Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

This in International Law section

"The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was later suspended with pay by HRW after pro-Israeli bloggers raised questions about his objectivity after it was publicized that he is a collector of Nazi German military memorabilia.[327]. Garlasco has since responded to those accusations, arguing that although he had such a hobby, he had no Nazi sympathies and condemned their actions during WWII. [328]."

Is it obsolet after the Goldstone Report and/or doubtful witchhunt that dont fit here? I plan to remove it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to undue what has already been discussed and debated at length. The wording and phrasing was decided upon after much back and forth wrangling and YOU, decide that YOU don't like it. Next time wake up and join the debate while it's ongoing--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. What is this connection between the HRW report on white phosphorus and Garlasco's hobby ? Who is saying that criticisms 'were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco' ? The report on white phosphorus wasn't researched and written by Garlasco alone. It was researched/written by Garlasco together with Fred Abrahams, Bill van Esveld, Fares Akram, Darryl Li and edited by Joe Stork, James Ross, Iain Levine with assistance from the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. HRW have stated that they stand by the report's contents. Amnesty International published similar findings independently. The UN made statements about WP use while it was being used. Then there is the Goldstone report along with many other reports. This is an encyclopedia. Including nonsense is discouraged no matter how much much back and forth wrangling has taken place. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You think some dude with a Nazi fetish can write objectively about Jews? It is absolutely relevant and only adds some perspective.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you twisting this more than Israeli lobbygrops do. They atlest stop with claiming he was collecting Nazi German military memorabilia. WW2 military memorabilia is another description. Dont sound as bad. Have you heard of 'gentiles bad conscience'? Invoked when Israels good name is thretened and argument is missing? And isnt this article under Wikipedia general sanctions? Time to invoke them now better than late. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think is that your comments (and actions) are inconsistant with the discretionary sanctions, constitute a BLP violation and don't address the issues I raised above. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco was HRW's prime military analyst and authored several critical and scathing reports dealing with the IDF's use of certain weapons, including white phospherous. "Reign of Fire" is but one of those reports. Goldstone borrowed heavily from Garlasco when compiling his report. Garlasco was suspended from HRW due to his troubling interactions with Nazis in various online chat rooms and forums. This is absolutely relevant and should absolutely be an integral part of the article. I had a lenghthy discussion on this Talk page regarding this issue and compromise language was hammered out. Where were you then?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for 'Goldstone borrowed heavily from Garlasco when compiling his report' ? The Goldstone report cites HRW's report along with other sources like Amnesty's report, PHR and the UN's own statements about damage to their facilities caused by WP. It's not Garlasco's report. It's an official HRW report about the use of WP in the Gaza Strip during Cast Lead produced by HRW staff, edited and approved by their directors which is currently endorsed by HRW despite Garlasco's suspension. Many other sources published and commented on WP use. My understanding is that the section in the article is about WP use rather than a particular HRW staff member. Where was I ? I don't know. Probably in a forest in Malaysia. Thanks for asking though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

check out this link. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hamas-exploitation-civilians-human-shields I'm going to reinsert the edit based on this and the previously cited source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Israeli Government report notes however that the test applied by the Board was merely whether the physical premises of U.N. facilities had been affected and not whether the Laws of Armed Conflict were violated." Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

All of your edits have taken place after much debate and established consensus. I noticed that all of your reverts have a biased undertone and add nothing constructive to the article. Also, your grammar and spelling are atrocious. Take an English class and some spelling lessons--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, your edits are far from free of bias i unfortunatly have to say when subject is up. About my sad english there is wikignomes around happily helping. But see my argumentation below that editconflicted with your edit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More

I removed these parts from the International law section. I will exlpain why they should remain removed.

• Incorrect. According to Goldstone there is evidence that the Israeli side abused the laws of war.
• Undue weight. A cherrypicked military analyst defending israel is not necessary when israel already stated that 'use of force in Gaza are acts of self-defense' etc
• Not NPOV. Read the whole section and see how much space the Israeli pov fill up compared to the parts reporting of human rights abuse fill up. And compare it with the proportions in the Palestinian subsection, the reports of warcrimes vs the Hamas respons.

The parts below and the one above shouldnt be in the article by argumentation. And size matters. *vinvinknotchnotch*

" A study by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that while "War is inherently horrible," there was "no evidence" that the Israeli side abused the laws of war and that "Israel‘s actions must also be placed in the broader context of how Hamas chose to deploy and use the equivalent of human shields."[40]

Cordesman’s view was shared by former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp, who, in an interview with the BBC stated, “I don’t think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.” [328] " Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC) editconflict...

Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, I think its time for you to keep a respectfull tone and dont fall into personal attacks. An you have to assume good faith. Point to the incoherent, illogical arguments and I rewrite them. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Before making broad stroke edits and reversions, I suggest you consult the discussion page to see if the matter has already been discussed and remember, reversion is a double edged sword.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Bold edits are fine. Maby you misscomprehend bold edit with editwarring? Its different things I assume you know. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Wikipedia article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to refrain from personal attacks and remain civil. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu, Talk is not a place for unsolicited educational counseling, which can come off as smug or arrogant. By the way you misspelled "grammatically." Also you are calling another editor a butcher and a rogue. Is that civil, do you think? RomaC (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth RomaC. I didn't call anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered." That's precisely the word I used. Don't attribute things to me that are patently false.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there is a whole article devoted to Intl law. We just need a summary here but detail and anything that casues an excess of additional lines to explain clearly should probably go to International law and the Gaza War.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not civil. But it's also not civil to start blanket reversions after the matter has been discussed and debated ad-nauseum and compromise language is hammered out and agreed to. Perhaps I should start re-introducing edits that after much debate, were reverted. I wouldn't do that because that would result in complete chaos not to mention disrespectful to all the others. But this is precisely what Anon is doing--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsu, according to the User contributions you are about a month old user, the discussions about the International Law- section is nowhere to be found in archive during this period and as far as I see you didnt participat in any discussion about it, and less concensusbuilding. I find it strange you bring that debate with emphasis and apparently with good knowledge about individual edits (found what I think you mean, but dont agrea ). Btw, as another editor recently wrote concensus is concensus untill it is challenged. Now back to work/editing Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the spelling and somewhat reworded the above argumentation so its hopefully understandeble. Reread and discuss instead of... bicker(?), Jiujitsuguy. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent series of edits

The set of edits by Jiujitsuguy seem problematic. Two were reverted rather than going through one-by one I've looked at then reverted the lot. Please don't remove content because (your edit summary) "Explantion for attacks on dual use facilities was reverted so entire subject of collateral damage will be reverted", this "Something I don't like happened so I'm removing other content" is grade-school stuff and I am sick of it. Also edit summaries like "Garlasco Nazi fetish" are just wrong, guy. Leave blatant POV out of it, it's not necessary as it's clear already where you're coming from (mosques and schools as "dual use" military facilities ahem) Plus you have been just now attacking another editor on this page, also a no-no. So all things considered I'm going to politely suggest you cool down then participate in discussions. Thank you, RomaC (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start any of this. I was offline for a few days and when I came back, entire sections that had been an integral part of the article for quite some time had been removed without debate or discussion and that's fine if you want chaos. Now I understand that we've all got different points of view but to act in this sort of unilateral fashion is just counter-productive and nobody wins.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Again. An edit summary reading "What you consider minor may not be minor to others. The material cited is sourced and relevant." illustrates a problem that other editors are having with your behavior. This is combative, the issue is not what you consider minor or important, but what is appropriate for the article. Finding a source that says Goldstone might have napped at a meeting is not enough to justify placing this in the article on the Gaza war. Yours is a new account focused almost entirely on advancing a pro-Israeli government POV. You have been informed that this article is subject to Wiki general sanctions, please act accordingly. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Beersheba and Ashdod

, hitting cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time. I don't care where it goes or how it is worded too much but these cities being hit for the first time is important from a weaponry stand point due to the distance. There some cool graphs available in commons, too. It should be reinstated somewhere but should be clarified so it is inline with the sources.Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed if there are sources that cover the cities being hit from a weaponry standpoint -- and there should be because these hits were said to have represented a new and longer strike range for Hamas rockets -- then it could be noted, perhaps in the "Palestinian paramilitary activity" section? Correspondingly, Gaza locations, such as a list of Mosques that had not been hit before, could be included in an appropriate section. RomaC (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire

There are two points I'd like to make here. First, the lead makes clear that Israel targeted "mosques, schools and private homes." Attempts to add the following qualification, "becuase Israel believed they were used as military platforms" or phrasing to that effect, were reverted. Now you have to be fair and balanced here. If you say that one side attacked civilian infrastructure, then provide an explanation as to why it was targetd. It is well known and established that Hamas hit civilian targets. Just look at how many Israeli civilians were killed and injured as a result of indiscriminate rocket attacks since 2002. Clinics, schools and synogouges were also hit and I have sources for this. Second, I think it's a two-way street here and both sides have to be fully presented for the article to obtain a level of jounalistic objectivity and integrity that nearly all editors desire. We don't want the article degenerating into a platform for one side or the other--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You have totally missunderstod Wikipedia. It is not about journalism. It is an encyclopedia. NPOV is the thing here. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

International law

This:

"Private Israeli citizens did meet with Goldstone. However, Goldstone reportedly snoozed during the course of a viewing of a movie showing children fleeing from Hamas rocket fire[323] and omitted the testimony of an Israeli woman disfigured by Hamas rockets.[324]"

Is someone trying to bury United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2008 Gaza Conflict with nonsence character attacks on Richard Goldstone? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This:

"The report was met with mixed and contradictory reviews by Hamas"

OR, SYNTH or just intentional introduction of uncertainty doubt? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How come the israel pov parts with Anthony Cordesman Colonel and Richard Kemp ideas is presented over and before The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) and its independent international fact-finding mission. And are they notably enough to be within section at all when there is a main article in this subject? All from one sorce each, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [[1]] and a publication from CSIS [[2]]. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Please go look at the number of Stars of David on user pages of contributors to this article before saying silly things. You might notice lots of green, white, red, and black. Don't forget to sign your comments..Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"War against Hamas" and "Gaza massacre"

1

Each of the sources cited are using that phrase as a description, none of them are using it as a name of the conflict. If sources can be found using it as a name it can go in, but these sources dont. nableezy - 06:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it as a description, not a name, at the end of the paragraph with another commonly used name "assault on Gaza". nableezy - 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Explain please how it differs from the use of Gaza "massacre" being used as a description and not a name? Where are the sources given for that? There are over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas. I think it would be appropriate to describe it as Israel does as Operation Cast Lead, one operation by Israel in Hamas' war against Israel , or Hamas' terror war against Israel,. Operation Cast Lead is the name of an operation and is only part of the actual Gaza war. It is a subset of the larger war against Hamas. I would appreciate the answers but particularly to the one about the sources given for "massacre" being a distinctive name and not a mere description/opinion. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) ps. "Gaza Massacre" (in quotes) only gets some 88,000 ghits, as opposed to over a million for "Israel's war against Hamas." In English it is apparently not the most common name by far, so why should it be emboldened and enshrined in the lede in the English Wikipedia? Stellarkid (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For interest can you post a url for the 'over a million ghits on "Israel's war against Hamas"' result ? I can't replicate it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) How is it different than "the Gaza massacre"? For one there are numerous statements by Hamas officials calling it, as the name of the conflict, "the Gaza massacre". This had many more sources that were removed as it was argued they were not needed. There are also numerous Arabic language media using the Arabic words "مجزرة غزة", again, as the name of the conflict. Some of the sources for this that are not in the article are this, this and this. In each of those sources it used as the name, not simply a description. nableezy - 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as "Cast Lead" being only a part of the "Gaza war", sources call the "Gaza war", in its entirety, what the Israeli government calls "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And also regarding your google hit argument, the news search for "Israel's war against Hamas" over 2009 results in 39 hits, with "gaza massacre" over the same period having 285, with the Arabic words (which is what we are looking for) resulting in another 643 hits over 2009. A general search of the Arabic words gets another 203,000 hits. And it is not "enshrined" in the lead, it is placed in bold because that is the name one of the belligerents used, the same reason Operation Cast Lead is placed in bold text. nableezy - 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For Sean.hoyland, for "Israel's war against Hamas" see:  : [3] and for "Gaza Massacre" see: [4] Stellarkid (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is correct. I would modify it, though. "Israel's War Against Hamas" yields 42 hits in a Google NEWS search between 12/27/08 to present. "The Gaza Massacre" has 75. Interestingly, Israel's war against Hamas is most often used to describe the events and is not used a proper noun (capped). Removing "The" from "Gazza massacre" causes the hits to increase to 4,800 showing that it also is used to describe the conflict and not as a title. I think both need to go and expansion on "massacre" can take place in the prose. 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, by some "Gaza massacre" is used as a description. By Hamas, and the other sources in Arabic I listed above, however it is used as the name. nableezy - 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>For Nableezy - your ghits in news (not counting regular google) for 2009 alone: For "Israel's war against Hamas"[5] yields 39 (basic) hits including such a blue ribbon cast as Canada.com, Time, Spiegel Online, Montreal Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Times of India, International Herald Tribune, ABS CBN News, NY Times, NPR, Kansas City Star, USA Today, Toronto Star, National Post, Times of India, Tehran Times, and of course Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Haaretz. pardon my spelling.

"Gaza massacre" using the same perimeters (2009 news stories only) yields 129 hits. [6]. I would remind you that google news stories are not the only ones to determine what something is commonly called, we can also use regular ghits. Be that as it may, the 129 includes BBC, Pacific Free Press, Islam Online, several Arab presses, WorldBulletin.net. CBS uses the expression in quotes to quote Ahmadinjad, and then includes some 30 more hits in their comments page. Other sites like BBC and Guardian use "Gaza massacre" either in quoting or in opinion pieces. Subtracting quotes and opinion pieces, I say that under your perimeters, "Israel's war against Hamas" has the edge for well-respected news reports, as well as for general usage as I pointed out in the above regular ghit to Sean.hoyland. Stellarkid (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader. Stellarkid (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Arabic sources are perfectly acceptable, and Hebrew sources are commonly used. And the idea we should exclude Arabic sources when looking for the name. And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as. Take a look at other articles like Yom Kippur War, you will see names used by each of the belligerents. This is an English language encyclopedia but that does not mean we ignore what the rest of the world says. nableezy - 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding why the names are there. We give the common English name of the event, the "Gaza War". Then we give the name each of the belligerents used, "Operation Cast Lead" and "Gaza massacre". We are not saying these are alternative English names or descriptions of the event. We say these are the names each "side" used to refer to what we call the "Gaza War". If you are trying to convince me that "Israel's War against Hamas" is more common than "Gaza massacre" as an English description of what we on Wikipedia call the "Gaza War" then consider the goal accomplished. But "Gaza massacre" is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza. The only relevance the most common English name has to this page is the title of the page. And the most common English name for the event is the Gaza War. Other than that I really dont see why you would compare an English name with an Arabic name as if that means something. nableezy - 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to common names by the belligerents, I don't believe Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre. It may have been referred to as such in a few PR events/releases but they also labeled it a victory in others. I don't read Arabic and I don't have any publications from Hamas so it I am relying on what I would consider common sense. It looks like the massacre term was cherry picked. I see nothing wrong with using a foreign source but it is frustrating that I cannot verify it personally to get a better picture. Not using foreign language soures all together woult be terrible, though.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The victory label, in every single original Arabic quote I have seen, was called the "victory in Gaza". That is not the case with the "Gaza massacre". But at least that is the correct argument to make, not that another phrase is more common in English. nableezy - 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And there are still new sources with Hamas using this as the name: (hope yall trust me on the translations)

وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية".
translation: Abu Zuhri (Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman) said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre [مجزرة غزة] on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)^[7]

nableezy - 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Absolutely not true?" Please see this policy.

English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

If it is true what you say

"But 'Gaza massacre' is not there as an English name of the event. It is there as the common Arabic name of the event used by many Arab news agencies, and most importantly, by the government of Gaza."

why would it not be equally important to include what the government of Israel calls it and the newspapers of Israel as well as the presses of several other non-middle eastern countries (ie NPR, Time, NYTimes, India Times etc)? I have provided a link that demonstrates that the Israel refers to this as "war against Hamas." See also this. Further, the "Israel's war against Hamas" does not include a value judgment by one side, nor does the use of the (highly loaded, highlighted, value judgment, opinionated, one-sided, arguable) term "massacre." I cannot see how you can justify including such a term in the lede on the basis that the "government of Gaza" refers to it as such (source, please), but at the same time have no problem relegating (the benign) "Israel's war against Hamas" (what Israel calls it) to the bottom of the page. Stellarkid (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Read that line again. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. What sources do you expect to publish the Arabic speeches of Arab politicians and spokespersons? Sources have been provided showing that the government of Gaza used this as the name. I just provided another one. And your sources on "war against Hamas" are not naming the conflict that, they are using it as a description. It is absolutely not true that we should not use Arabic sources. When you say Sources are supposed to be easily verifiable according to wikipedia. Arab language sources are appropriate for Arab wiki but not easily verifiable for the English reader you are saying something that is false and the policy you quoted proves that. And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians. We put the name each side used, that is inherently NPOV. To disregard the name one side used is inherently non-NPOV. And since you seem to miss the point, we do include what the government of Israel calls it, Operation Cast Lead. And the link to the MFA you provided shows that the name used is "Operation Cast Lead and it is described as "a military operation against Hamas" or "22 days of war against Hamas" nableezy - 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the fact that it is in quotes is part of the point. This is not presented as another English name of the conflict, it is presented as the Arabic name for the conflict as." You are mistaken here. The reason that it is presented in quotes is because it is "quoting another speaker", in particular Amadinejad. You can see the particular story from CBS which generated at least 3o news ghits for "Gaza massacre" here. Take a look: [8]. It quotes someone's opinion, does not offer it up as a name. Is English your first language? Stellarkid (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources quoting Hamas spokespeople, such as this or the one provided above from al-Jazeera. And excuse me, but what kind of moronic question is that? You are here saying that people describing it as a "war on Hamas" are naming it as such and you question my English comprehension? nableezy - 05:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not drunk this evening but I am trying to quit smoking so if I come across bitchy just say so!

I have disagreed with you for months now about massacre going in the lead since it is almost never used as a proper noun in English sources. It gives it weight that I fell isn't needed. Maybe it would pop out less to me if the other titles were used. It looks like War on Hamas is kind of used (I wouldn't think it would warrant inclusion if I wasn't considering expanding the names) and I know a similar situation is the War in the South moniker. Maybe it needs to say "was called x,y,z,etc". I hate bloat but it would be factually accurate, add relitvley important information on the topic, make it easier to search, and give less weight to the massacre term/name.

Also, the thought of not using foreign language sources is just terrible.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They describe it as "Israel's war against Hamas," similar to the "Sino-Japanese war" sometimes capitalized, sometimes not [9]. I do question your English competence (not "comprehension") when your own link above says :

"We cannot blame any Palestinian faction and we don't know who fired the rockets," Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, Raafat Morra, told AFP. ..... Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."

Wikipedia policy says clearly "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Since the translation made by the reliable source does not capitalize "massacre", thus indicating to English readers that they are translating it as a description, not a name. Not clearly understanding of the use of quotations marks and capitalization in English may indicate that English is not his first language, that's all. Stellarkid (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono. I agree that there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources. No one is banning all usage of this. The argument is that a reliable source should be doing the translating, and editors with strong English competence should be making the interpretation. That is what the policy WP:NONENG clearly says. A sentence like this "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Israel Thursday of committing "massacre and aggression " in the Gaza Strip, and blasted the United Nations Security Council as beholden to U.S. and British influence" cannot be interpreted as: Ahmadinejad says, as a representative of Muslims? Arabs?, that they say the name of the Gaza war to those Arabs and/or Muslims is "The Gaza Massacre." It defies comprehension. And then to use the argument that we must call it that because the "government of Gaza" calls it that, but not to permit the "government of Israel" to have what it calls it, equally highlighted in the lede, instead to relegate Israel's name for it to the back of the bus just blows me away! Isn't that the very essence of POV and POV-pushing? Stellarkid (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you say: "And the phrasing "Israel's war against Hamas" does in fact "include a value judgment by one side", the judgment that this was a war against Hamas, not against the Palestinians." But in fact it isn't. Israel did not declare war against the Palestinians. That is simply not a fact. It has however acknowledged that it is at war with Hamas and all terror groups. Hamas is the government of Gaza. To that effect Israel is at war with Gaza. However, Israel is not at war with her Palestinian (Arab) citizens or the Palestinians of the "West Bank." This "Gaza War" was not a war against Palestinians. Not a value judgment, a fact. If you are still unconvinced, I urge you to find support for your position in RSs. Your argument is not holding water though your POV is clearer. Nothing wrong with a clear POV as long as it does not get in the way of your reason. Stellarkid (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We have had this argument before, and there is no requirement that a proper noun be capitalized. You really are not bringing any new arguments here, this exact point has been argued at least three times and probably more. But a few things. "Israel did not declare war on the Palestinians", (my bold) waging war does not require declaring war. And you may want to read this, and as you wish, the description implies it is a war against Hamas and not a war against Gaza. But I am not making this about my position on the usage of "War against Hamas", it is still in the article, after removing it as the name almost immediately I put it in as a description. What is it that you want to argue, that either the Gaza massacre should not be in the lead even if it is the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not the name used by Hamas, or that the Gaza massacre is not a name period, or that the War against Hamas was used as a name and not a description and should be listed bolded as a name early in the lead? I can answer any of those arguments (and have multiple times for most of those arguments) but I'd rather not have to do it all in one response. nableezy - 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Cptnono, the "war against Hamas" is in the article currently as a description, are you arguing that those sources use it as a name? The MFA link that Stellarkid posted above is a good example, it is named "Operation Cast Lead" and described as a war against Hamas. Is there really an argument for saying that it is used as a name? nableezy - 06:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And Stellarkid, I suggest you look up what is a proper noun, as long as you are trying to give grammar lessons. nableezy - 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually did bring a new one this time if you reread up above: the prominence of making it a title (or appear as one). In regards to war with Hamas: So why isn't it bolded and used as a title (but not necessarily a proper noun for whatever reason) as massacre is?

Further more, we don't need to balance the operation name with another term if we are forcing it in this manner. It is barely used as a title. "War in the South", "War with Hamas", and oh shit they are bombing us could all go in its place. It leads the reader to draw a conclusion just like putting in the Gaza victory would. I understand balance is necessary but it can be achieved without this "title".Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Let's take a look at the sources. Starting with this. It uses the phrase as "22 days of war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip" under the heading of "Operation Cast Lead - Israel Defends its Citizens" on a page that is titled Operation Cast Lead - Gaza, Hamas and Israel. This was provided which contains the phrase "The Hamas terror war against Israel", but Stellarkid apparently did not notice that the line is referring to Hamas attacks in all of 2008. That link does fortunately give us an answer to the question what is used as the name, it contains a link to a page titled Operation Cast Lead: Israel strikes back against Hamas terror in Gaza. I think it is fair to say that these sources don't use "war against Hamas" as a name but rather as a description. Now the sources that were used in the article. This Times piece contains the phrase "war against Hamas" in the headline, but the full headline is telling. It reads "Israel set to begin ground war against Hamas in Gaza". That is the only place the words "war against Hamas" appear on that page. In fact I cannot see how this was even used as a source to begin with. This source does not even describe the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas" much less name it that. It does describe it as a war against Hamas so it could be used to cite that, but not much else. Next is this Telegraph piece which contains the headline "Israel takes war against Hamas to the city streets of Gaza". The words appear nowhere else. Again, there can be no doubt that this source does not use as a name of the conflict "Israel's war against Hamas". It is again describing it as a war against Hamas but does not support what it was, and even what it still is, used to cite. Next is the Time piece. Now this one actually contains the phrase "Israel's war against Hamas" in an article titled "Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza". This phrasing is linked to another article which contains the phrasing "Israel says its military offensive in Gaza" in an article titled Despite Gaza Attacks, Hamas Thinks It Has the Upper Hand. But lets take a look at more of the context in the cited source. The source also contains the wording "The offensive in Gaza", "Israel's deadly assault on Gaza", "the Gaza offensive" (a few times), "the Gaza war". The most common set of words that could conceivably used to form a proper noun is "the Gaza offensive" with "assault on Gaza" coming in a close second. But this is the one source that actually supports quoting those words, but there is no way an off-hand mention in a 3 page report that is not repeated a single time can be considered a name, much less commonly used to merit consideration. Most of the sources don't support that it is named "war on Hamas", though they do support that it has been described as such. What we have with the statements from Hamas are them referencing the event both during, and now even 8 months later, using the same name to refer to it specifically. This is not a singular mention and if need be many more sources can be provided of Hamas referring to the attacks specifically as "the Gaza massacre".

(after ec) You are saying that the Gaza massacre is not needed for "balance"? You serious? This is not about "balance". Why on earth would we not include what one side calls a war? nableezy - 09:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And for all this arguing not a single source cited actually supported the sentence. It is almost as if Stellarkid googled "war against Hamas" and took 5 random results without reading them, or at least one would hope that it was not an intentional misrepresentation of the sources. nableezy - 09:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they didn't. They called it a victory at one time even. It was described as a massacre by the media and on a few occasions (few when comparing its use as a description or or the operational name). I get why we should attempt balance but cherry picking isn't the way to do it. Why not use terms like "the Gaza offensive" which it was used 2000 more times according to Google news? Your argument of them calling it is poor unless you have sources where Hamas (not newspapers) are shown to consistently use it as their title for the conflict. Pushing this for what appears to be the sole purpose of balancing out an operational name is not right and degrades the article.Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not about what the media called it, much less what the English language media called it, it is about what Hamas called it. And they called it a victory like Bush called it a victory in Iraq. An offhand mention does not come close to the number of times the words مجزرة غزة are used by Hamas, it does not even compare. This article cannot be allowed to only represent what one side says, from the name to the casualties to the war crimes. This article cannot be a repeat of one sides claims and justifications without any type of response. NPOV is explicit, representing all relevant and notable POVs. There cannot be serious argument that a name that used consistently by Hamas should not be in the article, that only the name used by one of the belligerents should be included. You cannot be serious. nableezy - 09:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The English sources typically use it as a description. Your statements have not disputed that. Al Jazeera doesn't title it as the Gaza Massacre. The title at their website's special coverage section devoted to the conflict call it War on Gaza. Replace it with War on Gaza if you want. I've yet to see an official document from Hamas where it is titled Gaza Massacre. It has been described as the Gaza massacre. It has also been described as "sad" but we don't bold that in the lead to balance the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up Al Arabiya and Al Alalam are both showing plenty more instances of "Gaza war" over "Gaza massacre". Sensationalist blogs, a relativity low percentage of RS, and lack of the continuous application of the title by Hamas means it shouldn't be in. If the term is used, it certainly should not be a bolded title to counter a documented operational name. Let the casualties in the info box and prose speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, are we doing this again? Lemme go get some Tylenol, or maybe smack. Israel's name for the event was "A" Gaza's name was "B". We note both, no POV, no problem? RomaC (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not about what the media has used, I dont care what Al-Arabiyya called it (though there are plenty of instances where they called it the "Gaza massacre"), and the English quote of the Hamas spokesman is not using it as a description. And wtf is an official document from Hamas? Can you say how the quotes cited from Hamas are using it as a description? And how would you like me to demonstrate "continuous application" by Hamas? nableezy - 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more from Hamas:

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[10][11]
Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[12]
Mussa Abu Marzuk: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[13]

nableezy - 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Currently it is being referred to as the Gaza War and will probably regrettably go down in history as such," Norman Finkelstein said at University of Texas at Austin. "What happened in the Gaza Strip doesn’t meet the minimum conditions of war." He defined the conflict as a massacre, citing greater Palestinian than Israeli losses. WTF? massacre is neither neutral nor a name. It is a description of Israel's actions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "neutral" have to do with it? The name Hamas used does not need to be "neutral" and for us to comply with WP:NPOV we have to represent all notable viewpoints, and the Hamas viewpoint is certainly notable. It has indeed been described as a massacre, but by Hamas the words "Gaza massacre" have been used as the name of the conflict. Those quotes above from Hamas are all using it as the name of the conflict. And the sentence that is in the article is neutral. Us saying "Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre" is a neutrally worded statement. We do not say it is a massacre, we are not naming it the Gaza massacre, we are saying that Hamas did. That is neutral. nableezy - 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"been described as" is more exact phrasing. Both Gaza PM and Hamas head of politburo called the event Gaza War in their victory speeches. massacare being a name is disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed without cause. There are a number of sources where they use this as the name, not as a description and no rational reading of those sentences above can dispute that it was used as a name. nableezy - 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it being described as isn't a title. How many over descriptions could have been chosen? It has been called and described many things and Gaza M/massacre W/war on Hamas are not at the bottom of the list. It reads like POV pushing by leading the reader. You are attempting to force balance when it can be achieved through other methods. I said months ago that I disagreed but was curious to see what time would tell and the reasoning behind its inclusion has not improved. It has also been modified since then to read "called" (which implies it is a title) instead of "described".Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to argue the sources cited in the article and above are not statements Hamas calling it the Gaza massacre? Pick any of the ones I put up and argue that they are not calling it the gaza massacre. nableezy - 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is difference between being described and belligerent name. So far there is no secondary sources supporting such claim. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Cptnono is correct. Nableezy claims that I don't know what a proper noun is. This from the gold standard, Strunck & White [14]

proper noun The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby Dick). Proper nouns are capitalized. Common nouns name classes of people (singers), places (cities), or things (books) and are not capitalized.

Israel refers to OCL as an operation/response in the wider Hamas War against Israel [15]. If we consider it important to put the name of one of the parties involved we should put the name of the other. Only, since RS do not capitalize "massacre" it cannot be considered a name of a particular thing but only a general class and description but not a "naming" ie "proper" noun. Stellarkid (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a common noun used in a proper noun, which is often capitalized, but not always. Any number of definitions of "proper noun" contains "often capitalized". And any number of the sources for "Gaza War", in fact most, also do not capitalize "war". The requirement of a proper noun is that it is a noun that refers to a specific thing, and there is no requirement that each word within a proper noun, including common nouns, be capitalized. nableezy - 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And one of your sentences betrays your point. This article is not about the wider "Hamas war against Israel" that Israel says OCL is a part of, this article is about what Israel calls OCL itself. nableezy - 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of that, it is not the most common description. It is a description. We are giving it prominence as if it were the most often used description. It also isn't an official description which means balance between the two terms (in all reality trivial when compared to use of such an extreme term) may not be possible.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Cptnono. So will someone remove this and put it somewhere out of the lede where it doesn't have such prominence, at the very least? Stellarkid (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper nouns are always properly capitalized. [16] "They always start with a capital letter." This is doubtless one reason why WP says that translations (and interpretations) of non-English sources should come from reliable sources and NOT from Wikipedia editors. Stellarkid (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate it and think our reasoning is water tight, it is appropriate in this case to give others the opportunity to chime in since it has been a longstanding edit with several many back and forths.Cptnono (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Always caps is actually not the rule, the first word yes but common nouns following do not have to be capitalized. And Cptnon, you keep saying this wasnt the name used by Hamas, but no other name comes anywhere close to the usage of this one. nableezy - 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And you are both completely ignoring the Arabic sources. Countless Arabic sources use this as the name of the event and you are trying to remove it because you find it personally objectionable. WP:NPOV requires the representation of all notable POVs and the idea we should ignore what Hamas used as a name, and if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it because many sources have been provided, is beyond ridiculous. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a problem with including what is a common Arabic name for the conflict in the lead. For some reason they apparently think it is important to reflect the opinions of both sides and not only highlight what one side says. nableezy - 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources out there that say Hamas calls it the "Gaza Massacre" or are we using snippets from the Hamas spokesperson to come to this conslusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughing my ass off at Roma's comment! I have been double and triple checking. No: massacre is from snippets not documented as the primary title for the conflict by Hamas representatives. A previous argument was that Hamas did not have official documentation of this which is fine. Consistent use over other terms (Gaza war, war on Gaza, etc) would be sufficient but this is not the case.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Define "consistent use" as they have used this name consistently over others. nableezy - 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been over the google thing dozens of times. Start googling and looking for terminology used by Hamas representatives. Since there is not consistent use of a title and descriptions vary widely, google Arabic news agencies. Massacre is not the most often used term. It is certainly a "balance" to the operational name but it is forced and given too much prominence because it is not the consistently or most used term by that belligerent or commentary.02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is not the terminology used most often by Hamas? Here is a search of the Arabic words, in quotes as given here in English, for "spokesman" Hamas "Gaza massacre": 11,700. There have been like 2 quotes of a Hamas spokesperson saying "Gaza victory" or "victory in Gaza", there are a ton with them saying the "Gaza massacre" and from the beginning of the conflict up to last week they have called it the "Gaza massacre". They have used the name consistently. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I could argue reversed burden of proof (essay) and that the burden of evidence for inclusion is upon you (WP:VERIFY). You haven't shown that it is used enough or more than other descriptions through either secondary or primary sources. I'll just mention that and also do better. Google searches clearly show Gaza massacre (in several different forms) is used less than Gaza war (again in several different forms). Furthermore, three of the largest Arabic news agencies use the term much less. You can go through the archives and up above or do the searches for evidence. I'll provide further sometime this evening (going to store real quick and a few other things).Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to revers the burden, I am asking you what it is that you want me to show you to satisfy that burden. You say "consistent use", how would you like me to demonstrate that? How many times over how long a period would you like sources for? nableezy - 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For it to balance the operational name it would have to be used by Hamas as the primary term or description for the conflict. Not "the Israeli attack", "Gaza war" or anything else. If you prefer to use it as not balance but as what it is alternatively titled or described as it needs to be shown that it is primarily used over War on Gaza, Gaza war, and the others that are used by RS.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Google News 12/27/2008 - 09/26/2009 searches show that it is not used often. Primary subjects don't seem to mention it hardly at all. I also recommend common sense and reviewing many sources. Gaza Massacre is simply not a common term for this conflict or at least not as common as others. If Hamas did not assign an operational name then they did not assign an operational name. Try some other searches: Gaza victory, War in the South, ect.

• gaza "is sad" 68

• "the gaza massacre" (trying to get more title hits with "the" but many are still descriptive and not titles) 75

• "hamas "Gaza tragedy" 80

• "gaza massacre" 151

• "gaza war" 2,760

• "war on gaza" (Al Jazeera's label) 1,450

• "war in gaza"2,170

• hamas gaza massacre (no quotes) 4,150

• hamas gaza war (no quotes) 24,200

• "Khaled Meshaal"(and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 1

• "Khaled Meshaal" "gaza victory" 5

• "Ismail Haniyah"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• "Mahmoud Zahar"( and alternate spellings) "gaza massacre" 2

• allintitle: (in the last year) مجزرة غزة (gaza massacre translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 1,250

• allintitle: (in the last year) حرب غزة (gaza war translated? not necessarily appearing next to each other) 23,900

• Al Jazeera does not have a search function but their project page is "War on Gaza". I also recommend poking around Al Alam, Al Araybia, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx, and other sources that cover the region.

Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue for me is not what is commonly used in the press, but what Hamas used. Could you spell out what I would need to show to demonstrate that this is "the primary term or description for the conflict". Spell it out for me, what would I need to show to demonstrate that this is the case? nableezy - 06:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And they didn't use it often as shown above (the 3 names were the few I tried). You would need to show that it is used as common venacular and not in a couple speeches. They say "attack" and "war" more. The fact that "victory" was used by officials makes it even worse.Cptnono (talk)

But that is not the case, you are restricting your searches on the names for English sources. Here is the search for "Khaled Meshal" "gaza massacre" in Arabic. here it is for "Ismail Haniyeh" "Gaza massacre". nableezy - 06:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source for Meshal:

واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة".^[17]

Translation:He (Meshal) stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier Shalit."

nableezy - 06:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

True. You are also cherry picking, though. There are obviously some sources but there are others that say tragedy, war, victory, attack, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you want me to demonstrate the usage other than going through the sources. Here is a partial list, some of these are already listed above:

• Sami Abu Zuhri: "وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية.
  Translation: Abu Zuhri said "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre [مجزرة غزة] on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." (speaking about Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly)^[18]
• Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."^[19][20]
• Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre" ^[21]
• Raafat Morra: "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre."^[22]
• Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
  Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit."^[23]
• Khaled Meshal: "وأضاف مشعل خلال برنامج "لقاء مفتوح" بثته فضائية الجزيرة الإخبارية مساء السبت أن "الرد على مجزرة غزة هو ما سيرى الكيان الصهيوني لا ما سيسمع
  His remarks came during the "Open Meeting" broadcast on the al-Jazeera Saturday night news that "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see."^[24]
• Mousa Abu-Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة"
  Translation: "The wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre"^[25][26]

I'll continue tomorrow. nableezy - 07:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioning a handful. How many of the sources from the officials say the "war", "attack", or "fight". Also, "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different. Please make sure that the direct translation (I have no way of confirming besides a few online tools which I don't completely trust) says it is a title. If it is a description, the prose will have to be ammended to "described it as a massacre". That will also open the door to adding the dozen other descriptions. Make sure it is a title if it is to balance out the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here, there is no capitalization (uppercase lettering) in Arabic. RomaC (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different in English but may be the same in the original Arabic. Translators don't always agree, nor do media, who follow different style manuals with different guidelines and rules concerning, for example, capitalization. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If "massacre" in any variety got as much coverage as other terms then I would be concerned. As is, there still isn't enough for inclusin in its present form.10:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound of air-raid siren

Nab I suggest you stockpile (and classify and cross reference) a formidable library of unshakable sources supporting the usage of "Gaza massacre" by the Gazan government and in the Arab and Muslim world. Then get provisions, dig in and hold your fire. I hate it but seems you have been drawn into (another) war of attrition. Conserve your energy and resources. One can find numerous similar concerted assaults on other I-P articles, for example see Deir Yassin massacre -- which has a title that is irksome for some but undeniably qualifies as the best choice under Wiki policy. Regardless, replacement titles like "Battle of Deir Yassin" or "Deir Yassin Incident" (or maybe "Unfortunate affair" haha) have been fervently advanced again and again.

Expect to encounter every imaginable argument. And when one of them fails it is never buried but rather assigned to the archives for possible later resuscitation (you know, according to his son Omri, Ariel Sharon is now "marginally responsive"!) Then an entirely different argument is deployed. Expect herculean persistence and head-spinningly sophisticated wikilawyering. Do not attempt to counter with reason, logic or policy, as your adversaries will be immune to these. Just stand by your sources and know that a few disinterested and pro-Wikipedia editors will eventually weigh in. When the assault is finally beaten back, expect kind and conciliatory "compromise" suggestions. (*sound of a march, played on snare drum with bugle*) We got your back, buddy! RomaC (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably remove that as it may be taken as a not so subtle call for a WP:BATTLE. nableezy - 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly hope not. You bring up a point with battle, though. You have been the main proponent for massacre and it has been kept because other editors against it gave up, didn't know the guidelines or all of the issue, or wanted to wait and see what continued coverage would say. Some also wanted it out for the wrong reasons. Take a quick second and check yourself on WP:WIN. I've done it and can say I am adamantly against it because is not appropriate. If you think it is then that is OK I just want you to make sure it is to better the article.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, and I dont appreciate the insinuations. There have been countless times where it has been admitted that some of the loudest voices against using the term is because they feel it is "defamatory" or "emotive" or "propaganda". That feeling, while understandable, has no place here. Some of the people here take great offense at the words being in bold in the lead as it apparently seems that we are "enshrining" the words. The real problem here is that these people who say these things seem to think that NPOV means we treat the two governments involved differently. There are an abundance of primary sources for Israeli views in this article, go count how many Israeli MFA citations you see here, or how many ITIC citations. This is a bullshit issue only because the sensitivities of some editors makes it so we need to censor information they find personally objectionable. nableezy - 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I guess some might consider RomaC's comments to be humorous, but it sure sounds like unproductive soapboxing to me. This article is about a specific point - it's not about Deir Yassin or the Lavon affair or the physical or mental state of Ariel Sharon. This serves to advance your POV, while at the same time belittling/ridiculing other editors who do not share the POV that your post demonstrates. The issue here is whether the (English) sources support the terminology as written, (with WP:NONENG as relevant policy) or whether the point at issue is in fact an example of WP:OR and/or of advancing an agenda. Please try to stay on-topic. Stellarkid (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going to apologize for ensuring diligence, Nableezy, and the intent wasn't to insult you. I hope you would do the same. Like I said, some of the reasons mentioned for removal were the wrong ones. Thanks for saying it twice :) In regards, to RomaC's comment, it was inappropriate but no one here is a little girl so we should all be able to take the humor in it. The discussion on the subject is up above and we can continue it there. (would you mind copy pasting your last comment in the above section so we don't get too sidetracked?)Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My air raid post is meant to satirize what has happened and tends to happen here. Not going to remove it because it took awhile to craft. And per Cptnono yeah thanks, we're adults. I would however say actually Nab has not been a proponent so much as an opponent of removal of massacre, a cause which the archives suggest has been mostly pushed by pro-Israeli editors. Actually I very much hope Nab would not be drawn into a war of attrition, as the question of removal of this name has been thoroughly discussed and decided already. And I would hope editors would point that out when young guns ride into town making good faith edits, instead of taking their edits as an opportunity to reopen old (and divisive) discussions.

In one way it boils down to respect. Israel calls it "Operation Cast Lead" and Gaza calls it the "Gaza Massacre". So Wikipedia has come to use a relatively neutral term for the article title, then notes and attributes the two aforementioned terms to Israel and Gaza. It doesn't matter that one side's name quotes from a children's song and the other's includes an inflammatory word, as both are attributed to the respective sides. What matters is a reader benefits from information on how the event was named, ergo viewed, by both of the involved parties. I sincerely wish editors could stop trying to fuck with that. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, however cleverly written, I for one find it offensive. But no mind. It does not merely boil down to 'respect' for what Israel and what Gaza calls it. It comes down to knowing exactly what it is that both parties call it. For one thing, Israel calls it a "war against Hamas", or "Hamas' terror war against Israel". OCL is the name of one operation within the wider war, which for all I can see continues to this very day. The Gazans and others describe it as a massacre within the set of massacres but one that occurred in Gaza. It is not a matter of respect to accurately reflect what RS's say. And RS do not seem to say "Gaza Massacre" but rather something describing the situation (that is, opining) as a "massacre" and belonging in the class of massacres. Sorry if you feel that someone is trying to "fuck" with your firmly held position, or that young guns are opening old wounds. Perhaps those wounds were septic and required special wound care. Stellarkid (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about what Israel calls "Operation Cast Lead" not the "wider war" that Israel says this is a part of. The sources treat this as its own topic and so do we. So Israel calls the topic of this article "Operation Cast Lead". nableezy - 06:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, my point still holds. Stellarkid (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesnt because it doesnt address why the name is there. It is there not as the name used by the press but by the name used by Hamas. You really want to say that statements from Hamas are not reliable for sourcing what Hamas said? nableezy - 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stellar! Do you have some RS that back up your assertion that Israel specifically terms the event that took place December 2008 to January 2009 as "war against Hamas" or "Hamas' terror war against Israel", if so can you please provide them here for other editors' benefit? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, RomaC. Provided it earlier but here it is again from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel: "The Hamas terror war against Israel" "Hamas War against Israel": [27] Stellarkid (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are fine using primary sources from the MFA but not Hamas for a name? And the removal of long standing text require consensus, please dont continue removing it unitl there is consensus for that. nableezy - 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The first argument falls into the category of WP:Otherstuffexists, and the second is not valid under WP:CCC Stellarkid (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, other stuff exists? Showing that you are making the opposite argument in the very same thread is other stuff exists, not demonstrating intellectual dishonesty used to advance a POV? And consensus can change, though you have to show that it has changed. nableezy - 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>WP:CCC says, if you read it

Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Your argument that we have to demonstrate consensus in order to challenge and edit is not acceptable. It is up to you to show that our argument is not reasonable. We have made plenty of argument that yours (and past consensus, presumably) is not. It is also clear from other editors that what you called past consensus was not so much so. Stellarkid (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not "my argument", that is how things work. To change a consensus you need consensus. The name has been there for more than 9 months, it is the "current consensus". And do you have anything to say about applying the opposite arguments depending on your POV? And it being current consensus is not why I say it should remain, it is why I say you shouldn't be edit-warring to remove it. nableezy - 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed but it doesn't need to be done this very second. I'm OK with a couple more people chiming in as long as they hurry up. We shouldn't be edit warring and if this gets removed I would prefer that it is done the right way. We can get into a discussion on consensus if needed but that strays too far off topic for now. I commented in the section above, Nableezy. Unfortunately, WP:NONENG is coming into play as mentioned after doing some online translating.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How so? For the translations provided by English sources they are translating it as "Gaza massacre". The thing is "the massacre of Gaza" is the same thing as "the Gaza massacre" in Arabic, they would both be "مجزرة غزة". But the sources that do translate it are translating it "the Gaza massacre". One of the examples I gave above has both the original Arabic and an English translation from a different source, they are translating it as "the Gaza massacre". nableezy - 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stellar, I read your source but can't find a corresponding time period terming, it seems "Hamas' terror war against Israel" and "The Hamas War against Israel" are two general terms Israel uses in the document in reference to the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. The other term you initially cited, "war against Hamas", does not appear in the document. Anyway an apparent problem here is that this article focuses on an event that took place from December 2008 to January 2009, and the terms in question do not. I see no problem with these terms being in the "background" section if properly cited. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy and pasted from up above. Translations addressed along with your inquiry as to what is needed after listing sources: You are mentioning a handful. How many of the sources from the officials say the "war", "attack", or "fight". Also, "massacre of Gaza" "massacre in Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" are different. Please make sure that the direct translation (I have no way of confirming besides a few online tools which I don't completely trust) says it is a title. If it is a description, the prose will have to be amended to "described it as a massacre". That will also open the door to adding the dozen other descriptions. Make sure it is a title if it is to balance out the operational name.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono has asked for more opinions, so here is mine: the Hamas has consistently called the war the "Gaza massacre", in its press releases, in its statements, in supporting demonstrations. Just as Israel calls this Cast Lead, Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre. Nableezy has brought numerous citations of this, and he could certainly bring dozens more without a lot of work. So arguments that this is not what Hamas calls the war are completely specious.

On the other hand, the last sentence of the paragraph ('The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza"') is pretty idiotic. Of course it was an assault on Gaza. Does anyone argue that? The sentence adds nothing.

I must say I really admire you guys for your ability to churn out the text. If you were Dickens (who got paid by the word) you'ld all be millionaires. Ravpapa (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some statements from officials in Hamas that say "Gaza massacre" and "massacre in Gaza". They also refered to it as an asault and a victory in others. However, if you can provide press releases that show Gaza Massacre was commonly used over other "titles" then I am wrong. Can you provide those?Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ravpapa, if there were evidence that as you say "just as Israel calls this Cast Lead, Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre" there would obviously be little issue or point of argument. And perhaps it is entirely true that Nableezy has brought numerous citations of this. However, the citations I have seen do not it. They mainly describe Israel's attack as a "massacre." You yourself seem to be confused on this as in one sentence you refer to the "Gaza massacre" (one massacre among many, this one in Gaza) and in another the "Gaza Massacre." We use English grammar rules to help us to make our meaning clear. Proper nouns are therefore capitalized, and unless Nableezy can demonstrate that reliable sources have translated Hamas' statements re "massacre" with caps; it does not equate with a name like "Operation Cast Lead." If it does not, it should not to be emboldened in the lead, giving the decided impression that the concept of "massacre" has the stamp of approval from Wikipedia. To your second point, the "war against Hamas" does indeed add something: it clarifies that Israel was not in a war with the Palestinians or the people of Gaza, but rather the governance of Gaza, Hamas. As for your comment re Dickens, no one is sorrier than I to be expending so much (free) verbiage on such a relatively simple point, but I do so as a point of integrity. Stellarkid (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of citations above with quotes from various Hamas representatives, from spokesmen to Meshal, using this as the name, not a description. And again, why do your requirements shift depending on the POV? Why is the lack of capital letters in "war on Hamas" not an issue for you? And Cptnono, massacre of Gaza is the same thing in Arabic as Gaza massacre though it is different from massacre in Gaza. Stellarkid, take any one of the examples above and show how it "describing" it as a massacre and not naming it "the Gaza massacre". And a common noun used in a proper noun need not be capitalized. nableezy - 05:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I ran them through translators and they were not "Gaza massacre". That is why there is a language concern that Stellar kept on bringing up. And I have said it several times, they also call it other things (victory, war, assault, attack). You need to show that it was the preffered and common term used by Hamas. You are failing to do that with a handful of sources. The google news searches shows it is well below the prominence of other terms in general. If there are offical documents saying "Gaza Massacre" as Ravpapa asserts then they need to be considered. Lets see them.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The google news source does not actually say that, and I have asked how you would like me to show you that it is the common term, you keep saying that other terms were used. I showed Arabic results comparing "Gaza massacre" and "Gaza victory" with the names and there was no comparison. And if you question my translation you are free to ask another, but again I gave at least one example above where the Arabic is given in the source and another source with the English translation with the source using "Gaza massacre". There is no difference in "massacre of Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" in English and an online translation would pick one of those two. Ask somebody on this list to verify my translations. nableezy - 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have responded twice to that request. I will do it for a third time: You need to show that it was the common and preferred title by Hamas. All of the data I have provided and verified says it is not. If there are official documents saying "Gaza Massacre" as Ravpapa asserts then they need to be considered. And there is a difference between IN, OF, and not having either if you are asserting it is a title. If you are asserting that it is a description we need to provide the numerous descriptions more commonly used. The quotes you show say that yes it was used but not in prominence which means it cannot be given prominence here. Furthermore, since I dispute your translation after google translating it I am forced to rely on "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." (WP:NONENG) I personally do not want to except anything contentious unless it is verified by a reliable source. Since google translate and editors make errors in translations they both should be excluded if challenged per WP:BURDEN. I am challenging both the translation and the amount it was used compared to more common terms, descriptions, titles.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you like me to "how that it was the common and preferred title by Hamas", and editor translations are perfectly acceptable. If you dispute the translation fine, but half of a google translation from either Arabic or Hebrew is gibberish. I will ask somebody else to verify my translations. And none of your google searches show anything as far as it being used as a name by Hamas. Here are some comparisons "ismail haniyeh" "gaza massacre": 12,400 "gaza victory" "ismail haniyeh": 1,520. "hamas spokesman" "gaza massacre": 29,100 "hamas spokesman" "gaza victory": 3520. My translations are accurate, but as you have disputed that I will be asking for another editor fluent in Arabic to look verify them. nableezy - 05:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Gaza government had termed this event, say, "Our Due", we wouldn't be having these discussions every few weeks. Let's face it the problem is not that Gaza has their own term for this event, it's that some editors don't like the term Gaza has for this event. RomaC (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I already said: present official documentation that Ravpapa says is available. If that is not available, you need to provide more sources saying massacre than terms like victory, attack, and assault. If it is as common as a term as is asserted with its current prominence in the article, there should easily be many English sources. With all of the human rights and media reports this should be easy to prove. Massacre is a juicy term that was instantly picked up the few times it was used (as victory was) and if it was not reported often (as the google news hits show already which I have provided above) then there is a reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The google results above in Arabic show the difference. We are looking for the Arabic name, there is no obligation that every instance of its use be in English. nableezy - 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree that foreign sources are OK. Unfortunately, your translation differs from that of online translators. That is why [[WP:NONENG] has been mentioned a few times. You are also cherry picking again since other Arabic words yield more results. I see no reason why the Western media or human rights organizations would not report the use of the title at the extent you assert is used. Many of the human rights organizations have people on the ground in the region and some are primarily looking out for the welfare of the civilians in the strip. Why are they not asserting this title? Why does Al Jazeera (who was criticized for imbalanced coverage) use War on Gaza and no Gaza Massacre? Why have repeated requests by editors for documentation from Hamas not been met? You are pushing a term or title into a prominent position in the article when it simply does not merit it. If you want to bold it we need to bold all of the descriptions (which I think would be silly) or you need to provide sufficient evidence that it was the primary and preferred term and description by Hamas if the sole purpose is to balance the Israeli name. Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I recall in earlier discussions that "Gaza massacre" was also described as the name given to the event in the "Arab world" or "parts of the Arab and Muslim world" or something like that. RomaC (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Source from official Palestinian sources:

Mohammed Awad, Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers in the Palestinian government:وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث
Translation: On the recent events in Gaza, he called instead to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of many innocent people and the competent authorities attempting to arrest those involved in these events.^[28]

nableezy - 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to read this [29] which describes capitalization conventions (rules) in English. I understand that there is no such thing as capital letters in Arabic, which makes it even more important that we follow the WP policy of WP:NONENG. That policy says we should first and foremost have easily verifiable English translations if they exist. There are many reliable translations that refer to the Gaza 'massacre' that do not capitalize 'massacre' thus leading careful English readers to understand that 'massacre' in this case is a general description (the massacre IN Gaza) pointing to a particular event (the Gaza War). We are not required or encouraged to accept the translation of WP editors when we have plenty of RS translating it differently per that policy. As a descriptor and not a proper name, it is not appropriate to be in the lede emboldened alongside Gaza War. Furthermore, it is by far not the most common Arabic term for it either, as demonstrated by ghits by Cptnono. It may seem picayune to you but that's why we have grammar rules and WP rules - to avoid chaos and POV & to aid clarity. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A handful of sources isn't good enough. As Stellar said, cutting down on the chaos since we don't know if it is a general description or title. I also still cannot understand why reporting condemning Israel would not report use of such a juicy word as much as you assert it is being used by Hamas.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "reports condemning Israel" are from such institutions as the UN, they are not going to pick a name from a "side". And Stellarkid, translations from Wikipedia editors are often used, and not a single "RS" differs in the translations. You are asserting things that are not in WP:NONENG. Yes, translations from RSs are preferred, but if no RS can be found translating the quotes I provided they can be translated by a Wikipedia editor. This is common practice, there are many, many sources used in the Arab/Israel articles that are in Hebrew only with a translation provided by an editor. Just saying my translations are not acceptable by policy does not make it true. I have asked another user to verify my translations. nableezy - 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The continually removal of the terms without consensus is getting irritating. I suggest those advocating for its removal actually follow the steps of WP:DR and open an RfC. nableezy - 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamas in Gaza/Kadima in Israel

Regarding the current version, "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas, the government of Gaza..." The governing political party in Gaza is identified, but not their Israeli counterpart. I realize that Israel termed this a war against "Hamas" specifically and that should be noted. However for the neutral introduction shouldn't we dispense with using terms that one side used to describe the other? Imagine for a moment something like "The Gaza War, called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza, and "Operation Cast Lead" by the Zionist Regime..." This is of course a ridiculous hypothetical and certainly not a suggestion, but perhaps it illustrates how the current terms, perspective and qualifiers may also be non-neutral? Would "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza..." be more appropriate? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is described as many things as my comment above illustrates. If Hamas does not have a term they use primarily "balance" will not be achieved in the sentence. it is a good thing we make it clear what happened through the prose, infobox, and images. Go ahead and separate the operational line into a new sentence but it is a documented title.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC. There is a lot in your post to appreciate. Israel considers OCL one military operation in a defensive war against Hamas. No one seems to think this is important to put up in the lead, but it is Israel's view. On the other hand, we seem to have to include Hamas' view that this military operation was a massacre. In order to put this up in the lead, it is necessary to make the claim that "massacre" is equivalent to OCL, ie it is a name, and thus emboldened. It is a POV in fact, as is Israel's view. How about this if we MUST include the massacre claim in the lede. "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and considered by Israel a single military operation in a larger defensive war against Hamas; and referred to by Hamas and Gazans as a "massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Gaza..." --'massacre' not emboldened, not a name. I could perhaps live with something of that nature, as I believe it is the best the evidence affords. Stellarkid (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize it is a bit windy, but if you put in the POV of one side you should put in both. Otherwise, just give the commonly accepted name for it (Gaza War) and enlarge upon both POV's further down in the article. Stellarkid (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We start with the common name, Gaza War, then give the names of each side, OCL and the Gaza massacre. Then we give each sides arguments as to why they do what they do, we dont start it off with Israel's argument (without a response at that) without even first giving the name used by one of the belligerents. nableezy - 05:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as you know it is disputed that "Gaza massacre" is a name, and constant repeating by you it will not make it so. Secondly, you are more than welcome as far as I am concerned, to put Hamas' view first. Stellarkid (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I could care less about what comes first. I'm not interested in balance I am interested in factual summaries and the correct content.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen! Seldom have so few had to do so much to achieve so little, lol. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit that may represent a kind of compromise. [30] I de-bolded both Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. Though some seem to think "Gaza massacre" is only a descriptive and not a proper name, there should have no problem listing it alongside other descriptives like "war against Hamas" and "assault on Gaza". I also don't think we need to mention who calls it each of these names. More than just some elements of Hamas use "Gaza massacre", and more than just Muslims, or Arabs. Norman Finkelstein has used it, and has in fact refused to call it a war. Others around the world have too. Anyway, I hope the edit addresses some of the concerns raised while not reneging on the principle that kept this in bold all this time - i.e. that it is the most common name used by the governing authorities in Gaza for what happened. Tiamut^talk 23:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a against formatting guidelines and did not address the massacre issue fully. Asserting it as a title in the lead is still a concern. I also recommend reading the subsections above this if you have not had the chance since it has become unorganizedCptnono (talk)

Cptnono, I will open an RfC on the issue shortly to try and get some consensus on this issue. nableezy - 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I don't even mind if it stays in until it is finished but it needs to be formatted properly.Cptnono (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Opened below at #RFC. nableezy - 00:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get it to cluttered yet but it looks like you dropped the prepositions (في and من) in a couple of the translations. I don't know Arabic so that may not mean anyhting but let me know. Also, your translations are against the policy (wikilinked several times for your review) for these potential concerns. Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of those words only appear in one quote and I did not drop them. The quote is as follows:

وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة، دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء، وما بين محاولة السلطات المختصة القاء القبض على المتورطين في تلك الأحداث

The beginning of the sentence, the "وحول الأحداث الأخيرة في غزة", is translated as "On the recent events in Gaza", where "في غزة" is "in Gaza". The next part of the sentence is "دعا عوض إلى التمييز ما بين مجزرة غزة التي ذهب ضحيتها عدد من الابرياء", where "من" is part of the phrase "من الابرياء" which is "from the innocent" which I translated as "innocent people". as the entire phrase "عدد من الابرياء" would be translated "many from the innocent" and "many innocent people" is equivalent considering the earlier part of the sentence " التي ذهب ضحيتها", "took the lives". "في " appears once more in "في تلك الأحداث" which is translated as "in these events". And I will ask some other people to check the translations. And that policy explicitly allows for translations by editors, I dont know where you are getting the idea that it doesnt. Read the policy, it says sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. I found a translation for one of the quotes used in an English source, for the others there is none available. And a few of those are in English. But as there is no translation from a RS available we can use a translation from Wikipedia editors. Stellarkid has said this so many times that you may think it is true, but the policy does not prohibit translations by editors. nableezy - 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Arabic so I needed to double check. One of the English sources says massacre of Gaza. This happens in some of the translations through internet tools. It would normally be trivial but since you are asserting a title it is a problem. And there are English alternatives. Unfortunately, there are not enough sources in general to assert that this is a title.Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the English sources that we do have translate it as "massacre of Gaza" or "Gaza massacre"? And are there English sources for these quotes? nableezy - 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You have provided them already. Unfortunately, Gaza massacre, massacre of Gaza, massacre in Gaza are descriptions not titles. Attack in, bombing of, war in, war on, ect are all descriptions used more. Other fun words to search for are victory, assault, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I dislike being misrepresented. I never suggested that Wikipedia does not allow translations by Wikipedia editors. When you quote the policy, you really should quote the whole thing, or at very least give the link, which includes the rationale behind it: English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Points: 1. English is preferable, 2. readers should be able to EASILY verify the content and 3. Sources in other languages are acceptable when an English equivalent is not available. There are scads of English 'equivalents' available, and we should use them. I am sorry they just don't say what you and some others here apparently want them to say. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any of the quotes provided available in English sources? If so do they provide different translations? nableezy - 04:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in English as you have shown that some people including Hamas reps and others describing this event as a "massacre," even as "the Gaza massacre." We do not have to have the exact quotes from the Arabic in this case, since there are plenty of English translations which all refer to it as "the massacre in Gaza" or the "Gaza massacre." In which case this fact should be noted somewhere in the body of the article that Hamas and even "much of the world" refers to this event as the "Gaza massacre." This should be in a section which presents the Hamas view of the event. Just as "much of the world" (including Israel) refers to the war as "Israel's war against Hamas" can be included on a section which presents Israel's side of events. It is time to stop with the obstructionism and try to collaborate and take out the POV that you and others are so clearly trying to develop in the lede. It is appropriate for the Arab WP but not for the English one. Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Every single source I presented called it "the Gaza massacre", not just "a massacre". And there is also a source that says unambiguously that it is known as "the Gaza massacre" in the Arab world. The rest of your argument is silly, you have disputed this based on WP:NONENG saying that translations from RS are better than translations from WP editors so we should not use my translations and now say that there is no RS translating the text provided but that it is not needed. We're done here, the information is sourced and relevant and the offense that you take from the NPOV statement in the article does not matter at all. nableezy - 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling it the Gaza War is just blatantly lying; a war is an exchange between two armed political factions. Dropping white phosphorous on elementary schools and hospitals is a massacre. This is obviously some Jewish religious fanatics attempt at preserving Israel's image as the innocent victim. If you called it the Virginia Tech War instead of the Virginia Tech Massacre then it wouldn't seem like Cho was such a bad guy, now would it? --98.197.230.143 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The article name is based on what the majority of reliable sources called it. Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco

There are some who object to the strong langauge that I used with respect to Garlasco. I've got no problem if someone wants to tone it down to an acceptable structure where we all can concur. Blanket reversion is just plain silly and gets us nowhere--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps you could modify it a bit yourself. Put it up here on the talk page the way you would like to see it and we can discuss and try to develop some consensus. There is no reason why a mention should not be made of this development. Blanket reversion is inappropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I toned it down. What do you think of this: "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, who was later suspended with pay by HRW after online bloggers raised questions about his objectivity after it was publicized that he is a collector of Nazi German military memorabilia"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:V non-compliance. The statement "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco" does not comply with WP:V. I've already pointed this out.
• Misrepresentation. The criticism of the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based on their effects on people and infrastructure e.g. the death and injury of human beings, fires caused by WP, millions of dollars of damage to UN facilities etc. These effects have been documented independently by multiple reliable sources. I've already pointed this out.
• Synthesis of sourced material to imply causal connections. The sentence concatenates unrelated information. What is the reliably sourced basis of this concatenation ? An official HRW report is an HRW report, a set of information compiled by HRW and endorsed by HRW. The contents and endorsement status of the information published by HRW remains the same. The sentence implies that something has changed or that there is some kind of casual connection. What has changed and who says so ? I've already pointed this out. If you want to say something then be explicit and base it on reliable sources. Remember that this is an encyclopedia not the NGO Monitor site. Our objectives as Wikipedians are entirely different from theirs. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not go overboard here. I haven't gone through the edits so am not saying you are but wanted to make the reminder since conversations like this have lead to bloat before. Summary here and detail hereCptnono (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered checking the source? Please click this link: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_Goldstone_Report_Rewarding_Palestinian_Terror.asp And just in case you can't access it, it says the following: "Judge Goldstone has a long association with Human Rights Watch, even serving on its board until removing himself when it was pointed out that remaining with HRW would be inappropriate. Yet he cites HRW sources in the Report, including material by the Nazi memorabilia collecting Marc Garlasco, who is currently suspended by HRW pending an investigation." This is a clearly sourced relevant piece of information. However, in the interest of consensus, I've toned the language down.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I stated that the report was based in "The criticisms concerning the employment of certain munitions by the IDF were based in large part on reports compiled by Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco." I purposely wrote "in large part" and not "wholly." I chose this phrasing carefully because Goldstone may have relied on other sources beside Garlasco. However, if you want, I can change the phrasing to "in part" rather than "in large part."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This Garlasco thing doesn't really, IMO, belong in the article about the Gaza War. HRW has been criticised for suspending him, and mentioning that he may have worked on material used by Goldstone in this context just reveals the extent of the panic zionists have been thrust into by the Goldstone report, no offence intended. --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that[[31]] a RS? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point which is your POV. By contrast, I'm just giving you sourced, relevant facts that may or may not have bearing on Goldstone's findings. Don't make the choice for the Wiki reader. Let the reader decide for himself if it has probative value. Did you even bother reading the two sources that I provided?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia not about journalism. It is an encyclopedia. And again, is www.honestreporting.com a RS? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If not the case remove that part from article Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted see above. RomaC (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Jiujisuguy, regarding 'Have you even bothered checking the source?'. No, I just make everything up so that it suits my personal view of the universe and then I like to concatenate the phrase 'because of Nazis' to the end of every sentence to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether there is a causal connection between something and Nazis. But seriously, yes, of course I read the sources. That's why I said the statement doesn't comply with WP:V. In fact I've said a lot more than that several times now but you keep ignoring it for the most part. See WP:TE. Regarding 'a clearly sourced relevant piece of information'. How so ? Who says it's relevant ? Does the suspension of Garlasco change anything in the HRW reports and if so, what ? Has it affected the contents of any of the reports independantly produced by other sources that were also used as input for Goldstone (which oddly you continue to ignore) ? Has it resulted in the people killed by the weapons systems coming back to life ? Does it mean that the damage to the UN facility didn't happen ? Has anything whatsoever changed ? I appreciate that the edit makes sense to you but that is not enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)...and the most important thing is what Cptnono says. This entire int law section in this article should be a summary of the main int law article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) :The source http://www.honestreporting.com. What is that? A Wikipedia editor dont use or take that serious. Its a propagandasite for neocon rednecks. Very pro israel, almost sionistpropaganda. Some things are unbeliveble stupid and some scary. Then I found this little piece: Exposed-Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia Here, second line actually:

"Our colleagues at CAMERA learned this the hard way last month when their effort to fight anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia ended in several members being banned".

But the argumentation from editors above is enough for cutting the Garlasco part in our article out. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

indiscriminate

(changed header since people are reverting.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "indiscriminate" Someone put this in since "untargeted" is not a word. How about making it clear "rockets that do not have aiming capability".Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas rockets do have aiming capability or else many would end up in the Mediterranean. They do not have guidance systems, but then neither do IDF mortars. Qualifying that rockets do not have guidance systems is not required because if they did they would more properly be termed missiles. RomaC (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to study it more then. I can't say all since I don't know that for sure but everything I have studied says that they are point and fire. There are not guidance systems and it is not possible to gauge their flight path during the launch. They are also none for being uncontrollable and somewhat random in the air.Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes as you say: "point" and fire. The "point" is aiming, but the rocket's flight is not controlled once it is fired. Anyhow crude, but it's "aiming". Guns and mortars can be aimed much more accurately, but their projectiles also have no in-flight guidance systems, do you think we should also mention that in reference to the relevent IDF fire? RomaC (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding. A team sets up the launcher and it is pointed towards Israeli buildings without any knowledge of where it will land. The rockets flight path is so unwieldy that the sole purpose is just to hit "in that direction". We can get into the ballistics of mortars and guns but they are so different that I don't see how it will help your understanding of the weapon. The reason "untargeted" (which was changed to indiscriminate which you then removed) was even in was to let the reader know that the rocket teams were not intentionally hitting schools.Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Preview section

Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable. Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree. I think you (sean.holyland) and RomaC are good editors and genuinely want to see a good objective piece. I do to and if we work together rather than revert each other, we can reach consensus.

As I see it, there are two issues of contention that are the subject of the reverts

1 Garlasco. This one is a magnet for reverts.

2 The preview section where I added some sourced material.

I don't think there are any other issues. Can we agree that these edits are the ones in contention? If yes, we can move to stage two and discuss reversion or modification of the edits--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we just say what each side hit, rather than what they said they were trying to hit or not to hit, and why? RomaC (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning Israeli civilian buildings: Good for the goose good for the gander? This is clearly causing an imbalance. If we are going to mention it in the lead at all both need to be mentioned. I'm fine with striking both and keeping it at "Gaza was left in ruins" and expanding in the prose. Not mentioning that civilian structures were targeted for a purpose many many times also leads the reader.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of blanket reversion, why don't you just tweak it to a point where we all agree--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is important as far as the scale of the war goes. How many buildings did Hamas Rocket fire hit doing the war? --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is important. That can be mentioned in the prose where the amount of Gazan buildings are given detial. There is also the principle that civilian structures were hit. Summary style (or none) in the lead and numbers in the prose for this seem appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saying buildings were hit is not enough. The paragraph in question is giving a synopsis of the effect of the war. It should state numbers just as it does with casualty figures. The number of buildings hit by Hamas in the war should be added. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree reflect the scale of damage inflicted by both sides. Further, both sides hit civilians and civilian infrastructure. Both sides say they did not intend to, and both sides present reasons/excuses for their actions. Reflect that and present in the lead and we're good. Details in the body. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with RomaC on this issue in general. Talking about intent is problematic unless you make an effort to balance it. The facts are the most important things e.g. X was hit. Sourced statements about why X was hit need to be balanced. There are plenty of sources that say both the IDF and Hamas hit things 'because they're mean'. Case in point, the river of poo in Gaza following the strikes on the sewage facilities. Possibly the world's first inland Okavango-like poo delta. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I edited the lead, it stated that Israel hit mosques, schools and private homes. It then states that Hamas struck at Israel without a word on civilian targets. Where the hell is the balance here! Either state that both hit civilian targets or negate the issue entirely. For the life of me I can't understand your logic here!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC but to clarify the lead should only reflect facts. The lead is not the place for Israeli or Hamas to make claims. Those claims as for as legitimate sources back belong in the body of the article. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven't seen many that say it Israel hit civilians to be mean. Most say it was collateral or targeting militants. If a reader sees "they hit mosques" it is probably to conclude that there was intent. This needs to be clarified or else it upsets the tone and balance. This goes for rockets to. I have not read anything that says Hamas was aiming at little kids so it is bad form to write it in a way that it could easily be inferred. Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's consistent with RomaC's statement above made at 04:18 it will get my support. Cptnono, many HR sources and Goldstone have documented incidents and talked about collective punishment, actions without military necessity, excessive force, all sorts of things etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean, Goldstone is not the holy grail who's report is beyond criticism. It is a source of contention and is the subject of much dispute. In fact, many Western democracies have either rejected it outright or severely criticized it. The fact that it currently in limbo in Geneva is a good indication of its problematic and contentious nature--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions without military necessity, excessive force, ect have pointed towards collateral damage or overuse/misuse of weaponry but not targeting innocents. I have no problem saying that Gaza was smashed but the implying (even if unintentionaly) that it was to hurt innocents is inappropriate. That is one of the things I liked about my rough draft up above. Make it clear to the reader that IDF was looking out for its own and did so but also mention that the scale of damage and civilian casualties was high. Whn you start throwing in "they hit a mosque and school!" it tugs at the heartstrings. They also damaged roads and office buildings. Those aren't in the lead because they are not sensational. I know that accuses editors of POV pushing but it is true and hopefully not intentional. if we are going to go into specifics in the lead it needs to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of consensus I'll also support a balanced 'less is more' approach in the lead leaving the details for the article. I agree that implying things is inappropriate. Basing information on reliable independant sources is better e.g. http://www.phr.org.il/PHR/article.asp?articleid=708&catid=42&pcat=42&lang=ENG [32] is a source that we have probably neglected somewhat. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but there are other sources that analyze it completely different. Less is best here since we can't go into detail on every one. If we still want to include mosques and schools I am OK with it as long as we mention the various other important buildings. We could also mention the Israeli buildings that were damaged. I think some explanation will be needed or it will be easy for the reader to jump to conclusions so we can add both side's reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of an uninvolved editor

Just looking at the article as if I was a reader, not an editor...

The first paragraph seems wrong. The title of a Wikipedia article is the most common name, in the case of English Wikpedia, it’s the english name. So it’s apprpriate to say “known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world” (assuming that is the case), but it is irrelevant here to refer to it’s military codename and needs to be moved. Secondly, you need another reference for it’s being called “Gaza Massacre”. The single reference I found was by a writer listed as “foreign editor” for South Africa Times, but I also found a blog where that editor seemed to be giving personal advice. It may still be OK, but it isn’t sufficient. If it is really known by that, finding other references shouldn’t be difficult. Also, it should be characterized as to what it is in the opening sentence, for example “military conflict” or whatever is most approprate. For all the openning sentence “Gaza War” could refer to a video game.

IMO, the opening paragraph would be better as:

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

This is just a general idea as I don't know the issue well enough to be exact in all the wording, BashBrannigan (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we do need the name the Israeli government uses, and if you look at this talk page you can see 10 different sources of Hamas officials using "the Gaza massacre" as the name of the event. But thanks for the comments. nableezy - 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact if all these Hamas officials name this confrontation with Israel "the Gaza Massacre" I should think we would be able to find one reliable source in English that says something to the effect "The Hamas government refers to this confrontation as the Gaza Massacre." Surely we can find one source that says what you want it to say in proper English? Some Google News redux:

• "Gaza War" [33] 1753
• "Operation Cast Lead" [34] 949
• "Gaza Massacre" [35] 16

Oh but shucks! all but ONE refer to the Gaza massacre. But we do have ONE that actually capitalizes it. Surely we can use that one! from MWC News. Headlined: Zionist-Israel Racism Exposed in 50 Steps After the latest Israeli Gaza Massacre in Israel's Gaza Concentration Camp (ultimately about 1500 were killed by 22 days of merciless bombardment and ... Good enough ! Finally, capitalized letters!Stellarkid (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well gee golly, I guess an Arabic name would be sooo common in English sources. And a source has been presented that says "the Arab world" has called the event "the Gaza massacre". The rest of your argument is both tried and tired without any substance that goes beyond "I dont like it". Bye. nableezy - 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You continue to assert that but it makes no sense to me. Sources in the region with sites in English would still use it and so would journalists in the West. That is wording to drool over and to think that it wold not have been picked up makes it sound like Gaza is on another planet. Hamas simply used the term massacre here and there. We still don't have official docs (1 guy said it in one sentence on an official page) with it or it being used in many speeches/statements to the press. My wording a few sections above clearly showed that you can even use it in the lead without asserting it is a title if editors wanted to try it.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2006 airstike in Qana has been called the second Qana massacre in the Arab world, a name that is largely unused in the English media, including the Arab media in English. That does not mean it is not known in Arabic as the second Qana massacre (and reliable sources back that). The idea that English media will use the name from a "side" as the name they use in their factual reports does not make sense. Why would that be true? Why would English reports use names not common in English? nableezy - 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the airstike in Qana since I don't know enough details to formulate a proper response. Regardless, English media did pick up on the massacre term a few times. The also picked up on Operation Cast Lead several thousand more. Media in this conflict was sensationalist and the majority of the coverage was about the hard times for the residence. I hate to answer a question with a question but why would they not cover it. We also have reports from aid organizations who showed sympathy for the Palestinians and even focused on potential issues that had relativity little impact (please don't read that as Israel not making huge mistakes that hurt the general population). I would expect them to love propagating the term.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is of course the Jenin Massacre. It both redirects to the Jenin Battle and has a huge section describing the allegations of "massacre." Gaza massacre also redirects and there is no reason why there cannot be a discussion of the allegations of massacre there as well. This is the English Wikipedia and it is not "picking a side" unless it is the English side and the reason for that is for verifiability. There is nothing neutral about naming a battle or war as a massacre and emboldening that and putting it in the lede as if it were the active WP voice. "Gaza War" is neutral as it should be, "OCL" is just words without any accusation or description. Gaza Massacre is unverifiable from English reliable sources and English is preferred and NPOV is required. Why are you edit-warring when others are trying to maintain a NPOV in the lede? You are essentially enforcing your viewpoint in this article on others by means of reversion and refusal to compromise. This seems to me to be against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Stellarkid (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself. An English language source was provided that supports the wording in the article. We are not naming it a massacre, we are saying who did. And you have attempted to compromise how? From what I have seen your "compromise" involved using different standards for different POVs, specifically "war against Hamas" is never once used as a title to refer to this even tin any of the sources you put in and in most in fact it did not even contain the phrase "Israel's war against Hamas". When you start being consistent with your argument I will start paying attention. I have no patience when you advocate one POV using the exact opposite argument as when you advocating against another, so please dont think you are competent to lecture me on NPOV or the 5P. Take a look at your own editing here and you will quickly see that you have tried to advance arguments not supported by policy and wording not supported by sources. So kindly refrain from pontificating about what is required from me an an editor. Gaza War is neutral, which is why the title of this article is Gaza War. Your argument on NPOV is complete nonsense. There is absolutely nothing non-neutral with saying "Hamas has called the conflict X" no matter what X is. Why are you edit-warring when an RfC was opened to get other views? And English language sources have been provided that support "Gaza massacre" so when you say it is not verifiable in English that is a lie, a lie that you know is a lie. And besides being a lie, it also does not matter, nothing in WP:NONENG requires it to be verifiable in English sources, it only requires that it be verifiable. Every single argument you have made has been bogus. Every single one. nableezy - 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a crappy compromise but at least there was another attempt.Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not a compromise at all. The phrasing "described as a 'massacre'" is demonstrably inaccurate, all the quotes say "the Gaza massacre", not "a massacre". I changed it something that hopefully will not be as objectionable but retaining the actual quote. nableezy - 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort since removing the bold is a big step. Unfortunately, I expect this to get rebolded sooner or later as it is worded.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good edit Nableezy. I was about to revert back to the longstanding version because Stellarkid was re-introducing the same "compromise" edit he made at 06:18 on October 6th, which misrepresents the source contents cited (using "a massacre" versus "the Gaza massacre"). I would have retained the bold formatting myself, but it seems to provoke a strong response from those who don't like the term. I do think mentioning its use in the Arab world is also relevant, but can pass on that too in the lead, since the sentence focuses on the names assigned by the belligerents. Tiamut^talk 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with not liking and to do with the facts. Seems it could be reversed to people really liking it. Also, "at times" looks like it is needed next to the new massacre line. That is why I have a problem with the use of it as a description/title.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept Nableezy's compromise with the exception that there is no reason why there cannot be a verifiable English source instead of an Arabic one. Read WP:NONENG --it is the least preferred methodology. Further, I do take exception to all the personal attacks in Nableezy's last post. Stellarkid (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy been pointed the last couple of days but I think all three of us are frustrated. There are English sources that have Hamas guys sayig "gaza massacre". There are not enough to assert it is a title but with them plus some other random stuff I see no problem with having somewhere say that people said "massacre".Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would accept the following two English sources as supporting the lede as currently written: [36],[37]. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should not be asserted as a title. The bold helps but it is only a bandaid since we know that is how it reads and someone will eventually bold it. I have no problem using the term in the article and even the lead if done properly. Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an English source and an Arabic one. Is there really a problem with including an Arabic source to source the Arabic words (which I think should be included)? nableezy - 04:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We have enough English sources saying "massacre" that we don't need foreign language sources. If you were able to prove through those sources that it was a title/preferred description over other descriptions I would be less concerned (can't speak for others) but you haven't been able to.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Says a clearly impartial judge. </sarcasm> nableezy - 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected this page due to persistent edit-warring by autoconfirmed accounts. If and when the dispute is resolved, let me know so I can unprotect. Enigma^msg 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Folks, I have created this new section to complain about people creating new sections. If something is already being discussed can we stick to the existing sections or else discussions get fragmented. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For once we found something we can agree upon. I second your motion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something else we agree on and that is that this article can't become a recruitment poster for Hamas. Our reasons are probably different though. Mine is that recruitment posters for Hamas are currently covered by Ottoman civil codes defining copyright and these prevent their use in Wikipedia. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsections are necessary for the proper organization of talk pages and anyone who says otherwise is POV pushing against organization.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see twe still have our senses of humor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, im far from happy with some things in this article. How do we solve things in situations like this? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great. Enough people edit war (you know who you are on both sides) and you have a 50% chance of it getting locked on the less infuriating version. I don't think we will reach consensus with the current lead. It needs to be shelved and completely redone. It also needs to be a better summary of the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A was thinking on other parts than those last edits befor protection was about but ok, then I ask about the procedure.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't expect the edit warring to stop if the block is lifted since I don't expect people to agree on the lead in its current form. It is clear that people are unmovable on certain things in the lead and there are very few points from anyone that I think are ridiculous so I understand. I think the admin made a brilliant decision and we should take this opportunity to fix something that is broken.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is the way to solve it? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new lead. People can promise not to edit war any more but if the admin believes that... Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we can also strip enough out of the lead that it is not offensive to anyone. There are some things I really want in but know that it will meet resistance. Something like:

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

Israel started the campaign with an aerial bombardment and entered the Gaza Strip with ground forces on January 3. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict. Under international pressure, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on January 18 and Hamas followed 12 hours later by announcing a one-week ceasefire which has mainly held.

Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. Substantial damage was inflicted on both government and civilian buildings. More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, while 4,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless. The scope of the destruction and civilian deaths drew calls of the assault being a "massacre"

A report published in September 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) stated that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes during the war and it recommended bringing those responsible to justice.

summarizes the basics.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Decent. I could live with it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just try to make it clear that it was Hamas who referred to it as a "massacre"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Small quibble. 'Beginning', not 'begging'. :) A version of the lead could be posted here or in a sandbox and edited by the various parties until something acceptable to everyone was agreed upon. Enigma^msg 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And why is it you are going back to it "being a 'massacre'" when every source provided explicitly says "the Gaza massacre"? What is wrong with how it is currently in the first paragraph? nableezy - 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I still disagree that you have found adequate sources. I have already explained why your source is not good enough. Others agree regardless of the edit warring temporarily shifting to something else and people not arguing with you as much. I poersonally think you should be happy that "massacre" is still considered for the lead when there is obviousley resistance (albeit for questionable reasons) to using the term at all. If anything this version leans towards Gaza the massacre side of things while disregarding others.[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You dont agree that every source presented has called it "the Gaza massacre"? And even Stellarkid said the current wording is fine. nableezy - 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No I do not. I also expect your wording to get bolded and turned into a title again. I've already explained this. And the fact that stating "massacre" is not good enough since it doesn't say "the Gaza massacre" makes it look like you are only interested in winning and not improving the article. It was called "the Gaza massacre" isn't a necessary line, is disputed, has caused disruption, will continue to cause disruption, and is properly summarized by changing the wording enough to say "drew calls of the assault being a 'massacre'". If you really want it to be "led to Hamas to call it the Gaza 'massacre'" we both know what will happen and for partially good reason. Notice that Operation Cast Lead is not in my proposal along with not mentioning "indiscriminant attacks" or precision weaponry used to make an exceptional amount of successful hits. Work towards consensus and maybe we can actually improve the article and get it unlocked.Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The only disruption it has caused is a few users not liking the description and doing everything the can to remove it. And every single one of the sources calls it "the Gaza massacre" not "a massacre" and it did not lead Hamas to call it the "Gaza 'massacre'", the quote is "the Gaza massacre". Work towards consensus? Please, a few users, mostly ones that have not added anything of substance to this article and in fact have added mostly bullshit, have demanded the removal of a name that they do not like for no other reason than they do not like it. And I need to work towards consensus? There is a response to that, but it would likely result in me being blocked so if you would like me to provide that response ask me on my talk page. nableezy - 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes up every so often for good reason. I also don't care what others have or have not contributed. I could argue the ratio of Palestinian leaning editors, tactics used to keep it in (others have already done so), and several other things but I really don't need to get into who has or needs to do what to make their opinion on the subject and sources valuable. You just got East Jerusalem and still think it isn't good enough, Nableezy. Cptnono (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Cptnono, if you please... I draw a distinction here and support "Wikipedia-leaning editors." Of course the Israeli term "Operation Cast Lead" belongs in the lead, as does the term "Gaza massacre" cited to Gaza and the Arab world. Nab has bent over backwards to address the ongoing attempts to remove the Gazan/Palestinian/Arab term. It is just bargaining to offer to sacrifice/relegate the Israeli term in the name of "compromise". But you know I think if we had Reuters reporting from an Arab media press conference in which the Grand Poobah of Hamas said "We call the event occurring in Dec/Jan the "Gaza massacre", while raising both his hands to mime "quotation marks" round the term as he spoke it, there would still be calls to disregard this because he hadn't indicated capitalization. Strongly inclined to believe that if Gaza termed the event "Our Due" it would not have been targeted here. Again, the issue it is not that Gaza and the Arab world have their own term for this event, which they clearly do, rather it is that some editors here don't like the Gazan term and so strive to remove it. And that campaign runs roughshod over Wiki policy. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the way I worded it quotes are not even neccasary. It clearly says massaacre, it can be sourced, it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of titling. If anything it is a better summary since it doesn't overly and potentially falsify what it is. Massacre is in my proposal (without an Israeli "balance") for the lead along with lines that will be read by readers as Israel destroying the Gaza Strip (with little retort since this is a summary and that would cause another 10 lines to fix). What is the problem? It looks to be that it doesn't say "It was called..." which is applying a title when it is disputed by some editors (new and old). If Nableezy needs it to say "It was called" then yes, he is refusing to do what he can to help fix this article. I'm not trying to say "fuck you, Nableezy" I'm trying to say "maybe you should look at it from a different angle".Cptnono (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The support the use of the term Gaza Massacre. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>It is true that I supported Nableezy's recent edit as a compromise. I prefer Cptnono's, however, as it sounds much more encyclopedic and professional. It feels like there is no POV-pushing there, but an attempt to find balance and not to go beyond what can be easily verified by the reader. I believe this is a fair edit and hope that we can convince Nableezy and RomaC and others of it. Then we can move on. Stellarkid (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The uninvolved editor BashBrannigan (talk) proposed this and motivated it above [[38]]. We should try to understand that all of us have strong POV about this and take his suggestion under concideration. Not many uninvolved editor like to stick in their head in this waspnest.

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

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort that edit doesn't fix the problem (I dispute that it was actually titled or used as a description enough to title "massacre" which will happen with that edit, addinf "war against Hamas" "assault on Gaza" leads to "War on Gaza" "War in the South" and several other "titles" being mentioned. Also, last time something similar to "forces of Israel and Hammas" was mentioned I'm pretty sure people went nuts (I don't mind that part though).Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully but your disputation of Nabs links to sources is not strong enough. Time for you to leave your objection to just a objection and let it go. We dont vote here if Im correct but I have a feeling most of us vill accept Nabs possition and a few willing to accept it to get out of the stalemate regarding this part the dispute. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I also wasn't edit warring so am not responsible for the lock. There are other issues involved in the lead that have not been worked out. In fact, no one else has even attempted to fix it. A couple of people said they were OK with my proposal but Nableezy thought that using the term "massacre" needed to be worded differently. People still need to figure out the other aspects of it that were being reverted over and over. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Sigh... There are a couple of problems for me.

• The first problem is the "evolution is just a theory" argument which is being deployed here as "Gaza Massacre" as a name is just a theory. I find it difficult to say anything sensible on the "Gaza Massacre" as a name issue because there is no agreed decision procedure to settle the issue. It's certainly the case that the event was identified that way by Hamas and others and it has been demonstrated again and again. Since there isn't an agreed way to make a decision, presenting evidence won't achieve anything. I see little merit in discussing the issue until all parties agree a decision procedure. I have no problem with the existing sentence 'The conflict was codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel and described as "the Gaza massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas.[18][19]'. It complies with the core policies as far as I can tell. If something complies with policy and some editors don't like it the problem is likely to be with the editors rather than the lead. Which brings me to the second problem.
• The second problem is summed up by Nableezy's statement "The only disruption it has caused is a few users not liking the description and doing everything the can to remove it". I don't think it helps to expect rational pro-Wikipedia editors to spend their valuable time dealing with editor's linguistic cleansing tendencies, hurt feelings about what Hamas say and various other behaviors unrelated to wiki policy and wiki objectives. It's unreasonable, it's not in the interests of Wikipedia and it's inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions which are there to help address this kind of silliness. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not agree with BashBrannigan's suggestion since it asserts as a title and it is against the manual of style (Title's need to be bolded in the lead). My solution was dumbing down the lead to the point that there is no mention of Israel's operational name and to be frank it makes them look pretty bad (which they deserve to some extent of course). Even with this, I still including the term massacre since people did describe it as a massacre. Some people have even used it as a title but it was relativity rare when comparing it to the multiple other titles out there. If Nableezy requires it to be asserted as a title then there is a huge roadblock and we will have to add several others (which is like BashBrannigan suggestion only we will do it per MOS).

Also, regardless of the two of us agreeing or not (since it isn't required to not edit war and it isn't either of our's decision anyways), there was another series of edit warring that caused the page to get locked. It was over another editor's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of a poorly laid out lead and a few other portions of the article. (please see the handful recently added discussions to this talk page and the reverts with several editor's names mentioned in the edit history).Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I dont know why you are saying "if Nableezy requires it be asserted as a title" when I made an edit that was agreed to by myself, Tiamut, Stellarkid and at least a lil bit by you that did not assert is as the name but as a description with sources for both the English and Arabic used in the article. There were other parts being "warred" over, but that edit seems to have been taken in well by those arguing most vociferously. Your one beef with it is that somebody will eventually re-bold it. I dont think that is an issue, especially if we can say that there is consensus for leaving it in but not bolded. The other parts are the other parts and they need to be worked out, but can we please drop this, at least for another 3 months when a new set of editors come in demanding it be taken down? nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is out of proportions. Bring it to Arbritation and let them decide after we made our points heard. Then we lock part by part arbritated. For eternal time untuched my editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with any administrative action or oversight. Nableezy is fresh off of charges of gaming the system and winning by shear staying power with allegations of campaigning. ( here and here I like him but agree with the concern. Nableezy's priorities are Palestine and not Wikipedia. I know those look like horrible charges to make but he was presented with a perfectly fine option and disregarded any "compromise" (we shouldn't be compromising facts). I would like to think that he is an alright guy (I really do like him) but his edits show that there is a sole purpose and that is Palestine not Wikipedia.[39] Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action is one thing, arbitration is another. Arbcom does not "rule" on content. Regarding your imaginations, I was "charged" with edit warring with the loudest complaining editor having made the same number of reverts (2) as I had. That is not "gaming the system" that is a bullshit report. Regarding the rest of your message, I still sorta like you so I am just going to pretend you did not actually write that down. And if you dont want me to pretend that please repeat it on my talk page so that I can give you the proper response. And when editors say they accept that it was used by Hamas and still do not want the name in the article that is not me rejecting a "perfectly fine option". And the current lead is a "perfectly fine option". Why exactly are you rejecting what was agreed as a "compromise" by Stellarkid, Tiamut, and myself? You keep saying I have not proved anything, but I have and a number of others feel that I have. I aint having this "conversation" anymore as I do not want what respect I still have for a few of the editors here to vanish. nableezy - 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You made it clear that the discussion of edit waring did not involve me. You edit war on more than one Gaza-Israeli based pages. I full-on expect a negative response from you. I am doing it for constructive criticism since no one else has (including admins) when you need it. We can move this to a talk page if you want but I'm not calling you out to be a dick. I'm doing it since other editors perceive you as gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Other editors, and you as well apparently, dont know what that means. And why does it not surprise me that you see no issue with Stellarkid's edit-warring over the same issue here, or Shuki making the exact same number of reverts on the page in the report? This does not belong here though, if you wish to continue this take it to my talk page or just continue trying to badger an admin to "admonish" me. nableezy - 12:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant it when I said previousley that I wasn't saying "fuck you" and I meant it when I said you don't deserve a block since your edit warring isn't malicious. I do believe you are only editing to for a sole purpose and if you don't see that you need to take a step back and look at your history. I was also serious when I said that you won East Jerusalem and still weren't happy with it. You have edited inappropriately and you need to be told so or else you won't fix it. Screw other editors screwing up since you should know better.Cptnono (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't know why you have problems respecting requests from your fellow editors that you do not comment on editor's motivations and instead stick to content. You did with me above and we wasted thousands of bytes on that discussion. And now you are doing it again. Please stop. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we please focus on the content discussion here? A reasonable compromise was floated by an uninvolved editor and was adopted by three involved parties. Its the version that currently appears in the article. I find this to be an accurate and NPOV presentation of the facts. Those who do not are encouraged to explain their rationale here concisely. The alternative offered above is one I reject, as it distorts what the sources actually say regarding the Gaza massacre and fails to introduce Operation Cast Lead which is used throughout the article. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The reasonable compromise is a bandaid. If we all agree that having 5-10 bolded "titles" is OK then that is fixed. We still need to address the other edit wars sparked by other editors (you know who you are). Furthermore, the demographics of this page came up in a discussion up above. If you have an interest in Palestine or Israel you need to take a step back and make sure you are editing for the project and not a people. (this includes Stars of Davids, Hezbollah flags, little Palestinian girls, and the colors of the Arab revolt.Cptnono (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, you need to stop speculating and commenting on your fellow editors motivations and focus on article content. I could not understand your objection to the present text in the above comment. Could you please restate, focusing only on the problems with the current text? And suggestions for improvement (if any)? Tiamut^talk 13:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this article was locked for a reason. Editors then bring up a pro-Israeli slant on Wikipedia. To top it off, no on e but me has offered a solution to getting this page unlocked. My solution was fair to a few editors but Nableezy was not happy that it did not assert massacre as a title. We need to fix this article and the lock proves it. RomaC had a knee jerk reaction to edits (he ended up being right in my eyes for the most part) and editors started edit warring. Editors here are too biased and that is why this article is locked. I mean this with or without offence: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here.Cptnono (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on Cptnono, please. Nableezy's edits and actions including those covering the so called edit war over calling Israeli Settlements 'Israeli settlements' are in accord with mandatory policies and pro-Wikipedia. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to be contacted and provided with links to various disputes that are ongoing here and elsewhere plus the associated list of usernames for people that have not been officially notified of the discretionary sanctions (which includes me). There are bullshit conflicts springing up all over the place. Official notification is I believe a prerequisite for Arbitration Enforcement requests under the sanctions which in my view need to start getting filed at WP:AE unless the madness stops. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono wrote: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here. I'm sorry buddy, but we don't disqualify editors from editing on the basis on ethnicity or political leanings epxressed on their user pages. For the last time, please stop commenting on editors and their motivations. If there are particular edits that are problematic, discuss those, content-wise. Perhaps Sean.holyland is right. It looks like the I-P articles are leading to yet another WP:AE case because of the refusal of editors to abide by policy. Tiamut^talk 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was just a discussion on another page where he was accused of edit warring, campaigning, and being biased. Too many times in too short of a period. If you can't defend yourself then you should get out. I like the guy. I think it sucks that he can't just admit to screwing up and try working as a group. People on this article are not what doing what they are supposed to for Wikipedia. They are editing to prove a point. It is bullshit. And yes, if you have the colors on your flag it is easy to asume that you are biased. enough about me though, how are you trying to fix the article? Cptnono (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I tried showing that Hamas didn't kill kids on purpuse. I tried showing that a leading voice against Israel was not a Nazi. I also am arguing that massacre was a description and not a title. If you are biased you need to get out. PeriodCptnono (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to have trouble respecting basic requests that you cease commenting on editors, I have filed an AE report. Tiamut^talk 14:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are arguing it is a description and not a title why exactly are you complaining when the article says "described as"? nableezy - 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How about involving the "cast lead" in the second prargraph of th lead.

• On 27 December Israel began a bombardment of the Gaza Strip, codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel with the stated aim of stopping rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip,

Or as a ballance to bolded 'Gaza Maseacre, :

• On 27 December Israel began a bombardment of the Gaza Strip, codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel with the stated aim of stopping rocket attacks from and arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip,

It would be perfect together with BashBrannigan's suggestion. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza massacre" is not bolded, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with

The Gaza War began on December 27, 2008, when Israel launched a military attack on the Gaza Strip. The conflict lasted until January 18, 2009 when first Israel, then Hamas, each announced unilateral ceasefires. The conflict was codenamed "Operation Cast Lead" (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה) by Israel and described as "the Gaza massacre" (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) by Hamas.

Cptnono has been saying that he does not accept it as a name but that he does as a description. The article says described. Cptnono wants to replace it with "a 'massacre'" when all the sources say "the Gaza massacre" not a generic "massacre". That is what I and other have taken issue with. Not one week ago this edit was acceptable to Cptnono and Stellarkid. All edit-warring involving this specific term ended. Mr Unsigned and Jiujitsuguy had been going back in forth, with a few others joining in, in another part of the lead. Cptnono's only complaint at that point was that he felt that eventually somebody would re-bold the title. So un-bold it if that happens. There is nothing wrong with the first paragraph right now. nableezy - 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that those who are quoting me as accepting the compromise version please desist. As I said yesterday, but this time I will highlight what I consider the important policy-based WP reasons:

"It is true that I supported Nableezy's recent edit as a compromise. I prefer Cptnono's, however, as it sounds much more encyclopedic and professional. It feels like there is no POV-pushing there, but an attempt to find balance and not to go beyond what can be easily verified by the reader. I believe this is a fair edit and hope that we can convince Nableezy and RomaC and others of it. Then we can move on.

I don't know who said it first, but I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was yesterday. Further - I am shocked that Tiamut has opened an arbitration enforcement case against Cptnono. Stellarkid (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it. My intent was to improve the page and it came across mean. I figured everyone should be involved when such allegations about editors of this article are made. I don't believe any rules were breached besides a little bit of coarse language. I'm new to arbitration enforcement so don't know all of the protocol but am fine waiting and seeing what happens.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And I am shocked that no one sees a problem with statements like: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Its not closed to people who like Palestinian symbols. Tiamut^talk 10:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You opened up the case on another page since you thought the discussion was not to improve the article. I said it to improve the article not to hurt anyone's feelings. Since you are now duplicating the discussion (and my comment was moved to the bottom for some reason and I am moving it back) I'll admit what I do consider a mistake on my part just like I did on the other page. The problem is not all as I asserted but some. Do you want to continue to discuss it here or do you believe the best place to hold the discussion is on the other page?

I was responding to Stellarkid's comment above. I've responded to the content based discussion below and yes, I still think the best place to discuss user conduct problems is at WP:AE. Tiamut^talk 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"the Gaza massacre" is easily verified in both English and in Arabic with the translation given. And there is not one "policy-based WP reason" in what you wrote above. No kidding you prefer Cptnono's edit, it is essentially the same as you were warring into the article. But there is no definition of "compromise" that Cptnono's proposed edit falls under. nableezy - 05:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So shall we wait untill this arbritation lead us somewere or try to find and define a solution, be there two three or more proposals. If we focus on proposals the discussions will be easier to follow and maby less focus on the editors. I open up a new section with the advice: only write your prefered version of first paragraphs of the lead and sign it for identification. Then we continue the discussion here or in other sections. I start with the version that was up to RFC. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

oops, I actually didn't even notice Nableezy's recent edit regarding why I was asserting that "the Gaza massacre" is being used incorrectly. As I have stated above, the source is written by a blogger, contradicts many sources and news hits, and looks exactly like what a circular reference would look like. I have also stated that it wasn't used in prominence (less than a dozen times by Hamas and relatively few hits in searching the sources). I don't want to keep on explaining it but I felt that his comment did not correctly say why I am concerned about using it. I also have said my piece at the arbitration discussion. If you want to go read it feel free since it would probably be disruptive to rehash it all here. With all that said, I don't mind listing every title and primary description per another editor's suggestion.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not even the source used, and if it were the source was written by a foreign editor who also has a blog and was printed in the Sunday Times of South Africa, not a blog. nableezy - 15:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the documentation for Nableezy's edit was very thin, as I previously noted. Looking up "Gaza Massacre" in the news section of Google, it was clear that the term was only used in English within quotes with a small letter ("massacre"), or by very marginal blogs and by stridently anti-Israel blogs and internet sites. I believe it failed per WP:ENG in terms of easily verifiable sources and it failed the English grammar test. If the argument is that it is a title per Hamas, we should be able to find a RS in English that makes that clear. If the argument is that it is a common title per "Arabs and Muslims" (as was once headlined) we should be able to find an English source that makes it clear by using the large "M" (following the rules of English grammar) and by at least a handful of such RS considering the POV nature of the name. Otherwise, as a common noun, it belongs in the body of the article. I accepted Nableezy's edit on the thin (very thin) support based on wanting the edit warring to stop. However, Cptnono's edit addresses the other issue which I have said was secondary but still an issue, the one of POV. I firmly believe that Cptnono's is the fairest edit and the one that can withstand the "easily verifiable" test. Stellarkid (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic sources are included in this "documentation" and they are by no means "very thin". As regards to what you think you said, I would accept the following two English sources as supporting the lede as currently written. And the Sunday Times source explicitly sourced "known as 'the Gaza massacre' in the Arab world" and it was not a blog posting, nor was it in a "stridently anti-Israel" source (I suppose you mean when Robert Fisk or Norman Finkelstein or Uri Avnery also called it "the Gaza massacre"). nableezy - 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit a couple above lays out why the South African source is disputed. There are three reasons so please adress all three.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this something that should go to the RS noticeboard, then?Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to, but it is not even being used in the article. nableezy - 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You are using it on the talk page to assert that it was a common term/title and Stellarkid considers it thin. If you are no longer doing so then it does not matter.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)