Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Background section edits

The opening to this section,

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It is one of the most densely populated places on earth. According to the CIA Factbook as of July 2008, it holds a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi)."

was changed to

"The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. It among the most densely populated places on earth. Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers."

Mindful that the long-standing version was settled after much discussion I hope we can address Cptnono's proposed edits here. My concern is that the phrasing frames intent vis a vis the assaults, where this could more appropriately be neutral background information. RomaC (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern. I also do not see which sources support the idea that Israel revised its tactics to minimize civilian and troops casualties. According to the UN report, the Israeli definition of the "supporting infrastructure" of Hamas basically amounted to the entire population of Gaza who were rather indiscriminately targeted. So I have major problems stating the Israel tried to minimize casualties in the background section when many many sources strongly disagree with that.

I remain supportive of the prior version, though I am willing to consider including mention of other things, that are balanced and well-sourced. Tiamut^talk 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Transparency and admittance to screwing up: I didn't realize it was the background section while making the edits. (I suck as bad as the previous version :) ) That being said, we can add it into the assault section with half a dozen sources describing Israel's claimed restraint and there definite adjustments of tactics + another mention in the background to drive home the point of how bad it was or we can put it in the lead where it touches on both aspects. The background section should still say that it is densely populated but it doesn't need several sources and it certainly doesn't need the CIA info since that was only there to finish the argument a few months ago.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the usefulness of something along the lines of what you wrote in the assault section. Question though: "to minimize civilian and troop casualties" isn't this kind of vague? and seemingly paradoxical since steps to minimize troop casulaties often result in additional civilian casualties and vice versa. What source are you using for this?

About the CIA info, I'm for keeping it, because I like numbers and details, but I'm open to hearing other people's views on the subject. Tiamut^talk 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell yes it is vague. That is the name of the game. I can add in the measures taken and start citing how it was compared to previous wars in sources discussing the actual conflict or it can be generalized which keeps down the bloat (see the previous conversation regarding splitting). I prefer not to go tit-for-tat but instead to present sources in a factual concise manner. The lead should stay short but this is madly important. Unintentionally, this discussion is about adjusting the lead which is one of the most important parts f the article for many readers. The Inl law section already goes into mad detail (even though it was split) on the concerns with the population density. An extra line in the Operaitons section was added about a month ago to address the pop concern bu it can be expanded if it is not clear.
• In regards to the CIA factbook. It is only in since Nab wanted to prove to others who are long gone (brats who just wanted to moan about who was right and who was wrong) that the area is populated and the human rights observers were concerned. The source does not discuss the topic and is yet another line that can go. If we got rid of the similar shit lines in this article we could actually focus on getting it raised in the assessment scale.
• Background: "The Gaza Strip is a densely populated strip and these are the problems associated with Israel" Operations: "Israel did x,y, and z" Lead: My proposal.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow down a second. You want to change the section in the background to omit the population and area details and you want to add the text you added to the background to the introduction now? That's a huge change. I think given that there are still problems with how the text is written, its not appropriate for the lead right now. It ascribes a tactical intention to Israel as fact that is contradicted by other sources. And upon reflection, I think the population and area figures are actually quite relevant. It helps the reader to know how many people live in Gaza and how big it is.

The most problematic part to me is Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties. Which sources are you using for this statement. It is said in Wikipedia's neutral voice as though it is a fact, when I believe that it is an Israeli claim. Just as the targeting of the entire population of Gaza is a UN claim regarding Israel's tactical behaviours and objectives and is atttributed to it, I think at the very least, we need to do the same here. But I'd appreciate you citing the statements you are using for this part of the sentence here first. Tiamut^talk 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I do to a certain xtent. I know it is a big change. That jerkoff mentioned the extra stuff about Tel Aviv and it got me to thinking that the stuff in there currently was done at a relativity early stage of this article and hasn't been improved upon. Since I did them already, I am fairly confident that the military based stuff have the sources and the appropriate lines so am not worried about tinkering with them for now. I would be happy to expand on them but I think they are OK (I'll double check before doing anything drastic, BTW). What I am worried about is the intention of the density line in the background being used to say "HEY, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES ABOUT DEAD BABIES... oh there are some other sources about the density somewhere else that you don't need to care about". The amount of detail and sourcing isn't appropriate. The reader can click on the wikilink and the need to have extra lines to prove points is over. If you take exception with minimizing civilian and troop casualties I would recommend striking out civilian (the focus on preventing IDF deaths is not disputed at all) and stating Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize civilian and troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents was raised by human rights observers." and then later going into further detail on the amount of precision strikes used. This would keep the claim that civilian casualties were minimized out of the lead while letting the numbers speak for themselves on the percentage of proper hits made and human rights observer's allegations speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how mentioning the population and area figures = screaming about dead babies. I believe that the relevance was reviewed in the previous discussion on the matter; i.e., these are facts that were included in many background reports by reliable sources. I can dig up the individual refs again if you like. I think there was that concern previously when there was also information about the number of people under 15 years of age, but that's no longer there now, so the inference you say is being made, is gone now.

I wouldn't mind adding to the intro a sentence about the revised Israeli tactics to reduce troops casualties. But I'd like to ask again if you can point me to what sources you are using to draw that conclusion because I'd like to see the information in context. Tiamut^talk 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? I finally figured out what the problem was "minimizing civilian casualties" and now you want to go further. Let me open another beer and see what I can find to get these sorted out. Off the top off my head, IDF commanders did not want to answer for the amount of shit they saw in Lebanon.You oculd read the article and google, too. BRB.Cptnono (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I do appreciate your openness to modify your proposals. The new sentence is not bad at all. I just wanted to do some more reading of things you are reading to write it. If you're not reading anything specifically about it and its just informed by your general knowledge, I'm sorry for troubling you.

I suggest you be bold and add your sentence to the introduction as proposed here. If someone has a problem, they'll either modify it or revert and we'll move back to discussion per the WP:BRD cycle. I don't think you should remove the pop and area figures again from the background though, until we here fromm more people. Cool? Tiamut^talk 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. How would it look if I called you out and you weren't able to do the same.

Prevention of dead IDF (striking out civilian should be done since that is so disputed)

• [1] (this is a PDF of a Washington Post piece)
• [2]
• [[3] my favorite lines include the "higher-intensity theaters" and "protected friendly forces and helped reduce unintentional targeting of Palestinian civilians."
• [4] (2 pages clicky. Dense does not show on a ctrl+f but asymmetric describes it close enough)
• There are a few more but this was a quick google search and off memory of sources already used in the article. I think there is also further info in the sources that are more critical of the tactics but limited my search. There is a great artillery one but I am not sire if that is included.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

About the population density in general:

• In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer] in The New York Times: "It has always been the case, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But six days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed previous operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on earth."
• Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation in The Guardian: "There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties."
• And there are many more. I've noticed not many mention the specific population and area figures, but they do stress the danger to civilians (like those above), while others stress that half the population is under 15. [5] I would consider dropping the pop and area figures to mention the impact on civilians or include a note on the youthful composition of the population. But I do like having the figures, because like I said, it gives some dry factual context about how many people live there in how big an area. Either way, I feel elaborating on population density in the background in one or all of these ways is appropriate. Tiamut^talk 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, thanks for the sources. I'll be reading them. Tiamut^talk 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the population density was a huge factor from all aspects. There is an interview I want to try to find again which was intersting (Basically another commander said: Screw the Palestinians no dead IDF boys). I could care less who looks bad since some people won't be satisfied (ie: moms of either fighter will be pissed). So can we get it in the lead where it belongs, kill the extra sentence and sources in the background, and stop being worried about every editor on this page having an agenda? To tell you the truth, Tiamut, you have made it perfectly clear that you are biased. That is OK as long as you remember that while editing and don't fuck up the mainsspace.14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Population figures and the area are usually mentioned in backgrounder sections to the conflict, like this on at at the BBC website. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't be bad to settle down some and allow other editors to weigh in on the various proposals. RomaC (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm settled, but that was rather rude of Cptnono. I try to be conscious of my bias while editing. While I invite discussion on any specific edit I have made to an article that is perceived as having introduced POV, I'd prefer that he not use crude language to imply I am generally incapable of NPOV editing, due to my proudly announced loyalties. We all have them, I'm just more up front about mine than others, and I do have the ability to self-reflect when approached nicely. Tiamut^talk 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: this isn't a BBC website. If you want it included you need to find a source that makes the corralation. If you don't it is called synth and people should give you a hard time about it. That was typed in a friendly tone though, Roma, so don't worry about it. Drop the pride since I'm not impying you suck just saying we all have bias Tiamut.

And to you Roma, why is this page still this low on the assesment scale if it is that important to you. I've said it (go look at the archives): Garbage. We get closer and closer and the best way to fix it is to get stuff straight. If anyone thinks it is off they need to pipe up so it can get fixed and stop worrying about what news report got picked up by your chosen internet news site.Cptnono (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't make snide comments and get upset by fuck.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Use "fuck" all you want. Just don't imply that I "fuck up" or could "fuck up" maninspace when we are discussing content together. It's distracting, rude and off-topic.

As for the rest, I'll let others comment since I've lost my taste for further discussion here. Tiamut^talk 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply that you fucked up anyhting. I said don't fuck it up. Maybe this is why the guidelines ask us not to use terms like fuck since people read it wrong. So fine: I don't care if you are biased. Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel come across in a pro Palestinaian fashion with disregard to other elements of the conflict. My edit have been to clear them. Bias is OK just don't fuck up the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that description and view it as a personal attack. Please do review my last 10 edits to this article. If you can point to one of them that was made so as to "demonize Israel", I'd be quite surprised. So, before removing myself from this discussion totally, I'd ask that you strike that last accusation here. I don't edit with that motivation at all - I edit to share information. Tiamut^talk 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned it on your talk page. Don't pretend you don't have a bias. You don't have to look far to see what your intention is since edit summaries in the last couple dozen say enough. Don't get pissed off. Your edits are just as biased as everyone elses. The difference is that your new to this article and I mentioned it.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I answered you on your talk page. So please strike the sentence Your edits have been primarily to demonize Israel or provide evidence for this false assertion. Otherwise I'm afraid I won't be able to let this go. Tiamut^talk 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

doneCptnono (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you just would have stricken the sentence without adding the rephrasing which is still speculative, inaccurate, and off-topic, but whatever. Tiamut^talk 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, my user page has local sports crap on it. You're the one with Palestinian girls and a flag. Take the criticism and change it or don't edit here.Cptnono (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to put whatever I want to on my user page, and you are free to comment about it on my talk page if you have a problem with it. You are not free to use what is on my user page as a way to malign my editing in mainspace on article talk pages. Now, if there is a specific edit I've made here that you think is POV that you would like to discuss, please do so. If there isn't, then you should stop talking about me and motivations because it has nothing to do with article improvement, which is what this article talk page is for. Tiamut^talk 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being offended and trying to save face on the article talk page you should take the constructive criticism. Hit the history button while on the main page than drill through the edit summaries. Like I said on your talk page, Duck test = you contributing for a sole purpose here. I have done mainly military and stopping bloat lately but have been more then happy to do little crap and have tried to not let personal opinions cloud my personal judgement (although they have and I try to admit it). If you get so bent out of shape by one little comment up above then there is a problem. Is the current proposal OK or not?Cptnono (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on continuing this discussion here even after I asked you to confine it to my talk page, or point to specific edits here that are related to article improvement? You seem intent on proving that people other than yourself are biased in the things they add to this article. Point out something specific, if there is nothing content-wise that's related to article improvement, then stop talking about it here! Its disruptive. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now can we stop the butthurt or do you want to talk more? Here is my proposed changes:

• remove CIA factbook in the Background section since it isn't neeeded
• remove extra sources on density
• Add line to the lead saying " Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers."

Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first two proposals. About the third sentence, I think it combines three separate issues clumsily and without enough detail. I would suggest we work more on isolating the different points.

• Israel adopted revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties. (Why? Its not just because of population density. There are some clues in the UN report regarding the "Dahiya doctrine")
• Gaza's high population density prompted concerns over the welfare of resident by human rights observers. (I think this part needs work too. Another important cause of concern was the lack of safe places to go.)

Anyway, any changes to the lead need to be discussed thoroughly with others. Tiamut^talk 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The fun thing about the lead is that it is a summary. If you can take all the source provided above and say that density was not a concern in figuring out the tacticts (safving troops) and then take all of the sources and allegations to conclude that human rights organizations did not think density was a concern I will call you a liar. So anyway, mjy one line proposal is sourced and speaks the facts.Cptnono (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties. That is not what WHO, the Goldstone report, AI, or HRW (all of which talk about the population density) seem to find as the important aspect of Gaza being so densely populated. The NGOs have said that Israel should not have used certain weapons in such a high population area, the WHO say that the density is a factor in increased risks in the spread of disease with hospitals being destroyed. You are taking a simple line and putting a spin on it. All due respect but you saying that others are trying to either demonize Israel or make the Palestinians look better is misplaced, when I read the line as you wrote it I see an attempt to say "look how good one side is". I also think the CIA numbers should stay as background information on the theater of conflict. Your line on Israel modifying tactics can go in the campaign section. nableezy - 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I apologized and clarified the demonize comment. The other editor has only edited in a fashion that is favorable to the Palestinians. It hasn't been worded in a POV manner so there isn't a problem if that is the type of edits he wants to make. Hell, most of mine have focused on IDF stuff recently so it was a little hypocritical and I said some stupid stuff.
• Now that that is cleared up, where are you getting "your edit seems to imply that the population density was only an issue because Israel supposedly changed tactics to minimize civilian casualties." I struck out "civilian" up above since it is so disputed and still think it should say that human rights observers expressed over concerns. It says "*Add line to the lead says: "Due to the population density, Israel used revised tactics in an effort to minimize troop casualties while concerns over the welfare of residents were raised by human rights observers." Easy to miss with so many lines in this discussion page.
• Also, is my assessment of why the CIA line is in correct? When you (I think it was you) were trying to add what is now well sourced density info others were saying no. Now that we have several sources (both military and human rights based) saying it + a wikilink for further info the CIA factbook line is extra. We don't need it anymore in my opinion. That is why I want it in the lead. The density was a huge concern that was part of the equation of too many civilians getting killed or injured while it was also something that adjusted Israel's tactics in an attempt to see less dead IDF soldiers. Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My point back in the day on it being in the background section as a simple fact was that it influenced so many different parts of the article. It influenced the military operations of Israel as your source (and I gave one of a retired Israeli officer talking about the same thing back then), it influences the humanitarian issues as the WHO reported, it influenced the casualties section as many sources reported, it influenced the international law issues as NGOs have said. So in the background I felt it should just be stated as a fact and in each individual section say how that fact is relevant. In the military planning section include whatever sources say how Israel adjusted tactics, in the humanitarian crisis say how it is affecting issues of disease control, in the casualties section say whatever and so on. The background should be as to the point as possible. nableezy - 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine we just don't need the extra CIA line in the background. There is a wikilink for more info + two inline citations with another several availabel that discuss the topic. I think it should be dropped to one line in the background section.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on removal of the extra CIA line? Any thoughts on making a 1 line mention of the density in the lead?Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept something like "The Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel. With a population of 1,500,202 on an area of 360 square kilometers (139 sq mi), it is one of the most densely populated places on earth." with no inline citation of the CIA factbook (but keeping the link to the source)? I don't see a problem with that. But this still belongs in background, where we should present relevant info on the time/place the event took place. RomaC (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

POV in lead

The lead says "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed, according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets."

That is clearly Israeli POV, but it has been attributed to Israel so thats good. But I wonder why we don't have Palestinian POV in the lead? In particular Hamas' rationale for rocket attacks (i.e. as a protest to the blockade)? We should either just state the facts. Or if we intend to include POVs, they should come from both sides.VR _talk 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly a tendency I've seen in I-P articles is for editors to add content supporting one side and then wait for others to balance it. I call that advocacy not editing, and if I ever make a billion dollars and buy Wikipedia I'll prohibit it. But for now we have this reality, unabashed. Often a concise edit could be made that covers both sides' positions, but instead we get adversarial edits and more bloat than balance. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants to edit in a "pro-Palestinian"(pro Hamas) or even observe the fact that there was another side of the "official story". What I mean is, that Palestinians are outkasts for letting one or two groups do the talking for them. They don't have a voice within the mainstream mentality, which is very "anti-terrorism". Yes, advocacy, and even worse, propaganda. But, take a look at Israel's side of the story, and you'll see that is not written on anything meaningful. So thus, you must inadvertently "attack" Israel and whatever else comes between a well written article and the crap of system that we have right now. Hey, convince noneone, keep an eye on WP:Bold. This is crap, Israelis aren't any better human being than Palestinians, we are talking about being weak and being powerful, and not their circumstances. Bullcrap, what are we advocating for? ahhh, the answer is misleading to some, and rationable to others. Read and find holes, but don't lose your soul in the process. Wiki this, wiki that, bullcrap. I'm still on sabbatical btw. Cryptonio (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Both, editors and readers are going to justify themselves. I take this seriously when I'm drunk. To wit, cheers...What is a human being? Both of you got faults, and so everyone else. Wiki is not here to save the world. And if there is no one to save the world, guess what, it's a free game, free-for-all...Hey, I say, enjoy! Some jerks said once that all men were created equal, and they themselves had "others" to do their job for them. Catch this drift, that we are arguing, is a good thing, these "court martial" will last forever if we don't evolve. Freak it, I don't disagree with what people say, I just don't care much for it. Go to Vegas, have some fun, and try not to get married. I did it! I looked out the window, and I said, "Vegas, imma kick your butt tonight"...and I did, got the shirt too...Come up with better questions. Elaborate. Cryptonio (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

POV cuts both ways in the lead. I had never seen this article before (it was mentioned in the NOR noticeboard) so I looked at it just now and noticed that "Gaza Massacre" is placed in boldface in the lead. I have POV concerns regarding that, independent of the point raised in this section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources have been provided showing that this was the name used in among both Arabs and much of the Arab press, and, most importantly, by Hamas, the government of Gaza, for what the Israeli government called "Operation Cast Lead" which is also in bold in the lead. The common name, Gaza War, and the name each of the involved parties used, Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, are placed in bold in the lead, as is common practice in war and battle articles. And I dont think I am exaggerating when I say that probably 10 complete archive pages, of the current 50+, are devoted to this issue. nableezy - 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No surprise there. I take it that this article is, oh, mildly contentious?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit, 56 archives for an article that started in late December. Makes for some fun reading though if you want to go through it. Good times. nableezy - 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Even has its own search engine, I see. Under Arbitration Committee supervision, but I think you really need the Security Council! Seriously, the article is pretty good. I learned a lot of things I didn't know before. I'd guess you don't get many people making that kind of observation, so I thought I'd say it. It's reasonably neutral, too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to VR's question -- if we say "Israel attacked because there were rockets coming from Gaza" then why not "the Gaza rockets were provoked by an Israeli blockade"; and then "the Israeli blockade was in response to suicide bombings" and so on. Suggests the effect of a reflection in a mirror reflecting in another mirror and back to the first and off to infinity . . . what's that called? "Tit-for-tat editing"? RomaC (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A war resulted from "all of this"...how to put this in perspective...What language could condensate that...happy Halloween...yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JohnnyB256, POV cuts both ways in the lead. Since archives show that consensus "is not very wide" for such "just a name" addition. And none of the sources say that "name for Gaza War in Arab World is Gaza massacre", probably it's not notable enough and constitutes WP:SYN. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada this edit ignores months of discussion and a long-standing consensus your action here on the other hand is unilateral. Kindly control yourself. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, POV only slightly cuts both ways. Probably there is no need in consensus (and those archives kind of indicate great support). You sometimes note that good edit does not require a lot of explaining on talk page. Sorry you do not bring any source supporting phrasing for such naming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, you're welcome to respond here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, there was consensus for the name and if you wish to remove it you need consensus to do so. nableezy - 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not call it a consensus, at least not a wide one. Though thank you for showing me ancient history. Looks like regulated conflict resolution to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Gaza Massacre should be mentioned in the lead, as it was previously. Also, I think the previous (longer) description of the UN report in the lead was better. Now the sentence does not have much information content -- in almost every recent war both sides committed war crimes, but the report I think was actually highly critical of Israel and this should be reflected in the lead. In short, I think a previous version of the lead was much better. Offliner (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede is neutral now and contains all the information that is necessary for a lede to have. Contains the who, the what, and the when. oops! and the where. The why is expanded on below, as appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the part where Arab and Muslim press calls it "massacre" under media, where it is more appropriate. Please feel free to expand on it, and properly source it, in that context. I would do it but can't until later. This is a good compromise. Keep the lede clean and free from POV and include the "massacre" opinion in the media section. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. It is not "POV" in the lead, it is representing the POV of one of the involved parties in a NPOV way. And I dont see you removing "war against Hamas" if you really think the lead needs to be "free from POV". nableezy - 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. There are a number of editors here who agree that it is POV and unsupported by the evidence. Those editors are ridiculed and condescended to and their edits dismissed as POV. The burden is on those who wish to insert the "massacre" contention to provide support for it until (something like) consensus is achieved. The fact that you have acknowledged that you believe that this is Israel's war against Palestinians instead of Israel's war against Hamas as the government of Gaza, despite all the evidence against that position, makes it clear the bias that you are editing from. Further you have to do somersaults and abuse the English language to defend your position. I see your preference is for tendentious editing (however honestly believed) and edit-warring instead of trying to make the best and most accurate and neutral article you can. Too bad. Stellarkid (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How is saying "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre" POV? How is that not a NPOV statement? And did I say I think this was a war against the Palestinians? I said the POV that this is a "war against Hamas" (notice how capitalization doesn't matter to you when it is a statement you agree with) is the opposite POV that this was a "war against the Palestinians" or as you said a "war against Gaza". You POV is also clear, you dislike the term and do not want it "enshrined" in the lead. I dont care that you dislike the term, sources have been provided supporting the statement "Hamas called it the Gaza massacre". There has been consensus for the term and you need consensus to remove it. And how many reverts of this have you made? Accusing me of tendentious editing when you are making an edit without consensus over and over. Please. nableezy - 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

police

regarding this edit. OCHA does not say that police are not civilian, it says in their report "Israeli security forces" are comprised of the armed forces, the police, and the border police. It does not say whether or not they would be classified as combatant and it does not say under what circumstances they would be a combatant. And it does not deal with the casualties of this conflict at all. Taking this piece of information and juxtaposing it with analysis on whether or not police killed in this conflict or combatants or non-combatants is original research. nableezy - 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

10x for discussing. I'm not sure I agree with you. The Terminology chapter, page 4 defines basic terms:

Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police. Private security personnel are not included and are considered to be civilians.

Please note the private security, which unlike security forces are considered civilians. The OCHA terminology divide casualties to two mutually exclusive sets: civilians and security forces. Each person has to be either civilian or member of security force, but could not be both. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But it does not combing them into combatants ans non-combatants and it does not say if killed within Israel are civilians or non or if killed in the occupied territories what they are. And it does not talk about this conflict. You are making an argument when the source does not make that argument, that is original research. nableezy - 13:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "combatants and non-combatant" terminology: it is not used by OCHA. Still according to OCHA, member of "security force" (such as policemen or IDF soldier) can not be "civilian". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what they say. They say that for the purposes of their statistics they count all those people as "Israeli security forces" because they are all members of the "Israeli security forces". And again, that document makes no comment on whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. It is original research to include it in that section. nableezy - 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the document does not say a thing about police force being combatants or non-combatants. No such argument by my side also. Though the document says about inclusion of casualties, which are members of Israeli Police, into civilian count. Do you understand from the document that "Israeli security force" could be included in the civilian count? Thus the suggested change:

UN OCHA excludes Israeli Police members who were casualties of Israeli-Palestinian conflict from civilian statistics count and regards them as "security forces".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I wrote. Yes it defines police Israeli security forces, but no it does not include them in "armed forces" as it includes "armed forces" separately from police in "security forces" and it does not talk about casualties in this conflict. It is original research (specifically synthesis) to use this in that section with that statement. If you want to include the definition of security forces in the background where we use the source fine, but here it is original research. nableezy - 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I've addressed your arguments. The combatants and non-combatant terms are not mentioned at all in the document or in the suggested addition. The document talks about casualties of conflict. There is no synthesis/original research, just reflection of one and only document. Could you clarify why in your opinion the change is original research with citation of Wiki policy? Moreover you already accepted that Israeli Police is not included in the OCHA report civilian count in the background, so I'm not sure why you're arguing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One more time. The report makes no mention as to whether or not police killed in this conflict are civilians or not. By placing it there with arguments that do directly address the topic you are advancing an argument that the source does not support. It is original research to place that sentence next to others that are talking about whether or not police killed in this conflict are combatants or non-combatants. And again, the source does not say that police are part of the "armed forces" which is what you are linking to and it does not say that they are not civilians, it says that they are included in "Israeli security forces" without calling all members of that set combatants or non-civlians or whatever. nableezy - 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, could you please stop trying to force in the same edits like this every single day? You are introducing original research by putting in a source that does not deal with the Gaza War at all to support a premise about disputes about police in this conflict. nableezy - 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, considering your remarks I propose wording closer to source: Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt.. Based on following source sentence: Israeli security forces – are defined as any member of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Border Police.. Hope there is no ambiguity here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You considered one thing but ignored the major issue of trying to advance a POV through sources that do not support that POV. I included your note on the Israeli police in the OCHA report where it is relevant, in the section dealing with the OCHA report. nableezy - 06:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you kindly could drop POV allegations or at least base it on violations examples. Though I have to agree that Disputed Figures as paragraph is a toxic explosion of POV and opposite POV. Saying that I'm not aware of any limitation why any particular source can not be used multiple times in this article. It is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the numbers that the UN released contain info on Israeli police killed during this conflict? Do any of the UN reports make any mention of the civilian status of Israeli police in this conflict? Any at all? Does the report you are citing contain any information on any casualties during this conflict? Does anything that the UN released in that report make any mention of the issue of civilian status for police killed in this conflict on either side? If not why are you including it in the section on casualties during this conflict? How is that specific source relevant to the arguments in that section on police killed during this conflict? Or is the entire purpose of the inclusion in the section on casualties during this conflict to argue against the classification made by HRW and others on the civilian status during this conflict when the source itself makes no such argument? Sources may be used many times, where they are relevant. You are attempting to advance a POV by making an argument through a source that the source does not make by placing it in that section. nableezy - 07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding report period (2005-2008) considering your remark and OCHA-oPt citation permission. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is like you are purposely not reading or even attempting to answer the issues. This line Israeli Police and Israeli Border Police reported between 2005 and 2008 with Armed Forces as "Israeli Security Forces" by United Nations OCHA-oPt. does not belong in the disputed figures section. It does not address the disputes raised during this conflict. It deals with background information, it is in the background. nableezy - 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence provides valuable info about Israeli Police status, in context of Palestinian Gaza Police classification dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in that context you are making that up yourself (OR) to push a POV. nableezy - 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to understand why you continue reverting this change and frankly I can not. "push POV" sounds like personal attack to me. If something does not make Israel look bad it should not be included in the article? OR is kind of ridicules in context on one-to-one mapping between single source sentence and proposed phrasing which you helped me to improve. The point of the paragraph is critique of Israeli sources practice to include Palestinian Police dead with militant group dead in the same row in their statistics table. We compare what is practice for reporting Israeli Police dead. This is called balance. I hope you do not deny that if UN OHCA oPt see dead Israeli Policemen and dead IDF infantry trooper they put it in the same raw in their statistic table? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The OR is trying to tie this with the dispute over police killed during this conflict. The source does not make any comment on the dispute over the classification of police killed in the conflict and makes no comment on the actual classification of police killed in this conflict. It also does not explicitly classify police as not being civilian, it says that they are segregated from the civilian count and included with security forces, but does not say they are not either civilians or presumptively civilians. To use this line in that section is OR by making an argument the source does not make, and the argument is being made to advance a POV. nableezy - 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As you are intent on edit warring this into the article and nobody else has replied to this I have requested clarification from others here. nableezy - 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about including police in the militant's count. The addition does not say a thing about "civilians" of "presumably" those are arguments of critique. The addition states the fact of long standing reporting practice of UN OHCA oPt. Hope you don't imply that Gaza war changed standards of reporting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source does not comment on the dispute, you are including it based on your own opinion of what it means. The source does not mention one thing about the classification of police killed during the conflict and does not address any of the arguments presented in the section. It is there strictly to advance a POV that the source does not support. nableezy - 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The source do not comment on Palestinian police reporting, it even does not define in Terminology what Palestinian militant group term is, despite the fact that the term is being referenced. The addition does not say if Israel's reporting was right or wrong. Saying that something should not be included in the article, because it does not make Israel look bad is POV pushing. Sorry for personal attack ;). I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We dont provide "balance" by making arguments the sources do not make or by using them on topics that they do not address. That is OR. That the source does not mention any of the casualties in this conflict shows that it does not belong in a section dealing with casualties in this conflict. You are continuing to edit war information in that is problematic without regard for WP:CONSENSUS. nableezy - 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is an argument not supported by source. The addition is stating a fact backed by source. I respect your opinion, but you represent consensus as much as I do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do, and when there is no consensus for a disputed edit it should be removed. You are forcing it in without consensus, and there is now another user who feels this is original research by synthesis. nableezy - 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I saw this mentioned on the NOR noticeboard. The edit in question is advancing a position that the Gaza police are armed forces. That point is not made in the source. Therefore, it is synthesis, in my opinion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello JohnnyB256, I appreciate your opinion. nableezy helped me to improve the phrasing to reflect the source as close as possible. The addition states about Israeli Police reporting practice by UN OHCA oPt (2005-2008). There is no claim whatsoever about Gaza police, why do you say so? Please define "advancing". Try to assume good faith. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about "good faith" which refers to intentions, but to the actual content of the edit. It is placed in that section to provide a counter to the stance that police killed during this conflict are non-combatants. The source does not actually counter that, so in this section it is attempting to advance a position that it does not actually support. Original research is not just about following the words of the source, the words of a source can be used in ways that the source does not. That is what is done here. nableezy - 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not about your intentions, this is about the substance of your edits. Repeatedly invoking AGF does not make your edit not original research to advance a premise the source does not support. nableezy - 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

advancing rhetoric != AGF

Maybe you could elaborate about substance problems of my edits. But for me now it's time to sleep. Talk to you tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AgadaUrbanit, here's the problem. If the source said something like "Israeli police casualties are counted as members of security forces, so therefore Palestinian police casualties by right should be counted as armed forces casualties," then you could certainly make that point in the article. But if the source makes no such connection, that is synthesis. My suggestion is that you locate a source addressing that particular point from the Israeli perspective, rather than juxtaposing this in the article, where it is synthesis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF before citing it again. nableezy - 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, I do not say a thing about Palestinian Police. Why do you put words into my mouth? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not. He is explaining that the way you are juxtaposing the unrelated OCHA information implicitly makes the argument. That is the original research, you are implying the source supports an argument it does not by placing it where you are. nableezy - 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. Why do you say the addition is implying anything about Palestinian Police? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If it does not imply anything about the Palestinian police why are you placing it in a section about how Palestinian police killed in this conflict are classified? nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And what is not accurate about my comments? If you want to make an accusation like that back it up. nableezy - 07:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Main points of inaccuracy: You say The Israeli government has asserted that they are "combatants". "combatants" term is inaccurate and not used by Israeli sources. The more accurate claim is: (Israeli government has asserted Gaza Police) inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. I think also your speculations about my intentions are inaccurate: there is no claim about Palestinian Police. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not inaccurate, the Israeli government has said that police are "combatants", see here, "In other words, more than nine out of every ten alleged “civilian police” were found to be armed terrorist activists and combatants directly engaged in hostilities against Israel." (my emphasis) nableezy - 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this a latter (to dispute) Israeli paper try to answer HRW claims and use its terminology. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. The source though lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli MFA lacks credibility for saying what the Israeli government has said? That is an interesting one. nableezy - 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I acknowledge that MFA statement addressed "combatants" status of Palestinian Police. You were correct. I mean that Israeli government is far from neutral (due to the fact it's belligerent), thus Israeli government statement lacks "secondary" credibility in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition does not imply a thing about Palestinian police. Just comparing report practice of belligerents Police force. This is called balance. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More precisely it is called false balance. You just admitted that you are using the report to make a comparison that the source does not make and that no secondary source has raised. That is original research. The source is being used to advance a position that the source does not make. A completely uninvolved person agreed it is original research, I sincerely hope you will not return the material absent consensus to do so. nableezy - 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have not you noticed I've stated: it is important to know in which framework UN humanitarian experts work in oPt regarding Israeli Police. I firmly disagree about relevancy. The comparing practice of reporting of police of both sides in the conflict is balance. This is what we do here in this article. Nab, I'm not sure JohnnyB256 read the discussion, probably ( I do not know for sure ) he based his objection by your comments, which are far from accurate. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of our report table with IDF". This is a fact. Hope you don't deny it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not important if no secondary source raises the point. You cannot just make up what is an important comparison that is not compared by reliable sources. And my comments were accurate. And I dont deny it, it is included where it is relevant, in the background section. Not where you are using it to advance an argument the source does not make. nableezy - 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OCHA is a secondary source and their report raises the point of Israeli police place in their report table. We disagree though on relevancy. We dive into "para-legal" discussion thus it is important to examine precedents. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) I wasn't relying on anyone's comments in particular, as everybody has been, forgive me, a bit long-winded. I just looked at the edit in question, which I presume is [6] as it is AgadaUrbanit's last edit to the article, and reached my own conclusion. My problem is that it inserts a discussion of the way Israeli police are treated as casualties in the midst of a discussion of the same issue for Palestinian police. Whether the balance is false or not is beside the point. I don't think you can do that unless the original source makes that comparison. As I suggested earlier to AgadaUrbanit, what's needed to balance out that section, which I presume is his/her desire here, is something from the Israeli side making that point specifically. Now maybe I'm being too strict in my interpretation of WP:SYN, but that is my feeling on it. I think this subject would benefit from more input from uninvolved editors familiar with this policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256, appreciate your opinion. Could you clarify how the addition violates WP:SYN? What is not allowed is combining multiple sources ( not a case here ) or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The source (and addition) clearly say: "UN OCHA-oPt put Israeli Police in the same row of their report table with IDF". Am I missing something? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion, reading the contested passage cold, was that since Israeli police are listed as civilians, the same should apply to Palestinian police. Now, that's my own brain at work, but at that point a WP:SYN red flag rose up. None of the sources cited in that article made that point. You may be interested to know that I tend to agree with that conclusion, but I think it needs better sourcing. Believe me, I was not influenced by anyone in making that conclusion, and as I said I'd dearly love to get more opinions. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note in the Military History Project. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love more opinions. JohnnyB256, of cause you have your own head. I'm sorry you understand it this way. I question your "advancing rhetoric", which you have not explained. WP should be neutral. Hmm, I'm not sure what "Israeli police are listed as civilians" means. I also would like to warn about drawing a conclusion from Israeli Police status precedent to Palestinian Police. There is a dispute here - a lot of opinion without definite truth. I think that some precedent facts would improve this article quality. I'm not sure how sourcing should be improved. Usually in this article we prefer secondary sources to primary ones, to improve neutrality. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

editorial in lead

Why should we include an editorial critical of the contents of the UNHCR report when there are a number of other editorials that are praising it? That we include that the Israeli government (and the US government) are critical of the original mandate and the contents of the report (not so much the US but certainly Israel) is fine, but including a random editorial does not strike me as proper. nableezy - 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that if we include the Israeli POV on the UN report in the lead, we would have to include the Palestinian POV too. This would become an unde focus on critique over a report. The report critiques both sides. Is there a problem with keeping its conclusions in the lea sans commentary from either peanut gallery? Tiamut^talk 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First, The Economist is not an Israeli POV, and we won't be able to get anywhere if we don't agree on that basic fact. Second, the UNHRC is not taken seriously by much of the western world and has been criticized regarding its attitude toward Israel by two UN Secretaries General, among other UN figures. I'm only mentioning this so that you don't get disappointed when you see the volume of criticism of this report, the committee that wrote it the resolution that mandated it. Third, as I said in my edit summary, having the UNHRC report in the lede is plain recentism; it should not be in the lede at all. A sentence noting that war crimes by both sides were alleged by various third parties is enough. If we agree on this, there won't be any problem re the lede. Fourth, if the report is praised by POVs as notable as The Economist (by, not in), those POVs have as much of a right to be in the article as the Economist's POV, according to WP:UNDUE. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue. At this point, with no direct outcome to the report, it is just 'another' report, so it should not be in the lead. The lead should be fact, brief chronology, and minor explanation. Other issues should be in body. --Shuki (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is not recentism or undue. This is the most comprehensive report by a UN agency on this conflict, just because it was recently released does not mean that it should not be given its due weight (which is substantial). nableezy - 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a claim that the UNHCR "not being taken seriously by much of the Western world" would need to be well sourced, as it's a bit of an extraordinary claim. (what about the non-Western world, BTW?) To the contrary we do have sources (which I can provide) underlining the weight of the report --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here: "The report, which was described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/un-report-goldstone-israel-gaza --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explicitly stated, in an attempt to prevent anyone from sidetracking this discussion, I did not suggest writing that claim in the article, I merely noted it to avoid unnecessary tension in the editorial process. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding recentism. Lets examine the following hypothetical (sometimes known as a straw man), which may be more familiar to readers familiar with the US judicial system (apologies if it does not translate). X is charged with some crime based on a search that is challenged. The appeal of his conviction is heard before the US Supreme Court who rule (lets say the ruling came down yesterday) that the search was indeed illegal and so the conviction is set aside. Should that finding be restricted from the lead because it happened recently? This is a report that has been anticipated for months and is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic. That it happened recently does not mean we should not include something that is as notable as this in the lead. As far as including the Economist editorial, I think there is a place for it. But the lead is not the place for such opinions, the section where it details the actual report and the controversy surronding it may be, and the sub-article International law and the Gaza War would certainly be a proper place for inclusion (also that section is becoming bloated again with things that belong in the sub-article). nableezy - 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shuki and I never said that the report doesn't belong in the lede because it's recent. We said that it doesn't belong in the lede because it's not important enough. Arguing that it is important enough because it "has been anticipated for months" is where recentism comes in. That the report "is the most comprehensive report from the UN on the topic" says zilch about its importance in absolute terms. The most comprehensive report on the war, period (as oppposed to a specific aspect of the war: int'l law), was that by Anthony Cordesman. And yet nobody (including me) argued for including that in the lede. Hmmm... Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion shouldn't be sidetracked, I was commenting on the claim you made about the UNHRC, in the context of discussing editing this article, which appeared in light of e.g. the source I quoted to not be accurate. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The report is definitely now recentism and undue by Shuki. I do see that you did not raise that issue so sorry for addressing that hypothetical to you. As to undue, the similar argument applies. A major report, anticipated for months, was released, the most comprehensive by the UN on this conflict to date. I dont see how including that in the lead is undue. nableezy - 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We both said that the inclusion was recentism. WP:RECENTISM is not a claim that recent material should be discriminated against; that would be silly. It is merely a recognition that there is a tendency to give recent material unjustified preferential treatment. I already addressed your other comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But you didnt address my other comments, you only made the assertion that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN means zilch to its importance then apparently taking issue with Cordesman's analysis not being in the lead. There is a simple explanation for that, the Center for Strategic and International Studies is not exactly the United Nations, and Cordesman report, while certainly notable and is indeed heavily cited in the article, was not given the same weight as this report in the sources. This report has been receiving steady coverage since it was first commissioned and has been given major coverage by sources (compare just the results of Goldstone report gaza September 2009 searched on BBC vs Cordesman gaza on BBC, and that isnt even getting into the coverage leading up to the report being released over the past few months). This isn't "unjustified preferential treatment". A major topic of the coverage of this conflict are the international law violations that have been widely reported. An authority on the topic released a very widely cited report. A report that has been reported on for months before it was even released. That you think this compares to the Cordesman report whose coverage pales in comparison to Goldstone's does not make much of an argument. nableezy - 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe if there is some disagreement as to the relevance, significance or importance of the United Nations' definitive report on the incident, we should simply look and see how it is treated by media etc. They decide, not Wiki editors. RomaC (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion, as you don't mention an absolute standard by which to measure these things, nor do you mention what time frame you have in mind to be examined. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, if receiving a lot of news coverage for a particular period of time is a sufficient condition to be included in the lede (which I don't think it is), then the widespread criticism of the Goldstone report should also be in the lede, as it is also receiving a lot of news coverage right now. So I assume you won't mind if I add it. If and when news coverage of the criticism outweighs coverage of the actual content of the report, we can summarize the criticism without the content; It seems in fact that this is already the case, but right now I don't feel like making the effort of convincing people who are predisposed against accepting that possibility. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not my point, the news coverage was in response to you saying that it being the most comprehensive report by the UN not meaning jack regarding its notability and then making the comparison to the Cordesman report not being in the lead. And I dont mind a short mention of the controversy surrounding the report being included, but I do mind it being sourced to an editorial in the lead. I think my position is slightly more nuanced than you are assuming. nableezy - 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Jesus, Nab, that article is not an editorial except to the extent that all Economist articles are editorials. That's what their articles are like. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This Economist article is not an editorial, the one cited is specifically listed in the "Leaders editorial" section, which is in the "Opinion" section of the Economist. It is reporting opinion, not the opinion of a single person I grant you but of the editorial board of the Economist. My feeling is the lead should be for what is presented as facts. nableezy - 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By Jove, you're right, and I was wrong. It is in the opinions section. But the distinction between "presented as facts" and "presented as opinion" is artificial in this context. Essentially, all criticism, including criticism of countries, is opinion (hopefully based on facts): there's no reason for us to discriminate against those who present their criticism more prudently. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, regarding your edit that added the following:

The report and the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others.[31][32][33] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

I think, and I may be mistaken, that most of those cited only criticized the original mandate and not the actual report as being "flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated". Could we please clarify which is which? nableezy - 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea to list personal/editorial/governmental criticisms of the UNHRC report opens a can of worms. If you're looking for it, there is individual, media and governmental criticism on just about any report/information/data in this (or any other) article. Also, criticism of a report's personnel/methodology etc. does not necessarily mean rejection of its findings. RomaC (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in the rush to discredit the report, the actual controversial content was removed from the article. Content before commentary please. RomaC (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Mary Robinson citicized only the original mandate. The rest criticized the report itself or both. We could separately state the criticism of each major figure/group, but I think it's important to be as brief as possible in the lede. Roma, the fact that a UN report drew such widespread criticism from significant figures and institutions is notable in and of itself. As for your your last assertion, I agree, though I'm not sure what your point is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Did the state department actually criticize the findings? for some reason I thought their criticism was of the mandate. nableezy - 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They criticized both the mandate and the report as unbalanced. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the following sentence in the article somewhat troubling for a number of reasons.

Judge Goldstone’s findings drew sharp criticism from the Obama administration who claimed the report was unfair to Israel and did not take adequate account of the “deplorable” actions by Hamas during the war.[326]

1. 'Sharply' - no per WP:OPED

2. The Obama administration didn't claim it was unfair to Israel. The NYT claimed that the Obama administration claimed that it was unfair to Israel. The State Dept just said Although the report addresses all sides of the conflict, its overwhelming focus is on the actions of Israel. While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas’s deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative. It would be better to let the State Dept speak for themselves rather than let one source put words in their mouth in my view.

3. The following statement in the same press conf is presumably of equal importance so may be worth a mention. We also have very serious concerns about the report’s recommendations, including calls that this issue be taken up in international fora outside the Human Rights Council and in national courts of countries not party to the conflict. We note in particular that Israel has the democratic institutions to investigate and prosecute abuses, and we encourage it to use those institutions.

4. Link to NYT source missing from ref.[7] Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinkin

There you go again slipping in “Hamas’ into the sentence for the third time and for the third time I will revert you, though I will leave the remaining part of your edit (“before seeing any evidence” to “prior to participating in the mission”) unmolested as technically, you are correct. Chinkin saw evidence (what that evidence might be, well, your guess is as good as mine), just not the commission’s evidence.

The first paragraph of Chinkin’s petition rejects Israel’s contention of self-defense. The second paragraph is dismissive of Hamas rocket attacks claiming that they do not “amount to an armed attack.” The third details Palestinian casualties and property damage while neglecting to mention anything about Israel. The fourth discusses the large disproportion between Israel and Palestinian casualties and reaffirms that Israel is the “occupying power” despite her withdrawal in 2005. The fifth calls Israel the aggressor and states that Israel acted contrary to “international humanitarian and human rights law.” It further states that Israel’s actions are “prima facie war crimes.” The sixth paragraph gives an honorable mention to Hamas almost as an afterthought but true to form, finishes with condemnation of Israel.

Thus, the thrust of the petition is clearly aimed at Israel which is the subject of the harshest criticism. Hamas is mentioned in just two places while criticisms of Israel are peppered throughout. Thus, your edit is misleading and inaccurate and warrants reversion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, overall there are two points to be made: firstly, it's an indisputable fact that the letter condemned Hamas' rockets as war crimes, and secondly, Goldstone made the point that the letter condemned the rockets when defending Chinkin, as the Jerusalem Post article states. Therefore the mention that the letter condemned Hamas should be there. We might also keep in mind that Chinkin is a professor of international law, and that other reports have reached similar conclusions as the Goldstone report, so the facts in the matter aren't as contentious or complicated as the present form of the article would seem to suggest. --Dailycare (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Chinkin's petition condemns Hamas rocket fire but the thrust of the petition's invective is aimed at Israel. You can not realistically argue otherwise. The petition mentions Israel (and not in glowing terms) 13 times and Hamas gets a fraction of that. Moreover, the attorney's who requested her removal from the commission specifically did so because they perceived her to be biased against Israel based on her prior proclamations. They did not request her removal becuase of her position on Hamas.

I am not arguing the merits of Chinkin's or Goldstone's positions. I am just stating that her critics charged her with being biased based on statements she made and petitions she signed which were construed by the attorneys to be vehemently anti Israel. That is why they requested her removal. If you want to add an additional piece stating that she also condemned Hamas, by all means do so. But to include Hamas in the sentence and making it seem as though the attorneys requested her removal based on anti-Israel, as well as anti-Hamas statements is extremely misleading and is in fact inaccurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Divining what the "main thrust" of a document is is WP:OR. If you want to include that, you need a source saying that the document was "vehemently anti Israel" whatever that means. However we're discussing a minor point and I can make a compromise edit that you'll probably be OK with based on your comment above. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just include everything that was in the article...no as a diving source but a source that brings understating to the article...Cryptonio (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sudan strike

I added a small section on the Sudan strike. I did so because it occurred during the war and involved the belligerents. Hope this is okay with you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel stated that one of objective of Gaza War is stopping "import" of weapons like factory produced rockets which Gaza government launched into Israel before and during the war. Looks like a nice well sourced addition with military details like weaponry used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AgadaUrbanit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Under what command did Israel felt it needed to stop such rockets...Oh, it felt threatened....ok, just fine...and who was Israel attacking in the process to archive it;s security concerns?... Yes, Gaza imports weapons(from who? Iran of course) but, those weapons aren't used against Iran...Umm, yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah 1984...forgive the common media...But, today...who are at war against? Cryptonio (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(sidetracking) Cryptonio, love you as always. Big Brother Is Watching - hope you have your Apple MacBook with you, to chase those bad ghosts away ;) Just finished reading Cryptonomicon - those governments should stop taxing our thoughts, there is a way! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Created a section under international law 'The Goldstone Report'

And cut down it in the lead. Done.

Hello Mr. Unsigned Anon, it would not be bad, in the case of controversy-steeped articles which are under Wikipedia general sanctions, to offer some sort of discussion before creating new sections and editing the lead. Also you're meant to sign your comments here on Talk by typing four tildes (~~~~). I assume you have the best intentions in making these edits, but I'm reverting them now as someone else most likely will anyway. I hope you will participate here on Talk. If this is your first time on Wikipedia, welcome! if not perhaps you could sign-in? Sincères salutations, RomaC (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problemas. Just did a bold edit to what I think will be the result of discussions. See it as a suggestion. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see everything as a suggestion. Yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

for use elsewhere

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 recommended bringing those responsible to justice. The report condemned Palestinian rocket attacks as a "deliberate attack against the civilian population", but singled out Israeli actions for the most serious condemnation, labeling them a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population." The report or the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

Lead looks not good with alot of this report in it, remember it is a report and not a part of the war. Make a section under international law as I tried befor it was reverted or even better, start a new article about it. The summary that both is acused of warcrimes is enough here.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"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:  : [8] and for "Gaza Massacre" see: [9] 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"[10] 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. [11]. 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)^[12]

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: [13]. 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 [14]. 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."^[15][16]
Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[17]
Mussa Abu Marzuk: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[18]

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 [19]

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 [20]. 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. [21] "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".^[22]

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)^[23]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[24][25]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[26]
• 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."^[27]
• 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."^[28]
• 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."^[29]
• 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"^[30][31]

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": [32] 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.^[33]

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

I encourage you to read this [34] 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. [35] 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)

New infobox

There is a new infobox in the Palestinian paramilitary activity section, and discussion on the box in general here, but perhaps we could also address its appropriateness in this article. Because it runs the gamut of all Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from 2001-2009 as well as types of rockets not used in the Gaza War, doesn't it introduce too much of one kind of information? There is already a rocket statistics chart in the article which more closely corresponds to the Gaza War and lead-up timeframe. Also don't like infoboxes in general, see them as Trojan Horses. Maybe I'm wrong, would a "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" infobox improve the article? RomaC (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Like the info and makes browsing easy but the prominence gives it weight that we should avoid. I would expect any "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" box to cause all sorts of concerns so might as well just get rid of it. Not sure what it says in the guidelines but it looks like text goes where text goes, infoboxes go at the top, and templates go at the bottom is standard enough that the deviation looks a little silly.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This Edit

[36] is obviously contrary to the source Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

yes it is. You should revert it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:22, 28 September 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.^[37]
• 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."^[38]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[39][40]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[41]
• 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."^[42]
• 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."^[43]
• 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."^[44]
• 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"^[45][46]

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 [47] Palestinian Ministry Of Interior(if right translated, cant read arabic) and cited in JP [48]. 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 [49], some 1610 [50] in Google News. Notice that "Gaza" and "War" are both capitalized as appropriate for proper nouns (specific names)[51]

• "Operation Cast Lead" gets some 14.5 MILLION ghits [52] and some 4,020 [53] in news. Also it is fully capitalized demonstrating that it is a "name" and not a description.

• "The Gaza Massacre" gets 247,000 ghits [54] and a mere 68 in Google News [55]

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.[56]

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 [57], "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" [58] 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)

<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 & [59]. "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)