Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 65

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

→

What names to use for this event

My comment has been mentioned too many times in the discussion above. I am not any sort of authority on this event or its names, and my comment is being given far too much weight. The argument between AgadaUrbanit and Nableezy is not productive -- the same arguments are being trotted out over and over with no progress. May I suggest a way forward?

We need reliable sources for what names are in fact used, both in the partisan press and in the third-party press. Interestingly, even the current text of the article doesn't claim that the "Gaza Massacre" is the usual name for the event in the Arab world; instead, it says "...has led some Palestinians to call it the Massacre of Black Saturday...", "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre...", and the like (my emphasis). In deciding what names to mention in the lead, it's not enough to establish that "some Palestinians" call it something or that it "has been called" something, which is apparently all our current sources do. We need to find out what the generally-used names are, ideally from a reliable source, and not from original research of our own. Interestingly, the Arabic-language Wikipedia has the title "(الهجوم على قطاع غزة (ديسمبر 2008" 'the attack on Gaza (December 2008)' and gives "مجزرة غزة" 'Gaza massacre' in second position. The Arabic WP gives several other names which aren't mentioned at all in the English text.

I look forward to a more productive discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are clear where the article is not. For "Gaza Massacre" here are the sources:

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".

For "Massacre of Black Saturday":

"Israeli air strikes kill 230 in Gaza". NY Daily News. 27 December 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help): Hamas echoed the violent sentiment while still reeling from the "Massacre of the Black Saturday," as the carnage was quickly dubbed by Palestinians in Gaza.

Do these sources not tell us that these are generally used names? What exactly should the source say for it to tell us what the generally used names are? nableezy - 02:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources say the event is called the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab World. Am reverting to the version that was in the article for a year and a half, it seems clear that some editors' recent behavior here is not because the Arab World and Hamas use a name different from Israel's, but because these editors don't like that name. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So there are two talk sections currently discussing this (or is it three), and RfC, and a NPOV noticeboard going on? And Roma, this is the second time you have been toed the line of commenting on contributors (who dispute that assertion) in the last couple days. You should probably not do that. And the sources being just that reputable are disputed along with the prominence issue and if there is need for the "Arab world" (instead of Hamas or Palestinians) name for it. This isn't changing just because people repeat themselves. And consensus was to remove it months ago but it was edit warred back in.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Those three 'reliable sources' are weak. The first is a 2010 article by a psychoanalyst working with a Lebanese woman in New York City, who in a footnote explains "in the Arab world, the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre". How would she know? She does not know Arabic and has no expertise in the Middle East (that is part of the point of the article). Perhaps her patient told her? Perhaps she looked it up on Wikipedia? The second and third sources are articles from a South African newspaper. If you take a look at the other articles written by these reporters [1][2], you'll see that they're generalists, again with no particular expertise on the Middle East. The articles are based on interviews with people involved in Middle East issues, but the term "massacre" is the journalists' as far as we can tell, not the interviewees'.

Surely we can find better sources? --Macrakis (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Questioning the authors, is that to try and discredit the sources? Seen it before, the sources went to the the RS noticeboard already. Regarding whether the authors know Arabic, that was where this all started -- there are many Arabic sources for "Gaza Massacre" as a name for the event, the opposition editors' call was for English-language sources, when they were provided, the next call was for sources that explicitly said "... was known in the Arab World as the Gaza Massacre" and that's why we have the present sources. This is just going round in circles again. Where is the policy-based argument? RomaC ^TALK 15:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are not weak. The South African Times source was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard where every uninvolved editor agreed that it was reliable for the line "known in the Arab world as the Gaza massacre". Nearly all the sources in this article are news pieces, many of them written by "generalists" who do not know Arabic and have no expertise in the Middle East. A burden not based on Wikipedia policies is being placed for the sources for this line. If you wish to challenge the reliability for any of those sources there is a place for that. And when that was done for the SA Times pieces there was a consensus that the sources are reliable. We are not required to show how the source would know what the source says, we are not required to prove even that the source is accurate. What we are required to do is provide verifiable reliable sources for challenged statements. Three such sources have been provided for this statement. WP:RS explicitly says that news organizations are reliable sources. What it says is Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. The SA source was examined for this specific statement and found to be reliable. Though some people would like restrict "mainstream news sources" to European, Israeli, Australian and North American sources it is not. The SA Times is as reliable as the Sydney Morning Herald, which we cite. Hell, we cite the Washington Times in a few places on this page, you want to pick on a source start with that one. But as it stands, the SA Times source has a consensus behind it as being reliable for the statement. Not one that it is "weak". nableezy - 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that these are substantively weak sources. I am not interested in wikilawyering, just in improving the article. But it appears that I am not being terribly effective; I've done what I can. --Macrakis (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on this comment: Face to Face is from a doctor who does psychoanalysis in New York about sessions she had in New York. It is a footnote to the line "Then Gaza was invaded by the Israeli army." It has fluffy writing and is one woman who is not even in the Middle East and not even an academic in any field related to the history of the conflict or military in general. It is full of overly emotional writing even if it is academic in nature. A footnote there deserves lead treatment here? And the other sources that are supposedly so amazing. The first one presented after months of months of asking for one was from an entertainment writer in South Africa. The second one was finally produced but it is still far removed from the conflict. And all three look easily like circular references when you consider that there are not numerous and strong RS saying it. If the Arab Wikipedia did not bicker over it and if media in the Middle East frequently used the term I could get passed it. These three sources are simply not good enough to source such an overly emotive line in the lead. Reduce the prominence by giving details on use of the description "massacre" by Hamas wherever you want in the body but it is just ridiculous to think that these sources are all we have after a year of bickering to source this disputed line.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent sources. The journal article is discussed below. You know full well that the South African Times piece was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard where every uninvolved editor agreed the source is reliable for the statement of fact it is used for. You continue, without any backing WP:RS, claim that these writers are "entertainment writer". You also know full well that you advanced your "circular reference" argument at the RS/N discussion where it rejected by the only editor who commented on it. Your objection continues to boil down to the same one brewcrewer once admitted was his reason to objectiing, it is because you think it is "overly emotive" to describe the killing of 1400 people as a massacre. For some reason, you are shocked that people who saw 300 children killed in 3 weeks would possibly consider it a massacre. Either that, or it somehow unfathomable that Israel could possibly have done anything that would earn such an "emotive" name among the people who had witnessed such things. Tell me exactly what you expect a source to say and what kind of source it would have to be? nableezy - 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And more follow-up: The FOOTNOTE even reads like the research was done here: "7Codenamed 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" FFS. I am enraged right now over this piss and not going to comment on this article until tomorrow since nothing nice will be coming out.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How you can be enraged I cant understand, I repeatedly provided the entire quote, including in this section, so unless you did not read what I had already wrote you are enraged that the sentence you just quoted was already quoted by me. And your representation of the source is not fair. The footnotes in the source are used to explain the reactions and interactions between her and the subject. Other such footnotes are

Refer to Maxime Rodinson’s (1973) Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? The question whether Israel can be classified as a colonial-settler state (a state established through the expropriation of the people and their land followed by subjugation and exploitation) and the Palestinians as colonially oppressed by Israel is a major debate that began in the 1960s among leading left wing Arab and Israeli intellectuals and still remains a contentious issue.

when discussing why the subject refers to Israel is a "colonial-settler state". The footnotes in this work have more substance than you attribute to them. And let's not forget, this is only the third source for an explicit statement in English that the conflict was known in the Arab world as the "Gaza Massacre". There are two other sources explicitly saying that, and those specific sources were taken the RS/N for that specific statement, and except for you and a sock of a banned editor everybody agreed the source was reliable for that statement of fact. Let us also not forget that at least 10 sources in English and Arabic were provided showing Hamas spokespeople and officials using the gaza massacre as the name of the conflict were provided. You have consistently said that the sources are not enough, tell me exactly what you would like a source to say for it to be enough. This isnt even a game of shifting goalposts, one "side" in the argument refuses to even to give a general description of where the goalposts might be. Since you have consistently rejected reliable sources for a statement of fact backed by a large number of sources demonstrating this fact, you need to say what exactly I have to provide for you? Too much of the argument is based on unsolvable but irrelevant objections, namely that the name itself is inflammatory or "overly emotive". This has been the base issue for those opposed to the inclusion of this name, and it has been openly admitted by a number of those users. Quoting WP:Naming, a policy of WP, not a content guideline, not an MOS. An article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. Let's pretend that the sources are reliable, if they are, is what they report as the common name in the Arab world a "significant name [in another] language"? If yes, does this policy of Wikipedia say that this "significant name [in another] language" should be included in the article? Even "usually" in the first paragraph? Luckily, we dont have to pretend that the sources are reliable for the statement of fact that the conflict is known in the Arab world, we can actually see a consensus that the sources are in fact reliable for that statement. So now pretend those aren't hypothetical questions and attempt to actually answer those questions. nableezy - 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is too long

It takes ages to save it after editing. It should be split as soon as possible I believe.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The background should be more summary stlye bt this was rejected last time I brought it up. The legal stuff has also grown again.Cptnono (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's amusing. An editor adds, to the lead, a 100-word quote which basically is a guy saying "Israel tried really hard not to hurt anyone", which would require some sort of balancing; then right away the editor complains that the article is getting too long. RomaC ^TALK 03:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has been split multiple times so you will have to be more specific. Do you have any suggestions as to what should be split off now or what should be tightened? nableezy - 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could start with taking few images out?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I can guess which images might be suggested, but feel free to prove me wrong. Which images do you think should be removed? nableezy - 04:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, RomaC, you should know better that that. "The guy" is the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, who served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War, who spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee. "This guy" knows much more about warfare than the members of the commision ever will. BTW he said much more than I included in the article, for example: "The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks." Maybe it should be included too?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion on removing images: File:Oferet-Yetzuka-F16I.jpg; File:Samouni2.jpg;File:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG (shows almost nothing useful) File:Gaza war injured policeman.jpg;File:Photojournalists in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I like images and they are not taking up as much space as the templates and text. The photojournalist one is not that great though. I do like the jet one. It is from this conflict even though the caption doesn't say so.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli "will be" deception

When time go future going to past, but :

In pedia is

"The NY Times quotes a study published by the Israel-based .."

In source is

A study about to be published in Israel by the Intelligence and Terrorism...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some comments regarding military analysis force

Ref 141: Esposito, Michele K. (Spring 2000). "Isreali Arsenal Deployed Against Gaza During Operation Cast Lead". Journal of Palestine Studies (Institute for Palestine Studies) XXXVIII (3): 175–191. ISSN 1533-8614. http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10341.pdf. Retrieved March 6, 2010.

This source has several mistakes in it. E.g. the Sholef anf MLRS didn't take part in OCL, in fact the Sholef hasn't entered service, only experimental models exist. Israeli tanks are not equiped with RPGs or anti-tank missiles such as the TOW and the Spike. The tanks shoot mainly 105 mm and 120 mm shells, machinegun ammo and 60 mm mortar shells. The part about the IDF Caterpillar D9 seems to be based on Wikipedia, and that is probably why I didn't find there serious mistakes. The D9 is not equiped with offensive grenade launcher but with smoke grenades, to mask it against enemies fire. I don't know of a D9 that was put of action during OCL, but if it was the remote-controlled "Raam HaScachar" (in Hebrew "Thunder of Dawn" and not "Black Thunder") then no crewmen were killed. Overall, not a single D9 operator was killed in the 9-years long conflict with the Palestinian. MathKnight 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking turns reverting to circumvent 1RR

Provide policy-based arguments for removal of the properly-sourced alternative name "Gaza Massacre", which brings an Arab perspective on the event. Not liking this is not good enough to revert the name in turns, and consensus is not a bigger-gang game. RomaC ^TALK 02:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy and guideline based reasoning has already been provided by multiple editors in multiple sections. Is it my turn to revert? :) I'm also not seeing anyone circumventing 1rr in the history. Did I miss one?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is what has been provided by editors opposing inclusion of the Arab term:

Gaza Massacre is one side's POV/propaganda (yes, so is 'Operation Cast Lead' that's why these names are cited to who used them);

Gaza Massacre is not a common name (sources say it is);

the sources are disputed/weak (the sources are being disputed by those who don't like the name, the sources passed a RS Noticeboard check);

the sources are silly/bullshit (the sources passed a RS Noticeboard check);

the sources don't give strong evidence of their claim (what?);

we should avoid terms like this in the lead (WP:LEAD says they belong);

we should move alternative names to the body (WP:LEAD says they belong in the lead);

World War II doesn't use the Russian name (so what? add it there?);

the name isn't 'official' (neither are 'War in the South' or 'Gaza War');

the name 'Gaza Massacre' is hyperbole/contentious/prejudicial/emotive (editor's personal opinion);

removing it would improve the article and we could move forward (editor's personal opinion);

the definition of the word 'massacre' does not fit the event (editor's personal opinion);

there's no consensus for having this alternative name (there was and the name was in the article for a year and a half, policy-based reasoning could lead to a new consensus, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason).

I don't see policy-based reasons for removal. Did I miss one? RomaC ^TALK 03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to start rereading the discussions. Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While I still support inclusion of the "massacre" term, I don't think that anything compels us to include it. WP:LEAD contains no order of that kind. In any event LEAD is a mere guideline, or a component of one, the MOS, itself a mere style guide. It is much more important that we be able to work these things out among editors. Even the foreign language part of LEAD says that. This problem is a good example of how all the I/P bullshit gets in the way around here. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'bullshit' ? So, it's come to this now, dragging down the tone of the discussion by using filthy and ungodly DTES street talk. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually "bullshit" is a standard term in Canadian English. You have to understand that the Queen's English is different in Canada because the Queen of Canada has a very foul mouth. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the substance of the content dispute but ixnay on the slow edit warring and taking turns reverting or the page will be protected and I'll do my darndest to pick the wrong version so it annoys both sides. :) Use the talk to work this out please. ++Lar: t/c 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not meant to have a view on the content dispute - you are meant to see that the rules are followed. Some of the contributors have glaring POV and need taking to IP sanctions. Some of them are flaunting their impunity to any form of sanctions. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

atleast they don't hide behind IP addresses. that much you have to grant them. no?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@80.40.225.228, please disregard the snide comment above: per WP:IP: "Contributors who have not created an account or logged in are identified by their IP address rather than a user name, and may ... edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected." Editors are meant to assume good faith WP:AGF, but some users do so only selectively, even if they employ usernames. RomaC ^TALK 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR, again

The 1RR restriction on this article is now extended to run indefinitely. I should caution, again, that any attempt to edit war - even without technically breaching the 1RR - may result in a long break from this topic. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LegendDestroyer

User:LegendDestroyer has breached 1/rr.[3][4] It is safe to assume that the editor understands how to use Wikipedia correctly from the edit summaries. Although it is easy to jump to the conclusion that it is a sock, there is currently no clear evidence to support that so maybe s/he was previously editing as an IP. Regardless, a warning about the possible sanctions needs to be given and possibly a block if there is not a self-revert. I have left a message on their talk page. I ask that established user's resist the urge to revert themselves (although it might be appropriate for an administrator to do it).Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

Okay, here's the thing. I see that "massacre" is out of the lead now. And two editors are topic banned for a few weeks now. So I was thinking that we really should resolve this. So here's my proposal: I flip a coin -- if it lands on heads, we leave "massacre" out and if it lands on tails, we keep it in. That's the consensus and we agree not to touch until, let's say, Jan. 1. I have a wide variety of Canadian coins: pennies, nickels, dimes (I'll have to double check on those), quarters, $1 "loonies" and $2 "toonies". One of my loonies has the three soldiers from the Peacekeeping Monument on it. So that's kind of cool. It is a bit worn though but I'd rate it as Very Good if not Fine. I also have most of the standard American set and the state quarters from North Dakota, New Jersey, West Virgina, American Samoa (technically not a state) and Tennessee. I swear I'm not collecting them. It just happened. I also have a few Euros somewhere but I'd have to go through my desk.

I'm also flexible on the heads/tails thing. The queen is the "head" on all of my Canadian coins. And I was thinking that she would probably shy away from the "massacre" term because several of her governments have had their own problems and people who live in glass houses... On the other hand, I once saw a polar bear massacre a walrus and the polar bear is the "tail" on my $2 coin, which would probably be my go-to coin.

Now I know this seems arbitrary and stupid. But consensus is whatever we agree it is. The status quo gives us no beter results in the article and worse in the talk. It creates banned/blocked editors (three in the last week alone) and contributes to the general I/P bullshit (see above). This gives everyone a 50% chance of seeing their preferred version written in. That's better than Vegas odds. And edit-warring is just going to lead to a protected "wrong version" which is basically the same thing but not as fun. To be honest, this would probably be policy already anyway if WP:COIN wasn't already taken. So what do you think? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How about dice? Roll a D4. 1=no massacre 2=massacre 3=keep bickering 4=everyone's banned.

In all seriousness, we are pretty close to a solution and I am not too worried about it. The RfC calls for some expansion in the lead and that should help. Getting the new "narrative" section distributed appropriately would make it even better.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats not exactly right, consensus is not whatever we agree it is, or rather, local consensus does not trump WP:NPOV. Above we have good sources supporting the longstanding wording regarding it being known as Gaza massacre in relevant circles. I don't see why shouldn't be mentioning that, and yes, in the lead, which is where content relating to multiple names for the subject is generally handled. Unomi (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, WP:LEAD says that we can omit it (and the other titles) from the lead. And longstanding means nothing. It has been disputed the whole time and was edit warred back in.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that we can, the question is, why would 'also referred to as the Gaza Massacre ', be problematic? Unomi (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre" has very little hits in the regions media as a title and not a description. If all the titles used more often are in then I am OK with bolding it as a title but people don't want to have that many titles in the lead. I also have no problem with saying it as described as a massacre in the lead ("The conflict has been described as a massacre due to the level of destruction and high civilian casualties" or something). However, asserting that it it is an often used title when it is clear that there are multiple titles used more than it is a problem. Unfortunately, those solutions has been rejected by Nableezy. To make it worse, the factual accuracy of an overly emotional piece from a psychoanalyst in New York and a paper in South Africa are disputed. Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I shouldn't have phrased it with that shorthand. I was trying to say that an arbitrary process could still produce a reliable consensus. But you are right, consensus must be in line with WP principles. The problem here is that WP policies are rather oracular. So the idea that we are forced to include a particular foreign name is disputed. Indeed, I would say it is the basis of this dispute or at least this phase of it. There's also an issue about our counclusion that the "massacre" name is indeed the ordinary Arabic name for the conflict, even if we have a couple of RS that say so. If you think that you can resolve these disputes, that's great. But I think that the absence of resolution here is very destructive -- just ask Nableezy and Agada but do wait until their topic bans expire -- and produces no better result. Until we can work out a permanent solution, I'd rather have the article reflect the winner of a coin toss than the winner of an edit war. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't been here for a while but the lede is now so much better and I would prefer it to stay the way it is. The only expansion which we should hope for is to expand and split the second paragraph to detail some more of the actual conflict. Bjmullan (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Return the article lead to the version before the spate of edit-warring. RomaC ^TALK 10:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And now "massacre" has been edit-warred back in. Presumably by a banned user. Although I'm sure that it will be flipped back later in the day. The status quo is clearly worse than my coin flip offer. Either way it is 50-50 but my option is both painless and enduring. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with the word massacre (it is well referenced) my problem is that a reader coming to this article has to wade through all of the so called names before getting into the article. I would prefer ALL of the names moved to the body. Bjmullan (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the "massacre" name or perhaps all names, to the body of the article has been proposed as an alternative. Thus far it has not been accepted as the basis of a compromise. But I didn't really intend this section to house a debate on compromise. I just think that the status quo, no consensus and an ongoing edit war, is worse than my offer, a coin flip as the basis for a semi-permanent consensus. A coin flip is silly and arbitrary but still produces better results. When I last wrote, the "massacre" term was in the lead. It still is. It was edit-warred in and out five times yesterday. However two of those edits were by one user, a violation of the 1RR and that user was blocked as a sockpuppet. So when the edit war resumes, I would imagine the anti-massacre warriors may prevail for a day or two. But I think I'll keep a running count now:

"Massacre" Status:IN
Edits since my last message: 4
Total edits since I've been counting: 5 --JGGardiner (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is an argument that needs to stop. Editors have opposed it for some time and it should have been removed months ago. Editors edit warred and eventually we stuck all the names in. I don't see that as status quo or consensus over a long term. And maybe we should get a count of how many editors have edited it in over the last year. I can think of one or two editors alone who probably have huge numbers on this. It seems only fair to get the whole scope. And your count also fails to recognize the number of dirfferent editors that agree with the reasoning to remove. Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread what I wrote. Like Ronald Reagan said, "status quo is Latin for the mess we're in". I was referring to the edit war where massacre is sometimes in and sometimes out, not the status quo ante before that when the term was in for a while. On the plus side, there was no edit-warring today. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan, readers have to wade through plenty worse when they come to I/P topic area, I don't see a problem with having belligerents and media from both sides represented in a quartet of alternative names, these provide insight into how the event was regarded. It's been pointed out before, Yom Kippur War lists five names and it's a FA. People should chill. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK

My thoughts on right-hand expanded quotes.

They suck. I've seen them in other articles and I don't like them. Editors put them in magazines as a kind of distilled truth from the text of the articles. I don't think we should do that here because it favours some information over others and is a kind of "POV". There's only one right now, the Bronner quote in the "Massacre narrative" section. But I've seen them in other articles and I wouldn't like them to become established here. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief quote boxes can be nice when there are no images available. We have images and this just looks like a side blurb in a magazine. I say integrate it into the existing body or axe it.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with quotes is that it always seems to become a race to insert the most over-the-top soundbite possible. Unomi (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote boxes, terminate with extreme prejudice or else allow people to vary the case, color and font size of different sentences in the article depending on how important they think they are. By the way, there are many high quality images available that we aren't using such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this. There are many good ones in Commons cat Gaza Strip damage from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag is there for a good reason, some edit conflicts are unresolved and there seems no progress towards compromise. Thus POV tag should stay. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It won't stay until YOU the provider of suck tag explain to us, with your broken english, that sometimes it doesn't sound all that broken at all, go figure, which issues are you referring to...don't like it, leave as is your custom until you are forced to SPEAK clearly in order NOT to make your point accros but to simply let us know that YOU clearly understand what your purpose is in all of this...second warning...Madhi??? Cryptonio (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You're great, Cryptonio, missed you. Love you pepper-mint language. Please don't play games. Check the archives. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. Cryptonio (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is your test Cptnono, don't shun from it, don't do it now. Cryptonio (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still appropriate to self-revert. Be a decent wiki-player, please. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty common for article to have a POV tag on Wikipedia. Some articles are special, no shame about it. The dispute was not resolved, assume my good faith now, the tag should be restored. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lead of the article is controversial, there are disputes that go on and on and documented very well by archiving bots. Since we're together into this shit for some time now, Cryptonio, I'm not sure I understand your behavior and will have no problem to restore the tag myself. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just perfect. 24.181.195.208 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You, and the so called Jews want to step and dishonor the Blood of my Lord My name is Elisme Joseph Lima, and the Lord has promised me that you will come to me and Bow before me The Lord knows I wouldn't take pleasure in that, but since it is written, I will allow you to bow before me Cptnono will bow before me as well You, are not a Jew, those Jews that hate others, those Jews who have become the antichrist by refusing the Cornerstone will all perish You will perish unless you repent, AND SELF REVERT! My time is here, and I will not shun from it like Cptnono There is only one God, the God of Israel, and you certainly ARE NOT ISRAEL Your time is also here, you agada and those others who share your account Let the Shen-bit-nuts know! Their time is also coming Might as well, call it a night now, since it is dark out here, you may never again see the light again!

Cryptonio (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it weird that I instantly started humming Hell Awaits after reading that? All that religious talk gets to me, man. Regardless of that fun stuff, you need to list things if you want the POV tag to stay. I'm not going to argue about it since it is probably needed but if we don't know what to fix it won't get fixed.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are the Antichrist, editing here is a pretty big WP:COI problem. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean would say that according to WP:NPOV, if you happened to be Christ or Antichrist ( whatever who cares ? ) and contribute to Wikipedia, it would be your duty to reflect also the other's POV. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the POV tag is up is because certain people do not like that Gaza massacre is included in the lead as an alternate name. That is a manifestly absurd reason as nobody has been able to explain how including that well sourced alternate name violates any sentence of WP:NPOV. People (mostly two editors later discovered to have been socks of a banned editor) have in the past made inane comments that it is not "neutral" to include a significant POV. That was an inane argument because WP:NPOV specifically defines a "neutral" POV as one that includes all significant views. I very much doubt that Agada will be able to provide a reason that is keeping with the policies of this website as to why he reinserted the POV tag here. But I can, though probably not the ones that Agada was thinking of. A sentence in the lead reads as follows: Israeli forces attacked military targets, police stations and government buildings. Yes, Israel did attack these places. They also attacked schools, orphanages, a sewage treatment plant, and UN buildings. Another line in the lead reads as follows: n September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a controversial report accusing both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice. Yes, Goldstone did in fact say that both sides committed war crimes. But he also said that one side committed many more serious crimes than the other. But instead of tagging the article I will fix these issues. Agada, what exactly is there in this article that you think violates WP:NPOV? And please read that policy before answering the question. nableezy - 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal and not about notice board festivals. This lively naming discussion in the lede is inappropriate, it is not WP:FA kind of material, whatever angle you look at it. Contributors come and go and say "what the fuck?", and then there always comes "apparently it is neutral"... it is kind of alternative name. Well, so far it works just fine: we put the garbage in the lede and tag it as POV. If we want to continue this is the way.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments lack any substance as they do not once explain how the material in question violates WP:NPOV. Have you read that policy? Please explain what in the article violates that policy. For your argument that it is not "FA kind of material", featured articles frequently have alternate names in the lead. That you think it is "garbage" or "POV" is wholly irrelevant. You need to explain how including a common name in the Arab world for this attack violates WP:NPOV. nableezy - 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Gaza massacre is a common name in the Arab world for the Gaza war is being disputed. Meanwhile I suggest we follow this way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source explicitly says that it is. A Wikipedia editor disputing it is meaningless. And that way has been discussed in the past and failed to gain a consensus. nableezy - 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, Lauren Cohen and Jackie May which both report for the South African Timeslive, don't give strong evidence of their claim; no evidence at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing about? That the source does not explicitly say that it was called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world? Sources are not required to give "strong evidence" or even any "evidence at all". A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard found that the source is reliable for the statement. That is all that is needed on Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your last edit is garbage. We dont write "some commentators claim" for what reliable sources state as fact. Another source saying this same thing: Suchet, Melanie (March 2010). "Face to Face". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 20 (2): p. 167. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (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.

This is a peer reviewed journal article that is unquestionably a reliable source. I am removing your WP:WEASEL ridden edit and adding this source. nableezy - 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree on WP:WEASEL, not sure Psychoanalytic Dialogues provides more academic evidence. Without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agada, that is a garbage edit. You continue to say "claim" for what reliable sources say as fact. We dont do that here. Self-revert your edit as it violates several Wikipedia policies. For the last time, a source does not need to provide "evidence" for what they write. When a reliable source says something is a fact we write it as a fact. Stop playing these silly games. nableezy - 01:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Sometimes reliable sources claim if they don't provide proper evidence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, going to bed now. 10x for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. On Wikipedia when a reliable source states something as fact we state is a fact, not as a "claim". This is purely POV pushing, an attempt to downplay what multiple reliable sources report is a common name in the Arab world. nableezy - 01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple other reliable sources report of representatives of various states and governments in the region using the term "Gaza massacre". This indicates that the statement from the reliable source is not "extraordinary". Therefore, there is no need for multiple sources, inline citation or other such measures. Cs32en Talk to me 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow really? Again? Two writers for a paper in South Africa and a guy writing an editorial (even if he does have credentials) is still questionable. I haven't read the Face to Face piece but the abstract was pretty clear. It is contradicted since the largest media source in the Middle East called it something different. "Massacre" is often used as a descriptor. It is sometimes used as a title (much less than others) but this appears mainly to be bloggers and activist websites. Unfortunately, we don;t have a source that spells it out like that (since it is true that those use it as a title) but giving it the prominence and wording that it is the term in the Middle East is just sloppy on our part. I am done arguing about it too much since it will just be edit warred over and we do list the more prominent titles which I'll take as good enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What "guy writing an editorial"? The "Face to Face piece" was published in a peer reviewed academic journal. The SA Times source was brought to the RS/N with every uninvolved editor agreeing that it is a reliable source for this statement of fact. Your unproven assertions about a language that you do not understand, as shown in your attempting to rely on google translate to dispute complex grammatical structures, about this being common among "bloggers and activist websites" and not common in the Arab world do not mean much compared to a peer reviewed journal article and two news reports. Also given that I have provided upwards of 20 different quotes from reliable sources using this as the name, both from Hamas officials and from random Arabs, I dont see much of an argument to be had here. Three sources say that this is the common name in the Arab world, one of which is in a scholarly journal. If you feel that al-Jazeera using a different name "contradicts" that this is the common name in the Arab world you need to read WP:OR more closely. If the only reason the POV tag is up is because we faithfully relay what these reliable sources say is the common name in the Arab world it should be removed post-haste. nableezy - 05:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Face to Face looks like an opinion at first glance and the guy's credentials point to that. Getting something published does not make it reputable. Not saying he is a schmuck or anything but could understand why reasonable people would disagree with his thoughts on it. I also don't know if he has written a piece exemplary enough to support the line like that.

And I have already responded multiple times to the arguments you just repeated and won't be doing it again unless it looks like there is an effort from multiple editors to revisit the consensus on the issue. Completely disagree with your assessment but refuse to play the same game over and over. I don't need you to list them since I have read them but so far the actual number provided is 3 (with some questions) not 20. Like I said, "massacre" is not preferred but I can deal as long as the titles used way more often are included as well. If that is the reason for the POV tag then super. I assume there is much more and that should be mentioned too so that it can get addressed.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point I dont really care what you think about my "assessment". We have three sources that flat out say that the name used in the Arab world is "Gaza Massacre". As far as I am concerned that is the end of the story. Wikipedia editors are not entitled to replace reliable sources with their own opinions. If you have a reliable source that disputes these sources then you may have a cause for questioning these sources. But you dont. The end. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that some expression is a common name rather than a description? I'd probably go for primary source. Academics do researches, raw data is evaluated, results are published and criticized by peers. I'm not sure at this point we could say weither or not this term is a description or common name. We could say the term was used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because three reliable sources explicitly say it was known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. That is how we know. You are not in a position to dispute reliable sources without providing a reliable source that contradicts the ones provided. nableezy - 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is disputable, some uninvolved editors think "reference is weak". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Bjmullan review

Macrakis review

More similar suggestions were raised on this talk page by number of other contributors. I'd strongly recommend ensuring that both sides' terms are used, or neither. We should avoid terms like this in the WP:LEAD. It would seem more appropriate to discuss this name in the body of the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They are welcome to their opinions. We however are not bound by them. The names used by each "side" belong in the lead. Quoting from WP:LEAD:

In articles about places, people, literary and artistic works, scientific principles and concepts, and other subjects, the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. ...

Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged.

We include relevant foreign language names in the lead, and Gaza Massacre, as a common name in the Arab world, is a relevant foreign language name. It is common for articles in the topic area to include both the Hebrew and the Arabic name in the first sentence. And unless you can provide reliable sources relating the name used to the "propaganda war" it would be original research for you to include it there. nableezy - 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no strict rules, see again World War II example. We could but we don't have to put naming discussion in the LEAD, the subject should be expanded in the body, since editors note the current situation is inappropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain, using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why we should not include the common name in the Arab world as reported by multiple reliable sources? Your own personal distaste for calling this event a massacre is not relevant and has no bearing on what is included in the lead. nableezy - 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We could include it in the Lede but we should not, because it is inappropriate, this is not what Wikipedia is about. Naming discussion should be expanded in the body instead. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You have given nothing but your own personal opinion. What you think is inappropriate does not matter. nableezy - 18:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, we're discussing User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis reviews. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And? They are entitled to their views. Those views however have never gained a consensus on this page. If you want to point to specific arguments made by others, try this, or this or any number of others. If you wish to remove the alternative names from the lead establish a consensus for doing so. Just saying that you think it is "inappropriate" to include a well sourced alternative name is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We come here to exchange views.This is the main purpose of this talk page. Thank you for bringing yours. You've already noted elsewhere that statistically you're leading contributor to this talk page. Gaza massacre term was definitely used, no argument. In addition we can not dismiss a view that neutrality calls us to ensure that both sides' terms are used in the lede, or neither. You know, I made an effort to discuss this issue also on your user talk page, so I hope that you don't feel that I'm deaf to your arguments and/or dismissing your view easily. My view is that current situation is acceptable, though not perfect. With that I'd recommend strongly against stating that reasons for our actions or inactions is consensus. User:Tim Song urged contributors elsewhere to make an effort to improve the article. I don't share User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis views fully, though I can see how following their advice to discuss naming in the body would push this article closer to WP:FA, without causing major sky falling down incident. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You make these assertions as though they mean something. How would removing the names used from the lead "push this article closer to WP:FA"? I have given you a number of featured articles that contain many names in the lead. You have yet to provide a policy based reason for not including the names used as reported by reliable sources. Not once have you done so. Until you do so there is not much of a point to this discussion. You have placed the POV tag over the entire article because you dislike the fact that we include what three reliable sources say is the name used in the Arab world. Explain how that sentence fails WP:NPOV and how that justifies tagging the entire article. Do that or remove the tag. nableezy - 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To remind you again, we're discussing User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis. reviews. User:Tim Song urged contributors elsewhere to make an effort to resolve the dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You arent reminding me of anything. What is your point? That those two users do not want the names in the lead? Ok, and? Now kindly respond to my request. I will repeat it: You have placed the POV tag over the entire article because you dislike the fact that we include what three reliable sources say is the name used in the Arab world. Explain how that sentence fails WP:NPOV and how that justifies tagging the entire article. Do that or remove the tag. nableezy - 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag is discussed in the POV Tag section above. I'd suggest for clarity to continue the tag discussion there. In this section we're discussing User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis change proposal, I agree, we sure can and we do include the naming discussion in the lede, it is acceptable though not perfect. However I would like know would the sky fall down on us if we discuss good sources in the body instead of lede? In case the answer is "Yes" please explain why. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include alternate names in the first paragraph of an article. I have both quoted the relevant guideline and given you numerous examples of articles that do exactly that. I dont intend to answer silly questions about the sky falling down. Unless you establish a consensus for removing long standing text from the lead you will be reverted. nableezy - 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no strict rules, see again, User:Macrakis World War II example. I'd recommend strongly, again, against stating that reasons for our actions or inactions is consensus. Do you think there is a way to implement the changes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree with Macrakis or Bjmullen, I believe that the alternate names, Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre, should be in the first paragraph. The rest of the names I would move to the body. You before complained that including the names is not "FA material", however I gave you a number of FAs that do exactly that. You now respond by giving me an article that is not a featured article. Needless to say your arguments remain unconvincing. Consensus matters and if you wish to change long standing text in the lead you need to establish a consensus for doing so. nableezy - 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Massacre was not an official name and therefore would have to be relegated to the body with the other names. I would support just having the operational name in the lead if we are trying to trim the names but doubt that will receive any support.Cptnono (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, "official" names are not the only ones included in the lead. WP:LEAD says to include "relevant foreign names", not "official foreign names". It was the name used by the people attacked and by the wider Arab world. We dont simply include what the "official" Israeli name is. nableezy - 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You just contradicted your previous reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to be a bit more original. But no, I did not. I still maintain that the name used by Hamas was "Gaza Massacre". You however rejected the numerous sources provided where Hamas officials and spokesmen had used that as the name, relying on google translate telling you that what they said was "massacre of Gaza" for the Arab sources and simply saying "not enough" for the English sources, without once ever saying what would be "enough". So I found sources that backed the earlier language of "in the Arab world" instead of "by Hamas". Either way, with sources explicitly saying this was the common name used in the Arab world or with the sources of demonstrating usage by Hamas, the name belongs in the lead. Common names used by groups involved belong in the lead. Until the next Dajudem sock shows up to edit-war this out of the article, with your support of course, that fact remains unchallenged. nableezy - 21:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuuuuh-uuuuh. Like I said, if it is all in then I'm not going to moan about it too much. Others might though but I am content enough with what we got now.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

nableezy, maybe it would be better go and repeat those claims on festival noticeboard. You should avoid festival lexicon here, however. I'd strongly recommend some ~~strike~~ to be applied. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? nableezy - 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There are notice boards for such claims. Those claims are treated seriously and could lead to user ban. Also administrators have an access to IP/username mapping data and could verify such claims easily. However bringing such claims here is irrelevant and useless. I'll help you, nableezy, to ~~strike~~ such irrelevant claims from this talk page. Hope it is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not modify my comments again. If you do I will ask that you be blocked. nableezy - 13:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to clarify. nableezy noted that socks claims are irrelevant to this discussion and none of the editors, taking part in discussion, in his view is a socket puppet.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

nableezy, thank you for flexibility in suggesting that moving of some titles is possible. I could see a neutrality that both belligerent names or neither would be included. But you say also the official pair have stay in the lede? If we don't provide both names you would claim no consensus and revert? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The other names presented are ones the sources say certain media outlets used. I dont see why those should be in the lead. But what was used by the people and governments should be. And yes, if you remove those names I will revert it. nableezy - 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, nableezy. The reason for proposed change was brought up. You have been reverting any change by any user that would result "official pair" not to appear in 1st lede para. You continue to say that "there is no consensus" and revert and this is also your plan for the future. It is interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Nableezy has altered his reasoning to the massacre description.sometimes title no being official but being predominant (which I still dispute) so "official" may not be the concern anymore. Along those same lines, I would accept removing OCL as ell as everything else just to get this ongoing and never finding consensus bickering to go away but that is not policy or guideline based.Cptnono (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What you dispute it irrelevant, 3 reliable sources flat out say this was the name used in the Arab world. Unless you can either a. provide a reason as to why the name used in the Arab world should not be included, or b. provide a source disputing the three provided, you dont have a case. nableezy - 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, thank you for clarifying. Neither looks good to me. nableezy, would you consider not to revert Neither version? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and we have been through this before. Many times in fact. You were a part of many of those discussions. The reason for why the name is even being argued over, despite reliable sources flat out saying it was the name used, is because a few people, one of whom has shown up under more than one username, dont like the fact that this was called the Gaza Massacre. They think it is not "neutral" to call it the Gaza Massacre. They are right, it is not "neutral" to call it the Gaza Massacre and our article does not call this event the Gaza Massacre. However, and if you read WP:NPOV you would understand this point, NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant POVs. It is undeniable that this is a significant POV and must be included. Further, names that are used by involved parties are routinely included in articles and WP:LEAD says to do exactly that. Until you can give some sort of policy based reason as to why you wish to censor out the fact that this event was viewed by an involved group as one in a long line of massacres of the Palestinian people committed by Israel and was known as such by that group we dont have anything to discuss. If the sources say this was known as the Gaza Massacre by an involved group we include that as a relevant alternative in the lead. nableezy - 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to clarify. nableezy noted that socks claims are irrelevant to this discussion and none of the editors, taking part in discussion, in his view is a socket puppet.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No argument the term was used. Let me disagree, neutrality would require both/all names to be used or neither. Neither would be neutral also. Please see a again World War II example. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This article and the intro in particular is going not where. This article will never (and really should) be a GA or FA. I cannot understand why we need to use the opening para to name the article! This info belongs in the body. I don't want to hide the word massacre I just want to improve the article. I haven't edited here for a while but have noticed that in general edits have died down and was glad when the POV tag was removed (for a short while) by Cryptonio as it is only when this tag is removed that we have any chance of moving this article forward. Bjmullan (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the few featured articles in the topic area, Yom Kippur War gives many more names. That said, the only two I think should be in the lead are Gaza Massacre and Operation Cast Lead. Articles in this topic area routinely include the common Hebrew and Arabic names for the article, and this article should be treated no differently only because some editors are offended at the suggestion Israel could possibly have committed a massacre. I can give you a number of examples from the articles in this topic area where such names are given in the first paragraph if not the first sentence. nableezy - 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you refuse to get the point, please see neutral World War II article example. This example means that we could include, but we also might not. That means that there is no duty whatsoever to revert any change by any user that would result "official pair" not to appear in 1st lede para. You continue to say that "there is no consensus" and revert and this is also your plan for the future. It is interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What you think is a "neutral" article does not concern me. The names in the article gained a consensus to be in the lead more than a year ago, if you wish to remove them establish a new consensus. This is not that complicated. nableezy - 13:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody supported removing. The suggestion is clear: to move the naming discussion from lede to body, you have supported it partly. I'd recommend strongly, again, against stating that reasons for our actions or inactions is consensus. To remind you, again, we're discussing User:Bjmullan and User:Macrakis reviews. So neither in the LEDE would be neutral according to them, additional editors who took part in this discussion and World War II. Indeed not that complicated. There is no duty whatsoever to revert any change by any user that would result "official pair" not to appear in 1st lede para. You continue to say that "there is no consensus" and revert and this is also your plan for the future. It is interesting.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Their views are not any more privileged than anybody else. I am not really interested in what you find interesting. If you can make a policy based argument as for why the common name in the Arab world for this event should not be included do so, but you, nor anybody else, has done so yet. I have provided the relevant policy and guideline that say we should include this name in the lead. I have also provided the relevant sources that say this was the common name. Neither of those points have been refuted. nableezy - 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure current situation is acceptable and according to Wiki rules, however not perfect. I'm sure you don't say the proposed changed version would not be Wiki rules compliment. Let me know if you disagree on that. User:Tim Song urged contributors elsewhere to make an effort to improve the article. There is no duty whatsoever to revert any change by any user that would result "official pair" not to appear in 1st lede para. You would continue to say that "there is no consensus" and revert and this is also your plan for the future. It is interesting why you think such behavior is required? Is there way to compromise? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also no "duty" to remove those names from the 1st paragraph. How about this for a compromise? I want to name this article "Gaza Massacre". I'll compromise and have that name just be in the first paragraph. That an acceptable compromise? You removing the names is not "an effort to improve the article" and making us have the same discussion 20 times is not "an effort to improve the article". WP:LEAD says to include relevant foreign language names in the first sentence. In an attack on Palestinian Arabs by Israel the name used by Israel and the name used by the Arabs is without question "relevant". The only reason this is even being argued over is that certain people do not like having the word "massacre" associated with anything Israel has ever done. If the sources said that name used by Arabs was "vasjdnvfbud" there would be no discussion as to whether or not to include "vasjdnvfbud" in the lead. Just pretend that "Gaza Massacre" actually is "vasjdnvfbud". This repeated need to discuss what reliable sources report as the name used which is presented in the lead in a NPOV manner has grown beyond tiresome, beyond annoying, into pain-in-the-ass territory. Give me one policy or guideline that disputes that the names used by the involved parties should not be in the lead or one source that disputes the three that we have saying flat out that the name used was the Gaza Massacre. Do that or forever hold your peace. nableezy - 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You already leaded rename of this article to Gaza War so I find your compromise as strange, though we could look into rename. In such case would Bjmullen-Macrakis change proposition be acceptable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My "compromise" is not "strange", it is a demonstration of the absurdity of insisting on "compromise". And no, removing the names from the lead is not acceptable to me. WP:LEAD says to include such names in the lead of the article. nableezy - 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see again User:Macrakis World War II example. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And see the nine featured articles examples I provided. What is your point, that that article does not have the Russian name so we should not have the Arab name? I'd rather go add the Russian name to that article. In fact, I just might do that. nableezy - 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is World War II an acceptable article? Is it neutral? Why Bjmullen-Macrakis change proposition is unacceptable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources that show that "Gaza Massacre" is a name that is still in use rather than a bit of hyperbole employed for a short while? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the three saying that it was known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre? I am not entirely sure what it is you are asking. The last source added, in an article in a peer reviewed journal published by Routeldge, was published in March 2010 and it says "is known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre". To make the point a bit more clear, the source, published more than a year after the end of the conflict, says that the event is known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre. nableezy - 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Macrakis sources are "pretty good" right now. No More Mr Nice Guy, would Bjmullen-Macrakis change proposition be acceptable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if the sources are "pretty good" or not, since I don't have access to what seems like a book about psychology that very well might have gotten it's background on the war from this article. I agree with Macrakis, even if Nableezy goes and adds the Russian name to make a POINT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a journal, not a book. And if you would like to dispute the reliability of that source you know where you should go. Macrackis gave one article that does not include the Russian name for a war. How that refutes any of the points made about WP:LEAD or anything else I have said remains an unanswered question. And despite Agada's repeatedly saying that the point of this is to move the article to become a FA, the one article he gave is not a FA where the 9 he has ignored are. nableezy - 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All this arguing is pointless, if y'all want to remove the name open an RFC and try to establish a consensus to do so. It is that simple. nableezy - 19:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page where we discusse, urged by Administrator to come to compromise. You continue to say that you would revert any Lede 1st para which would not include "OCL and Massacre". You claim that Bjmullan-Macrackis change is unacceptable, you should explain why. Again "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for action (revert) or inaction (change is not acceptable). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have explained why, multiple times in fact. That you choose to ignore those explanations and continually act like you did not hear me is not a reason for me to explain it again. Open an RFC and try to gain a consensus. It is that simple. nableezy - 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The was informal requested for outside uninvolved input regarding a content discussion involving. Please see Macrackis input. Do you think his suggestion is acceptable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. nableezy - 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you said, you would revert any change, that would not include "OCL and Massacare" in 1sr para, since there is no consensous. By which policy would you revert Bjmullan-Macrackis change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Again, asked and answered. nableezy - 20:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And linking to a random essay does not give me much pause. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a single policy or guideline that supports your contention that alternative names do not belong in the lead as I have given one that specifically says that they do belong in the lead. You have yet to do so. Also, Mackrackis' suggestion to put this in a propaganda section would be WP:OR as no source says this name was propaganda. nableezy - 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why Bjmullan-Macrackis change is not neutral. It is common to think the "both" or "neither" are both neutral acceptable options. We already addressed LEDE with Macrackis World War II . AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that everything is treated "equally". NPOV specifies that all significant POVs be included. You cant "balance" the removal of one significant view by removing the opposing significant view, you have to include both. And no, you did not address anything by throwing out a random article. I dont care about the WWII article, it has no bearing on this article. nableezy - 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you say. No one suggested removing anything, just discuss side specific naming in the body. I also agree it should be expanded. I already mentioned you have lead the rename of this article to Gaza War. Regarding Lede names it is universally acceptable, in conflict it would be neutral either to specify all side-specific names or neither. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something obvious here but WP:LEAD specifically says that alternative names are not mandatory and inclusion should reflect consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

These names did gain a consensus. That a few nationalists repeatedly try to challenge that does not change that fact. Also, consensus does not mean X% agree. Consensus is based on the strength of an argument and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a particularly strong argument. There has yet to be a single policy based reason to remove well-sourced alternative names from the lead. Not one time has such an argument been made. nableezy - 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has. Don't recall who but it should be in the archives somewhere and I recall it being more than one person. And it wasn't just "massacre" but all of them. I'm a little on the fence with that route though.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont particularly have a whole lot of confidence in you so I'd like to see that argument myself. The arguments in the past have been that "Gaza massacre" is not a name, which is no longer valid with 3 sources explicitly saying that it was, that the term itself is not neutral, which is likewise not valid as we dont say that the event actually was a massacre, and that it is defamatory, which I do not even have to address. None of those apply to what 3 different reliable sources say was the name used. nableezy - 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Could someone post a link to the discussion where inclusion (per WP:LEAD) gained consensus based on the strength of the argument? I assume this was in the format of an RfC and not just a few nationalists claiming their argument is better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In no particular order: /Archive_60#Alternative_names, /Archive 22#Name_of_the_conflict, /Archive 22#Suggestion_2, more to come when I have the time to look more carefully. nableezy - 21:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I fail to see the consensus you're talking about, though. It's pretty obvious there's no consensus to include per WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont see that. But more to the point, material that has been in the lead for over 16 months is by definition consensus material. nableezy - 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as your links show, there was no consensus to include it over these 16 months. The alternative name was objected to the moment it was first introduced and the argument has been going on nonstop since then. Your "implied consensus" argument doesn't fly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Those links dont show what you say. But here are some more: /Archive 23#Original Research - The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World. In this archive users who are opposed to the name say that we need to have a source that says, and this is a direct quote from somebody else, You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." The other user arguing against it says pretty much the same thing. I believe those objections are now moot as we have three sources saying exactly that. If you look here you will see Jaakobou arguing pretty much on his own that the problem is that the lead is inflammatory and overly emotional. That is a plainly specious argument as what the actual name is does not affect it being the name. here we have a user arguing that no RS says what the article says, again a moot point as we have 3 sources that explicitly say that, and then we have a sock of a banned editor making other comments that, as coming from the sock of a banned editor, I dont need to spend the time answering now. Here, while not directly related, is quite an informing discussion. We see the reason why this name has repeatedly been challenged, that users are willing to argue that the very existence of the term is not acceptable and an interwiki link using that name is not allowed on the page. Very enlightening. This link is one of the earlier discussions about this, which I linked above. In that link we see that both the number of users and the arguments presented were in favor of retention. The arguments opposed invariably boil down to users not liking the idea that this attack was called the Gaza Massacre. But I am curious, can you actually say why "Gaza Massacre" should not be in the lead as an alternative name? Or is just not wanting it a good enough reason? I have yet to see you give one. nableezy - 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I believe you often rely on "BRD" (though sadly you sometimes disappear for the D) for restoring the "stable" version. nableezy - 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So we were discussing would it be appropriate to revert Bjmullan-Macrackis change per WP:LEAD and you were saying?

In any way looks links provided do not improve per WP:LEAD reasoning for revert of Bjmullan-Macrackis change, and we already agreed that "no consensus" is also not appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting a major change to the article, you need to establish a consensus for doing so. You have yet to make an argument based on any policy or guideline. You have only relied on the WWII article not including the Russian name which, and this really should be obvious, is a completely inane argument. nableezy - 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No argument, the change is major and I agree with Bjmullan could push this article toward WP:FA. That's why this discussion is so full and deep. We need to know all pros and cons and avoid major sky falling down incident. Again, though I help to form a consensus, the change should be fairly attributed as Bjmullan-Macrackis change. User:Tim Song urged both of us to seek compromise. The originators of change proposals are neutral and Macrackis is also uninvolved providing 3d party opinion. So we were discussing would it be appropriate to revert Bjmullan-Macrackis change per WP:LEAD and you were saying? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion is whether or not it is appropriate for you to make that change. Establish a consensus for doing so then there wont be any reverts. nableezy - 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what is going on, don't you? So we were discussing would it be appropriate to revert Bjmullan-Macrackis change per WP:LEAD and you were saying? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we accept uninvolved 3d party Macrackis LEDE view. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. How about uninvolved SlimVirgin's view, or uninvolved Offliner's view? nableezy - 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First off all both views object full information blanking, i.e. removal, so that's hardly relevant. Both notes were made on this article talk page. SlimVirgin's even notes she reverted a removal, i.e. she was an active editor. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly relevant? They want both names in the lead. nableezy - 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly relevant to Bjmullan-Macrackis change and no consensus revert of it per WP:LEAD. I'm not sure what SlimVirgin would say about Bjmullan-Macrackis change would she hear about it. Maybe she would go to be on board, maybe not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Im not playing this game. You need to show what policy or guideline backs you making such a change in the article. I have given you why the material should be included per NPOV and why the material should be in the lead per LEAD. Im not going to try to wade through any more babbling about this person or that person. Bjmullan is here, I would assume he is able to respond to the points I have made on his own. Your repeated parroting that this "Bjmullan-Macrackis change" is somehow superior to the current text for some unknown reason is growing tiresome. nableezy - 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not my opinion and you don't have to play this game. However I'd expect in this case you choose not to play that you would avoid editing around "Bjmullan-Macrackis change". Anyway, I'm going to bed now, and you could explain to me tomorrow why you would revert that change according to "no consensus", or per neutrality or summary wiki holy books. Or not, it is your choice. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

However my impression is that your reasoning for reverts both per WP:LEAD and per WP:NPOV were questioned by the community. So I'm not really sure at this point, what a reason you could have for revert, accept for your initial "no consensus", such reasoning for heavily discussed changes usually is discouraged. So feel free to add your reasoning. Have to go to bed... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you would make the change to begin with with any Wikipedia policy or guideline or how that policy or guideline backs up the change. You cant turn this around on me and try to reverse the burden, you are the one trying to make a major change to the article. When asked to provide reasons and policies or guidelines for making this change you invariably have no response, as seen in the below section. nableezy - 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Motivation for change was provided by Bjmullan, please ping him on his talk page and ask. Really really really sleeeeeeeeeeepy. And then say if you still going to revert and why. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

An assertion that the material belongs in the body does not give a reason for why the material belongs in the body. nableezy - 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As posted above, alternative names need consensus to include per WP:LEAD. You obviously don't have that. Even if you did at one point (which you obviously didn't, but never mind), now you don't. Consensus can change, etc. Saying over and over that there is no policy that backs up the change doesn't make it so. LEAD says this material needs consensus to include. That's the relevant policy. Now show some consistency and follow policy like you keep saying people should do.

Could someone post the full quote from the journal that's used to source the Gaza Massacre thing? I'd like to see how close it is to the first line of the lead as it was in this article in the few months prior to publication. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did post the full quote, but here you go again: 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. Consensus can change, but you need to show how it has. If you wish to make a major change to the article get consensus for doing so. You dont have it now and your sly attempt to reverse the burden, as though I were the one trying to make a major change, will not work. You have yet to give a single policy or guideline that backs up the idea of removing this name from the lead. Would you like to try to do that? nableezy - 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is very specific in saying that alternative names need consensus to include. The burden is indeed on you to show that there is such consensus. The fact you successfully edit wared something into an article over constant objections doesn't mean there is consensus to include it. Quite the opposite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. You are wishing to make a major change to the article and you demand that I show consensus against the change? Please, come off it. I have shown you where in the archives there was consensus for inclusion and the fact that it has been in the lead almost uninterrupted for 17 months shows it had consensus. That you are unable to provide a single policy based reason to remove it from the lead does not require me to show consensus to keep it. If this were a new piece of information that I was looking to add sure, but it is not. You are the one trying to institute a major change, open an RFC if you actually have an argument to make. Wasting my time is not an argument for removing. nableezy - 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

nableezy already agreed for partial implementation of the change, i.e. moving all alternative names from lede to body with in exception of the "official pair", i.e. "OCL - Massacre". We already touched neutrality and LEDE policies as possible reasons for revert. I'm not really sure, what a reason nableezy could have to revet of "Bjmullan-Macrackis change" at this point of discussion, accept for his initial "no consensus" reaction. Such a reasoning for heavily discussed changes is usually discouraged. A tactic of staying silent on this talk page and commenting only when applying undo button generally might look like vandalism. It is important to understand if nableezy still believes that the sky would fall down on us in case the full change will be implemented, i.e. he is going to revert any change that would not include the "official pair" in the lede, including "Bjmullan-Macrackis change". So, nableezy, feel free to add your thoughts, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to give an actual reason for why those two names should be removed. Until you do so there is nothing for me to respond to. nableezy - 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We already discussed it. The change does not involve any information blanking, move would be more appropriate than remove. Again, here is motivation for change was provided by Bjmullan, please ping him on his talk page and ask. And then say if you still going to revert and why. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if you are intentionally ignoring what is written to you or not, but once more. There is no reason in that diff. That diff makes an assertion that the material belongs in the body, not the lead, but does not give a single reason for why that is so. Until you actually give me a reason for removing the names from the lead I dont have anything to respond to. nableezy - 14:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're going to revert it per "IMHO, no reason for this change"? Please explain, we do not want any surprises or sky falling down. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have explained. Repeatedly refusing to listen to the explanation is also not a reason to make the change. You are trying to implement a major change to the article. You need to explain why, with policies and guidelines and a demonstration as to how those policies and guidelines back your position, and establish a consensus for doing so. Playing dumb is not one of the options. nableezy - 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that your reasoning for reverts both per WP:LEAD and per WP:NPOV were questioned by the community. The change is undergoing discussion. The motivation was provided. You noted that you don't see any reason to reach for consensus. So I'm not really sure at this point, what a reason you could have for revert, accept for your initial "no consensus", such reasoning for heavily discussed changes usually is discouraged. So feel free to add your reasoning. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your impression and your notes are incorrect, inaccurate, or just inane. You keep linking to a "motivation" that does not provide a single reason, only an assertion that the material belongs in the body and not the lead. As I have said multiple times, that is not a reason to remove the names from the lead. Again, you cannot turn the burden against me here, you are the one trying to implement a major change in the article. You need to provide a reason for doing so and achieve consensus. That some people "question" my reasons without once provided any counter is not having my reasons "questioned by the community". I have said, repeatedly, why this material belongs in the lead. It is standard practice to include the names used by each side in the first sentences of an article. You said some nonsense about this not being "FA worthy", but when provided with 9 FAs that do exactly this you respond by giving me a non-FA that does not. Provide a reason for removing the names from the lead. Dont continue parroting the same nonsense that you have been as there is not a single reason in what you have linked. nableezy - 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again from the beginning. Currently this article is pretty good. A lot of cooperative effort was invested into it. I already told millions of times current situation is acceptable though not perfect if you ask me. Objectively though there is a problem, whatever you think about it, and we need to improve the article. We all want this article to reach WP:FA in our lifetime. I'm not sure there is a policy that explicitly says Do improve Wikipedia content, though. With your kind help we have gained administrator User:Tim Song involvement into this article which encouraged elsewhere all contributers to improve the article and resolve the dispute. There is fortnight to resolve the dispute. Neutral editor User:Bjmullan proposed to improve the article earlier 1, I think you were absent at the time, and now 2. We have also up to date neutral and uninvolved editor User:Macrakis to provide a comment, 3d opinion if you want, in order to resolve the dispute User_talk:Macrakis#Common_name 3. Meanwhile, on this talk page, Bjmullan-Macrakis change gain some support. The change is Wiki holly books and common scene compliment. You also agree to partial move alternative names discussion from lede into body, however you still say that you would revert any revision that would not include OCL-Massacare in the lede, since there is no consensus. This is good straight way to festive wars. So you still want to revert? Maybe both of us could avoid editing around Bjmullan-Macrakis change, asking either neutral editor ( User:Bjmullan User:Macrakis ) to do the change. If you ask me User:Bjmullan would be appropriate. What do you think? So you still want to revert and why? I think it would be appropriate if you accept the compromise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your belief that removing it from the lead would improve the article is unsubstantiated by any reasoning. None of the diffs you have given show any reason for removing it from the lead. Now, can you or can you not articulate what the reasons for removing this well-sourced alternative name from the lead? Editors are not "neutral" and saying "neutral Bjmullan" or "neutral Mackrakis" is meaningless. "Neutral" in the context of Wikipedia does not mean what you think it means. The sentence "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world" is "neutral" as far as NPOV is concerned. We, Wikipedia, say that the Arab world has given this conflict a name, let's call it X. We then say what X is. We do not say that X is an accurate description of the events, we only say that Y group of people call this event X. That is "neutral" and includes a significant POV as required by NPOV. You have yet to provide an actual reason as to why the material should be removed. Until you can do so there is nothing for me to respond to. nableezy - 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No one want to hurt Arab world or Israel by moving side specific discussion into the body. We should either include ALL alternative names or NEITHER. Both options are neutral and do not discriminate Arab World. Please explain why you say saw. Israel did not call this article Gaza War, you did, so I hope you believe it is neutral. I would agree with you if only Massacre would be discussed in the body, but OCL would still stay in the lede. In addition see again neutral uninvolved Mackrakis World War II example. Should we POV tags WWII article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you gain any support for you position on this talk page, during Bjmullan-Macrakis change discussion? Do you still feel comfortable to revert per consensus ?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So now you say you're going to revert per WP:NPOV ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Nableezy object to moving this stuff? If not, just do it. I think we've reached the limit of expected discussion with a single objector. One editor doesn't get to veto changes, particularly in an article under ARBPIA sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just do it is definitely not an appropriate way to WP:FA, rather a great way to festive war. nableezy says he is going to revert Bjmullan-Macrakis change since there is no consensus. Better ideas? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to be bold. nableezy does not make any sense. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And maybe it is time for the R in BRD. You have yet to give a single policy or guideline that backs up the idea this should not be in the lead and further violated OR by including the name used in the Arab world as part of the media. The Arab world is not part of the media. You really want to say I dont make sense? Thanks for the laugh. nableezy - 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. And what was it that thing above? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have now violated the 1RR on this article and in the second of your reverts you ask for "better sources". There are three sources all of which are reliable sources. This is bs. nableezy - 22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The only BS here is that you think you can hold this article hostage to your political agenda, and that RomaC tag teams with you without taking part in the discussion. I hope the admins are watching because this will eventually find its way to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When somebody makes an edit that I made they are tag teaming. When I make an edit I am holding the article hostage. When you and your crew push to remove a significant POV you are "moving the article forward". I understand now. Thanks for the lesson. nableezy - 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion? I see a cadre of partisan users basically parroting one another whilst ignoring policy points, that's not discussion. I said this some months back and Nableezy recently provided a similar example here: Let's imagine for a moment that Hamas officials called this event "The Month When Israel Stopped Our Terror Rockets", and that name was used in the Arab World, and reliable sources said: "In the Arab world the conflict was known as 'The Month When Israel Stopped Our Terror Rockets'", then I am approximately 99.9% sure that the hasbara-friendlies here would have no problem having that among alternative names in the lead, actually some might want it as the article title. But actually, Hamas officials called this event "The Gaza Massacre", and that name was used in the Arab World, and reliable sources said: "In the Arab world the conflict was known as 'The Gaza Massacre'". I don't care if some users don't like the actual name, because Wikipedia policy says editors' opinions on such things don't matter. RomaC ^TALK 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cadre of partisan users" is pretty amusing coming from a partisan user such as yourself. Anyway, if I get the gist of what you're saying above correctly, you are 99.9% sure that people who disagree with you politically are a bunch of hypocrites? Is that right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Bjmullan-Macrakis change acceptable

Is Bjmullan-Macrakis change acceptable?

Again from the beginning. Currently this article is pretty good. A lot of cooperative effort was invested into it. Objectively though there is a problem and we need to improve the article. We all want this article to reach WP:FA in our lifetime. I'm not sure there is a policy that explicitly says Do improve Wikipedia content, though. We have gained administrator User:Tim Song involvement into this article which encouraged elsewhere all contributers to improve the article and resolve the dispute. There is fortnight to resolve the dispute. Neutral editor User:Bjmullan proposed to improve the article earlier 1, and now 2. We have also up to date neutral and uninvolved editor User:Macrakis to provide a comment, 3d opinion if you want, in order to resolve the dispute User_talk:Macrakis#Common_name 3. The change is Wiki holly books and common scene compliment. I think it would be appropriate to accept the compromise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize but removing the other titles and keeping "massacre" in is a deal breaker for me. More sources say other titles by ratios of over thousands to one and giving massacre undue weight is unacceptable. Having all the names also increases FA since it discusses media attention which is a section. It is wordy though so that limits it. ar in the South might even be more prominent than the operational name.

However, if all titles are removed then I am OK with it. I would be more inclined to add more information regarding "massacre" if it was a paragraph in the reactions or another part of the body. There is a ongoing discussion at the POV noticeboard already so I don't know what happens if they say two different things.

I do agree that more of the actual fighting needs to be discussed in the lead. Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured out POV tag get lost in fruitful editing. Small question though, do we consider Arab World as "side" in Gaza War? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I would love to see a source say, "In Gaza City, residence call it..." but it doesn't exist. And Hamas did not have an official or sole description for the event so that "side" is out as well. If the Israeli army's "side" (operation name) has to go to to not give it extra prominence due to e massacre being removed then so be it. Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand there is no strict rule for sourcing in the lede, since lede content should summarize the article. Do you think that reader might think that "Arab World" was "side" according to current wording? What is the justification of Arab World being in the lede?AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the Arab world was a party to this conflict. nableezy - 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what do you say, could you provide refs? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You want a reference that says Gaza is a part of the Arab world? Really? nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support removing "Gaza Massacre" from the lead. It is not an official name and thus requires consensus to include, per WP:LEAD. I also remain unconvinced this is in fact the most used name for this conflict in the Arab world, see Al-Jazeera's coverage. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What al-Jazeera uses for a name does not in any way contradict the cited sources. The sources do not say this was the only name used in the Arab world. I dont have to convince you of anything, the sources flat out say it was the name used in the Arab world. Your comment contains WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not much more. nableezy - 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment specifically talks about WP:LEAD, which is a guideline you like to evoke when you think it serves your usual POV pushing. The only IDONTLIKEIT here is coming from you. Now why don't you let people comment on an RfC without badgering them for every comment they make like is your usual MO? Can we do that for a change? Someone makes a comment without Nableezy having to get the last word in every single time? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Except the only thing in WP:LEAD you are quoting is that it needs consensus. You are simply saying that you object and fail to give a valid reason for that objection. Your disagreeing with 3 reliable sources based on al-Jazeera using a different name is about as relevant as the rest of your comments here. nableezy - 15:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that WP:LEAD explicitly says adding alternative names is not mandatory and requires consensus. I have already stated why I object to its inclusion in the lead and don't need to repeat it just to amuse you. Now why don't you let some other people comment and stop obsessively trying to get the last word in? I mean I know this is the usual way you derail RfCs, but lets try something different for a change, what do you say? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Making unfounded and untrue accusations may well be your usual way, but Ill let that go. Consensus does not mean having people agree, an unfounded "no!" means as much as staying silent. Thanks for giving us an unfounded "no!" nableezy - 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The name used by those attacked in this conflict without doubt belongs in the lead. Three reliable sources explicitly say this was the name used by Arabs for this conflict so there is no issue with sourcing. The text said known in the Arab world, so as an attributed view there is no issue with NPOV. This is only an issue because some find the name used to be objectionable. In fact, some of the editors here have admitted that the reason they wish to remove the phrase is that they feel it is "defamatory" and that they do not dispute that this is the name used in the Arab world. That they object to a "defamatory lie" being given "prominence in the lede". That is, just as it was then, a reason without any backing in the policies of this website. By the title naming the article "Gaza War" we include the "significant POV" that this was a "war" between parties. By including "Operation Cast Lead" we include this view to a greater extent, that this was simply a military operation. it is a "significant POV" that this was not a war, a battle, or an operation, that this was the cold blooded murder of more than a thousand people over the course of a few weeks. The people who were affected by this "war" use a name to describe what they see as the latest in a long line of massacres committed against them, and they, according to 3 reliable sources and many more documenting actual usage of the term (see here for a small set of the examples), have a name for this "war". That name, as documented by the sources cites, is the Gaza Massacre. WP:NPOV requires that all significant POVs be included, and, in the words of that policy, the inclusion of all significant POVs is "non-negotiable". nableezy - 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, an RFC is supposed to be set up a certain way. A short, neutral description of the dispute is supposed to be presented. The RFC question as posed fails both of those requirements. nableezy - 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. The "massacre" term is unduly contentious, weakly sourced, and surely does not belong in the lede. For one, the war cannot fairly described as a "massacre" with fidelity to the english language. Secondly, as pointed out above and below, the sources currently used in the article with unknown authors, appear to have been plagarized from Wikipedia itself, because they postdate the terms appearance in the Wikipedia article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this among the best-sourced of the article's five names and alternative names. And daisy cutter also maybe lacks fidelity with the English language -- but Wikipedia editors needn't police such things. RomaC ^TALK 04:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Cutter is a common enough name over here. That article may need to be updated. And overkill from sources that have been questioned does not mean that it is well sourced. That argument also has nothing to do with removing all of the alternative names as suggested and within the guideline.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You know full well that the SA Times source was unanimously supported as reliable at the RS/N by uninvolved editors. Just having a random person on the internet saying "I dispute the source" does not make it any less reliable. The statement is well-sourced. nableezy - 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As of this time stamp, "massacre" is out but the others are in. I was under the impression that we were moving towards removing all alternate names. I am fine not doing that but assume there is little chance of that standing.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This RFC is useless and has no validity. See WP:RFC:

Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template.

Instead we have a nonsensical non-neutral statement that is unintelligible to anybody who sees this at the RFC page. I suggest we all work on forming an RFC question (my idea would be "Should the term "Gaza Massacre" be in the lead of this article as an alternative name?") that we can all accept instead of continuing with this farce. nableezy - 13:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. While I appreciate the proposal from the Bjmullan-Macrakis OKB, it is a bit vague for these purposes. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So consensus finally swung against using the term in the lead months ago but it was edit warred in. And now we have an RfC (albeit poorly worded), several talk page discussions, and multiple editors editing it out but the it is still screamed about. Consensus is at the very least leaning towards removing it from the lead. I think the only way to do this is to move all of them out and am fine with it although it is not preferred. Having a "Names" section might be some ingenious use of compromise (that should at least be applauded for thinking of another solution) but I hate it. It just looks like a forced compromise that carries almost the same amount of problems and has no precedent from what I can see in similar articles. Maybe I am wrong about it not being common so if anyone knows of any GAs in FAs in military articles let me know. It just looks ugly to me. And that has not even been considered before in all of the discussions on this so I doubt there is consensus. I could be totally wrong so if people want to chime in that is cool. Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No one else has commented but AU removed it. I think that shows that maybe it shouldn't be in. In typical Nableezy fashion he reverted. What happened to BRD? 1rr is not an entitlement. Maybe you should be using he talk page. Feel like discussing if people are misusing it still RomaC?Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD?????? Where was that when it was edit-warred out of the article? Fine, BRD it is. Until there is consensus for removing it from the lead, as a WP policy says it should be in, I'll return it to the lead so that BRD is followed. nableezy - 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. There is still some discussion. I think it is wrapped up for the most part but might as well wait until the 30 day RfC is done before pulling the trigger on any changes.Cptnono (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this RFC has no validity. It does not have a neutral statement, in fact it pushes the opinion of the drafter. If you would like to work on drafting an actual neutral RFC question that would be great. Additionally, I asked some questions of you below. You have yet to respond. A policy of Wikipedia says that significant names in foreign languages should be included, usually in the first paragraph, What is your response to that? nableezy - 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I am holding off on any further action until it is done since I disagree that it is completely invalid. I could just start reverting like everyone else but would prefer not too. And policy has been responded too multiple times by a few editors so repeating it isn't helping you at all.Cptnono (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD has been responded to, nobody has responded to what WP:NAME, which is a policy and not a guideline, says. You think the RFC statement is "brief" or "neutral"? Please, come off it. Finally, I have provided a WP policy that says the name should be included. Do you have a response? Saying it has already been responded to is not a response, especially because it has not been responded to. nableezy - 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is my mistake. I had LEAD and NAME confused. Regardless, NAME is for article titles as you know. Treatment of alternative names refers to LEAD. It also is not concrete in its wording. LEAD has been discussed.Cptnono (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what NAME is about. But if you read the policy it says the following:

An article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc.

That policy of WP specifically says that siginificant names in other languages should be included and, quoting again, "usually in the first sentence or paragraph". If you cant be bothered to even read the policies and instead just make blanket dismissals you should find another hobby. That policy of Wikipedia says that significant names in foreign languages should be included. What is your response to that? nableezy - 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I specifically addressed it but I will go mor in depth if you want to say I didn't read it when your comprehension seems off. It says SHOULD. It doesn't say MUST. And then it directs the reader to LEAD. There we are shown reasoning (which has been explained to you) for not including it. This is a perfect example when SHOULD not works better.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And you yourself moved it out of the lead for a reason. Keep that in mind. Time for it to go. Been a long time coming as much as you have resisted it.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved it out of the lead because I was sick of people who for no reason other than to protect a certain state's image object to a valid, sourced alternative name. I took it out of the lead because I do not want to have to deal with a bunch of accounts disregarding core policies because they dont like how it makes a certain state look. Should is not the same as may, you need to provide a reason why what that policy of Wikipedia says should be included in the lead actually should not be. You havent done that yet other than to make the same fallacious arguments. You continue to say the line is not reliably sourced when we have a consensus at the RS/N that the cited sources are reliable for the statement of fact that they are sourcing. Now, please, tell me why that Wikipedia policy should not be followed. nableezy - 07:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC response I agree that the dispute has not been clearly stated. Figureofnine (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Was the opening statement not clear or is it not neutral? Probably should decide which. Based on this discussion and multiple previous calls to improve the coverage of the actual conflict in the lead, I have added a few lines. I also tried out a massacre line just because the description is prevalent. There was some back on forth o the titles while I was doing this. I ignored it and my not removing it should not be viewed as endorsing it or not. I do think it is fine as is but the operational name may need to be removed to make everyone happy.Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The above question should be answered. Recently, "There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre." was removed. I think this line is essential especially if the title of massacre is being removed with the others.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost a month. I don't think it matters how the RfC is worded since no one but me changed their mind anyways. Many editors are calling for massacre to be removed. Many are calling for the other alternative names to be removed. I have already filled in a few lines on the actual conflict but some more could be needed. I think a line saying that it was described as a massacre would assist in the readers understanding of the topic and prevent edit warring. It is a win win. So are we good to go on this change? We can keep it as is of course but we will probably have the same conversation next week. Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gaza "war".

Again, it must be only in the US republican party, the CIA, Kadima and the UK conservative party that anyone considers the Israeli 2008 attack on Gaza a "war". As Bill Hicks said it, I don't know if you understand this but: "a war is when TWO armies are fighting". But so much for the english speaking worlds honesty. Really who cares anymore what's written in wikipedia on history. As laughable and sickening as it is Orwellian. Go figure why. And just leave out the bullshit about POV and commentary will you. If you cannot even adhere to even the most basic honesty and decency what business do you have criticising me for commenting here. Intellectual and academic honesty? Dont look to the US and the UK institutions or publications anymore. And Yes We all know who owns all the places of publication by now so you can stop typing your internal dialogue right away. Commercially controlled institutions and boards for higher learning?? What are you people?? Plato and Socrates would spin in their graves. US and UK "intellectuals"?? "Educated" at Oxford/Eton ?? A contradiction in terms.Nunamiut (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you last time, there is no requirement that the title be so literally descriptive. See battle of bands for example. Or the Flour War. Although a precise definition of "war" is widely debated anyway. And I think Hamas would object to your view that there was only one army involved in the conflict. In any event, the term is widely used. Just checking google news, here are some non-Western and mostly non-Zionist sources who used the term just in the last three weeks: Al-Ahram Weekly [5], the Daily Star (Lebanon)[6][7], the Daily Mail (Pakistan)[8], the Ma'an News Agency [9][10][11][12], the Tehran Times [13][14], the The Peninsula (newspaper) of Qatar[15][16][17], the Gulf News [18], The National (Abu Dhabi)[19][20][21], ArabNews [22][23], Press TV [24][25][26], Asia Times Online [27], The Hindu [28], the Al-Jazeerah Information Center [29], the Saba News Agency [30], the Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review [31] and Sin Chew Jit Poh [32]

I do understand if you don`t agree with the WP:RS and our reliance on so-called ``experts``. You aren`t the only one. In fact some have started a rival project. We have an article on them if you`re interested: it`s called Conservapedia --JGGardiner (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and by the same rationale Denmark conducted a "war" with Germany for the 12 to max 24 hours it took for the German army to overrun it, the Caribbean island state of Grenada fought a "war" with the United States, and the bombing of the Basque city of Guernika was a "war" between those who got bombs dropped on their heads and those who dropped them. Sure. But as long as we are being so utterly dishonest we can also pretended that any and all of the arabian press is "independent", pretend that volume of repeated commitments of erroneous statements make them more legitimate and all sorts of other equally horrific and mindboggling hallucinations that only a thoroughly eton/oxford conditioned mind would be able to, so hell yeah, the only thing I'm wondering is why did you stop there? Nunamiut (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. If the German invasion of Denmark was most commonly known as the German-Danish War, that would be our article title. If the Invasion of Grenada was more commonly known as the Grenada-American War, that would be our title. If the Bombing of Guernica was more commonly known as the German-Guernican War, that would be our article title. If it was most commonly known as the Guernica Kerfuffle, that would be our article title. If the bombing of Guernica was most commonly known as the North Carolina A&T – North Carolina Central rivalry that would be our article title. Although we might have to modify it to North Carolina A&T – North Carolina Central rivalry (Spanish Civil War) to distinguish it from the one that already exists. Voltaire famously said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an Empire. But if he brought it up on the talk page, he wouldn't find much agreement for a rename on those grounds.

It isn't our job to rationalize titles, as was pointed out to you last time you brought this up. We are supposed to use the common English name if we can identify one. I'm sorry that you are so troubled by the onomastics of the English language. I'm sorry that you are troubled that Wikipedia shackles itself to such a process. You are welcome to avoid Wikipedia if it pains you too much. Or if you think reform might redeem Wikipedia, you might bring it up on the relevant policy pages. But there's no point bringing up your general opposition to Wikipedia policy on particular articles unless you think we're particularily egregious policy adherents. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much one way or the other for your suggestions, I just think it should be visible to all who "pass" that the dishonesty was objected to. I know of noone (real persons and sane human beings that is) who refers to the bombing of and attack on Gaza as the "Gaza War", outside the media that is. I understand it's difficult for many to comprehend what's wrong with following the lowest common denominator in History as a subject, as the consequences of parallels treatment of procedure and guidelines in subjects such as medicine and physics are probably equally difficult to explain to someone who thinks it's a good idea to stick to "guidelines" instead of reality, but like I said, why stop there? Why bother with such a as truth at all? As long as we apparently have all accepted that we live in the third reich and all have to accept follow the current dialect of newspeak? Yes, But no, you see? No? And So anyway, you are of course _aware_ that you are seriously suggesting and defending that Wikipedia is to allow Murdoch et al to define the language and how we percieve history in the english speaking world, yes, I can see how that does not make one's bowels and innards wrench while committing the fraud when one thinks the current apex of academia and truth is to be derived from News Corp & Harvard-Yale-Eton corporations. Oh well. Nothing new here then. Nice spectacle though, looking at your common hallucinations again, but sadly I refuse to partake in or even consider discussing the results of them for any longer intervals at a time. There are about a dozen other valid arguments against your chosen despicable and disgusting "policy", but why on earth would I venture to waste much more of my time and energy while in this life on what will obviously be months, years or decades on a guaranteed futile effort to change a policy through a policy page where clearly I'm to expect people with and of superior(?) intellect to yours will actually be using all their time and skills in _defending_ your commonly held insane position. Nunamiut (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you want anyway? You say that you hate Wikipedia policy. That's fine. Your objections are quite ordinary. You realize that it would be a futile effort to try to change policy on the policy pages. I quite agree. So why have you come here to berate us for following policy? Are you asking us to leave Wikipedia? Are you asking us to edit the article without regard for policy? Do you think you can change policy if we all ignore it on this one article? I've heard your disdain but what do you expect us to do about it? If you only want your contempt for Wikipedia to stay noted here, your quarrel is with MiszaBot, not with me. I can't say I blame you. Old Etonian by the way. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I time and again have realized that have no possible sane avenue to have any positive influence on wikipedia or wiki policy, and I frequently see that I can take up a case and have 10 to 20 valid arguments but when it comes to discussion, any and all of the arguments are simply ignored, no mediators show up and I end up discussing a topic with my adversary (usually one admin or other) and a couple of his friends who invite their closest ally to have a laugh and one ends up voting 5 to one or two, if a (un)lucky passer-by actually bothers to read my arguments. It feels kind of like walking into a robbers house and telling him and his friends that they need to see it your way and then having a vote on wether or not your arguments for having robbed items returned to their proper place are valid. The argument "this is how we've always created mediocre propaganda" and "it's policy" or that you cant redirect the common terms to a new heading is as ludicrous an argument as it is illegitimate and invalid. So what I would wish is that serious admins would start having a serious discussion and start treating recent history as history and not a google search count on how many Rupert Murdoch publication terms they can find. If you're really an old Etonian I guess you've (should have) read Plato's dialogues and know a thing or two about right and wrong conclusions, honesty and so on, and how we arrive at each of them, and how we certainly do _not_ arrive at any of them. If not Wikipedia will end up making a mockery of all human endeavour, and the human species as a whole, and just become a tool to keep people as mediocre as possible... ah, yes. How silly of me. And yes, I guess I'm just a bit of a laugh for still advocating so utterly and obviously contemptible stuff like honesty and accuracy and all that kind of crap. Oh well. "As you were", "carry on", and all that kind of crap too. We're only being robbed of the truth or any meaningful similarity of it so... Whatever. Have a nice one. Nunamiut (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement then. I also don't think that anyone has the ability to cause that kind of change. It would amount to remaking the project or at least taking it back nearly to the beginning. I think you just don't like what Wikipedia fundamentally is. I can respect that. Like I said, Conservapedians have the same objections though they obviously favour different truths than you. You might prefer Citizendium or some other projects. I hope you can find something that makes you happy but it does sound like Wikipedia never will. And I'm not an old Etonian. I was trying as a joke to say that Miszabot was but I guess it fell flat. Oh well. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Massacre, massacre, and more massacre

Noticed this earlier on this page: "Would the users who object to including the term "Gaza Massacre" in the lead please say exactly why? Please say which policy or guideline backs such a position."

So I decided to check the 60+ pages of archives. Looked through the first third, and copied down a few of the more interesting points made at the time with their authors in bold. Looks to me like editors have been saying exactly why for a very very long time. Was reminded of the saying supposedly by Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Here is a small sampling of some of the objections and some of the support in the first 20 or so pages of archive. I think it helps throw a light on the issue. Hope you do too, as it was an arduous task.

Search archives for massacre

Results 1–60 of 60 for massacre prefix:Talk:Gaza War

Archive 2

The operation has been called "an ugly massacre" by the de facto Prime Minister of the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniyeh.

Archive 3

At this point the lead included the name "Black Saturday Massacre"
Omrim:'The "Massacre" title doesn't even worth a typing stroke to respond.
tariqabjotu: "an ugly massacre" is not a name for the big salvo; it's a description.

Archive 4

BritishWatcher:'Is this term really widely used enough to justify it being bold and mentioned in the opening paragraph? "Massacre of the Black Saturday" only gets 67 results on google. Seems too POV in my opinion.'
Al Ameer son: Well, it is attributed to what the Palestinians use to describe the events, and the Palestinians are one of the involved parties.
Hiddekel: That's right--calling this article "The Gaza Massacre" or any equivalent was quickly dismissed. That means it is, by consensus, not the title, or subject matter, of this article'

Archive 6

Archive 7

VR:Let's not call things massacre here. That language is uncalled for.
Debresser: My opinion precisely.
Nableezy: If you think it should be called a massacre find sources. The ones I see don;t say massacre, they just say how many died
brewcrewer: I understand why someone with a POV would want to use "massacre". But as this is the English Wikipedia we probably should best use English.
Nomæd (Boris A.): The unintentional killing of people is not a "massacre". You cannot, and you will not call accidental civilian deaths (due to being used as human shields by Hamas, and there are video proofs) as a massacre. That's just an anti-Israeli demonization and it has no place in Wikipedia.
chandler: They knew they were shooting at UN schools, where civilians where taking refuge, that sounds like a massacre to me.
WanderSage: There are videos of the UN school being used as a launching pad for Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and conclusive evidence that militants were working within the civilian population at the time. If you're going to throw a term like massacre in an article as sensitive as this, both sides must be held responsible.
Cerejota: Not to mention that all of you are engaged in in instant original research. Sources verify that this is being labeled as a massacre by one side, and one side only, with very little verifiability.
213.8.225.111 It would be biased to claim this as a massacre.

Arch 9 Section on Gaza Massacre

Nableezy:here you go; [33]; [34]; and many more in [35] (Google)

brewcrewer: Can you please provide one link to a reliable english language source that supports this contentious and controversial bolded assertion in the lede?

WanderSage: don't think it's POV, but at the same time it doesn't seem to have been universally or even generally adopted as a name across the Arab world. Of course you can find sources in the Arabic media that refer to it as the "Gaza massacre", but there are also sources that refer to it as the "Gaza slaughter", "Gaza carnage" etc. etc. Right now, it's the "Gaza massacre" not the "Gaza Massacre".
Nableezy: You are trying to censor information from the encyclopedia on the basis that you think that they should not be calling it this, because you dont think it is a massacre. Stop this bullshit argument over whether or not Arabs are calling it 'The Gaza Massacre,'
RomaC: Actually the only problem I see with the sentence "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in the Arab World." is the word "conflict," because "Gaza Massacre" is being more accurately applied to the the Israeli offensive. Should we change the wording to: "The Israeli offensive has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in the Arab World."?

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 11 @ Gaza Massacre

Archive 13

Tundrabuggy: The article is thoroughly biased against Israel, with the explicit accusation of a massacre in the first 2 lines. The rest of *the article attempts to justify the accusation.
Rabend: Tell me about it. Some people here are apparently incapable of objectivity.
y. Some things are simply inexcusable and this massacre, there I said it, is one of them. That is my opinion.
Sean.Hoyland: So what ? If it doesn't affect a persons behavior with respect to their edits it's irrelevant.

Archive 14

tequendamia: This is not a conflict between two equal powers as it has been portrayed here. Clearly one of the parties in the conflict is a punching bag. For this reason I suggest to rename this article the Gaza holocaust -

Archive 15 @ Gaza Massacre again

Special talk page on Lead

Archive 17

Requested move to a new name, an IP suggest calling it Massacre or Holocaust

Lead proposals 4 versions -- all contain bolded Gaza Massacre

Archive 17 @ new lead

Squash Racket: Yes, no need to talk about that any longer. Results yield 10 times more relevant Google news hits for "Gaza War" than "Gaza Massacre". That's the bottomline.
dbw: Comparison of "Gaza Massacre" and "Gaza War" on Google 1:10 noted that neither Gaza war nor Gaza massacre has been used as a proper noun

I have intentionally left the "w" in "Gaza war" and "m" in "Gaza massacre" lowercase. I have not (yet) seen either of these phrases used as proper nouns. Arguing over the "symmetry" of each side's justification is tantamount to fighting the war itself... we cannot and will not achieve consensus.

Version 6 offered:

The 2008-2009 Gaza war, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[46] when Israel, citing rocket attacks from the Gaza strip, launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: ???? ????? ??????), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[10][11][12] The conflict has been described as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: ????? ????) in much of the Arab World.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Nableezy:It still reads like an Israeli PR piece.

Cptnono: The conflict has been described as the Gaza massacre... in much of the Arab World." Most sources (even Al Jazeera) do not title it "The Gaza Massacre"

Archive 18 Special section entitled "Massacre"

BozMo:I wonder if the implication in the lead that "Massacre" is only prevalent as a description in the arab world needs adjusting. It seems to be used in plenty of non-Arab countries including non Arab Islamic ones but also places like Bangladesh: [36], London: [37], [38], Auckland NZ[39], Australia [40] although that one may be a blog
Squash Racket: OK, I don't want to waste anymore time here, the article is quite messy anyway. What I know is this: whenever we try to establish common usage of a term/phrase/name on Wikipedia, we only use reliable, neutral sources, not partisan references, blogs, press releases, etc. especially in heated, controversial topics like this. And once again: with your new method the term "Gaza Holocaust" too can easily be established.
Superpie: Your opinion is likewise welcome, but massacre is an emotive and judgemental term, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre". This is unquestionably a conflict between Israel and elements within Gaza, its for the reader to review the evidence and deduct the currency of "massacre" as a description, not for a few editors to decide from the go.
Kermanshahi: With more than 1,000+ casualties the article should be renamed 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza War.
Tiamut: It's not a war, it's a massacre. But if you prefer more "neutral" wording, might I suggest 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza.
The Squicks: These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate.

Archive 19 use of the word "massacre" suggested for an incident within the Massacre (sort of a massacre within a massacre)

Archive 20

Straightliner: This argument will no doubt lead into “The Israeli-Gaza Conflict is not a massacre" argument. False. Massacre is defined as “To kill a large number of people indiscriminately; slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people” (Google). Now let’s look at the stats. 13 Israeli dead. 1,300 Palestinians dead. Ratio of death is 1 Israeli to 100 Palestinian dead. Killings have been indiscriminate. Civilians have died. This a massacre. Period.

Brunte :Is someone still trying to remove the Gaza Massacre part in lead section. 5 reffs not enough?

Archive 21

Section "Gaza Massacre" special page,

etc

KantElope (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, I could have sworn that I'd said some intersting things too. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your diffs suck. Way too complicated and long winded to summarize my position at least. You should feel a little bad for doing it that way. At least you went through the archives though.Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder when we're going to add "is known in the Arab world as The Great Satan" to the United States article. That would be much better sourced than what we have here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed adding "The Great Satan" to the list of alternative names for the United States, so it's unlikely we're going to do that any time soon. I wonder when we're going to remove "also known by his diminutive Arik" from the Ariel Sharon lead, because "Butcher of Beirut" gets twice the gHits as the affectionate nickname. Or, maybe we should just discuss this article. RomaC ^TALK 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Unacceptable addition to the lead

This sentence was recently inserted into the lead by an editor:

But a report quietly submitted by IDF Military Advocate General Avichai Mandelblit to the United Nations in July of 2010 regarding Israel’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead confirms the key findings of the Goldstone Report, though it was surpressed in Israel. [56]

This sentence ~~constitutes vandalism, and~~ is generally unacceptable, for the following reasons: 1. Does not follow WP RS (quotes a blog) 2. Is STRONGLY POV - it is merely the editors opinion that this report was suppressed in Israel , it is merely the editor's opinion that it confirms "key" [weasel word] findings of the Goldstone report, it is merely the editor's opinion that the report was submitted quietly (what does this even mean?).

~~Editors pushing the inclusion of~~ This sentence in the lead ~~are blatantly violating~~ violates a number of WP policies, and therefore ~~are committing vandalism.~~ should not be in the article. Kinetochore (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinetochore, I really advise you not to describe edits like that as vandalism. It doesn't help at all. It is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Please assume good faith on behalf of the editor who added that material and try to improve it rather than label it as vandalism. Yes, the source could be better although the blog is by journalist Max Blumenthal who could be considered to fit the description "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" in Self-published sources (online and paper) and therefore may very well be an RS on various aspects of this issue or usable via attribution. Strongly POV has nothing to do with vandalism. There is no connection between the two things. Yes, the editor that added this material failed to distinguish between editorial opinion that should be attributed and factual reporting by an RS. It happens all the time in wikipedia. It isn't vandalism. It certainly shouldn't be in the lead unless it's in the article but rather than label the editor as a vandal wouldn't it be better to follow up on the story and improve the sourcing ? I don't care what happens to the material but if I see you labeling things as vandalism that are not vandalism I will revert you and if you continue to do it I will report you. Assuming good faith is mandated by the discretionary sanctions. Labeling people who probably don't understand policy as vandals is the kind of thing that makes the I-P conflict area of Wikipedia an unpleasant environment and helps turn it into a battlefield. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not assume good faith. I retract my comment that this edit constituted vandalism. I stand by my claims regarding its content. Kinetochore (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it may not be vandalism. So besides any knee-jerk to the charge, should the edit be in? If a source is found (which so far it hasn't it looks like) is it worthy of the lead? If so, is it worded correctly? I see no reason for the line to be in as is at this time.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has criticized both the Israeli and the Hamas investigations:

In response to the Goldstone Report, Israel's report to the UN said that "...Israel has launched more than 150 investigations in allegations of misconduct or violations of international law during the Gaza conflict. It said the military has opened 47 criminal investigations and initiated criminal prosecutions of four soldiers in separate incidents...." (Jerusalem Post, 8/19/2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=185229) It would be interesting to know what came of these investigations and prosecutions. HRW says: "Israeli investigations still fall far short of being thorough and impartial".

The Hamas response was apparently completely vacuous, though: HRW: "Hamas appears to have done nothing at all to investigate alleged violations".

Can we get better information on all this? --Macrakis (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Unbelievable propaganda for Israel in this article. It is distorting the reality. Obviously has the Yesha Council and their many friends on Wikipedia succeeded.--213.33.31.120 (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Resolved

– Cptnono (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to call it that if it wasn't meant to be but I can't see how it could be anything else.[41][42][43] I already made a significant adjustment today and won't be spitting in the face of the revert gods over it. Any concerns with removing it as vandalism and not under the 1/rr restriction. I suppose the IP could even chime in here if he has a source.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the IP responded on my talk page after I shot a message over. So it isn't vandalism. However, it is clearly POV that removed proper sources. It needs to be reverted.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits prior were POV. The "sources" biased as is the whole entry. The article needs rewriting and new reliable sources. --213.33.31.120 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IP needs to be notified of the possible sanctions just so it doesn;t come up later. Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I got nothing in response for the rest of his Yesha Council comment.Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no response? --213.33.31.120 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to detail why the sources are not acceptable, focus on the lines removed and not the article as a whole, and why it is POV. Anything less and I will be reporting this to the administrator's incident noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of the neutrality tag on the top of the article. You did not want to see this obviously. If you going to report this to the admin inc vandal noticeboard, it shows the Yesha Council and its friends, in which case you don´t have a response, has a majority here. --213.33.31.120 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. Please respond directly to the concerns brought up to you. If you want to accuse people of manipulating Wikipedia then this is also your heads up on Wikipedia:Civility. So can you go into detail as asked or not? I don;t know if you are trying hard to fix an article or being a troll. I really don;t care. Unless you can provide some reasoning your edits need to be reverted.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you do care. I´m not accusing WP of anything, it is just a matter of fact. [44] [45] --213.33.31.120 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks

Resolved

JRHammond (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel began a military offensive with a surprise opening air strike against the Gaza Strip on Dec. 27,[37] following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.

This sentence is misleading. The truce didn't "run out" on Dec. 19 leading to rocket attacks. The truce effectively ended on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an airstrike against and invaded Gaza. Hamas has until that time been scrupulously observing the cease fire and it was in response to that attack that rocket fire resumed. Also, Hamas offered to renew the truce, and Israel rejected their offer. The lede should more accurately reflect the facts and circumstances leading to the "war". The rest of the lede seems quite good (neutral and accurate) to me, but this needs attention. JRHammond (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More WP:OR this is not a forum, thanks. And for your record since you already made this a rant, I will correct you. There were rockets fired by terrorists into Israel days after the ceasefire started, so when you claim that it is Israel who ended the truce on November 4, you are making a mistake. The truce was violated by the Palestinian terrorists in July. Forget November. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR? No more than your own statements. I'll give you sources for everything I say here. The facts are as I stated them. Hamas fired no rockets prior to Israel's violation of the cease-fire on Nov. 4. Islamic Jihad did do so, in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Jihad members in the West Bank, but Hamas actively tried to prevent other militant groups who were not a party to the truce from launching such attacks. Moreover, if you want to get detailed about it, Israeli in just the first two weeks of the truce repeatedly violated it, firing numerous times across the border at Gazans trying to reach their own land, resulting in a couple injuries. In July, Israeli soldiers shot across the border and killed an 18 year old. Israel never lifted the siege, as per the cease-fire agreement. Now, all the details needn't be in the lede. But the fact is this suggests the rocket fire only resumed after the truce expired on Dec. 19, which is untrue (as you just acknowledged), and it also completely ignores the fact that it was Israel, and not Hamas, that violated the truce, resulting in it's effective end the month before. This is very misleading, and therefore needs to be addressed and corrected to more accurately reflect the documentary record. JRHammond (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Hamas is the ruler of Gaza Strip. If Palestinian terorrists in Gaza Strip fires rockets into Israel, Hamas is responsible to make sure they do not do this. Since it happened (as you just acknowledged) it means the Palestinians (under Hamas rule) broke a ceasefire. Otherwise, it can just as easy be said that Israel did not break the truce by firing into Gaza, because it was just one soldier who fired in, not Likud government. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To make a proper summary foe the background we can always go "Ceasefire ended. Some rocket attacks. Strike on a tunnel Israel said was to be used for malicious purposes. Substantial increase in rocket attacks." It should be easy enough to add a couple lines if we show some restraint and let the background section do most of the talking.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The truce is mentioned here in passing. I think it deserves/requires more emphasis. Tentative suggestion: On June 19, a six-month cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas went into effect. On November 4, Israel launched an attack on Gaza, claiming that militants were digging a tunnel in order to cross over into Israel. The truce effectively ended as Hamas resumed the launching of rockets into Israel, and Israel continued to launch attacks into Gaza. Following the official expiration of the truce on December 19, Israel launched a military offensive against Gaza code named "Operation Cast Lead", beginning with airstrikes on December 27. Just an initial proposed draft. JRHammond (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You just cherry picked some information. You mention a paragraph or so up that there were rockets from factions not related to Hamas. That was still a concern. And then you mention that there were other attacks from Israel. You also effectively assigned blame which is my biggest concern with your proposal. When you do that then counter lines need to be presented which turns it into a mess. Maybe reduction is the best answer if we can't do a proper summary at this time. 1 line: "Cease fire-> Minor skirmishes. War->." You also included OCL which means we would have to insert all of the alternative names again according to some editors.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my suggestion above. How about we just remove the problematic line before it becomes more problematic:

The Gaza War was a three-week armed conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel during the winter of 2008–2009. Israel began a military offensive with a surprise opening air strike against the Gaza Strip on Dec. 27.[37] ~~following Hamas's resumption of rocket attacks when a six-month truce ran out on Dec. 19.[38]~~ Israel's stated aim was to stop rocket fire[39] from and arms import into the territory.[40][41]

Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Fuller discussion can be included in the body. I'll support that edit. JRHammond (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I'll make that edit. JRHammond (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it last night.Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry for not having noticed. JRHammond (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

External link trimming again

This and This are not specific to the conflict. Does anyone know if qassam.ps has an area on their site devoted to this event? We already have Al Jazeera's.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
[~~http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/news/gaza/ This]~~ and this too probably (I might be misreading them though)
This is better as an inline source and is only related to the background anyways.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to request that 1/rr be lifted if people don't start responding. I would prefer if it stayed in place but realisticall this should be open and shut.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono's new lede

Cptnono I think you have done an excellent job. The lede looks professional and is npov. Maybe this could be a new start? Bjmullan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll see if it lasts. There are some other aspects that could go in to make it a proper summary but I certainly hope it is a good start. And of course, it isn't my lead sine there has been tons of feedback on how to address a few different issues over a long time :) Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just seemed like a suitable heading as we've had some many lede topics! Just one suggestion. I think the first para could be spilt at "An Israeli ground invasion began on January 3....." What do you think? Bjmullan (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It looked a little bulky to me too. Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the section below before any knee-jerk reverting. I am assuming that if the massacre line goes then it will have to return to its previous state. The other line in question isn't a big deal to me though.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New user WatanYaHabibi has revered. No discussion and it is hard to assume good faith so I might be reverting this if he doesn't state reasoning here.Cptnono (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing a piece of the background was done based on a conversation below. I still think some background could be presented in the lead but don;t see how it can realistically be done. That is a defeatist attitude though.

So in relation, "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel, reaching the major cities of Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time.[41][42][43]" seems out of place in the first paragraph now. It almost feels like it is given too much prominence by being in the first paragraph and is not inline with the context. Any objections to moving it into a later paragraph and saying "During the conflict..."11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This will be going through unless there is any response.Cptnono (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everything is still going smoother than expected. One editor has expressed concerns about massacre (being handled below) and another is requesting some modifications which is also now being discussed below. As long as we don't start reverting eachother we should be good. Hooray for improvement Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disparity in resources

For some reason, this keep returning to the lead: "There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

Some problems: 1. Neither statement is sourced, a big nono for claims in an I-P conflict article lead. 2. The first sentence is irrelevant to this particular conflict. Consider that the Tamal Tigers probably didn't have the same resources as did Singapore. Or that that Iraq/Afghanistan probably didnt have the same resources as did the US. Most wars do not occur between nations of perfectly equal resources (the term resources is also unclear -does it mean weapons? money? firepower?). Also I highly doubt that any RS would mention this in articles which also discussed the war. 3. The second sentence may be true, but it needs both sourcing and crystal clear attribution. Kinetochore (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Massacre is referenced later in the article. The disparity bit is referenced in the PDF previously discussed. The lead does not always need inline citations per the guidelines but I can add them. I like the disparity line but it isn;t nearly as important as the massacre line is to some people if we are running with the new lead.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of massacre as a description is referenced later in the article, but is the reason that it was described as a massacre clear across the sources? Perhaps different people described it as a massacre for different reasons (keeping in mind that massacre has a loose definition). I was not aware of the source you provided, and I concede it does say that. I still maintain that its not very useful information (I don't think readers would learn anything from including it). But I'm not vehemently opposed to its inclusion.Kinetochore (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can totally understand not using the disparity line. I personally like it but it is much less of a concern then removing the massacre line. It has been described as a massacre in multiple and different types of sources. There is no doubt to that. And what you ask is exactly what the body is for. The line isn't confirming that it was a massacre just that it has been described as one.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood my concern - I agree we should mention that it has been described as a massacre - but I'm not sure if sources agree that it was described as a massacre because of X reason. First of all, lots of damage does not equal massacre description, unless sources said that the war was a 'massacre of infrastructure', or something. If editors want to say there was lots of damage caused by the war, it should be a separate, unrelated sentence. Second, the high civilian toll is just one reason why people might have described it as a massacre. Another reason could be perceived cruelty in the way some people were killed, or the killing of innocents if the people who used the term felt the war was unjust. What constitutes a massacre can be different to different people/sources.Kinetochore (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So will not using the disparity line but using the massacre line work for you? The disparity line pulls it away from a hardware issue and into a massacre issue (although that might meet the summary of that particular source) Unfortunately, going into detail as to why it was called a massacre would give it so much weight. I was hoping that simply saying "high amounts of damage + death toll" was sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono could you put a sentence here that we could comment on and if we can reach a consensus we can include it in the lede. So far the changes you made have held up and I for one would be keen to get a lede which has consensus and is stable. Bjmullan (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph was (removed lines bolded): "The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths.

There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre. In September 2009, a UN special mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, produced a controversial report accusing both Palestinian militants and Israeli Defense Forces of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended bringing those responsible to justice.The UN Human Rights Council later passed a resolution endorsing the report. In January 2010, the Israeli government released a response criticizing the Goldstone Report and disputing its findings."(diff)

I can live without the disparity line but think the massacre line should be in.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Cptnono but it would be good to get others input. I would be keen as I said above to get a stable lede and keep it that way. Bjmullan (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For sure. At this time I am thinking keep the massacre line and drop the disparity line but more input would be great. I think everyone is sick of the issue causing so much back and forth so hopefully we can put it to rest.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No one wishing to add their comments? Bjmullan (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"There was a large disparity between the military resources available to Israel and the Palestinian factions. The scale of damage and number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

In reply for the request for comment: Kinetochore objected that this is not sourced. It doesn't need to be. Who would challenge that Israel's military might vastly outweighs Hamas'? Who would challenge that the brunt of the damage was born by Gaza? Who would challenge that the conflict has been described as a massacre? None of these statements is controversial. Sources could easily be found, but they aren't necessary. Kinetochore acknowledges its description as a massacre is sourced elsewhere in the article.

Kinetochore objected that the disparity in military might is "irrelevant". I fail to see how so, and this doesn't follow from the observations about Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, etc.

Kinetochore clarified his concern is that we don't know the precise reasons its been described as a massacre. Granted, there are numerous reasons for this. The fact that it was the region's most powerful military against a people with no army, no air force, no navy, etc. The fact that Israel targeted civilians and civilian objects. The fact that Israel employed indiscriminate weaponry such as white phosphorus. The fact that around 1,400 Palestinians were killed compared to 13 Israelis. The fact that enormous amounts of Gaza were totally destroyed. And so on. Shall we include all of these reasons for why it was described as a massacre to satisfy Kinetochore's objection on this grounds?! Do we, as Cptnono alluded, want to lend even more weight to this? (I have no problem in doing so, but I know others here would). I cannot fathom that anyone would seriously challenge that it was called a massacre for the stated reasons, above, which pretty much summarizes the situation neatly and covers the reasons very well.

That said, I think the point could be written better. Propose a single sentence: "The disproportionate military strength between Israel and Palestinian militant groups, the scale of the damage in Gaza, and the high number of civilian casualties led to the conflict being described as a massacre."

I object to the adjective "controversial" being used to describe the Goldstone Report. That would require discussion, because there was no real controversy about it beyond the fact that the U.S. supported Israel in its rejection of it and did what it could to squash it. Without that discussion and explanation as to the so called "controversy", the description should be dropped. It's enough to note Israel rejected the report and its findings. JRHammond (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does need to be sourced. Not doing so is OR and verification is required since an editor challenged it. It does not necessarily need an inline citation being in the lead though. The disparity line might have been a little synthy on my part but I like it since the hardware interests me. I'm fine dropping it. Scale of damage and casualty ratio is certainly sourced in relation to the description massacre. Type of weaponry used might be sourced but we will need to find a specific one to present on this talk page if that aspect should be added to any line discussing massacre. I have no problem with "controversial" but it may not be needed since it is already stated that Israel did not agree. Please also watch out for long statements that have resulted in tl;dr before.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Kinetochore deny that the military strength of Israel is vastly superior to that of the Palestinians (which is nonexistent? Seriously? BTW, what's "tl;dr"? JRHammond (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

too long; didn't read.

It doesn't matter if/how you think he will dispute it. Provide some good sources and we can go forward.

And disregarding that (for now at least but without ignoring the possibility). Are we good to go on adding the massacre description back in?Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What does tl;dr have to do with anything? It does matter. If nobody questions or disputes that Israel's military force vastly outmatches the Palestinians' military force, no source is necessary. This perfectly elementary and uncontroversial observation is not likely to be challenged. Therefore, no source is necessary. It seems to me Kinetochore's objection on the basis, though I don't doubt was made in good faith, is due to his misunderstanding of that policy. See WP:VERIFY. On your question, good to go as far as I'm concerned, yes. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr was some advice that you have already recieved so I thought I would mention it.

Content wise (1000x more important): What you think nobody questions has been challenged and therefore needs a source. Period.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And I am about to burn my 1/rr fr the day and don't want to do it at all if there is any question. So far, the original massacre line (without the disparity line) looks good to go. JRHammond, Bjmullan, and SILENCE makes it look OK. I would have liked a couple others but trealistically this isn't in the news so less people is less people. I also would have liked Kinetochore's blessing but it realistically isn't needed. If he does revert then I am completely OK with more discussion since I know how volatile this article is and he does have some reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What does tl;dr have to do with advice? I cannot believe that Kinetochore seriously disputes that sentence. If he does, I'll have to hear that from him. As for making an edit, if you're talking about inserting/reinstering the above discussed info into the article, just to reiterate, that's fine with me. JRHammond (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When your statements are that long people stop reading them is all.

Kinetochore did challenge it at the top of this section and now I am challenging it so instead of arguing find a source.

I did add the massacre it in partially based on you syaing you were OK with it. I hope it sticks around this time. I think the led is turning out OK.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you are seriously challenging that Israel's military might is vastly superior to the Palestinians'. I cannot believe that you could possibly seriously question that not to be true. JRHammond (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that. I am challenging that it is why it was described as a massacre. Why haven;t you provided a source yet? I already provided one for the disparity so it would be appreciated if you also did some leg work. I am open to the edit if it is verifiable.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. i don't think that is controversial, either, but here are some sources describing the massacre as a "massacre", "catastrophe", "mass slaughter", "war crimes", etc. and describing the disparity between Israel's U.S.-backed military might against a defenseless civilian population, etc.: [46][47][48][49][50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"catastrophe", "mass slaughter", "war crimes" are not in question. Do any of those clearly say that the "disparity of resources available" (the original line), "The disproportionate military strength between Israel and Palestinian militant groups" or something similar was why it was called a massacre? Not your interpretation and try not to use things like normanfinkelstein.com or zcommunications.org. We are already saying it was described as a massacre (as we should) but is the uneven strength of the combatants an aspect that led to it being described as such? And disproportionate might be a keyword to look for since that was a cry often heard. I would look into that more. You could also just be satisfied that massacre is staying in the lead after so many have called for its altogether removal.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky are perfectly good sources. I'm not interested in splitting hairs or debating semantics, and if it's going to come to that, it's not worth my time to argue any further for the inclusion of the line. JRHammond (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guy's I for one is really pleased that we have gotten to a point where not only do we have a good lede but it has consensus. The next step in my opinion is for an editors note added to the lede to say that any changes should first be discussed at the talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. JRHammond (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The sunshine and rainbows didn't last long. AN editor removed it. Use the talk page, dude.Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wikifan won't do it I will. We could also jst go back to edit warring over and over and over again. We all know what this article would look like if multiple editors suddenly came back from bans to spread havoc. So the edit summary was: "irrelevant. every conflict israel has fought is described as a massacre. no international organization or mainstream supports)" So how do you want to reword it? "...has been described as a massacre by critics"? Will that work? It has been described as a massacre by more people (some of them disputed) then we can list in the lead so does "critics" cover it or do we need more junk crammed into the lead?Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And Wikifan has still ignored the request to come mention it here so does anyone care if I revert? Also, if the line does need adjustment please say so now so that we don;t go down the same edit warring path so many other editors have on this page.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sentence is back in and I have left a comment at Wikifan's talkpage. Bjmullan (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And you were reverted. I wish people would use the talk page. This has been gone over and the line is not that inflammatory. I suppose we can say forget it and let the line go. Not sure what the best move would be on it.Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if "by whom" is the problem: Again, "by critics"? This was already suggested but it is easy to miss in all the text. Or we could just remove it. Enough people want it out that it no longer hurts my feelings that bad. Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, people are disregarding 1/rr. People need to self revert now or else it will lead to blocks.Cptnono (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)