Misplaced Pages

Suggestions, first paragraph of lead, Sandboxsection

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in the Arab world took place in the winter of 2008/2009. The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".

RFC-version Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All titles need to be bolded if they are being bolded. War on Gaza and War in the South need to be added.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your recent comment on my tlak page, Mr Unsigned Anon: A new proposal from me isn't needed and my previous one is still above. Bolding all of the titles and adding those two will fit within the framework you suggest so that will work for me even though I do not prefer it.Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Cptnono:s suggestion as far I know, If not erase it or modify it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

BashBrannigan's suggestion Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

BashBrannigan's suggestion and your appreciated initiative to restartit. My edit would be:

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Template:Lang-he) and called War in the South and War in Gaza in Israel, and known as the War on Gaza and Gaza massacre (Template:Lang-ar) in the Arab world took place in the winter of 2008/2009. The conflict has also been described as "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".Cptnono (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no real problem with that suggestion. Just two comments/questions: 1) Can the descriptions in the last sentence be de-bolded? 2) Where are the sources attesting to the use of "War in the South" and "War on Gaza" as names? The Gaza massacre and Operation Cast Lead were established as names in previous discussions. The two new additions should be similarly vetted before going up. If they have been and I missed it, forgive me. Tiamut 12:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Did I misunderstand you again on the layout, M.UA?

War in the South and War in Gaza Al Jazeera's title. The argument was made that Gaza massacre was often used as a description. I assume the descriptions (which more should be added to) were added to assert that often used descriptions can be comparable to a title. It made sense to bold them in that case. I don't like the way it looks but was taking that into account.Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just added War in Gaza per the source. Pretty clear about the two titles being used.Cptnono (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and while we are naming names, let's not forget Israel's war against Hamas and "Hamas' terror war against Israel" as per previous links. Stellarkid (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your previous links were not discussing this conflict, the Israeli government links you gave said that OpCastLead formed a part of that "war against Hamas" but did not equate them. nableezy - 15:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous RS that refer to this as "Israel's war against Hamas" and I provided a source where Israel referred to it as part of "Hamas' terror war against Israel." What rule is there that just because we are talking about a part of a larger war that the name of the larger conflict cannot be included as part of the lede? Consider perhaps the Battle of Midway, part of a larger war, and the larger war is mentioned in the lede, as appropriate, for context. Stellarkid (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to you then, (Nableezy) Hamas' view ("Massacre") belongs in the lede because Hamas is a principal in the conflict, but Israel's view (OCL is a part of a wider war) does not? Stellarkid (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You all might check out the article on the American Civil War where is notes "The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names..." further demonstrates that we do not have to put every conceivable name in the lede, only the most common one(s). Stellarkid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

If I may, I think its quite clear that Nableezy is arguing that "Israel's war against Hamas" is not a synonym for Operation Cast Lead. The former is a part of the latter in Israel's view. This could be mentioned, but the phrase should not be bolded, since it is not a synonym for Gaza War. Tiamut 16:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am arguing that this should be called as Israel's view "OCL, an operation in Israel's larger war against Hamas" if we are going to include the view that the government of Gaza calls it "the Gaza massacre". Stellarkid (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be "OCL, an operation in what Israel calls its larger war against Hamas". I would not have a problem with that. nableezy - 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And Stellarkid, if we should be focusing on the most common alt names, those would be Operation Cast Lead (Israeli POV) and Gaza massacre (Palestinian POV). The rest are just distractions others brought up to avoid acknowledging these two. Tiamut 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And Tiamut, "Gaza massacre" is not the most common alt name at all. Certainly not on Google News where we would tend to find our reliable sources. Once again, in Google news for all of 2009: 129 hits. Notice the graph on top and how support for this usage is dwindling as the months go by. This was a common usage only in January for obvious reasons. Further, if you hit the graph on top that shows that there was something in 2002 also known as "the Gaza massacre." In fact there has apparently been a "Gaza massacre" in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and there was even a "Gaza massacre" in January of 2008. Stellarkid (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok we beake it down even more. Can we reach consensus for ' the Gasa massacre ' in title. ? Clear and simple Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just like all of the other conversations, "massacre" has not been shown to be the primary title used my Hamas or in the Arabic world. If it is going in then the other titles that were used more should go in. I provided a reliable source that leaves no question to its validity saying that War in the South and War in Gaza were titles often used by the Israeli media. War on Gaza is the term used by the largest Arabic news service.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

With all the fuss about the names, please don't forget to have the first sentence include a simple description of the war for the benefit of the naive reader. Something to the effect of "...was a three-week conflict between Israel and Hamas that took place in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel during the winter of 2008-2009." Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, and even more concise, "...was a three-week conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip that took place during the winter of 2008-2009." Event location is implicit, anyway detailed later. Also agree with JDE on less fuss regarding titles and names (Operation Cast Lead, Gaza massacre). When it can be difficult to determine what or whether an "official title" has been preeminently applied by Hamas we can go ahead and adopt a designation from Arab media, as in Committee_for_the_Propagation_of_Virtue_and_the_Prevention_of_Vice_(Gaza_Strip). This is what most editors here have been saying all along, refreshing that those with different POVs can agree on this practical approach at stopping hair-splitting and starting to move the article forward. RomaC (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer it is concise. However, Gaza massacre was used less than a dozen times by Hamas leaders and sometimes it was a description. My arguments against it are above. If it is to be used here, context needs to show that there were several other titles used as much if not even more. War on Gaza is the name applied by a huge Arabic source (Al Jazeera's complete special report section) so it appears to be used often. Per the discussions above regarding Hamas used titles, I think "Gaza victory" was used so sparingly it would be inappropriate to use. If we are going to name titles, we cannot give prominance by ommiting other titles.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I liked about JDE's suggestion is that it does not ascribe intent or motivation, ie "Israel attacked Gaza because Gaza was firing rockets" as we had seen here, also as in "Israel hit schools because there might have been weapons there". The suggestion conveyed by these sort of phrasings is that Israel did things for reasons (because they were provoked), whereas Gaza was just irrational and provocative. We can do without this POV-stacking, or else maybe we could say "Gaza fired rickets because Israel had it under a blockade, which was imposed because there were suicide bombers, who had struck in response to...." and so on. Many of our disagreements here would disappear if the article just said what happened. As for your naming objection Cpt, believe it is understood and has been addressed, perhaps at some point you should defer? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is going to be used as a title then everything else used more needs to go in. Before I was arguing to not include it as a title. If it must be used we need to provide the proper context. As I have said, we can remove them all as an alternative. The discussion is still on going up there and it isn't just me who is concerned with the use of massacre. (Stellarkid just added a comment in the middle if this takl section as a reply to a couple editor's it looks like. Everyone should take a take a look).

I don't mind only sticking to what happened for the most part without adding reasoning. The motivation begind the assualt can be cleary explained in the prose so removing it from the lead is OK for me.Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC):::::Defer to what exactly? Cptnono is correct when he says it is not a common Arabic name. As I pointed out above to Tiamut above the link to Google news shows a usage map for "Gaza massacre." 129 usages all together, and dwindling. The usage map shows however that the term has been in use since 1994,1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and as late at January 2008 --- only they were talking about different Gaza massacre(s). Stellarkid (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellar, Nab has pointed out that he is looking for usage by Gaza/Hamas officials. That is different than searching for general usage, as has also been pointed out. I'll bet the term "Los Angeles Olympics" is "dwindling" too that does not mean we should doubt it was what the event was called. Anyway I pointed out in my post above that there is a new flexibility from some editors I hope we can put aside some objections and move forward.RomaC (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term is something a editors have disputed. It looks like it has support to go in but that means it needs to be shown in the proper context. It was not the "official" or "unofficial" name from the quotes. It was used less than a dozen times. It was not a predominate term. It was used slightly more than "Gaza victory". Suggestions for not using the term as a title and this one which incorporates it into the lead with other titles have both recieved some support. Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Needs to be out of the lede as Hamas' name or even the Arab or Muslim name. It is merely another Gaza massacre... a Gaza "massacre" not the Gaza massacre. To try to imply that this is an official kind of name is misleading at best. Stellarkid (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So when every source presented calls it "the Gaza massacre" in both English and Arabic that means what exactly? That they in fact mean "a Gaza massacre" and did not mean to say "the Gaza massacre"? And used less than a dozen times? I said I was not going to look for another source until somebody said how many are necessary. So far nobody has made any inclination as to what the sourcing would need to be. A source that flatly said "called 'the Gaza massacre' in the Arab world" was rejected. Numerous sources from Hamas spokesmen have been rejected. What exactly do you two want me to provide? nableezy - 05:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nableezy, explicitly state the evidence required to settle this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I still prefer Cptnono's 3 paragraph suggestion above, how about this? The massacre description can be added somewhere lower in the lede, but not appropriate in the first paragraph as per reasons abundantly stated earlier: The Gaza War was a three-week conflict between Israel and Hamas that took place in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel during the winter of 2008-2009. It began on December 27, 2008, when Israel launched a military attack on the Gaza Strip, codenamed OCL. The conflict lasted until January 18, 2009 when first Israel, then Hamas, each announced unilateral ceasefires. Stellarkid (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been abundantly stated. A reliable English source or two that states that Hamas calls this conflict "the Gaza Massacre." It must follow the proper English grammar rules and be capitalized. By the way, when did AgadaUrbanit, Brewcrewer, Cptnono and I become "you two"? That is at least four, possibly more. Stellarkid (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Jalapenos is five. Stellarkid (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And all of the people who have been against it in previous discussions but are no longer active.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And all the people who in the past agreed it should remain but are no longer active. And "you two" are the ones who keep saying the sourcing is not enough. And a reliable English source has been provided that explicitly says "called 'the Gaza massacre' in the Arab world", and others have been provided that source Hamas has called it this in both English and Arabic, and the sources do not need to be in English. nableezy - 06:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, a couple of points.

• Do we also require sources that state that Hamas' name for Gaza is 'Gaza' and that Hamas' way of referring to what they have described as a massacre is 'Massacre' ? This logically follows from your argument.
• Regarding editor counts. This is not a democracy. There are literally billions of people on this tiny planet who think evolution is nonsense. Many of them come and try to educate Misplaced Pages about this interesting view at the evolution page. What we do is have a list of FAQ that address their concerns. Consensus is secondary to WP:V compliance and it can't over ride it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

..and as a general comment, I sometimes wonder whether this whole issue is simply a culture clash over word usage e.g. "IBRAHIM KHRAISHI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country" at the last Human Rights Council meeting at the UN re: Goldstone report "When saying massacres, he meant killings, killings of civilians, and not of combatants or armed groups" from here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My initial proposal clearly uses the term massacre and my suggestion below clearly uses it bolded. There are ways to use it that are not out of context. When Massacre or massacre comes up in related news searches as much as Gaza and Hamas do we should discuss it. As it stands, it is used very few times by Hamas. Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can explicitly state why it uses the word massacre or the term Gaza Massacre (or any other term people are likely to challenge) in a note in the talk header and spell out the exact method that was used to make the decision I see no hope of stability. My concern isn't about what the lead says. I don't care what it says. My concern is that the decision making process is opaque and non-deterministic. I'm just a simple geoscientist who is pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and pro-Misplaced Pages without any flags on my user page and with mixed 'ethnicity' like all Homo sapiens and my take on this is that the lack of method here is very counterproductive. For example, the statement 'As it stands, it is used very few times by Hamas' has no meaning. Few times relative to what ? Does it mean that out of the set of all statements made by Hamas that discussed this conflict there were n instances that mention this term and the n falls below an agreed threshold ? Is the set of all statements made by Hamas that discussed this conflict statements in Mandarin or in Hindi or in English or in Arabic ? The statement is also contradicted by the empirical evidence supplied by Nableezy "But compare the results in Arabic for the following: "ismail haniyeh" "gaza massacre": 12,400 "gaza victory" "ismail haniyeh": 1,520. "hamas spokesman" "gaza massacre": 29,100 "hamas spokesman" "gaza victory": 3520". Is this evidence invalid ? My point is simply that we can either go around and around in circles on the issue forever making up rules as we go along or we can agree the decision making rules and make a decision that can be easily explained to future editors in a note so that they understand why things say what they say. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your google hits are invalid. I'm not xsaying they ar eincorrect but unreliable sources and coverage of only a few uses. Stellar and I have both presented search results above that contradict the assertion that it was commonly used by Hamas and used less often than other terms. There is a huge list with the reasoning and methods spelled out.

External links

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

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

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

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

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

another source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah sure.

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

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

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

edit warring, again

Note I've full-protected this article for a longer period of time because the edit-warring continued after protection was lifted. In the future, users will be blocked for edit warring rather than protecting this page.

Please reach consensus on the talk page, don't edit war, even if you are "right". tedder (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

issues with gaza massacre

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

NPOV

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

OR

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

disingenuous section

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War#.22War_against_Hamas.22_and_.22Gaza_massacre.22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War#Opinions_of_an_uninvolved_editor
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War#Suggestions.2C_first_paragraph_of_lead.2C_Sandboxsection
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_23

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

Specific complaints by editors re "Massacre"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_26#.22Gaza_Massacre.22.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_15#.22Gaza_Massacre.22_.28again.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_22#.22Gaza_Massacre.22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_9#Does_.22Gaza_Massacre.22_refer_to_the_whole_conflict_or_only_the_first_day.27s_bombing.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_48#Gaza_massacre
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_18#Massacre
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_14#Gaza_holocaust
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_57#wp:ccc.2C_wp:burden.2C_and_.22massacre.22tp://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_11#Three_unaddressed_problems_with_the_term_.22Gaza_Massacre.22

Specific complaints by editors re "Lead" -- very likely "massacre-related"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_14#Edit_War_on_Lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_23#First_paragraph
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_23#First_paragraph_edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_22#First_sentence_has_weasel_words.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_5#Lead.2C_.26_possibly_article_title.2C_to_be_revised_per_WP:NOR_and_WP:NPOV
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_14#Lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_36#Lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_33#Lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_24#Lead_discussions_...
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_17#Lead_proposals
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_48#Lead_Radically_Changed
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_28#Lede
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_5#Link_to_the_Arabic_Wikipedia
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_16#new_lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_22#NPOV
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_51#Paragraph_in_the_lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_18#POV-Check
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_27#POV_editing
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_27#POV_editing
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_22#POV_problems_with_the_first_paragraph
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_30#Re-Lede
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_30#Re-Lede
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_4#The_lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_22#The_lead
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_11#The_Lead_and_other_topics
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_40#Undue_weight:_the_article.27s_biggest_failure
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_20#vandal.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_29#vandal_ip
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_23#Vandalism_of_the_lead_by_User:Jaakobou
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_23#Vandalism_of_the_lead_by_User:WanderSage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_5#WP:LEAD_compliant.2C_unbiased_intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's in a name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 - By KHALED ABU TOAMEH. JP The Palestinian Authority threatened on Tuesday to suspend negotiations with Israel in response to an IDF operation in the Gaza Strip that left 19 Palestinians - most of them Hamas gunmen - dead. The PA also called for deploying international forces in the Gaza ... From PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks -

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

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate. This is a predictable situation and a predictable result constantly produced by the terrorist mentality of those gangs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who hit what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But now, look at this:

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

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

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

Latest revert in International Law

This

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

looks better than this

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

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

1. حماس تؤكد رفضها "يهودية إسرائيل" Al-Jazeera. 5 September 2009. وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدوليةTranslation: Abu Zuhri said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts do not withstand the results of international inquiries."
2. Hamas denies firing rockets from Lebanon Archived from the original on 10 January 2009. AFP
3. May, Jackie. Seeking the brutal truth The Sunday Times, September 1, 2009.
4. The Times. January 2, 2009
5. Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza? Time January 8, 2009
6. Israel intensifies assault on Gaza, Al-Jazeera. 05 January 2009.
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBCSept15a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. “Hamas Urges Action on Goldstone Report,” allheadlinenews.com, September 21, 2009, http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016460436?Hamas%20Urges%20Action%20on%20Goldstone%20Report#ixzz0Sf1uYeJE
9. “Hamas Urges Action on Goldstone Report,” allheadlinenews.com, September 21, 2009, http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016460436?Hamas%20Urges%20Action%20on%20Goldstone%20Report#ixzz0Sf1uYeJE