Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Neutrality enforcement

See proposed Neutrality enforcement policy by User:SlimVirgin for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should be speaking softly before we wave the big stick. The Squicks (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I always think of it as a walking stick that helps you reach a distant destination. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

General request

I kindly ask fellow editors not to delete sentences and especially entire paragraphs without at least raising it in the discussion page. Deletion of entire paragraph might cause loss of significant info. Besides, similar issue might have different connotation in another section. Please respect hard work of others. Nice weekend to everyone. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Principally Hamas

Recent edit by someone removed it from the infobox so mentioning it here. If RS says the primary objective was to take the government out of power than I can see it staying but from what I understand the target was anyone who would do harm to Israel from Gaza regardless of political affiliation. Don't see the disclaimer being necessary.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Style for terms in lead

Nitpicking, while tedious, is sometimes necessary to prevent large problems later on. Or not.

In the lead, we have various terms that have been used to describe this event: "Gaza War" (caps); "Operation Cast Lead" (caps); "War in the South" (caps); and "Gaza massacre" (lower case). I attempted to standardize the style and was reverted by Cptnono with the reasoning that the lower case "seemed to make it work." The question is not whether or not we have this term in the lead with the other terms, the question is whether we relegate only the Palestinian ("palestinian"??) term to lower case to appease some editors. I favor consistency in style. RomaC (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources that I have read used the term 'Gaza massacre' (lower case). Thus, I favor using that. The Squicks (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Squicks says, the sources have it in lowercase. Also, there was already a consensus on this (based on same argument). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we removed 'war in the south'? Cryptonio (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? "The Israeli media"? the Israeli media is not a belligerent, Israel has called it an operation etc. No need to include what the Israeli media feels like calling it. Of course, it would be notable then, if they called it "The Non-War in the South". Cryptonio (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes it work because several editors do not consider it a valid title and its use as one as inappropriate. In my opinion (only an opinion of course) it was a description used in what was PR moves. This is seen when looking through the sources and deserves some mention in the article somewhere (lead is fine for me) but other editors feel strongly that it is a title or a way to counterbalance the operational title. To make it work, consensus was found to not treat it as a proper noun.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In some mainstream Israeli media we did see "War in the S(s)outh" used during the event. In my opinion it could be here with the other terms but disagree with using caps for all terms except the Palestinian one. So maybe we use lower case here, ie. "War in the south" as well? Or scratch "War in the South" altogether, I'm ok with either of those options. RomaC (talk)

The question is what how the terms appear in the sources. If I'm not mistaken, "War in the South" doesn't even need to be checked, because "the South" is always capitalized. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We could mention War in the South, sourced to israeli media, under media relations. Cryptonio (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind of funny. The style, font size and color of "War in the South" and "Gaza Massacre" guarded tightly by an experienced Wikipedian Gandusaleh sockpuppet. So consensous shmansensous ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, that is hilarious. maybe if you stopped laughing you would realize how stupid you are acting. one of the forms of bullshit i did not want to deal with was the barely literate rantings of people who dont know what the fuck they are talking about. so guess what? i wont be dealing with your stupidity any more. my parting message, and think of this as advice: grow the fuck up. Gandusaleh (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Synth para.

HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The IDF has made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report alleging that during Gaza War (and in ordinary times) certain members of Hamas’s internal security forces were incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and had double affiliation, both as policemen and as militants.

This para provides SYNTH and UNDUE. That we can look at law violations and law status in order to provide the reader with accusations brought and interpretation is acceptable, but that we provide 'evidence' like this is of no concern to us, for we have no way of verifying such evidence, even if it comes from a RS. Furthermore, if HRW or the UN(or any other neutral organizations) are the ones who provide the evidence, we then could bring the appropiate response from the parties, but in case 'evidence' is brought by one of the parties, we can't expect to RESEARCH for responses to these allegations, as it would be OR as it is OR including such 'evidence'. That the UN, for example, brings fourth such evidence, it will enable for a response to be included within each media dispatch, but it is not our job, to neither respond to such aleegations or 'evidence' or to look for them either. Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, editor The Squicks reverted the inclusion of this para, I oppose it then(by rationale) and now, and editor Sean said this. Both could elaborate or state their position clearer if of their choosing.

Caution is required here to avoid synthesising potentially erroneous statements and putting words into the IDF's mouth. HRW said 'armed forces' in the third geneva convention sense as is clear from other statements by them and by international law itself i.e. true combatants not illegal combatants. IDF said 'armed forces' in the sense of a resistance force in the event of an IDF incursion into Gaza i.e. illegal combatants. The IDF have never claimed the right to attack any Palestinians on the basis that they are armed forces in the third geneva convention sense, in the sense that HRW mean it. It would be misleading to suggest that the IDF justify the attack on the police on that basis or that HRW 'armed forces' = IDF 'armed forces'. The IDF attacks people on the basis that they are illegal combatants. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So the discussion did not favor the inclusion of said para as stated by the Edit summary. Cryptonio (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest discussion focused on 'air strikes' while previous discussion - on 'disputed figures'. They have different connotation, different sources (including direct citing of IDF spokesperson), etc etc. including proposed sentence from The Squicks himself. It's in the latest archive now. And Nableezy contributed there too. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of "Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report alleging that during Gaza War (and in ordinary times) certain members of Hamas’s internal security forces were incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and had double affiliation, both as policemen and as militants" given that the activities of individuals played no part in the decision process of the IDF's lawyers ? Surely the key point is that the activities of individuals played no part in the decision process of the IDF's lawyers ? Again, this is where splicing information together can mislead the reader into thinking that the information is somehow pertinent to/explains/justifies IDF decisions when it's actually irrelevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I'll say it again. Lately we were discussing the sentence in the 'air strikes' section, which is the beginning of the article. The sentence there explored (in the erroneous way) the legitimacy of the strikes on the police in general and on the graduation ceremony. We kind of agreed that sentenced is removed completely from that section to avoid redundancy with IL section and that what Cryptonio did. Than, he went on and made some corrections to the IL section with accordance to the latest discussion, citing correctly both Haaretz source and HRW (I didn't like the last sentence there but I kept quiet for now). So far?

About a week and a half ago we were discussing similar issue but under the 'disputed figures' sectionhere. Nableezy, The Squicks and I finally kind of agreed to keep it - the reason was that the 'disputed figures' section explores issue of counting and categorizing the dead and not to address the legitimacy of the attacks. This was my reply to Nableezy's latest post: "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". And this was my latest reply to the Squicks: "The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count". I merely changed soldiers to fighters. Pay attention, the sentence addresses the logic to count dead policemen as militants, not to justify strike on them. So far? Ah, and the sentence 'The IDF has stated that it ...' cites IDF spokesperson directly, in a completely different source that was published after the casualties figures were announced, no need to go into unnecessary polemics of 'legal' or 'illegal' combatants, they are dead.

Finally, the ITIC report. It says that during Gaza War (and in ordinary times) certain members of Hamas’s internal security forces were incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and had double affiliation, both as policemen and as militants. You see? Those who got killed had double affiliation, (some btw were counted as civil policemen, some as militant policemen and some as pure militants - but this is OR) in the course of the fighting as well. Of course, the report has much more, it also implies that '...internal security forces about the integration of their forces into military-terrorist activity', but this is not relevant to 'disputed figures' debate. Ah, and sentence '...The PCHR representative argued ...' is also important. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see. I don't understand the argument. These are the facts as I see them from RS

• The IDF categorise all policemen as legitimate targets/part of the potential resistance/militants etc following their rules which they have explained.
• The categorisation and everything that follows from it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not individuals actually served as both policemen and militants which they have explained
• They attacked them following their rules which they have explained.
• They count the casualties as terrorists following their rules which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not individuals actually served as both policemen and militants as they have explained.

Could you explain in simple terms the connection between the IDF's 'terrorist/militant' casualty counts and the ITIC report/findings ? This is the point of confusion for me. Including the ITIC information seems to confuse rather than illuminate the issue for me because the IDF simply count all policemen as 'terrorists/militants' for the reasons they have explained. That seems so much simpler. My question really boils down to why are we including something that the IDF have said wasn't relevant to their actions/categorisation/casualty counting etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For example if the IDF had said "we categorise and count all men driving a car as drivers" and the ITIC produced a report that showed that some of the men were known to drive both their family car and a taxi, what bearing does the ITIC report have on the IDF's categorisation/counting ? Perhaps I'm missing something ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your tone recently seems friendly. I like that. Can I ask you a favour then, before I give you a straight answer? Read the ITIC report (if you hadn't done that earlier). Again, I have no intention to convince you in anything, but it will be easier to explain my understanding if you read it. Another request. Suppose you read in Wiki-news that IDF had said "we categorise and count all policemen in Gaza as "drivers", and beside it - a statement from HRW saying that 'according to IL, a "driver" is a man who has valid license or a man who was photographed behind the wheel'. Keeping in mind that this is Wikipedia - a free encyclopedia - wouldn't you feel that something is missing here? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, I wasn't intending to sound friendly because in real life I try to base all of my interpersonal skills on wisdom I've gained from House. Okay, I've re-read the report. I understand the evidence and I have no reason to question it's accuracy, let me make that clear. My question still remains why are we including something that the IDF have said wasn't relevant to their actions/categorisation/casualty counting etc ? This seems like an important point to me. I should clarify my concerns here. The ITIC stuff isn't necessary to understand disputed casualty figures. The IDF statements are crystal clear on that. Regarding IHL, as editors we can't establish whether or not IDF actions comply with IHL and we shouldn't try to do that. I don't think we should present evidence as if it is relevant when IDF statements make it clear that it isn't. That just seems wrong to me. I don't think the ITIC are in a position to present evidence on behalf of the IDF or that explains/justifies the IDF actions because the IDF have not endorsed their information. Quite the contrary in fact because the IDF have made it clear that it's not about individuals or double affliation of individuals etc(...I assume they did that for a good legal reason). They simply decided all policemen were likely to shoot at them when they entered Gaza which according to their assessment made them illegal combatants who could be attacked according to their rules/interpretation of IHL.

As for "wouldn't you feel that something is missing here ?", yes, I would. The IDF statement should say "we categorise and count all policemen in Gaza as "drivers". We assume that they all have a valid license and that they have all been or will be photographed behind the wheel at some point. Information about individual licenses or photographs isn't taken into consideration in our assessment'. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you say The Squicks agreed if he was the one who reverted your edit? Now here you Sean saying that the statements or rationale of Israel does not need 'evidence', since they are making a blanket decision. I concur for is the same thing I've said "They are not saying, that legally, the police in Gaza was incorporated into the armed forces, they are saying, they were part of the armed forces to begin with(at least they saw them in that way)." This goes beyond the purpose of Wiki, and enters the realm of court room, and we are in no way apt for such shenanigans. Per vote count, it seems, AT THIS TIME, three votes to one. Reverting. Cryptonio (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are, Cryptonio, the judge and the jury all by yourself. The Squicks is not responding, with Sean we just started to make a debate, but you already decided. Not only did you decide, you delete entire paragraph, that has much more not only from Israeli POV but pro-Palestinian either, something that is truly valuable to 'disputed figures'. You even do not make the slightest attempt to take a look at what is it you're doing - the following paragraph reads now 'Another (?!) Israeli think-tank...'. Again, I wonder how did the paragraph about ICT report survived this far. I won't be replying to Sean's post - it is of no use right now. I would ask you again, for the third time already, to respect hard work of others, to stop vandalism, to revert all the controversies, to stop being arrogant and to assume good faith - then we could talk and I assure you I am ready to go through every word on the issues that of high concern to me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You went ahead and repeated what you've said since the start without letting others weight in. I simply opened a discussion tab for that purpose. Besides(for your tears): "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Cryptonio (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Heart's Gaza Song viewed near 2 million times over youtube

thumb|thumb|right|175px|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz88kJSdT6Y&feature=channel_page 45% protestant, 100% reliable].

Michael Heart's Song for Gaza reached over 1,136,288 views on youtube [1] and a sum of over 663,954 additional views by reuploads by other users, that have been viewed more than 10.000 times [2], and over and self-claimed to be downloaded over 500.000 times as mp3 from his official site, 10,000 emails, comments and messages of support. [3]

Any comments on this addition to public reactions. Kasaalan (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many views are there for IDF's spokesperson page on youtube... And for particular attacks on some tunnels and mosques... And how many views were for the small propaganda '15 seconds in Sderot' clip... And for Memri's 'Hamas in their own voices'... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IDF Official Channel most videos get around 10.000-100.000 views. But, a song is not a speech, 2 million views and 500.000 official downloads for a song is something to be mention. "15 seconds in Sderot" clip gets around 150.000 views. Yet again it is not a song by a notable artist. [4]you can check his official friends in myspace Kasaalan (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

youtube isn't an RS unless it is talking about itself. You would need an RS...well, multiple RS that said that this is a notable event etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol? Youtube propaganda...can it get any worse? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it can get as worse as IDF probanga channel. Youtube is a reliable source on view count, over 2 million watch somehow proves it is widely listened and famous. You can count it famous, actually the song is professional makes it notable if you listen it. Yet I will search for other sources mentioning it. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, activist singer is always > sovereign democracy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you call IDF democratic, you have every right to laugh to yourself. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer to live your average Arab state, like Sudan? The Squicks (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Britney Spears Stoned' has 2 million views.

Does that make it a reliable source? No. The Squicks (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It shows that video is publicly known. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the video is an okay source to use in the Britney Spears article? I am speechless! The Squicks (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Farfur' the mouse, the lovable and cuddly figure that the Palestinians use to create child soliders has about half a million views. The Squicks (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has over 500 k hit on youtube and the character has fair coverage in the Tomorrow's Pioneers article. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Youtube used as a source in that article? NO. The Squicks (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears has been stoned ? Wow, that's harsh. I guess the other Swat valley concerts have been cancelled. Damn that ticket salesman. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong argument, Britney Spears video might have millions of rating, since she is famous all around the world, and it shows the event is widely known in public and attracts attention. Near 15 million people watched that video in 3 years, I don't even know if she drugged or not, but if the video shows she is drugged clearly you can mention that accordingly.

And again youtube is reliable for how many users watched the video, so it indicates how widely known the song watched on internet. There is even a List of YouTube celebrities list with each dedicated pages.

2 million view for a protest song in 5 months is something worth to be mentioned.

I can count how many views the show has, it is currently more than 536,779 views, and a very long wiki page devoted to the program as you point out yourself, so there is a connection between youtube view count and cognoscibility-public awareness. Kasaalan (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan I see your points, if you could find a secondary source, being a respectable media, that reported on the popularity of the video/song in question, that would make it much easier to put the information into the article. RomaC (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Viva Magazine 2 pages Interwiew with Michael Heart by Brittany Andrews. Kasaalan (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That links to a non-notable Palestinian lawyer's page. Nope. This won't fly.

Your logic is rather curious. Since Hamas used a Mickey Mouse ripoff to create child soliders as fresh meat for their conflict with the IDF, can I cite it here- on this page- usign Youtube as a source? The Squicks (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I serious. If you're adding a paragraph about Michael Heart here, I'm adding a paragraph about Farfur. The Squicks (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be serious, but not clear, what "links to a non-notable Palestinian lawyer's page", who you refer. Kasaalan (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some causes have acquired an abundance of defensors. Others, struggling to find advocates, are increasingly vulnerable in the face of relentless, aggressive coverage by partial (or ignorant) media often sustaining stereotypes and caricatures, adding insult to injury.

The cause of dispossessed people is a just one; Palestinians have been enduring hardship for the better part of a century, their situation with every so-called peace initiative getting worse, not better. Likewise, the cause of people suppressed by oppressive regimes is just. Throughout the Middle East and the Arab world, the double curse of occupation and repression remains, denying the people of the region the most basic human rights.

-- Rime Allaf, whom you say is a reliable source but is both highly baised and is not notable in the slightest. The Squicks (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So google researcher, who cannot even do a google search, what if I prove the notability of Rime Allaf by reliable sources quoting from her, will you publicly apologize. Kasaalan (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see from your sandbox that you consider David Duke to be a reliable source... The Squicks (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But he is!!! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No you don't, you simply try trolling and making a fuss over it, yet it is my personal link reporosity where I gather links, though if you use your senses you can easily see I put a racist note along him "http://www.davidduke.com/general/a-salute-to-the-brave-palestinians_7363.html#more-7363 The Official Website of former Louisiana Representative David Duke, PhD video share with comments, racist" Kasaalan (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And what if I prove the notability of Rime Allaf, will you publicly apologize. Kasaalan (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will you apologize for calling David Duke a reliable source? And will you be consistent and will you add the material to his page about Farfur? The Squicks (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He is a former USA representative so blame USA first if you like that much. I didn't call David Duke as reliable source anywhere, I found his site first noted his nick, because he was a represantative, then after my research on him, I tagged him as racist which makes his at least POV, if you can somehow read you can easily see above, but you try to cover your actions, since you trolled my sandbox, tried to accuse me for placing a link on my own sandbox page which isn't posted anywhere anyway.
What the TV show has anything to do with any other article, except you blabber on it this much.
You claim Rime Allaf is not notable in the slightest yourself, so I ask again to the "google researcher, who cannot even do a google search, what if I prove the notability of Rime Allaf by numerous reliable sources quoting from her, will you publicly apologize." Kasaalan (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, I suggest both of you end your irrelevant dispute. Kasaalan, youtube videos are not reliable or acceptable sources outside of themselves - i.e, videos can only be used as evidence to support its own individual article or topic, and cannot be a tool to verify facts or opinion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Squicks, your frustration is understandable. The best you can do is not respond to Kasaalan for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good advice. The Squicks (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He accused me publicly for an action I didn't commit, by trolling my sandbox, trying to create a public prejiduce on me, which you literally jumped over it. So try reading better before advising others the advices you don't follow, we are discussing about Viva Magazine interview, hosted on Rime Allaf's page Viva Magazine 2 pages Interwiew with Michael Heart by Brittany Andrews. He also claimed Rime Allaf isn't notable in the slightest, which I will prove she is notable easily, if he promises to publicly apologize. Kasaalan (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of discussion is not to sequester apologies for alleged- wrongdoings, but collaborate and post concerns/suggestions about the article. You wanted to include a youtube video as a reference and everyone said that violates wikipedia policy and neutrality rules. If you can find a guideline that supports your suggestion please list it now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't try lecturing, did he post his concerns about the article or blatantly accused me for an action I never committed which you joined him with a supportive joke with prejudice, and he claimed Rima Allaf has no notability at all, by his weak google search. If he can't even accomplish a proper google search, how can he be eligible to claim any non-notability of an expert. Kasaalan (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is right, Kasaalan your enthusiasm is a good thing but respectfully you seem to lack understanding of Wiki policies such as reliable sources. For example, the Viva article, what is Viva magazine? That is what is important not on whose webpage the article was hosted. Is Viva a print magazine? Then does it have editing and fact-checking, etc. Actually, in this case these questions are not really relevant, instead consider: Does Michael Heart have his own Wiki entry? No, so how can a YouTube song by Michael Heart be notable enough to reference in this article? Also please try not to use bold to challenge other editors, civility is important in this environment. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just posted youtube link as a indication of how widely listened the song is, of course it needs additional sources. 2 million views in less than 5 months shows how widely known the song is. I stressed on youtube is reliable source just for view counts, I didn't claim youtube is a reliable source there is a huge difference between 2 claims.

No he is not right. Civility is a both way approach, trolling other users' personal sandboxes is unethnical, especially if you publicly accuse them afterwards for things they don't claim without bothering to read in the first place, or jumping into the conversation with support jokes. They try to accuse me continuously without any truth, then I become the wrong one for being not civil, no it doesn't reflect the truth.

They are possibly brother and sisters by the way, if you going to add that into your non-reliability claims, but doesn't change the notability of both parties in their own expertise area.

Then I posted Viva Magazine interview, without bothering to discuss the interview, he claimed Allaf hasn't even has slightest notability, and just a Palestinian lawyer by his weak google searching, I am not sure if he knows anything about Chatham House, yet if he bothers to read he will learn. I will try pinpointing which issue the interview was, along with other details.

"He has worked with such artists as Brandy, Will Smith, Toto, Natalie Cole,The Temptations, Phil Collins, Patty LaBelle, The Pointer Sisters, Earth Wind & Fire, Ricky Lee Jones, Lou Rawls, Jesse McCartney, Hillary Duff, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Paige,Al Jarreau, K-Ci & Jojo, Deborah Cox, Monica, Taylor Dayne, Keiko Matsui, Steve Nieves, Luis Miguel and Tarkan ... he also worked in the studio with French artists like Calogero (The Charts), Marc Lavoine and Veronique Sanson. Other projects also included work with producers Rodney Jerkins, Philippe Saisse and David Foster. ... most of Michael’s work has been in the recording studio, he has also done some touring (notably back in the early 90’s, when he toured as a Flamenco guitarist in a guitar trio with Juan Manuel Canizares, opening for Dire Straits) ... also recorded and toured with the smooth jazz band Jango." biography page

Michael Heart is a professional musician, though he was not publicly much famous before, if you read which groups, singers he has been worked and played with you can easily understand his notability. You can check biographyyou can check his official friends in myspace Having a wikipedia page or not, not proves any notability, if he doesn't have we may create it. Kasaalan (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you seem to miss the point. Forget youtube. Find RS like the Al Jazeera, BBC, The Independant, Jpost, New York Times etc that say this is notable. If it is notable you will easily find them. If it isn't you won't. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is bias against my sincere question I was busy replying them. 'Song for Gaza' captures hearts of YouTube viewers Jerusalem Post Jan 18, 2009 by David Brinn. Kasaalan (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, yet another own goal by Jpost. Most amusing. Okay, well I'll leave it to you guys to find consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends who's Goalposts you Goalkeeping for, War or Peace. Independent journalism requires to make this song news whether they like it or not, yet not much common mass media sources following any standards these days. Also such widely known song, not getting a high written media coverage also leads some proof for "cencorship allegations". Also the viva magazine most possibly Jordan based one vivamagazine.com.au. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems that Kasaalan finally found a reliable source. I wish that he had done this from the beginning instead of starting this long and silly debate about YouTube, but I digress.

Is something like: The conflict inspired Syrian-American singer-songwriter Michael Heart to create the folk song 'We Will Not Go Down', which became a popular anti-Israel anthem on YouTube and elsewhere. acceptable? The Squicks (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this should go in the reactions article. If this goes, then supportive artsy events should be included as well (many supported by reliable sources). then again, I don't consider the song particularly relevant to the conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reactions, Incidents, gaza blockade, List of 2001 rockets into Israel...all of these articles seem appropriate, but not this one i'm afraid. Cryptonio (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, probably not incidents or list of 2001 rockets into Israel. again, I personally don't see the notability of the song. there are hundreds of pro/anti-Israel songs/movies/books that can be supported by reliable sources. Do we include them? Not usually. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Political reactions page might be more suitable, I don't feel the song is anti-Israel, but it is anti-occupation or anti-Gaza war. Not sure if there is any more notable anti-Gaza war song, movie, documentary or books, if you claim there are other ones more notable and famous then this one, just name them. Kasaalan (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's anti-Israel Defence Forces. Hence, anti-Israel. This "song" is notpertinent to the article. Do you see any other famous arty-song-dance-kumbaya videos in the article? No. Just because something has a reliable source does not mean it automatically deserves a spot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom banning

Every once in the while, the world stands still for a Ban.

I would like to inform all of the editors here of this decision: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria Because of it, some of the editors that have edited this talk page and this article are 'topic banned'- they are prevented from working on Arab/Israeli pages. The Squicks (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised by further action as there seem to be a number of other POV driven storms brewing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Christ. User:Jayjg, User:NoCal100, and User:G-Dett have all been indef-banned from I/P articles. This is madness. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read long statements, yet in general terms, the debates should resolve issues between parties, banning all parties is not a wise shortcut, and seriously not helps improving the article. When you having issues with an article deleting it, or when you have issues with editors banning them just too easy solution that not resolves anything. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nishidani got 6 months?! and Pedrito did too. Common sense is the first victim of democracy, just because some have an opinion, it doesn't mean they are capable of contributing to a project like Wiki. Sean, you gotta step up dude, and Nablezzy better get back to that thing 'sadistically' nicknamed the 'fart-passing city'. Imma drop this subject matter soon as well, this crap takes too much time away from 'special' projects of mine. Projects that not many will like or read, but I need to work on my "creation" list man. The ego, the first thing that comes alive when the eye sees. Kasaalan, better stop it with all that songs and photo crap. Get real dawg, things are getting serious out here. Pedrito, Ashley and Nishidani were all 'numero uno' around here and they will surely be missed. Man, I got a ton of things on my mind. What am I doing here? Cryptonio (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How many civilians were killed in Gaza? Meet the people who do the counting.

Numbers Game by Simona Weinglass
How many civilians were killed in Gaza? Meet the people who do the counting.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f470f8e7-49ae-4eb1-a8ac-1a2326ae9c9f
Flayer (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I introduced the same article in the previous section. Not sure it has information that is eligible enough yo enter the article. Maybe ITC will update its report based on efforts of all the 'partisans'. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page admin

Someone who knows how needs to update the archive box, it currently only links to 36 of 47 archives (althought the most recent can be accessed at the top of the page).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, there are links just above the dove. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it's not required anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers.

This para, is located in Ground invasion. we would like for all Inter Law Violation to be under Inter Law Violations. If there is something from this para that needs to be add it to Inter Law, then so be it. For the moment, I'm removing it for the 3rd time if I'm not mistaken.

The Palestinian accusations of indiscriminate and disproportionate fire-power being used in civilian areas during the ground assault, that the Israeli government had dismissed as "Palestinian propaganda", have been backed by IDF testimonies at post-operation discussions in the Rabin Pre-Military Academy. An Israeli NGO Breaking the silence confirmed it had also taken testimony, from soldiers who took part in the Gaza assault, of a similar nature. The reports caused an international furore and an Israeli investigation. Soon after the publication of the testimonies, reports implying that the testimonies were based on hearsay and not on the first-hand experience started to circulate in Israeli media. At the same time, another kind of evidence was collected from several soldiers who took part in the fighting, that rebutted claims of immoral conduct on the military's part during Gaza War. Following investigation, the IDF issued an official report, concluding that alleged cases of deliberate shooting at civilians didn't take place. Later, the head of the Rabin Pre-Military Academy Danny Zamir put the whole story into context, telling Jerusalem Post that he believes the IDF operated in a way in which it tried to protect civilians in the crowded Gaza Strip and that described acts of vandalism do not make the IDF an army of war criminals.

Cryptonio (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

We might never know for certain, but it is highly probable the testimonies were indeed based on hearsay rather than first-hand experience. In my view, the whole story based on 'friendly talk' and rumors is not eligible enough to enter violations of IL in the first place. Besides, all the context I am trying to provide, including words of the man who actually started the whole fuss by leaking it to Haaretz (addmitting the whole story was inflated beyond any reasonable proportion) would simply be unfit to IL section. Maybe there should be separate article on the issue, so that current article would be spared from unnecessary details, but until then I insist it stays. Again, I wouldn't mind to remove it from IL section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I will remove it from Inter Law and at the same time shrink the entry under Ground attack etc. I was oppose from the beggining to include more than a sentence on this matter, simply because to state the obvious(that civilian die in war) is not all that notable. Cryptonio (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence 'Allegations of Israeli soldiers killing civilians indiscriminately as well as vandalizing homes, were reported by the BBC' violates the context completely. BBC didn't report anything, they reprinted testimonies of Israeli soldiers from Haaretz. The articles' summary says that 'An Israeli military college has printed damning soldiers' accounts of the killing of civilians and vandalism during recent operations in Gaza'. So, it was not something discovered originally by BBC, but a reprint of soldiers' own testimonies. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeahhhh. Whatever. Cryptonio (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'were reprinted by BBC'? They were reprinted all over the world, including NY Times, The Guardian, Independent, The Australian News, et. etc. Why not keep it simple? 'were reported' or 'were reprinted by major news agencies'. Besides, I am afraid 'admitting to indiscriminate killings ' is somewhat incorrect gramatically. 'admitting indiscriminate killings' or 'admitting to kill civilians indiscriminately'.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all unsubstantiated isn't it ? Do we need any of it anywhere ? If we include any of it I think Sceptic is right that we need all of the context but having nothing seems better to me. I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, I mean it was sourced by all of the above, before Cryptonio merged the paragraph with the paragraph from IL section. The general way he did it was fine. So, if required, I can reproduce all the sources from NY Times, The Guardian, Independent, etc., however I too prefer to keep it simple. i.e. 'were reported' is enough. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agreed to remove it from Ground Invasion, and have a very small mention under Inter Law, but sceptic was over zealous of his 'hard work' and reverted me. Now we still have this unnecessary mention of it under Ground Invasion, but question is, for how long? Cryptonio (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way Sceptic, i reverted your wording cause it was a fragment. "Were reported" at the end. Cryptonio (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bandwith consuming, non relevant and non necessary images posted in discussion page with mockery comments

thumb|left|150px|Naughty, naughty!

Near all discussion page titles contain bandwith consuming, non relevant and non necessary fanart images posted in discussion page with mockery comments. Not sure if any other discussion page has this kind of attitude in it. Yet even if they do their irritating mockery comments, lacks the seriousness a discussion should have. You can post your image-mockery in your own talk page, but public places are no place for that kind of attitude. I will seriously ask an admin opinion on the matter, to delete all non-relevant images from this talk page. I posted a title referring gaza war talk page on Talk Page Guideline discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Please no one add any more images to the talk page. It's starting appear as a blog site. I think all of them should be removed. No objections right? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because this is a matter of history.

If you believe that we should not post images from now on, than that makes sense.

But going back and deleting previous talk page discussion is not a good idea. Because: What has passed has passed. The best idea, I think, is to archive that. The Squicks (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. You didn't have a problem with the last 100 sections that had pictures, and now complain when I posted a picture in your section. Get over it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If people want to post images to this page it's up to them as far as I'm concerned. Consensus applies and if the consensus is that an image should be removed it will be removed. There's nothing special about admins in this regard. They aren't our parents and we aren't their children. Agenda driven editing, soapboxing, addition of material that doesn't comply with WP:V, removal of sourced material without good reason or consensus, copyright infringement by pasting large amounts of text from external websites along with various other content and behavior related matters are the things we should be concerned about long before we get offended by other people's sense of humour. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if Captain Beefheart were still making songs, one of them could be titled "Bandwith consuming, non relevant and non necessary fanart images with mockery comments." RomaC (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a lyric in We didn't start the fire --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Get married Kasaalan! Cryptonio (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was unexpected. OK, I won't remove any images because it's history, but I encourage that we don't post up anymore once this talk page is archived. It just seems unnecessary to have these images, which for the most part have touches of sarcasm and humor that could be necessary to cool things down here, but do clutter up the page and make it look like a blog site. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as whatever is decided doesn't invlove me having to delete my Captain Beefheart albums it's fine by me. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support all attempts at humor on this page. Including, but not limited to, photos, transcripts, amine porn with picachu quotes(you know, like "Take that!, you bad boy you!"), french body odors, jewish doctor jokes, Blair bashing, killed astronauts by Chinese cyber warfare, youtube videos of friends making friends drink spoiled milk, paul mooney(the more the merry), moral orel bashing, family guy inside stories(besides that stewie is bi), anything that makes Kennedy look like a bad president, attempts at making Bush look like a good president, and so and so and so. All will be read, for sure. Cryptonio (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey yo Sean, lets give Kasaalan and co a heart attack. Lets bring sexy back...where is the Palestinian on the phone booth picture? heh Cryptonio (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, the proudly gay new orleans guy. i'm not sure that this page is ready to deal with such shocking material as a proudly gay male speaking into a telephone. the image got deleted before with a 'i find it offensive' edit summary....i recall banging my head on the desk a number of times. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines#Others' comments 'Hiding or resizing images: You may re-size over-large images; or hide an image (e.g. change [[image|foo.jpg]] to [[:image|foo.jpg]] by adding a colon) once discussion of it has ended.'
Cannot agree you people on this one. Humour and mockery is different. I didn't like the image posting at the beginning, yet I didn't like it even more now, since you post images all and even begin to talking about your sexual fantasies over the discussion page, of an article where more than 1000 people died. Here is not kindergarden, or a place to be amused. Look at the mirror if you urge to laugh that much.
Wikiguideline clearly says, you can "hide an image (e.g. change foo.jpg to foo.jpg by adding a colon) once discussion of it has ended." where the image is related to the topic, so I will take the liberty to not delete but hide all off topic mockery images. If you further insist on childish comments and undo my edit, either show me a guideline that encourages your behaviours, allows them, or the last resort is admins noticeboard or calling an admin here. Yes admins not your parents to watch you, but their job is to watch guidelines. Kasaalan (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I hid 3 embedded images as a beginning. That leaves you time to post according wiki guidelines that supports your mockery. Kasaalan (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, my advice to you is to stop talking. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You may stop writing, too, but why it is related. Kasaalan (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because once you stop talking about this issue it will cease to be an issue and people will let it go. You can then get back to content editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I never posted anyone on admin noticeboard yet, or likely I will anyone, since when admins involved they case, they overdo and it may result pretty harsh on the accused party, and the worse part is some admins verdict before fully reading defense statements. Yet again too much humour over 1000 deaths is really disrespectful for my part, a war is nowhere to be amused, or right place for such jokes. If no replacing of images I have no intention to discuss this further. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very comforting to know that I can walk away from Wikipedia for five weeks and find the same conversation as when I'd left. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good to see you back. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My man JG. Cryptonio (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A tunnel incident, Nov. 4

Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported tunnel, crossing the border into the Gaza Strip from Israel on November 4,[23] which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[24][25]. Are you kidding? from Israel into the Gaza Strip? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IDF crossed into the Gaza Strip from Israel. Cryptonio (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Aah... So at least change the wording a bit, like '...and for an Israeli raid on Gaza Strip side of a purported tunnel on November 4...' It reads like the tunnel goes from Israel to Gaza, and apparently I am not the only one to miscomprehend. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How are you not the only one? Who else has said anything? Cryptonio (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember that when the direction of tunnel was changed suddenly in the article there were reverts by other editors. Humble me also mentioned on your talk page that this wording is confusing as hell. The tunnel crossed from Gaza into Israel, while the raid was in the opposite direction. Current wording is confusing, Sceptic is not alone in his assessment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to search it, cause I remember it clearly too that the direction was changed and now I see it restored. I suggest, to avoid confusion, to change the wording. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A classic case of partisan POV-pushing editing

Not that I can't revert it, but wanted just to demonstrate the case. See 'lull' section. This is what some anonymous did today: 'This 98 percent reduction stands in contrast to Israel's promised increase in supply trucks, which amounted to a 28.5 percent increase (to 90) from the pre-war low of 70 trucks per day. The tacitly agreed ceasefire stipulated a return to roughly the level of supply trucks seen before Israel's closing of the Gaza border, about 500 or so per day.59'.

Why is it POV editing? Numerous reasons. First, 'Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10.' A reduction? Yes. A halt? No. Even one rocket, that has potential of killing several people, is too much.

Second, 'But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70.' So, Hamas thought, but does it mean that 'stands in contrast to Israel's promise'? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention continuos smuggling...--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel now seeks to halt the rocket and mortar fire from Gaza that has killed four Israeli civilians this year and has caused widespread trauma and disruption of life in Israeli towns and villages close to the Gaza border. In addition, Israel has insisted that any deal include an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza, and movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit. "If indeed there will be a total cessation of fire from Gaza, an end of the Hamas arms buildup and movement on Gilad Shalit's case, then there will be a very new situation," Mr. Regev said. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?_r=3&fta=y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.163.100 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it earler today and had some reservations. Ipersonally believe Israel has the right to defend herself so thought my biased might be getting involved but section (especially after the last edit) comes across like "HEY, THEY STOPPED SHIPMENTS (and there were some rockets)". It isn't that having the info in is a problem it is that it comes across like an editorial peice on why the rockets were justified. A few tweaks should fix it but it really reads poorly without being overtly POV pushing.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope your reservations come from the fact that the anonymous editor tried to jump into conclusions, that are not supported not only by common sense but by his source. There is no problem to state the facts as it were. But to say that Israel promised to increase amount of trucks to 500 (while indeed it was merely Hamas expectation) - is too bold. Not to mention continuos smuggling. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a concern with putting too much emphisis on 1 source to push a certain tone to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All I'm going to say regarding POV is that it's unfortunately easy to make edits that are based on implicit assumptions about right and wrong e.g. X must stop every rocket because it's wrong but Y can continue to raid Z whenever they want because it's right. I think these kind of POV assumptions are commonplace and we need to be on the look out for them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it takes two to tango and the article needs to reflect that neutrally. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much of Cremonesi in disputed figures

Resolved

'On January 14, Cremonesi quoted administrative director We’am Fares of the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, "from the 27th of December we (alone) have had 680 dead, and 183 wounded, at least 35% of whom were children under 14 years of age". Cremonesi also quotes Christopher Oberlin, a French government doctor, "the Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that before any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it".[229]'

As we know now, these assessments are not supported by facts. They are outdated. Even according to PMoH, children ratio is 33% and total number of children, elders and women is 51% (PCHR ratios are much lower, 22% and 37% respectively). Maybe it is useful to keep them elsewhere. I hope there will be consensus to remove them from 'disputed figures'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The doctor's figures come from one hospital alone. The PCHR's number comes from all of Gaza(we can safely assume). Cryptonio (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we need anything from Cremonisi about casualties anywhere in the article. Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

^^^agree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Current score is 4:0. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead Radically Changed

Grab your partners, here we go again. What happened to the lead? The other terms ("Gaza massacre" and...) have been removed...? Who what when where why? Do-si-do...

Look up at the top of the page. That discussion is still going. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the lead that presents various terms for the event, it does not matter if we like them or they are accurate. See St. Valentine's Day Massacre was the event really a massacre or is that a term used to describe it? In a nutshell. Pleeeease. RomaC (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, hey there. It's nice to see you again on the discussion page. Welcome back. I hope you could explain your position on OR argument on talk page on the long discussion, maybe here. To save you some time the summary by more experienced fellow editors explained: "RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that". BTW, "radical rhetoric" does not seem to be constructive or NPOV. 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Work that mouse wheel I responded waaay up top. RomaC (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am not following the discussion on the top - too sophisticated for my poor English. However, Falastine fee Qalby restored a sentence saying that 'conflict has also been called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world'. In my humble opinion he is right - the way war is referred in the Arab world, regardless of our opinions or context, is a valuable encyclopedic information. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sceptic, welcome into discussion. Indeed massacre thread is hard to follow, a lot of emotions I guess. Indeed Gaza Massacre rhetoric was used a lot. I do not object to mentioning of the term in the article, still current wording is problematic at least and in my eyes not encyclopedic at all. I would move it either to Media section or to Propaganda and psychological warfare and change current wording.

(*) How do you conclude that the event was referred so in the Arab world exclusivly? Did Oxford hippies or UK socialist workers or Hugo Chavez and etc. ( the list is long ) who also used the term are part of the Arab world?

(**) Did you notice source in which Khaled Mashal (definitely part of the Arab world) called the event "Gaza war", without mentioning "Massacre" even once? Is he talking about different event?

To be frank, I hoped article rename would render naming OR in the lead obsolete. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, frankly I am not competent enough to produce based opinion - I merely saw the editing of Falastine fee Qalby. I thought it was a common knowledge that in the Arab world it is referred as Gaza Massacre. Sorry, I was unaware of different arguments. Just a thought - maybe we should rely more on the Arab-language press here (unfortunately I don't speak Arabic). If there are numerous sources in Arabic that use this term - it is suitable to mention it this way. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a ton of sources on this, including a bbc arabic and al-jazeera piece (they both later modified to attack or war on gaza), but more importantly numerous cites of Hamas spokespeople using the name. Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to go into more detail on the term being used. If editors on the talk page are confused I can't imagine how it reads to someone who is reading it for the first time. For example: "The Massacre of the Black Saturday" lines in the Air strikes section is concise while still provides the necessary facts.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas military activity, engagement with Israeli forces - 2nd try

Can anyone please explain, how come sentence 'Hamas representatives said they were fighting with the aid of armored vehicles and weapons confiscated from the Palestinian National Authority, given by Israel, the United States and other countries' is in the article, and at the same time there is an objection to include the following:

Some testimonies from local Gazan population, as well as IDF probe published on April 22, imply that Hamas operatives donned paramedic uniforms and commandeered ambulances. One ambulance driver told about attempts to lure the ambulances into the battle to transport fighters to safety. An IDF probe also revealed an incident when the UN vehicle had been used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad.

The IDF representative said Hamas fighters had "methodically made use of medical vehicles, facilities and uniforms in order to conceal and camouflage terrorist activity, and in general used ambulances to carry terror activists and weapons."

An IDF investigation, published on April 22, 2009, stated that out of seven medical personnel claimed to have been killed by the IDF, five were Hamas operatives (including a nephew of the Health Minister in Gaza) and two were civilians.

Anyone? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one. Fine. I'll give it another day.

Some reports assume that Hamas fighters shed their uniform short after the start of the ground incursion. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The IDF probe revealed that throughout the war, Hamas operated a command and control center inside Shifa Hospital in downtown Gaza City. Senior Hamas commanders also set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center.

Last but not least: Several witnesses told [Cremonezi] that on many roofs of the tall buildings that were hit by Israeli bombs, including UN building, there were rocket-launchers or Hamas look-outs.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Offense to reader's intelligence

What does this sentence do in the disputed figures after the actual final tall is published?

'Health Ministry's final toll for 23 days of fighting was 40 more dead and about 1,000 more injured than the PCHR, since the ministry counts psychological trauma cases as war injuries, while PCHR does not, it explained the significant gap in the number of wounded' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the background to this but just reading the sentence it seems obvious that it's just pointing out that X included shock casualties and Y didn't hence X != Y. Not sure why you think that is an insult to peoples intelligence. Someone's IQ wouldn't help them in this regard would it ? Intelligence is useless without information as input. Maybe I'm missing your point. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don' think it is a complete disregard for the reader's intelligence but I see your point. There is discrepancy in the total wounded or killed which has caused concerns in the info box and casualties section. Although reasons for the difference need to be pointed out, it probably isn't necessary to put undue weight on this particular reason (unless RS states "OMG, they counted people with hurt feelings" (apologies if that comes across too crass). Maybe a separate line will get the point across that this is a significant variable without overly emphasizing it.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I assumed that after so much time spent on the article you know the figures by heart, maybe I was too hasty with this :). Please see first figures in the casualities section (PMoH - 1324, PCHR - 1415) and then go back to my initial post: 'Health Ministry's final toll for 23 days of fighting was 40 more dead'?! --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. Yes, that's nonsense. Well spotted. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope, Sean, it was a sincere remark, cause we all (and me is no different) excel at sarcasm. I believe you would support deleting of the sentence. My next question would be what about the preceding sentence from the same source? 'The PCHR representative speculated that the differences in the death figures between PMoH and PCHR might be due to some inadvertent double counting at the ministry, an outcome of the chaos of war'. I personally like it, for two reasons. First - the word inadvertent (but I am clearly not objective here). Second - seriously - there is an essential difference that makes this sentence relevant regardless of the total death toll. Look at the number of children. PMoH says 437 (out of 1324, 33%), PCHR says 313 (out of 1415, 22%). This is why, to sum it up, I support keeping the preceding sentence and deleting the following one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Both sentences come from the same source. Delete both sentences. They are outdated. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You bring up insulting the reader, but the reader would look at the discrepancies between the PMOH and PCHR and they need a statement to tell them that there is a discrepancy? You were the one insulting the reader by letting them know that there was a discrepancy. Of course, because you found the double counting phrase acceptable at the time.

Since you enjoy clarifying dates to our indefensible readers, i will add the 40 deaths were in relation to the report's date. BLAH! Cryptonio (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, im going to delete both sentences, you see, by the CBSNEWS report, the PCHR's number were 1284 dead, the PMOH remains constant at 1324, but since then, the PCHR's number is 1417, considerebly more than PMOH's number. Yet, in explaning the difference between the numbers, the CBSNEWS describes the PMOH's number being higher than the PCHR's count.

This is all due to your continual fixing and addition of information to serve your purpose, which is POV-pushing. Nice mate. Cryptonio (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing what? Accuracy? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is perfect, Cryptonio, but you are definitely not the right man to preach. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, yes, it was a sincere remark. So was that. So was that. hmmm...halting problem. I'm happy to leave you guys to fix it. I will say however that I'm not a fan of speculation in an encyclopedia whichever side it comes from. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Cryptonio deleted both sentences. No problem actually. This is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that some see the article as a databank of copy-pasted sentences from different sources. We are not supposed to write in a POV-pushing manner? Great. But I hope we are entitled to use the common sense in order to keep irrelevant and outdated sentences out. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's probably many more irrelevant and outdated sentences given the development history of the article. I'm not even sure it's worth going to talk to remove them as long as the edit summary is clear. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who added the darn outdated source, a source I objected to the day you added it. Forget common sense, read the source, and stop the POV pushing. Cryptonio (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly did you object? By adding a ridiculous sentence? If you had pointed that sentence right away on a talk page, we wouldn't have been wasting our time on this section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I added the stupid sentence to counter that other stupid sentence that I told you was not necessary, but you went ahead and added it because it said "double counting". you don't have to go to great lengths to act like a fool now do you? Cryptonio (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question. Is the above a violation of WP:CIVIL? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do about it? Here let me explain myself, I did not called him a fool or anything detrimental. And will strike. I apologize for anything that you or anyone else would consider offensive. Next time I will take my personal concern about certain editors to their talk page. That, should be fun. Cryptonio (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

→ I wrote then, I repeated it in the current discussion and I still think that there is a crucial difference between PMoH figures and PCHR figures, and it is not the total number of killed - it is the children's ratio in it. PMoH says 437 (out of 1324, 33%), PCHR says 313 (out of 1415, 22%). It smells like 'double counting'. POV-pushing? Maybe. But who is POV-less? At least, I am ready for constructive discussion. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic Sherlock...it smells, it sounds, it bends this way, it comes out that way. Cryptonio (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice compliment, but I am afraid that Holmes would never do the mistake I did. I compared apples to lemons. PMoH says 437 are children below 16. If we substract 68 males aged 17-18 from PCHR report (I will keep 11 girls in the count), we can finally compare apples to apples. So, according to PCHR, there are 243 children below 16, and according to PMoH - 437. Go figure what about 194 children... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War?

In Israel, the Operation Cast Lead it isn't considered as a war, but just a military operation (like Operation Defensive Shield, Summer Rains, etc). Among other reason for not consider this as a war, is that only a small part of the Tzahal intervened in Gaza and the number of Israeli casualties were minimum. Israel officially consider that there was only seven wars (the last one was the Second Lebanon War). For that reason, I think that it's more neutral and precise to call this article "2008-2009 Gaza Conflict", not "Gaza War", because it isn't considered as such by any involve part of the conflict (neither by Hamas).--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but consensus > real life. Plus, media dubiously referred to the conflict as a war. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Might not be called a war in Israel, but it was called a war pretty much everywhere else. chandler ··· 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this topics title and I have no idea what people were thinking naming it "Gaza War" ITS TOO BROAD. There have been many conflicts fought in gaza, anyways just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is incredibly broad. Unfortunately, RS calls it that and it has to be followed over common sense since neutrality has not been obtainable. I for one still think the operation name is sufficient since that is what it was. Israel smashed Gaza in a military operation and all other "titles" are simply descriptions of that initial catalyst.Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Following the same reasoning, we should name the Operation Rainbow "First Gaza War", the Operation Days of Penitence "Second Gaza War", the Operation Summer Rains "Third Gaza War" and the Operation Hot Winter "Fourth Gaza War". Anyhow, what's the argument to consider this Operation Cast Lead (or "2008-2009 Gaza Conflict") like the "Gaza War"??--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the argument is that using the operational name gives too much weight to Israel's take on the event. I would like to point out that redirects and a simple line or two could easily fix this percieved inbalance. I would actually be really interested to see any counterpoint (not to win but for serious improvement) to the one made by AndresHerutJaimCptnono (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what determines names of articles is the most commonly used name in RSs. That neither side thinks this was a war is not that important for our purposes. What is important is that the sources used this as the name of the conflict. We dont use the operation name per the manual of style for military operations, and also that RSs generally have not used that name. Gaza War is the most commonly used name in English language sources. Your point about redirects applies the other way, Operation Cast Lead redirects here. Nableezy (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The guideline was not written in a way that anticipated this scenario but Gaza War is used by many RS if doing a Google search. A quick news search shows more hits for the operational name but war is used in the headline and byline more it looks like. It could be argued that many of these articles did not use war as a proper noun but I don't think it is worth getting into. Realistically, the War title is inline enough with the guideline for titling articles based on reliable source usage.

However, the same guideline that equates the reader's recognizably with RS also mentions ambiguity. Gaza War could have been used for several conflicts but with editor's increasing reliance on internet news searches which obviously have more hits with a recent conflict (ie: more websites and hits for information about this recent conflict than say one that occurred several years ago). If it looks like readers are confused or if it can be easily assumed that they will be confused, I believe it needs to be changed. I'm not a new reader to the article so can't speculate on if one would or would not be clear, though.Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just to clarify, I do prefer this title over the previous one and think that redirects take care of most of the confusion. Not sure if it will stand in the long term but not a crystal ball and shitCptnono (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas political violence - considered additions

Can anyone, apart from Cryptonio, tell me why not to insert this reports of violence and intimidation against native population in the section? And these are not cases of Fatah members or alleged collaborators. Cause you know, there is different connotation between someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force (collaborator) and someone who is reluctant to cooperate with the 'resistance'.

1. Intimidation of those who reluctantly cooperated with the 'resistance': '...soldiers of the holy war will punish you', 'difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. here.

2. "Many people are now against Hamas but that won't change anything," he says. "Because anyone who stands up to them is killed." here.

3. 'According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives.' here. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the people of Gaza are native to the area ? Careful now. :) I don't have any objections in principal (although I haven't looked the sources) but let's not lose sight of the big picture. 1000+ people we're killed to stop rockets and much of the Gaza Strip was flattened. The article needs to focus of the main issues of the conflict. We seem to get lost in details quite a lot...not that political violence by Hamas is a detail when you're having your leg shot but you know what I mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they belong there. Have you read WP:general sanctions, by the way? If you have a problem with a specific user, that might help. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added HRW report to the Hamas page along with other relevant HRW reports, yet while Hamas forces his power on its opposers in Gaza, that makes indiscriminate IDF assaults even worse. I find hard time seperating IDF and Hamas from each other. [5] Kasaalan (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great report. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other leg I forget about 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza which is where this stuff should go I suppose apart from the headlines. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HRW reports, might also contain untrue parts like any other report, but they are notable, and worth to be mentioned any case, since they internationally accepted and referenced, by academic parties, writers and journalists. Kasaalan (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

...and they do fine work in Thailand which despite being irelevant I thought I'd mention anyway... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support, if others don't mind, to restore just one sentence (sort of headline) on the issue in section, adding perhaps more details to the linked article. Objections? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has always suppressed dissidents without prejudice, but this "attacks" were to supposedly-punish Israeli-collaborators and Fatah spies. Then again, how credible is Hamas opinion? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated explicitly that these 'attacks' were against the domestic population, not Fatah spies or collaborators, they have different connotation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but under what pretense? Did Hamas just go out and kill ordinary citizens or those deemed "collaborators?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article 3. says 'According to the victims, those who tried to object [to stop Hamas from using them] were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives.' and not because they are associated with Fatah (indeed they are) or because they were deemed "collaborators". I see it as different connotation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Several reports indicate that population is terrified of Hamas and violated when not collaborating with the 'resistance'. Population is violated? I am not the one to nitpick on grammar but I am not sure how to go about fixing that. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial sentence, which was deleted by Cryptonio, said 'threatened'... But then a story of a family surfaced up, saying that 'those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives'. Sounds like violation to me. But you know what? I have no problem to change the wording a bit. How about 'Several reports indicate that population is terrified of Hamas and those who are unwilling to collaborate with the 'resistance' are threatened or hurt by Hamas operatives'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is an improvement (anything is better than implying there were sexual assaults occurring) My second problem is that only the third source supports the claim that the population is terrified; I think the first source indicates that many people are angry rather than terrified. Could you please point out to me sentences from the first source and second source that supports the claim that the population (I guess the entire population) is terrified of Hamas? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. 1. "Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you" - sounds like a threat to me. And later, 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. 2. 'One of his neighbors weighs in: "Many people are now against Hamas but that won't change anything," he says. "Because anyone who stands up to them is killed." Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip. There were news agency reports that during the war they allegedly executed suspected collaborators with Israel. The reign of terror will go on for some time, says the neighbor who doesn't want to give his name. "There will never be a rebellion against Hamas. It would be suicide." Pay attention to the connotation - those testimonies are not necessarily from Fatah affiliated or true collaborators - but ordinary people. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Specially for Cryptonio, putting in bold a piece of evidence not from Cremonesi, supporting the allegation that people are terrified of Hamas - look at my previous post. This 'According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives.' shows those who try to object are hurt by Hamas operatives. And finally, 'The soldiers of the holy war will punish you' shows that those who tried to object were not necessarily hurt, merely threatened. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, the sources stay away from making judgment calls and calling something how they see it. If the sources stay away, so should we. This is not how you interpert what you read, how it comes down to you, the feeling that you get while reading these sources etc etc etc. Stick to what the sources say. Period. Cryptonio (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So be it. Many are blaming Hamas for the destruction because the militants hid among civilians and attracted Israeli fire. Yet no one dares to speak out openly. Testimonies from Gaza civilians imply that no one dares to speak out openly against Hamas; those who tried to object were shot by Hamas operatives. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

→ 'Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip' - force against dissenters (not necessarily Fatah) - is political violence. And the instances described in sources occured during the war - making it relevant in exactly the same way as violence against Fatah members is relevant. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prove that in any of the sources you provided for this sentence, those attacked were attacked because of their political views(against Hamas). Cryptonio (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to prove. If you suggest that dissenter or dissident, synonyms, has no political connotation - you are engaging in doublethink. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Iron Dome

Worth a visit: [6] This one, too: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.73.225 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This one too Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, are you ready for a small game? When looking across NPOV policy, I came across this paragraph: 'In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.' How is it relevant to our article? Take a look at this pair of sentences: 'A study[43] by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed that Israel did not violate the laws of war during its operation in Gaza.[277] Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist, wrote that Cordesman's study lacked credibility because it was based almost entirely on official Israeli sources and ignored information that was readily available from the UN, NGOs and News reports'. What do you say? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was very hesitant in giving Fickelstein due weight considering his "response" was published in a totally non-reliable (and racist-ish) website, but he was the most notable critic out there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

YES! I love the intl law section. I am all for removing the amount of commentary regardless of the "side". Allegation followed by response (if available) seems fine. The paragraph you mention comes across as editors (I actually have no idea who) putting in what they saw as a valid point from a headline in an attempt to balance the section (assuming good faith) or push POV (assuming worst). Instead of balancing out the arguments with other arguments we can simply remove the info that does not come from the most reputable and noteworthy of sources.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the bizarre notion that there is parity between David Irving and Norman Finkelstein I'm with Cptnono here. We should just brutally purge the section of legal chatter. If we have any chatter at all I think it's better to keep it simple and source it from the likes of the UN and the Israeli gov. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

→I would disagree with the attitude 'to keep it simple'. I intend soon (maybe even sooner than I think) to storm on that section. From my side, I promise to do it in the most fair way I can, but let's put it aside for a while. I would like to go back to Cptnono's sentence: 'Instead of balancing out the arguments with other arguments we can simply remove the info that does not come from the most reputable and noteworthy of sources'. So, how is it relevant to the current discussion? Let's examine Cordesman. His biography and the CSIS looks like he has the competency to produce the military and political analyses. Next, he is not affiliated in any way to Israel supporters. Look at his Q and A during Second Lebanon War: here, he was criticizing of many Israeli aspects. Now let's turn to Finkelstein. He is a prominent and uncompromised Israeli critic. It is concievable some of its criticism of the report is justified. However the question remains. How do you balance a report from a neutral author with its refuting from an unobjective one? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Screw Cordesman and screw Finklestein. They both bring up fine arguments but they are both pushing their opinions. Let the facts speak for themselves. We have plenty of sources to pull from so primarily editorial pieces are not needed to improve the article or the information it presents. I am happy to see that gears are shifting away from trying to prove certain points but there is still more work (in this section more than others) needed to make this part of the encyclopedic project that is Wikipedia and not a bunch of arguments taken from the headlines.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cordesman is an accomplished and reputable military analyst while Finkelstein is a partisan professor and "activist." I see merit in Cordesman analysis, who uses Israeli briefings and "available" information to support findings. Fickelstein relies on emotion and dismisses everything Israeli as Zionist propaganda. Read his [hilarious critique http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein02192009.html] at CounterPunch. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I read that article and I didn't laugh once. That's the last time I'm going by one of your comedy recommendations. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I always laugh at fallacies and elementary propaganda techniques. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do either of them bring facts to the article that cannot be found in less opinion pushing writing?Cptnono (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fickelstein wrote an editorial while Cordesman wrote a professional assessment. Two entirely incomparable pieces of writing.

Unfortunately, Cordesman's analysis will not be considered appropriate by certain editors without a counterargument. Unless either is called to The Hague to present their findings, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to not devote a complete paragraph to it.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

→No one so far devoted a complete paragraph to it, even though it has lots of stuff, totally NPOV stuff, because the man has compiled military and strategic analysis. And the article uses a word here, a word there and maybe we will eventually use more appropriate sentences. However, I would ask again the question that bothers me (and so far only Wikifan replied): is it OK to balance a report from a neutral and competent author with unobjective 'political scientist', whose goal of his life to bash Israel? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Side remark. Finkelstein refutes the report because it is based on the IDF data and assistance from pro-Israeli organizations. Cordesman does not conceal it. This is what he writes in the intro section: 'Any such report, however, must begin with important caveats. Hamas has not provided details on its view of the fighting other than ideological and propaganda statements. Any military report has to be written largely from an Israeli perspective, although the impact of the fighting and its strategic outcome can be evaluated from a much broader perspective.'

Another remark. Just two abstracts (and there are many more) to explain why I presume that the report is NPOV (despite the fact that it provides some pro-IDF conclusions): 'There is another key caveat that must be applied to this analysis. It does not attempt to make moral judgments or to take sides in the conflict. It does examine the issue of proportionality, but its does so in the context of fighting and winning asymmetric wars and not as legal or moral issues. To the extent it looks beyond the conflict, it focuses on how fighting affected the perceptions of the combatants and outside states, and the strategic and grand strategic outcome of the fighting, not its legality or humanitarian costs.' '...All of these positions ignore the grim fact that war remains inherently amoral, regardless of it endless efforts to define legitimacy and "just wars"...' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Two lines separated from the paragraph above and below is close enough to a paragraph :) . I think there will be room for in depth analysis in the future but the only way to get it in now is to disrupt the flow of the already broken section and allow for a "rebuttal" which makes it worse.Cptnono (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What is your personal opinion: is it OK to balance a report from a neutral and competent author with unobjective 'political scientist'? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I could care less at this point since it shouldn't be there in the first place. Both do nothing but clutter up an already crappy section. Also, I'm sure dozens if not hundreds of reputable sources are available to provide analysis and these two in particular were picked in an attempt to push an agenda on the reader. There may be a point in time were such info is needed to improve the article but it does the exact opposite at this time. His report might be a good source if it can be introduced into paragraphs discussing specific allegations. In that case, Finklestein's rebuttal to a rebuttal would just be silly. Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now regarding 'dozens if not hundreds of reputable sources are available to provide analysis' - you know, I tried to look out in some notable non-Israeli think-tanks for legal analyses and didn't find anything worth mentioning. I must admit, however, that I could be lousy searcher. So far, apart from this report and two analyses from Israeli think-tanks, I am aware of Amnesty International and HRW articles, and UN report. If you or anyone who reads this, have more, you are more than welcome to provide links. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if more or found or not, this paragraph is unnecessary. Cordesman is a good source so it should be used as one.Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

Vent may refer to: Volcano, an opening in the Earth's surface which allows molten rock, ash and gases to escape.

Reopening this discussion due to recent IP edit. Am concerned about RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that (so and so said it was a massacre while speaking to blah blah). Not a huge deal but it comes up here and ther and want to see if anyone has any thoughts. Would prefer this not turn into a hurricane of shit (100 other things deserve more attention) and just wanted to have a discussion available.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, with all due respect, I've been messing around other I/P articles, and the word massacre is used sparingly as lives in a cat. This usage is all for show and title names. That it is used here, at the expense of RS, should be ignored, IMO. In other words, there is conflicting reports, on how many people must die in order for the killing to compromise a massacre, it doesn't even take into account HOW they died, since violence it's always involved in these matters. This is due to the 80's approach to sensationalism etc. Well anyways, thought I would 'vent', a la coors d'light. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to survey I made among other language Wikipedia articles describing this conflict my feeling is that the word massacre is not used as frequently as a skilled predator like Felis catus might think. We could make a pie chart maybe (according to language) to observe this point :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic. If you do a Google search of "Gaza Massacre 2009" today, there are 1.38 million results. Contrarily, searching "Gaza Crisis 2009" comes up with 12.1 million results. "Gaza War 2009" returns 42.6 million results. It is clear that "Gaza Massacre" is the outlier. Most times I have seen the term used it is used in quotes, citing only what Hamas has tried to brand the Israeli operation. (Operation Cast Lead 2009, by the way, comes up with 136 million results). "Gaza Massacre" is not what "the Arab world" calls the events in Gaza; it is merely what some in the Arab world have used to refer to those events. It should thus be included under the section on "international reactions." Major international news sources--including the most mainstream Arab media, Al-Jazeera--refer to it as the Gaza Crisis. The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre." thedefenestrator 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

The search term results that have been given above are extremely incorrect. Here is the actual google results "gaza massacre" 156 k, "gaza crisis" 310 k, "gaza war" 866 k, "operation cast lead" 540 k, but all gaza massacre, crisis or war articles contains "operation cast lead" as a term. I don't know why did you searched for "gaza massacre 2009" anyway like it was a movie title, but "gaza massacre 2009" gives 24 k and "gaza slaughter" 30 k with "gaza genocide" 58 k pages. Also the search numbers doesn't involve pages like Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese or so just a conclusion by search terms will not be correct. Kasaalan (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should perhaps be in quotes too. However, even if Palestinian militant groups were the only ones to use this term I think it should still be in the lead and attributed to them because it's the name they gave to this event. I would hope that the name provided by one belligerent is given the same weight as the name provided by the other belligerent. We aren't talking about article naming here or the actual name of the event according to Wiki guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be in quotes anymore than Cast Lead needs to be in quotes. Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre, it doesnt matter if anybody thinks they shouldnt call it that, but one of the sides uses a name, and like the name the other side uses it should be included. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And as before, I am not opposed to just saying "Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza massacre". Nableezy (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with said attitude is that one belligerent is purposefully promoting blood libels and antisemitism and their naming modus-operandi should be neutralized by the other POV about the value of said title. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blood libel? Antisemitism? By using a name that contains the word massacre? I'll let that go, dont want to get into a pissing match. We dont make judgments here, we inform the reader. The government of Israel has called this conflict Operation Cast Lead (and a number of people have voiced displeasure of naming this after a childrens song), the government of Gaza has called this the Gaza massacre. Wikipedia needs to treat these two the same. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not even a remote way of comparing the use of terminology of Israel with that of Hamas and yes, I whole-heartedly (and with the backup of reliable sources) stand behind saying that Hamas is antisemitic. If we were to merely use each side's terminology, that is the same as using "Iran calls it a hoax" in the lead of the Holocaust article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas being antisemitic isnt the point, how is the use of the term Gaza massacre antisemitic? The answer doesnt even matter though, even if it were antisemitic, and its not, that would be wikipedia making a judgement, which again is something we dont do. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nabliezy,

I'm well aware of wikipedia policies and everything I'm saying here is backed by sources. The "massacre" charges have indeed been charged as antisemitic and there's been notable criticism on the rhetoric as a whole as well. I'm in full support of adding the "Massacre" descriptive to the lead though, if it is combined with assessments that "The Gaza war triggered many expressions of antisemitism (i.e., statements against Jews at large) in the Arab and Muslim world, both by Arab leaders and politicians and by columnists. In their statements, they evoked antisemitic motifs taken from both traditional Islamic sources and from European ones. Cartoons featuring similar motifs were published in the Arab media."[8]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for that, Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and we cover it in this article as well. But it does not belong in the lead. If you have sources saying that the very name is antisemitic bring them and we can add them to the article, but the lead is not the place for arguments between the sides. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review my previous example about the Holocaust article and respond to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran wasnt a 'side' of the Holocaust, and that the present President of Iran has denied that the Holocaust killed the number of Jews that scholars say were killed isnt all that relevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair and unbiased to use the wording "Hamas, the government of Gaza (or perhaps, 'Hamas, the party in power in Gaza'), has named the conflict the Gaza massacre" in the lead paragraph. thedefenestrator 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

I also am in favour of Nableezy's recently proposed/added qualifier. It is more specific and perhaps more accurate than the 'in much of the Arab world' qualifier.Kinetochore (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing recent: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing that the Arab world described the fighting as a massacre in Gaza. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, I think the way we had it was fine and accurate, but the names that matter are the ones used by each side. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arab world is not a side in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I am suggesting that this was a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The main sides here were Gaza and Israel. The names the governments of those two sides use are the ones that matter. If you want to return it to say the Arab world has called it the Gaza massacre that is fine with me, I changed it because other users had problems with the wording and I think that there isnt a problem by specifying that Hamas has called it this. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, your additions do not belong in the lead, and now another user who has not made any attempt to discuss the issue has readded them. Lovely, I was taking bets on when this article would again descend into a POV battle from its very beginning. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Off course they do belong but I've got no objection to returning to a version which does not include the "massacre" blood-libel terminology while we discuss this further. To be frank, it seems as though you are quick to dismiss Israeli perspectives while giving undue credence and notability to those of the militant organization involved. Anyways, I'd like to start with the issue of the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian" conflict text which I've changed. This original phrasing is both incorrect and is also not supported by the source. Give it a look (the source) and let me know if we're at conflict on this issue. We'll move on to the other issues after this one which can be resolved quickly, I'm sure.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please stop with the rhetoric about blood libel? We include the name each side uses, no commentary on it. That you think the name is bad or wrong is irrelevant. There was no source for 'part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', I will get one if you insist. But an armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is most certainly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. That you want to add something unrelated to 'balance' massacre, is not even worth considering. What does antisemitic acts have to do with what the arab world calls the war?

That Hamas controls Gaza comes from the AP, Hamas governs Gaza.

That Iran has ties to another an arab population is not surprising, what is surprising and, you know, dumb is to try to put Iran in the lead. Iran doesn't even belong in the article period.

That these things only make sense in your mind, is not notable. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you should take a step back here from the language you're using. Please comment on content and not on fellow editors. If you have content concerns that something doesn't belong in the article, please make sure to be specific and to elaborate on your perspective.

Thanks and Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He didnt call you dumb, he called the edit dumb, which is also something he shouldnt have done, but lets not clutter up this page for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the resolution of this dispute represents everything that is awesome and revolutionary about Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who participated with good intentions. thedefenestrator 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

Too bad it aint over, I have a feeling we will see the opposite side of wikipedia in the coming weeks. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, didn't even look at this discussion until now. Sorry, gents. Saw an editor remove it and it get reverted so thought a place to discuss would be OK. Doesn't look like anyone's feelings were too hurt but sorry for the extra back and forth. $5 says 2 months until the next round!Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the actual search term results from google as a reply. Kasaalan (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of issues

Section started per the following diff: [9] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of

• I've made a few changes to the lead which were all reverted.[10] It feels as though a tag-team mentality is ruling this page since no one has bothered, best I'm aware, to give a look to my explanation that (at least) the first section about "part of the ongoing [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]" is (a) false, and (b) unsupported by the source (pg.5). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, with respect, if you start equating a name used by some people to describe the actions of the IDF with blood libel and antisemitism and you claim that this event is somehow not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict many people will simply stop listening to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, with respect, not many people just don't understand the difference between Hamas and their "mukawama" and Fatah and their "fedayeen". One represents the Israeli-Palestinian struggles of the recent past while the other, which indeed derives some history from said conflict, is something difference. My notes (and understanding) on this are indeed backed up by the cited source.

p.s. we can discuss the "massacre" antisemitism issues in the relevant section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: this seems like it could be an easy issue to resolve and it's a shame that there's no discussion made here. The source doesn't say "part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict". The cited page 5 of our only source says that it was "shaped by the entire history of the struggles" but it would be more accurate to apply a similar wording to our article. I'm open to discussion and suggestions, but this does need to be addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He has a point - the operation was mainly against Hamas (with a few smaller groups) and not against Fatah. Abbas even took a position against Hamas (and Israel, of course). This wasn't a part of the overall "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, only a fight with the Palestinian militants in Gaza. PluniAlmoni (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Government of

• Also, Hamas is not really "the" the government of Gaza. This mukawama organization entered politics and won a majority vote. After very few agreed to speak to it, including the Fatah, they occupied the strip by force and are now ethnically cleansing anyone who has a semblance of belonging to Fatah. Basically, it's still just an unrecognized mukawama organization who carved up "Hamastan", a place of Islamist rulership, for themselves. Obviously, we're not supposed to go into detail on this in the lead, but we should note that they are first and foremost a mukawama organization and not "the government of Gaza". I'm sure even al-Azhar and Henniyeh would agree here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They are the governing authority of the Gaza strip, aka the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, there's a difference in this case between Government and Governing in this instance. We have a situation of a split people with two governments who do not recognize each other's legitimacy. Hamas, a militant organization with a "political wing", is occupying Gaza just as Israel (a democratic state) is occupying Arab villages in the West Bank. A suitable terminology would name Hamas' main 'organization/movement' title prior to mentioning their rulership over Gaza. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that address these two issues.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting it simply...

Hamas are a terrorist organization in illegal occupation and to give them legitimacy as "the government of Gaza" seems absurd. Simply put, them being in control doesn't mean that they are "the government" and i believe the text "government of Gaza" should be changed. Here's a compromize suggestion that works ok for me: How about, "Hamas, the de facto government of Gaza"?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, strangely enough I would agree partially with Nableezy regarding rhetoric in general and illegal occupation and ethnically cleansing rhetoric in particular. I'd go easy there. I would call this internal Palestinian conflict as ongoing civil war. Still while both Palestinian parties/governments regard themselves as the sole legitimate Palestinian government only PNA gained international recognition. It was clearly notable during this conflict, for instance when Abu Mazen represented Palestinians in Egypt hosted cease-fire ceremony. And also in reservations of international donors about cooperating with Hamas with regard of rebuilding Gaza after Israeli offensive. Bottom line agree de facto addition is appropriate. Keep well and warm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah de facto is all proper, but not in this case. Hamas won elections, and those elections weren't disputed(the results that is) so there is no footnote to add to Hamas' capacity to govern. We understand that we must accommodate certain aspects of international standards of 'labeling' when it comes to the territories, but that is not a free pass to illegitimate or to scorn the little normal, day to day, familiarity that the Palestinian Territories enjoy(in full democratic honors I may add). So to bring up the PLO or the PNA or Fatah for that matter, it would be our responsibility to identify them in their actual role. Now of course asterisk would be added to properly place them in context, but not at the expense of Palestinians actions at the booth. And plus, whether it was the PLO or the PNA or the dancers from Congo, all of this organizations have fallen out of flavor with Israel when they stop accommodating Israeli demands for "peace". So Hamas wouldn't be any different, since they represent Palestinians as well. The book(Israeli lost law) has been thrown at all of these organizations in equal portions. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you're confusing elections in the USA with those of the Palestinian Authority. The current Hamas "victory" status is more like winning a Blood-Sports match than taking a majority voting. When no one wanted to talk with them after their movement got more votes for "parliament" seats than Fatah, they decided to make the sham of an election^* into a violent coup where Fatah members were abused (read: cleansed[11]) from Gaza. To still use the "won the elections" claim and suggest there's any semblance of democratic thought behind the way they are currently in power is just to repeat Hamas' sloganeering. The victory would have been acknowledged had Hamas relinquished their terrorist agenda and embraced their new role as a political party (kinda like Israeli party Likud). Instead, they chose to further ratify their status as a "mukawama" organization rather than a democratic party so I'd request that you avoid suggesting they are "the choice of the people" (usually used by blood-thirsty Israelis who don't care if a civilian is hurt by the IDF). To be frank, I think "de facto" is a huge compromise considering who Hamas is and how they took control over the strip (democracy had nothing to do with it), but I'm willing to make this compromise considering the lead is not meant for controversial statements if they can be avoided.

p.s. please follow the facts: Hamas has been rejected by the Arab nations as the representative for the Palestinians and their issue.

p.p.s. Israel and the peace process has nothing to do with Hamas' violent coup. "Blaming the Jews" (per accommodating Israeli demands for "peace") is not a great way of building consensus.

^* Hamas' party was forced into the system by the US despite being undemocratic - kinda like someone forcing the US to add a really violent KKK group into the US elections.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point. Did the laws for parliament(which you placed in quotes, as to disregards its functions or authority) allowed for a Hamas victory? Yes they did. Did Hamas followed the laws set in order to govern? yes they did. So then, de facto is not necessary because nothing illicit(as say, coup of state etc) happened in order for Hamas to govern. Now, I am not getting into what the hell did Fatah do in order to get in that mashing with Hamas, and I am not sayign they were to blame, but if a party wins, a party wins and its actions can only be challenged either at the parliament or at revolving elections. I could care less about the electoral process in the US. But hey, look at Bush jr, he won elections and then stifled dissent even in its own party, told the country the democrats were a bunch of un-american sissies etc. Did he waged war against the democrats? He didn't have to, when push came to shove, an equal number of democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war as repubs did. In all actuality, what Hamas and Fatah finished in the streets what was started at the booth, is of no detrimental(passive/aggressive) furnishing against Hamas LEGALITY to govern.

Hey, seriously I was not too far off when i said what you thought i meant 'whole heartily'. Nothing worked with the PLO, PNA, FATAH, ABBAS(the most nicest person in the world)(and ABBAS before Hamas was anything worthy of mention) or even before all of them. Nothing worked, even when it was Israel who was supposed to give up land, Palestinians gave even more land to Israel while all of this "negotiations" were going on, and nothing worked. Now explain to me how Hamas was "undemocratic". Did you meant to say instead "barbaric"? Cryptonio (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, and please provide a source if you have one that says I am, Hamas did not follow the laws set in order to govern. Also, I'm fairly certain that the whole "revolving elections" thing is ancient history by this point in time. There seems to be a gap between the democratic perspective you're presenting here and the actual situation. I'd suggest a review on what reliable sources are saying to help close this one but there's the added problem that some sources, mostly left-wing and pro-Palestinian ones, persist on differentiating between Hamas' "political wing" and their militancy. Here's a sample source on the government part of Hamas (and Fatah) - [12]. To be frank, I don't see a bigger compromise than "de facto" that I could make (I'd prefer "Mukawama organization in power at Gaza" or simply "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[13]) and it's a bit frustrating that even this is rejected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) adding the option that is most reasonable per sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas sweeps to election victory - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm

No mention of 'irregularities'. I am not sure what you mean "didn't followed the rules". Not then, not now did have I heard of anything diminishing Hamas electoral victory. Except of course, what happened next with Fatah. Now, that you think no more elections will take place in Gaza, is not something I'm not willing to defend or make any conclusion on it. Cryptonio (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with "de facto", then the best solution is to go with the generic -- "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[14] -- view on Hamas. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your 'best solution' is not a solution at all. You are creating a problem where none exists. Hamas is the government of Gaza. They are the governing body in Gaza. You want to introduce extra commentary where it is not appropriate. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Check it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006#Pre-election_opinion_polls

You have not presented any concrete or even half-detailed proposal on why de facto should be included. As is, the rules set in the elections, did not included a provision that calls for the winner of the elections to be called the de facto anything of Gaza. By now, I forgot everything you have said till now. It doesn't have to take a missive or even a paragraph to state why we should add an asterisk to the governance of Gaza. Cryptonio (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body after in the Gaza coup in 2007 they killed and arrested all the other parties' elected officials. I've provided a clear sample of this in reliable sources[15] and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body. I gave two suggestions on resolving this and if we can't move forward there ourselves, then I see no alternative to WP:DR (perjaps an WP:RfC) if you believe that is an acceptable way to move the dialogue forward. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify. 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) fix link 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation. Hamas has a political wing and a military wing. Hamas' political wing is the governing party in Gaza. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify electoral status. 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I have no objection in saying that Hamas' political wing is the government of Gaza. However, we are discussing the Hamas-Israel conflict and to corner Hamas as only a political wing is indeed a misrepresentation. A pretty big one to boot.

I can't see you convlincing me to disregard the non-"political wing" portion of Hamas so I figured dispute resolution is the next step.

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to act except unilaterally. "and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body". You want a commentary as per "Hamas won parliamentary elections, thus it makes them the ruler and kings of Gaza". The same thing can be said about any other office who gained access through elections, yet that is not standard here in wiki. Yeah Chavez called Bush the devil and whatnot, but that doesn't carry over once we walk pass the fringe(on either side).

Dude seriously, if you go up to anyone, and the first thing that comes out of your 'views' is this "Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body." and that body rules in your favor, i will say not a word and hang myself promptly. Cryptonio (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there mention already that Hamas also fires rockets besides hitting people upside their heads with the gavel? Cryptonio (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
Jaak, there is no misrepresentation that Hamas is only a political party. Governments have armies, or here militias. And there is plenty of information on the military wing of Hamas. Maybe you would have a point if we said the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the government of Gaza, but we are not saying that. Nableezy (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well,

For starters, anyone who has a "militia" is technically a "militant organization" regardless if they have a "political wing" or not. Secondly, reliable sources describe them as "the Islamic militant group Hamas"(Reuters) and "the Islamist group ... de facto ruler of Gaza"([16]) which doesn't exactly coincide with describing them as "only a political party"(Nableezy). Please avoid making this misrepresentation in the future.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The US is a 'militant organization'? How about the state of Michigan? And I didnt say "only a political party", so please avoid misrepresenting what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas did gained remarkable representation in Palestinian legislative election, 2006. No argument about it. While we talked about Michigan and elections, we missed somehow next step of democratic process - forming a government. Abu Mazen in his role of President of the Palestinian National Authority dissolved Hamas-Fatah government headed by Ismail Haniye [17] at June 14 2007 and formed new "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayyad. Legitimacy of such step was disputed by some sources [18]. Still so far international community, including UN, does not recognize Hamas government headed by Ismail Haniye and its rule in Gaza, see this conflict cease-fire ceremony. Thus de-facto is appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

De facto would be appropriate if de jure were not contested. By adding de facto you make the judgment that they are not also the de jure government, something that is highly contested. It is better to make no claims as to whether or not they are de facto, de jure, or both and simply say government, without qualifications or adding both de facto and de jure. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to UN international law experts - de-jure President of the Palestinian National Authority/Abu Mazen appointed government headed by Salam Fayyad rules both in Gaza and the West Bank. I'm personally not a law expert though. Which international institutions contest that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why have a Parliament? and have elections to elect a Prime Minister? Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. In Palestinian National Authority political model there are a Parliament, a President and a Government. AFAIK, President of the Palestinian National Authority has an authority to dissolve governments and appoint "emergency" one. Civil war sounds like an "emergency" to me. I'm not sure what is Parliament role in such scenario though. I also would not hold my breath till new round of elections in 2010 (??) in Gaza at least. From political role play point of view, reminds me of Tzippi Livni anecdote. She is going to be a Prime Minister (ha-ha), since she's leader of largest fraction in Israeli Parliament after 2009 elections. But Shimon Peres choose Benjamin Netanyahu to form a government and Parliament agreed :) Bottom line forming government is an important step. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be no denying that Hamas is the governing authority of the Gaza Strip. That is equivalent to saying Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Israeli occupation though ;) I have an Egypt stamp in my passport, Egypt Hawaii was awesome and locals speak Hebrew and very friendly. Did not get to pyramids though. Hope you have a good trip. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Livni was going to have problems setting up a majority(somehow) etc. Hamas had a pretty good hefty majority of seats. But you are unto something, at least when it comes to understanding what WENT ON between the PNA and FATAH. It seems, since the same people in Fatah were the ones in the PNA, no such 'conflict' like the one you have presented mattered. But now, since is Hamas the one in charge in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprise if you came up with more arguments to posture yourself by your position. Cryptonio (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio. you are correct regarding the Israeli anecdote, the president had to choose someone from party he politically opposes, by law. And not good looking (according to RS) blond from his party. In my eyes, Palestinian and Israeli political models are just "we miss you constitutional monarchy". When elected President, kind of King/Queen politician resigns his/her party. Formally President chooses PM in WP:NPOV fashion, elections directing the dynamics strangely are formally secondary though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre and propaganda victory

• This seems to be the only real point of contest between us and it might need external perspectives if we can't compromise. Sources calling the event a "massacre" come from the Arab world who is a direct and notable party in the current war - the propaganda one - where naming conventions repeatedly evoke antisemitic motifs both from the christian and Islamic world.[19] Among other mukawama motifs, is the declaration of "Allah inspired victory" and this is as notable (if not more than) as all the "massacre" blood-libel hypocrisy (that's what it is) as it takes a huge volume of the post-event discussions. Since the "Massacre" naming in highly controversial for its antisemitic allusion and abuse (usually the word is added with the combination of "killing children"):
  Sample: "The massacre of Gaza is self-evident proof of the new SS: Zionist soldiers."[20]
  We cannot merely keep it as is since "that's how they call it". They also called it "Gaza victory" saying "Gaza Victory Paved the Way to Jerusalem" and other such mukawama sloganeering and I'm fairly certain there would be an objection in adding that title ("Gaza Victory") 'as is'. This is an emotional topic, I'm aware, as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza. In short, I'm open to adding the "massacre" blood libel rhetoric if it's noted that it's seen as such. Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Man why haven't you been banned by now. Ashley got a year in the can for saying some of the same stuff you are now regurgitating. We have no use for any of this crap, and it is what it is, crap. If you so nonchalantly call Hamas a terrorist organization, if Ashley got booted for so plainly exposing the action of Zionism at the rise of Israel, you should be terminated from these projects. On top of that, you continue to propose these changes that make no sense whatsoever.

"as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza."

Are you kidding me? Are you using legally prescribed drugs ILLEGALLY? Just tell me right now, for how long are we going to have to stand up to this and be treated as kids?

Preposterous! Blasphemy! Cryptonio (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio Was that trip really necessary?

Jaakobou I share your concerns about use of fringe sources and undue weight placed on such things. But the terminology of "Massacre" is not just Arab, it is used by anti-Zionist (not anti-Semitic) articles around the world. The Nation has commented: "Barak just oversaw the disastrous Gaza massacre, now condemned round the world". The Huffington Post has a section called "Gaza Massacre". The Squicks (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a minute. Cryptonio (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo The Squicks,

There's a very thin and complex line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Best to avoid it in this instance and focus on the main body being accused of using antisemitic motifs with this naming style (see above example) as there's not much value in discussing which sources are anti-Zionist. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that incorporate these sources as well but I'm fairly certain this is a step in the wrong direction for achieving a consensus where we'd want a conservative wording (in lead of the article).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We present the name used as just the name used. We dont say anything else about it, nothing else needs to be said about it. If you think that the use of the name is antisemitic that is fine, go post that in a blog somewhere, but it does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

I'm already aware of your perspective that "it's just a name" and that's how it should be written. While I made an effort to explain myself, adding sources to boot, you've simply repeated your initial "we'll write just the name" perspective on the issue which is clearly in disagreement.

I'm open to compromise suggestions that deal with the issues I've raised and I'm willing to keep an open mind to reasoning as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So would you object to me adding sourced statement saying that the Israeli government is inhuman (note not inhumane) to name this operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+ after a children's song? Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

and you need sources saying that Hamas calling this the Gaza massacre is antisemitic, not that antisemites have used the name as well. And a RS not somebodies opinion. Nableezy (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the source I addressed the "[The Jewish] massacres perpetrated by the Israeli forces in Gaza" issue with my provided source and that the phrasing was balanced and conservative as well.

but have also been charged with evoking antisemitic motifs in their statements.[21]

I'm open to other suggestions, but you've stuck to the one that insist that it's "just a name".

p.s. please avoid needless comments that suggest Israel deserves these antisemitic references (per Israeli government is inhuman .. operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+). We can talk all day about who is responsible for the Palestinian deaths but this is not germane to the issue of the Arab naming and rhetoric conventions for their fights with Israel.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC) clarify some 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) +c 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is germane (and who said anything about deserving antisemitism, if you havent noticed I reject your idea that Hamas using the name is antisemitic), you argue that we should report what MEMRI (notice I how I asked for a RS) thinks of the name, but you dont want to report what people think of the Israeli name? What does having 'evoking antisemitic motifs' have to do with this. You want to add something to the reactions section it might fit there (with a better source) but you are trying to include commentary where it does not belong and only for the 'side' that you agree with. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that this very "name" is Arab commentary and not just a name. This is not about sides but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention. There is no equivalent by the Israeli side that I'm aware of so this is indeed not germane to the discussion.

p.s. MEMRI is a reliable source for this article. They are certainly more reliable than al-Jazeera or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights or the 'Arab News Network' which are currently used in there as well. Anyways, the issue still seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you stand by the position that 'massacre' is just a name. If you'll accept that it is not then we've made a step forward.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you imply, or deduce that those who say it's just a name, simply reported, are in someway or capacity engaged in believing the same 'motifs' that 'those' who use the name for 'antisemetic' reasons? If that's the case, a simple oath would do, in order to disdain that accusation, as a simple statement from you makes it true. No, I don't have antisemetic reasons for opposing you in this point or disagreeing with you.

This is perplexing to say the least. "but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention." This is taken from, the patriot act or another dangerously written document like it. How you seem to connect massacre with antisemitism(or the sending of secrets code and messages by puppets through the lead) is beyond me, too bad is not a work of art though, i would be the first to applaud if that was the case. Cryptonio (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio,

I'm fairly certain I hadn't accused you of anything and to be honest, I'm having difficulty discerning when you are being serious and when you are not following the drug use suggestion[22] and the "hitting people upside their heads with the gavel"[23] thing. In any event, I don't believe I've made any suggestions to the beliefs of fellow editors but I apologize if you felt that making an argument about the content was a direct assault on your character. I had no such intentions and have no special reason to believe it either.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, MEMRI is most certainly not 'more reliable' than al-Jazeera, and where is the PCHR used for a statement of fact (and they are not 'more reliable' than the PCHR either)? Sorry, but no, it is the name used. The name used by Hamas for this conflict is the Gaza massacre. You want to put criticism of the name for one, at the very least be consistent and say that criticism of both is acceptable. I dont think either should be in, that is a consistent position. An encyclopedia is not the place for such pushing of views, the name used by Hamas is the Gaza massacre. That is unambiguous statement of fact. That you do not like the name is completely irrelevant. It is the name used. And if you notice, you are the only one arguing this point. Everybody else was satisfied by attributing the name to Hamas. Yet for some reason you persist on this quest to label things as antisemitic because you think they are. Nableezy (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe bandying the term "antisemitic" around is not productive and is highly objectionable to many people here. An edit review reveals this as a strategy of Jaakobou. Original phrasing "...has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world" is accurate. Knowing that I/P articles attract extremists, it's important for Wiki we not let reason be railroaded. RomaC (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back RomaC. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World will not be fully correct, but generally true if you replace arab world with muslims and leftists

Arab Side

Arab World Reacts to “Gaza Massacre”

gazasiege.org

Israeli Side

Antisemitic Statements and Cartoons in Wake of Gaza War Sided article since he even categorizes anti-Israel cartoons as anti-semitic, trying to add all jews into it, yet has some point and good sources.

Global

Some photographs after bombing This is why bombing over one of the crowdests population in the world can be called massacre, even you don't call that it is mass destruction since they demolished considerable amount of homes and property

The Politics of the Gaza Massacre Forget Hamas - it's all about the home front

IDF Soldier's Civillian Targetting T-Shirts

Israel Army T-shirts mock Gaza killings by Al Jazeera pregnant palestinian women on target of sniper 1 shot 2 kills t-shirt for IDF soldiers

Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings by Sky News Text and Photographs

College Clubs

Oberlin College Students for Free Palestine on Israel's Offensive in Gaza

Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine; Fighting displacement, discrimination and apartheid from Palestine to State College Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar; British Member of Parliament George Galloway on Palestine, Apartheid Israel and the Middle East

A.C.L.U. Slams John Bassett Cancellation of Dr Finkelstein Talk at Clark University

normanfinkelstein.com

Jews Against Zionism

AcademicsforJustice New Jewish Australian Committee for Dismantling of Zionism

True Torah Jews Against Zionism Orthodox Jews against Zionism and Israel state

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World No, you are simply wrong. The article does not claim that only the Arab World uses the terminology. It simply says that the Arab World uses the terminology. That's it. The two statements "The Arab World uses the terminology" and "The Arab World along with others uses the terminology" are not contradictory. The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The language is clear. Otherwise, if we edit to specify only Hamas, the second stage of the edit process becomes a fight to include a qualifier for Hamas, which opens the mother of all cans 'o worms. The version that stood for a long time is stable for a reason. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My position on this is that it is called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world, but that doesnt matter. My feeling is that we have the name that each side has used. But I dont have a problem with in the Arab world either, just dont find it all that necessary. Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Upon review, 'Gaza War'[24] is exceedingly more common than 'Gaza Massacre'[25] so it would seem that the debate over the nature of the "massacre" title is irrelevant for resolving this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the point is the government of Gaza, Hamas, has called this the Gaza massacre. That is why the name is there. Much like Operation Cast Lead being there, because that is the name the government of Israel has used for this. Nableezy (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We'd need a real review on sources concerning Hamas alone since you're making quite an exceptional claim considering my recent review. Also, please avoid confusing Hamas' "political wing" from the "Hamas" movement.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete Gaza massacre from the lead again Jaakobou, before gaining consensus for that. Tens of pages in the archives were devoted to discussing this issue, and the general consensus was to equal space to Arab and Israeli narratives by bolding both Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. Deleting it without gaining consensus is sure to spark an edit war. I have reverted your deletion and ask that you refrain from repeating it again until we have polled all interested editors. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your request for sources to back up Nableezy's claim re: Hamas, there are these:

• Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, called on al-Qassam Brigades to continue and intensify rocket fire into Israeli communities bordering Gaza, blaming "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
• Hamas called the assault a "massacre".
• Hamas condemns Gaza 'massacre'

Even Abbas and the quisling PA called it a massacre:

• Abbas condemns Gaza "massacre" as Israeli raid kills 15 Palestinians.
• PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks

Not to mention many others, including Norman Finkelstein, Hugo Chavez, GulfNews, etc. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud you for collecting 7 sources, there's the slight issue that more than 7 million sources call it a war. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 million sources that does not provide a narrative within this context. In other words, there is Side A israel calling in it an operation, and Side B Hamas/Arab world calling it a Massacre. 7 million sources would be Side C calling it a war. Do you want to provide Side C with some space(mind you, it shall be taken out of your allotment)? And to who would you referenced to? the AP? BBC? under what capacity? "The major news organizations have called it a war"? Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm able to follow your logic explanation. Hamas and the Arab world calls it mostly a War, not a massacre so I had no intentions on bringing in a side C. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like you did bring side C into the equation. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not following you. Who exactly is this side C that you're talking about? (just to make sure we're on the same page, pleas also note who you believe sides A and B are).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Victory"

There is clear association between victory and parade. God save the Queen. 8 out of 10 best quality of life countries according to UN are constitutional monarchies. Those french bastards got us all confused ;)

many sources put victory in quotes since it is silly. we could add a line to explain it, get rid of it, keep it as is, or all sorts of other craziness. thoughts? ding ding...Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as the sources do not support it. The first source, when actually using the words, is not using it as a name. The second source says a victory in Gaza, taking about it rather then naming it, nowhere in the last source does the phrase appear. But a certain stalking editor is trying to get me blocked for 3rr infractions, so I'm going to stay away for now. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it until it is resolved.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My main thought is that the lede looks absurd now. There are two sides to this conflict. Side A calls it X, side B calls it Y. The rest should go in the body someplace. I'd say "Israel calls it cast lead (he), Hamas calls it the gaza massacre (ar). It is also known as the gaza war (he+ar)" should cover everything. If someone calls it a victory or a defeat or a tie or whatever, put it in the body under "other names for the conflict". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

amazing how much you agree with me. Nableezy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Screw you hippie! :) Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet, maybe one day be able to call me that ;) probably not tho Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how archive 17 slipped under my radar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives are a magical place, full of lollipops and leprechauns, and even once in a while a good idea, and even rarer an agreement on a good idea. The only problem is, if somebody were to read through all of them their head would explode out of the amount of sheer nonsense that they would have overloaded their brain with. Nableezy (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to go on record saying that the archive system sucks balls. Yes, I said balls. There should be, at the very least, a mechanized voting system where you press a button, your vote goes on record and the system can display previous votes somewhere where I don't have to go digging in 5234 pages of archives.

Someone else should invest the time in implementing this, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that if there's a consensus stated here, then you shouldn't need to violate 3RR as you can simply leave the edit which goes against consensus alone whilst reporting the user who is going against consensus to the proper forum. Simply add a dispute tag to the page or after the line in question in the meantime. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

true that, and no worries, you shant see me at that forum again (hopefully) Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warning. I'm sorry to break this brotherhood in arms "edit war" festival, I have to disagree. The end of this conflict was celebrated by victory parade in Gaza and it is an official position of rulers of Gaza. We can not just ignore it. Internationally this position was welcome in Syria, Iran. Indeed there are sources in the archives. I did not really get reasons for removal, I'd like to restore it. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they claimed victory, they did not name it the Gaza victory though. Nableezy (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name in the Arab world is "Gaza War". I have no objection to a version that only keeps the most common name. Anyways, "Victory" is as much a name as is the "Massacre" naming convention. They are both Mukawama driven and they compliment each other. To be frank, I feel as though several editors on this space are in violation of NPOV and it's always disheartening to see such a thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'official name'? On what basis do you say that? We have quotes from Hamas officials using Gaza massacre as the name. Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre. They have not called the conflict the Gaza victory, I showed why the sources dont support that. But instead of actually showing why I would be wrong you just make a blanket statement not at all supported by the sources. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And as far as in violation of NPOV, I agree some editors are, but I think we have very different opinions on which editors those are. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally for me "Victory" + "Massacre" made a perfect match together and finally got me to say "A-ha" on categorization of later term. Not that Jaakobou did not say it implicitly. I reviewed the sources and indeed the outcome is "Victory". "As we won the Gaza war ..." said Hamas political bureau chief. So English Al Jezeera and Hamas politbureau chief use Gaza war name for this conflict as an event. Looks to me that NPOV way is to move "Gaza Massacre" to Propa-psy section of this article. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

uhh no. Gaza massacre has been used as the name by Hamas. The names each government used is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nableezy in this source the government used Gaza War name. Are not you confused? Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple sources with quotes from Hamas calling the event the Gaza massacre, in both English and Arabic. No, I am not confused. I know what you propose, and it will not fly. This has been proven time and time again that the name Hamas used for the conflict is the Gaza massacre. Nableezy (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. massacre expression was widely used, not only by Hamas but also by Fatah, Hugo Chavez and Oxford student hippies. Now it's also proven that Hamas did not give massacre name any exclusive rights. Do you agree that using massacre is kind of Propaganda?

By who? Wikipedia? No. We present it as the name used, which it was. Nableezy (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that "massacre" garbage out of this "victory" discussion! I have no problems adding in info on them spinning PR or whatever it was but it would deserve a complete line or two of text in another section that it fits into better. I know we are supposed to let facts speak for themselves but this victory "title" that you want to use has plenty of sources discussing it in context.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that the concepts 'full victory', 'Pyrrhic victory', 'inconclusive', 'partial defeat' and all the rest are directly related to the end of the conflict, why wouldn't it belong in that part of the article. The lead is bloated enough already. The Squicks (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rituals have formed a part of human culture for tens of thousands of years. Rituals can aid in creating a firm sense of group identity. Some say ceremony is kind of Propaganda. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, Squicks, and Cryptonio= I stopped having an imaginary friend when I was 8. Why couldn't you? Trifecta: We don't necessarily support Gay Marriage, but we are not against it either, why have beef with us ah?

In that case, let's take a look at why Israel would copy a page from the US in 'naming' its military operations. In short, it is a way to de-barbarize or take the "spiciness" out of what is actually going on. Imagine Bush going live on national tv saying something like "We are going to use 300 F-16s and a few Marines and kill everybody who gets in their way". Yeah, Americans are pretty much militarized and that phrase wouldn't have brought much condemnation from the general population, but it would have caused trouble when the "coalition" comes into the equation. So, a name more acceptable like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" gives it a more noble connotation(plus all that crap about bringing democracy etc to Iraq). So that Israel calls its "operation"(as given it a more 21st century karma, as in "war is acceptable" "war is a necessity etc) some chump change like "whatever" takes away the reality and concentrates its population with the "goals" or to ask for acceptance from the population to something that these military geniuses conjured up as a solution to the problems. That Hamas calls it a massacre is, in their view, kind of humbling("gee, we just got out butts, umm, you know..."). that we human beings behave like animals is nothing new. And that both sides have reasons why to call their actions in one way or the other is nothing new either. Mebleh. Cryptonio (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hands of Karma Cryptonio! I made a research about Nonviolence and Ahimsa, Go Ghandi, colonies should burn in hell! Here is copy paste from Hinduism view on Self-defense, criminal law, and war: The concept of ahimsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors. In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven. The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings. Such readings are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mahatma Gandhi, who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil." According to some interpretation of Islam, Jihad struggle is a spiritual one against enemy within, in fact Jihad is an integrated part of Nonviolence tradition. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to like you bud. Yae yae, holy books are one thing, reality is another. Isn't Islam about peace? yet mess with them and watchout! I don't make apologies either for Buddhist, we all like and enjoy wars(except me, of course). But notice, for example, similar anti-pacifism connotation even in the New Testament. Revelation 3:15

"15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

The explanation being, that good and evil are clearly defined(and not by Israel), but that doesn't mean that everything in between is gray area, AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDGMENT(in all three of Abraham's faiths). Arjuna is not weak, nor a non-believer(infidel) he is refusing to fight, but, he's standing right next to khrishna(the all within the all, in Buddhism) and telling him that ultimatley, above rules and regulations(laws) his word is final, because it is not logic that brings us closer or seperates us from "The Being". In other other words, and this quote I can quote from any faith, Romans 6:16

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

What this means, we are our own masters as long as we serve, because no matter who we serve, we will be looked at us servants. And then of course, Mohammed is who he is because he was a servant. So don't be too hard on peace. There is purpose for both, peace and war, but we should look after one and despise the other(by the New Testament).

We could get down with the Torah, if its more of your preference, but nice work on Buddhism/Hinduism. Cryptonio (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up this other point. Atheist get all over Christians for believing in the "barbarism" in the Old Testament(as if they had anything to do with the Old Testament) but they give Jews a free pass. I mean, the only reason that i could fathom for a Christian pastor to bring up the Old Testament in front of a congregation, is to bring up people like King David. BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DID KING DAVID KILLED!!! But then, of course, this correlates my previous point on what Krishna is telling Arjuna. Cryptonio (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not be civil taking about David dude. He was a real bastard. The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Some call it love though ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yae yae, but that David took Bathsheba is not quite the point, because David had concurbines and whatnot. But it is more of a testament to Uriah than David's actions(since he is King, and I will provide reference on this in a minute). You must notice, rather, what Nathan tells David earlier.

"There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 3but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms,[a] and it was like a daughter to him. 4Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him." 5Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan,(C) "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6and he shall restore the lamb(D) fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."

David's "adultery" is not what David himself is condeming, rather that a rich man took the only valuable possesion that a poor man had. And notice that even the death of Uriah isn't an issue, after he was a military man and military man die, eventually.

But now to the point i said i would pick up later. I am not of the opinion of condemming David or judging him, I think you overstreched yourself a bit. Notice here. 2 Samuel .

4And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?

6And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

7And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.

8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

9He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

10So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

11Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him:

12And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.

13And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.

14And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?

15And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

16And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD's anointed.

So, I wouldn't say negative stuff about Prophets. But that's just me though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I object to the Trifecta statement above. I strongly support gay marriage. If I didn't support it, then why would I name myself after a term from amateur gay pornographic fantasies? The Squicks (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Herod the Great, Attila the Hun and "Hungarian Notation"

WTF? Massacre of the Innocents is not just a name. Ding dong.

Hungarian notation is a naming convention in computer programming, in which the name of a variable indicates its type or intended use. Apps Hungarian notation doesn't encode the actual data type, but rather, it gives a hint as to what the variable's purpose is, or what it represents.

• strName : Variable represents a string ("str") containing the name, but does not specify how that string is implemented.

Most, but not all, of the prefixes Simonyi suggested are semantic in nature. The following are examples from the original paper:

Herod (Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס Horodos, Greek: Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (37 BC – 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Israel. Christian scripture reports Herod perpetrating the Massacre of the Innocents, described in Chapter 2 of the Gospel according to Matthew. Most recent biographers of Herod do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event.

Back to Simonyi. There are RS reports he was Hungarian. In his role naming convention inventor he would not argue that epitome of cruelty and rapacity would be semantically appropriate name for Attila the Hun. Ding Dong ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly propose to leave lede with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the last comment, no it is not a 'NPOV style organization of the article'. We have the names the government of each side used, Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. That is what NPOV is. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually, with all due respect ( and there is a respect ) the Gaza government used Gaza War name. I kind of concerned about semantics and hint of purpose, or what it represents. The massacre expression is used a lot all right! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have one instance of him using "Gaza War", and I would like to see the Arabic of that statement to see if he said the war in Gaza, war on Gaza or what. We have multiple quotes of them using the Gaza massacre as the name in both the original Arabic and the reported translations. You cannot just disregard what you want, there are a ton of sources of Hamas using Gaza massacre as the name of the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody argues that many (we should not single Hamas out) used massacre rhetoric as you put it. What is "Hamas name" is disputable. So in your opinion, principally Wikipedia should not see this interesting naming convention as Propaganda technique? Just a name, common, you hippie! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what is propaganda or not. You should know this by now. Gaza massacre is the name used by Hamas, we have a number of sources that show that to be the case, and no matter how often you repeat the same irrelevant argument it remains irrelevant. I dont plan on dealing with this anymore except to say if you want to change what has been in the lead for going on 4 months get consensus. Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this massacre rhetoric sparking and venting all the way. Wake up, this is not a consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouting NO doesn't mean much, sorry. Consensus is based on editing and the strength of your arguments. You, nor anybody else, has presented a policy based argument for removing it. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been regurgitated ad nauseum, but I have no problem continuing to put my two cents on the record. There never was a consensus for it's inclusion and there never will be. However, even a consensus for its inclusion means nothing. Under no circumstances can a lead of an article place an blatant lie (lots of dead people does not mean a massacre took place), that is propogandistic and is defamatory to an entire country.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think as to the accuracy of the name, Wikipedia does not say that this was a massacre. Wikipedia says that the Arab world has called this event the Gaza massacre (my preferred version saying Hamas has called this the Gaza massacre). Do you actually dispute that, or is it just you think the name given is defamatory? Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So how exactly can you make a policy based argument to not include it? Tell me exactly what is non-NPOV with this generic formulation. A and B fight some 'war'. A calls it X, B calls it Y, and most of the world calls it Z. The Wikipedia article says the following: "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y." Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You're just stating what the lede says, but instead of using the names and the countries you're using letters. Restating it with letters doesn't make it more rational. The fact remains that one of the names is a defamatory lie and it can't be given prominence in the lede. It's not Wikipedia's fault that one side decided to use a name that is unacceptable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Using letters helps identify whether or not you can show an issue with the lead based on policy. I really dont want to argue with you on whether or not it is a 'lie', but what you are saying is that because Hamas used a, lets just say objectionable to some, name for the event, that Wikipedia should then not allow that name to be given the same representation as the name the Israeli government has used, which I might add has been criticized as being objectionable to some. That is an argument I cannot accept, it has no basis in policy and depends only on ones personal perceptions. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And would you mind pointing out the irrationality in the "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y."? Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You don't want to argue whether it is a lie, but that's the crux of the issue. You equating the "objections" as if both sides objections' are on the same ground. While the P's have problem with the I's terming the operation as a song (i'm sure they didn't think it would last that long. i'm sure the operation-namers [who actually has that job?] would have come up something better like "operation defense of the homeland" had they known what would occur) it does not compare the I's objection to the P's name. Granted, a song is somewhat mocking and cheapening and there are grounds for objections to that name. On the hand, these objections do not compare to the objections of being accused of systematically and purposefully killing civilians, which is the mainstream definition of "massacre." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

10x dudes for teaching me defamatory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cannot just remove a name that has been stable in the article without consensus, please refrain from doing so unless you have a consensus. Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for its inclusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a 'wide' consensus, but if you look in the archives I think you will find that there had been a 'rough' consensus (and not just made up of the 'pro-P' editors) that the name should be included. That said, consensus is a result of editing, and anything that has been stable in this article for so long I think would be fair to say is a consensus based. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And are you really advocating this unilateral removal, something that would likely spark an edit war among a number of editors? Nableezy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1 warning about this, though he has been warned for numerous other removals of sourced info because he didnt like it (he was in fact reported to 3rr, I asked the admin to withdraw the complaint when he said he would stop with that type of behavior). And the article has not been stable, the lead has been stable. But my question to you is this. Can you make a policy-based argument for its exclusion? Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you do an archive search on "Gaza Massacre" you will get an insane number of results, with a number of them leading to discussion where both the majority of the editors and the strength of the arguments (strength related to policy) are in favor of its inclusion. Your entire argument here, self-admitted, is that you feel the name is untrue and defamatory. You do not dispute that this is the name used by Hamas. The truth of the name is irrelevant, all that matters here is what has Hamas called this conflict. The answer to that question belongs in the lead, just as the answer to the question what has the Israeli government called this conflict belongs in the lead. To argue otherwise is to argue against NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Including "massacre" in the lede is unencyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. If Hamas chose to use a propagindistic and blatantly defamatory term for the war it does not mean that it warrants inclusion in the lede, just like lots of things that they say do not belong in encyclopedia articles. It doesn't make a difference that they are a party to the war. Not one reliable mainstream source makes any mention that Hamas called this war the "Gaza Massacre". If after all that was written about the war, not one mainstream source found it important to say that Hamas calls this war the "Gaza Massare", the war's WP article should not include that information. The lede's claim that Hamas calls it the Gaza War is the only statement in the whole entire article that cannot be sourced to to a mainstream source. Did Hamas call it a "massacre"? Sure. But they say lots of things. It is up to the mainstream sources to decide which Hamas statements they find newsworthy and which they don't find newsworthy. What is clear at this point, is that mainstream sources do not consider the Hamas name to be newsworthy, thus their name is unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple RS quote Hamas spokesmen using that name. They did not just call it a 'massacre', they explicitly called it the 'gaza massacre'. And take a look at other battle or war articles, the name each side uses is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They might have quoted the Hamas spokesperson who called it the "Gaza Massacre" as part of his general statement, but that doesn't go to the point. Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it for now, till "rough consensus" for wording and section is formed. No place for "edit wars". Let's discuss it in civil way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this the so called 24 hour consensus? This has been beaten to the ground with arguments. And I won't argue this any further. Two people opposing it is not consensus. Thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment in commit refers to OR bellow. Sources do not note X (Hamas, Arab World, Oxford hippies) call this conflict Gaza massacre. From other hand there is source where Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas, called this conflict war: "As we won the Gaza war ...". What event/conflict does he refer to? Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming controversies

How about this, a section in the article discussing the names and issues that people have with the names? You can bring all your sources on defamation and blood libel, and all the sources on issues with naming this after a childrens song as well. The names would stay as the names in the lead with any controversies or complaints about those names in this supposed section. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that idea if not for the fact that it's OR and it's not really a controversy. As far as I know, no reliable sources consider this naming issue to be a controversy. The whole "controversy" is going on only here at WP. The mainstream sources have basically ignored this "massacre" term and rightfully think that mentioning this defamatory and untruthful term isn't worth the paper its printed on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it isnt really OR, there are sources bringing up issues with each name, maybe controversy isnt the right word for it though. And mainstream sources (albeit Arab news sources) have in fact used that as the name on occasion, there is a bbc arabic source using it, al-arabiyya used it as well. Just a thought, gets shot down dont care too much. (and i really do refuse to argue about the truthfulness of the name, because i like you and dont want to make you cry, and my opinion doesnt mean much as far as the article goes. but the biggest reason is that i dont think it matters, it is truthful to say that Hamas used this as the name, WP does not say that this was a massacre so i dont see what the issue is) Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas thinks that Jews originate from Apes, should their opinion be placed in the lede of Jew?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. And you dont see the difference there? Hamas is a party to this conflict, in fact a primary party to this conflict. The name they use for this conflict needs to be included, just as the name the Israeli government uses for it needs to be included. Nableezy (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and we have been through this ad naseum. No one can deny its used by Hamas. No one can deny Hamas is one of two main parties to the main conflict. No one can deny that the Israeli name for the operation is bolded and that Cast Lead refers to some religious children's song (making it somewhat offensive to some people out there). No one can deny some people out there are offended by Gaza Massacre. None of this matters. What matters is given all significant POVs their due representation per NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and apropos libel), "cast lead" doesn't refer to a "religious children's song". It refers to a Hanukkah song by Bialik. The conflict started during Hanukkah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@Nab: There's not much of a difference. Hamas, and Islam in general, play a major part in forming Judaism, how Jews think, how Jews choose to live their lives, etc. Thus, if they think that only Jews originate from monkeys or pigs, their opinion of Jews is as relevant to the lede of Jew as their misconceived, defamatory and propagandistic name they decided to give to the war is relevant to the lede of the war article. For further detailed and specific policy violations, see subsection above and below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we're getting off topic here, discussing common roots, it was interesting to learn that Islam rejects the Biblical portrayal of David (Arabic Dawood) as an adulterer and murderer. Kind of controversy avoided. I was relieved that Bathsheba still marries David after all. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming WP:OR

Danger Danger - High Voltage Dreidel

Wikipedia procedures rule big time. None of the sources note "X (Hamas,Arab World,Oxford hippies) name for Y (Gaza war) is Z (massacre)". To some fellow editors naming claim looks like WP:OR. Is there ground for removal? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've searched high and low for a reliable source that states "Hamas calls the war the "Gaza Massacre" but have yet to find one. Thus, WP's use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean noted that wp:n does not apply to article content though (see WP:NNC). In my eyes the ease of changing variable X value with Hamas, Arab world or Oxford hippies demonstrate original research claim. If anyone disagrees with WP:OR argument please step in, your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

you are removing a name that is sourced to statements by Hamas. That is not OR, if you want change it to say multiple Hamas spokesmen have named the conflict the Gaza massacre. but you are trying to censor out a name given by one side. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon. This change has been discussed ad nauseum. See above. More in archives. Basically we're guided by WP:OR. More experienced fellow editors explained: "RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that". Thank you for your understanding. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

@IP. We don't know that they named it the "Gaza Massacre". NO reliable source has said so. Our synthesizing of Hamas spokesperson statements is WP:OR. In addition, the name is WP:UNDUE- violative. You see, if no reliable sources felt it was newsworthy to report what name the Hamas spokesperson called this war(whenever people die as a result of Israeli actions they have a tendency to automatically call the incident a "massacre"), it is obviously not that notable. So is mainstream sources think it's unimportant, our emphasis of this information in the lede violates WP:UNDUE. A better place for this information, assuming the WP:OR is resolved, is in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Propaganda and psychological warfare section of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

you both miss the point, you want to censor out the name given by Hamas, and you have statements from Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre. that is censorship because you dont like the name they gave. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear friend, please assume good faith here. Please respond to Wikipedia procedure argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

you apparently think that the only names that matter are the names the Israeli government uses. Wikipedia doesnt work that way, at least it shouldnt if it does. This is garbage, I have read your comments above, you want to remove it because you think it is defamatory or untrue. Sorry, but a whole bunch of the world think that this was a massacre, and you want to remove what the other side has called it out of a sense of defending the national image. That is great that you feel that conviction, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to exercise that defense. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all it will improve this discussion if you spare some time and register into Wikipedia. While we're all undeniably humans, still try to assume good faith. We're guided by Wikipedia procedures. Please respond to WP:OR argument. Would you like to bring new reliable source to resolve WP:OR issue? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

@IP. They surely don't think it was a massacre. The mainstream definition of a massacre is the "systematic and intentional murder of large group of defenseless people." What happned in Gaza doesn't come close to that definition. Why some choose to call it a "massacre" despite the fact that it is clearly not a massacre, I don't know. But regardless, it all depends on what mainstream reliable sources say. All these sources have totally ignored name. They might have ignored the term because they don't lower themselves to using blatantly untrue, propogandistic and defamatory names, or because they know that calling Israeli actions "massacres" is old news, or simply because all the mainstream sources are run by the Elders of Zion. It doesn't really make a difference why they decided to ignore the name. If they decided to ignore the name, our empahsis of the name in the lede vioaltes WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It cant be UNDUE because we give one line to it, it cant be OR because we have statements from Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre, hell we even have a BBC Arabic source calling it the Gaza massacre. Get off it, you know you want to remove because you dont like that they called it that, you even admitted above you do not dispute that they call it that but want it gone because you think it is defamatory. 64.53.208.76 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, give one line to it is not very strong argument in my eyes.

• Factually, with all due respect ( and there is a respect ) the Gaza government used Gaza War name. How do we know that this is the same event?
• Did you follow Al Jazeera English reports and how did they call this event?

And believe me everybody aware that Gaza massacre rhetoric is used a lot, and not only in the Arab world. Nobody denies it.. While Wikipedia is not censored, the material included should be according to Wikipedia policies. See top of this talk page for links. Open yourself an WP account and dive in. Your opinion is welcome. Current one line does not stand WP:OR standard. Could you relate to this argument? Or still think of fellow editors in terms of "secret identity"? Keep cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The UNDUE issue doesn't really require debate because of the WP:OR problem. Regardless, even if it were one line it is in the opening paragraph of the long article and it is in bold. So it is UNDUE. A perfect place for this information, that would not be wp:undue-violative, is at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Propaganda and psychological warfare.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. RS weren't the ones who called the war Operation Cast Lead, they were simply repeating the name giving by Israel. In the same way, RS have repeated the name giving by Hamas. That it was called a war by other RS is not the end of the world. Can we move on, this is dumb. Cryptonio (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, what is your point?

(1) We should remove Operation ...

(2) WP:OR is useless

Stay cool AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

@Cryptonio. The mainstream sources that refer to "Cast Lead" have either used the name as a matter of fact or they have said that Israel refers to the operations as "Case Lead". On the other hand, no mainstream sources have yet to be presented in which they refer to operation as the "Gaza Massacre" or have even said that some in the Arab media refer to the operation as the "Gaza Massacre." Its obvious that some in the Arab media refer to the incident as the "Gaza Massacre". But if mainstream sources have effectively ignored this naming, our emphasis of this name in the lead is wp:synth-problematic and wp:undue-violative. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are saying mainstream sources, i said RS. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They're synonymous, fapp. You may interchange "mainstream" with "reliable" in any comment of mine. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's try this again then. RS did not named the operation as Cast Lead, they simply repeated it, after hearing the Israeli use that name. Any RS then, who repeats Massacre, are not doing so by naming the operation, they are simply repeating what Hamas said. Then, whatever it is that you are asking, in order to say "If a RS 'calls it' that than it's oka" does not make any sense, simply because they are not "naming" the operation, they are simply repeating what they've heard. Don't believe what I'm saying?...check it.

"no mainstream sources have yet to be presented in which they refer to operation as the "Gaza Massacre" or have even said that some in the Arab media refer to the operation as the "Gaza Massacre."

No RS have been presented who has called the operation as Cast Lead, I'm sure they have made a point that that's the name giving by Israel. That the Arab media hasn't refer to the war as one thing over the other is of no concern here, because the Arab(nor the Israeli) media have no say on this(on what to call the operation, thus the media refers to the fighting as a war). The Israeli media repeats what the IDF called the operation, again, they are not naming the operation themselves, and if they were, well, that's them. More than ample RS have been presented where Hamas refers to the operation as the Gaza Massacre(and thus, the Arab media, repeats what Hamas called the operation). Capiche? i surely hope so... Cryptonio (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the difference. The RS have repeated the operational name, they haven't repeated the massacre name. The only sources we have for the massacre name are primary sources using the term and parts of exact quotes used by Hamas spokesmen. There are no reliable sources out there saying that "Hamas calls the situation in Gaza the 'Gaza Massacre'". There are plenty of sources out there saying that Israel calls the operation "Operation Cast Lead."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

nanos gigantum humeris insidentes

I'd just like to point out that the great Robert Fisk in this piece refers to the war as "Israel's Gaza shenanigans". I suggest replacing both Operation Cast Lead and the Gaza Massacre with that to settle the matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not OR and it is a nonsensical position to take, as we have multiple statements from Hamas calling it this. If you want to remove that then also remove every statement from a non-secondary source from the Israeli MFA or the IDF or the IICT. stop playimg fast with the rules to support your agenda. Gandusaleh (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would suggest removing both terms, Operational Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre. Although reliable sources do give coverage to the operation name and don't give coverage to the propagandistic name, if that is what it would take to make the article's lede somewhat mainstream, that's what we'll have to do. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer Maybe Sean would call your suggestion kind of "false balance". Though I'm also open to compromise.

@Sean A sane compromise. Cool name source though. Maybe we could start "Semiotic naming" section. Massacre might also be very encyclopedic addition there :). Do you think (2) WP:OR is useless?

@Gandusaleh, Fully agree on bullshit.. Contributing to Wikipedia is a serious business, though sometimes "secret identity" helps ;) Did you saw sources report Hamas leader speaking about "Gaza war", which is actually an article name now? Amazingly all sides agree, though you somehow continue to dispute it. From other hand sources report about individuals and institutions in the "Western world" using the massacre rhetoric. Look above. You mentioned you are an experienced Wikipedian. Could you relate to OR/SYNTH argument? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

i already addressed the or claim, and your one source somehow shows the others with thrm using gaza massacre null how? and notice how i said remove every primary source not just the cast leas, have some consistency for fucks sake, if you want to get rid of this line remove everything refereincing the israeli mfa or the idf or the iict or whatever else. but i have a feeling yall wont do that. Gandusaleh (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gandusaleh, I hear you carefully.

OR regarding "Arab world name" still stands. Many in Arab world used other "names" and "Western world hippies" used massacre. Do you see any logic in this argument? Current wording is problematic at least, since it's a result of OR/SYNTH.

Regarding secondary/primary sources I don't see any problem if used neutrally and add information. If you see any specific cases of "Israeli domination" in the article, go ahead and fix it. I'm sure you know how to edit WP articles. I would not like to get to the situation where one OR justifies another. This would be "false balance".

Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

you do not decide on your own what is OR stop this nonsense and stop removing the same information again and again. you have been reverted by multiple editors over this, only you and brewcrewer see an issue. stop with the nonsense. Gandusaleh (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I'm a dwarf myself, though I carefully listen to other editors opinion. More experienced fellow editors explained: "RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that". Thank you for your understanding. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see irksome editing. There were what 10 sources calling this the Gaza Massacre? the long list of sources was trimmed down for flow, search the archives if you like -- anyway it is apparent but irrelevant that some editors don't like that term. Use the lead that has stood for months unless there is a clear consensus to remove content, which there is not. Reverting. RomaC (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like terrific recipe for WP:SYNTH: take zillion of sources, stir fry all together and make a conclusion none of the sources make. In my eyes not tasty. Some editors think OR should be removed. Consensus usually required for inclusion and see above a surprise: some editors admit that the consensous for inclusion is not "very wide". See what I mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks God we got Google! Much more than 10 sources with this query. You could try it just for fun :). Would it be NPOV to restore מלחמה בדרום now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No question "War in (the) South" was used by Hebrew-language media, was it more widely used than "Operation Cast Lead," do you think?RomaC (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, but thanks to Google (again), "Operation Cast Lead" (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) generates less (about half) hits than "War in (the) South". Surprise, surprise. Still first hit for "operation" is Hebrew language WP article describing this conflict. So I personally say be really NPOV and cut both South and Massacre out of lead, to improve encyclopedic value of this article. See any logic in this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a blank page would be the most neutral do you agree? RomaC (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the event should be described. The question is how. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How about, the way the principal parties term it? (By the way I see 429,000 Google hits for مجزرة غزة "Gaza Massacre" including Arabic Wiki!) Thanks G-d we got Google indeed! RomaC (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I personally do not know, many terms and rhetoric were used. Still, principal Khaled Mashal used "Gaza War" name for event. I guess goes better with victory. How much Google hits such Arabic language query generates, please help ;). Anyway let's put Google a side. Please address the claim that current wording for massacre actually not supported by reliable sources, thus it is an OR. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that is the argument you are presenting. But many times we had many pages of discussion on this, and reached a consensus for inclusion, do you agree? Peace. RomaC (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How about

8	6	4	2
7	5	3	1

Back to square one

...conducting a survey just out of interest to get a feeling for consensus on this issue ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I hope RomaC could explain his/her position on OR argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Delighted to hear you think consensus would be nice. Meanwhile stop removing content from the lead. Do I understand that you are suggesting the term in question was not used by the Gaza government and many if not most Arab media to refer to the event this article covers? Have you seen the discussions in the archives, where some ten sources were provided to show that the term in question was used in this way? (These were trimmed to streamline the article.) Can you please address those sources if you want to challenge the term's usage. That would be the way to proceed if you seek to remove content from the lead of an article, per the box atop this page: "Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing." Thanks awaiting your comments on the sources you can find in the archives. RomaC (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure you understand the argument. The term was used a lot all right. No argument about it. Please pay attention: none of the sources state "X name for Y event is Z", where X is Israeli media or Gaza government or Oxford hippies, Y is conflict or war or operation and Z is War in the South or Gaza Massacre. So basically, what currently happens in the lead (and being removed) is WP:Synth of sources and drawing a conclusion none of the sources made. I think it is called WP:OR. OR should be removed. What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully the above looks a lot like wikilawyering to me, and I'll raise that wikilawyering with a nonsequitur. Is your argument that if a reliable source uses a term to describe an event, re naming conventions, Wikipedia should ignore the term unless the reference is phrased in the way you want, ie, "X name for Y event is Z"? I think you misunderstand WP:Synth. For example, say a POV-pushing editor cited plenty of sources terming this "Israel's war on Hamas" and then added plenty of sources saying "Hamas is a terrorist group" and then tried to name this event "Israel's war on Terror." That would be a synthesis and maybe we don't see that sort of thing here because we are all reasonable Wikipedians what do you think? RomaC (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I love you vocabulary. Please don't get me wrong, I do not object to usage of "Gaza Massacre" term, I just argue about wording and appropriate article section. It could be a nice addition to Propaganda section of this article. I agree that one kind of Synth/OR is when one source notes A>B and another source notes B>C and some editor combines those according to transitivity rule and adds to ABC article A>C based on those two sources. Transitivity works well in mathematical logic but Wikipedia sees it as WP:SYNTH. Totally agree swith you on this point. Fellow editors noted that current lead wording is another kind of Synth/OR. When some editor finds one source from say Japan that notes "number 1 is power of 2" and another source also surprisingly from Japan that notes "number 2 is power of 2" and so on. When editor gathers dozen of such Japan sources she is convinced that Integer article should have following wording "In Japan integers numbers are power of 2". Surprise, she could get practically infinite number of Japan sources to support such [[WP::OR]] if she searches Google with "Japan and integer number and power of 2" query. Would such an addition to Integer article be an OR/Synth? How Al Jezeera and Khaled Mashaal called an even described in this article? Are those part of the Arab world? Are Oxford hippies who use the mentioned rhetoric now included in the Arab world? More experienced editors than humble me mentioned current wording is OR. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My position is that you will have to find a suitable replacement that others can agree to (instead of just deleting what we have now). Also, it doesn't belong in the propaganda section because that is of course your POV, you will have to find reliable sources that make this claim. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome into discussion. Thank you for your constructive approach. Your revert was endorsed by Sceptic Ashdod. From other hand Nableeze mentioned the consensous for inclusion is not very wide. Everybody agrees (including myself) that Gaza Massacre as a term was clearly notable. Still current wording is an OR, according to number of editors including myself. IMHO naming dispute in lede is obsolete in current article state, after rename, especially considering that Khaled Mashal used Gaza War name. I'm open for suggestions. What do you propose? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not competent enough to contribute the discussion seriously. But, speaking of suggestions, how about: 'To some extent, in Arab world the war is referred as 'Gaza Massacre', providing several sources including arab-language ones? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Khaled Mashal wrote that "families have been massacred" [26], so he also considers the attacks to be a massacre. I do think that the event is commonly known as a massacre by the Arab media and politicians. I am not sure exactly what is the problem. If you guys think that the Gaza massacre is not a commonly used term in the Arab world to refer to the attacks, and there are other more common terms, please bring the sources and we will sort through them. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nableeze mentioned earlier that according to Khaled Mashal "Victory" is an outcome and not a name. I'll rephrase him and say that according to critics of Israel in general the process was "Massacre". Reliable sources do not support current wording: Arab world does not have exclusive rights on "Massacre" term, I think that Richard Falk and Norman G. Finkelstein would agree, and surprise both are Jewish. Moreover Hebrew translation of the term (טבח בעזה) gets considerable number of Google hits, though usually it is being "quoted", more or less like "Victory". I hope you would not argue that non partisan sources in the Arab world used Gaza War name, which is an article name now. Current wording is an OR. OR should be removed. If you want replacement, please go ahead and be bold, but please follow Wikipedia policies. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR, you and brew are the only ones who think it is. It was the name used by Hamas, that is all that is needed for inclusion. Please just stop this. We have gone through this too many times. Nableezy (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahlan, Nableezy. Welcome back, how was your trip? I hope you remember all the editors who noted that current wording is unacceptable. Regarding OR rational, please don't forget Cptnono, who started this madness with his "RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that". Could you address this argument? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My trip was fine, thank you. The ones who said it was unacceptable, lets see; Cptnono said it wasnt that big a deal to him, Tundrabuggy has been banned for being a sockpuppet of a banned user; that leaves Brewcrewer and yourself. As far as Cptnono's original comment, the sources dont explicitly say Hamas or whoever has called it that, they quote Hamas or whoever calling it that and attribute that quote to Hamas. A number of users have challenged your belief that this is OR. We have had this conversation too many times and it has taken too much time from all of us. This has been in the lead, supported by upwards of 12 citations at one point, for going on 5 months now. This discussion gets rehashed over and over, and it is tiring to deal with. This is not OR, we have multiple statements from Hamas spokesmen using this as the name. This is not NPOV-violative, we have the name both sides have used in the conflict in the lead. I understand you do not like the term used, but even Brewcrewer himself said he did not dispute that this was the name used by Hamas, he initially said he wanted it removed on the basis of it being 'defamatory'. That is not an acceptable reason. He then introduced the OR argument, which you have continued to repeat, which has been rejected by numerous users as well. You are the only one making edits to the article removing the name, and you have been reverted by numerous other editors. This point has been settled for some time, and to continue to argue in the hopes that others will yield out of exhaustion is becoming increasingly annoying. I ask that you drop this, let this thread be archived so we can move on to other areas of the article, where as it stands there are numerous sections that are in need of a complete overhaul. The first paragraph of the article is not one of those sections. Nableezy (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed your trip. You somehow forget all the countless readers who said "WTF name it is" during the "consensous" period. I'm sure this is going to be venting and sparking. Anyway I'll accept Hamas instead of Arab World as a compromise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Middle East Times is not an Arab source nor based in the Arab World. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, my mistake. I thought it is Lebanon based. Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments above, respectfully let's move on there is much to be done and pushing for a false compromise is not productive. RomaC (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)