Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 57

Sudan strike
I added a small section on the Sudan strike. I did so because it occurred during the war and involved the belligerents. Hope this is okay with you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel stated that one of objective of Gaza War is stopping "import" of weapons like factory produced rockets which Gaza government launched into Israel before and during the war. Looks like a nice well sourced addition with military details like weaponry used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AgadaUrbanit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Under what command did Israel felt it needed to stop such rockets...Oh, it felt threatened....ok, just fine...and who was Israel attacking in the process to archive it;s security concerns?... Yes, Gaza imports weapons(from who? Iran of course) but, those weapons aren't used against Iran...Umm, yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah 1984...forgive the common media...But, today...who are at war against? Cryptonio (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (sidetracking) Cryptonio, love you as always. Big Brother Is Watching - hope you have your Apple MacBook with you, to chase those bad ghosts away ;) Just finished reading Cryptonomicon - those governments should stop taxing our thoughts, there is a way! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Created a section under international law 'The Goldstone Report'
And cut down it in the lead. Done.


 * Hello Mr. Unsigned Anon, it would not be bad, in the case of controversy-steeped articles which are under Wikipedia general sanctions, to offer some sort of discussion before creating new sections and editing the lead. Also you're meant to sign your comments here on Talk by typing four tildes . I assume you have the best intentions in making these edits, but I'm reverting them now as someone else most likely will anyway. I hope you will participate here on Talk. If this is your first time on Wikipedia, welcome! if not perhaps you could sign-in? Sincères salutations, RomaC (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problemas. Just did a bold edit to what I think will be the result of discussions. See it as a suggestion. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see everything as a suggestion. Yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

for use elsewhere

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 recommended bringing those responsible to justice. The report condemned Palestinian rocket attacks as a "deliberate attack against the civilian population", but singled out Israeli actions for the most serious condemnation, labeling them a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population." The report or the resolution mandating it were criticized as flawed, unbalanced or politically motivated by Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the United States State Department and Congress, UN Watch, The Economist and others. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch encouraged the implementation of the report's recommendations.

Lead looks not good with alot of this report in it, remember it is a report and not a part of the war. Make a section under international law as I tried befor it was reverted or even better, start a new article about it. The summary that both is acused of warcrimes is enough here.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New infobox
There is a new infobox in the Palestinian paramilitary activity section, and discussion on the box in general here, but perhaps we could also address its appropriateness in this article. Because it runs the gamut of all Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from 2001-2009 as well as types of rockets not used in the Gaza War, doesn't it introduce too much of one kind of information? There is already a rocket statistics chart in the article which more closely corresponds to the Gaza War and lead-up timeframe. Also don't like infoboxes in general, see them as Trojan Horses. Maybe I'm wrong, would a "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" infobox improve the article? RomaC (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the info and makes browsing easy but the prominence gives it weight that we should avoid. I would expect any "List of Israeli air, land and sea bombardments of Gaza" box to cause all sorts of concerns so might as well just get rid of it. Not sure what it says in the guidelines but it looks like text goes where text goes, infoboxes go at the top, and templates go at the bottom is standard enough that the deviation looks a little silly.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

POV in lead
The lead says "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed, according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets."

That is clearly Israeli POV, but it has been attributed to Israel so thats good. But I wonder why we don't have Palestinian POV in the lead? In particular Hamas' rationale for rocket attacks (i.e. as a protest to the blockade)? We should either just state the facts. Or if we intend to include POVs, they should come from both sides.VR talk  16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly a tendency I've seen in I-P articles is for editors to add content supporting one side and then wait for others to balance it. I call that advocacy not editing, and if I ever make a billion dollars and buy Wikipedia I'll prohibit it. But for now we have this reality, unabashed. Often a concise edit could be made that covers both sides' positions, but instead we get adversarial edits and more bloat than balance. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants to edit in a "pro-Palestinian"(pro Hamas) or even observe the fact that there was another side of the "official story". What I mean is, that Palestinians are outkasts for letting one or two groups do the talking for them. They don't have a voice within the mainstream mentality, which is very "anti-terrorism".  Yes, advocacy, and even worse, propaganda.  But, take a look at Israel's side of the story, and you'll see that is not written on anything meaningful.  So thus, you must inadvertently "attack" Israel and whatever else comes between a well written article and the crap of system that we have right now.  Hey, convince noneone, keep an eye on WP:Bold.  This is crap, Israelis aren't any better human being than Palestinians, we are talking about being weak and being powerful, and not their circumstances.  Bullcrap, what are we advocating for? ahhh, the answer is misleading to some, and rationable to others.  Read and find holes, but don't lose your soul in the process.  Wiki this, wiki that, bullcrap.  I'm still on sabbatical btw. Cryptonio (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both, editors and readers are going to justify themselves. I take this seriously when I'm drunk. To wit, cheers...What is a human being? Both of you got faults, and so everyone else.  Wiki is not here to save the world.  And if there is no one to save the world, guess what, it's a free game, free-for-all...Hey, I say, enjoy! Some jerks said once that all men were created equal, and they themselves had "others" to do their job for them.  Catch this drift, that we are arguing, is a good thing, these "court martial" will last forever if we don't evolve.  Freak it, I don't disagree with what people say, I just don't care much for it.  Go to Vegas, have some fun, and try not to get married.  I did it! I looked out the window, and I said, "Vegas, imma kick your butt tonight"...and I did, got the shirt too...Come up with better questions.  Elaborate. Cryptonio (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

POV cuts both ways in the lead. I had never seen this article before (it was mentioned in the NOR noticeboard) so I looked at it just now and noticed that "Gaza Massacre" is placed in boldface in the lead. I have POV concerns regarding that, independent of the point raised in this section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of sources have been provided showing that this was the name used in among both Arabs and much of the Arab press, and, most importantly, by Hamas, the government of Gaza, for what the Israeli government called "Operation Cast Lead" which is also in bold in the lead. The common name, Gaza War, and the name each of the involved parties used, Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre, are placed in bold in the lead, as is common practice in war and battle articles. And I dont think I am exaggerating when I say that probably 10 complete archive pages, of the current 50+, are devoted to this issue.  nableezy  - 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! No surprise there. I take it that this article is, oh, mildly contentious?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a bit, 56 archives for an article that started in late December. Makes for some fun reading though if you want to go through it. Good times.  nableezy  - 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even has its own search engine, I see. Under Arbitration Committee supervision, but I think you really need the Security Council! Seriously, the article is pretty good. I learned a lot of things I didn't know before. I'd guess you don't get many people making that kind of observation, so I thought I'd say it. It's reasonably neutral, too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to VR's question -- if we say "Israel attacked because there were rockets coming from Gaza" then why not "the Gaza rockets were provoked by an Israeli blockade"; and then "the Israeli blockade was in response to suicide bombings" and so on. Suggests the effect of a reflection in a mirror reflecting in another mirror and back to the first and off to infinity . . . what's that called? "Tit-for-tat editing"? RomaC (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A war resulted from "all of this"...how to put this in perspective...What language could condensate that...happy Halloween...yeah...Cryptonio (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JohnnyB256, POV cuts both ways in the lead. Since archives show that consensus "is not very wide" for such "just a name" addition. And none of the sources say that "name for Gaza War in Arab World is Gaza massacre", probably it's not notable enough and constitutes WP:SYN. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada this edit ignores months of discussion and a long-standing consensus your action here on the other hand is unilateral. Kindly control yourself. RomaC (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, POV only slightly cuts both ways. Probably there is no need in consensus (and those archives kind of indicate great support). You sometimes note that good edit does not require a lot of explaining on talk page. Sorry you do not bring any source supporting phrasing for such naming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RomaC, you're welcome to respond here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada, there was consensus for the name and if you wish to remove it you need consensus to do so.  nableezy  - 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not call it a consensus, at least not a wide one. Though thank you for showing me ancient history. Looks like regulated conflict resolution to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Gaza Massacre should be mentioned in the lead, as it was previously. Also, I think the previous (longer) description of the UN report in the lead was better. Now the sentence does not have much information content -- in almost every recent war both sides committed war crimes, but the report I think was actually highly critical of Israel and this should be reflected in the lead. In short, I think a previous version of the lead was much better. Offliner (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede is neutral now and contains all the information that is necessary for a lede to have. Contains the who, the what, and the when. oops! and the where. The why is expanded on below, as appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the part where Arab and Muslim press calls it "massacre" under media, where it is more appropriate. Please feel free to expand on it, and properly source it, in that context.  I would do it but can't until  later.  This is a good compromise.  Keep the lede clean and free from POV and include the "massacre" opinion in the media section.  Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. It is not "POV" in the lead, it is representing the POV of one of the involved parties in a NPOV way. And I dont see you removing "war against Hamas" if you really think the lead needs to be "free from POV".  nableezy  - 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not nonsense. There are a number of editors here who agree that it is POV and unsupported by the evidence. Those editors are ridiculed and condescended to and their edits dismissed as POV.  The burden is on those who wish to insert the "massacre" contention to provide support for it until (something like) consensus is achieved. The fact that you have acknowledged that you believe that this is Israel's war against Palestinians  instead of Israel's war against Hamas as the government of Gaza, despite all the evidence against that position, makes it clear the bias that you are editing from. Further you have to do somersaults and abuse the English language to defend your position.  I see your preference is for tendentious editing (however honestly believed) and edit-warring instead of trying to make the best and most accurate and neutral article you can.  Too bad.  Stellarkid (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is saying "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre" POV? How is that not a NPOV statement? And did I say I think this was a war against the Palestinians? I said the POV that this is a "war against Hamas" (notice how capitalization doesn't matter to you when it is a statement you agree with) is the opposite POV that this was a "war against the Palestinians" or as you said a "war against Gaza". You POV is also clear, you dislike the term and do not want it "enshrined" in the lead. I dont care that you dislike the term, sources have been provided supporting the statement "Hamas called it the Gaza massacre". There has been consensus for the term and you need consensus to remove it. And how many reverts of this have you made? Accusing me of tendentious editing when you are making an edit without consensus over and over. Please.  nableezy  - 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This Edit
is obviously contrary to the source Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * yes it is. You should revert it.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight regarding reactions on the Goldstone Report.
I cant explain this othervise then the Israeli sides wishes to bury rhe report in critisism have spilled over to Wikipedia in a not so subtle way. The article International law and the Gaza War is still a mess and was suffering from having a section with reactions without a section for the report itself earlier. Now I see a editor filling the Gaza_War with reactions from Israeli side POV. As I understand it is preferable to keep diferent sides POV short other than ballancing eachother with lengthly texts. Therby I ask editors to shorten reactions and opinions to statement from the involved parties. Same for the sections main article International law and the Gaza War that need lot of loving attention. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see these additions as POV. They represent a cross-section of views from important, well-regarded groups and people. Moreover, views in support of Goldstone have been presented.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also believe that these are positive additions that add, rather than detract, from the article's objectiveness.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont call your edits omgwtfbbqpovpushing or reverting as I did with that guy who did his first edit in the section. The report is notable, the reactions exept for Israel and Hamas are less notable. I call for views and opinions to be removed and kept far shorter than the text about the report itself. Mindfully of the reports devasting accusations to both sides in conflict it is obvious the Israel side that have harder to face it by as obvious reasons. I dont think your additions serves the long article and should be shortened down in favour of NPOV (this include views in support of Goldstone) and get ballance and focus for free. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate your position and agree with it in somne respects. However, 565 pages of the 574 page report focus on Israel exclusively. Therefore, it is important to note the report's detractors for a full appreciation of the controversy the report generated. Had the reprt focused exclusively, or near exclusively on Hamas, I would have added Palestinian detractors. I believe that these additional edits truly enhance the article's accuracy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, cange my mind. I cut away lot exept for Obama administration:s critic which is harch and most notable. Also support goes. We have to trust readers searching for deeper aspects of support and critisim to go to main page. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This reversion game grows tiresome.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a point being lost here. Not all this is needed in this article, it belongs in International law and the Gaza War. That article was split from this as it had become of such a length that it overwhelmed the entire article. Now there is a large portion of the article as a whole dedicated to the Goldstone report. It is overkill here. I propose we find out what the biggest criticisms are and include those, succinctly, and do the same for the praise, then actually, briefly, cover the report in the Israel/Palestinian sections under international law. The beginning of that section should be a summary of the International law and the Gaza War article, it has lost any semblance of being such a summary. Can we try to do that?  nableezy  - 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there Nableezy. The edit involving Christine Chinkin was debated and discussed at length and compromise wording was eventually hammered out. Why the reversion after so much debate. In addtion it was important to add Yaron Ezrahi and B'Tselem's views since they are normally Israel's harshest detractors yet they chose to voice strong objections to Goldstone's report and this is newsworthy and significant. Tom Gross adds a slightly different twist by leveling criticism at the UNHRC itself so this was added to enable the reader to gain a slightly different perspective. I'm willing to compromise. Work with me here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but here in this article we have more commentary on the report than coverage of the report, and we really don't need to have a ton of coverage about the report. The details go in the International law and the Gaza War article, this should be a summary and a summary does not need all this. I am not saying there should be no criticism of the report, but the bulk of it, and of the praise, should be in the sub-article.  nableezy  - 02:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ok then we don't need the last edit where Goldstone sings his praises. It's quite obvious that he agrees with his own report and the addition of that sentence (where he says his report is fair) is superfluous. So now we're just left with the Obama administration's one sentence critique and nothing more.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a general comment, I've noticed many statements being made on various talk pages about organisations reactions to the report that are often somewhat at odds with reality. Selection bias is clearly an issue here. Sources and wiki editors will emphasize/de-emphasize information/reactions in different non-neutral ways. B'Tselem mentioned above is a case in point. Their official response to the report was issued in a joint press release here along with eight other Israeli Human Rights groups; Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Adalah, Bimkom, Gisha, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and Yesh Din. Although the statement "they chose to voice strong objections to Goldstone's report" is true of a subset of comments they have made to the media it's not an accurate and balanced summary of their official response to the report. It's important to avoid cherry-picking information and mischaracterizing reactions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point with respect to B'Tselem but the other qoutes reflected the actual position of those who made them. No "cherry picking" with respect to all the other Goldstone critics. In any event, it's all academic since I think we have a consensus on just leaving the Obama administration's one sentence critique and reverting all others, pro and con. Good night all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on your "superfluous" edit but your pick for the Hamas response edit is not good. "Glad". Well... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This section have lot of opposing views POV regarding the report, not notable enough for this section (but maby ok for the main article). Once again. There is a Main article for International law. And it need help to be good Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Parts and notable views

United Nations Human Rights Council

Richard Goldstone leader of the UN commisioned team of experts.

Israel Accused of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity

Hamas Accused of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity

Obama administration, views notable


 * Views, comments and an Israeli Thinktank.

Richard Falk professor emeritus of international law, views

NGO Monitor Israeli spinntank, views

50 U.K. & Canadian Lawyers, views

Yaron Ezrahi, a political scientist at Hebrew University, views

Tom Gross Political commentator journalist, views

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC), gah editconflicts etc...
 * Also I suggest this to be removed:


 * Goldstone said investigation entered its final phase in July 2009, but noted that it was too soon to conclude that war crimes were committed during the conflict.[305]
 * According to the BBC, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials responded to the report by initiating contacts with Security Council members in order to dissuade them from referring Israelis to the ICC[313].
 * Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lawyers
There seems to be some controversy over whether Goldstone's report was regarded as a "milestone by lawyers." I changed that to read "some lawyers" because I've never seen lawyers agree on anything. Someone then added "but reputiated by others" or words to that effect and then Allan Desrshowitz' name was thrown in. Honestly, whether lawyers consider the report a milestone or not is really irrelevant and adds nothing to this article. Therefore, I reverted the entire portion dealing with lawyers. Hope you all agree.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The guardian source says "The report, which was described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers, states that a failure to conduct investigations should result in a referral to the international criminal court after six months."  nableezy  - 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, what lawyers? all lawyers?  no?  which then? A 'milestone'?  A good milestone or a bad milestone?  I know some lawyers who don't consider it a milestone at all, and Alan Dershowitz, also a lawyer, considers it "demonstrably false," (which should be in quotes because those are the very words he used, Nableezy) so I would guess (OR) that he doesn't consider it a "milestone" unless it is a milestone in duplicity.  At any rate, Jiujitsuguy -- I think it is just fine that you removed it. Just a bit of bad writing from the Guardian I think. Stellarkid (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously not "all lawyers" what an extremely inane thing to say. And you are paraphrasing what Dershowitz said, not quoting him, he wrote "First, its primary conclusions are entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact". And Dershowitz is so incredibly far from a reliable source on matters of international law (many of his conclusions have been "entirely false as a matter of demonstrable fact") that using him in this article goes past stupidity all the way to being hilarious.  nableezy  - 04:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Put two lawyers in a room and you'll get three opinions. I would agree that the Guardian messed up on this one.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers" clearly does not mean "all lawyers", it is simply the plural of lawyer meaning more than 1 lawyer. We assume the lawyers the Guardian refers to know what they are talking about because the Guardian is a high-quality news outlet.  nableezy  - 04:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:ccc, wp:burden, and "massacre"
This term has been discussed ad naseum on this talk page and there will never be a clear consensus either way. The issue is what to do at this point. Some (or is it one?) have suggested that no consensus=defualt to "massacre." Firstly, massacre is not the default. There was no point in the article history when there was a talkpage consensus for its inclusion. Although it has probably spent more time appearing then not, that is only the result of the editors who support its inclusion spending more time reverting then those opposing its inclusion.

Secondly, and more importantly, when there is no consensus for the inclusion of specific content, the default is not for inclusion. To the contrary, when the WP:BURDEN for inclusion has not been met, content cannot be included in the article.

Any responses to this specific burden issue please respond here. All arguments opposing WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues belong in the RFC above. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden has been met. The sources absolutely support that Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre. That cannot be denied, you can dispute whether or not that that was the primary name, but you are applying double-standards to the sources you use here and any number of other places depending on your POV. There is no WP:OR in the statement that Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre, that is a verifiable statement backed by numerous sources. The NPOV argument is also nonsense as you are arguing against the name not whether or not Hamas has actually called it that. I think you know your arguments are frivolous, in fact you have already said that you accept it was the name used but that you think it is "defamatory" to Israel so you want to remove it. (original question, and response). You are playing the wikilawyer, looking for any policy you think supports your quest to remove a name you dont like.  nableezy  - 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Use it in the article but not bolded in the first line as a title and not only will we be providing the information in the correct context but we also won't have to deal will some sort of mediation process Oops. Read Nableez's comment but did not read brewcrewer's disclaimer. I simply think he has not provided the sources asked for so he has not met the requirements of proving it. Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of proving that "Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre" or that they have used that name more than any other? If it is the first I will bash my head against a wall until I forget what Wikipedia is.  nableezy  - 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No head banging. Particularly not of heads that work so well.  T i a m u t talk 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the term was used.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you accept that then WP:BURDEN is met. The issue you are arguing is weight. Whether or not it should be in the lead. Brewcrewer however is arguing for the complete removal of the term because he feels it is "defamatory" to Israel.  nableezy  - 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of, you have shown that it was used but not that it was a title or the primary description. Therefore you have not met burden to use it as is. I still think no mention t all would be silly. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BURDEN. It speaks only to the verifiability of statements, not the weight given in an article. If you agree that sources cited verify the statement that "Hamas has called the conflict the 'Gaza massacre'" you accept that is a verifiable statement and WP:BURDEN is met.  nableezy  - 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see. It is a verifiable statement that the term has been used but it has not been verified that it is primary. In nonwiki speak you have not met the burden. Per WP:BURDEN you are good on it being included somewhere as we both have already agreed that we agree.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how would you verify it? It isn't really verifiable to say that "Gaza War" is the common English name for the conflict. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion before commenting. And we aren't talking about the "Gaza War". If you want to change it go ahead and make the proposal. We are talking about implying that Massacre was the preferred and predominantly used title per Hamas. There is a giant list of google news searches above with suggestions for further searches. There are only handful (Nableezy says to have over a dozen) of sources and but those don't show it being the common term just like "victory" was not. Someone said they had press releases but failed to provide them. An official had a statement on the MOI page which was great but it was one statement and we can't tell if it is a description or a title.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First let me say that I will always defend my right to comment in discussions without reading them first. But in this case I have read it.  I've actually been following this discussion for the better part of a year now.  But my comment was quite unclear and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.  I think all of these naming decisions are inherently subjective.  "Gaza War" as an example was also initially opposed and only became the title after some time.  It was never demonstrated to some objective standard that it was the common English name.  Nor was there a particular source which demonstrated it to be the common name.  A few editors simply thought that it was reasonable. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if it came across overly poopey. Assumed you didn't read it all since I have repeated several things (probably the problem!) I also would be open to changing the main title if people perceive it as incorrect. For now my focus is the false balance created by asserting that Massacre was an oft used title or a primary description in relevance to others. Hamas may also simply not have a title and that means a single line will not have balance but we have paragraphs to make up for it. We can also move the operational title a line over if it would save a little bit of confusion.Cptnono (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Operation Cast Lead gets by far the most ghits -- some 14 million compared to several hundreds of thousands for "The Gaza War." It is interesting that this article is not known OCL, in fact.  "The Gaza massacre" gets 247,000 ghits  and a mere 68 in Google News  and all but about some 2 sources do not capitalize massacre as they should if it were the proper name for a battle or an historical period.  The relevant points have to do with the WP policy WP:NONENG, and WP:CCC, and WP:Consensus with WP:NPOV as a secondary (if important) concern.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might think that is interesting but it is not. Read WP:MILMOS for why we do not use the Israeli operation name, and also look at the archives for the reason why this was moved to "Gaza War". And please, please, please. Stop saying WP:NONENG supports your argument, it does not. Linking to it shows persistence in being ignorant, not evidence of policy backing you up. And yes, consensus can change. But asserting that it can change is very different from it actually changing.  nableezy  - 06:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What seems to be the argument on "massacre"? I don't think too many people are suggesting this page be moved to something called "massacre". If that's the case, I oppose such an act. If people have found reliable sources that report that some people called it a "massacre", then it should definitely be in the lead.
 * This is the same with all leads, where alternative names are given. Take Jerusalem for example. Just because most people in the world don't refer to it as al-Quds, doesn't mean the Arabic name for it shouldn't be in the lead.VR talk  21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind mentioning it the lead I have a problem with asserting that it is a title especially when there are so many descriptions used more often. We haven'teven established that it is a title and it isn't the most prominent Arabic title (if it is one) or description by Hamas or Arabic news sources. We are giving it prominence when it doesn't deserve it.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * VR, if it were indeed documented an alternative "name," you would be absolutely right and there would be no argument. After all, the two sides are involved and their names should be included. That may be one reason the article is not named "Operation Cast Lead" -- because it is seen as biased towards Israel, so it was neutrally called "The Gaza War." Clearly the Arabs did not call it OCL, but they did call it the attack on Gaza, the Gaza war, the Gaza massacre etc.  The sources seem to indicate that they perceive the 'Gaza War' as a massacre, thus massacre is a description, an opinion (POV) that belongs in another section, not as a name to be emboldened in the lede.  If it were indeed the main name, then yes. But it isn't and the English sources and Google do not support it.  A compromise was made to remove both Operation Cast Lead and the Gaza massacre from the lede, but it was roundly reverted. Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "War on Gaza"Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * English sources do not have to support it, and they do support that "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre", and WP:NONENG does not say English sources are needed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Undesired editwarring no thanks!
So AgadaUrbanit, you started editwarring. Just dont! Revert your edit and form concensus first. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

rvt
I reverted MrUnsignedAnon for the right reason in my edit summary but the wrong policy page. Please see WP:Consensus. The relevant line is: "'Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it." Wanted to clear up any confusion. Stellarkid (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That revert is bullshit, as while consensus can change it has not changed. And the reasons it has not changed have been presented multiple times. And there is an open RfC on the topic yet you think it is fine to edit war it out of the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of reverts, do we need to discuss the police thing or is it OK? Jiujitsuguy and Nableezy had a little back and forth. Basically, Israel asserts the police were bad and were correct to target them. We have the intl law page to expand if we want but does this article need the line cleaned up or all we all good now?Cptnono (talk)
 * We are discussing it see our talk pages . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be considered laughable when one is being lectured about editwarring by Nableezy and RomaC, as I am on my talk page and in edit summaries. Yet take a look at RomaC's recent reverts of this material, the last one about 5 minutes ago: ,, ,  ,  -- Or Nableezy's recent reverts of it. ,, , , , ,

The edit summaries invariably revert based on "consensus" or lack thereof, violating CCC-- "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."

and this also on WP:CONSENSUS : ''Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.''

Once the edit has been challenged, there is no longer consensus. The edit has been challenged. Therefore the WP:burden is on those who wish to include the material to find policy-based common-sense reasons to include it. There is no reason not to exclude the material. Are these editors really so desperate to see Israel accused of a massacre in the lede that it cannot be out of the article for 5 minutes while it is very fully discussed on this page? That is certainly how it seems. Stellarkid (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Gaza Massacre. Nableezy:s argumentation and RScollection is good enough. The challengers of a earlier consesus have atleast form consensus now. This heated debate is as far from consesus we can come. Stop editwaring and wait to you eventually presented better argumentation wit RS and consensus will be rewarded. 90.237.152.18 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stellar show where I lectured you on edit warring or strike your accusations above. Also as you have lectured on English-language style and usage you should know what "invariably" means, so kindly strike that false accusation as well. Finally "editors so desperate to see Israel accused of a massacre in the lede" is also wrong. This is an article about a conflict. The title is neutral, then we give the names that both belligerents use. I am committed to countering POV-pushers who would want just one side represented. Aren't you? RomaC (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't sacrifice quality for a false balance. Other options are also available in most cases (re wording, re structuring, whatever). You think the arguments are good enough but others think it is not proven. There is not consensus and both "sides" are entrenched and not fixing it. In all reality it should be removed until resolution. I don't think we should be edit warring though. I would prefer your concession that it doesn't work as is, restructure (one line might be unbalanced!), and tighter inclusion. I assume this won't be happening. I don't mind seeing additional input for another day or so and could care less if it stays in for now since I want it to be removed but know that won't happen immediately without edit warring. If there is not consensus soon we can always seek resolution at a different level. There have been some smarmy comments and if anyone is upset by a low blow mention it and hopefully we can be big kids (ie strike it out or respectfully decline). Next time I'll be the one to screw around so you guys can lecture me then. Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new source: The siege — which Israel calls Operation Caste Lead and which much of the world simply refers to as the Gaza Massacre. Caps and everything. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, you found one English source in the ArabNews (RS? --just asking) that actually does claim that "much of the world" refers to it as "the Gaza Massacre." She does not say Hamas does or the Arabs and Muslims do, both of which have been asserted in the article.  She refers to "much of the world."  If that were true, our Google hits would demonstrate it, when in fact they demonstrate just the opposite.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "and which much of the world simply refers to as the Gaza Massacre"? I thought we were looking for Hamas saying it? We have already shown that most of the world does not and other sources certainly don't back that assertion up. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a self-reference (see WP:RELIABLE in case the writer got lazy) or just simple biased sensationalism. If you want to put in the article somewhere "Barbara Ferguson of Arab News claimed..." there would be a weight issue but it would be accurate. I also question the claim that ArabNews it is the leading English daily especially but it doesn't matter too much since Al Jazeera and other continuously updated websites contradict the claim. this is a good example of failing to provide extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim. Do you want to move this into a related discussion section?Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * to demonstrate with ghits once again.
 * "Operation Cast Lead" gets some 14.5 MILLION ghits and some 4,020  in news. Also it is fully capitalized demonstrating that it is a "name" and not a description.


 * "The Gaza Massacre" gets 247,000 ghits and a mere 68 in Google News  Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Actually that should be the Gaza massacre as only a handful at best capitalize it as it should be if it were meant to indicate a name of a battle or historical period.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And since this is supposed to be for balance, Operation Cast Lead gets 4,310 hits since the start of the conflict in gnews. 4,310>68 so forcing balance is irresponsible of us.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And continuing to use the same argument that only English sources matter shows the lack of "balance". Nobody is suggesting that the common English name for the conflict is the Gaza massacre so continuing to show that it is not used in English is pointless. Nobody has advanced such an argument, so you can continue knocking down that strawman until you realize it does not matter. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, Stellar, I requested you remove false personal accusations above, you have not done so. Unfortunately it's difficult to assume good faith in your editing, which seem more like advocacy. So go on and do what you have to do. RomaC (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last couple comments on this page have come across a little poopey, Nableezy. I don't think I have made inappropriate digs towards you during this discussion. I simply disagreee with you and every source you have provided has not met the standards I feel should be met per Wikipedia's guidelines and what I think is common sense (common sense is interchangeable with OR sometimes, though). I am not even a fan of the last one you brought up and have explained the resoning below. I assume it will be good enough for most editors so expect it to stand but am hoping to get an explanation from the publisher.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight, Goldstone Report
Tony Cordesman wrote a 100 page report on the Gaza war that exonerates Israel of any war crimes and in fact, inculpates Hamas. A similar report was compiled by analyst Colonel Richard Kemp and drew similar conclusions. Kemp went so far as to say that Hamas exploited the laws of war. Yet quotes from these analysts were reverted. I propose that we revert Goldstone's report and only include Cordesman and Kemp. Does that sound fair? Of course not! But it is the exact thing that you are doing except in the reverse. All points of view need to be presented unless you want this piece to be a platform for one side or the other. If you want to revert all Israeli points of view, fine! Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Time for you to leve this article for avile or permanent. You passed a line here. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't post on my talk page any longer and confine your comments to the discussion page. Second, I will stop editing this article when one of two things happen. Either it reaches a level of journalistic integrity that ALL sides can be content with or Wikipedia bans me--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last comment inquiring whether I'm an American or Israeli, be advised that on Wikipedia, I am a Wikipedian first and foremost and reject labels of any sort--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was absent for a while and can't produce any comment about your discussion. However, a correction should be made. As far as I know, col. Kemp havn't yet written any report. He gave an interview (to BBC?), contributed to Times article and made a powerful presentation at conference organized by JCPA. About Cordesman report, he admits btw that he relies heavily on info provided by Israeli side, but that is for a good reason - he explains that Hamas could offer him nothing but a propaganda. You might also be interested in another opinion by former high military rank - Retired major general Jim Molan: "The Goldstone report is an opinion by one group of people putting forward their judgments, with limited access to the facts, and reflecting their own prejudices. The difference in tone and attitude in the report when discussing Israeli and Hamas actions is surprising". Finally, fyi, Goldstone was a member of HRW until Monitor pointed out the conflict of interests in spring. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Is the sourcing provided below adequate to say that Hamas has called the conflict "the Gaza massacre" and to have it placed in bold in the lead? User:Nableezy 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original lede as it stands: "The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) by Israel, and called the Gaza massacre (مجزرة غزة) by Hamas, the government of Gaza, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009.  The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza". Stellarkid (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the Abu-Marzouk quote, each of the quotes sourced to Arabic media is translated by me. The translation for that quote is in the second source provided. 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. Translation: Abu Zuhri said "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the Gaza massacre on the flimsiest of pretexts will not withstand the results of international inquiries." Translation: He stressed that after "the Gaza massacre there will be no calm or an exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit." 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." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mohammed Awad: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
 * Sami Abu Zuhri: "وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية.
 * Fawzi Barhoom: "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
 * Muhammad Deif: "Hamas's priorities in every place now is to take revenge for Gaza massacre"
 * 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."
 * Khaled Meshal: "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة.
 * 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
 * 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"


 * If your translations is correct the use of Gaza Massacre is fine. Israel; Operation Cast Lead. Hamas and arab world; Gaza Massacre. Bold text is fine. NPOV (if together). Correct (if right translated). Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The translations are disputed and English sources use variations of what appears to be a description. These descriptions are used much less than others even in Arab based media and humanitarian organizations focusing on the humanitarian needs of the civilians there.Cptnono (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disputed how? And this is not about what "Arab based media and humanitarian organizations" used, it is about what Hamas, a party to this conflict, used. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we have to get aditional views from editors knowing arabic well Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. WP:NONENG along with potential campaigning and POV concerns (not that any and all opinions and feedback wouldn't be appreciated). Fortunately, we have English sources to reference. Unfortunately, they all point to this being a lesser used description not primarily used description and/or title.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "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 nableezy:s translations ar correct, easyly confirmed by another arabicspeaking editor, then whats the fuzz? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is disputed it turns into a violation of verifiability. It is disputed therefore it needs to be proved through reliable sources and not editor's.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That just is not true. If it is disputed ask others to check the translation. The Arabic text is verifiable, most of them are from al-Jazeera, and translations are not "violation(s) of verifiability". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Until there's a reliable source that says "Hamas calls is the 'Gaza Massacre'", this gathering of primary semi-reliable and unreliable sources to come to a conclusion, is pure and unadulterated original research. There's no good reason to have this discussion to begin with because bolding in the lede a false term that defames an entire county is a major WP:NPOV violation. This contentious term has been snuck in by POV pushers and Facebook recruits by the claim that "you need a consensus to remove it" and "it's true, so too bad." As evidenced by the multiple discussions (better described as filibustering) on this topic there never was a clear consensus for the inclusion into the lede of this overly contentious and defamatory term. Those pushing for its inclusion have never met the WP:BURDEN for its inclusion, on top of violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened with that noticeboard thread? Was there any evidence that users who actually edited here participated? Do you get upset when people say others are CAMERA operatives here? And are you in favor of removing everything sourced to the Israeli MFA or IDF spokesperson (both primary sources)? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A little pointed, Nableezy. Am I rubbing off on you (in a strictly nonsexual way)? I personally get upset with any bias. Even if I didn't, we are talking about this issue not others. If the primary source says something it can be OK but every situation is different. Unfortunately for us, Hamas hasn't released "official" docs from the failed verification requested.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can this be original reporting? Gaza Massacre is mentioned in Palestinian Ministry Of Interior(if right translated, cant read arabic) and cited in JP . And isnt this a "requested comment from other editors" and not a vote. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe he is saying the translation is unverifiable and original research (open to internal interpretation) in this manner.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, then we have to get it verified, maby ask for a scholar:s view. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't ask for a scholar's view. We find published sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We allow for translations by editors and translating is not "original research". And one of the above has a translation in another source, and others (the ones with no Arabic given) are also translated by other sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The translation is disputed so a published translation is required. It does not matter anyways, a single mention of it by the official in the primary source is not significant enough to be a prominently bolded title in the lead (unless we are going to do that to the "victory" description) Mention it in the prose with a directly quoted inline citation. It is not the preferred or most often used description or title. There are half a dozen variables in this case instance/situation/whatever. Each one depends on the other so any argument is not sufficient for inclusion as is. I'm sorry but it is pretty clear that it is currently presented incorrectly in the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this WP:WL Cptnono: Read it! Im out from this section and my first comment stands. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm a wikilawyer since you refuse to read the guidelines fully and are pushing something that is inappropriate? Nice one.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What? The one I c/p:ed above? In bold text? Haha, my dear sir. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A "published" translation is not "required", that in fact is the opposite of what the policy says. And the translations are disputed on what grounds? That you ran them through the google machine and there are slight differences? Half the google translations of either Arabic or Hebrew are complete gibberish. That isn't something I would rely on to say "the translations are disputed". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(<---) Following are my translations (FJM), Google's, and Babylon's (two publicly available automated online translation services that, while not perfect, clearly give the general idea of the translation): (FJM) And about the recent events in Gaza, Awad called for the distinction between the Gaza Massacre that claimed the lives of a number of innocents, and between the specialized authorities' attempt to arrest those involved in those events.
 * Awad: 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

(Google) On the recent events in Gaza, he called instead to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of many innocent people, and between the competent authorities try to arrest those involved in these events

(Babylon) On recent events in Gaza, called Awad to distinguish between the Gaza massacre that claimed the lives of a number of innocent people, and an attempt by the competent authorities the arrest of those involved in those events (FJM) Said Abu Zuhri "Netenyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts at justifying the Gaza massacre are weak justifications that do not hold against the results of Internation reports.
 * Abu Zuhri: وقال أبو زهري إن "خطاب نتنياهو مليء بالأكاذيب، ومحاولاته تبرير مجزرة غزة هي مبررات واهية لا تصمد أمام نتائج التقارير الدولية"

(Google) Abu Zuhri said that "Netanyahu's speech is full of lies, and his attempts to justify the massacre of Gaza is the flimsiest of pretexts not withstand the results of international reports"

(Babylon) Abu Zuhri said that the \ "Netanyahu\'s speech is full of lies, and enabling attempts to justify the massacre of Gaza is the flimsiest of pretexts not withstand the results of international reports\" (FJM) And he stressed that "after the that after "the Gaza massacre, there will not be an exchange of the soldier (Gil'ad) Shalit, or a ceasefire" (repositioned quotation mark, per nableezy's note)
 * Meshal (1): "واكد انه بعد "مجزرة غزة لن يكون هناك تبادل للجندي (جلعاد) شاليط ولا تهدئة

(Google) "He stressed that after the" massacre of Gaza will be no exchange for the soldier (Gilad) Shalit in truce

(Babylon) \ "he stressed that after \" Gaza massacre there will not be an exchange of the soldier (Gilad (Shalit, nor to calm (FJM) Meshal added during the program "Open Encounter" aired by Aljazeera news satellite channel Saturday evening that "the response to the Gaza massacre is what the Zionist entity will see, not what it will hear"
 * Meshal (2): "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

(Google) "His remarks came during the" open meeting "broadcast on Al-Jazeera news Saturday night that" the response to the massacre of Gaza is what will see the Zionist entity, not what will be heard

(Babylon) \ "Mashaal added during the programme of \" meeting مفتوح\ "aired by Aljazeera satellite channel Saturday night that \" reply to the Gaza massacre is what Seri the Zionist entity, not what will be heard (FJM) the wave of hope that welcomed your election has diminished greatly because of your silence about the Gaza massacre.
 * Abu Marzouk: "إن موجة الأمل التي قابلت انتخابك تضاءلت بشكل كبير بسبب صمتك على مجزرة غزة

(Google) "The wave of hope that your election to offset decreased considerably because of your silence on the Gaza massacre

(Babylon) \ "that the wave of hope, which interviewed your election to have decreased considerably due to your silence on the Gaza massacre Fjmustak (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. (though بعد is outside the quotation marks on Meshal (1)) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point. All this has shown is that a couple sources use "massacre of gaza" and "Gaza Massacre". Other sources are out there that use massacre in Gaza. And yes, some of the sourcs provided say Gaza massacre. That does not change the two simple facts:
 * Your translations are not verifiable from reliable published sources. This is a concern since you have not shown if it is a tittle or description. (that to me is the minor issue since some English sources use it already as a description)
 * More importantly: You have still failed to show that it is the common and preferred title or description. You have shown that it has been used. As I showed above in an exhaustive list of google news searches, they use other terms more. That means presenting it as the primary title used by Hamas is inappropriate. Again, assault, attack, bombing and others were used more. Victory was even used (less) but that is the exact opposite of massacre. Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The arguments above have some merit, as do many arguments, and we've heard many arguments on this question. Previously, Nableezy was asked to provide sources showing that "Gaza massacre" was the name widely given to this event in Arab and Muslim media. This he did. Now, Nableezy has been asked to provide sources showing that "Gaza massacre" is the term that the government of Gaza uses. And he has. Now comes a call for reliable published sources. (Am I the only one sees us going round in circles?)

Have a proposal employing both the new and previous versions, hope that we stay neutral and representative in the lead. This may reduce the need for our recent scrutiny of Hamas, who appear to be trailing Israel in the streamlining of public relations, press release, statement and documentation management; and website design and maintenance.

we now have:
 * 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, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009.

proposal incorporating previous lead:
 * The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab and Muslim world, was a conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, which took place from December 2008 to January 2009.

We add sources showing widespread use of "Gaza massacre" in Arabic-language media, and the above sources showing use of the term by Hamas. There is no dispute that the Gaza government and Arab and Muslim media widely use this term; and that Israeli government and media widely use "Operation Cast Lead". And as many editors have pointed out, the article should state and attribute the terms used on "both sides" of the conflict, even if we don't like these terms. We can't have biased editors set the frequency/prominence/preference metric for inclusion.

Hope some dispassionate editors can weigh in. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not enough sources saying it was the primary description or title. It is certainly not in the Arab media. Al Jazeera says "War on Gaza" and the others use massacre huge amounts less. I hope people understand that my concern (I don't know about the others who have repeatedly tried to remove it) is not that we mention it was a massacre. We can devote a whole paragraph to it as far as I am concerned. "Israel did lots of damage and so and so and so and so referred to it as a massacre" There are sources. However, there are not enough sources calling it a title or description so it should not be used as such in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is why I think we should hear from disinterested editors. It is not unreasonable to imagine a conflict if editors who don't want certain content are the ones deciding what constitutes "enough sources" for its inclusion. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unreasonable when I clearly state I don't object to the content but the way it is presented.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Cptnono, but you are not the only editor on this RfC. Just above, Brewcrewer has clearly declared his objection to the content, which he regards as "a false term that defames an entire county". As I mentioned earlier it's not so much a problem that Gaza has their own term for this event, it's that some editors don't like Gaza's term for this event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sucks. Sorry to clutter up the page while we should be receiving input from others but if the sources say something we can include it. I assume Brecrewer and many others have a slight knee-jerk reaction (it is hard not to) when it is presented as a title with eye catching boldness in the first line. I'll let him speak for himself, though. I would hope that editors would not object to some form of inclusion (prose or lead or wherever needs to be discussed separately) if it is done inline with the guidelines with proper quotes and weight.Cptnono (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I never understood what the big fuss over this particular issue was, especially since there were and are serious problems with the article that haven't been addressed. But as long as Nableezy raised it (and did a very impressive translating job that must have required a lot of work), I'll put in my 2 cents on the questions as he phrased them. The quotes are obviously sufficient to say that Hamas "has referred to the conflict as the Gaza massacre", but are not sufficient to have the term be in bold or in the lede. That would require proof both that "the Gaza massacre" is a proper name and that it is the primary proper name used by Hamas to refer to the conflict. I'm not saying that these things aren't the case - I really have no idea - just that these quotes don't show that they are. I suppose the place to check would be official Hamas government documents, but those may be hard to find. Also, my comment doesn't apply to the possibility that "the Gaza massacre" should be used as one of the names of the conflict by merit of being the primary proper name used in the Arab media. A long time ago I checked major English-language Arab media outlets, and as far as I remember, some did use that as the primary name and some didn't, but presumably some participants in this conversation are more up-to-date than me about that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose also per Jalapenos and Cptnono and Brewcrewer. Here is my analysis.


 * We called it the Gaza War because there are some 292 thousand g-hits for this, some 1610 in Google News.  Notice that "Gaza" and "War" are both capitalized as appropriate for proper nouns (specific names)


 * "Operation Cast Lead" gets some 14.5 MILLION ghits and some 4,020  in news. Also it is fully capitalized demonstrating that it is a "name" and not a description.


 * "The Gaza Massacre" gets 247,000 ghits and a mere 68 in Google News


 * The first ghit for "Gaza Massacre" includes a new site called thegazamassacredotcom - a website "dedicated to inform the world and expose the crimes that Israel is Comitting in Gaza."  This demonstrates that while many scurrilous and biased sites are referring to this event as a "massacre," few if any unbiased news sources (at least those in English) are doing so.


 * There are a number of articles quoting various individual members of Hamas and others referring to this as "a massacre" or "the Gaza massacre" in English, including IslamOnline, but virtually without exception they do not capitalize "massacre."  This is a critical point since in English we always' capitalize: "The names of people, of organizations and their members, of councils and congresses, and of historical periods and events: Marie Curie, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, an Elk, Protestant Episcopal Church, an Episcopalian, the Democratic Party, a Democrat, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Senate, the Middle Ages, World War I, the Battle of Britain."


 * If there were no English sources available to translate what Hamas leaders are saying, we would be required to accept an individual Wikipedian's translation. But in fact we do not havto do so, since there are several English versions including IslamOnline and others that use the term "the Gaza massacre" and few if any that capitalize "massacre" = indicating that it is not a proper noun.  The policy on this is WP:NONENG which is in place so that we can "easily verify" content.  Since the reliable sources we do have do not translate "The Gaza Massacre" as a name, it must be a description only.  I am told that Arabic does not have capital letters so I am not sure just how - or if - such a distinction is made in Arabic, but that is just the reason that policies like WP:NONENG exist.  I appreciate  the good faith or hard work of editors that think otherwise, but believe Wikipedia policy is unambiguous, as are the rules of grammar.


 * According to WP policy WP:NONENG and WP:CCC and the rules of grammar, "the Gaza massacre" does not belong in the lede emboldened.


 * Finally, such a description of the Gaza War is POV and highly inflammatory. No one denies that it is described as such in the Arab world, but it is not appropriate to call it that in the lede.  It belongs within the body of the article as one view of the event.


 * By way of example, there are some 111 ghits (in news, many more than for "Gaza massacre") for "9/11 massacre" and more in regular google and  RSs (eg Wall Street Journal) have called it, but nevertheless we do not use that term nor embolden it in the lede of  the 911 article.  In fact, the word is not used in the 9/11 article at all, despite it being arguably appropriate. I would guess the reason for this is that it is considered a POV and inflammatory description.  Stellarkid (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources presented range from Hamas spokesman to Khaled Meshal to the official website of the Ministry of the Interior of the Palestinian government. The arguments against including range from a misreading of WP:NONENG to the capitalization of "massacre" to the idea that it is a "defamatory" name. The description is indeed POV, it is the POV of Hamas and it is presented as that. WP:NPOV requires us to include the POV of the involved parties. Regarding the capitalization, a common noun used within a proper noun is not required to be capitalized. The Arabic words "مجزرة غزة" form a proper noun in Arabic. "Gaza" is modifying the common noun "massacre" to make reference to a specific event. That Hamas officials have called it this from the first days of the conflict through last week should make clear that the phrase is referring to a specific event. The idea that the name is "POV" is completely irrelevant, the phrase called the Gaza massacre (مجزرة غزة) by Hamas makes clear that it is the POV of Hamas. We should not be censoring out that POV because it makes some uncomfortable. The other arguments revolve around the idea that only English sources matter, that in looking to present a NPOV account of a conflict in which one "side" was Arabic speaking and whose statements are more readily available in the Arabic we should ignore Arabic media. There are two instances in which the words "Gaza victory" were used to describe the events by Hamas. Those two instances have been widely reported in the English media. But compare the results in Arabic for the following: "ismail haniyeh" "gaza massacre": 12,400 "gaza victory" "ismail haniyeh": 1,520. "hamas spokesman" "gaza massacre": 29,100 "hamas spokesman" "gaza victory": 3520. It is not POV for us to say what words Hamas used to refer to the conflict. As for it being "inflammatory", well there are a number of responses to that. The easiest though is a pointer to WP:NOTCENSORED. A more thorough response is that it may well be considered inflammatory that we include a name based on a Hannukah song to refer to something in which over 1400 people were killed. It may be considered inflammatory that we present justifications for what have been widely condemned as war crimes and even crimes against humanity. But WP:NOTCENSORED will suffice as an explanation as to why the name being "defamatory" or "inflammatory" is not a valid rationale to remove it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Google hit comparisons above show that Israel's English-language public and media relations operations are more efficient/prolific than Gaza's. We shouldn't impose a symmetry condition, naturally we can find a higher number of statements, press releases and press conferences coming from Israel than from Gaza -- where foreign media generally cannot access due the blockade.


 * If we look to quality not quantity, we find Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshal clearly saying "the response to the Gaza massacre is not what the Zionist entity will hear but what it will see..." Believe this and the other cited Hamas usage of the term, along with what most editors here have acknowledged as its widespread/preeminent use in Arab and Muslim media qualifies the term for a place in the lead alongside Israel's term. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that Israel's PR is better than Gaza's is mere opinion OR. (I did note how you referred to Israel words as PR and Hamas' words as "quality." ) In my opinion Gaza's PR is very good indeed, and includes not only Gazans, but Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, and college and university groups the world over. Palestinians themselves are extremely literate and pump out prolific (anti-Israel) material. :) Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a specious argument since no one is asserting that it cannot be in the article at all. Which of us seems to you to be arguing for that? It can obviously be presented as the view of Hamas and others, just not emboldened in the lead. The policy you cite states : "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." We are not focusing on the fact that it is objectionable in order to remove it. Its objectionableness is a secondary issue to the one of accurately representing reliable sources. Secondary, but still relevant. No one is asking to dump it, just to move it to the body of the article with appropriate context. Regarding your insistence that Hamas refers to the Gaza war as the Gaza massacre, there are plenty of links that show that they refer to it as the "Gaza war" or "the war in Gaza" every bit as often, if not more so. See |Al Jazeera &. "Gaza War" is a neutral term. Brewcrewer has tried to compromise your concerns by removing Operation Cast Lead" from the lede as well, and it too could be added further down in the body with appropriate context.  However you failed to appreciate this compromise, and reverted with the summary that there was "no consensus" to remove the term "massacre" (which flies in the face of WP:CCC).  About this rule (?) in English grammar: "Regarding the capitalization, a common noun used within a proper noun is not required to be capitalized," can you document it?  Thanks in advance Stellarkid (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * brewcrewer has argued to remove it completely. And your al-Jazeera link shows that al-Jazeera has called it the Gaza war, the single quote from Meshal that says the word war once is ""What did you achieve through this war... other than the killing of children, of innocents?" he asked the Israeli leadership." That article does not show him calling it the "Gaza War". The second link to the interview also does not support that he called it the "gaza war". He, once, calls it "war in Gaza" which in Arabic would be "حرب في غزة". If you wish for me to break down the grammar as to why that would require the definite particle "ال" (the) to become a proper noun where if it had been "حرب غزة" Gaza war it would be a proper noun without "ال" I can. But he does in fact say "the war in Gaza" that one time. Neither of those sources show Meshal calling it the Gaza war. Gaza War is indeed a neutral term, that is one of the reasons the title of the article is Gaza War. Nobody is suggesting that this article be named Gaza massacre, what we (those who support its inclusion) have said that NPOV requires us to represent all notable viewpoints, and the what one of the belligerents called the conflict is certainly a notable viewpoint. Removing it from the lead because it is "inflammatory" or "defamatory" is censorship, that is what that link is provided to respond to. Not the rest of the arguments which I addressed before that. (also, please read the links you provide to ensure they support what you say they support) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing something from the lede is censorship? I don't think so! Can you find the relative WP policy on that? Stellarkid (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote (after modifying prior to your comment, but you may have missed it) that removing it on the grounds that it is "inflammatory" or "defamatory" is censorship. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSOR has an exclusion for non-neutral material and a case can be made that "massacre" in this context is not neutral and therefore not appropriate in the lede. Perhaps you should read the policy again. But as I have said that is a secondary issue. Still waiting for the grammar documentation!  Stellarkid (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:NPOV again. It is not "non-neutral" to say "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre". That in fact is the opposite of what NPOV requires, which is including all significant views. Grammar documentation? Here are a couple: Common nouns used as part of proper nouns (generally capitalized) Definition proper noun: a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized Or are you looking for Arabic grammar documentation? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not non-neutral to embolden such in the lede - when it can be put in the article as a view of Hamas, Arabs and Muslims, as it clearly is. Back to your grammar, your link says, "Common nouns may be used as part of proper nouns to name specific places or institutions.  When used in the context, the common noun is generally capitalized."  They use as examples, "Sterling Road" and Santa Clara County".  Unfortunately for your argument, however, "The Gaza massacre" is not a place nor an institution.


 * page 409 of your link on the other hand, says "Capitalize the full names of wars and battles, but lowercase the words war and battle when used alone or in a generic sense."  05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have any idea how many sources do not capitalize "war" in "Gaza war"? How many capitalize "war" or "against" in what you put in as a name, "Israel's war against Hamas"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys doing? Stay on topic.Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling a bit to understand how this issue will be resolved unless there is an agreed decision procedure. Is there at least consensus that
 * a) NPOV requires that the string of characters (in english) used by each party to the conflict to identify what we call the 'Gaza War' be given equal status in the lead
 * and that b) the information content of the string of characters itself doesn't matter i.e. whether it's '5sfwr25s', 'fucking shit buggerhead' or 'operation bunny rabbit' makes no difference ?
 * ..setting aside the issue of establishing what that string of characters (in english) actually is. If there isn't consensus for a) and b) then I don't see how to proceed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "fucking shit buggerhead" could be bolded in the lead if it was the the way Hamas consitenly described it.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFC asks the wrong question. I am satisfied with the sourcing. The question I think is one of undue weight, not sourcing. I think it has been fairly well established that Hamas and its representatives call the war the "Gaza Massacre." However, I think that there would be more substantive grounds for including that in the lead if it could be established that this was also the term utilized by the Palestinian Authority, which I believe has international recognition as the government of the Palestinians generally. It's really a question of whether, irrespective of Hamas being the government of Gaza, it and its representatives' nomenclature can be viewed on Wikipedia as "fringe views" and hence to be given appropriate lesser weight. I don't have the answer to this question but I think that is a more appropriate question, not sourcing or synthesis. Viewed superficially, and with no reference to prior discussions, "massacre" when used to refer to a military operation raises red flags. I'm not saying there is an undue weight issue, but that it could exist. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the Palestinian Authority does term what happened in Gaza a massacre too. For example, The Jerusalem Post, Israel's major English language daily, has no problem noting this in an article headlined: PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks.  T i a m u t talk 16:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can be established, preferably from the English language sources, that the PNA refers to the Gaza was as a massacre, then you've probably tipped the scales in favor of the term. I haven't checked how it's dealt with in Wikipedia, but Russia refers to World War II as the "Great Patriotic War." Neutrality requires that we mention such local usage. In this case, the word "massacre" sets off alarm bells and requires special caution.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding one point. The PNA does have the international recognition as the interim government of the Palestinian territories. Hamas won the most recent legislative elections and make up the majority of the Palestinian legislature and has the PM recognized by that legislature. Also, Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza (and could be argued as the de jure government of the whole of the Palestinian territories). I do not think we can regard Hamas' views as "fringe" any more than we regard the Israeli government views as fringe (and they are fringe on any number of issues from the legality of settlements to the status of E. Jerusalem and the Golan, but we do not treat them as such) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points, and it's actually a very interesting question: can we utilize the description of a particular event by even an unquestionably legitimate government if it might be considered a fringe view? I see that West Bank makes no reference to the fringe Israeli nomenclature "Judea and Samaria," at least not in the lead. Had that article done so, then I think that there would be a better case for including "Gaza Massacre" in the lead. That was the first comparable situation that came to mind, but there may be others that would be more central to this particular issue. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the West Bank were Israeli territory than it would be fine to use their nomenclature, but it is not. But for another comparable example, the Iraq War article does have "Operation Iraqi Freedom", a title that is certainly "objectionable" and "non-neutral", though not in bold, the Six-Day War article has the names (multiples from each side) used, as does the Yom Kippur War. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think JohnnyB256 raises an interesting point. At the least, "West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria" are not offensive per se, merely sounds.  They are offensive perhaps because each side wants to be the naming side.  Another example might be the neutral article on the United States which makes no mention of the nomenclature, Great Satan despite numerous ghits both in news and regular Google, and which is neatly capitalized (clearly a name) and in quite common usage in parts of the world, English speaking and otherwise. Another example would be the neutral article on Israel which makes no mention of the fact that it is referred to as the Zionist entity by much of the Arabic speaking world. According the Nableezy's logic, both would have to be in the lede and emboldened.  I believe the Gaza War article should be neutral as well. The common term "Operation Cast Lead" has over 14 MILLION ghits and is properly capitalized. Nevertheless when a compromise solution was proposed  to take both out of the lede and discuss them elsewhere, it was rejected out-of-hand. Stellarkid (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Great Satan"? Please, this article is about a conflict between Israel and Gaza. What the government of Gaza called the conflict does not in any way compare with "Great Satan", or even "Zionist entity" (both of which, I might add, actually have their own articles dealing with the term). Those articles are about individual countries and it does not matter what other people call those countries to the point of including it in the lead. For those articles what is needed is the common English name and what they themselves use as the name of the country. This article though is about a conflict between two governments and what each of them called the conflict does matter. Your arguments are becoming increasingly silly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid, are you willing to explicitly state that you will not object to a term on the basis that you personally find it offensive or that you believe other people will find it offensive ? I think it's very important to be clear about this as I tried to indicate above with my b) examples. Consensus won't be possible unless there is a common set of rules by which proposals are assessed and decisions are made. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, your link to the Jerusalem Post article says "PA officials strongly condemned the IDF raid, dubbing it a 'massacre.'" (my bolds). It is also my understanding that the reporter is a native Arabic speaker. Stellarkid (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been here in a while and I'm a little lost. Is this archive 4? --JGGardiner (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm offended that you picked the number 4 despite it's association with death on such an auspicious day for the People's Republic of China. I'm just saying. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that this RfC is going nowhere. Just the same entrenched positions from both sides.  However it does seem that there is no consensus to add (or maintain) "the Gaza massacre" emboldened in the lede as a name, and as such, I would think that it would be fair to remove it until such time as there is a consensus to add it. There is no consensus to remove it entirely from the article just from the lede and emboldened. That is my view of this discussion.  Stellarkid (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus defaults to the status quo, which in this case is keeping the name. There is no consensus to remove it from the lead either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * btw-- why did the author of this RfC put it in the religion section? How is this discussion related to religion?  Stellarkid (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main list is "Politics". Removed "Religion and philosophy". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the relevant WP policy that says that? Stellarkid (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This can sit open for awhile or we can seek additional input. Also, I think Nableezy should address the arguments against inclusion from the few who did jump in.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Cptnono, but theoretically an interesting point especially if the previous so-called "consensus" position was maintained through strongarm technique by a few individuals zealously defending it. It then becomes a matter of who gets to the gate first.  Hardly seems a reasonable method of collaborative editing.  Stellarkid (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" was actually not maintained and the line was changed over time to be completely different. My thoughts on it a couple of months ago to see if the Massacre title gained traction but it doesn't look like it happened.Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true your answer for resolving it is to be part of a group of a few zealous individuals strongarming it out? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am (and it stays open for 30 days be default), but those arguing against are repeating different arguments that I am trying to answer. The arguments are as follows: it is not NPOV. The answer to that is that it is nonsense to say that. By saying that "Hamas called it the 'Gaza massacre'" we are stating, in a NPOV manner, what Hamas has said, not repeating it in Wikipedia's narrative voice. The second one is that it is OR. That is also nonsense, Hamas statements are sufficient to source what Hamas has said. The third argument is that it is "objectionable" or "defamatory". That does not even need an answer, but WP:NOTCENSORED would be the answer. The next is that it is not a name or a proper noun. A proper noun is usually capitalized, the definition is that it is a noun that refers to a specific thing, "the Gaza massacre" is clearly a noun phrase that refers to a specific thing and each of the translations provided by RSs translate the phrase as "the Gaza massacre" not "the massacre of Gaza", which you seem to be concerned about as a result of the google translations. Arguments based on google translated it differently are meaningless, two different users, including one who does not edit in such controversial subjects as this, have given you translations and you are free to ask any others you wish. Our translations are perfectly acceptable. Next is that it really is not the most common name used by Hamas. This argument is the one that actually matters (and kudos to you for being the one who has made an attempt to show that). Your searches are flawed in that they either are restricted to English sources or are not restricted to what Hamas said, rather you are making searches on what the Arab media used. You have to look at the individual results or restrict the searches. When combining the Arabic words for "Gaza massacre" and "Hamas spokesman" you get almost 10x the results of Hamas spokesman "Gaza victory". Same is true when searching for various names of Hamas officials. There have been 2 quotes where they actually used "Gaza victory" as a name, there are many many more in which Hamas uses "Gaza massacre". They have also used "this war", "the attacks on Gaza", "the assault on Gaza", "the war on Gaza", but nowhere near as often as "Gaza massacre". They have used the name "Gaza massacre" for going on 10 months now consistently to refer to this conflict. No other name was used as often or for as long a time period. I dont know what else you want me to do to show that. And "traction" among the press is not important here, we are not looking for what the name the press used as we are not trying to change the title of the article. We are looking for the name Hamas used, not the common name among the press. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All three are related. The amount of use is the most important to me. Even with some hits it is not nearly the level needed to present it as a bolded title which is where the NPOV concern comes in. It is a description that is sourced but not enough to assert that is the title. The title/description confusion gets even more worse since prepositions like "of" and "in" do take away from the assertion that it is the officially designated title or sought after PR line used by Hamas. Gaza massacre is used in a single statement by an official at the MOI site. It is said less than a dozen times in various segments to the press. It just isn't their assigned title. Saying "massacre" was used more than other descriptions (besides victory) is not true. Instead of trying to make this a title in the lead we should be writing a paragraph on why the term was used.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more than a dozen times, many times more, that a Hamas representative has used the words مجزرة غزة to refer to this event. It absolutely is true that Hamas used "massacre" more than "victory" or any other description or title. It is indeed not true that it was used more than other terms in the Arab world as a whole, but from Hamas they used this title consistently. If you want more sources I'll get more sources just so you cannot say "less than a dozen times". And "massacre of Gaza" is equivalent to "Gaza massacre" in Arabic, "massacre in Gaza" is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not think there were more than 12. Start providing the sources. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary sources. Just for the sake of transparency and because it will be lots of work, I do not believe you will be able to show it was the title or primary description used by Hamas so it will take alot. You mentioned Bush calling the war in Iraq a victory at one time and how it made no sense to reference Hamas calling it a victory along those lines. That is how I feel about "massacre". It is a juicy term that was used and it generated headlines for a day. However, it was not picked up by Arab or Western media to the extent needed. Al Jazeera didn't even give it preference or other terms.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "not picked up by Arab or Western media to the extent needed"? That they did not use that as the their name for the conflict? Or that they did not report the quotes from Hamas? There are multiple Western media sources backing up the individual statements and there are multiple different statements going over 10 months, not just "generated headlines for a day". What do you mean by "Al Jazeera didn't even give it preference or other terms"? That they did not use that as their title? No shit Sherlock, al-Jazeera is not Hamas, why would they use whatever name Hamas used? It being used by the press has nothing to do with the conversation. But I will get you more sources, but that will take some time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera titles their special report section War on Gaza. Site searches ("sitename:") don't show much coverage. A day was a stretch in my previous statement but what can be taken literally is that it was not the assigned term by Arab media (which was previously asserted) and it was not used by Hamas at the extent the reader is lead to believe with its formatting and placement. Why would aid organizations and media typically more sympathetic to Hamas not go farther with the term? A single statement from a single official on an official site is not sufficient. Certainly a step in the right direction but I was expecting much much more. Hamas officials also did not even say it that often. It was used in a some statements picked up on by press but the percentage of statements that use the term is miniscule. Then you add in the NPOV concern since we are giving it so much weight + the translation concerns (when it really would be more abundant in English sources if used as much as asserted) and it clearly shows that the term deserves some lines with sources but not bolded in the first line as if it was a title.Cptnono (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What al-Jazeera or any of the other Arabic news sites title their reports is not the issue. The issue is what does Hamas use of the term? Why would aid agencies "more sympathetic to Hamas" not use the term? I am not aware of any aid agencies that are "sympathetic to Hamas", if you mean such agencies as AI, HRW, PCHR, the ICRC, B'tselem and others I suppose the answer is that they are not "sympathetic to Hamas" and that they seek to present the facts as neutrally as possible so they use neutral titles like Gaza war or Gaza attack, sort of how Wikipedia uses the title of its article "Gaza War". The translation concerns are baseless, unless you can provide somebody to actually translate it differently I hope you would accept that our translations are given in good faith. I asked another person to translate the text, an editor who as far as I can tell has never edited this page, and you still continue with "translation concerns" based on half gibberish google translations. It gets the words right for the most part but there are consistent grammatical errors in its translations. And the English translations that we do have translate it as "Gaza massacre" not "massacre of Gaza". Unless you provide somebody who can translate the text and does so differently please stop with the "translation concerns". Hebrew translations by editors are used all over the place, including in BLPs translating incredibly harsh criticism. Those translations are never questioned and it is a bit annoying continuing to see that Arabic translations are not acceptable from editors. I'll deal with your other concerns on the number of sources in the coming days. But to repeat one more time, I am not arguing that al-Jazeera or any other media outlet used something other than the Gaza massacre, that is not what I am trying to show and that is not what the article says. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus (which you continue to point to as being long standing) was "in the Arab world" not Hamas. Nothing wrong with changing it but it is still as untrue. And you are purposely missing the point if you don't believe that media such as Al Jazeera and some aid organization primarily focus on the concerns with the Palestinian civilians. There is nothing wrong with that since that is the purpose of those aid orgs and human rights observers. Plenty of them have spun things slightly to make it spicier for the media (again, it is their job so it doesn't hurt my feelings) and the fact that they didn't hop on this supposed "massacre" band wagon is ludicrous. You also continue to not provide significant coverage of Hamas using the term massacre. Translated or not, you simply have not shown that it was how they commonly referred to the conflict. You cherry picked and some of your translations were off from what you claimed. You disagree with Gaza massacre and Massacre of Gaza being different but when we can't even figure out if it is a title or a description then we have to be concerned about the translations. I do not believe for a second that you are intentionally POV pushing but asserting that the Arabic text for massacre is found on the internet = it is Hamas's name is causing annoyance for others. And the translations is the least of the concerns. If there were magnitudes more I would be force to agree with you. Of course, then it would be well documented in both languages.Cptnono (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You want it to say "in the Arab world" for the time being by all means put that in. I was trying to resolve the issue by saying "by Hamas" instead. Yes al-Jazeera focuses their reports on their consumers, in their case largely Arabs. That does not mean they make no effort to report things factually and with minimal bias. The US media rarely, if ever, calls the Iraq War Operation Iraqi Freedom. That has no bearing on what the US government called it. And I dont disagree on "massacre of Gaza" and "Gaza massacre" being different in English, but they are not different in Arabic which explains why a machine might translate it one way or another. But the English sources that do provide translations say "Gaza massacre" not "massacre of Gaza" which is one of the reasons I think you should stop harping on what google told you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to harp at you but you are pushing for something that is inappropriate. You again are only focusing on one part of the argument and not addressing how it relates to the major problem which is the general lack of sources. English or Arabic you just haven't shown that it was the predominant term. And if you are going to focus on the translation then I am going to remid you that it is disputed.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Above, I see several different arguments for removal/relegation of the term, and there are more back in the archives. A predominance for the term in all references to the war by Gaza officials argument is interesting because unless we can determine aggregate usage of all terms then how can we calculate whether one has been used most? So, to address this objection/condition, if it is valid, we have to compare popular terms. Hamas functions in the Arabic language so that's where we have to look, not through English-language Google searches. What do you think of what Nab posted above:
 * "When combining the Arabic words for "Gaza massacre" and "Hamas spokesman" you get almost 10x the results of Hamas spokesman "Gaza victory". Same is true when searching for various names of Hamas officials."
 * Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Plopping down ghits had long been debunked as a valid argument. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am giving you actual quotes. And I am really starting to see how this shifting argument thing can be a real benefit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Arabic ghits were "plopped down" in response to arguments advanced on English ghits. RomaC (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ????Roma I have consistently said one of the terms that did not receive more was "victory". It is interesting because it is the opposite, though. Please scroll up to the google hits then try some different ones for fun. Pop in various names, different spellings, site"   ":, with quotes, and so on. Massacre is simply not predominant. The term was used so put it in the prose but its use as a title and bolded in the first line is misleading to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You arent searching on quotes from Hamas, you are searching on everything. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 source: Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 official Palestinian government source, the MOH site has a pictures section where the pictures are titled "Martyrs of the Gaza massacre" (شهداء مجزرة غزة) here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You kind of ignore some editors expressing concerns about "Gaza massacre" being a belligerent name. We can go on and on with sources describing the conflict as "Gaza massacre". You can not be that naive - you noticed we should be careful about putting in the article "things one belligerent speaks about the enemy". Both Haniyeh in Gaza and Khaled Mashal in Damascus called the event Gaza war in their victory speeches. Very official if you ask me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AgadaUrbanit, would you mind not deleting the text in question while the RfC is ongoing?  T i a m u t talk 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do we learn from the requested comments? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What other people think. And each of the sources provided is using it as a name. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamas clearly identifies the Israeli offensive as a massacre. It is certainly NPOV to putr across the hamas view of an offensive they and their territory was in. http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2004/03/200841010163762970.html, some of the videos calling in Gaza Massacre on youtube are referenced on the Hamas website. I quickly read this article and some of your sources are worst than the Arabic above. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)
 * I would recommend googling "site:http://english.aljazeera.net/ "gaza massacre"" before asserting that Al Jazeera shows Hamas clearly identifies it as. Also, just because t is used as a decription here and there does not mean it is the primary let alone alternative title. Youtube is not a source but for my own understanding if you could point me in the right direction it is something I should see. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were up to me (lead)
The lead is sporatic and it doesn't clearly summarize a few things and is obviosly causing concern. Adding another handful of bold names is also letting the debate on the "title/description" creep storm into the mainspace. Both "great victory" and "massacre" border on POV pushing and maybe even fringe theory for some but I am fine with them being memtioned as long as it is a proper summary with good sources. To me, "Factors, including the high population density of the Gaza Strip, caused the IDF to put an emphasis on the safety of its troops during the operation. This display of force resulted in significantly less casualties than seen in the 2006 conflict in Lebanon. It also resulted in high civilian casualties which drew condemnation from  human rights observers. Although  Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniya claimed that it was a "great victory", the scope of the destruction and civilian deaths drew calls of the assault being a "massacre"." is honest and balanced. I don't want to debate the merits of the paragraph (unless it is seriousley a possibility to get it worked in with the other info) but I am trying to emphisize that "massacre" can be included without it being a bolded title.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lead fine. And its NPOV is fragile . Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, lead can always be improved even if quite fine.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest lead is of breaking npov, if not doing it, is "according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets" but I can live with it as the Goldstone report further down call it for what it is. But we should maby include the aspect of massacre in bombings of civilian targets, for leads neutrality and overall NPOV. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The current lede seems to me to make an admirable attempt to avoid taking sides, but in the process has become awkward in places. In particular, the last sentence in the first paragraph seems to be there in order to support one side against the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good way of putting it. It was almost as if the lead was a debate. "You say tomayto and I say tomahto." That reflects the intractable and combative character of the discussion over this article, really not an effort to achieve a consensus at all, but rather more a battle than anything else. I was going to suggest a compromise, but I know that it is a waste of time unless more outside editors participate in this discussion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note in NPOV/N, in a vain hope that a swarm of people who have no stake in the underlying hostilities can weigh in. That's me: a Utopian kind of guy. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, this sentence:" The conflict has also been described as a "war against Hamas" and an "assault on Gaza".[20][21][22]" Is it necessary? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not and neither is "Gaza massacre". Those are used more than "Gaza massacre" by English and Arab sources so I assume someone was trying to fix the weight issue. If they stay they should e bolded, of course.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not used more than Gaza massacre by Hamas (a distinction you keep ignoring) and I have provided 10 sources with Hamas using that name as well as 2 sources on official government websites. Not a single one of the source using "war against Hamas" uses that as the primary description even in the article being cited. 10 separate sources have been provided of Hamas officials or official websites using this as the name. Tell me how many you want. Im not going to keep looking if you are just going to keep saying that it is not enough. I also gave you a source that equates "Operation Cast Lead" with "the Gaza Massacre" but that was also dismissed. You have "disputed" translations without basis and have not once said what it is that I have to do to show that this was the name used. The google searches you have used to advance your argument are useless, and I have repeatedly explained why they are useless. Nobody is saying that Arab media or human rights groups used that as the name of the conflict, what I am saying is that Hamas did and your searches dont do anything to dispute that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you are wrong. I was told there would be over a dozen instances of them using the term and that there were official press releases. Those have not been provided and I can't find them.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more, but I have no intention of looking for one more second until you tell me what it is I need to do to show this. 10 sources of Hamas calling it this, 2 from official government websites, are apparently not enough. How many would you like? And how am I wrong on the google search argument? Those searches are not searching on quotes from Hamas, how can they be used to show what Hamas did or did not call it? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezys sources are ok. Are you saying that the sentence, mentioned above, is only there for ballansing against what you keep arguing is a POV? As that is not concensus isnt your view supporting a mild form of obfuscation? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that we are presenting it in a false manner. Nableezy has shown that the term was used but not in the prominence that is asserted right now.Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets.[25] " is another sentence in the lead that is problematic. Why do the Israel side have the privilgies to get its view heard in the lead and not the Palestinian side just below? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Needed since it is reasonable to believe that the reader will assume Israel attacked those buildings without cause which would be more problematic. If you want that removed the whole sentence will have to be reworked (not a bad solution, of course).Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that they was bombed. Which of them was 'legitim' targets and which is subject to warcrimes when targeting is not clear. Goldstone Report accuse Israel of warcrimes. I suggest that assuming both is correct in different bombing for now. Therby the Israeli view is not correct or NPOV to promote in lead. And to elaborate would take to much space in lead. The sentence shouldent be there if we follow NPOV and what is present known. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They were targeted because Israel believed that Hamas was using them as arms caches and also becuase Hamas was using them as platforms to attack Israel. The Goldsone report has been refuted and discredited by a number of sources and reports including those issued by Anthony Cordesman and Colonel Richard Kemp. Both of whom are distinguished analysts with resumes that are more impressive than Goldstone. In addition, not a single major Westen power has endorsed the report Indeed, many have condemned it as biased in favor of Hamas and unfairly targeting Israel. The fact that a recent attempt to refer the matter to New York was thwarted is a strong indication that the issue is at the very least, a subject of intense debate. Don't refer to the Goldstone report as if its the Holy Grail because it certainly isn't.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If your going to delete explanations as to why mosques etc.. were bombed, then you've got to be fair and delete the whole portion dealing with the issue. I have no problem saying that mosques were targeted so long as it's accompanied by an explanation as to why it was targeted. Without this explanation, the reader is led to believe that they were deliberately targeted without just cause. It is well documented and sourced that these places were used as platforms to strike at the IDF and also used as weapons depots.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said "They were targeted because Israel believed...". What Israel believe doesnt make it more leagal. And in lead Israeli POV cant determin what should be said. The Goldstone Report Is not the only one criticising Israel. Civilian structures was bombed. I suggest a revert of this edit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When it is stated that mosques and other structures were attacked it can lead the reader to assume the worst (Israel just wanted to hurt people and blow up hospitals). We have to watch out for that and clarify it or else if gives the wrong impression.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Effect or Intent?
Sadly I see in the new edits to the lead that rather than presenting who hit what, we have editors' striving to ascribe "intent": specifically Israel did not want to hurt civilians (hospitals and schools and mosques no longer specified despite appearing in many sources, rather these are now "civilian infrastructure suspected of being used for military purposes"); and Gaza did want to hurt civilians ("indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks against civilian areas"). Is this neutral? Not specifying what Israel hit because doing so might "give the wrong impression" is not what we're here for.

So how to answer the new edits to the lead? Consider this possibility: ''Israeli military targeted Hamas bases, Gazan police training camps, headquarters, and government offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, private homes, medical facilities, and schools, were also destroyed. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks directed against Israeli military bases throughout the conflict. Civilian infrastructure, including private homes and schools (add other specifics), were also hit. Israeli cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod took rocket fire for the first time.''

The above avoids the preeminent UN report's conclusion as reported in the NYT, "'Israel carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot 'while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags'. In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, 'the facts indicate no justifiable military objective' for them."

If we ignore reports and instead go with Israel's explanation of its intention (to not target civilians), then it would be natural and fair to do the same vis a vis Gaza, to wit: "In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. 'We did not intentionally target civilians,' said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. 'We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes.'" (same NYT source)

Or maybe we revert to the consensus version: ''Israeli forces targeted Hamas bases, police training camps, police headquarters, and offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, private homes, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict, hitting cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod for the first time.''

I hope we can all agree that treating both sides in the same manner is important. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary. Not presenting that the claimed intent was to hit targets used for storing weapons and firing on troops then it is not being properly summarized and can be read incorrectly. The sources do not say israel did it to be mean. They nay have been reckless. fortunately, it can all be explained in the prose. Civilian structures were bombed since they were suspected of being used for military purposes. What's the problem with that besides some clean up on the syntax?.Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We certainly have a hybrid now. Schools are mentioned. Were any schools targeted? There was the incident that was reported incorrectly and a research facility at a university. Were there any others targeted? If it was just the single research facility (or even plural) it should be cleaned up. We might even need "schools and x,y,z were collateral damage" but that might be too much for the lead.Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the right way to approach it, and I support the suggested consensus version, with Kassam launchers among the primary targets addad. I have to admit that I fell inte the 'intentiontrapp' in trying to compromise with editor including Israels intentions. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The longer version with intents work better further down in article with both sides pov and elaborations, but not in exessive amounts, ballancing eachother in a elegant way. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So were schools targeted or a University research lab?Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, 280 of them if we include kindergartens. [] I include kindergartens in lead. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should remove or heavily edit your recent addition. That portion of the report also discusses the blockade as well as the fighting and we don't know if it was collateral or targeted. The wording is not clear to me if someone else wants to take a look at pg 23. You also clearly cherry picked in a way that is colorful since yuo failed to also include universities. Watch the unintended soapboxing. Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the lead, but this should make you think about the devastion in gaza. It chocked me. We should make a fieldtrip to Gaza and then return to editing. 280 schools... need soap? No, save it for Israel.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As much as I lean towards Israel with my edits to this article I hope everyone knows that I completely understand the devastation to civilians is a tragedy. All of the shit aside, there are certain things that are just terrible.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

last source
This should end all discussion of the matter: [http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article56121.ece In December last year, Israel invaded Gaza in response to daily rocket attacks and with the aim of stopping arms smuggling into the area. More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre".] I am putting this in with "known in the Arab world as the "Gaza massacre". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a plausible circular reference to me. It is worded and punctuated so similar to what the lead was for a good amount of time. Why would Massacre not be capitalized in this context? If I recall correctly, we did it since it being a title was so disputed even though it should have been capped in the way it was used. Any writer not burdened by Wikipedia's process would have capped it there. I also notice that the byline says the author is "unknown". Furthermore, it is only 1 reference. Common sense shows that "unknown" is incorrect in his or her reporting. No offence to the paper or "unknown" but Al Jazeera and several other sources actually in the region don't use it very often at all still.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isnt some random student paper. I have given a bunch of sources specific to Hamas and you said it was not enough. We now have a source that explicitly supports "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza massacre'" and you are still arguing? I am starting to question whether or not this is about the sources or not with you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question all you want. The article is written by "unknown". It looks like it was lifted from Wikipedia. It contradicts what is seen in other sources. I have an email in to the accuracy inquiry address so we'll see if they respond. In regards to the Hamas source, you have not shown that it was predominant. You showed that it was used less than a dozen times.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article also contains the following lead: "Justice Richard Goldstone has an unenviable task in Gaza, writes Jackie May", so while it says "By unknown" below that I am fairly confidant it is written by somebody named "Jackie May". And can you please put forward a single source that contradicts this? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that too at first but it was just too much of a red flag for me to get over. My other concern is that it looks like they took it from Wikipedia. I cannot prove a circular reference so if people look at my explanation above it might make some sense. They have an accuracy email so I sent one off to double check.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece by someone named "unknown"?? Or perhaps "Jackie May?"  Who the devil is Jackie May?? Sounds like more bull to me, or grasping at straws.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is an opinion piece? Every article at the site has that set of links to the right to blogs and opinion pieces (this is currently the lead story and it contains the same links to the right of the story. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also do not believe It is not labeled as an opinion piece but is written like one. It is labeled as an "article". I am trying to find out who Jackie May is for other contributions. It also looks like the writer spoke with Goldstone. I still can't figure out why it lists the author as unknown and it still looks lifted from Wikipedia which is a circular reference. It is also wrong from what I have seen but that is OR.Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard the above, it is an opinion piece. It is not labeled as a blog in the address bar but clearly shows the link to other opinion pieces on the side bar to the right just like the other ones. Standard news articles do not have that side bar with the "opinion" label on that site. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." We are asserting it is a fact. We also still have the circular reference concern, an assumption on who the writer is since the byline states "unknown", lack of sufficient RS to back it up, and biased writing.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just look at what I wrote above? Every single piece on that website contains that same side bar. But the blogs are at blog.* address and link under opinion - columnists contain "opinion" in the url. This does not read like an op-ed, this reads like the report of somebody who had interviewed Goldstone. Every article on the site has that same sidebar, but the op-eds clearly identify that in the urls. This does not. And by saying "circular reference concern" you are effectively saying that no source I provide will be enough. And it says "writes Jackie May". This is from a print news weekly, in all likelihood that is just an error in importing the story. But this is not an op-ed, the editorials at the site are clearly marked and every single piece on the site has the same sidebar. You'll also not the convention in the addresses: blogs are blogs.timelive.co.za/* op-eds are of the form www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/* and the Sunday Times articles are www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/* and news items in the daily [The Times (South Africa)|The Times]] are www.timeslive.co.za/news/* <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. When I recreated it the opinion peice side bar was not there. Is it only there most of the time? And did you read what I said? I stated that it was not listed as a blog in the address bar.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Every single article I have seen there has that sidebar. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone I saw did .That also doesn't address the other concerns. This source looked really good at first glance but there are too many concerns.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was looking at section pages and not individual articles.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Still looks opinion piece to me but can't be sure.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This site is pissing me off! So this looks like an article. It is listed under "Featured Opinion" on the main page of the site. What are they doing?Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That article has "opinion/columnists/*" in the title and contains the bottom set of links saying "Other Articles in 'Columnists'" and at the top is listed under "Opinion -> Columnists". The one used in the article is listed under "Sunday Times". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And it turns out that Jackie May does the "Minor Matters" blog for the site. She also has a Twitter for more blogs. She is a blogger. It is an opinion piece just like the one listed above is.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If this was not published on a blog but in the Sunday Times it does not matter. The reliability is determined by the publication, if this is shown to be an actual opinion piece then it matters who she is but as it stands this is just an article published in a major news source in S. Africa. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And looking at that blog it is the blog of a "foreign editor" for The Times. Many news outlets have blogs for their reporters, that she also publishes a blog on the website of The Times doesn't mean anything regarding the reliability of the piece cited. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot go back and see if it was a "Featured Opinion" (which I have shown does not have "blog" in the address bar but this passes the duck test and contradicts what is seen at Al Jazeera and what we see through searching 100s of news sources.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the "Featured opinion" does not have "blog" in the address, I said above it has "opinion" in the address. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right and I shouldn't so jumpy and pulling hairs like that. Regardless, so far this is the only piece I can find by Jackie May that isn't labeled opinion. I'll keep on looking but it looks like she wrote an opinion piece that was actually in contradiction to both of our tireless search through reliable sources (Arab world was changed to Hamas for what editors here thought was good reason). It looks like she read this article while it was up or found an out of date mirror for her piece on search for the "brutal truth". Seriously: quackquackquackquackquack. Even if it was not an opinion piece, it contradicts too much. That is under the assumption that "unknown" properly vetted the piece before publishing it.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}Even assuming that this is a real legit article by a real legit journalist, we now have, as Cpt has noted, a reference to "the Arab world", instead of to Hamas, which presumably was supposed to balance out what Israel called it, government name to government name. But look carefully at what she wrote: "More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre" -- in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre" --  Written in June of this year, she uses "has called" not "calls".  She also does not capitalize "massacre" as appropriate for a name.  Perhaps she needs an English lesson or maybe she realises/believes that when the Arabs call it "the Gaza massacre", they are using the word in the generic sense, with "Gaza" a descriptive name modifying the common noun "massacre" (as in "the massacre in Gaza").  Had she said, "Hamas calls it the Gaza Massacre" or "The Arab world calls it the Gaza Massacre" she would be saying what nableezy claims she is saying.  However she is not saying that.  She is instead saying what she says:  in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre". Who in the Arab world has called it that? The total Arab world? Some? All? Still not appropriate in the lede. Nothing to do with Hamas leaders or reps. Still a common noun. Not a name. Stellarkid (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It writes "has called" because at the time this was published the event had already occurred. And you can keep harping on the capitalization but a proper noun is a noun that refers to a specific thing and the "the" being in the quotation marks clearly demonstrates that this is referring to a specific event. I am not "claiming" anything, the source says that this has been called "the Gaza massacre" in the Arab world. That is what the article says. It is in English, it is a secondary source, it directly supports the cited text. Your insistence that it is not appropriate for the lead is based on one thing, that you think the name itself is POV. That does not matter. It is stated in a NPOV what that POV is and whose POV it represents. There really is nothing left to argue here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the source is reliable (that blogger isn't good enough in my opinion) they are still in contradiction to 100s of other sources which again presents a weight issue. I would assume that you would agree it is wrong since you stood behind "Hamas" instead of "Arab World" but consensus and personal outlooks are subject to change.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said "in the Arab world" was wrong but as the sources supporting "by Hamas" have been "disputed" I found a source that supports the wider statement. I would be happy to return to "by Hamas" but you all felt that the sources provided were not sufficient without ever telling me what would be sufficient. And she is not just some "blogger" she is a foreign editor for a major news source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, evrything I see from her on that site is for the blog. It looks like someone in the office liked the blog nd decided to give it an article (hence the unknown). She is not a reputable journalist she is a blogger. Furthermore, bloggers, editors, writers, (pick any of the guys getting nailed on FOX) say the wrong thing sometimes. She is simply wrong according to the sources we have. Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The site says she is a foreign editor. And the place of publication is what matters, this was not published in a blog this was in the Sunday Times. And not a single source contradicts her. And I also gave you a link the PMoH site where pictures of casualties are listed under "Martyrs of the Gaza massacre". And you still have not told me how many sources or what kind of sources you want me to provide. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it was published once. People make mistakes. No one is going to write a story saying "Hey that chick from South Africa who wrote an opinion piece that got used as an article is wrong!" so I don't have any proof for you but the use of common sense seems appropriate.
 * You said there were over a dozen. Someone else said there official press releases. I have repeatedly (several subsections so you must have skipped past it in all of the mess) asked about them. I want to see a continuous use by Hamas officials through separate statements to the press (hopefully not a one day talk to Al Jazeera, AP, Reuters) or official documentation that clearly states the party using the title. In regards to the "Arab world" it would be less stringnt obviousley but so far it has not been shown it is a title and the simple lack of news hits (please see the reminder about sources wanting to pick it up in my last comment at the bottom of this page)Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is "official Hamas documentation"? I gave the MoH website, is that not "official". As far as "sustained use" the sources provided come from the following dates: Dec 27 by 2 different people, Dec 31, Jan 8, Jan 11, Jan 22, September 25. But Im done here, Ill leave you to do whatever. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you continuously ask me to repeat myself. One statement by one guy on the MOI page is not sufficient for official documentation asserting its prominence. Remember the Bush victory thing we talked about? I was told there were press releases. I wold love to see some documentation regarding dispatches to the field as well but know those aren't available. You did show use over some time just not very much. Also, I don't think that those sources show that it is a title any more than "attack by". It is juicy but it just isn't factual the way we are presenting it.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)