Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 11 October 2011

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza War (2008–2009). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"The importation of necessary food and supplies continues to be blocked even after the respective ceasefires."

This is regarding the humanitarian concerns in Gaza. The source for this line cites an article published in January 2009, and is outdated. Considering the severity and the implications of the sentence, and the fact that it is certainly false (just time into google "food in gaza" this is one article that comes up http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/1438-most-items-allowed-into-gaza-by-israel-qare-food-and-consumer-goodsq), I recommend that the line be removed. In fact most of the information in that paragraph is outdated. Following the Mavi Marma incedent, Israel overhauled it's policies regarding the import of goods into Gaza, changes should be made to reflect the current situation on the ground and not the situation just a handful of weeks after the war ended.

129.2.129.80 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem w/ 1/rr

A new editor has changed this from being an "armed conflict" to a "bombing campaign". It may not be intended to be vandalism so I am not reverting at this time. But it is certainly not inline with sources so it will be changed. 1/rr is still good. I just wanted to point this out since editors sometimes come in quickly to revert such edits and also because I wanted to keep the talk page active. As long as the edit warring (which recently came back) stays away then I am happy.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested information to insert with relevant citations

1. US Congress person letter re Gaza aid which circulated as the dust settled 2. Controversy around UN SPecial Rappatuer not permitted access 3. Israeli journalist complaints about not permitted access 4.Links to overall strategic jeopardy situation of Israel, strategic thinking behind OCL. Note (4) should offset NPOV accusations against me. If not, let's talk... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikidIKibitzShield (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources for consideration as well if you have them.

There is already a line about lack of media access. Another line might be needed but keep it summary style with the subarticle receiving the in depth info.

Suggestion 4 {"overall strategic jeopardy") and how it relates to this conflict is unclear. Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Resources section

Hi all:

I moved the IDF spokesman from a category of "involved party" into "resources." Undoubtedly it is a biased source, but I think the fact that it is named "Spokesman for the IDF" should make that clear to even the most casual reader. I have done so in-line with sources from other military forces with websites V. Joe (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is too huge

Its currently overloaded by people trying to access it and even in off peak periods takes a figurative century to load. One of two things needs to be done:
1. Split off some sections into sub-articles.
2. Maybe it is time to synthesize the reality that is finally being admitted and stop accepting the Arab narrative as anything but contrived fiction:

a. Hamas corroborating the IDF death counts of terrorists/militants/whatever

b. Goldstone "recanting" his report and admitting that Israel did not target civilians intentionally, even explaining many incidents such as that family of 29 that was killed

Either/or; maybe both. I can make more elaborate recommendations, including proposed synthesizations (new word) upon request.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it being too long. However, I do not think that we should look at it as a problem with an "Arab narrative" but a only a concern that can be addressed by pruning information that was stuck in as it was breaking news. We do have a clearer picture of the conflict now then we did a year ago. Unfortunately, shortening it would require a fundamental rewrite so I have no idea where to begin. If editors want to start trimming and using hatnotes then I am all for it. Please keep in mind that almost any edit will be contentious so the talk page will be our best friend during the process.Cptnono (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest pruning the following:

• There is a section titled "Aftermath". And another titled "Post-War Military Assessment". Why are they there? It is all info that is or can be in the "Effects" (or a retitled) section. Note that the propaganda and psych warfare is still a subsection of that. Why?
• The two NGOs do not deserve section in the "Casualties" section. They should be in the sub article while the most up to date numbers from RS should be used.

Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can do this section by section. I will make some proposals within a few days, hopefully sooner. I looked over it before and a lot of stuff could be synthesized or cut down even without the two revelations, as well as some irrelevant crap. And a few things looked better off in sub-articles. PS: I think one of the keys here also will be to remove all the fluff and extra wording. If we do a lot of this, it will add up. Clip a bit here, a bit there...and it will become a much smaller article.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has any complaints about my cuts, PLEASE bring them up here before reverting. I am an unashamed Zionist and would love to do a number on this article, but I am trying to keep my editing within the bounds of how people here view the conflict.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I only disagree with a couple things from a quick review:

• You used "claimed". That is addressed at WP:WORDS. You are not the only one since it is used throughout.
• I think the countries need to be listed at "Three of them – Iran, Libya and North Korea – expressed support for Hamas' operations or defined them as falling within its right of resistance. Nineteen states, mostly members of the European Union, condemned Hamas' attacks exclusively. Thirteen of them – Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Panama and the United States – expressed support for Israel's operations or defined them as falling within Israel's right to self defense." "Some" is too vague for some editors while those specific countries are of much interest. The value of that quick list (in prose format) is worth more than the reduction in Kbs.

Nice work!Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. No objections. And if we cut down other stuff, this may be less important to cut. I forget where I used claimed, but I know I did. I think I was just trying to cut down characters with a synonym.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Casualties discussion

(Lets use this as somewhat of a stencil for size.)

If we can come up with a consensus on how to present the casualties, that would allow us to cut a good bit of the article down. We know that IDF and Hamas figures on the militants are coherent. I would propose something like "The IDF tallied 709 Hamas and affiliated militant deaths, which is supported by statements from Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad." Do we really need to continue with PCHR and B'Tselem figures? Does anyone know if they have updated or responded to what Hamad stated? If both sides almost exactly agree on the totals in such a heated and debated conflict, it probably is correct. "In addition, 450-720 (or 740--PMoH) civilians were killed in the conflict." For Israel, we can say "Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians." I dont see the need for the whole friendly fire business. It seems like an attempt to diminish Israeli losses (how many Gazans were killed by "friendly" fire? Couldnt human shield use be considered that? etc..)

But do you have any solid sources to prove that Hamas actually used human shields? Waffleswaffles (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we can mention a blip about Egyptian, UN, and NGO losses. Then a bit about the difficulties of attaining an independent count, as well as accusations of inflation. Really no more than a sentence or two for each. After that, I think we can mention in a paragraph about the debate over what police should be counted as.

Seriously, this should be three paragraphs and done, after what Hamad said. I think this is a fairly reasonable proposal. We can mention the disputes in figures maybe, but really just put a range and the subarticle can cover the disputes and whatnot. Also, Hamad is stuck in like every section. We should just synthesize the article based on what he said instead of having this nonsensical, huge, "dual" article.

Remember to keep criticism pointed at my proposal, not at me. Lets not get heated here.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if the World War II article can summarize casualties and war crimes in five and a half paragraphs, we should be able to do it in ten or twelve here. If there's more to say, it belongs in a sub-article. But we'll have to be careful like everything with this article. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I feel that the NGOs need to be axed. The two combatants are all that is needed and since they are more inline with eachother I see no reason that so much back and forth between the two is needed. Simply cut out those two NGOs since they belong in the subarticle like any other NGO would. They are also an impact from previous RECENTISM and people adding in any braking news they saw.Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldstone - "Goldstone: Claims of Israel's Gaza war crimes should be reconsidered"

May be this shoulb be included - , Sabrina LM (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - info from the original Washington Times article needs to be placed in the lead, right after mention of the report. See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/2/netanyahu-un-throw-out-goldstone-report/Kinetochore (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions as to where it would go, as I see no immediate place for such information on this article. Passionless -Talk 00:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story was also picked up by Al Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/201142231017418.html. As I see it, this new info merits 1-2 sentences in the lead and a full paragraph summary in the article where the report is discussed.Kinetochore (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Alternatively, we could remove Goldstone from the lead altogether but some many people said it as important that I would lean towards keeping it there but clarifying with this updated information. The thought of not including this somewhere is silly considering how much space we give the report. By the way, I suggest someone else go for it since my version is likely to not be acceptable to some.Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say that it is completely POV of Israel to put that in the lead paragraph, and to selectively quote without posting the fact that a) He said himself that he was under immense pressure or that b) The rest of his colleagues highly condemned the fact that he reconsidered his report. It seems that every Gaza--Israel page is hiding POV behind the fact that it's a notable subject. Waffleswaffles (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote is already mentioned in a later part of the page and so I have removed it on the basis that it provides no use in the Lead other than to give a Pro-Israeli or at least Anti-Goldstone Report POV. The fact that it is recent does not permit it to jump to the lead. Waffleswaffles (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary so it is likely there will be some repetition. This is important enough to be in the lead and more than one editor believes so. Maybe rework it but full on removal is not a solution. Also, why did you not remove other items repeated?Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's place is not in the lead. There should be another section dedicated to the Goldstone report, and in there place the information regarding original and later recanting. I think it's completely absurd that in the summary of the entire 'Gaza War' page, to be a section on 'goldstone recanting some parts of his report'. I thought it was even more absurd that it didn't say anything about the fact that his colleagues condemned it, or mention the fact that he told Haaretz that he was under immense pressure. It follows on, and so needs it's own space. You can't summarise this whole issue into the lead of the entire Gaza War page, or it brings POV issues. The summary should be nothing more than a.. yep: SUMMARY. Also, I didn't remove anything else because that's the first thing I saw that struck me as unacceptable, I haven't fully read most of the article yet. Waffleswaffles (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And on a sidenote, this entire page needs reworking. The summary mentions why Israel started attacking (Operation Oil Stain), but doesn't say anything about the November 4th strike (in the summary) on the night of the election? There is a heavy Pro-Israeli POV in the Summary through omission of many details. If you're going to put it in, put the whole story in. Otherwise, it should be in it's designated paragraph and the summary should keep to being a summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffleswaffles (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's important enough to be in the lead (which is not necessarily the case in my view since the report is about a whole bunch of things not just the targeting of civilians), then it needs to present the issue in a balanced way which I've attempted to do here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the other judges' rejection of Goldstone's reassessment should be mentioned. The quote just repeated that they reject Goldstone's reassessment - I removed it from the lead.Kinetochore (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree for 2 reasons 1) We need to give equal weight/detail to each side. If Goldstone is given a voice, the others should have a voice too. And 2) removing the quote changes the nature of that sentence. With the quote the statement explains the other member's position. Without the quote the sentence appears to apply to the specific issues raised in the previous sentence, which is not actually the case. Their response was broader than that, hence the quote. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate seeing it get so long but SH is right. I would love to see the body trimmed (as discussed above) and the lead follow (since it is and always has been a finger pointing mess) but it is as it should be unless we are actually making fundamental changes to the article.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Might have another easy cut here

• Gaza war#Gaza humanitarian crisis

The Red Cross deputy director Mathilde Redmatn, has stated that "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza." She goes on further to confirm what Israel and its supporters have been saying for years, that is "f you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach." She also says that Israel has the right to defend itself and appears not to have levelled much criticism at Israel for its operations, other than asking it to loosen restrictions on certain goods imports.

1. Arutz Sheva
2. Jerusalem Post
3. CNN

In light of this, I propose that we remove the section posted above, due to its well-sourced baseless and libelous nature.

Metallurgist (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably can't remove it all. However, I think stuff about the blockade belongs over at that article. And anything about "estimates" should go since we should have updated firm figures by now. We could easily trim half the section. Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see switching it to a bit about the blockade. That makes sense.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, the "CNN" piece is an "iReport" by one Joel Leyden, a "media consultant" for the Israeli PM's office. The full quote from the ICRC deputy is "“There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach. The problem is mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example". This 2+ years after the time this article covers. Remove the section as "libelous"?!? Please. nableezy - 03:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the attempt to switch gears just above to "trimming" instead of flat out removal. Also note the conversations (and stability) over the last few months regarding reducing the overall length of this entry.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, libelous. It wasnt true then and it isnt true now, yet there are people still claiming there is a humanitarian crisis. There is plenty of documentation from the war period that shows there was plenty of food. This for instance is from November 2009. There never was a blockade on food and medicine.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats nice. The sources are pretty clear on this point, and regardless of how Joel Leyden would like to spin one statement made years later, the sources remain clear on this point. nableezy - 13:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

Currently this article includes an Israeli operational name and an English name in the lead, neglecting to include an Arabic name of any sort. Luckily as time has gone on actual books have begun to discuss this topic. It has been argued in the past that the sourcing for the name used in alternatively Gaza (or by Hamas specifically), the Arab world, or the Muslim world, was not sufficient. Here are some additional sources:

• Gaita, Raimond, ed. (2010), Gaza: Morality, Law & Politics, UWA Publishing

  p. 1: Israel calls its war in Gaza Operation Cast Lead. Hamas calls it The Gaza Massacre, as do some Arab States.

• Fisher, David; Wicker, Brian (2010), Just war on terror?: A Christian and Muslim response, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 164: Operation Cast Lead is described in the Islamic world as the Gaza Massacre

• Wiegand, Krista (2010), Bombs and ballots: governance by Islamist terrorist and guerrilla groups, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 131: The reinstated rocket attacks provoked a full scale Israeli invasion into Gaza, named Operation Cast Lead, but known in Gaza and the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre.

I welcome comment as to whether the phrase "known in Gaza as the Gaza Massacre" is now reliably sourced. If that is not contested I welcome an explanation as to why it should not be included in the first sentence as the name used by one of the parties of this conflict. nableezy - 23:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't argue with those sources. It was forced into this article so long that it was mirrored. Nice work on making your point and starting a trend with the use of Misplaced Pages. Rewriting history is fun. Feel free to make the change. It only took a couple years but this should be settled now. Anyone object?Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindly keep your comments focused on the content. Thanks. Barring a reason not to do so being given, I will be adding this to the lead paragraph later tonight. nableezy - 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well considering that we now recognize a 1:1 or 1:2 combatant:civilian death toll ratio, I fail to see how it can be accurately described as a massacre when this is pretty good for urban warfare. Really anyone can write a book. Just because it is in a book does not mean it is correct, reliable, or worthy of putting here.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a closer look at WP:V and WP:RS. And nobody "recognizes" anything of the sort. One Hamas official included in his count of martyrs from Hamas policeman. The number of times that one official's remark is repeated in this article as though it somehow vindicates the Israeli claim of how many "terror operatives" were killed is something that makes me scratch my head. But back to the point, do you have any sources that dispute this is the name used in Gaza, or by Hamas, or in the wider Arab world? If not, do you have a reason why the name used by the people attacked should not be included in the lead? nableezy - 03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The name is not a description of the event but rather the terms by which it is known. See the Saturday Night Massacre for example. Spoiler Alert -- no casualties. Nableezy's proposal is reasonable. Since we have the RS, the only other concern would be UNDUE and I have no reason to say this doesn't meet that. Presumably we'd remove the massacre line in the third para as well. To be honest this edit is so simple that I don't know why it wasn't proposed sooner. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection, there appears to be 67 archived pages of petty bickering. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. nableezy - 12:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Prior discussions indicate, that there seems to be a WP:Consensus to discuss naming in the article body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any policy based reason why this should not be in the first sentence as the name used by one of the parties? And why, prior to my edit, only the name used by the Israeli military was in the lead? There can no longer be any dispute about the reliability of the sources, that train is gone. If there was some other reason, meaning one based in Misplaced Pages content policies, that I missed, please enlighten me. nableezy - 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Both sides names should be removed. Thank you for leading WP:RM of this article to its current name - Gaza War. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just saying it does not make it so. What policy based reason is there for not including the names in the lead paragraph? I can quote you a section from WP:LEAD which says the names should be included: significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. nableezy - 13:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to feed the nationalism troll and the issue of naming is not I/P specific. Policy wise WP:LEAD should enjoy from community consensus and the naming is already sourced in the body. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what it is you are talking about. nableezy - 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I now notice that you have reverted, saying "see talk for rationale". You have not provided any rationale. Please do so now. Policy based reasons for that revert are needed, not a vague wave to some imaginary consensus that this cannot be in the lead. nableezy - 14:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:LEAD#Usage_in_first_sentence: The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what consensus is? You cannot just say this has no consensus, you need to provide reasons for it. Please provide policy based reasons so that I can go to the content noticeboard to seek further opinions as to whether or not your concerns are justified. You cannot simply put a stake in the ground and say "NO NO NO". That is not how "consensus" works. nableezy - 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why any of the names for the war should be included in the lede. They should be place in the appropriate area of the body. Bjmullan (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at almost every single article about a battle or war in this topic area. For example, look at the Six-day War article. Or the Yom Kippur War article. Or the 2006 Lebanon War article. Or 1982 Lebanon War. Nearly every article covering a battle or war in this topic area includes the names used by each party in the first sentence of the article. Not seeing a reason for including it is not the same as providing a reason for not including it. Please do so, or at the very least say which policy supports your position so that I may attempt to go through the processes laid out at WP:DR. nableezy - 15:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and a reason was given. WP:NAME: significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. WP:LEAD: significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. The name used by the people attacked is certainly a "significant name" in another language. nableezy - 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting on a reason why this has been removed. The claim that there is "no consensus" is spurious, policy based reasons must be given and "consensus" demands reasons backing arguments. I would rather not simply revert the removal, but unless actual reasons based in Misplaced Pages policy are given I will do just that. nableezy - 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Having all the names in the lead is not mandatory. A consensus that says no names should be in the lead is in line with WP:LEAD and doesn't violate any policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A "consensus" requires reasons, not simply people saying they want one thing or the other. I have provided reasons and guidelines that support my position, none have been offered in rebuttal. nableezy - 19:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this. The editors who feel that the names do no belong in the lead explain why. That way the steps outlined in WP:DR (going to a content noticeboard, opening an RFC, mediation, arbitration ...) can be attempted. nableezy - 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's easy. I want the lede to get the reader interested in the whole article therefore it must flow and be easy on the eye. Adding un-necessary information at the very start is not the way to do that. This is also why I dislike references in the lede. Hope this helps. Bjmullan (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you determine what information is "un-necessary"? How is one of the most basic pieces of information, what something is called, not "necessary"? nableezy - 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To the vast majority of English speaking reading the war is known as the Gaza War, end off. They do not want to be told that it was called this that or the other by Tom, Dick or Harry. They want, as do I, a concise summary of the article. Bjmullan (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, I was not aware that you spoke for the "vast majority of English speakers" who read this article. Nor did I know that this majority was not at all interested in knowing what those attacked call this event. In any case, WP:LEAD and WP:NAME contradicts your belief that such information is unnecessary. But thank you for providing a reason. Is that the only reason or should I wait on more before opening an RFC? nableezy - 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Open what you want. You asked for reasons and I gave mine honestly. Google.com search results: Gaza War 27,300,000; Operation Cast Lead 3,380,000; Gaza Massacre 7,400,000. I might not speak for the majority ... Bjmullan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to use quotes in your google search. "gaza war": 1,320,000; "operation cast lead": 1,710,000; "gaza massacre":147,000. FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG I WANT TO COMMENT ON CONTRIBUTORS RIGHT NOW SO BAD! Oh well. The comment above about the sheer ratio when combined with the previous consensus to not list names makes me lean towards not listing it. However, we cannot argue with the sources (since common sense is trumped by VERIFY) can we? If not it makes this a touchy situation. But yeah, something that finally has three sources (the previous sources were garbage but we can even say 6 sources) v tens of thousands might not deserve any prominence. I seriously am split down the middle on this. Since I have been against it for so long it makes it especially hard. I don;t mind it being in now but do totally understand why we should leave it out. Now that someone has reverted it is stuck so don;t edit war over it since consensus actually looks against it.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There might be a point to an English google search if this were being put in as an English name. It isnt though, and the point vanishes because of that. This is being placed as the Arabic name, not an alternative English name. As one of two "significant names in other languages". That the people of Gaza's name for this event is not as well represented in English sources as the Israeli military name is, while unsurprising, completely irrelevant. But forgive me if I take a dim view of your understanding of "consensus". One reason has been offered, that it is "unnecessary" for readers of an English article to have the names used by each party included in the first sentence. Ill wait for other reasons before opening an RFC. Anybody have anything else to offer? And Bjmullan, if I misstated your reasoning please correct me before I open the RFC. I want to make sure both sides arguments are accurately stated. nableezy - 03:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is Gaza Massacre (مجزرة غزة‎) is not listed as the fist, i.e. most common name at Attack on Gaza ( الهجوم على قطاع غزة ) at ar.wikipedia.org . It comes second. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what criteria the Arabic Misplaced Pages uses for choice of names. This is not being proposed as a new name for the Arabic Misplaced Pages article. However, several reliable sources identify this as the name used by the people of Gaza and by Hamas. That is the reason for inclusion, that it is the name used by one of the involved partied. The Arabic Misplaced Pages was not, as far as I know, a party to this conflict. So their choice of name does not really matter, regardless of their methods for choosing it. nableezy - 01:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have opened the RFC below, and I hope I have adequately summarized the arguments from those opposed to inclusion. If not please correct me. nableezy - 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit of 09:23

I do not think that the Goldstone quote should have been removed. Justice Goldstone, was the senior jurist and the name sake of the report. The fact that he has largely recanted his own report is extremely crucial and the article ought to discuss it, complete with a money quote. V. Joe (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He did not "largely recant" anything, and it was not his report. The quote can be included, but it was undue weight to have it in the lead of the article. And if that quote is included, so to should the response from the three other co-authors, one like Members of the mission, signatories to this statement, find it necessary to dispel any impression that subsequent developments have rendered any part of the mission's report unsubstantiated, erroneous or inaccurate. or maybe The report of the fact-finding mission contains the conclusions made after diligent, independent and objective consideration of the information related to the events within our mandate, and careful assessment of its reliability and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions. Or maybe We consider that calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature and purpose, disregard the right of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice. They also ignore the responsibility of the relevant parties under international law to conduct prompt, thorough, effective and independent investigations. We regret the personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact-finding mission since we began our work in May 2009. nableezy - 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

civilian targets in the lead

The phrase "Israel attacked both military and civilian targets" has been in this article, untouched, for many months. It has now been edit warred out of the article with one user violating the 1RR to do so, removing it twice and the other coming to his assistance when two separate editors objected to the removal (so much for some people crying BRD in the future, at least one hopes). Since you object to the inclusion of the word "civilian targets", would you rather include a partial list of the actual targets, including a university, a mosque in a refugee camp, and apartment buildings? nableezy - 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely untrue about it being there for a long period of time - I never noticed the addition of civilians until very recently. Yes, list specific targets, and then list specific Israeli defense/reason/explanation for hitting/damaging the civilian infrastructure. This is the only appropriate solution. Saying that Israel targeted civilians is highly biased, and is not appropriate for this article. Kinetochore (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever that civilian targets were attacked. That is what the sources say because that is what happened as a matter of fact. Kinetochore's edit summary "Israel did not "attack" what Israel considered to be "civilian" targets. Civilian infrastructure was hit/damaged, but not attacked" demonstrates the problem. The statement in the lead isn't about what Israel considers it did, it's about what Israel actually did according to sources. Brewcrewer's reasoning is equally problematic "this is a contentious issue, especially with the latest relevations regarding Goldstone's reversal". Goldstone's op-ed says that in his view, civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy. Setting aside the other author's objections, he's talking about targeting civilians, people, not civilian targets like a flour mill, farms, a sewage treatment plant etc. Please, can we not try to rewrite history here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please read the Palestinian militant groups' defense/reason/explanations for firing rockets at civilian centres (here for example) and consider what would happen if we applied the same faulty reasoning in their case i.e. that saying they do x, y, z is highly biased because it's inconsistent with the explanation they provide for their actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean, your analogy is boldly wrong - look at how we phrase Hamas rocket attacks in the lead - we write that "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel... ". In the article's section on Palestinian rocket fire, we write that "These attacks resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure ". We don't say Hamas used rocket and mortars to "attack civilian targets". I don't deny that Israeli damaged civilian infrastructure, this is fact. That they "attacked" civilian infrastructure is in dispute.Kinetochore (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My analogy is about confusing intent with actuality. Please read the source cited, page 199 for example and Effects of the Gaza War. That Israel attacked a multitude of civilian targets using state of the art precision weaponry by air, land and sea and less precise methods such as by bulldozer, causing very widescale damage and loss of life is not in dispute at all. Why they did that, what the military objectives were in each case, how many were errors vs how many weren't etc are different and no doubt very detailed, complicated issues. I would much rather the lead simply briefly describe actuality based on reliable sources rather than dance around with notions of intention. I would much rather it simply described what happened in terms of known facts, the objective observable and documented effects of the conflict rather than describe things in terms of narratives. It's remarkable that the effects of the conflict are now almost completely absent from the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"That Israel attacked a multitude of civilian targets using state of the art precision weaponry by air, land and sea and less precise methods such as by bulldozer, causing very widescale damage and loss of life is not in dispute at all." Yes it is. This is partially based on the ambiguity of the term "civilian target". Striking at a building utilized by military forces might very well make it a military target. And when Israel attacked military targets but accidentaly (or even uncaringly) hit civilian buildings is different then intentionally targeting civilians. There is certainly a dispute regarding if civilians were intentionally targeted.

Over all "hit military and civilian targets" is stupid. Israel attacked targets/objectives/whatever. I kind of like the recent edit that eliminated the line since it is too ambiguous and easy to use as a method of pushing POV. Drastically reword it.

And then keep on triming the article instead of focusing on one dumb line.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the notion of military and civilian targets are somewhat ambiguous by themselves given that it's in the eye of the beholder. For example, as page 204 of the Goldstone report describes in detail, terrorist chickens and their military infrastructure can be targeted by bulldozers repeatedly under these confused circumstances for reasons that may be slightly hard to fathom. This is why I think it's better to say what happened rather than use descriptions based on opaque assessments by belligerents. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that X civilian infrastructure was damaged, with Y rationale/explanation according to party Z. Implying that Israel even had civilian targets based on specific incidents is WP:OR. For the same reason, we do not write that Hamas targeted civilians. We just write where they fired rockets, and the consequences/damage caused.Kinetochore (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If a Hamas fired a laser-guided missile and it hit a school bus, I bet we'd say they chose the target, "attacked" it, and did so intentionally. We might even echo the idea in the article's title, and reiterate it in the lead. Oh, wait. We do. From the current lead of Hamas school bus attack: "The fact that the Russian-made Kornet is a laser-guided weapon indicated that the school bus was intentionally targeted."  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hamas admitted to intentionally targeting the bus. What they said was that they did not think/know there were children on it. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-says-didn-t-mean-to-target-israeli-school-bus-1.354967). But we at Misplaced Pages thank users like you for your helpful input!Kinetochore (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamas fighter death figures in lead?

The last bit in the lead says that Hamas admitted to 700 deaths and that is about what Israel says as well.Is there any reason for this to be in the lead as it is already covered in the casualties section of the article?Personally I just see it as a bit of pro Israeli spin in the lead and if it stays then a bit should be added that the rest of the casualties consisted of 350-700 civilians killed by the Israelis.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Facts speak for themselves. No matter how unpleasant they are, it's still facts, uncontested and demonstrably. I see no reason to remove this from the intro. Facts are never oversimplified or biased, they are just facts. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you have no problem with the facts that the Israeli killed 350-700 civilians then.Being as that is not a problem we can put that in the lead as well.Good news.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat myself: I have no problem with facts. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More WP

It would be better if editors stuck by BRD even if it is not mandatory.

I plan on reverting this diff unless previous discussions and WP:LENGTH are addressed. Editors here have previously discussed both WP and length. We do not need to list every NGOs opinion here. We have a secondary article (which I already moved this to). Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First time I have seen this.It sure looks like you do not want things included in articles that reflect badly on Israel, but everyone knows that already.The WP article is not too long as you claim, it is very very short and the piece I put in there is relevant to that article and well source, it comes from Amnesty.I do not agree with you deleting and moving it either Owain the 1st (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to your first comment at your talk page.

Articles > 100 KB should almost certainly be divided. This article is the 128th largest article on Misplaced Pages at over 224.

We have a balance in the section between the various viewpoints. Some would even argue that that particular NGO is not RS due to their bias.

So an easy solution was moving it into a specific article that another editor already started. It appears to be inline with WP:SPINOUT. So how many other NGOs are we going to add? What is the line? How about thinking outside of the box (while considering BRD in the future) and think of a way to include the mention "multiple NGOs" or something along those lines? Simply reverting won't do and this conversation took place awhile ago. I will have to search the archives to see where it was but I think I pointed to enough for you to read to better understand Misplaced Pages's standards on appropriate lengths. Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Some would argue that particular NGO is not RS"? Well they would be wrong as Amnesty is used all over wikipedia and is a reputable source.As for the WP article it has one NGO piece on it so adding another is no way over the top.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And you will note that some editors have disagreed with such inclusion. I believe they are in the minority but one thing I have always tried to keep in mind that if we do use those sources we cannot mirror their biased tone. This is not done by coatracking the section. Anyways, do you have a response to the length thing? You have asserted that the article is too short. Do you now see what our standards are?

And you still need to strike out the first par of your comment.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No I do not note that some editors have disagreed with such inclusion it is only you here complaining.Please show me where these other editors are?Amnesty reporting the facts seem to be a problem for you and of course we know it to be a fact as it is backed up by journalist and other NGO's.As I stated the WP article is very very small and has just one NGO commenting so including a quote from Amnesty is fine as far as I can see.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then don't note it. Now can you respond to the length and coatracking concerns?Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not note it as I have stated that you are the only one complaining.I see you could not come up with any other editors as per your claim.I have already commented on the length of the article a few times and am not going to again.I suggest you go back and read what I posted.I do not agree with you at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not commented on the length since I provided you the link showing that you were incorrect. You have not addressed the coatrack issue. So one final time: Are you refusing to address those primary points?Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Owain uses the term "article" when he means to say "section". I think he's saying the "whipe phosphorous" section of this article is short. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is true.I thought it was pretty clear what I was talking about.I said it enough times.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPINOUT as a solution and WP:COATRACK as a concern are still applicable no matter what he meant. Are we to add every NGO's opinion and the IDFs response to each of them? And no, it wasn't clear since you did not clarify it.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is clear to anyone who can read the English language.When I state:The WP article is not too long as you claim:As I stated the WP article is very very small:I mentioned it two times, did you actually miss that?I cannot clarify it anymore than writing it down twice.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the disconnect that you do not understand that "article" and "section" mean two different things or do you believe that the "article" and "section" are both too short?

The section was trimmed down for good reason. Rewording it but staying within some limits (ie: not picking and choosing our favorite piece of information while ignoring others as used to be done) is needed. This article is way too long and we should be rewording and not expanding sections that other editors have trimmed for good reason. Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But could you answer Cptnono's replies? He notes (as I recall it is accurate) that because this (entire) article was very long, it was agreed that some sections should be split, including the one containing WP usage. WP usage is covered in more detail at the subarticle, Controversial tactics in the Gaza War. This allows us to shorten the article a bit. As he noted, it is the 128th longest article on the project, the 68th longest that isn't a pure list. And probably one of the longest 10 or 20 that doesn't contain a list. Your addition would undo the split and do so by adding one factoid among all the WP content at the subarticle. That's a point of view but I don't think you've defended it. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, it seems to be you who cannot understand what I was talking about when I say twice that the WP article is not very long then that is just what I mean, if I was talking about the Gaza war article then I would have written that.The fact that I posted WP article really gives it away I believe.JGGardiner,Do you see me changing it back? I have not.The article is as when Cptnono reverted it.I am just stating that I do not agree with his argument for removing the Amnesty quote that I put in it.His reasons have varied from Amnesty is not a reputable source to the article is too long.I disagree but am not reverting it so do not see what all the fuss is about.This is at an end I believe.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good for now then. If you decide to bring this up again, please understand that whe editors say "article" (even "WP article") they mean an article ad when someone says "section" they mean a part of the article. "WP article" and "article" read the same. Please then adress the primary argument that has not changed once: length. Then address a secondary point: neutrality. Then find a source that will be less likely to be disputed. I did not say AI was not allowed. I said that some editors would argue it. I actually have argued it and that is why I made it clear that it was a minority opinion. And then: Figure out wording that may not be exactly as you reverted to since there is a good chance that would be more easily acceptable. And then redact your personal attack here and on other pages since me striking them was obnoxious. Please read the entire paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When I say WP article that is exactly what I mean and its a pity that you could not follow that but that is not my fault.All I can do is write in the English language.As for your continued claims of personal attacks I am not buying that as I have made none.If you want to consider factual statements are attacks then I cannot do anything about that.If you want to report it then go right ahead.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And the article is too long. I have provided you with a link to WP:LENGTH already. Was your comment at 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) not that the article was too long but the section?Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my fault that you cannot read English and it has been explained to you but you still fail to get it.I suggest you reread what I posted about 4 times now and take stock because frankly your twisting of the situation is just plain silly.Anyway you can have the last word I see you really need it. Owain the 1st (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attacks.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) The suggestion that this article is too long to include a two-sentence comment from one of the most widely-recognized NGOs in the world isn't a proposition I can accept. It leads me to question whether its actually the length that's objected to, rather than the content. These two sentences are highly relevant, they're concise, they're from a very prominent source, and they help our readers understand the topic under discussion. I've reinstated them.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have chosen to not provide reasoning to any rebutal to the arguments made but instead assumed bad faith. The reason two lines is bad is because it opens the floodgates to two more. And then two more. And then two more. Can you dispute that the article is too long? You cannot. This is verified in previous discussions and WP:LENNGTH. There is ANOTHER ARTICLE for this info. This article section needs to be summary. You failed to address the issue of actually attempting to include such information but keeping it nonspecific. So I will do it for you. I will find a source that summarizes all of the NGOs and include it. I enjoy doing the work so it is no problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ohiostandard.Two lines from a very reputable source is not going to somehow tip this article over the edge.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International is arguably the best known NGO source in the world for this kind of information, Cptnono, certainly in the top two or three, anyway. It's appropriate to cite their view, and I'd be opposed to striking it, or replacing it by someone else's summary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to keep on commenting. You two are saying the same ting and still not addressing the problem. I will fix this without your help. Give me some time to find the best source since you two are choosing to focus on why it is problematic. Maybe I will add anther twenty lines about how WP was not a problem. Maybe I won't. Since you do not think the article is too long and do not see a coatrack issue being a possibility then you will get what you get.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources and should have a balanced coverage of different points of view, so the result is include Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? Nableezy 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement of dispute

A number of users have objected to including the name used in Gaza for this conflict, that being the "Gaza Massacre", in the lead on a number of grounds. The argument that it was not well sourced seems settled with these sources having been provided:

• Gaita, Raimond, ed. (2010), Gaza: Morality, Law & Politics, UWA Publishing

  p. 1: Israel calls its war in Gaza Operation Cast Lead. Hamas calls it The Gaza Massacre, as do some Arab States.

• Fisher, David; Wicker, Brian (2010), Just war on terror?: A Christian and Muslim response, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 164: Operation Cast Lead is described in the Islamic world as the Gaza Massacre

• Wiegand, Krista (2010), Bombs and ballots: governance by Islamist terrorist and guerrilla groups, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 131: The reinstated rocket attacks provoked a full scale Israeli invasion into Gaza, named Operation Cast Lead, but known in Gaza and the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre.

Users have argued that the name is "inflammatory" and thus should not be included. Other users have argued that including the name used by either combatant (Operation Cast Lead (Template:Rtl-lang) for Israel, Gaza Massacre (Template:Rtl-lang) for Hamas) is "unnecessary" and makes the lead less concise than they feel it should be. Others have countered that WP:NAME specifies that significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. and that WP:LEAD says that significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. and that most other articles on conflicts in this topic area includes significant alternative names (for example the Yom Kippur War article includes multiple names in both Hebrew and Arabic in the first sentence). Those opposed to including the name have countered that WP:LEAD specifies that inclusion of alternate names is based on consensus and that they feel there is no consensus for including it.

Comments

• Include - among the most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it. Most of the objections to including the names stem from a personal dislike for the name used by Gazans, the feeling that what happened here was not a massacre and it is inappropriate for the article to describe it as such. That is a personal judgment that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the name should be included. If the name used by the residents of Gaza was vsjBlvcsnklvnsdjk then vsjBlvcsnklvnsdjk should be included in the first sentence as the name used by one of the involved parties. WP:NPOV requires including all significant viewpoints. The viewpoint of those attacked in this conflict is certainly significant, and the omission of that viewpoint in the lead is glaring. nableezy - 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Include - Having looked not only at the example of the Yom Kippur War but also at others such as The Six-Day War and the Fatah–Hamas conflict then I must also say that ALL names should be included in the first sentence. Bjmullan (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment
  • Although this is in a separate section on this talk page, we should not be ignoring the three other editors who essentially !voted to not include with reasoning provided in the section up above (#Name).
  • Keep in mind that we do not need to include all names in the lead. We should is the way it is written. However, readability and other issues can of course take precedent over the urge to add an inflammatory POV supported by only a handful of sources instead of the tens of thousands of sources available for other alternative names. I am not as against it now since verifiability is met but there is still a concern over giving the rarely used title any prominence. And I still wouldn't be shocked if those sources did their research on Misplaced Pages since it was shoved into the article for so long. Even the Arabic language Misplaced Pages had a dispute over it so that might be yet another reason for us to use the judgement allowed to contributors. But verifiability is finally (if barely in comparison) met.Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Include - Per its wide use among Arabic speaking people. -asad (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Source???Kinetochore (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The 3 listed above should do fine. nableezy - 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Those sources have nothing to do with Asad's claim. Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, one of those sources says known in Gaza and the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre. "Known in the Arab world" directly supports "wide use among Arabic speaking people", or, as you put it, Asad's claim. nableezy - 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Those are different claims. "Known" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily mean widely used.Kinetochore (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Include per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Tiamut 07:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, Nableezy is only suggesting that the "Gaza Massacre" term be used as the name for Gaza/Hamas, not the wider Arab or Islamic World. His sources do also speak in wider terms and it is easy to think the proposed inclusion matches that. I made the same mistake myself at first glance but I believe he included the full quotes only to demonstrate the veracity of his citations. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  That is correct. This diff demonstrates the difference in position. nableezy - 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include - 1) Hamas called the conflict several names (i.e. Gaza victory - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200915132615532555.html). They did not decide on an official name. 2) Gaza Massacre is less commonly used/less prominent than "War on Gaza" or "War in the South". It is WP:UNDUE to list a less commonly used name over more commonly used names.Kinetochore (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reason 3) Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashal referred to the conflict as the Gaza War: “As we won the Gaza war , so we will win a war aimed at lifting the siege and opening the crossings...,”Kinetochore (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources specifically say Hamas, and Gazans, use "Gaza Massacre" as the name of this conflict. I am not aware of any secondary sources saying that "Gaza victory", "Gaza war", "War in the South" or any other such name is the name used by Hamas or the people of Gaza. Your al-Jazeera link that you claim shows that they called this the "Gaza victory" actually only has a quote from an official that says "victory is coming". nableezy - 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Above is a source which disagrees with you. The head of Hamas represents and can speak on behalf of Hamas. He called the conflict "the Gaza War".Kinetochore (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-4750858-503543.html --> You'll notice that "Victory" is capitalized in the Al-Assad quote, and referred to by Hamas as "the victory"Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gaza victory has paved the way to Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev, and the West Bank,” said senior Hamas official Ismail Radhwan at a rally in Qatar to mark the “Gaza victory.” - from http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=5910.4274.0.0 Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your CBS source actually just has victory in caps, separated from Gaza, in quotes in the headline. Nowhere in any of the actual quotes does it capitalize victory, or even have it near the word Gaza. The quote it is referring to is a spokesman calling it a "legendary victory". Not to mention that there is a compilation of quotes from Hamas officials calling this the "gaza massacre" in the archives, but that does not really matter. Verifiable, reliable secondary sources specifically say that the name used by Hamas, and the people of Gaza, is the Gaza Massacre. Misplaced Pages accepts that as fact, please see WP:V and WP:RS. You pulling one quote from one official where he uses some other name or description does not in any way change that fact. nableezy - 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nab, lets discuss your sources. Once says that the conflict is 'known' in Gaza as the Gaza Massacre (but not necessarily principally or officially by this name), one discusses the Islamic world (not a side in the conflict), and the third is a secondary source which directly asserts that Hamas called the conflict the Gaza Massacre. This third source is all you've got supporting your claim that Gaza Massacre is the Hamas name for the conflict. I have shown you instances (at least one of which we can immediately agree on - when Hamas referred to the "Gaza War") where Hamas officials call the conflict other names. This contradicts your third source's claim. All in all, you have very sparse support to add in the title, and argument based consensus will not likely be reached.Kinetochore (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have added enough to this discussion over the past several years, so forgive me if I decline to get into this further in this RFC any more. Everybody is free to examine the sources here, as well as the ones provided in the past (both English and Arabic), and determine what it is they do and dont support. An RFC runs for 30 days, hopefully there will be a healthy amount of uninvolved participation, and then an uninvolved admin can close the discussion. I've found it easiest to attract outside comments when I keep quiet, so Ill do just that for the next few weeks. nableezy - 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include as there never was and most likely will never be a consensus for the inclusion of this libelous term. The sources that use term have in all likelihood (as explained in the last discussion) borrowed it from this article's lede, when it was included based on far more spurious rationales. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? You're opposing on the basis that you don't think there will be consensus in favour? Shouldn't you be addressing the issue itself instead of the process? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include Gaza "massacre". Put Cast Lead somewhere, maybe not in the lead. By Nableezys logic, the lead for Israel should say the Arabic name is "Zionist Entity" and the lead for Israel Defense Forces should say the Arabic name is Israel Occupation Forces. Metallurgist (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not my "logic", please do not make that mistake again. nableezy - 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have fully supported that solution and will continue to do so. Laying out all of the alternate names in the body without emphisis is fine by me. That includes, OCL, War on Gaza, War in the South, Gaza Victory, and anything else that can be found in more sources than "Gaza Massacre". We devoted a whole paragraph to the term and it still wasn;t good enough for some. The only alternative I see is listing all of the names since "Massacre" was used less than others and does no deserve the exceptional prominence a bold title would give it.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead of our article on what most of the English-speaking world knows as the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" (permalink) gives two versions of the Israeli name in both Hebrew and English, in the very first sentence. It should also include the Palestinian/Arabic name or names there, too, but it does get around to that eventually, sort of, by mentioning "the catastrophe" in the fourth sentence. Numerous of our articles use the preferred Israeli name (in English) exclusively, or nearly so, e.g. our Palmach article, to name just one: It speaks throughout of "Israel's War of Independence", as do a great many other articles, despite the hard redirect that causes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question. In brief, "Sauce, goose, gander?" In other words, will everyone here who wants to exclude "Gaza massacre" from the lead also support a proposal to exclude "Israel's War of Independence" and similar names from the lead of all I/P articles?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you didn't change the subject. If you want to make a point feel free to make it but red herrings or questions that involve other variables will only be laughed at. Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, humour is very subjective: I actually find your reply pretty amusing. :P Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include - per my comment and question above, and per Nableezy's observation that, "among the most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it." It's disturbing to me that a decision so thoroughly justified by so fundamental a principle had to be brought to a !vote; I think the behavior that made it necessary could appropriately be called disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• I said so above but for the record, I support include-ing the term. Nableezy has RS which show not only anecdotal use but say it is the name outright. Some editors have speculated these sources are deficient but I think there is no real basis for doing so. Most of the other opposition hinges on the meaning of the term -- unpacking it and debating whether the term is an accurate description of the subject. We shouldn't consider what role Queen Anne played in Queen Anne's War, whether the Glorious Revolution was indeed glorious or the Quiet Revolution a revolution at all. To answer Ohio's question, one can have sauce with a goose barnacle or a barnacle gander even though they are unrelated creatures. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have not addressed others arguments. The question is not if it is a massacre but if the handful of sources deserve precedence. If you are going to make an argument at least try to address the ones others have made or else it is obvious that you assumed one thing while ignoring the discussion. Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your first clause. I have reviewed my comment and I did indeed appear to address the arguments of others. I did dwell on the literal meaning arguments because I find that amusing. Did you know the cherry tomato was invented in Israel? For the other things, I did lump together the various UNDUE concerns (g-hits and anecdotal contradictions) along with the concern that the RS were parroting WP under the catchall term "deficient". I thought that was obvious enough without going after any particular editor and "fisking" their arguments. As you will recall from absorbing the entire discussion, I was the first to raise the UNDUE issue in the initial section above. I did this for the sake of complete openness even though I realized it may have thrown a life preserver to those I disagreed with, even before they had spoken.

Like I've already said, I see no real basis to believe the RS are UNDUE. You mentioned "tens of thousands" of alternate sources. I assumed by that you meant g-hits. English g-hits. Those only demonstrate, to a limited degree, the currency of the terms in English, worldwide. But here we are takling about a term used among a primarily Arabic-speaking population in a specific region (Gaza). And do you know what the g-hits show? Using NMMNG's numbers above, "gaza massacre" has more than one tenth of the hits that "gaza war" has -- in English! Is it possible that the term has wider use in the Arab world? And perhaps a concentration higher still in Gaza itself? I think it may be possible. Kinetochore raised some anecdotal usage of other terms. That doesn't invalidate the RS. Most people know well enough to not use the regional term when speaking to external people. Or they may use them interchangably. Or an anecdote may not be an example of a more general trend. Anecdotal evidence is not very useful for this kind of thing. You and Brew raised a secondary concern that the RS were influenced by WP's use of the term. That is speculative and unknowable and could apply to any source -- no reason to override the RS in my opinion. At the end of the day, we can always speculate that some RS info is UNDUE but we need a good reason to exclude on that basis and I just haven't seen it. If I missed something, just let me know. And please ascribe it to oversight rather than a priori reasoning. Apparently one is more obvious than the other. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you assumed close but wrong. As someone who has seen this debate, surely you cannot argue the amount of souring. "G-hits" no but "Google News Archive" hits yes. And since the term "massacre" as a TITLE is rarely seen in those hits and since many of those hits come from RS (both English and others) then it it is safe to say that the ratio is not even close. But yes, maybe it could be seen in Arabic, but then again please do not disregard the years of bickering over this. Al Jazeera and other major news organizations did not title it the "Gaza Massacre". Al Jazeera even used an alternate name in both English and Arabic. Other websites from major Arabic news organizations did not have the translation as a title in them. We have gone over this multiple times with listings of transalations and multiple methods of obtaining the info. You know that. So that takes care of RS, right? So how about some OR just because I have asked multiple times: Can a single person verify that they have been to Gaza and that "Gaza Massacre" is the name? I have asked a Palestinian editor and he refused to answer. I have looked at the Arabic Misplaced Pages page and there was a dispute there. It simply does not look like reality. We have now a handful of sources. They aren't particularly strong but they aren't exactly weak. I think that meets verifiability. But I would be lying if I said I believed it and luckily for my view point (which is admittedly on the fence but leaning one direction): NPOV and other standards can work with hand in hand with common sense. So how about you dispute what Al Jazeera and other Arabic RS call it then talk to me about Google hits (like I would actually rely on search engine hits and not the link editors typically provide on deletion discussions since it is one fantastic way to find RS) And then explain why such a little used title is deserved of space when the others ("War on Gaza" for example or even "War in the South") are not. The list necessary to allow prominence to the title is too long and MOSLEAD even addresses that issue with "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As I clarified above, this is not about the Arabic name but the name used by Gaza/Hamas. General searches of Arabic sources is unlikely to be Gaza specific. In any event it is also anecdotal and therefore mostly unusable. Now I realize sometimes we are in the awkward position where we have no real sources and the ugly truth is that we weigh these anecdotal and aggregate usages against each other. But here we have actual RS. Several of them. And you seem to be suggesting that they should be deemed UNDUE on the basis of inferences in the language or region generally, even though the proposed inclusion is specific to Gaza.

As for the MOSLEAD part, I don't think that is generally seen as an impediment to such inclusions. This proposed inclusion adds precisely one name. I won't dismiss one inclusion because several more would be unworkable. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. If you want to propose inclusions, I'd be happy to look at the sources. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include Absolutely ridiculous. Surely we can't include such ludicrous propaganda terms for historical events. What next, calling the Troubles the "Irish National Liberation Struggle" or the "Republican Socialist Catholic Terrorist Campaign"? — 78.110.174.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Your example seems to conflict with your "vote". Calling that conflict "The Troubles" is an example of meiosis, which is just the same as hyperbole but minimizes rather than exaggerates. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include on the basis it being useful information appropriately representing all viewpoints. Usage is reliably sourced and I see no compelling (and properly considered) evidence to suggest a single mention of each name in the lede violates UNDUE. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. This looks like the consensus is include. Can it be closed and the change implemented? Bjmullan (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does appear to go that way but it looks like "no consensus" is also close. However, those dissenting point out the other names are still more prominent. That was not mentioned in the opening statement but has been brought up by more than one editor. We actually have a previous version of the lead with all of the more prominent names listed so we can go back to that. I still don;t mind saying "Gaza Massacre" in the lead (it is verifiable) as long as prominence is taken care of. Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Unless there are reliable sources saying the other names are more prominent that argument has no validity in my view given that we have been presented with sources that make explicit unambiguous statements about the name Gaza Massacre and its usage. We can't use original research via google counts and such like to trump statements from sources. If we want a statement to say "A called it <something>" we can only do like for like comparisons to measure and compare the prominence of statements about names i.e. counting statements in sources of the form "A called it X" vs "A called it Y". When we have sources explicitly saying "A called it X" we can't count instances of Y in sources ourselves and then try to argue that the sources that said X got it wrong. We can only count and compare the different instances of "A called it <something>". It makes no difference to me which terms are in the lead but this issue finally seems to have reached the point where it can be resolved by just looking at the data and applying policy to the data without caring about the result. Of course, if evidence is presented that objectively demonstrates in a measurable way that the sources presented by Nableezy are outnumbered by sources that say "A called it <something else>" you can assume my include will then refer to "something else" rather than "Gaza Massacre". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This does sound a lot like RfC:_Is_Bjmullan-Macrakis_change_acceptable regarding not disputing all alternative names in the lede and kindly waiting till body to do so. Article body is the place where efforts in push for WP:FA should be invested. I'd recommend to upgrade that RfC from {{Notice}} to {{Consensus}} up there in the header talk, though would not insist, since disputing names, locations and origins is usually not constructive and not P-I area specific. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include "Gaza massacre" since it is not an official term for the war used by any reliable sources, and mention "Cast Lead", out of the lead. I agree with Metallurgist. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include - seeing as OCL isn't mentioned in the lead either. Either we include all notable names or non at all, and given how ridiculous this discussion has become I suggest non in the lead. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, the proposal would include OCL in the lead as well. nableezy - 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include - I find various arguments above persuasive, but I think that as Ohio and Nablee note, the "most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it". NickCT (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that this RfC is dead but SH just removed a sock's comment. I actually do think this conversation is fine staying open since there is not consensus and inclusion v not is essentially WP:FREQUENT. I did not notice NickCT's comment until now but wanted to address it since we have already gone over this but people seem to forget or have to rattle it off everytime it comes up. I for one think "massacre" in some form should be mentioned in the lead. Unfortunately, the assertion that it is what "people involved call it" is contradicted by the following:

• Gaza Victory: enough said but just a reminder, it can't be a massacre and a victory can it?
• "Gaza Massacre" has been disputed as a title with the sources mirroring its forced use on Misplaced Pages
• Hamas did not have an official name for it. This has been discussed and it is a point conceded by those in favor of inclusion. Hamas simply did not use its limited PR capabilities to clearly lay this out as their preferred title (see point 1).

But back to my point of keeping this open. I have offered two solutions. Nableezy has rejected at leas one of them.

• Include "it has been called a massacre". No bold. Not an alternative title. Just simply lay it out there. One editor recently provided a source calling it "Massacre in Gaza". It was obviously referred to as a massacre.

or

• Include every title that was verifiably used in RS at a ratio of tens of thousands to one. This could be accomplished by actually adding information in the lead about the media and its relation t this topic. This would increase the quality of the article by meeting WP:LEAD] by being an actual summary.

I'm not going to lie, I think it is time to change the title of this article altogether. notice that other language's Misplaced Pages projects refer to it as the Israeli operational name (some editors have equated this to POV even though it is a very common and accurate title) or one laying out the dates and calling it a conflict (as we used to do but it was really long). That discussion will eventually come up again and any decision here will get scuttled by it (or the opposite). But it is clear that giving prominence to a very little used and POV dripping title in the lead is not acceptable to many editors without thoughtful balancing. Two easy options are presented to you. It is my hope that the word massacre is used in the lead but how to do it is a hurdle. And add on top of that that we still don't even have a good main title and it shows that this process has been broken since day 1. Day 1 was years ago.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an Arabic name, comparisons to names in English are meaningless. This is not being put in as an alternate English name, so comparing the number of google hits for the English translation to other English titles is a straw man. nableezy - 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include, reliable sources show its a name used in the Arab World, Arabs being an involved part of the A-I conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a contentious RFC, I have requested an uninvolved admin close it at WP:AN. nableezy - 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include, per the above sources as well as ones mentioned in previous discussions:
• Suchet, Melanie (March 2010). "Face to Face". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 20 (2). Routeldge: pp. 158-171, p. 167. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help): Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the invasion began on December 27, 2008, and ended on January 18, 2009. In the Arab world the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre.
• Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. July 26, 2009.: Starting next weekend, he is scheduled to address Limmud - a charity organisation focused on Jewish culture and education - at conferences in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg about Israeli policies on Gaza and "Operation Cast Lead". Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year.
• May, Jackie. Seeking the brutal truth Sunday Times. September 1, 2009: In December last year, Israel invaded Gaza in response to daily rocket attacks and with the aim of stopping arms smuggling into the area. More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre".

I don't think that there is a tenable argument against this being a name used in circles central to the event. un☯mi 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Those three sources have already been addressed. Face to Face is from a phycologist who does not specialize in anything related to the conflict. The Sunday Times has also not backed up the claim or how they came to that conclusion. However, all three used wording similar to what was in the article since it was in for so long.

But if we are to say that verifiability is met (makes some sense) then we need to include all of the titles used more or else it gives it too much prominence. So if we think that having 5 names in the lead is beneficial to the reader then lets do it. Of course, we have multiple sources from the region (who certainly know the ins and outs of Arabic) who do not use it as a title or even as a primary description so editors should still question it.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to having more names included, but I don't see that it should have a material impact on this discussion either way. Lets settle one issue at a time lest the conversation balloons further. un☯mi 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thought about non-admin closing this, but probably wiser to have an admin do it. Looking at the arguments, I think there is plenty of evidence that both terms are fairly commonly used to describe this conflict and having them in the lede seems reasonable (per WP:LEDE). Hobit (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EL

The Guaridan compilation that is specific to intl law belongs in that article. We have a specific article for that. If we include the Guardian compilation then I will see fit to include compilations praising Israel. Then we will be all square right? NO! We will be breaking ELNO. The external links section is not here to make a point. It is not here to highlight certain aspects over others. Provide reasoning now for picking this over others when there is a perfectly suitable secondary article or it is being removed.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And while you are at it: Keep in mind that I kept the EL that calls it the Massacre in Gaza. Is that me being POV that was introduced at the same time? Please make an argument on my talk page if you want to accuse me of POV though since this is not the venue.Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no good reason to remove that link.It is about the subject and relevant to the article.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not responded to the reasoning to remove. Do you have a rebuttal besides "I disagree".Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My rebuttal is above your last post and it does not just say I disagree like you claim.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"It is about the subject and relevant to the article." As I have tried to explain: This article is about the conflict in general. There is a specific article about the alleged war crimes. Removing it unless there is a direct response. I have allowed plenty of time for discussion and so far only received a contrary response that did not address the concern raised.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have had a direct response, you just do not want to take any notice of it.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you take the time to explain why it is better here than in the specific article or not?Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained.It is relevant to this article.It is about the Gaza war and this is the Gaza war article.It has a step by step timeline of the Israeli attack on it as well. Owain the 1st (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is about a specific aspect of the war that has its own article. And the timeline might be OK as an EL but it might be better as a source.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this article has a section covering what is in the Guardian article therefore it is relevant to this article.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Now that a couple of years have passed, there are a number of high quality secondary sources that we should be using to add/replace information in this article. Here's one to start with:

• Israel and Hamas: Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009) by Jim Zanotti - information here on to what extent Israel achieved its objectives - could be used to balance out our seriously one-sided section on the Post-war military assessment. Tiamut 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent source, note also that CRS is public domain and the included text can be copied freely into this article.Marokwitz (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a draft for proposed wording for inclusion for clarity would be beneficial for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the name "Gaza War" NPOV?

I feel that to call this a 'war' presents it as a balanced affair, which this clearly was not. We do not talk about the German invasion of Poland (September 1939) as "The Polish war", even though that may have been more NPOV. (What did the Germans call it at the time, I wonder?)

"Israeli attack on Gaza" may be a better description. Such a phrase would not be to deny that there were also attacks on Israel from Gaza (not 'from Hamas', as the article claims: why mention the political party rather than the government? That too shows condescension and bias).

86.24.102.36 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Article names are just based on the WP:NAME policy. The discussion that resulted in the current name is here but it's come up a number of times. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask it could also be named a conflict or similar.. but I have to say that when it was going on every news channel referred to it as the Gaza War or War on Gaza.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Post closure discussions

Per the close of this RFC, I have re-included the names Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre with the Hebrew and Arabic translations. nableezy - 11:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And still there is no consensus for inclusion of ALL names in the lede. Discussing in the body is OK though. Arabic language article has many alternative names, reliably sourced, including Gaza resistance's official name Operation Oil Stain. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

An RFC was closed by an uninvolved admin that says there is consensus to include these two names in the lead. If you do not self-revert relatively soon you may face consequences for disruptively editing against consensus. nableezy - 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed the close, and was under impression that the RFC was closed by the bot. My mistake, honestly, apologize for creating needless drama . After reading the close recommending Gaza Massacre placement in the lede , while I respect the Graeme Bartlett's opinion, I still can't help but wonder about couple of points:

• Why previous 3dO and RfC which appear to be on the same topic were not addressed.
• What should be balanced, considering ALL alternative names are discussed in the body, without favoring either side, and making lede POV-less.

Oh well, UK lede bans British Isles as UK location since according to talk page FAQ: Misplaced Pages editors often disagree on the acceptability and suitability of various terms and phrases. This term is not favoured by a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and is currently not used in the introduction both to simplify the status quo, and also to discourage edit warring. In I-P we don't like discussed solutions, prefer banning editors and not words. From other hand UK lede is also a mess. On the point of this discussion I'm proposing following names to be included, to reflect Gaza side POV of the conflict, if other editors agree:

also known as Attack on Gaza, Gaza Massacre, Operation Oil Stain, Battle of the Criterion

Though sourcing in the the lede is not required, we could use refs in the discussion above and in the Attack on Gaza article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that explicitly give the name in Gaza as the Gaza Massacre. No such sources exist for the other names. If you can find such sources feel free to bring them here. But, as it stands right now, there is an RFC closed by an uninvolved admin that says there is consensus for the inclusion of OCL and GM in the lead of the article. You cannot simply disregard that, nor can you play this game of making us go through this whole process again. Self-revert your revert. nableezy - 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please click on Attack on Gaza for refs, we can not ignore some sources and favour others per WP:NPOV. I am looking into the ways to implement Graeme Bartlett's rulling in agreed and discussed fashion. I'd appreciate your patience, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there are references provided that explicitly say the name used in Gaza is Gaza Massacre. The RFC was about two specific names, OCL and Gaza Massacre. Those two specific names have consensus for inclusion. You will have to meet the same threshold that you all forced on me to include those names, that being reliable sources explicitly saying that was the name used by an involved party. You are free to discuss whatever you wish, but right now you need to self-revert your revert. You will not receive my patience, you are disruptively editing against consensus. Self-revert your edit. nableezy - 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If we use IDF name, we should use also Gaza resistance names. Sources for clarity:

1. The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement ... on operation they called "Oil Stain"
2. A resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير .
3. Start of the invasion of Gaza and the resistance to address the «Battle of the Criterion» بدء اجتياح غزة والمقاومة تتصدى بـ «معركة الفرقان»
4. Battle of the Criterion ... Qassam killed nine Israeli soldiers in separate operations

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, if you want to include other names, you can open an RfC about that. The results of the above RfC are clear. Please self-revert your edit so that others do not have to. Tiamut 05:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... I see now that you did self-revert at 22:00 on June 15th. I restored your edit after IP vandalism again removed the names. Tiamut 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did, Tiamut. Thank you for reverting the IP, their edit was not discussed and it was right move to revert it on sight. IP reverts do not fall under 1RR limitation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To make it clear, the RFC only supports inclusion of what was proposed at the top. Any other additions are not supported by it. Instead if they are controversial should be discussed on this page first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (closer of the RFC)

Thanks for clarifying what was already quite clear for those who may be confused. `Tiamut 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion, Graeme. So for clarity the RfC question was: Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article?. The answer was include. Based on the sources provided above propose following wording:

The Gaza War, code named Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli military and Operation Oil Stain/Battle of the Criterion by the Gaza resistance....

I don't mind adding corresponding Hebrew and Arabic terms, appears as nice touch to me. Editors are welcome to respond, simple yes/no would be constructive. Let's not make it a partisan food fight, try to address content and not editors. We are working towards solution to this content dispute in agreed and discussed fashion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources do not support that "Operation Oil Stain" or "Battle of the Criterion" was used by the name by the "Gaza resistance". "Operation Oil Stain" appears to be a name used for a specific attack, a salvo of rockets launched on the 25th, that is two days before what you are saying it refers to. I cant find any real sources at all about a supposed "Battle of the Criterion". Reliable sources specifically say that OCL, as used by Israel, = GM as used by Gaza. If you have a source that disputes that great, but your sources do not do that. The names discussed in the RFC were OCL and GM, you cant now try to add every name you want to under that. The diff discussed in the RFC was about OCL and GM. If you want to discuss adding other names fine. Open another section. This RFC was about OCL and GM. Your sources do not support what you are arguing for here. nableezy - 09:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, the sources are very clear, those are official military code names used by corresponding combatants. We could explore also War in the South/Gaza Massacre pair as Vox populi names, but I doubt it would gain consensus for lede inclusion, though those already sourced in the body, so I do not see any WP:V issue with that pair.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but your sources do not back you. The one source for "Operation Oil Stain" (this) says it started on a Wednesday, that being Dec 25, not the 27th. There are no reliable sources, none at all, for "Battle of the Criterion". You will need to provide the same level of sourcing as was required of me for the names I have included. Over several years now you and others have been saying that a source showing somebody using the name, or even twenty such sources, was not enough for inclusion. You cant now apply a different standard for names, real or imagined, that you wish to insert. There are reliable sources that explicitly say the name used by Gaza and by Hamas was "Gaza Massacre". You dont get to disregard that and try to distort the scope of the RFC. The statement of dispute was very clear as to what names were under discussion, attempts to misrepresent that will not end well. nableezy - 09:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are 4 sources provided for Gaza resistance code names, arguing with sources do not put you in a favorable position nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Except those sources do not back up what you say. They do not equate "Operation Oil Stain" or "Battle of the Criterion" with "Operation Cast Lead". Several reliable sources explicitly say the name used in Gaza is "Gaza Massacre". If you have sources of comparable quality that give a different name then great, but the sources you gave arent that. And finally, one more time, this RFC was about "Operation Cast Lead" and "Gaza Massacre". If you would like to add other names you can open a new section and seek comments about those other names. This RFC was about those specific names. nableezy - 10:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, this is about WP:V by WP:RS. I have quoted RfC question: Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? See, again source number 2.

A resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير .

If you disagree to proposed wording just say so, simple yes/no would suffice. Again arguing with WP:V does not put you in a favorable position. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A. your translation is inaccurate. B. the source says "Operation Oil Stain" was something different than "Operation Cast Lead". C. you made me find multiple sources for a name which I had already provided twenty showing usage and another few saying it was the name, and then you still reverted and made us waste two months on the above RFC for reasons that are not at all grounded in policy. You will need to reach the same threshold for any names you wish to include, that being that there are several reliable sources that actually say that this was the name used (none of your sources say that). If you find those then we can discuss how to include other names. As it stands right now, you dont have the sources and you dont have the consensus. This game you are playing of trying to distort the RFC above will not work. The RFC was about GM and OCL, that is plainly obvious to anybody who looks. You cannot simply change what the RFC is about after the fact because of sour grapes that the result did not go your way. You have, for years now, tried to either remove or diminish the word Gaza Massacre. Thats over now. nableezy - 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

More English language sources were added per nableezy request. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Comments on RfC implementation proposal

RfC question

Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? Nableezy 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC answer

Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources and should have a balanced coverage of different points of view, so the result is include Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement

Each side combatants military codenames should be included in the lede. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources (refs 2-4 are used to support Attack on Gaza article name, Arabic language sibling of this article, automatic translation by Google).

1. The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement ... on operation they called "Oil Stain" Secondary source, Ma'an News Agency, Published Thursday 25 December 2009, English
2. A resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير . Secondary source, Moheet, Published 11 January 2009, Arabic
3. Start of the invasion of Gaza and the resistance to address the «Battle of the Criterion» بدء اجتياح غزة والمقاومة تتصدى بـ «معركة الفرقان» Secondary source, Ad-Dustour, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
4. Battle of the Criterion ... Qassam killed nine Israeli soldiers in separate operations Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
5. Battle of the Criterion (Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel) Secondary source, NOW Lebanon/Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Published 5 January 2011
6. Dr. Khalil al-Hayya, a member of the political leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement: "The enemy wants to be the battle of the Criterion, shame and humiliation of dignity of our people, but God wanted her to our pride and dignity and stable... Secondary source, Mafkarat al Islam, Published 06/January/2009, English, reflecting on Senior Hamas leader Khalil Al Hayeh
7. Prior to Cast Lead, Hamas made much of its military preparations for conflict with Israel. Since the conflict, it has claimed victory, in what Hamas leaders are calling “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan). Khaled Mashal spoke in these terms on January 21, 2009: This is the first war that our people has won on its land—the first real large-scale war.... Secondary source Washington Institute for Near East Policy , Published December 2009, English
8. December 30 2008, al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas, it is expanding its operation, launched by the "oil spot" and the bombing of Mujahduha for the first time the city of "Beersheba" territory. Original text: قالت كتائب القسام الجناح العسكري لحركة حماس إنها وسعت عمليتها التي أطلقت عليها "بقعة الزيت" وقصف مجاهدوها لأول مرة مدينة "بئر السبع" المحتلة. Secondary source Palestine Today news agency, Published 30 December 2008, Arabic
9. Since the beginning of “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan) launched warplanes Zionist attacks against police posts, killing hundreds, not overlooking Re-Qassam Brigades, Original text: فمنذ اللحظة الأولى التي بدأت فيها معركة الفرقان، بشن الطيران الحربي الصهيوني هجمات ضد مواقع الشرطة مما أدى إلى استشهاد المئات، لم يطل رد القسام، فرد سلاح المدفعية بقصف مواقع العدو، وأجبر الصهاينة على الهروب تحت الملاجئ ، ودب الرعب في قلوب الذين كفروا، فازداد المحتل في استهداف الأطفال والأبرياء، فقتل الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ، واستهدف المساجد والساحات، ليستر هزيمته. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 02 July 2010, Arabic
10. The Zionist entity gathered forces are enough to occupy dozens of countries, but we didn’t abandoned our land, our people stood with us in defending our land in the battle of the Criterion. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 19 January 2009, English

Proposal

AgadaUrbanit, what you are doing here is disruptive. The RfC above asked a question and provided three sources that indicate clearly which names were being proposed for inclusion in the lead. That RfC has now been closed by an uninvolved admin who determined there was consensus to iinclude these names. Now, you are attempting to hijack the results of that RfC to propose yor own preferences for the names to be included using primary sources that do not even support yor contention that these terms are synonyms. Please back away from the horse and drop the stick. Tiamut 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. nableezy - 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally those are not synonyms, like OCL and GM are not synonyms. Those are names used by each of the combatants, per RfC. Both primary (ref 4,7) and secondary (ref 1-3, 5,6,8) sources were provided, per WP:PSTS. In any way we attribute the names so a primary source is not a concern, I believe. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the RFC by selectively quoting what you wish to see in it. The RFC was about GM and OCL, not anything else. "Operation Oil Stain" is a reference to a salvo of rockets launched two days before the conflict this article covers. Most of the sources you gave above are not reliable sources, for example sh22y.com is a forum, islammemo.cc gives no indication that it is a reliable source, saying most of its news is translated by google, the piece from http://www.voltairenet.org/ is actually from the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, a partisan think tank. That said, if you want to discuss the inclusion of other names please open another section. This RFC was about GM and OCL, not anything else. The statement of dispute at the top of the RFC makes that clear, as do all of the comments within it. nableezy - 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Operation Oil Stain" is not a reference to a salvo of rockets launched two days before the conflict. See reflection of secondary source #8 for usage of "Oil Stain" on December 30 2008 by al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That source does not say what you think it does. If you are going to use foreign language sources you should ensure you actually know what they are saying. It says "The al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, announced that it is expanding its operations, which were launched by the "oil stain" and the bombing by the mujaheddin of the territory of Beersheba for the first time". It does not say that "Oil Stain" continued, it says that it was the first part of a larger conflict. nableezy - 05:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding of source #8 is that name Oil Stain was used on December 30 2008 by al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas in context of extending their operation to include Beer Sheba.
• This appears consistent with English language source #1, December 25 2008 quote: "Al-Qassa Brigades threatened to enlarge the "Oil Stain" to get more thousands of Israelis "under fire"."
• My understanding is that source #2 attributes both Oil Stain and Battle of the Criterion to al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas on 11 January 2009. This source is also used to support both names in Attack on Gaza article introduction.
• Alternative translation to quotes are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The first two sources are about things that happened days before this conflict, the third one has an inaccurate translation provided by you via google, the next one also has an inaccurate translation, the next 3 are unreliable sources, the last one is from a partisan think tank that could be used for attributed statements of opinion but not for facts. Please open another section if you wish to discuss names unrelated to what was discussed in the RFC. The RFC was about the well-sourced statements that the Gaza War was known as OCL by Israel and GM by Gaza. The sources make this clear, the RFC is clear, the close is clear, the only thing that is making any of this unclear is your insistence on bringing unrelated noise into a discussion that has gone on for far too long. But if you insist, at least do it in a new section and try not to muddy this one up with such noise. nableezy - 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, nableezy. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Along with the names mentioned above, "War on Gaza" and "War in the South" were used more than "Gaza Massacre"(by a ratio of tens of thousands to one). "What both combatants call it" has been brought up before and I again will say that Hamas did not use any public/media relations to disseminate an operational title for the conflict. Since "Gaza Massacre" used sparingly in RS it deserves little prominence. Highlighting the titles used way more frequently is the only neutral way to go about it.BTW, would still love to hear just one editor say that they have actually heard this term used in person on any Arab street and not just on blogs)Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources, "not just on blogs", specifically say the name used by Hamas and Gazans was the Gaza Massacre. This is not an issue of what al-Jazeera called it, what the Israeli media called it, or what you call it, this is about what did the involved parties call it. Reliable sources say that they called it Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre. Whatever theories you have on a media management strategy not being employed by Hamas are completely irrelevant. The RFC is closed and a consensus has been established. If you wish to seek a new consensus by all means feel free. But Im done dealing with these arguments that have no basis in policy or fact. To repeat, reliable sources say that the name used by Hamas and Gazans was Gaza Massacre. Do you have any sources that dispute this? If you would like to discuss adding more names you will need to go through all the crap you made me go through. You will need to provide the same quality sources, with the sources saying who called it that and make a case for why that groups chosen name should be included. You will have to establish a consensus for including whatever additional names you wish to include. You cant now say that a different set of rules apply to names you would like to include now that one that you do not like is included. nableezy - 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources were provided for Hamas/al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas usage of Oil Stain before and during the conflict and Battle of the Criterion during and years after the conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if that were true, and it isnt, that was not good enough to include Gaza Massacre. I see no reason why you should not be required to reach the same standard that you applied to others over the course of years. nableezy - 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by George

Is this another RfC or just another discussion? Regardless, what's the point in adding what the combatants called the conflict, versus just including what the people called the conflict? I think we should include the most common name for the event used globally, the most common name for the event used by Israelis, and the most common name for the event used by Gazans (assuming the latter two are different from the global term). I don't know for sure what those terms are, but the current lead indicates that those are "Gaza War", "Operation Cast Lead", and "Gaza Massacre", respectively. Do any of those not correspond to the common names? ← George 03:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to provided sources the war was called by many names. My guess would be that per WP:NPOV all verifiable names should be included. Including only one name and ignoring others appear to me as Misplaced Pages policy violation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the RfC, the problem of common names can be somewhat messy and arbitrary. But Nableezy brought some actual RS to the table. So we don't just an example of people saying "Gaza War" but a source that says GW is the common name there. For the other names, we just have individual examples. That isn't as good. Sometimes we are forced to use those in the absence of RS but here we don't have to. I think it is a valid point to bring up in general, though one I don't agree with. But with all the I/P fighting going on I don't think this is the best way to follow up the RfC. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that source #2 attributes both Oil Stain and Battle of the Criterion to al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas on 11 January 2009. This source is also used to support both names in Attack on Gaza article introduction, though was not brought to RfC discussions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect, and your use of a source in a language that you do not know is curious at best. nableezy - 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, that source makes a distinction between OCL and "Oil Stain" and "Battle of the Criterion". nableezy - 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon my confusion on this subject, but I'm not too familiar with it, having missed the earlier RfC. A few questions:

• What is the common name for the conflict among Israelis? Is it "Operation Cast Lead", or is that strictly the term used by the IDF. If we're using the phrase used by Gazans, the "Gaza Massacre", I want to be sure we're also using the phrase used by Israelis - not just by the IDF.
• What is the single best source for explaining what "Operation Oil Stain" was? I've never been good at filtering through walls of references, so I'd rather just see the best source you've got. I Google'd the phrase, and after combing through several pro-Israel blogs, a few reader comments, and some less-than-reliable sources, it sounds like "Operation Oil Stain" was an operational name used by Hamas for rocket attacks made against Israel on December 24, following the end of the ceasefire on December 18 and prior to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" response on December 27, rather than a term used to describe the Gaza War itself. It's not clear to me how long "Operation Oil Stain" lasted, but it sounds like it was somewhere between a single day and a week. This phrase might make sense in the background section of the article, but I don't think it's a term for the war itself.
• What is the single best source for explaining what the "Battle of the Criterion" was? I Google'd this one too, and it's a bit more confusing. There are far fewer sources that mention it, and some of them even predate the Gaza War, making me wonder if this isn't a phrase used to describe the broader I-P conflict, or even a phrase with no specific meaning, similar to the English idiom "a battle of wills", "an ideological conflict", or "the battle between good and evil", which obviously aren't real conflicts, though they might be used to describe them. The closest thing I could find to explain what the "Battle of the Criterion" was is a post from the website of a pro-Israel think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) here, which describes it as "Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel". Similar to the sources for "Operation Oil Stain", however, the phrase seems more like pro-Israel blog fodder than something used by reliable sources, and I'm hard pressed to verify WINEP's description. ← George 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats about right. As far as the name in Israel, it varies. The media used Cast Lead and War in the South when it was ongoing, though whenever I read about it in the Israeli press now it is called Cast Lead, but my exposure to the Israeli press is both limited and in English only. nableezy - 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A common name used in the Israeli press was "War in the South". That is sufficient for inclusion since it means it was a common name disseminated throughout the populous there. "Operation Oil Stain" appears to be just before the conflict. "Battle of the Criterion" is hard to find but the Arabic Misplaced Pages shows it for some reason. It would be useful if Arabic speakers used the sources provided above to see if the translation is correct. However, a common name in the Arabic press that we have already verified was "War on Gaza". Not using those names since an editor is not finding a recent article appears to be a double standard since we have met verifiability.

I would be fine with not including "Operation Oil Stain". If Arabic editors can verify "Battle of the Criterion" (I assume you do want to verify names even if they are not tantalizing) then maybe it should go in. So even though we have addressed verifiability, we have failed to address neutrality. We do not include "Gaza Victory" (from a dude with Hamas) due to prominence so if we are going to keep "Gaza Massacre" then we have to address the same concern. We had the names used more than "Gaza Massacre" before. Time to add them back in and this is all fixed. It sucks that so many names have to be listed but if we are going by verifiability and neutrality then it is something we are stuck with. The simple fact is that "Gaza Massacre" was less than other names by a staggering ratio even when we tried using Arabic translations (I assume people remember the long list provided but let me know if we need to do it yet again). Of course, we could go back to removing all alternate names if editors wish to stop arguing about it. It was an easy and neutral solution. Maybe that is what the next RfC will be about since we seem to have them every few months regardless of what the previous one said.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, based on what you've written, maybe we should look at replacing "Operation Cast Lead" in the first sentence of the lead with "War in the South", mention "Operation Oil Stain" in the background, and instead mention "Operation Cast Lead" later in the lead (without making it bold, as operations are subdivisions of wars). I'd also be curious if someone who can read Arabic can explain "Battle of the Criterion". It just sounds like too much of a literal translation (or mistranslation) of "battle of ideologies" or similar to adopt it without better sourcing. I don't really differentiate between "Gaza War", "War in Gaza", "War on Gaza", "War of Gaza", and so on. Articles like that on the Vietnam War don't start out listing "Vietnam War" and "War in Vietnam" as alternative names, and names that are just reordered aren't really alternative names.

Regarding the prominence of "Gaza Massacre", could you give me some more context around your argument (or point me to that list you're talking about)? Cheers. ← George 06:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources, any at all, that say that "Gaza Victory" was used as a name by Hamas? Not a source where somebody said that there was a victory in Gaza, or said The Gaza victory has ...? Until a reliable secondary sources says this was a name used by Hamas I see no reason to include that. You cant now apply a different standard for other names because you dont like the ones in there now. Reliable secondary sources specifically give this as the name used in Gaza. The end. You continue to bring up a straw man, saying that the English google results of one name outweighs another. That would matter if GM was being placed as an English name, but, again, it is not. It is placed in the lead as the name used in Gaza, exactly what RSs say it is. Not as the name used by al-Jazeera or any other network, but as the name used by Gaza. For that reason, and for that reason alone, it is in the lead. You will have to meet the same threshold that you forced on me over these past years. A source of somebody using a name is not sufficient. 20 such sources are not sufficient. If they were not good enough to include GM they are not good enough to include any other name. A google search comparison is meaningless, reliable sources give these as the common names. If you have other reliable sources that either dispute this or specify that there are additional common names used by Israel and Gaza then great. But until then, these are the names that are included. nableezy - 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Other editors need to comment on this before it gets archived or I pull the trigger on reimplementing use of all of the names (including Gaza Massacre). I understand that AU may not have done this RFC well but there was consensus to have those names in before and it is the only neutral way to keep Gaza Massacre in. And yes George, we did have a source that specifically made a point of "war on Gaza" being an intentional representation of the conflict ("on" makes a clear statement as subtle as it might be). See: this source and this source that go as far as discussing the names. Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

One of consequences of Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_65#RfC:_Is_Bjmullan-Macrakis_change_acceptable implementation was removal of neutrality tag. I am ok with adding each side combats names to the lede, however current RfC implementation is lacking, since Gaza resistance code names are missing. This is why I am restoring the tag. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You continue to claim that sources say that there is a "Gaza resistance code name", but they dont. The reliable sources in the RFC say that what we call Gaza War is called by Israel OCL and by Gaza/Hamas GM. Both of those are included. The RFC was about the inclusion of GM and OCL, and given that they are currently included the RFC has already been implemented. nableezy - 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

=Edited new addition

I removed the following for violation of NPOV "In September 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from within Gaza but thereafter it maintained total control over land and sea access to Gaza for people and goods. (In the case of the Gaza's short land border with Egypt, Israel controls the passage of people or goods across that border indirectly, via 'coordination' with Egypt's security services.)... crucial population registry that it uses to determine who may visit or reside within the territory. These facts have led all states party to the Geneva Conventions except Israel itself, the United Nations,and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is the depository body for the Geneva Conventions, to judge that the status... under international law remains that of a territory under foreign military occupation and that Israel therefore retained responsibility for the welfare and normal flourishing of its residents" I find that this dramatic addition to the lead is un-encyclopedic in tone, displays an obvious bias (for instance, if Israel is 'coordinating' with Egypt's security forces, the blockade is a join Egyptian-Israeli operation, even if Egypt is a junior partner) and that people should seek consent before making dramatic edits to an article as disputed as this one V. Joe (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence in the intro section

The last sentence in the intro section reads as follows-

"Following the war, Hamas claimed only 48 of its fighters were killed. Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad later said that as many as 700 fighters belonging to Hamas, affiliated factions and security personnel were killed, which is consistent with Israeli estimates of at least 709 “terror operatives” killed during the operation."

I am uncomfortable with that sentence, in the intro, for the following reasons.

• Of the "as many as 700 fighters", mentioned, 250 where killed when "Israel targeted police stations" (According to the first cited source). I think it's reasonable to assume that, at least most of these 250, where Police personnel. Are we to consider police personnel (regardless of their political affiliations) as "Fighters"? Are we, further, to consider these police personnel to have been “terror operatives” ( the "consistent with Israeli estimates of at least 709 terror operatives" part of the sentence relies upon this dubious assumption).
• According to the cited sources " Hammad claimed that 50 Israelis had been killed during the war". This figure does not appear to be credible. Should we consider the other casualty figures he gives in the interview to be credible? Surly not. Do patently dubious casualty claims issued by individual protagonists really belong in the intro section? Surly, if these dubious casualty claims belong in the article at all, They should be further down in a different section (prehaps in a new section titled "Fog of war")

In summery- This sentence should either 1/ removed, or 2/ heavily modified (removing the misleading parts) and placed elsewhere in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The sentence misconstrues a single person including the police in his casualty count as being "consistent" with Israeli counts, despite the fact that the MoH had a different number and the PCHR had a different number. I am removing the sentence as it both does not belong in the lead and is highly misleading. nableezy - 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. targets mentioned in the intro

Given that Hospitals, places of worship, water treatment plants, UN food distribution centres, hundreds of homes, and much other civilian infrastructure was damaged, or destroyed, by Israeli strikes during "The Gaza War", why is it that the intro section only makes mention of "police stations and other Hamas government buildings" in terms of types of building targeted? This seems to me to render the intro section unbalanced and incomplete.

Please see the archives. This turned into a huge hub bub because everything was mentioned on the Gaza side but when any rockets going into Israel were mentioned it was squashed. To make it worse, there is still the problem of if those were intentionally targeted or were collateral. No one could word it right so it was axed. And of course, we have the issue of something that simply cannot be summarized in the lead since it would take its own article. That is why the body and spin offs get the bulk of that content. But I am happy to hear that you agree that the article is not neutral so that the tag can stay. There are clearly many issues. This is one issue that was addressed by multiple editors but maybe it can be addressed again since the project is not meant to be stagnant. Cptnono (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono. V Sorry, I forgot to sign my last post (I’m absent minded and do this a lot but usually a Bot bails me out). Re. the previous debates on this subject- you may remember I was a participant back in October 2010. On that occasion I thought that, at least you and I, had reached a workable consensus. In fact, after some debate, you yourself added the following text to the article "The IDF hit mosques, homes, schools, and UN facilities during the fighting. Israel maintains that many of these buildings were used by militants." . Despite the difficulties of finding a concise, balanced and accurate wording, surly the issue of widespread destruction to infrastructure is too significant to leave out of the lead? Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dose anyone else have any opinions on this matter? Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of unexploded ordnance

I can find no mention, in the article, of unexploded ordnance left behind by OCL in Gaza (as referenced here and here. Surly this is worth a mention? Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty common after a military conflict so don't see it as needing much more than a line in the effect section.Cptnono (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

Sentence 3 in the Use of booby traps section reads- "Some of these traps were intended to distract IDF soldiers to take prisoners." This statement strikes me as nonsensical. Might I suggest someone rewrites it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Have just noticed that the "Ground invasion" section includes the same sentence, along with some other repetition. Prehaps someone could also sort that out? Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Use of booby traps" is newer and it is worthless. No reason to assume every tactic is controversial so we do not need to duplicate the lines. If I recall correctly, the sources weren't too upset by it anyways so it is OR.

Suggest a copy edit and it can be pasted in.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono Well here is what the cited source says on the matter-

"The idea behind the setups in some of the houses, he and other officers said, was that Israeli soldiers would shoot the mannequin, mistaking it for a man; an explosion would occur; and the soldiers would be driven or pulled into the hole, where they could be taken prisoner".

This all seems rather vague to me (I can’t visualise how such a ruse would work in practice based on the information given). More importantly it appears to represent only speculation on the part of some IDF officers and apparently no such ruse was ever successfully used (in fact not even failed attempts are specifically mentioned). In short we have vague speculation about a matter of little significance. I would suggest just deleting the "Some of these traps were intended…" and " All such attempts failed" sentences from the "ground invasion" section, and complete removal of the "use of Booby traps" section which consists entirely of material already contained in the "ground invasion" section. I am obviously happy to debate this further if you are unhappy with conducting any part of these edits. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the exact opposite of vague. It is pretty clear. I also think it is the exact opposite of "little significance". I do agree that its own section is not needed. I disagree that the other lines should be cut. You originally presented this as a copyedit. That is nowhere near what you have suggested above. so do you want to fix a grammatical issue or was that just the opening salvo in a campaign to rid the article of the information? I agree a copyedit is needed and that a separate subsection is not but that is so far all we agree on. Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono- If you think that IDF speculation about a possible Palestinian ruse, which never actually took place, is worthy of inclusion, well so be it. I think the following sentence (unlike the current "Some of these traps were intended…" sentence which it should replace) at least accurately reflects the source, and is intelligible:

"According to IDF officers, some buildings contained booby trapped mannequins, which would explode when shot, creating a hole through which IDF personnel could be dragged and taken prisoner."

Hopefully that will meet you approval Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You have made it sound as if there was only one kind of booby trap and, more importantly, you didn't even lay out how that one works. The hole was already there (not created as you say). So your attempt at a copyedit still brings in POV and factual errors. So in the future if you want to make a grammatical fix: Layout a grammatical fix. This has been a whole waste of time. I will edit the sentence you first brought up on my own. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible that I misinterpreted the source re. how this particular (alleged) Palestinian tactic/ruse would work in practice (not that it ever did in the real world apparently). I still maintain that the source (which I quoted above) was vague about the details. As for saying I "made it sound as if there was only one kind of booby trap" I would invite you to reread the section. Mention of other types of booby trap are already made shortly before my suggested edit would have fitted in. In this context your accusation seems rather bizarre, particularly as the sentence we where concerned with, deals specifically with booby traps intended to capture IDF soldiers, and the "mannequin" type booby trap is the only one, designed for this purpose, mentioned in the source.

PS When carrying out the edits, you said in one of the edit summaries "Time to delete the WP section? Good for the goose and all". Aren’t you being just a tad naughty there? White Phosphorus is another issue altogether, and surly any discussion on removing the WP section belongs on this talk page, not in an edit summery? Prehaps you where just trying to be humorous? Thanks for performing the edits anyhow. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's got to read as if the victims are criminals. Save your efforts to write it properly until this regime falls which may not be muchlonger. 82.70.91.126 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Much of it is silly stories told by the people who wer killing cicilians and lying about using phosphorus on people's heads. 82.70.91.126 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)