silly) or you need to provide sufficient evidence that it was the primary and preferred term and description by Hamas if the sole purpose is to balance the Israeli name. Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I recall in earlier discussions that "Gaza massacre" was also described as the name given to the event in the "Arab world" or "parts of the Arab and Muslim world" or something like that. RomaC (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Source from official Palestinian sources:

Mohammed Awad, Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers in the Palestinian government:وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث
Translation: On the recent events in Gaza, he called instead to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of many innocent people and the competent authorities attempting to arrest those involved in these events.^[26]

nableezy - 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to read this [27] which describes capitalization conventions (rules) in English. I understand that there is no such thing as capital letters in Arabic, which makes it even more important that we follow the WP policy of WP:NONENG. That policy says we should first and foremost have easily verifiable English translations if they exist. There are many reliable translations that refer to the Gaza 'massacre' that do not capitalize 'massacre' thus leading careful English readers to understand that 'massacre' in this case is a general description (the massacre IN Gaza) pointing to a particular event (the Gaza War). We are not required or encouraged to accept the translation of WP editors when we have plenty of RS translating it differently per that policy. As a descriptor and not a proper name, it is not appropriate to be in the lede emboldened alongside Gaza War. Furthermore, it is by far not the most common Arabic term for it either, as demonstrated by ghits by Cptnono. It may seem picayune to you but that's why we have grammar rules and WP rules - to avoid chaos and POV & to aid clarity. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A handful of sources isn't good enough. As Stellar said, cutting down on the chaos since we don't know if it is a general description or title. I also still cannot understand why reporting condemning Israel would not report use of such a juicy word as much as you assert it is being used by Hamas.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "reports condemning Israel" are from such institutions as the UN, they are not going to pick a name from a "side". And Stellarkid, translations from Wikipedia editors are often used, and not a single "RS" differs in the translations. You are asserting things that are not in WP:NONENG. Yes, translations from RSs are preferred, but if no RS can be found translating the quotes I provided they can be translated by a Wikipedia editor. This is common practice, there are many, many sources used in the Arab/Israel articles that are in Hebrew only with a translation provided by an editor. Just saying my translations are not acceptable by policy does not make it true. I have asked another user to verify my translations. nableezy - 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The continually removal of the terms without consensus is getting irritating. I suggest those advocating for its removal actually follow the steps of WP:DR and open an RfC. nableezy - 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamas in Gaza/Kadima in Israel

Regarding the current version, "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas, the government of Gaza..." The governing political party in Gaza is identified, but not their Israeli counterpart. I realize that Israel termed this a war against "Hamas" specifically and that should be noted. However for the neutral introduction shouldn't we dispense with using terms that one side used to describe the other? Imagine for a moment something like "The Gaza War, called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza, and "Operation Cast Lead" by the Zionist Regime..." This is of course a ridiculous hypothetical and certainly not a suggestion, but perhaps it illustrates how the current terms, perspective and qualifiers may also be non-neutral? Would "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza..." be more appropriate? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is described as many things as my comment above illustrates. If Hamas does not have a term they use primarily "balance" will not be achieved in the sentence. it is a good thing we make it clear what happened through the prose, infobox, and images. Go ahead and separate the operational line into a new sentence but it is a documented title.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC. There is a lot in your post to appreciate. Israel considers OCL one military operation in a defensive war against Hamas. No one seems to think this is important to put up in the lead, but it is Israel's view. On the other hand, we seem to have to include Hamas' view that this military operation was a massacre. In order to put this up in the lead, it is necessary to make the claim that "massacre" is equivalent to OCL, ie it is a name, and thus emboldened. It is a POV in fact, as is Israel's view. How about this if we MUST include the massacre claim in the lede. "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and considered by Israel a single military operation in a larger defensive war against Hamas; and referred to by Hamas and Gazans as a "massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza..." --'massacre' not emboldened, not a name. I could perhaps live with something of that nature, as I believe it is the best the evidence affords. Stellarkid (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize it is a bit windy, but if you put in the POV of one side you should put in both. Otherwise, just give the commonly accepted name for it (Gaza War) and enlarge upon both POV's further down in the article. Stellarkid (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We start with the common name, Gaza War, then give the names of each side, OCL and the Gaza massacre. Then we give each sides arguments as to why they do what they do, we dont start it off with Israel's argument (without a response at that) without even first giving the name used by one of the belligerents. nableezy - 05:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as you know it is disputed that "Gaza massacre" is a name, and constant repeating by you it will not make it so. Secondly, you are more than welcome as far as I am concerned, to put Hamas' view first. Stellarkid (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I could care less about what comes first. I'm not interested in balance I am interested in factual summaries and the correct content.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen! Seldom have so few had to do so much to achieve so little, lol. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit that may represent a kind of compromise. [28] I de-bolded both Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. Though some seem to think "Gaza massacre" is only a descriptive and not a proper name, there should have no problem listing it alongside other descriptives like "war against Hamas" and "assault on Gaza". I also don't think we need to mention who calls it each of these names. More than just some elements of Hamas use "Gaza massacre", and more than just Muslims, or Arabs. Norman Finkelstein has used it, and has in fact refused to call it a war. Others around the world have too. Anyway, I hope the edit addresses some of the concerns raised while not reneging on the principle that kept this in bold all this time - i.e. that it is the most common name used by the governing authorities in Gaza for what happened. Tiamut^talk 23:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a against formatting guidelines and did not address the massacre issue fully. Asserting it as a title in the lead is still a concern. I also recommend reading the subsections above this if you have not had the chance since it has become unorganizedCptnono (talk)

Cptnono, I will open an RfC on the issue shortly to try and get some consensus on this issue. nableezy - 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I don't even mind if it stays in until it is finished but it needs to be formatted properly.Cptnono (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Opened below at #RFC. nableezy - 00:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get it to cluttered yet but it looks like you dropped the prepositions (في and من) in a couple of the translations. I don't know Arabic so that may not mean anyhting but let me know. Also, your translations are against the policy (wikilinked several times for your review) for these potential concerns. Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of those words only appear in one quote and I did not drop them. The quote is as follows:

وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث

The beginning of the sentence, the "وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة", is translated as "On the recent events in Gaza", where "في غزة" is "in Gaza". The next part of the sentence is "دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء", where "من" is part of the phrase "من الابرياء" which is "from the innocent" which I translated as "innocent people". as the entire phrase "عدد من الابرياء" would be translated "many from the innocent" and "many innocent people" is equivalent considering the earlier part of the sentence " التي ذهب ضحيتها", "took the lives". "في " appears once more in "في تلك الأحداث" which is translated as "in these events". And I will ask some other people to check the translations. And that policy explicitly allows for translations by editors, I dont know where you are getting the idea that it doesnt. Read the policy, it says 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 found a translation for one of the quotes used in an English source, for the others there is none available. And a few of those are in English. But as there is no translation from a RS available we can use a translation from Wikipedia editors. Stellarkid has said this so many times that you may think it is true, but the policy does not prohibit translations by editors. nableezy - 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Arabic so I needed to double check. One of the English sources says massacre of Gaza. This happens in some of the translations through internet tools. It would normally be trivial but since you are asserting a title it is a problem. And there are English alternatives. Unfortunately, there are not enough sources in general to assert that this is a title.Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the English sources that we do have translate it as "massacre of Gaza" or "Gaza massacre"? And are there English sources for these quotes? nableezy - 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You have provided them already. Unfortunately, Gaza massacre, massacre of Gaza, massacre in Gaza are descriptions not titles. Attack in, bombing of, war in, war on, ect are all descriptions used more. Other fun words to search for are victory, assault, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I dislike being misrepresented. I never suggested that Wikipedia does not allow translations by Wikipedia editors. When you quote the policy, you really should quote the whole thing, or at very least give the link, which includes the rationale behind it: 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. Points: 1. English is preferable, 2. readers should be able to EASILY verify the content and 3. Sources in other languages are acceptable when an English equivalent is not available. There are scads of English 'equivalents' available, and we should use them. I am sorry they just don't say what you and some others here apparently want them to say. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any of the quotes provided available in English sources? If so do they provide different translations? nableezy - 04:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in English as you have shown that some people including Hamas reps and others describing this event as a "massacre," even as "the Gaza massacre." We do not have to have the exact quotes from the Arabic in this case, since there are plenty of English translations which all refer to it as "the massacre in Gaza" or the "Gaza massacre." In which case this fact should be noted somewhere in the body of the article that Hamas and even "much of the world" refers to this event as the "Gaza massacre." This should be in a section which presents the Hamas view of the event. Just as "much of the world" (including Israel) refers to the war as "Israel's war against Hamas" can be included on a section which presents Israel's side of events. It is time to stop with the obstructionism and try to collaborate and take out the POV that you and others are so clearly trying to develop in the lede. It is appropriate for the Arab WP but not for the English one. Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Every single source I presented called it "the Gaza massacre", not just "a massacre". And there is also a source that says unambiguously that it is known as "the Gaza massacre" in the Arab world. The rest of your argument is silly, you have disputed this based on WP:NONENG saying that translations from RS are better than translations from WP editors so we should not use my translations and now say that there is no RS translating the text provided but that it is not needed. We're done here, the information is sourced and relevant and the offense that you take from the NPOV statement in the article does not matter at all. nableezy - 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Is the sourcing provided below adequate to say that Hamas has called the conflict "the Gaza massacre" and to have it placed in bold in the lead? User:Nableezy 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original lede as it stands: "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) by Hamas, the government of Gaza, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009. The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".

Stellarkid (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the Abu-Marzouk quote, each of the quotes sourced to Arabic media is translated by me. The translation for that quote is in the second source provided.

• Mohammed Awad:وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث
  Translation: On the recent events in Gaza, he called instead to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of many innocent people and the competent authorities attempting to arrest those involved in these events.^[29]
• Sami Abu Zuhri: "وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية.
  Translation: Abu Zuhri said "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries."^[30]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[31][32]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[33]
• Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."^[34]
• Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
  Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit."^[35]
• Khaled Meshal: "وأضاف مشعل خلال برنامج "لقاء مفتوح" بثته فضائية الجزيرة الإخبارية مساء السبت أن "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع
  His remarks came during the "Open Meeting" broadcast on the al-Jazeera Saturday night news that "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."^[36]
• Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
  Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[37][38]

nableezy - 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If your translations is correct the use of Gaza Massacre is fine. Israel; Operation Cast Lead. Hamas and arab world; Gaza Massacre. Bold text is fine. NPOV (if together). Correct (if right translated). Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The translations are disputed and English sources use variations of what appears to be a description. These descriptions are used much less than others even in Arab based media and humanitarian organizations focusing on the humanitarian needs of the civilians there.Cptnono (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed how? And this is not about what "Arab based media and humanitarian organizations" used, it is about what Hamas, a party to this conflict, used. nableezy - 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Then we have to get aditional views from editors knowing arabic well Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:NONENG along with potential campaigning and POV concerns (not that any and all opinions and feedback wouldn't be appreciated). Fortunately, we have English sources to reference. Unfortunately, they all point to this being a lesser used description not primarily used description and/or title.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"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" If nableezy:s translations ar correct, easyly confirmed by another arabicspeaking editor, then whats the fuzz? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is disputed it turns into a violation of verifiability. It is disputed therefore it needs to be proved through reliable sources and not editor's.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That just is not true. If it is disputed ask others to check the translation. The Arabic text is verifiable, most of them are from al-Jazeera, and translations are not "violation(s) of verifiability". nableezy - 04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until there's a reliable source that says "Hamas calls is the 'Gaza Massacre'", this gathering of primary semi-reliable and unreliable sources to come to a conclusion, is pure and unadulterated original research. There's no good reason to have this discussion to begin with because bolding in the lede a false term that defames an entire county is a major WP:NPOV violation. This contentious term has been snuck in by POV pushers and Facebook recruits by the claim that "you need a consensus to remove it" and "it's true, so too bad." As evidenced by the multiple discussions (better described as filibustering) on this topic there never was a clear consensus for the inclusion into the lede of this overly contentious and defamatory term. Those pushing for its inclusion have never met the WP:BURDEN for its inclusion, on top of violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  What happened with that noticeboard thread? Was there any evidence that users who actually edited here participated? Do you get upset when people say others are CAMERA operatives here? And are you in favor of removing everything sourced to the Israeli MFA or IDF spokesperson (both primary sources)? nableezy - 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A little pointed, Nableezy. Am I rubbing off on you (in a strictly nonsexual way)? I personally get upset with any bias. Even if I didn't, we are talking about this issue not others. If the primary source says something it can be OK but every situation is different. Unfortunately for us, Hamas hasn't released "official" docs from the failed verification requested.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How can this be original reporting? Gaza Massacre is mentioned in [39] Palestinian Ministry Of Interior(if right translated, cant read arabic) and cited in JP [40]. And isnt this a "requested comment from other editors" and not a vote. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is saying the translation is unverifiable and original research (open to internal interpretation) in this manner.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, then we have to get it verified, maby ask for a scholar:s view. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't ask for a scholar's view. We find published sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We allow for translations by editors and translating is not "original research". And one of the above has a translation in another source, and others (the ones with no Arabic given) are also translated by other sources. nableezy - 04:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The translation is disputed so a published translation is required. It does not matter anyways, a single mention of it by the official in the primary source is not significant enough to be a prominently bolded title in the lead (unless we are going to do that to the "victory" description) Mention it in the prose with a directly quoted inline citation. It is not the preferred or most often used description or title. There are half a dozen variables in this case instance/situation/whatever. Each one depends on the other so any argument is not sufficient for inclusion as is. I'm sorry but it is pretty clear that it is currently presented incorrectly in the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this WP:WL Cptnono: Read it! Im out from this section and my first comment stands. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'm a wikilawyer since you refuse to read the guidelines fully and are pushing something that is inappropriate? Nice one.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What? The one I c/p:ed above? In bold text? Haha, my dear sir. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A "published" translation is not "required", that in fact is the opposite of what the policy says. And the translations are disputed on what grounds? That you ran them through the google machine and there are slight differences? Half the google translations of either Arabic or Hebrew are complete gibberish. That isn't something I would rely on to say "the translations are disputed". nableezy - 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(<---) Following are my translations (FJM), Google's, and Babylon's (two publicly available automated online translation services that, while not perfect, clearly give the general idea of the translation):

• Awad: وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث

(FJM) And about the recent events in Gaza, Awad called for the distinction between the Gaza Massacre that claimed the lives of a number of innocents, and between the specialized authorities' attempt to arrest those involved in those events.

(Google) On the recent events in Gaza, he called instead to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of many innocent people, and between the competent authorities try to arrest those involved in these events

(Babylon) On recent events in Gaza, called Awad to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of a number of innocent people, and an attempt by the competent authorities the arrest of those involved in those events

• Abu Zuhri: وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية"

(FJM) Said Abu Zuhri "Netenyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts at justifying the Gaza massacre are weak justifications that do not hold against the results of Internation reports.

(Google) Abu Zuhri said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the massacre of Gaza is the flimsiest of pretexts not withstand the results of international reports"

(Babylon) Abu Zuhri said that the \ "Netanyahu\'s speech is full of lies, and enabling attempts to justify the massacre of Gaza is the flimsiest of pretexts not withstand the results of international reports\"

• Meshal (1): "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة

(FJM) And he stressed that "after the that after "the Gaza massacre, there will not be an exchange of the soldier (Gil'ad) Shalit, or a ceasefire" (repositioned quotation mark, per nableezy's note)

(Google) "He stressed that after the" massacre of Gaza will be no exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit in truce

(Babylon) \ "he stressed that after \" Gaza massacre there will not be an exchange of the soldier (Gilad (Shalit, nor to calm

• Meshal (2): "وأضاف مشعل خلال برنامج "لقاء مفتوح" بثته فضائية الجزيرة الإخبارية مساء السبت أن "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع

(FJM) Meshal added during the program "Open Encounter" aired by Aljazeera news satellite channel Saturday evening that "the response to the Gaza massacre is what the Zionist entity will see, not what it will hear"

(Google) "His remarks came during the" open meeting "broadcast on Al-Jazeera news Saturday night that" the response to the massacre of Gaza is what will see the Zionist entity, not what will be heard

(Babylon) \ "Mashaal added during the programme of \" meeting مفتوح\ "aired by Aljazeera satellite channel Saturday night that \" reply to the Gaza massacre is what Seri the Zionist entity, not what will be heard

• Abu Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة

(FJM) the wave of hope that welcomed your election has diminished greatly because of your silence about the Gaza massacre.

(Google) "The wave of hope that your election to offset decreased considerably because of your silence on the Gaza massacre

(Babylon) \ "that the wave of hope, which interviewed your election to have decreased considerably due to your silence on the Gaza massacre Fjmustak (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (though بعد is outside the quotation marks on Meshal (1)) nableezy - 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. All this has shown is that a couple sources use "massacre of gaza" and "Gaza Massacre". Other sources are out there that use massacre in Gaza. And yes, some of the sourcs provided say Gaza massacre. That does not change the two simple facts:

• Your translations are not verifiable from reliable published sources. This is a concern since you have not shown if it is a tittle or description. (that to me is the minor issue since some English sources use it already as a description)
• More importantly: You have still failed to show that it is the common and preferred title or description. You have shown that it has been used. As I showed above in an exhaustive list of google news searches, they use other terms more. That means presenting it as the primary title used by Hamas is inappropriate. Again, assault, attack, bombing and others were used more. Victory was even used (less) but that is the exact opposite of massacre. Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The arguments above have some merit, as do many arguments, and we've heard many arguments on this question. Previously, Nableezy was asked to provide sources showing that "Gaza massacre" was the name widely given to this event in Arab and Muslim media. This he did. Now, Nableezy has been asked to provide sources showing that "Gaza massacre" is the term that the government of Gaza uses. And he has. Now comes a call for reliable published sources. (Am I the only one sees us going round in circles?)

Have a proposal employing both the new and previous versions, hope that we stay neutral and representative in the lead. This may reduce the need for our recent scrutiny of Hamas, who appear to be trailing Israel in the streamlining of public relations, press release, statement and documentation management; and website design and maintenance.

we now have:

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas, the government of Gaza, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009.

proposal incorporating previous lead:

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab and Muslim world, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009.

We add sources showing widespread use of "Gaza massacre" in Arabic-language media, and the above sources showing use of the term by Hamas. There is no dispute that the Gaza government and Arab and Muslim media widely use this term; and that Israeli government and media widely use "Operation Cast Lead". And as many editors have pointed out, the article should state and attribute the terms used on "both sides" of the conflict, even if we don't like these terms. We can't have biased editors set the frequency/prominence/preference metric for inclusion.

Hope some dispassionate editors can weigh in. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are not enough sources saying it was the primary description or title. It is certainly not in the Arab media. Al Jazeera says "War on Gaza" and the others use massacre huge amounts less. I hope people understand that my concern (I don't know about the others who have repeatedly tried to remove it) is not that we mention it was a massacre. We can devote a whole paragraph to it as far as I am concerned. "Israel did lots of damage and so and so and so and so referred to it as a massacre" There are sources. However, there are not enough sources calling it a title or description so it should not be used as such in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is why I think we should hear from disinterested editors. It is not unreasonable to imagine a conflict if editors who don't want certain content are the ones deciding what constitutes "enough sources" for its inclusion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unreasonable when I clearly state I don't object to the content but the way it is presented.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Cptnono, but you are not the only editor on this RfC. Just above, Brewcrewer has clearly declared his objection to the content, which he regards as "a false term that defames an entire county". As I mentioned earlier it's not so much a problem that Gaza has their own term for this event, it's that some editors don't like Gaza's term for this event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That sucks. Sorry to clutter up the page while we should be receiving input from others but if the sources say something we can include it. I assume Brecrewer and many others have a slight knee-jerk reaction (it is hard not to) when it is presented as a title with eye catching boldness in the first line. I'll let him speak for himself, though. I would hope that editors would not object to some form of inclusion (prose or lead or wherever needs to be discussed separately) if it is done inline with the guidelines with proper quotes and weight.Cptnono (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I never understood what the big fuss over this particular issue was, especially since there were and are serious problems with the article that haven't been addressed. But as long as Nableezy raised it (and did a very impressive translating job that must have required a lot of work), I'll put in my 2 cents on the questions as he phrased them.
The quotes are obviously sufficient to say that Hamas "has referred to the conflict as the Gaza massacre", but are not sufficient to have the term be in bold or in the lede. That would require proof both that "the Gaza massacre" is a proper name and that it is the primary proper name used by Hamas to refer to the conflict. I'm not saying that these things aren't the case - I really have no idea - just that these quotes don't show that they are. I suppose the place to check would be official Hamas government documents, but those may be hard to find.
Also, my comment doesn't apply to the possibility that "the Gaza massacre" should be used as one of the names of the conflict by merit of being the primary proper name used in the Arab media. A long time ago I checked major English-language Arab media outlets, and as far as I remember, some did use that as the primary name and some didn't, but presumably some participants in this conversation are more up-to-date than me about that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose also per Jalapenos and Cptnono and Brewcrewer. Here is my analysis.

• We called it the Gaza War because there are some 292 thousand g-hits for this [41], some 1610 [42] in Google News. Notice that "Gaza" and "War" are both capitalized as appropriate for proper nouns (specific names)[43]

• "Operation Cast Lead" gets some 14.5 MILLION ghits [44] and some 4,020 [45] in news. Also it is fully capitalized demonstrating that it is a "name" and not a description.

• "The Gaza Massacre" gets 247,000 ghits [46] and a mere 68 in Google News [47]

The first ghit for "Gaza Massacre" includes a new site called thegazamassacredotcom - a website "dedicated to inform the world and expose the crimes that Israel is Comitting in Gaza." This demonstrates that while many scurrilous and biased sites are referring to this event as a "massacre," few if any unbiased news sources (at least those in English) are doing so.

There are a number of articles quoting various individual members of Hamas and others referring to this as "a massacre" or "the Gaza massacre" in English, including IslamOnline, but virtually without exception they do not capitalize "massacre." This is a critical point since in English we always' capitalize:

The names of people, of organizations and their members, of councils and congresses, and of historical periods and events: Marie Curie, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, an Elk, Protestant Episcopal Church, an Episcopalian, the Democratic Party, a Democrat, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Senate, the Middle Ages, World War I, the Battle of Britain.[48]

If there were no English sources available to translate what Hamas leaders are saying, we would be required to accept an individual Wikipedian's translation. But in fact we do not havto do so, since there are several English versions including IslamOnline and others that use the term "the Gaza massacre" and few if any that capitalize "massacre" = indicating that it is not a proper noun. The policy on this is WP:NONENG which is in place so that we can "easily verify" content. Since the reliable sources we do have do not translate "The Gaza Massacre" as a name, it must be a description only. I am told that Arabic does not have capital letters so I am not sure just how - or if - such a distinction is made in Arabic, but that is just the reason that policies like WP:NONENG exist. I appreciate the good faith or hard work of editors that think otherwise, but believe Wikipedia policy is unambiguous, as are the rules of grammar.

• According to WP policy WP:NONENG and WP:CCC and the rules of grammar [49], "the Gaza massacre" does not belong in the lede emboldened.

• Finally, such a description of the Gaza War is POV and highly inflammatory. No one denies that it is described as such in the Arab world, but it is not appropriate to call it that in the lede. It belongs within the body of the article as one view of the event.

By way of example, there are some 111 ghits (in news, many more than for "Gaza massacre") for "9/11 massacre" [50] and more in regular google and RSs (eg Wall Street Journal) have called it, but nevertheless we do not use that term nor embolden it in the lede of the 911 article. In fact, the word is not used in the 9/11 article at all, despite it being arguably appropriate. I would guess the reason for this is that it is considered a POV and inflammatory description. Stellarkid (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The sources presented range from Hamas spokesman to Khaled Meshal to the official website of the Ministry of the Interior of the Palestinian government. The arguments against including range from a misreading of WP:NONENG to the capitalization of "massacre" to the idea that it is a "defamatory" name. The description is indeed POV, it is the POV of Hamas and it is presented as that. WP:NPOV requires us to include the POV of the involved parties. Regarding the capitalization, a common noun used within a proper noun is not required to be capitalized. The Arabic words "مجزرة غزة" form a proper noun in Arabic. "Gaza" is modifying the common noun "massacre" to make reference to a specific event. That Hamas officials have called it this from the first days of the conflict through last week should make clear that the phrase is referring to a specific event. The idea that the name is "POV" is completely irrelevant, the phrase called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) by Hamas makes clear that it is the POV of Hamas. We should not be censoring out that POV because it makes some uncomfortable. The other arguments revolve around the idea that only English sources matter, that in looking to present a NPOV account of a conflict in which one "side" was Arabic speaking and whose statements are more readily available in the Arabic we should ignore Arabic media. There are two instances in which the words "Gaza victory" were used to describe the events by Hamas. Those two instances have been widely reported in the English media. But compare the results in Arabic for the following: "ismail haniyeh" "gaza massacre": 12,400 "gaza victory" "ismail haniyeh": 1,520. "hamas spokesman" "gaza massacre": 29,100 "hamas spokesman" "gaza victory": 3520. It is not POV for us to say what words Hamas used to refer to the conflict. As for it being "inflammatory", well there are a number of responses to that. The easiest though is a pointer to WP:NOTCENSORED. A more thorough response is that it may well be considered inflammatory that we include a name based on a Hannukah song to refer to something in which over 1400 people were killed. It may be considered inflammatory that we present justifications for what have been widely condemned as war crimes and even crimes against humanity. But WP:NOTCENSORED will suffice as an explanation as to why the name being "defamatory" or "inflammatory" is not a valid rationale to remove it. nableezy - 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Google hit comparisons above show that Israel's English-language public and media relations operations are more efficient/prolific than Gaza's. We shouldn't impose a symmetry condition, naturally we can find a higher number of statements, press releases and press conferences coming from Israel than from Gaza -- where foreign media generally cannot access due the blockade.

If we look to quality not quantity, we find Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal clearly saying "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see..." Believe this and the other cited Hamas usage of the term, along with what most editors here have acknowledged as its widespread/preeminent use in Arab and Muslim media qualifies the term for a place in the lead alongside Israel's term. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Israel's PR is better than Gaza's is mere opinion OR. (I did note how you referred to Israel words as PR and Hamas' words as "quality." ) In my opinion Gaza's PR is very good indeed, and includes not only Gazans, but Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, and college and university groups the world over. Palestinians themselves are extremely literate and pump out prolific (anti-Israel) material. :) Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>WP:NOTCENSORED is a specious argument since no one is asserting that it cannot be in the article at all. Which of us seems to you to be arguing for that? It can obviously be presented as the view of Hamas and others, just not emboldened in the lead. The policy you cite states : "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." We are not focusing on the fact that it is objectionable in order to remove it. Its objectionableness is a secondary issue to the one of accurately representing reliable sources. Secondary, but still relevant. No one is asking to dump it, just to move it to the body of the article with appropriate context. Regarding your insistence that Hamas refers to the Gaza war as the Gaza massacre, there are plenty of links that show that they refer to it as the "Gaza war" or "the war in Gaza" every bit as often, if not more so. See Jazeera & [51]. "Gaza War" is a neutral term. Brewcrewer has tried to compromise your concerns by removing Operation Cast Lead" from the lede as well, and it too could be added further down in the body with appropriate context. However you failed to appreciate this compromise, and reverted with the summary that there was "no consensus" to remove the term "massacre" (which flies in the face of WP:CCC). About this rule (?) in English grammar: "Regarding the capitalization, a common noun used within a proper noun is not required to be capitalized," can you document it? Thanks in advance Stellarkid (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer has argued to remove it completely. And your al-Jazeera link shows that al-Jazeera has called it the Gaza war, the single quote from Meshal that says the word war once is ""What did you achieve through this war... other than the killing of children, of innocents?" he asked the Israeli leadership." That article does not show him calling it the "Gaza War". The second link to the interview also does not support that he called it the "gaza war". He, once, calls it "war in Gaza" which in Arabic would be "حرب في غزة". If you wish for me to break down the grammar as to why that would require the definite particle "ال" (the) to become a proper noun where if it had been "حرب غزة" Gaza war it would be a proper noun without "ال" I can. But he does in fact say "the war in Gaza" that one time. Neither of those sources show Meshal calling it the Gaza war. Gaza War is indeed a neutral term, that is one of the reasons the title of the article is Gaza War. Nobody is suggesting that this article be named Gaza massacre, what we (those who support its inclusion) have said that NPOV requires us to represent all notable viewpoints, and the what one of the belligerents called the conflict is certainly a notable viewpoint. Removing it from the lead because it is "inflammatory" or "defamatory" is censorship, that is what that link is provided to respond to. Not the rest of the arguments which I addressed before that. (also, please read the links you provide to ensure they support what you say they support) nableezy - 03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing something from the lede is censorship? I don't think so! Can you find the relative WP policy on that? Stellarkid (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote (after modifying prior to your comment, but you may have missed it) that removing it on the grounds that it is "inflammatory" or "defamatory" is censorship. nableezy - 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR has an exclusion for non-neutral material and a case can be made that "massacre" in this context is not neutral and therefore not appropriate in the lede. Perhaps you should read the policy again. But as I have said that is a secondary issue. Still waiting for the grammar documentation! Stellarkid (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NPOV again. It is not "non-neutral" to say "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre". That in fact is the opposite of what NPOV requires, which is including all significant views. Grammar documentation? Here are a couple: Common nouns used as part of proper nouns (generally capitalized) Definition proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized Or are you looking for Arabic grammar documentation? nableezy - 04:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not non-neutral to embolden such in the lede - when it can be put in the article as a view of Hamas, Arabs and Muslims, as it clearly is. Back to your grammar, your link says, "Common nouns may be used as part of proper nouns to name specific places or institutions. When used in the context, the common noun is generally capitalized." They use as examples, "Sterling Road" and Santa Clara County". Unfortunately for your argument, however, "The Gaza massacre" is not a place nor an institution.

page 409 of your link [52] on the other hand, says "Capitalize the full names of wars and battles, but lowercase the words war and battle when used alone or in a generic sense." 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs)

Do you have any idea how many sources do not capitalize "war" in "Gaza war"? How many capitalize "war" or "against" in what you put in as a name, "Israel's war against Hamas"? nableezy - 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys doing? Stay on topic.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling a bit to understand how this issue will be resolved unless there is an agreed decision procedure. Is there at least consensus that

• a) NPOV requires that the string of characters (in english) used by each party to the conflict to identify what we call the 'Gaza War' be given equal status in the lead
• and that b) the information content of the string of characters itself doesn't matter i.e. whether it's '5sfwr25s', 'fucking shit buggerhead' or 'operation bunny rabbit' makes no difference ?

..setting aside the issue of establishing what that string of characters (in english) actually is. If there isn't consensus for a) and b) then I don't see how to proceed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"fucking shit buggerhead" could be bolded in the lead if it was the the way Hamas consitenly described it.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFC asks the wrong question. I am satisfied with the sourcing. The question I think is one of undue weight, not sourcing. I think it has been fairly well established that Hamas and its representatives call the war the "Gaza Massacre." However, I think that there would be more substantive grounds for including that in the lead if it could be established that this was also the term utilized by the Palestinian Authority, which I believe has international recognition as the government of the Palestinians generally. It's really a question of whether, irrespective of Hamas being the government of Gaza, it and its representatives' nomenclature can be viewed on Wikipedia as "fringe views" and hence to be given appropriate lesser weight. I don't have the answer to this question but I think that is a more appropriate question, not sourcing or synthesis. Viewed superficially, and with no reference to prior discussions, "massacre" when used to refer to a military operation raises red flags. I'm not saying there is an undue weight issue, but that it could exist. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the Palestinian Authority does term what happened in Gaza a massacre too. For example, The Jerusalem Post, Israel's major English language daily, has no problem noting this in an article headlined: PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks. Tiamut^talk 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it can be established, preferably from the English language sources, that the PNA refers to the Gaza was as a massacre, then you've probably tipped the scales in favor of the term. I haven't checked how it's dealt with in Wikipedia, but Russia refers to World War II as the "Great Patriotic War." Neutrality requires that we mention such local usage. In this case, the word "massacre" sets off alarm bells and requires special caution.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding one point. The PNA does have the international recognition as the interim government of the Palestinian territories. Hamas won the most recent legislative elections and make up the majority of the Palestinian legislature and has the PM recognized by that legislature. Also, Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza (and could be argued as the de jure government of the whole of the Palestinian territories). I do not think we can regard Hamas' views as "fringe" any more than we regard the Israeli government views as fringe (and they are fringe on any number of issues from the legality of settlements to the status of E. Jerusalem and the Golan, but we do not treat them as such) nableezy - 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and it's actually a very interesting question: can we utilize the description of a particular event by even an unquestionably legitimate government if it might be considered a fringe view? I see that West Bank makes no reference to the fringe Israeli nomenclature "Judea and Samaria," at least not in the lead. Had that article done so, then I think that there would be a better case for including "Gaza Massacre" in the lead. That was the first comparable situation that came to mind, but there may be others that would be more central to this particular issue. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the West Bank were Israeli territory than it would be fine to use their nomenclature, but it is not. But for another comparable example, the Iraq War article does have "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a title that is certainly "objectionable" and "non-neutral", though not in bold, the Six-Day War article has the names (multiples from each side) used, as does the Yom Kippur War. nableezy - 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think JohnnyB256 raises an interesting point. At the least, "West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria" are not offensive per se, merely sounds. They are offensive perhaps because each side wants to be the naming side. Another example might be the neutral article on the United States which makes no mention of the nomenclature, Great Satan despite numerous ghits both in news and regular Google, and which is neatly capitalized (clearly a name) and in quite common usage in parts of the world, English speaking and otherwise. Another example would be the neutral article on Israel which makes no mention of the fact that it is referred to as the Zionist entity by much of the Arabic speaking world. According the Nableezy's logic, both would have to be in the lede and emboldened. I believe the Gaza War article should be neutral as well. The common term "Operation Cast Lead" has over 14 MILLION ghits and is properly capitalized. Nevertheless when a compromise solution was proposed to take both out of the lede and discuss them elsewhere, it was rejected out-of-hand. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Great Satan"? Please, this article is about a conflict between Israel and Gaza. What the government of Gaza called the conflict does not in any way compare with "Great Satan", or even "Zionist entity" (both of which, I might add, actually have their own articles dealing with the term). Those articles are about individual countries and it does not matter what other people call those countries to the point of including it in the lead. For those articles what is needed is the common English name and what they themselves use as the name of the country. This article though is about a conflict between two governments and what each of them called the conflict does matter. Your arguments are becoming increasingly silly. nableezy - 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, are you willing to explicitly state that you will not object to a term on the basis that you personally find it offensive or that you believe other people will find it offensive ? I think it's very important to be clear about this as I tried to indicate above with my b) examples. Consensus won't be possible unless there is a common set of rules by which proposals are assessed and decisions are made. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Tiamut, your link to the Jerusalem Post article says "PA officials strongly condemned the IDF raid, dubbing it a 'massacre.'" (my bolds). It is also my understanding that the reporter is a native Arabic speaker. Stellarkid (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been here in a while and I'm a little lost. Is this archive 4? --JGGardiner (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm offended that you picked the number 4 despite it's association with death on such an auspicious day for the People's Republic of China. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that this RfC is going nowhere. Just the same entrenched positions from both sides. However it does seem that there is no consensus to add (or maintain) "the Gaza massacre" emboldened in the lede as a name, and as such, I would think that it would be fair to remove it until such time as there is a consensus to add it. There is no consensus to remove it entirely from the article just from the lede and emboldened. That is my view of this discussion. Stellarkid (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to the status quo, which in this case is keeping the name. There is no consensus to remove it from the lead either. nableezy - 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

btw-- why did the author of this RfC put it in the religion section? How is this discussion related to religion? Stellarkid (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main list is "Politics". Removed "Religion and philosophy". nableezy - 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the relevant WP policy that says that? Stellarkid (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This can sit open for awhile or we can seek additional input. Also, I think Nableezy should address the arguments against inclusion from the few who did jump in.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Cptnono, but theoretically an interesting point especially if the previous so-called "consensus" position was maintained through strongarm technique by a few individuals zealously defending it. It then becomes a matter of who gets to the gate first. Hardly seems a reasonable method of collaborative editing. Stellarkid (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" was actually not maintained and the line was changed over time to be completely different. My thoughts on it a couple of months ago to see if the Massacre title gained traction but it doesn't look like it happened.Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if that were true your answer for resolving it is to be part of a group of a few zealous individuals strongarming it out? nableezy - 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am (and it stays open for 30 days be default), but those arguing against are repeating different arguments that I am trying to answer. The arguments are as follows: it is not NPOV. The answer to that is that it is nonsense to say that. By saying that "Hamas called it the 'Gaza massacre'" we are stating, in a NPOV manner, what Hamas has said, not repeating it in Wikipedia's narrative voice. The second one is that it is OR. That is also nonsense, Hamas statements are sufficient to source what Hamas has said. The third argument is that it is "objectionable" or "defamatory". That does not even need an answer, but WP:NOTCENSORED would be the answer. The next is that it is not a name or a proper noun. A proper noun is usually capitalized, the definition is that it is a noun that refers to a specific thing, "the Gaza massacre" is clearly a noun phrase that refers to a specific thing and each of the translations provided by RSs translate the phrase as "the Gaza massacre" not "the massacre of Gaza", which you seem to be concerned about as a result of the google translations. Arguments based on google translated it differently are meaningless, two different users, including one who does not edit in such controversial subjects as this, have given you translations and you are free to ask any others you wish. Our translations are perfectly acceptable. Next is that it really is not the most common name used by Hamas. This argument is the one that actually matters (and kudos to you for being the one who has made an attempt to show that). Your searches are flawed in that they either are restricted to English sources or are not restricted to what Hamas said, rather you are making searches on what the Arab media used. You have to look at the individual results or restrict the searches. When combining the Arabic words for "Gaza massacre" and "Hamas spokesman" you get almost 10x the results of Hamas spokesman "Gaza victory". Same is true when searching for various names of Hamas officials. There have been 2 quotes where they actually used "Gaza victory" as a name, there are many many more in which Hamas uses "Gaza massacre". They have also used "this war", "the attacks on Gaza", "the assault on Gaza", "the war on Gaza", but nowhere near as often as "Gaza massacre". They have used the name "Gaza massacre" for going on 10 months now consistently to refer to this conflict. No other name was used as often or for as long a time period. I dont know what else you want me to do to show that. And "traction" among the press is not important here, we are not looking for what the name the press used as we are not trying to change the title of the article. We are looking for the name Hamas used, not the common name among the press. nableezy - 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All three are related. The amount of use is the most important to me. Even with some hits it is not nearly the level needed to present it as a bolded title which is where the NPOV concern comes in. It is a description that is sourced but not enough to assert that is the title. The title/description confusion gets even more worse since prepositions like "of" and "in" do take away from the assertion that it is the officially designated title or sought after PR line used by Hamas. Gaza massacre is used in a single statement by an official at the MOI site. It is said less than a dozen times in various segments to the press. It just isn't their assigned title. Saying "massacre" was used more than other descriptions (besides victory) is not true. Instead of trying to make this a title in the lead we should be writing a paragraph on why the term was used.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more than a dozen times, many times more, that a Hamas representative has used the words مجزرة غزة to refer to this event. It absolutely is true that Hamas used "massacre" more than "victory" or any other description or title. It is indeed not true that it was used more than other terms in the Arab world as a whole, but from Hamas they used this title consistently. If you want more sources I'll get more sources just so you cannot say "less than a dozen times". And "massacre of Gaza" is equivalent to "Gaza massacre" in Arabic, "massacre in Gaza" is not. nableezy - 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not think there were more than 12. Start providing the sources. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Just for the sake of transparency and because it will be lots of work, I do not believe you will be able to show it was the title or primary description used by Hamas so it will take alot. You mentioned Bush calling the war in Iraq a victory at one time and how it made no sense to reference Hamas calling it a victory along those lines. That is how I feel about "massacre". It is a juicy term that was used and it generated headlines for a day. However, it was not picked up by Arab or Western media to the extent needed. Al Jazeera didn't even give it preference or other terms.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "not picked up by Arab or Western media to the extent needed"? That they did not use that as the their name for the conflict? Or that they did not report the quotes from Hamas? There are multiple Western media sources backing up the individual statements and there are multiple different statements going over 10 months, not just "generated headlines for a day". What do you mean by "Al Jazeera didn't even give it preference or other terms"? That they did not use that as their title? No shit Sherlock, al-Jazeera is not Hamas, why would they use whatever name Hamas used? It being used by the press has nothing to do with the conversation. But I will get you more sources, but that will take some time. nableezy - 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera titles their special report section War on Gaza. Site searches ("sitename:") don't show much coverage. A day was a stretch in my previous statement but what can be taken literally is that it was not the assigned term by Arab media (which was previously asserted) and it was not used by Hamas at the extent the reader is lead to believe with its formatting and placement. Why would aid organizations and media typically more sympathetic to Hamas not go farther with the term? A single statement from a single official on an official site is not sufficient. Certainly a step in the right direction but I was expecting much much more. Hamas officials also did not even say it that often. It was used in a some statements picked up on by press but the percentage of statements that use the term is miniscule. Then you add in the NPOV concern since we are giving it so much weight + the translation concerns (when it really would be more abundant in English sources if used as much as asserted) and it clearly shows that the term deserves some lines with sources but not bolded in the first line as if it was a title.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What al-Jazeera or any of the other Arabic news sites title their reports is not the issue. The issue is what does Hamas use of the term? Why would aid agencies "more sympathetic to Hamas" not use the term? I am not aware of any aid agencies that are "sympathetic to Hamas", if you mean such agencies as AI, HRW, PCHR, the ICRC, B'tselem and others I suppose the answer is that they are not "sympathetic to Hamas" and that they seek to present the facts as neutrally as possible so they use neutral titles like Gaza war or Gaza attack, sort of how Wikipedia uses the title of its article "Gaza War". The translation concerns are baseless, unless you can provide somebody to actually translate it differently I hope you would accept that our translations are given in good faith. I asked another person to translate the text, an editor who as far as I can tell has never edited this page, and you still continue with "translation concerns" based on half gibberish google translations. It gets the words right for the most part but there are consistent grammatical errors in its translations. And the English translations that we do have translate it as "Gaza massacre" not "massacre of Gaza". Unless you provide somebody who can translate the text and does so differently please stop with the "translation concerns". Hebrew translations by editors are used all over the place, including in BLPs translating incredibly harsh criticism. Those translations are never questioned and it is a bit annoying continuing to see that Arabic translations are not acceptable from editors. I'll deal with your other concerns on the number of sources in the coming days. But to repeat one more time, I am not arguing that al-Jazeera or any other media outlet used something other than the Gaza massacre, that is not what I am trying to show and that is not what the article says. nableezy - 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus (which you continue to point to as being long standing) was "in the Arab world" not Hamas. Nothing wrong with changing it but it is still as untrue. And you are purposely missing the point if you don't believe that media such as Al Jazeera and some aid organization primarily focus on the concerns with the Palestinian civilians. There is nothing wrong with that since that is the purpose of those aid orgs and human rights observers. Plenty of them have spun things slightly to make it spicier for the media (again, it is their job so it doesn't hurt my feelings) and the fact that they didn't hop on this supposed "massacre" band wagon is ludicrous. You also continue to not provide significant coverage of Hamas using the term massacre. Translated or not, you simply have not shown that it was how they commonly referred to the conflict. You cherry picked and some of your translations were off from what you claimed. You disagree with Gaza massacre and Massacre of Gaza being different but when we can't even figure out if it is a title or a description then we have to be concerned about the translations. I do not believe for a second that you are intentionally POV pushing but asserting that the Arabic text for massacre is found on the internet = it is Hamas's name is causing annoyance for others. And the translations is the least of the concerns. If there were magnitudes more I would be force to agree with you. Of course, then it would be well documented in both languages.Cptnono (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You want it to say "in the Arab world" for the time being by all means put that in. I was trying to resolve the issue by saying "by Hamas" instead. Yes al-Jazeera focuses their reports on their consumers, in their case largely Arabs. That does not mean they make no effort to report things factually and with minimal bias. The US media rarely, if ever, calls the Iraq War Operation Iraqi Freedom. That has no bearing on what the US government called it. And I dont disagree on "massacre of Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" being different in English, but they are not different in Arabic which explains why a machine might translate it one way or another. But the English sources that do provide translations say "Gaza massacre" not "massacre of Gaza" which is one of the reasons I think you should stop harping on what google told you. nableezy - 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to harp at you but you are pushing for something that is inappropriate. You again are only focusing on one part of the argument and not addressing how it relates to the major problem which is the general lack of sources. English or Arabic you just haven't shown that it was the predominant term. And if you are going to focus on the translation then I am going to remid you that it is disputed.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Above, I see several different arguments for removal/relegation of the term, and there are more back in the archives. A predominance for the term in all references to the war by Gaza officials argument is interesting because unless we can determine aggregate usage of all terms then how can we calculate whether one has been used most? So, to address this objection/condition, if it is valid, we have to compare popular terms. Hamas functions in the Arabic language so that's where we have to look, not through English-language Google searches. What do you think of what Nab posted above:

"When combining the Arabic words for "Gaza massacre" and "Hamas spokesman" you get almost 10x the results of Hamas spokesman "Gaza victory". Same is true when searching for various names of Hamas officials."

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Plopping down ghits had long been debunked as a valid argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I am giving you actual quotes. And I am really starting to see how this shifting argument thing can be a real benefit. nableezy - 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic ghits were "plopped down" in response to arguments advanced on English ghits. RomaC (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

????Roma I have consistently said one of the terms that did not receive more was "victory". It is interesting because it is the opposite, though. Please scroll up to the google hits then try some different ones for fun. Pop in various names, different spellings, site" ":, with quotes, and so on. Massacre is simply not predominant. The term was used so put it in the prose but its use as a title and bolded in the first line is misleading to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You arent searching on quotes from Hamas, you are searching on everything. nableezy - 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

+1 source: Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.^[53] nableezy - 06:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

+1 official Palestinian government source, the MOH site has a pictures section where the pictures are titled "Martyrs of the Gaza massacre" (شهداء مجزرة غزة) here. nableezy - 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You kind of ignore some editors expressing concerns about "Gaza massacre" being a belligerent name. We can go on and on with sources describing the conflict as "Gaza massacre". You can not be that naive - you noticed we should be careful about putting in the article "things one belligerent speaks about the enemy". Both Haniyeh in Gaza and Khaled Mashal in Damascus called the event Gaza war in their victory speeches. Very official if you ask me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, would you mind not deleting the text in question while the RfC is ongoing? Tiamut^talk 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So what do we learn from the requested comments? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What other people think. And each of the sources provided is using it as a name. nableezy - 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamas clearly identifies the Israeli offensive as a massacre. It is certainly NPOV to putr across the hamas view of an offensive they and their territory was in. http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/03/200841010163762970.html, some of the videos calling in Gaza Massacre on youtube are referenced on the Hamas website. I quickly read this article and some of your sources are worst than the Arabic above. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

I would recommend googling "site:http://english.aljazeera.net/ "gaza massacre"" before asserting that Al Jazeera shows Hamas clearly identifies it as. Also, just because t is used as a decription here and there does not mean it is the primary let alone alternative title. Youtube is not a source but for my own understanding if you could point me in the right direction it is something I should see. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

rvt

I reverted MrUnsignedAnon for the right reason in my edit summary but the wrong policy page. Please see WP:Consensus#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process. The relevant line is:

"Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Wanted to clear up any confusion. Stellarkid (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That revert is bullshit, as while consensus can change it has not changed. And the reasons it has not changed have been presented multiple times. And there is an open RfC on the topic yet you think it is fine to edit war it out of the article. nableezy - 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of reverts, do we need to discuss the police thing or is it OK? Jiujitsuguy and Nableezy had a little back and forth. Basically, Israel asserts the police were bad and were correct to target them. We have the intl law page to expand if we want but does this article need the line cleaned up or all we all good now?Cptnono (talk)

We are discussing it see our talk pages. nableezy - 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be considered laughable when one is being lectured about editwarring by Nableezy and RomaC, as I am on my talk page and in edit summaries. Yet take a look at RomaC's recent reverts of this material, the last one about 5 minutes ago: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] -- Or Nableezy's recent reverts of it. [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]

The edit summaries invariably revert based on "consensus" or lack thereof, violating CCC-- "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."

and this also on WP:CONSENSUS : Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Once the edit has been challenged, there is no longer consensus. The edit has been challenged. Therefore the WP:burden is on those who wish to include the material to find policy-based common-sense reasons to include it. There is no reason not to exclude the material. Are these editors really so desperate to see Israel accused of a massacre in the lede that it cannot be out of the article for 5 minutes while it is very fully discussed on this page? That is certainly how it seems . Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Gaza Massacre. Nableezy:s argumentation and RScollection is good enough. The challengers of a earlier consesus have atleast form consensus now. This heated debate is as far from consesus we can come. Stop editwaring and wait to you eventually presented better argumentation wit RS and consensus will be rewarded. 90.237.152.18 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellar show where I lectured you on edit warring or strike your accusations above. Also as you have lectured on English-language style and usage you should know what "invariably" means, so kindly strike that false accusation as well. Finally "editors so desperate to see Israel accused of a massacre in the lede" is also wrong. This is an article about a conflict. The title is neutral, then we give the names that both belligerents use. I am committed to countering POV-pushers who would want just one side represented. Aren't you? RomaC (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't sacrifice quality for a false balance. Other options are also available in most cases (re wording, re structuring, whatever). You think the arguments are good enough but others think it is not proven. There is not consensus and both "sides" are entrenched and not fixing it. In all reality it should be removed until resolution. I don't think we should be edit warring though. I would prefer your concession that it doesn't work as is, restructure (one line might be unbalanced!), and tighter inclusion. I assume this won't be happening. I don't mind seeing additional input for another day or so and could care less if it stays in for now since I want it to be removed but know that won't happen immediately without edit warring. If there is not consensus soon we can always seek resolution at a different level. There have been some smarmy comments and if anyone is upset by a low blow mention it and hopefully we can be big kids (ie strike it out or respectfully decline). Next time I'll be the one to screw around so you guys can lecture me then. Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new source: The siege — which Israel calls Operation Caste Lead and which much of the world simply refers to as the Gaza Massacre. Caps and everything. nableezy - 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, you found one English source in the ArabNews (RS? --just asking) that actually does claim that "much of the world" refers to it as "the Gaza Massacre." She does not say Hamas does or the Arabs and Muslims do, both of which have been asserted in the article. She refers to "much of the world." If that were true, our Google hits would demonstrate it, when in fact they demonstrate just the opposite. Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"and which much of the world simply refers to as the Gaza Massacre"? I thought we were looking for Hamas saying it? We have already shown that most of the world does not and other sources certainly don't back that assertion up. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a self-reference (see WP:RELIABLE in case the writer got lazy) or just simple biased sensationalism. If you want to put in the article somewhere "Barbara Ferguson of Arab News claimed..." there would be a weight issue but it would be accurate. I also question the claim that ArabNews it is the leading English daily especially but it doesn't matter too much since Al Jazeera and other continuously updated websites contradict the claim. this is a good example of failing to provide extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim. Do you want to move this into a related discussion section?Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

to demonstrate with ghits once again.

• "Operation Cast Lead" gets some 14.5 MILLION ghits [66] and some 4,020 [67] in news. Also it is fully capitalized demonstrating that it is a "name" and not a description.

• "The Gaza Massacre" gets 247,000 ghits [68] and a mere 68 in Google News [69] Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Actually that should be the Gaza massacre as only a handful at best capitalize it as it should be if it were meant to indicate a name of a battle or historical period. Stellarkid (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And since this is supposed to be for balance, Operation Cast Lead gets 4,310 hits since the start of the conflict in gnews. 4,310>68 so forcing balance is irresponsible of us.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to use the same argument that only English sources matter shows the lack of "balance". Nobody is suggesting that the common English name for the conflict is the Gaza massacre so continuing to show that it is not used in English is pointless. Nobody has advanced such an argument, so you can continue knocking down that strawman until you realize it does not matter. nableezy - 06:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, Stellar, I requested you remove false personal accusations above, you have not done so. Unfortunately it's difficult to assume good faith in your editing, which seem more like advocacy. So go on and do what you have to do. RomaC (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your last couple comments on this page have come across a little poopey, Nableezy. I don't think I have made inappropriate digs towards you during this discussion. I simply disagreee with you and every source you have provided has not met the standards I feel should be met per Wikipedia's guidelines and what I think is common sense (common sense is interchangeable with OR sometimes, though). I am not even a fan of the last one you brought up and have explained the resoning below. I assume it will be good enough for most editors so expect it to stand but am hoping to get an explanation from the publisher.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:ccc, wp:burden, and "massacre"

This term has been discussed ad naseum on this talk page and there will never be a clear consensus either way. The issue is what to do at this point. Some (or is it one?) have suggested that no consensus=defualt to "massacre." Firstly, massacre is not the default. There was no point in the article history when there was a talkpage consensus for its inclusion. Although it has probably spent more time appearing then not, that is only the result of the editors who support its inclusion spending more time reverting then those opposing its inclusion.

Secondly, and more importantly, when there is no consensus for the inclusion of specific content, the default is not for inclusion. To the contrary, when the WP:BURDEN for inclusion has not been met, content cannot be included in the article.

Any responses to this specific burden issue please respond here. All arguments opposing WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues belong in the RFC above. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden has been met. The sources absolutely support that Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre. That cannot be denied, you can dispute whether or not that that was the primary name, but you are applying double-standards to the sources you use here and any number of other places depending on your POV. There is no WP:OR in the statement that Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre, that is a verifiable statement backed by numerous sources. The NPOV argument is also nonsense as you are arguing against the name not whether or not Hamas has actually called it that. I think you know your arguments are frivolous, in fact you have already said that you accept it was the name used but that you think it is "defamatory" to Israel so you want to remove it. (original question, and response). You are playing the wikilawyer, looking for any policy you think supports your quest to remove a name you dont like. nableezy - 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Use it in the article but not bolded in the first line as a title and not only will we be providing the information in the correct context but we also won't have to deal will some sort of mediation process Oops. Read Nableez's comment but did not read brewcrewer's disclaimer. I simply think he has not provided the sources asked for so he has not met the requirements of proving it. Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of proving that "Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre" or that they have used that name more than any other? If it is the first I will bash my head against a wall until I forget what Wikipedia is. nableezy - 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No head banging. Particularly not of heads that work so well. Tiamut^talk 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the term was used.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you accept that then WP:BURDEN is met. The issue you are arguing is weight. Whether or not it should be in the lead. Brewcrewer however is arguing for the complete removal of the term because he feels it is "defamatory" to Israel. nableezy - 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kind of, you have shown that it was used but not that it was a title or the primary description. Therefore you have not met burden to use it as is. I still think no mention t all would be silly. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BURDEN. It speaks only to the verifiability of statements, not the weight given in an article. If you agree that sources cited verify the statement that "Hamas has called the conflict the 'Gaza massacre'" you accept that is a verifiable statement and WP:BURDEN is met. nableezy - 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see. It is a verifiable statement that the term has been used but it has not been verified that it is primary. In nonwiki speak you have not met the burden. Per WP:BURDEN you are good on it being included somewhere as we both have already agreed that we agree.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how would you verify it? It isn't really verifiable to say that "Gaza War" is the common English name for the conflict. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion before commenting. And we aren't talking about the "Gaza War". If you want to change it go ahead and make the proposal. We are talking about implying that Massacre was the preferred and predominantly used title per Hamas. There is a giant list of google news searches above with suggestions for further searches. There are only handful (Nableezy says to have over a dozen) of sources and but those don't show it being the common term just like "victory" was not. Someone said they had press releases but failed to provide them. An official had a statement on the MOI page which was great but it was one statement and we can't tell if it is a description or a title.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First let me say that I will always defend my right to comment in discussions without reading them first. But in this case I have read it. I've actually been following this discussion for the better part of a year now. But my comment was quite unclear and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I think all of these naming decisions are inherently subjective. "Gaza War" as an example was also initially opposed and only became the title after some time. It was never demonstrated to some objective standard that it was the common English name. Nor was there a particular source which demonstrated it to be the common name. A few editors simply thought that it was reasonable. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if it came across overly poopey. Assumed you didn't read it all since I have repeated several things (probably the problem!) I also would be open to changing the main title if people perceive it as incorrect. For now my focus is the false balance created by asserting that Massacre was an oft used title or a primary description in relevance to others. Hamas may also simply not have a title and that means a single line will not have balance but we have paragraphs to make up for it. We can also move the operational title a line over if it would save a little bit of confusion.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead gets by far the most ghits -- some 14 million compared to several hundreds of thousands for "The Gaza War." It is interesting that this article is not known OCL, in fact. "The Gaza massacre" gets 247,000 ghits [70] and a mere 68 in Google News [71] and all but about some 2 sources do not capitalize massacre as they should if it were the proper name for a battle or an historical period. The relevant points have to do with the WP policy WP:NONENG, and WP:CCC, and WP:Consensus#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process with WP:NPOV as a secondary (if important) concern. Stellarkid (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You might think that is interesting but it is not. Read WP:MILMOS for why we do not use the Israeli operation name, and also look at the archives for the reason why this was moved to "Gaza War". And please, please, please. Stop saying WP:NONENG supports your argument, it does not. Linking to it shows persistence in being ignorant, not evidence of policy backing you up. And yes, consensus can change. But asserting that it can change is very different from it actually changing. nableezy - 06:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be the argument on "massacre"? I don't think too many people are suggesting this page be moved to something called "massacre". If that's the case, I oppose such an act. If people have found reliable sources that report that some people called it a "massacre", then it should definitely be in the lead.

This is the same with all leads, where alternative names are given. Take Jerusalem for example. Just because most people in the world don't refer to it as al-Quds, doesn't mean the Arabic name for it shouldn't be in the lead.VR _talk 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning it the lead I have a problem with asserting that it is a title especially when there are so many descriptions used more often. We haven'teven established that it is a title and it isn't the most prominent Arabic title (if it is one) or description by Hamas or Arabic news sources. We are giving it prominence when it doesn't deserve it.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

VR, if it were indeed documented an alternative "name," you would be absolutely right and there would be no argument. After all, the two sides are involved and their names should be included. That may be one reason the article is not named "Operation Cast Lead" -- because it is seen as biased towards Israel, so it was neutrally called "The Gaza War." Clearly the Arabs did not call it OCL, but they did call it the attack on Gaza, the Gaza war , the Gaza massacre etc. The sources seem to indicate that they perceive the 'Gaza War' as a massacre, thus massacre is a description, an opinion (POV) that belongs in another section, not as a name to be emboldened in the lede. If it were indeed the main name, then yes. But it isn't and the English sources and Google do not support it. A compromise was made to remove both Operation Cast Lead and the Gaza massacre from the lede, but it was roundly reverted. Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "War on Gaza"Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

English sources do not have to support it, and they do support that "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre", and WP:NONENG does not say English sources are needed. nableezy - 06:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See #last source. nableezy - 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were up to me (lead)

The lead is sporatic and it doesn't clearly summarize a few things and is obviosly causing concern. Adding another handful of bold names is also letting the debate on the "title/description" creep storm into the mainspace. Both "great victory" and "massacre" border on POV pushing and maybe even fringe theory for some but I am fine with them being memtioned as long as it is a proper summary with good sources. To me, "Factors, including the high population density of the Gaza Strip, caused the IDF to put an emphasis on the safety of its troops during the operation. This display of force resulted in significantly less casualties than seen in the 2006 conflict in Lebanon. It also resulted in high civilian casualties which drew condemnation from human rights observers. Although Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniya claimed that it was a "great victory", the scope of the destruction and civilian deaths drew calls of the assault being a "massacre"." is honest and balanced. I don't want to debate the merits of the paragraph (unless it is seriousley a possibility to get it worked in with the other info) but I am trying to emphisize that "massacre" can be included without it being a bolded title.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead fine. And its NPOV is fragile. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lead can always be improved even if quite fine.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The closest lead is of breaking npov, if not doing it, is "according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets" but I can live with it as the Goldstone report further down call it for what it is. But we should maby include the aspect of massacre in bombings of civilian targets, for leads neutrality and overall NPOV. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The current lede seems to me to make an admirable attempt to avoid taking sides, but in the process has become awkward in places. In particular, the last sentence in the first paragraph seems to be there in order to support one side against the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way of putting it. It was almost as if the lead was a debate. "You say tomayto and I say tomahto." That reflects the intractable and combative character of the discussion over this article, really not an effort to achieve a consensus at all, but rather more a battle than anything else. I was going to suggest a compromise, but I know that it is a waste of time unless more outside editors participate in this discussion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a note in NPOV/N, in a vain hope that a swarm of people who have no stake in the underlying hostilities can weigh in. That's me: a Utopian kind of guy. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this sentence:" The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".[20][21][22]" Is it necessary? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not and neither is "Gaza massacre". Those are used more than "Gaza massacre" by English and Arab sources so I assume someone was trying to fix the weight issue. If they stay they should e bolded, of course.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not used more than Gaza massacre by Hamas (a distinction you keep ignoring) and I have provided 10 sources with Hamas using that name as well as 2 sources on official government websites. Not a single one of the source using "war against Hamas" uses that as the primary description even in the article being cited. 10 separate sources have been provided of Hamas officials or official websites using this as the name. Tell me how many you want. Im not going to keep looking if you are just going to keep saying that it is not enough. I also gave you a source that equates "Operation Cast Lead" with "the Gaza Massacre" but that was also dismissed. You have "disputed" translations without basis and have not once said what it is that I have to do to show that this was the name used. The google searches you have used to advance your argument are useless, and I have repeatedly explained why they are useless. Nobody is saying that Arab media or human rights groups used that as the name of the conflict, what I am saying is that Hamas did and your searches dont do anything to dispute that. nableezy - 20:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you are wrong. I was told there would be over a dozen instances of them using the term and that there were official press releases. Those have not been provided and I can't find them.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more, but I have no intention of looking for one more second until you tell me what it is I need to do to show this. 10 sources of Hamas calling it this, 2 from official government websites, are apparently not enough. How many would you like? And how am I wrong on the google search argument? Those searches are not searching on quotes from Hamas, how can they be used to show what Hamas did or did not call it? nableezy - 22:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezys sources are ok. Are you saying that the sentence, mentioned above, is only there for ballansing against what you keep arguing is a POV? As that is not concensus isnt your view supporting a mild form of obfuscation? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we are presenting it in a false manner. Nableezy has shown that the term was used but not in the prominence that is asserted right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets.[25] " is another sentence in the lead that is problematic. Why do the Israel side have the privilgies to get its view heard in the lead and not the Palestinian side just below? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Needed since it is reasonable to believe that the reader will assume Israel attacked those buildings without cause which would be more problematic. If you want that removed the whole sentence will have to be reworked (not a bad solution, of course).Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that they was bombed. Which of them was 'legitim' targets and which is subject to warcrimes when targeting is not clear. Goldstone Report accuse Israel of warcrimes. I suggest that assuming both is correct in different bombing for now. Therby the Israeli view is not correct or NPOV to promote in lead. And to elaborate would take to much space in lead. The sentence shouldent be there if we follow NPOV and what is present known. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They were targeted because Israel believed that Hamas was using them as arms caches and also becuase Hamas was using them as platforms to attack Israel. The Goldsone report has been refuted and discredited by a number of sources and reports including those issued by Anthony Cordesman and Colonel Richard Kemp. Both of whom are distinguished analysts with resumes that are more impressive than Goldstone. In addition, not a single major Westen power has endorsed the report Indeed, many have condemned it as biased in favor of Hamas and unfairly targeting Israel. The fact that a recent attempt to refer the matter to New York was thwarted is a strong indication that the issue is at the very least, a subject of intense debate. Don't refer to the Goldstone report as if its the Holy Grail because it certainly isn't.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If your going to delete explanations as to why mosques etc.. were bombed, then you've got to be fair and delete the whole portion dealing with the issue. I have no problem saying that mosques were targeted so long as it's accompanied by an explanation as to why it was targeted. Without this explanation, the reader is led to believe that they were deliberately targeted without just cause. It is well documented and sourced that these places were used as platforms to strike at the IDF and also used as weapons depots.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As you said "They were targeted because Israel believed...". What Israel believe doesnt make it more leagal. And in lead Israeli POV cant determin what should be said. The Goldstone Report Is not the only one criticising Israel. Civilian structures was bombed. I suggest a revert of this edit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When it is stated that mosques and other structures were attacked it can lead the reader to assume the worst (Israel just wanted to hurt people and blow up hospitals). We have to watch out for that and clarify it or else if gives the wrong impression.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Effect or Intent?

Sadly I see in the new edits to the lead that rather than presenting who hit what, we have editors' striving to ascribe "intent": specifically Israel did not want to hurt civilians (hospitals and schools and mosques no longer specified despite appearing in many sources, rather these are now "civilian infrastructure suspected of being used for military purposes"); and Gaza did want to hurt civilians ("indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks against civilian areas"). Is this neutral? Not specifying what Israel hit because doing so might "give the wrong impression" is not what we're here for.

So how to answer the new edits to the lead? Consider this possibility: Israeli military targeted Hamas bases, Gazan police training camps, headquarters, and government offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, private homes, medical facilities, and schools, were also destroyed. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks directed against Israeli military bases throughout the conflict. Civilian infrastructure, including private homes and schools (add other specifics), were also hit. Israeli cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod took rocket fire for the first time.

The above avoids the preeminent UN report's conclusion as reported in the NYT, "'Israel carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot 'while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags'. In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, 'the facts indicate no justifiable military objective' for them."

If we ignore reports and instead go with Israel's explanation of its intention (to not target civilians), then it would be natural and fair to do the same vis a vis Gaza, to wit: "In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. 'We did not intentionally target civilians,' said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. 'We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.'" (same NYT source)

Or maybe we revert to the consensus version: Israeli forces targeted Hamas bases, police training camps, police headquarters, and offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, private homes, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict, hitting cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time.

I hope we can all agree that treating both sides in the same manner is important. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is a summary. Not presenting that the claimed intent was to hit targets used for storing weapons and firing on troops then it is not being properly summarized and can be read incorrectly. The sources do not say israel did it to be mean. They nay have been reckless. fortunately, it can all be explained in the prose. Civilian structures were bombed since they were suspected of being used for military purposes. What's the problem with that besides some clean up on the syntax?.Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We certainly have a hybrid now. Schools are mentioned. Were any schools targeted? There was the incident that was reported incorrectly and a research facility at a university. Were there any others targeted? If it was just the single research facility (or even plural) it should be cleaned up. We might even need "schools and x,y,z were collateral damage" but that might be too much for the lead.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the right way to approach it, and I support the suggested consensus version, with Kassam launchers among the primary targets addad. I have to admit that I fell inte the 'intentiontrapp' in trying to compromise with editor including Israels intentions. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The longer version with intents work better further down in article with both sides pov and elaborations, but not in exessive amounts, ballancing eachother in a elegant way. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So were schools targeted or a University research lab?Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 280 of them if we include kindergartens. [[72]] I include kindergartens in lead. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You should remove or heavily edit your recent addition. That portion of the report also discusses the blockade as well as the fighting and we don't know if it was collateral or targeted. The wording is not clear to me if someone else wants to take a look at pg 23. You also clearly cherry picked in a way that is colorful since yuo failed to also include universities. Watch the unintended soapboxing. Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the lead, but this should make you think about the devastion in gaza. It chocked me. We should make a fieldtrip to Gaza and then return to editing. 280 schools... need soap? No, save it for Israel.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As much as I lean towards Israel with my edits to this article I hope everyone knows that I completely understand the devastation to civilians is a tragedy. All of the shit aside, there are certain things that are just terrible.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Undesired editwarring no thanks!

So AgadaUrbanit, you started editwarring. Just dont! Revert your edit and form concensus first. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

last source

This should end all discussion of the matter: In December last year, Israel invaded Gaza in response to daily rocket attacks and with the aim of stopping arms smuggling into the area. More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre". I am putting this in with "known in the Arab world as the "Gaza massacre". nableezy - 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a plausible circular reference to me. It is worded and punctuated so similar to what the lead was for a good amount of time. Why would Massacre not be capitalized in this context? If I recall correctly, we did it since it being a title was so disputed even though it should have been capped in the way it was used. Any writer not burdened by Wikipedia's process would have capped it there. I also notice that the byline says the author is "unknown". Furthermore, it is only 1 reference. Common sense shows that "unknown" is incorrect in his or her reporting. No offence to the paper or "unknown" but Al Jazeera and several other sources actually in the region don't use it very often at all still.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This isnt some random student paper. I have given a bunch of sources specific to Hamas and you said it was not enough. We now have a source that explicitly supports "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza massacre'" and you are still arguing? I am starting to question whether or not this is about the sources or not with you. nableezy - 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Question all you want. The article is written by "unknown". It looks like it was lifted from Wikipedia. It contradicts what is seen in other sources. I have an email in to the accuracy inquiry address so we'll see if they respond. In regards to the Hamas source, you have not shown that it was predominant. You showed that it was used less than a dozen times.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article also contains the following lead: "Justice Richard Goldstone has an unenviable task in Gaza, writes Jackie May", so while it says "By unknown" below that I am fairly confidant it is written by somebody named "Jackie May". And can you please put forward a single source that contradicts this? nableezy - 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that too at first but it was just too much of a red flag for me to get over. My other concern is that it looks like they took it from Wikipedia. I cannot prove a circular reference so if people look at my explanation above it might make some sense. They have an accuracy email so I sent one off to double check.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece by someone named "unknown"?? Or perhaps "Jackie May?" Who the devil is Jackie May?? Sounds like more bull to me, or grasping at straws. Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say it is an opinion piece? Every article at the site has that set of links to the right to blogs and opinion pieces (this is currently the lead story and it contains the same links to the right of the story. nableezy - 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also do not believe It is not labeled as an opinion piece but is written like one. It is labeled as an "article". I am trying to find out who Jackie May is for other contributions. It also looks like the writer spoke with Goldstone. I still can't figure out why it lists the author as unknown and it still looks lifted from Wikipedia which is a circular reference. It is also wrong from what I have seen but that is OR.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Disregard the above, it is an opinion piece. It is not labeled as a blog in the address bar but clearly shows the link to other opinion pieces on the side bar to the right just like the other ones. Standard news articles do not have that side bar with the "opinion" label on that site. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." We are asserting it is a fact. We also still have the circular reference concern, an assumption on who the writer is since the byline states "unknown", lack of sufficient RS to back it up, and biased writing.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you just look at what I wrote above? Every single piece on that website contains that same side bar. But the blogs are at blog.* address and link under opinion - columnists contain "opinion" in the url. This does not read like an op-ed, this reads like the report of somebody who had interviewed Goldstone. Every article on the site has that same sidebar, but the op-eds clearly identify that in the urls. This does not. And by saying "circular reference concern" you are effectively saying that no source I provide will be enough. And it says "writes Jackie May". This is from a print news weekly, in all likelihood that is just an error in importing the story. But this is not an op-ed, the editorials at the site are clearly marked and every single piece on the site has the same sidebar. You'll also not the convention in the addresses: blogs are blogs.timelive.co.za/* op-eds are of the form www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/* and the Sunday Times articles are www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/* and news items in the daily [The Times (South Africa)|The Times]] are www.timeslive.co.za/news/* nableezy - 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I did. When I recreated it the opinion peice side bar was not there. Is it only there most of the time? And did you read what I said? I stated that it was not listed as a blog in the address bar.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Every single article I have seen there has that sidebar. nableezy - 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone I saw did.That also doesn't address the other concerns. This source looked really good at first glance but there are too many concerns.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was looking at section pages and not individual articles.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Still looks opinion piece to me but can't be sure.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This site is pissing me off! So this looks like an article. It is listed under "Featured Opinion" on the main page of the site. What are they doing?Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That article has "opinion/columnists/*" in the title and contains the bottom set of links saying "Other Articles in 'Columnists'" and at the top is listed under "Opinion -> Columnists". The one used in the article is listed under "Sunday Times". nableezy - 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out that Jackie May does the "Minor Matters" blog for the site. She also has a Twitter for more blogs. She is a blogger. It is an opinion piece just like the one listed above is.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If this was not published on a blog but in the Sunday Times it does not matter. The reliability is determined by the publication, if this is shown to be an actual opinion piece then it matters who she is but as it stands this is just an article published in a major news source in S. Africa. nableezy - 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking at that blog it is the blog of a "foreign editor" for The Times. Many news outlets have blogs for their reporters, that she also publishes a blog on the website of The Times doesn't mean anything regarding the reliability of the piece cited. nableezy - 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We cannot go back and see if it was a "Featured Opinion" (which I have shown does not have "blog" in the address bar but this passes the duck test and contradicts what is seen at Al Jazeera and what we see through searching 100s of news sources.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the "Featured opinion" does not have "blog" in the address, I said above it has "opinion" in the address. nableezy - 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I shouldn't so jumpy and pulling hairs like that. Regardless, so far this is the only piece I can find by Jackie May that isn't labeled opinion. I'll keep on looking but it looks like she wrote an opinion piece that was actually in contradiction to both of our tireless search through reliable sources (Arab world was changed to Hamas for what editors here thought was good reason). It looks like she read this article while it was up or found an out of date mirror for her piece on search for the "brutal truth". Seriously: quackquackquackquackquack. Even if it was not an opinion piece, it contradicts too much. That is under the assumption that "unknown" properly vetted the piece before publishing it.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}Even assuming that this is a real legit article by a real legit journalist, we now have, as Cpt has noted, a reference to "the Arab world", instead of to Hamas, which presumably was supposed to balance out what Israel called it, government name to government name. But look carefully at what she wrote: "More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre" -- in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre" -- Written in June of this year, she uses "has called" not "calls". She also does not capitalize "massacre" as appropriate for a name. Perhaps she needs an English lesson or maybe she realises/believes that when the Arabs call it "the Gaza massacre", they are using the word in the generic sense, with "Gaza" a descriptive name modifying the common noun "massacre" (as in "the massacre in Gaza"). Had she said, "Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre" or "The Arab world calls it the Gaza Massacre" she would be saying what nableezy claims she is saying. However she is not saying that. She is instead saying what she says: in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre". Who in the Arab world has called it that? The total Arab world? Some? All? Still not appropriate in the lede. Nothing to do with Hamas leaders or reps. Still a common noun. Not a name. Stellarkid (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It writes "has called" because at the time this was published the event had already occurred. And you can keep harping on the capitalization but a proper noun is a noun that refers to a specific thing and the "the" being in the quotation marks clearly demonstrates that this is referring to a specific event. I am not "claiming" anything, the source says that this has been called "the Gaza massacre" in the Arab world. That is what the article says. It is in English, it is a secondary source, it directly supports the cited text. Your insistence that it is not appropriate for the lead is based on one thing, that you think the name itself is POV. That does not matter. It is stated in a NPOV what that POV is and whose POV it represents. There really is nothing left to argue here. nableezy - 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the source is reliable (that blogger isn't good enough in my opinion) they are still in contradiction to 100s of other sources which again presents a weight issue. I would assume that you would agree it is wrong since you stood behind "Hamas" instead of "Arab World" but consensus and personal outlooks are subject to change.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said "in the Arab world" was wrong but as the sources supporting "by Hamas" have been "disputed" I found a source that supports the wider statement. I would be happy to return to "by Hamas" but you all felt that the sources provided were not sufficient without ever telling me what would be sufficient. And she is not just some "blogger" she is a foreign editor for a major news source. nableezy - 06:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, evrything I see from her on that site is for the blog. It looks like someone in the office liked the blog nd decided to give it an article (hence the unknown). She is not a reputable journalist she is a blogger. Furthermore, bloggers, editors, writers, (pick any of the guys getting nailed on FOX) say the wrong thing sometimes. She is simply wrong according to the sources we have. Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The site says she is a foreign editor. And the place of publication is what matters, this was not published in a blog this was in the Sunday Times. And not a single source contradicts her. And I also gave you a link the PMoH site where pictures of casualties are listed under "Martyrs of the Gaza massacre". And you still have not told me how many sources or what kind of sources you want me to provide. nableezy - 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if it was published once. People make mistakes. No one is going to write a story saying "Hey that chick from South Africa who wrote an opinion piece that got used as an article is wrong!" so I don't have any proof for you but the use of common sense seems appropriate.

You said there were over a dozen. Someone else said there official press releases. I have repeatedly (several subsections so you must have skipped past it in all of the mess) asked about them. I want to see a continuous use by Hamas officials through separate statements to the press (hopefully not a one day talk to Al Jazeera, AP, Reuters) or official documentation that clearly states the party using the title. In regards to the "Arab world" it would be less stringnt obviousley but so far it has not been shown it is a title and the simple lack of news hits (please see the reminder about sources wanting to pick it up in my last comment at the bottom of this page)Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "official Hamas documentation"? I gave the MoH website, is that not "official". As far as "sustained use" the sources provided come from the following dates: Dec 27 by 2 different people, Dec 31, Jan 8, Jan 11, Jan 22, September 25. But Im done here, Ill leave you to do whatever. nableezy - 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continuously ask me to repeat myself. One statement by one guy on the MOI page is not sufficient for official documentation asserting its prominence. Remember the Bush victory thing we talked about? I was told there were press releases. I wold love to see some documentation regarding dispatches to the field as well but know those aren't available. You did show use over some time just not very much. Also, I don't think that those sources show that it is a title any more than "attack by". It is juicy but it just isn't factual the way we are presenting it.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This in International Law section

"The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was later suspended with pay by HRW after pro-Israeli bloggers raised questions about his objectivity after it was publicized that he is a collector of Nazi German military memorabilia.[327]. Garlasco has since responded to those accusations, arguing that although he had such a hobby, he had no Nazi sympathies and condemned their actions during WWII. [328]."

Is it obsolet after the Goldstone Report and/or doubtful witchhunt that dont fit here? I plan to remove it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to undue what has already been discussed and debated at length. The wording and phrasing was decided upon after much back and forth wrangling and YOU, decide that YOU don't like it. Next time wake up and join the debate while it's ongoing--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. What is this connection between the HRW report on white phosphorus and Garlasco's hobby ? Who is saying that criticisms 'were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco' ? The report on white phosphorus wasn't researched and written by Garlasco alone. It was researched/written by Garlasco together with Fred Abrahams, Bill van Esveld, Fares Akram, Darryl Li and edited by Joe Stork, James Ross, Iain Levine with assistance from the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. HRW have stated that they stand by the report's contents. Amnesty International published similar findings independently. The UN made statements about WP use while it was being used. Then there is the Goldstone report along with many other reports. This is an encyclopedia. Including nonsense is discouraged no matter how much much back and forth wrangling has taken place. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You think some dude with a Nazi fetish can write objectively about Jews? It is absolutely relevant and only adds some perspective.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you twisting this more than Israeli lobbygrops do. They atlest stop with claiming he was collecting Nazi German military memorabilia. WW2 military memorabilia is another description. Dont sound as bad. Have you heard of 'gentiles bad conscience'? Invoked when Israels good name is thretened and argument is missing? And isnt this article under Wikipedia general sanctions? Time to invoke them now better than late. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think is that your comments (and actions) are inconsistant with the discretionary sanctions, constitute a BLP violation and don't address the issues I raised above. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco was HRW's prime military analyst and authored several critical and scathing reports dealing with the IDF's use of certain weapons, including white phospherous. "Reign of Fire" is but one of those reports. Goldstone borrowed heavily from Garlasco when compiling his report. Garlasco was suspended from HRW due to his troubling interactions with Nazis in various online chat rooms and forums. This is absolutely relevant and should absolutely be an integral part of the article. I had a lenghthy discussion on this Talk page regarding this issue and compromise language was hammered out. Where were you then?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for 'Goldstone borrowed heavily from Garlasco when compiling his report' ? The Goldstone report cites HRW's report along with other sources like Amnesty's report, PHR and the UN's own statements about damage to their facilities caused by WP. It's not Garlasco's report. It's an official HRW report about the use of WP in the Gaza Strip during Cast Lead produced by HRW staff, edited and approved by their directors which is currently endorsed by HRW despite Garlasco's suspension. Many other sources published and commented on WP use. My understanding is that the section in the article is about WP use rather than a particular HRW staff member. Where was I ? I don't know. Probably in a forest in Malaysia. Thanks for asking though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

check out this link. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hamas-exploitation-civilians-human-shields I'm going to reinsert the edit based on this and the previously cited source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Israeli Government report notes however that the test applied by the Board was merely whether the physical premises of U.N. facilities had been affected and not whether the Laws of Armed Conflict were violated." Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

All of your edits have taken place after much debate and established consensus. I noticed that all of your reverts have a biased undertone and add nothing constructive to the article. Also, your grammar and spelling are atrocious. Take an English class and some spelling lessons--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, your edits are far from free of bias i unfortunatly have to say when subject is up. About my sad english there is wikignomes around happily helping. But see my argumentation below that editconflicted with your edit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More

I removed these parts from the International law section. I will exlpain why they should remain removed.

• Incorrect. According to Goldstone there is evidence that the Israeli side abused the laws of war.
• Undue weight. A cherrypicked military analyst defending israel is not necessary when israel already stated that 'use of force in Gaza are acts of self-defense' etc
• Not NPOV. Read the whole section and see how much space the Israeli pov fill up compared to the parts reporting of human rights abuse fill up. And compare it with the proportions in the Palestinian subsection, the reports of warcrimes vs the Hamas respons.

The parts below and the one above shouldnt be in the article by argumentation. And size matters. *vinvinknotchnotch*

" A study by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that while "War is inherently horrible," there was "no evidence" that the Israeli side abused the laws of war and that "Israel‘s actions must also be placed in the broader context of how Hamas chose to deploy and use the equivalent of human shields."[40]

Cordesman’s view was shared by former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp, who, in an interview with the BBC stated, “I don’t think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.” [328] " Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC) editconflict...

Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, I think its time for you to keep a respectfull tone and dont fall into personal attacks. An you have to assume good faith. Point to the incoherent, illogical arguments and I rewrite them. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Before making broad stroke edits and reversions, I suggest you consult the discussion page to see if the matter has already been discussed and remember, reversion is a double edged sword.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Bold edits are fine. Maby you misscomprehend bold edit with editwarring? Its different things I assume you know. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Wikipedia article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to refrain from personal attacks and remain civil. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu, Talk is not a place for unsolicited educational counseling, which can come off as smug or arrogant. By the way you misspelled "grammatically." Also you are calling another editor a butcher and a rogue. Is that civil, do you think? RomaC (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth RomaC. I didn't call anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered." That's precisely the word I used. Don't attribute things to me that are patently false.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there is a whole article devoted to Intl law. We just need a summary here but detail and anything that casues an excess of additional lines to explain clearly should probably go to International law and the Gaza War.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not civil. But it's also not civil to start blanket reversions after the matter has been discussed and debated ad-nauseum and compromise language is hammered out and agreed to. Perhaps I should start re-introducing edits that after much debate, were reverted. I wouldn't do that because that would result in complete chaos not to mention disrespectful to all the others. But this is precisely what Anon is doing--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu, according to the User contributions you are about a month old user, the discussions about the International Law- section is nowhere to be found in archive during this period and as far as I see you didnt participat in any discussion about it, and less concensusbuilding. I find it strange you bring that debate with emphasis and apparently with good knowledge about individual edits (found what I think you mean, but dont agrea ). Btw, as another editor recently wrote concensus is concensus untill it is challenged. Now back to work/editing Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the spelling and somewhat reworded the above argumentation so its hopefully understandeble. Reread and discuss instead of... bicker(?), Jiujitsuguy. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent series of edits

The set of edits by Jiujitsuguy seem problematic. Two were reverted rather than going through one-by one I've looked at then reverted the lot. Please don't remove content because (your edit summary) "Explantion for attacks on dual use facilities was reverted so entire subject of collateral damage will be reverted", this "Something I don't like happened so I'm removing other content" is grade-school stuff and I am sick of it. Also edit summaries like "Garlasco Nazi fetish" are just wrong, guy. Leave blatant POV out of it, it's not necessary as it's clear already where you're coming from (mosques and schools as "dual use" military facilities ahem) Plus you have been just now attacking another editor on this page, also a no-no. So all things considered I'm going to politely suggest you cool down then participate in discussions. Thank you, RomaC (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start any of this. I was offline for a few days and when I came back, entire sections that had been an integral part of the article for quite some time had been removed without debate or discussion and that's fine if you want chaos. Now I understand that we've all got different points of view but to act in this sort of unilateral fashion is just counter-productive and nobody wins.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Again. An edit summary reading "What you consider minor may not be minor to others. The material cited is sourced and relevant." illustrates a problem that other editors are having with your behavior. This is combative, the issue is not what you consider minor or important, but what is appropriate for the article. Finding a source that says Goldstone might have napped at a meeting is not enough to justify placing this in the article on the Gaza war. Yours is a new account focused almost entirely on advancing a pro-Israeli government POV. You have been informed that this article is subject to Wiki general sanctions, please act accordingly. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight, Goldstone Report

Tony Cordesman wrote a 100 page report on the Gaza war that exonerates Israel of any war crimes and in fact, inculpates Hamas. A similar report was compiled by analyst Colonel Richard Kemp and drew similar conclusions. Kemp went so far as to say that Hamas exploited the laws of war. Yet quotes from these analysts were reverted. I propose that we revert Goldstone's report and only include Cordesman and Kemp. Does that sound fair? Of course not! But it is the exact thing that you are doing except in the reverse. All points of view need to be presented unless you want this piece to be a platform for one side or the other. If you want to revert all Israeli points of view, fine! Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Time for you to leve this article for avile or permanent. You passed a line here. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post on my talk page any longer and confine your comments to the discussion page. Second, I will stop editing this article when one of two things happen. Either it reaches a level of journalistic integrity that ALL sides can be content with or Wikipedia bans me--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last comment inquiring whether I'm an American or Israeli, be advised that on Wikipedia, I am a Wikipedian first and foremost and reject labels of any sort--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was absent for a while and can't produce any comment about your discussion. However, a correction should be made. As far as I know, col. Kemp havn't yet written any report. He gave an interview (to BBC?), contributed to Times article and made a powerful presentation at conference organized by JCPA. About Cordesman report, he admits btw that he relies heavily on info provided by Israeli side, but that is for a good reason - he explains that Hamas could offer him nothing but a propaganda. You might also be interested in another opinion by former high military rank - Retired major general Jim Molan: "The Goldstone report is an opinion by one group of people putting forward their judgments, with limited access to the facts, and reflecting their own prejudices. The difference in tone and attitude in the report when discussing Israeli and Hamas actions is surprising". Finally, fyi, Goldstone was a member of HRW until Monitor pointed out the conflict of interests in spring. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of an uninvolved editor

Just looking at the article as if I was a reader, not an editor...

The first paragraph seems wrong. The title of a Wikipedia article is the most common name, in the case of English Wikpedia, it’s the english name. So it’s apprpriate to say “known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world” (assuming that is the case), but it is irrelevant here to refer to it’s military codename and needs to be moved. Secondly, you need another reference for it’s being called “Gaza Massacre”. The single reference I found was by a writer listed as “foreign editor” for South Africa Times, but I also found a blog where that editor seemed to be giving personal advice. It may still be OK, but it isn’t sufficient. If it is really known by that, finding other references shouldn’t be difficult. Also, it should be characterized as to what it is in the opening sentence, for example “military conflict” or whatever is most approprate. For all the openning sentence “Gaza War” could refer to a video game.

IMO, the opening paragraph would be better as:

The Gaza War, known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab world, was a military conflict which took place in the winter of 2008/2009 between forces of Israel and Hammas. The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".

This is just a general idea as I don't know the issue well enough to be exact in all the wording, BashBrannigan (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we do need the name the Israeli government uses, and if you look at this talk page you can see 10 different sources of Hamas officials using "the Gaza massacre" as the name of the event. But thanks for the comments. nableezy - 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact if all these Hamas officials name this confrontation with Israel "the Gaza Massacre" I should think we would be able to find one reliable source in English that says something to the effect "The Hamas government refers to this confrontation as the Gaza Massacre." Surely we can find one source that says what you want it to say in proper English? Some Google News redux:

• "Gaza War" [73] 1753
• "Operation Cast Lead" [74] 949
• "Gaza Massacre" [75] 16

Oh but shucks! all but ONE refer to the Gaza massacre. But we do have ONE that actually capitalizes it. Surely we can use that one! from MWC News. Headlined: Zionist-Israel Racism Exposed in 50 Steps After the latest Israeli Gaza Massacre in Israel's Gaza Concentration Camp (ultimately about 1500 were killed by 22 days of merciless bombardment and ... Good enough ! Finally, capitalized letters!Stellarkid (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well gee golly, I guess an Arabic name would be sooo common in English sources. And a source has been presented that says "the Arab world" has called the event "the Gaza massacre". The rest of your argument is both tried and tired without any substance that goes beyond "I dont like it". Bye. nableezy - 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You continue to assert that but it makes no sense to me. Sources in the region with sites in English would still use it and so would journalists in the West. That is wording to drool over and to think that it wold not have been picked up makes it sound like Gaza is on another planet. Hamas simply used the term massacre here and there. We still don't have official docs (1 guy said it in one sentence on an official page) with it or it being used in many speeches/statements to the press. My wording a few sections above clearly showed that you can even use it in the lead without asserting it is a title if editors wanted to try it.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2006 airstike in Qana has been called the second Qana massacre in the Arab world, a name that is largely unused in the English media, including the Arab media in English. That does not mean it is not known in Arabic as the second Qana massacre (and reliable sources back that). The idea that English media will use the name from a "side" as the name they use in their factual reports does not make sense. Why would that be true? Why would English reports use names not common in English? nableezy - 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the airstike in Qana since I don't know enough details to formulate a proper response. Regardless, English media did pick up on the massacre term a few times. The also picked up on Operation Cast Lead several thousand more. Media in this conflict was sensationalist and the majority of the coverage was about the hard times for the residence. I hate to answer a question with a question but why would they not cover it. We also have reports from aid organizations who showed sympathy for the Palestinians and even focused on potential issues that had relativity little impact (please don't read that as Israel not making huge mistakes that hurt the general population). I would expect them to love propagating the term.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is of course the Jenin Massacre. It both redirects to the Jenin Battle and has a huge section describing the allegations of "massacre." Gaza massacre also redirects and there is no reason why there cannot be a discussion of the allegations of massacre there as well. This is the English Wikipedia and it is not "picking a side" unless it is the English side and the reason for that is for verifiability. There is nothing neutral about naming a battle or war as a massacre and emboldening that and putting it in the lede as if it were the active WP voice. "Gaza War" is neutral as it should be, "OCL" is just words without any accusation or description. Gaza Massacre is unverifiable from English reliable sources and English is preferred and NPOV is required. Why are you edit-warring when others are trying to maintain a NPOV in the lede? You are essentially enforcing your viewpoint in this article on others by means of reversion and refusal to compromise. This seems to me to be against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Stellarkid (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself. An English language source was provided that supports the wording in the article. We are not naming it a massacre, we are saying who did. And you have attempted to compromise how? From what I have seen your "compromise" involved using different standards for different POVs, specifically "war against Hamas" is never once used as a title to refer to this even tin any of the sources you put in and in most in fact it did not even contain the phrase "Israel's war against Hamas". When you start being consistent with your argument I will start paying attention. I have no patience when you advocate one POV using the exact opposite argument as when you advocating against another, so please dont think you are competent to lecture me on NPOV or the 5P. Take a look at your own editing here and you will quickly see that you have tried to advance arguments not supported by policy and wording not supported by sources. So kindly refrain from pontificating about what is required from me an an editor. Gaza War is neutral, which is why the title of this article is Gaza War. Your argument on NPOV is complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing non-neutral with saying "Hamas has called the conflict X" no matter what X is. Why are you edit-warring when an RfC was opened to get other views? And English language sources have been provided that support "Gaza massacre" so when you say it is not verifiable in English that is a lie, a lie that you know is a lie. And besides being a lie, it also does not matter, nothing in WP:NONENG requires it to be verifiable in English sources, it only requires that it be verifiable. Every single argument you have made has been bogus. Every single one. nableezy - 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a crappy compromise but at least there was another attempt.Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not a compromise at all. The phrasing "described as a 'massacre'" is demonstrably inaccurate, all the quotes say "the Gaza massacre", not "a massacre". I changed it something that hopefully will not be as objectionable but retaining the actual quote. nableezy - 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort since removing the bold is a big step. Unfortunately, I expect this to get rebolded sooner or later as it is worded.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good edit Nableezy. I was about to revert back to the longstanding version because Stellarkid was re-introducing the same "compromise" edit he made at 06:18 on October 6th, which misrepresents the source contents cited (using "a massacre" versus "the Gaza massacre"). I would have retained the bold formatting myself, but it seems to provoke a strong response from those who don't like the term. I do think mentioning its use in the Arab world is also relevant, but can pass on that too in the lead, since the sentence focuses on the names assigned by the belligerents. Tiamut^talk 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with not liking and to do with the facts. Seems it could be reversed to people really liking it. Also, "at times" looks like it is needed next to the new massacre line. That is why I have a problem with the use of it as a description/title.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept Nableezy's compromise with the exception that there is no reason why there cannot be a verifiable English source instead of an Arabic one. Read WP:NONENG --it is the least preferred methodology. Further, I do take exception to all the personal attacks in Nableezy's last post. Stellarkid (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy been pointed the last couple of days but I think all three of us are frustrated. There are English sources that have Hamas guys sayig "gaza massacre". There are not enough to assert it is a title but with them plus some other random stuff I see no problem with having somewhere say that people said "massacre".Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would accept the following two English sources as supporting the lede as currently written: [76],[77]. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should not be asserted as a title. The bold helps but it is only a bandaid since we know that is how it reads and someone will eventually bold it. I have no problem using the term in the article and even the lead if done properly. Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an English source and an Arabic one. Is there really a problem with including an Arabic source to source the Arabic words (which I think should be included)? nableezy - 04:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We have enough English sources saying "massacre" that we don't need foreign language sources. If you were able to prove through those sources that it was a title/preferred description over other descriptions I would be less concerned (can't speak for others) but you haven't been able to.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco

There are some who object to the strong langauge that I used with respect to Garlasco. I've got no problem if someone wants to tone it down to an acceptable structure where we all can concur. Blanket reversion is just plain silly and gets us nowhere--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps you could modify it a bit yourself. Put it up here on the talk page the way you would like to see it and we can discuss and try to develop some consensus. There is no reason why a mention should not be made of this development. Blanket reversion is inappropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I toned it down. What do you think of this: "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was later suspended with pay by HRW after online bloggers raised questions about his objectivity after it was publicized that he is a collector of Nazi German military memorabilia"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:V non-compliance. The statement "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco" does not comply with WP:V. I've already pointed this out.
• Misrepresentation. The criticism of the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based on their effects on people and infrastructure e.g. the death and injury of human beings, fires caused by WP, millions of dollars of damage to UN facilities etc. These effects have been documented independently by multiple reliable sources. I've already pointed this out.
• Synthesis of sourced material to imply causal connections. The sentence concatenates unrelated information. What is the reliably sourced basis of this concatenation ? An official HRW report is an HRW report, a set of information compiled by HRW and endorsed by HRW. The contents and endorsement status of the information published by HRW remains the same. The sentence implies that something has changed or that there is some kind of casual connection. What has changed and who says so ? I've already pointed this out. If you want to say something then be explicit and base it on reliable sources. Remember that this is an encyclopedia not the NGO Monitor site. Our objectives as Wikipedians are entirely different from theirs. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not go overboard here. I haven't gone through the edits so am not saying you are but wanted to make the reminder since conversations like this have lead to bloat before. Summary here and detail hereCptnono (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered checking the source? Please click this link: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_Goldstone_Report_Rewarding_Palestinian_Terror.asp And just in case you can't access it, it says the following: "Judge Goldstone has a long association with Human Rights Watch, even serving on its board until removing himself when it was pointed out that remaining with HRW would be inappropriate. Yet he cites HRW sources in the Report, including material by the Nazi memorabilia collecting Marc Garlasco, who is currently suspended by HRW pending an investigation." This is a clearly sourced relevant piece of information. However, in the interest of consensus, I've toned the language down.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I stated that the report was based in "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco." I purposely wrote "in large part" and not "wholly." I chose this phrasing carefully because Goldstone may have relied on other sources beside Garlasco. However, if you want, I can change the phrasing to "in part" rather than "in large part."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This Garlasco thing doesn't really, IMO, belong in the article about the Gaza War. HRW has been criticised for suspending him, and mentioning that he may have worked on material used by Goldstone in this context just reveals the extent of the panic zionists have been thrust into by the Goldstone report, no offence intended. --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that[[78]] a RS? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point which is your POV. By contrast, I'm just giving you sourced, relevant facts that may or may not have bearing on Goldstone's findings. Don't make the choice for the Wiki reader. Let the reader decide for himself if it has probative value. Did you even bother reading the two sources that I provided?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia not about journalism. It is an encyclopedia. And again, is www.honestreporting.com a RS? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If not the case remove that part from article Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted see above. RomaC (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Jiujisuguy, regarding 'Have you even bothered checking the source?'. No, I just make everything up so that it suits my personal view of the universe and then I like to concatenate the phrase 'because of Nazis' to the end of every sentence to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether there is a causal connection between something and Nazis. But seriously, yes, of course I read the sources. That's why I said the statement doesn't comply with WP:V. In fact I've said a lot more than that several times now but you keep ignoring it for the most part. See WP:TE. Regarding 'a clearly sourced relevant piece of information'. How so ? Who says it's relevant ? Does the suspension of Garlasco change anything in the HRW reports and if so, what ? Has it affected the contents of any of the reports independantly produced by other sources that were also used as input for Goldstone (which oddly you continue to ignore) ? Has it resulted in the people killed by the weapons systems coming back to life ? Does it mean that the damage to the UN facility didn't happen ? Has anything whatsoever changed ? I appreciate that the edit makes sense to you but that is not enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)...and the most important thing is what Cptnono says. This entire int law section in this article should be a summary of the main int law article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) :The source http://www.honestreporting.com. What is that? A Wikipedia editor dont use or take that serious. Its a propagandasite for neocon rednecks. Very pro israel, almost sionistpropaganda. Some things are unbeliveble stupid and some scary. Then I found this little piece: Exposed-Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia Here, second line actually:

"Our colleagues at CAMERA learned this the hard way last month when their effort to fight anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia ended in several members being banned".

But the argumentation from editors above is enough for cutting the Garlasco part in our article out. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Beersheba and Ashdod

, hitting cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time. I don't care where it goes or how it is worded too much but these cities being hit for the first time is important from a weaponry stand point due to the distance. There some cool graphs available in commons, too. It should be reinstated somewhere but should be clarified so it is inline with the sources.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed if there are sources that cover the cities being hit from a weaponry standpoint -- and there should be because these hits were said to have represented a new and longer strike range for Hamas rockets -- then it could be noted, perhaps in the "Palestinian paramilitary activity" section? Correspondingly, Gaza locations, such as a list of Mosques that had not been hit before, could be included in an appropriate section. RomaC (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire

There are two points I'd like to make here. First, the lead makes clear that Israel targeted "mosques, schools and private homes." Attempts to add the following qualification, "becuase Israel believed they were used as military platforms" or phrasing to that effect, were reverted. Now you have to be fair and balanced here. If you say that one side attacked civilian infrastructure, then provide an explanation as to why it was targetd. It is well known and established that Hamas hit civilian targets. Just look at how many Israeli civilians were killed and injured as a result of indiscriminate rocket attacks since 2002. Clinics, schools and synogouges were also hit and I have sources for this. Second, I think it's a two-way street here and both sides have to be fully presented for the article to obtain a level of jounalistic objectivity and integrity that nearly all editors desire. We don't want the article degenerating into a platform for one side or the other--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You have totally missunderstod Wikipedia. It is not about journalism. It is an encyclopedia. NPOV is the thing here. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

International law

This:

"Private Israeli citizens did meet with Goldstone. However, Goldstone reportedly snoozed during the course of a viewing of a movie showing children fleeing from Hamas rocket fire[323] and omitted the testimony of an Israeli woman disfigured by Hamas rockets.[324]"

Is someone trying to bury United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2008 Gaza Conflict with nonsence character attacks on Richard Goldstone? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This:

"The report was met with mixed and contradictory reviews by Hamas"

OR, SYNTH or just intentional introduction of uncertainty doubt? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How come the israel pov parts with Anthony Cordesman Colonel and Richard Kemp ideas is presented over and before The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) and its independent international fact-finding mission. And are they notably enough to be within section at all when there is a main article in this subject? All from one sorce each, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [[79]] and a publication from CSIS [[80]]. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Please go look at the number of Stars of David on user pages of contributors to this article before saying silly things. You might notice lots of green, white, red, and black. Don't forget to sign your comments..Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

indiscriminate

(changed header since people are reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "indiscriminate" Someone put this in since "untargeted" is not a word. How about making it clear "rockets that do not have aiming capability".Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas rockets do have aiming capability or else many would end up in the Mediterranean. They do not have guidance systems, but then neither do IDF mortars. Qualifying that rockets do not have guidance systems is not required because if they did they would more properly be termed missiles. RomaC (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to study it more then. I can't say all since I don't know that for sure but everything I have studied says that they are point and fire. There are not guidance systems and it is not possible to gauge their flight path during the launch. They are also none for being uncontrollable and somewhat random in the air.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes as you say: "point" and fire. The "point" is aiming, but the rocket's flight is not controlled once it is fired. Anyhow crude, but it's "aiming". Guns and mortars can be aimed much more accurately, but their projectiles also have no in-flight guidance systems, do you think we should also mention that in reference to the relevent IDF fire? RomaC (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding. A team sets up the launcher and it is pointed towards Israeli buildings without any knowledge of where it will land. The rockets flight path is so unwieldy that the sole purpose is just to hit "in that direction". We can get into the ballistics of mortars and guns but they are so different that I don't see how it will help your understanding of the weapon. The reason "untargeted" (which was changed to indiscriminate which you then removed) was even in was to let the reader know that the rocket teams were not intentionally hitting schools.Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Preview section

Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable. Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree. I think you (sean.holyland) and RomaC are good editors and genuinely want to see a good objective piece. I do to and if we work together rather than revert each other, we can reach consensus.

As I see it, there are two issues of contention that are the subject of the reverts

1 Garlasco. This one is a magnet for reverts.

2 The preview section where I added some sourced material.

I don't think there are any other issues. Can we agree that these edits are the ones in contention? If yes, we can move to stage two and discuss reversion or modification of the edits--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we just say what each side hit, rather than what they said they were trying to hit or not to hit, and why? RomaC (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning Israeli civilian buildings: Good for the goose good for the gander? This is clearly causing an imbalance. If we are going to mention it in the lead at all both need to be mentioned. I'm fine with striking both and keeping it at "Gaza was left in ruins" and expanding in the prose. Not mentioning that civilian structures were targeted for a purpose many many times also leads the reader.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of blanket reversion, why don't you just tweak it to a point where we all agree--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is important as far as the scale of the war goes. How many buildings did Hamas Rocket fire hit doing the war? --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is important. That can be mentioned in the prose where the amount of Gazan buildings are given detial. There is also the principle that civilian structures were hit. Summary style (or none) in the lead and numbers in the prose for this seem appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saying buildings were hit is not enough. The paragraph in question is giving a synopsis of the effect of the war. It should state numbers just as it does with casualty figures. The number of buildings hit by Hamas in the war should be added. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree reflect the scale of damage inflicted by both sides. Further, both sides hit civilians and civilian infrastructure. Both sides say they did not intend to, and both sides present reasons/excuses for their actions. Reflect that and present in the lead and we're good. Details in the body. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with RomaC on this issue in general. Talking about intent is problematic unless you make an effort to balance it. The facts are the most important things e.g. X was hit. Sourced statements about why X was hit need to be balanced. There are plenty of sources that say both the IDF and Hamas hit things 'because they're mean'. Case in point, the river of poo in Gaza following the strikes on the sewage facilities. Possibly the world's first inland Okavango-like poo delta. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I edited the lead, it stated that Israel hit mosques, schools and private homes. It then states that Hamas struck at Israel without a word on civilian targets. Where the hell is the balance here! Either state that both hit civilian targets or negate the issue entirely. For the life of me I can't understand your logic here!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC but to clarify the lead should only reflect facts. The lead is not the place for Israeli or Hamas to make claims. Those claims as for as legitimate sources back belong in the body of the article. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't seen many that say it Israel hit civilians to be mean. Most say it was collateral or targeting militants. If a reader sees "they hit mosques" it is probably to conclude that there was intent. This needs to be clarified or else it upsets the tone and balance. This goes for rockets to. I have not read anything that says Hamas was aiming at little kids so it is bad form to write it in a way that it could easily be inferred. Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's consistent with RomaC's statement above made at 04:18 it will get my support. Cptnono, many HR sources and Goldstone have documented incidents and talked about collective punishment, actions without military necessity, excessive force, all sorts of things etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean, Goldstone is not the holy grail who's report is beyond criticism. It is a source of contention and is the subject of much dispute. In fact, many Western democracies have either rejected it outright or severely criticized it. The fact that it currently in limbo in Geneva is a good indication of its problematic and contentious nature--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions without military necessity, excessive force, ect have pointed towards collateral damage or overuse/misuse of weaponry but not targeting innocents. I have no problem saying that Gaza was smashed but the implying (even if unintentionaly) that it was to hurt innocents is inappropriate. That is one of the things I liked about my rough draft up above. Make it clear to the reader that IDF was looking out for its own and did so but also mention that the scale of damage and civilian casualties was high. Whn you start throwing in "they hit a mosque and school!" it tugs at the heartstrings. They also damaged roads and office buildings. Those aren't in the lead because they are not sensational. I know that accuses editors of POV pushing but it is true and hopefully not intentional. if we are going to go into specifics in the lead it needs to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of consensus I'll also support a balanced 'less is more' approach in the lead leaving the details for the article. I agree that implying things is inappropriate. Basing information on reliable independant sources is better e.g. http://www.phr.org.il/PHR/article.asp?articleid=708&catid=42&pcat=42&lang=ENG [81] is a source that we have probably neglected somewhat. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but there are other sources that analyze it completely different. Less is best here since we can't go into detail on every one. If we still want to include mosques and schools I am OK with it as long as we mention the various other important buildings. We could also mention the Israeli buildings that were damaged. I think some explanation will be needed or it will be easy for the reader to jump to conclusions so we can add both side's reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco

Human Rights Watch said it had no evidence that Mr Garlasco's hobby affected his analysis, and said he had "never expressed any anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi statements". -BBC. There are plenty of sources on this and it should be mentioned at the main Intl Law article but not here.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

what is the point of mentioning his hobby here at all? --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Goldstone based some of his findings (specifically on munitions employed by the IDF) on Garlasco's reports. But Garlasco's fond obsession with Nazi memorabilia calls into question his objectivety and taints his report. If his report is tainted, so is Goldstone's (or at least part of Goldstone's report)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion. If the point of pushing this content is to discredit the report, then it is POV-stacking. Please provide reliable sources that say "Garlasco's hobby affected the findings in the UN report". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I did provide a source. Two in fact. Let me test the waters here. If I agree on your revert of Garlasco, will you leave the lead as I edited it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Really its not up to him to leave the lead. I agree this is an attempt to discredit the report by discrediting the man POV stacking in the extreme. It needs to either be removed from this article. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The edit was sourced and relevant. In fact, it generated enough controversy that it resulted in his suspension. This was a long-time HRW analyst. For them to suspend him, it must have been really bad. The second source that I provided clearly states that Goldstone borrowed from Garlasco.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless, Garlasco did not write the Gladstone report nor was he the only source of information for it. Secondly, him collecting US and German WW2 memorabilia has not been categorically proven to make him biased against Israel. Its a blatant attempt at POV stacking and I ask that all such references are removed. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just accuse me of working for the Israeli Goverment? And by the way, it's "Goldstone" not "Gladstone" and there is no such word as "irregardless."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes by Richard Goldstone I know that. I was multi-tasking something that is of limited effectiveness when I only have 1 computer screen and a tribe of children running around. Irregardless is certainly a word in American English. Don't start the century old argument over the appropriateness of using the term. Its in the dictionary. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dnkrumah, you should be aware that Jiujitsuguy, who resents any implication that he represents the Israeli "Goverment" [sic], has a history of correcting other editors' "gramatically" incorrect English[sic], and implying editors who criticize Israeli atrocities are antisemites. It's ridiculous that this editor has been able to effectively shut down the article. But it sends a message: Be Bold! So, Jiujistu my friend, as you are harping on Garlasco's hobby, this might also interest you -- an Israeli cabinet minister now reportedly says the UN report criticized Israel because Goldstone's an antisemite too! If you want to add this to the article as soon as editing is reopened, I won't object, promise! Sick of the bullshit, RomaC (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources say/claim that Goldstone used material from Garlasco, not that he used the particular material claimed in the present text in the article. So, the claim "the criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco" is unsourced and spurious. It's also irrelevant to the article, since nowhere is is hinted that there would be anything wrong with the material Goldstone used or Garlasco collected. --Dailycare (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've already pointed this out several times now here and here along with other perfectly simple to understand reasons why the edit doesn't make sense. I don't intend to keep repeating myself so I'm going to politely request that Jiujitsuguy drop this proposed edit. If the madness continues here I suggest that the right approach is to file enforcement requests on the basis of the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that discretionary sanctions can ultimately be considered. Jiujitsuguy appears to be on a "mission" to flood the article with propaganda, which isn't exactly Wikipedia's purpose and amounts to disruptive editing. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Calm down boys. If any body actually took the time to read garlasco's report (Reign of Fire) and Goldstone's report, you'll see that Goldstone cut and pasted Garlasco's report on to his. I didn't say that Garlasco's report implicates Goldstone's report in its entirety, just the part dealing with munitions and weapons employed by the IDF (specifically WP). That's why I inserted the double sourced edit just under the part that discusses WP. Please read the reports to verify what I'm saying though I doubt it will make any difference since it looks as though you've already made up your minds on this issue. As far as the latter comment by Dailycare, I'm not on any "mission." I added a few sourced edits here and there that I thought added rather than detracted from the article. Instead, I got blanket reverts. I'm not pro-Israel or pro Palestinian. I'm pro truth and objectivity and I didn't want to see the article degenerate into a platform for one side or the other. If anyone has a problem with an edit, they can discuss it, tweak it or add edits of their own.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case I shall strive to use irregardless at every opportunity. Irregardless of Garlasco there have been consistent reports of Israeli uses of banned or illegal weaponry going back at least to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I can't see how it adds to the truth of the story or complies with NPOV to utilize character assassination in the article. The report also cites many other actions as leading to its conclusion. Like using human shields. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think that Israel's ongoing battle with HRW should certainly be noted if one of their reports is noted. If the concern were only on this one report it would be one thing, but it has been a continuous pain in the butt for Israel, and there have been allegation of unfairness for years. Stellarkid (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The source http://www.honestreporting.com. What is that? A Wikipedia editor dont use or take that serious. Its a propagandasite for neocon rednecks. Very pro israel, almost sionistpropaganda. Some things are unbeliveble stupid and some scary. Then I found this little piece: Exposed-Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia Here, second line actually:

"Our colleagues at CAMERA learned this the hard way last month when their effort to fight anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia ended in several members being banned".

But the argumentation from editors above is enough for cutting the Garlasco part in our article out. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL "Dr. Oboler and HonestReporting also found that despite Wikipedia's clear policy against political advocacy, initiatives such as "Wiki Project Palestine" and the Yahoo group "Wikipedians for Palestine" used the Wikipedia platform to promote their ideological views, largely unopposed by the Wikipedia community." CAMERA tried to game the system so screw 'em. Is anyone from Wikiproject israel even on this article?

In regards to the Garlasco, the BBC line is good enough for me to not include here. If editors want to show that their is bias against Israel by various groups and agencies they will have to find another source.03:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And the talkback... But usefull. A commenter linked back to Wikipedias responce to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive146#.22Honest_Reporting.22_alert.2C_criticising_WP_anti-wikilobby_action. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected this page due to persistent edit-warring by autoconfirmed accounts. If and when the dispute is resolved, let me know so I can unprotect. Enigma^msg 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Folks, I have created this new section to complain about people creating new sections. If something is already being discussed can we stick to the existing sections or else discussions get fragmented. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For once we found something we can agree upon. I second your motion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something else we agree on and that is that this article can't become a recruitment poster for Hamas. Our reasons are probably different though. Mine is that recruitment posters for Hamas are currently covered by Ottoman civil codes defining copyright and these prevent their use in Wikipedia. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsections are necessary for the proper organization of talk pages and anyone who says otherwise is POV pushing against organization.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see twe still have our senses of humor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, im far from happy with some things in this article. How do we solve things in situations like this? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great. Enough people edit war (you know who you are on both sides) and you have a 50% chance of it getting locked on the less infuriating version. I don't think we will reach consensus with the current lead. It needs to be shelved and completely redone. It also needs to be a better summary of the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A was thinking on other parts than those last edits befor protection was about but ok, then I ask about the procedure.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't expect the edit warring to stop if the block is lifted since I don't expect people to agree on the lead in its current form. It is clear that people are unmovable on certain things in the lead and there are very few points from anyone that I think are ridiculous so I understand. I think the admin made a brilliant decision and we should take this opportunity to fix something that is broken.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is the way to solve it? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new lead. People can promise not to edit war any more but if the admin believes that... Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we can also strip enough out of the lead that it is not offensive to anyone. There are some things I really want in but know that it will meet resistance. Something like:

The Gaza War was a conflict begging on December 27, 2008, when Israel launched a military operation in the Gaza Strip with the stated intent of stopping rocket attacks from and weapons smuggling into the enclave.

Israel started the campaign with an aerial bombardment and entered the Gaza Strip with ground forces on January 3. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict. Under international pressure, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on January 18 and Hamas followed 12 hours later by announcing a one-week ceasefire which has mainly held.

Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. Substantial damage was inflicted on both government and civilian buildings. More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, while 4,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless. The scope of the destruction and civilian deaths drew calls of the assault being a "massacre"

A report published in September 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) stated that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes during the war and it recommended bringing those responsible to justice.

summarizes the basics.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Decent. I could live with it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just try to make it clear that it was Hamas who referred to it as a "massacre"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Small quibble. 'Beginning', not 'begging'. :) A version of the lead could be posted here or in a sandbox and edited by the various parties until something acceptable to everyone was agreed upon. Enigma^msg 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And why is it you are going back to it "being a 'massacre'" when every source provided explicitly says "the Gaza massacre"? What is wrong with how it is currently in the first paragraph? nableezy - 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I still disagree that you have found adequate sources. I have already explained why your source is not good enough. Others agree regardless of the edit warring temporarily shifting to something else and people not arguing with you as much. I poersonally think you should be happy that "massacre" is still considered for the lead when there is obviousley resistance (albeit for questionable reasons) to using the term at all. If anything this version leans towards Gaza the massacre side of things while disregarding others.[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You dont agree that every source presented has called it "the Gaza massacre"? And even Stellarkid said the current wording is fine. nableezy - 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No I do not. I also expect your wording to get bolded and turned into a title again. I've already explained this. And the fact that stating "massacre" is not good enough since it doesn't say "the Gaza massacre" makes it look like you are only interested in winning and not improving the article. It was called "the Gaza massacre" isn't a necessary line, is disputed, has caused disruption, will continue to cause disruption, and is properly summarized by changing the wording enough to say "drew calls of the assault being a 'massacre'". If you really want it to be "led to Hamas to call it the Gaza 'massacre'" we both know what will happen and for partially good reason. Notice that Operation Cast Lead is not in my proposal along with not mentioning "indiscriminant attacks" or precision weaponry used to make an exceptional amount of successful hits. Work towards consensus and maybe we can actually improve the article and get it unlocked.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The only disruption it has caused is a few users not liking the description and doing everything the can to remove it. And every single one of the sources calls it "the Gaza massacre" not "a massacre" and it did not lead Hamas to call it the "Gaza 'massacre'", the quote is "the Gaza massacre". Work towards consensus? Please, a few users, mostly ones that have not added anything of substance to this article and in fact have added mostly bullshit, have demanded the removal of a name that they do not like for no other reason than they do not like it. And I need to work towards consensus? There is a response to that, but it would likely result in me being blocked so if you would like me to provide that response ask me on my talk page. nableezy - 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes up every so often for good reason. I also don't care what others have or have not contributed. I could argue the ratio of Palestinian leaning editors, tactics used to keep it in (others have already done so), and several other things but I really don't need to get into who has or needs to do what to make their opinion on the subject and sources valuable. You just got East Jerusalem and still think it isn't good enough, Nableezy. Cptnono (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Cptnono, if you please... I draw a distinction here and support "Wikipedia-leaning editors." Of course the Israeli term "Operation Cast Lead" belongs in the lead, as does the term "Gaza massacre" cited to Gaza and the Arab world. Nab has bent over backwards to address the ongoing attempts to remove the Gazan/Palestinian/Arab term. It is just bargaining to offer to sacrifice/relegate the Israeli term in the name of "compromise". But you know I think if we had Reuters reporting from an Arab media press conference in which the Grand Poobah of Hamas said "We call the event occurring in Dec/Jan the "Gaza massacre", while raising both his hands to mime "quotation marks" round the term as he spoke it, there would still be calls to disregard this because he hadn't indicated capitalization. Strongly inclined to believe that if Gaza termed the event "Our Due" it would not have been targeted here. Again, the issue it is not that Gaza and the Arab world have their own term for this event, which they clearly do, rather it is that some editors here don't like the Gazan term and so strive to remove it. And that campaign runs roughshod over Wiki policy. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the way I worded it quotes are not even neccasary. It clearly says massaacre, it can be sourced, it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of titling. If anything it is a better summary since it doesn't overly and potentially falsify what it is. Massacre is in my proposal (without an Israeli "balance") for the lead along with lines that will be read by readers as Israel destroying the Gaza Strip (with little retort since this is a summary and that would cause another 10 lines to fix). What is the problem? It looks to be that it doesn't say "It was called..." which is applying a title when it is disputed by some editors (new and old). If Nableezy needs it to say "It was called" then yes, he is refusing to do what he can to help fix this article. I'm not trying to say "fuck you, Nableezy" I'm trying to say "maybe you should look at it from a different angle".Cptnono (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The support the use of the term Gaza Massacre. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>It is true that I supported Nableezy's recent edit as a compromise. I prefer Cptnono's, however, as it sounds much more encyclopedic and professional. It feels like there is no POV-pushing there, but an attempt to find balance and not to go beyond what can be easily verified by the reader. I believe this is a fair edit and hope that we can convince Nableezy and RomaC and others of it. Then we can move on. Stellarkid (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The uninvolved editor BashBrannigan (talk) proposed this and motivated it above [[82]]. We should try to understand that all of us have strong POV about this and take his suggestion under concideration. Not many uninvolved editor like to stick in their head in this waspnest.

The Gaza War, known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab world, was a military conflict which took place in the winter of 2008/2009 between forces of Israel and Hammas. The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort that edit doesn't fix the problem (I dispute that it was actually titled or used as a description enough to title "massacre" which will happen with that edit, addinf "war against Hamas" "assault on Gaza" leads to "War on Gaza" "War in the South" and several other "titles" being mentioned. Also, last time something similar to "forces of Israel and Hammas" was mentioned I'm pretty sure people went nuts (I don't mind that part though).Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully but your disputation of Nabs links to sources is not strong enough. Time for you to leave your objection to just a objection and let it go. We dont vote here if Im correct but I have a feeling most of us vill accept Nabs possition and a few willing to accept it to get out of the stalemate regarding this part the dispute. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I also wasn't edit warring so am not responsible for the lock. There are other issues involved in the lead that have not been worked out. In fact, no one else has even attempted to fix it. A couple of people said they were OK with my proposal but Nableezy thought that using the term "massacre" needed to be worded differently. People still need to figure out the other aspects of it that were being reverted over and over. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Sigh... There are a couple of problems for me.

• The first problem is the "evolution is just a theory" argument which is being deployed here as "Gaza Massacre" as a name is just a theory. I find it difficult to say anything sensible on the "Gaza Massacre" as a name issue because there is no agreed decision procedure to settle the issue. It's certainly the case that the event was identified that way by Hamas and others and it has been demonstrated again and again. Since there isn't an agreed way to make a decision, presenting evidence won't achieve anything. I see little merit in discussing the issue until all parties agree a decision procedure. I have no problem with the existing sentence 'The conflict was codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel and described as "the Gaza massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas.[18][19]'. It complies with the core policies as far as I can tell. If something complies with policy and some editors don't like it the problem is likely to be with the editors rather than the lead. Which brings me to the second problem.
• The second problem is summed up by Nableezy's statement "The only disruption it has caused is a few users not liking the description and doing everything the can to remove it". I don't think it helps to expect rational pro-Wikipedia editors to spend their valuable time dealing with editor's linguistic cleansing tendencies, hurt feelings about what Hamas say and various other behaviors unrelated to wiki policy and wiki objectives. It's unreasonable, it's not in the interests of Wikipedia and it's inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions which are there to help address this kind of silliness. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not agree with BashBrannigan's suggestion since it asserts as a title and it is against the manual of style (Title's need to be bolded in the lead). My solution was dumbing down the lead to the point that there is no mention of Israel's operational name and to be frank it makes them look pretty bad (which they deserve to some extent of course). Even with this, I still including the term massacre since people did describe it as a massacre. Some people have even used it as a title but it was relativity rare when comparing it to the multiple other titles out there. If Nableezy requires it to be asserted as a title then there is a huge roadblock and we will have to add several others (which is like BashBrannigan suggestion only we will do it per MOS).

Also, regardless of the two of us agreeing or not (since it isn't required to not edit war and it isn't either of our's decision anyways), there was another series of edit warring that caused the page to get locked. It was over another editor's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of a poorly laid out lead and a few other portions of the article. (please see the handful recently added discussions to this talk page and the reverts with several editor's names mentioned in the edit history).Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I dont know why you are saying "if Nableezy requires it be asserted as a title" when I made an edit that was agreed to by myself, Tiamut, Stellarkid and at least a lil bit by you that did not assert is as the name but as a description with sources for both the English and Arabic used in the article. There were other parts being "warred" over, but that edit seems to have been taken in well by those arguing most vociferously. Your one beef with it is that somebody will eventually re-bold it. I dont think that is an issue, especially if we can say that there is consensus for leaving it in but not bolded. The other parts are the other parts and they need to be worked out, but can we please drop this, at least for another 3 months when a new set of editors come in demanding it be taken down? nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is out of proportions. Bring it to Arbritation and let them decide after we made our points heard. Then we lock part by part arbritated. For eternal time untuched my editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with any administrative action or oversight. Nableezy is fresh off of charges of gaming the system and winning by shear staying power with allegations of campaigning. ( here and here I like him but agree with the concern. Nableezy's priorities are Palestine and not Wikipedia. I know those look like horrible charges to make but he was presented with a perfectly fine option and disregarded any "compromise" (we shouldn't be compromising facts). I would like to think that he is an alright guy (I really do like him) but his edits show that there is a sole purpose and that is Palestine not Wikipedia.[83] Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action is one thing, arbitration is another. Arbcom does not "rule" on content. Regarding your imaginations, I was "charged" with edit warring with the loudest complaining editor having made the same number of reverts (2) as I had. That is not "gaming the system" that is a bullshit report. Regarding the rest of your message, I still sorta like you so I am just going to pretend you did not actually write that down. And if you dont want me to pretend that please repeat it on my talk page so that I can give you the proper response. And when editors say they accept that it was used by Hamas and still do not want the name in the article that is not me rejecting a "perfectly fine option". And the current lead is a "perfectly fine option". Why exactly are you rejecting what was agreed as a "compromise" by Stellarkid, Tiamut, and myself? You keep saying I have not proved anything, but I have and a number of others feel that I have. I aint having this "conversation" anymore as I do not want what respect I still have for a few of the editors here to vanish. nableezy - 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You made it clear that the discussion of edit waring did not involve me. You edit war on more than one Gaza-Israeli based pages. I full-on expect a negative response from you. I am doing it for constructive criticism since no one else has (including admins) when you need it. We can move this to a talk page if you want but I'm not calling you out to be a dick. I'm doing it since other editors perceive you as gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)