Talk:2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza

New name

The name of this article has very little to do with the issue. Considering the new HRW report (here), shouldn't this be changed to something along the lines of "Gaza internal political violence" or "Hamas violence against opposition" or something like that? "Reprisals" might be the excuse the killers use in some of the cases, but this is just your run of the mill murder, maiming and torture of the political opposition. Maybe "post Gaza War political violence in Gaza" or something similar? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed above, and it was acknowledged that the current name is a temporary fix. Your questioning of "reprisals" is appropriate. How about 2009 Hamas violence? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the name should include "political violence" like in the HRW report, as well as "Gaza" since it's happening there. 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hamas violence is unnecessarily vague. Perhaps it could be a page linking to various Hamas violence-related articles, or a general article on Hamas violence in 2009. For those who have forgotten, the reasoning behind the attacks was a "reprisal" against suspected spies who aided Israel before and during the 2008-2009 Israel/Gaza conflict. So calling it "political" violence is kind of silly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And the media referred to the event as a "reprisal," or "punishment" of suspected Israeli spies. Political violence is a major understatement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird name change

See my rationale above. Just look at the lead:

The 2009 Hamas political violence took place in the Gaza Strip during and after the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It ranged from physical assaults, torture, and executions of Palestinians suspected of collaboration with the Israel Defence Forces, as well as members of the Fatah political party. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 32 people were killed by these attacks: 18 during the conflict and 14 afterward, and several dozen more were maimed, many by shots to the legs.[6][7]

Seriously guys? "The 2009 Hamas political violence took place..." Is this a wikipedia-version of English I'm reading? ;D I highly suggest a revert to the 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks or something similar, because that's what it is. Reprisal and punishments against spies might be considered political violence in a general context, but the lack of specification makes the title inappropriate. Please change. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the people who were killed and wounded were Fatah members. That's called political violence even if in some cases they claimed they were launching reprisals against collaborators. See the HRW report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Fatah members under the accusation that they collaborated with the Israelis...which they probably did. Hence, "reprisal attacks." The sources we use to reference material explicitly refer to the attacks as "reprisal," "punishment" and Hamas' campaign of "reasserting" its control over Gaza during/after the conflict. 2009 political violence does not make sense. If the HRW report considers this, "political violence..." so what? This is political violence, but so is everything else that goes on in the Palestinian territories. The Battle of Gaza could technically be referred to as "political violence" but we don't call it that. Please change the title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the general summary of the report "internal political violence in Gaza and the West Bank is not new." They don't call the whole situation a simple example of political violence. In fact, here is what a HRW director says one paragraph above: "During Israel's attack on Gaza, Hamas moved violently against its political opponents and those deemed collaborators with Israeli forces." The issue here is context. Obviously the report does not denote the entire conflict as "political violence," but rather an event that can be included among many examples of political violence within the territories. So naming an article 2009 Hamas political violence based off the provided HRW report is, in nice terms...bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that when you target mainly your political opponents and some suspected collaborators (some of which also happen to be your political opponents, in an amazing coincidence), "political violence" is a good description. But feel free to propose another name and see what the other editors think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire conflict was inspired by neutralizing the presumed israeli "collaborators." Yeah, this basically a gave Hamas a free pass in killing/abusing political opponents that may or may not have been involved with Israel, but that is besides the point. No one is disputing some casualties were not part of an alleged-conspiracy, but again, that does not matter. The attacks were done under the pretense of a political infiltration of their sovereignty which likely aided Israel in destroying much of Hamas' infrastructure. If the Israel/Gaza war did not occur there would have been no "political violence." Plus, almost every source in the article, including the HRW report, (which you claimed concluded the attacks were simply "political violence) refers to the event as revenge/reprisal/response to a spy game between Fatah and Israel. And like I said in a previous section, the current title is beyond ambiguous. You have any idea how many acts of "political violence" have occurred in the Palestinian territories this year? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan that the topic is inherently connected to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, but I don't think the connection needs to be reflected in the title, and I also don't think "reprisal attacks" makes that connection clear. In my opinion, "reprisal attacks" is vague and confusing, and leads one's mind to imagine reprisals against Israel, which is not what this article is about. "Reprisal attacks" is also POV, because it accepts a particular way of looking at the events (though I'm not sure whose), that would not be accepted by all significant viewpoints, or any. "Political violence" is better than "reprisal attacks", though I think just "violence" would be more concise. Hamas is a political group, so it's obvious that violence it commits would be political, as opposed to, say, domestic. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Political violence" is usually used when speaking of violence against political opponents. I agree with everything else Jalapenos said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

POV-push is understandable, but all the sources either directly say or infer the attacks were more than typical "political violence involving hHmas that happened in 2009." No, they all say Hamas orchestrated a strategic assault on citizens who supposedly-aided Israel during the conflict. Anything less than reprisal attacks is simply OR. There is no precedent on wikipedia where a unique event is characterized by a general understated title. Shall we rename WWII - "1939-1945 Earth War." No. Technically it is an accurate assessment but it so general no editor or person would accept the title as appropriate. Even if you don't agree with me, here is wiki policy: Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. f a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase. And as I said, there are dozens of 2009 Hamas political violence articles on wikipedia and none of them are this vague. Even the section in 2008/2009 Israel/Gaza war isn't called "political violence." If you could establish a clear endorsement of your POV with naming guidelines, perhaps a consensus is obtainable. But as far as I'm concerned, the current title does not reflect the article's content, or not nearly enough as it should. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not my POV, it's what HRW and other sources call it. I don't know why you insist mainly collaborators were killed/wounded. Perhaps you should read the whole report. If anything, calling it "reprisal" is POV since that's an excuse Hamas was using to target political opponents. Fatah certainly doesn't call it "reprisals". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read the "report." I just quoted it. You are making the inferrance that Hamas used the collaboration accusation as a blanket excuse to kill people. No, they killed people because of 2008-2009 Israel/Gaza conflict. Without it, there would have been on "political violence." Though I'm sure they might have found some other excuse to kill people. The title does not reflect the source, does not reflect whatever a single HRW report (and regardless, 1 HRW report x 15+ reliable media). It is POV to insist we name it "2009 Hamas Political violence." And not only is it POV, it violates naming conventions. I'll be nice and get a 3O. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll be nice and offer a suggestion for a different name and then wait and see what other editors think, like I did. Then we'll see what happens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unilaterally changing the title without consensus (1 person) is hardly valid, so I suggested a revert to a title that accurately reflects the references used in the article. Your misrepresentation of the HRW report, which seems to be the center of your claim of "political violence," has been demonstrated. I encourage you to read through the sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I waited 5 days for more input, but nobody bothered to give it. Where were you?
Anyway, me and one other person is more than just you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't check this article every week. Regardless, the current title violates naming conventions and does not accurately reflect the references or subject matter used in the article. I wish you would revert the title back to its original state. I see you are currently under arbitration sanctioning, so my advice is to be careful here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to find a couple more people who agree with you, have a short discussion here and then we'll see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to canvass. If 3O doesn't show up I'll RFC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw this page listed on 3O, but... I'm not really sure that I can give a full opinion one way or another. As I understand it, one of you wants to change it to something like "2009 Hamas reprisal attacks", and the other wants to keep it the way it is. Given that this article is subjected to discretionary sanctions, I would err on the side of caution here. Perhaps take a look at how similar articles are named, and go based on that. A WP:RFC might be the best bet here, just so you form some level of consensus. To me, at least, the word "reprisal" seems sort of loaded, but I'm probably wrong. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I didn't think anyone would show up. The article has experienced a lot of moving 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in the past. Admin User:Philknight eventually reverted it back to reprisals which has been the title since then. "Reprisals" is loaded, but that's what the sources say: 1, 2, and 3. Regardless, no reference calls the attacks simply "political violence." A user justified the change with a single report published by Human Rights Watch, claiming it considered the attacks "political violence." Well, he was wrong. The report considers the event as part of the political violence in Gaza, but explicitly refers to attacks as reprisals/retribution/revenge/suppression of israeli collaborators. No one is denying uninvolved rivaling party members were killed/injured as part of the campaign, but as I said that doesn't matter. All I want is for the title be reverted back to its original state and then we can move towards a new title, but for now the current one is completely inappropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that the issue is so sensitive that it really should be opened up to the entire community to comment on so as to gain some consensus. A few people and a third opinion doesn't really seem like enough. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably WP:RFC. Since this article is listed as part of the Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject, you may also want to post on the talk page there and get some help. You could post in each of the Israel and Palestine projects, but some of those editors may be less than neutral. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

→I am afraid 'Hamas reprisal attacks' is too ambiguous - reprisals against whom? IDF/Israel? Egypt? Aaaah, Fatah rival party and supposed collaborators... I understand the title contradicts Wiki policies, but it doesn't mean the issue should be veiled under supposedly neutral ambivalent name. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think 2009 internal violence in Gaza is the best name. All the description of who is attacking who and why can be done in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)