Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 5

September 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2012

Gaza Holocaust



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was no consensus. Arguments about being offensive or biased are not compelling per WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:RNEUTRAL does not support deletion. The fact that the term may not apply specifically to the Gaza War but to something else is also not an argument for deletion, and neither is the low hit-count near-orphan status of this redirect. Similarly, arguing that it's a real world term that people might search for is not a compelling reason to keep because proponents haven't shown that those who use this term would use the term exclusively instead of the far-more-common term 'Gaza war'. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Gaza War (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Should this article be redirected to from Gaza Holocaust as a result of the decision of Talk:Gaza War/Archive 67 which determined that the one side of the argument termed it Gaza Massacre (not Holocaust) and the other Operation Cast Lead? I believe it should be deleted. 108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged, of course, for all your help!(and stylistic introduction; I am new here :)) Daniel A.(talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Daniel A.(talk) 16:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect gets a hit count in the tens per month so people are searching for it. As a result no particular reason to remove it.©Geni 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out to the IP at Talk:Gaza_War but they neglected to mention here, this has been nominated and kept twice before, Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_19 and Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17. The RFC cited by the IP has nothing to do with the decision procedures that govern redirect deletion (R) and the IP doesn't appear to understand the purely functional role of redirects.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The redirect getting "tens of hits per month" means absolutely nothing. I saw it on a blog and searched it so that I could make a deletion request like this, only to see it done already. So it easily could be people like me trying to find it to get rid of it, not people legitimately searching that term. In any case, the term "Gaza Holocaust" is inaccurate, POV, and unacademic. Gaza massacre is also POV, but at least that is used in a substantial number of sources. This appears to be only a partisan jab at Israel and its supporters and serves absolutely no constructive purpose for Wikipedia. I mean if were going to do this, I want to have War against the Arab Savages also added as a redirect to it. Thats just as partisan and would probably get a few hits a month.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indeed, as Metallurgist noted, "tens of hits per month" (which isn't that much either) isn't that amazing, and you can't tell which people are actually searching for it. It could very well be extreme neo-Nazis who are fond of that wording, but that wouldn't make it reliable or well-used (or anyone else). It's not common and endorses an extreme POV that tries to equivocate a war/operation with a genocide. -- Activism  1234  23:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a term that is used in the real world and so is a likely search term. This is evidenced by the page views show that it is being used - and 10s per month is significant for a redirect (background noise of bots, etc. is less than 5 hits/month) and the trend is for rising traffic. Finally, per WP:RNEUTRAL it doesn't matter that this title is non-neutral, nor whose searching for it. It brings benefit to the project in that it enables us to educate readers (our ultimate purpose) by helping them find the neutral article about the subject. It also dissuades the creation of a duplicate, likely unbalanced, article (the corollary to WP:REDLINK). Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note over 240,000 verbatim Google hits, and use in academic neutral publications, e.g. . &mdash; Cup co  02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously there is going to be bias in naming parts of a live conflict. Calling it a holocaust is biased. Calling it a massacre is biased. Not calling it a massacre is biased. Calling it a war is biased. Just using the Israeli operation designation is biased. We address bias by trying to write the article from a neutral point of view, and if that isn't practical, then by properly attributing the viewpoints of both relevant parties. As already done by selecting the somewhat less blatently emotionally-charged title "gaza war". Having done so, the purpose of redirects is to ensure that our half-invented title will be found more easily by people searching for this topic. If it is true that holocaust is one term for this topic then, whether that term is intrinsically biased or not, it is an appropriate redirect for this topic. So I checked with google, and the results showed that "gaza holocaust" clearly is indeed one widely used term that probably refers usually to this topic. Therefore it is a suitable redirect for this page. This should really be unambiguous; what's less clear is whether or not the holocaust name is so common that the article should need to explicitly mention it or not. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Folks, without even touching on the baseness of any argument linking the conflict of '08-'09 in Gaza, to any sort of "Holocaust", I would just like to point out that there might be a huge influx of Redirects in skirmishes and disputes far more deadly than this Operation. The Iraq War, with 600 times the causalities, should therefore be labelled a "Kilo-Holocaust". The Nagorno-Karabkh, Yugoslav wars, with 10-100 times the dead, should be likewise named. If you don't want to see an upsurge of such nonsensical references, please consider the implications of letting this "Holocaust" terminology stand here. Daniel A. 14:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielakkerman (talk • contribs)  — Danielakkerman  (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep&mdash;Whether or not "gaza holocaust" is an accurate description, an unbiased description, a desirable description, a reasonable description, a sane description, is irrelevant. Redirect policy and the usability of the encyclopedia are the only relevant concerns.  As for the first, WP:RNEUTRAL clearly indicates that this should be kept.  The fact that the term has a zillion google hits and is thus a plausible search term means that the encyclopedia would be less useable without it.  This is actually just how we do redirects here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete . Sorry, I don't want to rehash this any further; but I think, if this is allowed to remain, we should just start generating "Holocaust" related redirects for every conflict on earth(with more or equal death-tolls, than this one). Furthermore, there are no "gazillion" search hits. It ranks in the tens, monthly, which is suspect at best, and probably stems from those already subject to a Confirmation bias. Which is what a neutral, and sagacious source of information(like Wikipedia) should cure, in those afflicted.--Daniel A. 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielakkerman (talk • contribs)  — Danielakkerman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've struck your bolded word as you have already made clear your recommendation above and, while you are free to make as many comments as you like, everybody is restricted to one recommendation (sometimes referred to as a "!vote", meaning "not a vote"). As for the substance of your comment, there are 67,000 web hits for "Gaza holocaust" as an exact phrase when Wikipedia and most mirrors are excluded, and using the same criteria there are 17 Google scholar hits, over 150 google books hits, and just shy of 100 in the Google News Archive search. All this shows that this is most definitely an established term (to books results suggest it goes back at least as far as 2008, and probably earlier as books are not usually the earliest adopters of new phrases. Your comment about confirmation bias is not easy to understand, but I think your saying that we should educate people who are using this term that there is one or more others that are better (more neutral, etc). If that is what you are saying, then I agree with your aim, however I disagree that presenting those users with an indication that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about what they're looking for (and would they like to create one?) is better than a redirect to a neutral article with a neutral title about what they want to read, Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my heading there(Should I remove it altogether?). I fully agree with your reasoning(also, thank you for providing the detailed statistics on the subject). I suppose you are correct, in hoping that a neutral article would help efface any misconception on the topic, a posteriori. What would the policy therefore be, if someone should redirect to the "Iraq War"(for instance), via the term "Iraqi Holocaust"?
 * In case you're not just being facetious, the policy would be to check (e.g., google, academic publications, book search and news reports) whether it is or is not established (by sources other than wikipedia) as another term for that conflict. For "Iraqi Holocaust" there actually might be a legitimate case to be made; "Iraqi kilo-holoscaustic" not so much. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kilo-Holocaust" was of course - a stretch. I was merely suggesting that if one were to consider this from the death-toll perspective, you'd get that assumption. However, let me be perfectly clear, that I view neither as a "Holocaust", and I stand by the notion that any usage of that nomenclature(and its derivatives), other than for premeditated genocides, is obtuse, and highly unqualified; In fact, it smacks of ideological demagoguery.
 * What you or I consider the events to be, how you or I would use the language and how you or I would like others to use the language is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that the terms are used, not why they are used, whether they should be used, nor whether we approve of their use or of those using it. To do other than reflect the sources would be to impose our POV on the encyclopaedia, contrary to one of Wikipedia's fundamental principle. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Delete - NPOV violation, not a reasonable alternate name for this article, name is not used by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually reliable sources do use the name - e.g., Tehran Times, Jerusalem Times, Israel Today, AFP, Islamic Human Rights Centre are just some of the reliable sources using or reporting the use of the phrase. There are also hundreds more less reliable sources using the term, so it's usefulness and liklihood as a search phrase is beyond doubt. Per the relevant policy, WP:RNEUTRAL, the titles of redirects do not have to be neutral - what matters is just that the term is used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a major twist on these sources. Firstly, that book is described as "exposing how government officials, preachers, and media people deceive us, the American people" by a retired police officer. Doesn't seem like a definite reliable reference... The second reference is the Tehran Times - a heavily biased outlet that publishes in Iran which the government reviews.  Read the entire article and you'll note other examples of heavy bias, the fact they use this term shows how radical, extreme, and minority view it is.  Thirdly, the Jerusalem Post, Israel Today, and AFP all use it in quotes to describe either a slogan (in the case of the AFP, where it constiuted perhaps two words of the entire articles and in quotes) or statement, but NOT as an official term.  The fact that some people chanted on the street with this term doesn't make it widely used or common.  The Islamic Human Rights Centre reference is an opinion piece, and there's no indication it's a reliable reference, unlike some other human rights organizations. -- Activism  1234  02:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. We're not determining whether this should be an article, or whether it is an accurate description of the subject. All we are doing is establishing that the term is used sufficiently widely that we should have a redirect at this title. That it is reliably reported that people used it on the street and in slogans means that it is very likely people who were there or who read the reports will look up the term - and news agencies don't report every chant in a protest, just ones they regard to be significant. That the IHRC use is an opinion piece is irrelevant for our purposes, they use the term in relation to the conflict and so combined with the other uses verify that this is a term used in relation to the target of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can make a redirect to the article Judaism "Jews are pigs" because StormFront wrote it online, because some guy in Egypt published an op-ed that said so, etc??? Of course not. As for significant chants - what makes a chant significant? It's a person chanting it, that's all.  Newspaper report shock value, what stands out, not the common. -- Activism  1234  23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt anybody thinks those three words constitute a term for the religion Judaism, since clearly: it doesn't even qualify as a noun phrase; indeed to the contrary, it is a proposition whose subject is "Jews" (a term which is in fact currently the title of a WP article, on Jewish people). Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, I did not foresee people using such arguments to avoid the question at hand. OK, so let's make a redirect called "Evil" to the article Judaism, because StormFront says so, and some guy in Egypt wrote an op-ed that says so. -- Activism  1234  00:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, c'mon. We already have an article on evil. Why not use something like invasion day? Or if you insist on always making everything be about Judaism, just pick the slur christ killers?
 * Hypothetically, lets say (as you do) that no authorative source favours term X for topic Y but that nonetheless numerous reliable sources do report that at least some minority (say 1% per Cupco) does use term X for topic Y at least in a propagandising capacity (and in so reporting, establish notability). If that is the situation, then a portion of readers are likely to encounter term X via either those reliable reports or the partisan literature directly, and if we do not have redirect X->Y then it will be more difficult for those readers to learn more about the topic (since X is the term those readers will initially be searching for). So whether reputable sources condone the term is still, it seems, missing the point. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: this name is not neutral and can't be a home of article, but it is used and some traffic goes into the redirect. While breach of NPOV is a severe problem with content, organizational means allowing to reach neutral content via POV name are welcome. That is specifically true in this case, as due to lots of conflicts in the history of the region, it is reasonable to assume that most hits come from people who came across the wording off-site and are willing to get a clue about the conflict this ambiguous POV name refers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "Gaza_Holocaust has been viewed 474 times in the last 90 days" per stats.grok.se, compared to 48958 for Gaza_War. That's nearly a full percent. &mdash; Cup co  09:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think a redirect can be inherently POV. I would err on the side of helping people find the information they are looking for and eschew the symbolism of redirect titles. The energy that both sides put in to arguing over symbolism would be better spent on the phone to their officials urging peace talks. To the extent that the name is a symbol, it is more important to remind Israel that they are becoming what they hate than to try to use balanced terms for war, a likely oxymoron. &mdash; Cup co  09:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not just non-neutral.  It is offensive.  It is intended to politicize the issue.  It is intentionally inflammatory.  It fails the relevant test in the non-neutral redirects guidelines, that is to say you can not find multiple mainstream sources using this term.Battling McGook (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which test are you referring to, BM? WP:NOTCENSORED policy seems to negate your offense objection (and it's hardly as if designation as a mere "operation" isn't cold, politicising and equally offensive/inflammatory to those who were on the receiving side, such is conflict); as for multiple mainstream sources, Activisim1234 has already helpfully verified that (just to begin with) AFP and even Israel's best-selling English paper have both reported on the use of "Gaza Holocaust" at least by parties associated with one of the two sides; and the seemingly most-relevant WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly states "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is [..] not a sufficient reason for their deletion". Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you not see how I started my description? Let me reiterate: It is beyond non-neutral, it is offensive. And in the document you reference WP:RNEUTRAL, item three in reasons for deletion is "The redirect is offensive or abusive".  Further, item 2 in reasons for deletion is "The redirect might cause confusion".  Since there has been no holocaust or even an attempted holocaust based on the facts, redirecting about a holocaust confuses this issue.  Note that the article being referred to does not mention a holocaust at all, and if it did, existing rules would clearly allow for it's removal.  This same argument applies to the fifth reason for deletion "The redirect makes no sense".  The example given is redirecting Apple to Orange.  This is the same thing.  Redirecting something regarding holocaust to something in which there was no holocaust makes no sense.   And finally, even if we ignored the obvious "offensive" argument and just stuck to non-neutrality, the Wikipedia rules make it clear that non-neutral links which are allowed should be verifiable.  Since there has been no holocaust, it is clearly impossible to verify that there has been.  Therefore this link does not even earn protection as a non-neutral link. Battling McGook (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not need to verify that there has been a holocaust, that would be original research, we need to verify that the term "Gaza holocaust" has been used. See above for the evidence that it has and discussion about that evidence. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, being offensive is not a reason in itself to delete anything, so we need to balance the benefits and costs of keeping something that is offensive to some vs deleting something that is a sourced, used phrase and I and others have explained above why there is significant benefit in keeping this sourced name. Further the redirect is not inaccurate - we are not redirecting "holocaust" here, we are redirecting the term "Gaza holocaust" (a non-neutral title) to the neutral article at the neutral title about the only event notably called by anybody "Gaza holocaust". It is not for us to say whether it is or is not a holocaust, that would be making a POV judgement, it is for us to report that some people have called it a holocaust and that others reject that categorisation, giving appropriate weight to each based on sources. If you want a correct application of the Apple vs Orange example to this situation, it would be redirecting "South Yorkshire Holocaust" here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you would like to update the article to include the 'holocaust' narrative, then you can you cite AFP's article Abbas slams Israel's Gaza 'holocaust'. My sympathy that you find such a term offensive but the real world is full of crap that doesn't make sense and it's not our fault. Our job is to make sure that people who are looking for something are directed to the appropriate article with the appropriate title. Just because this was not a holocaust does not stop people from referring to it, sources using the term Gaza holocaust and people searching for it. This is very obvious from google. Again, not our fault. I'm surprised at the weakness of the arguments being made in this discussion and how much they rely on people's emotional response to things. Imagine the string is "Gaza 6473654" and that every instance of "Gaza Holocaust" in a digital or paper source instead said "Gaza 6473654". Imagine a redirect in Wikipedia that redirected people who searched for "Gaza 6473654" to Gaza War, the common name that was selected per WP:TITLE. If someone wants to argue that the "Gaza 6473654" redirect should be deleted, their argument needs to be based on policy, WP:R. If the delete argument is valid for "Gaza 6473654" in this imaginary scenario, it will also be valid for "Gaza Holocaust" in the real world case. If the argument is not valid for "Gaza 6473654", it won't be valid for "Gaza Holocaust". What the character string actually says, what people think of it, how they emotionally respond to a particular character string, isn't relevant because the string is used by many sources and people search for it. Not our fault. The string doesn't need to be an official term, a neutral term, it doesn't need to mean anything. Redirects are entirely functional. They are a technical solution to a technical issue. Having said that, it is the case that people don't search for "Gaza Holocaust" very often. This is, in my view, the only delete argument that has any merit. The "viewed 474 times in the last 90 days" figure is misleading in my view in that it incorporates the effect of this deletion nomination, but then people don't search for many of the other redirects to Gaza War very often either. However, those redirects aren't repeatedly nominated for deletion, they aren't nominated at all. So there appears to be non-objective selection and reasoning at work. I can understand why this happens but sometimes it's better to disengage the limbic system and just deal with the crap objectively. Either way, keep or delete, will make very little practical difference. People will find the Gaza War article if they want to find it. If the redirect is kept again, no one is going to be confused by a redirect called "Gaza Holocaust". People are not that stupid, and the only people who see the redirect are the people who search for the term.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually you can not cite AFP's article Abbas slams Israel's Gaza 'holocaust', since Abbas does not talk about  Gaza War. The article is dated March 2008, however the war started December 2008, couple of months later.  So are people stupid? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per sources provided above, the Gaza Holocaust does not refer specifically to the Gaza War. The term could be applied, per sources, to other events. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources? The mainstream scholarly sources I could find, e.g., use the term exclusivly for Gaza War. &mdash; Cup co  01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about the source provided by User:Sean.hoyland here, the AFP's article Abbas slams Israel's Gaza 'holocaust', which talks about an event in March 2008, unrelated to the redirect destination. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be an argument for the redirect to point to Israeli–Palestinian conflict, not for deletion. There are sufficient external mentions that I'm satisfied the redirect should not be deleted, but I think the target of the redirect is a valid topic for further discussion. (If retargeting, IPal confl. could also do with a hat note to the recent Gaza war.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for other people but I know for a fact that I can be stupid. Well spotted Agada, but as you probably know, there are many other sources that could be cited for this term with reference to the Cast Lead. I think it's clear that this term is/was mostly used with ref to Cast Lead. I think the only question really is whether the number of people searching via this term justifies its existence. The answer to that question isn't clear, to me at least, because the number is quite small.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have listed below the stats.grok.se/en/latest90/ data for the redirect page usage counts over the last 90 days ranked by count for all redirects to Gaza War for interest and consideration. (list of redirects)

Notes:  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gaza war=Gaza War was viewed 49595 times
 * You will see some double counts there for the redirects that differ only in capitalization e.g. 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict & 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. I assume these strings are the same thing from the server's perspective.
 * You may be wondering why I ranked Gaza Holocaust that way given its 561 (when I checked) count. The page usage count for Gaza Holocaust is 81 for the past 90-11=79 days (i.e. excluding the 11 days of views that came after this deletion discussion was posted. Stats are available up to 17 Sept). That is about 1 per day, so the redirect usage count would have probably been around 92 if this deletion discussion haven't taken place.
 * I really appreciate Sean's effort here. Great data mining! Indeed, it appears the redirect gets less hits that it might initially appeared, if one tracks  statistics from previous months during last year.  So there is no great traffic jam on horizon would this redirect be removed. Even if one assumes that  this term is/was mostly used with ref to Cast Lead there is an issue: the term is ambiguous, there is a reliable source to attest this, thus the redirect is inappropriate. Maybe a disambiguation article is due, or even maybe something like a Great Satan clarification the term applies to US but sometimes to UK. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much a POV fork, whereas the explanation really should just be in the form of a brief mention (with citation) in the main article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete  – The use of the word "holocaust" in this context (i.e. the Jewish holocaust & the State of Israel) serves no purpose other than to inflame the emotions of one group toward another. – Even in the most horriffic cases of genocide post WWII, the term "holocaust" is never used, having acquired a unique meaning. – As to its usefulness as a search term, this may be a case where simply having it as a a search term in effect gives it validity on its own that it didn't have before. Rather than be a term others have used, Wikipedia ends up promoting a certain point of view by keeping it. Deletion is warranted. Senator2029&#8239;•&#8239;talk 05:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However if you read the preceding discussion, you will see demonstrated many times that, far from being a new term Wikipedia is propagating, it is already in use in reliable sources with wide readership. This demonstrates that while neutral sources may reserve the term "holocaust" for specific WWII events, partisan users of the language do not (possibly for the reasons outlined in your point #1), so you're point #2 is incorrect. Related to this, WP:RNEUTRAL makes it clear that the use of redirects from partisan, non-neutral terms that in use to articles at neutral titles are fine and can be a good thing (educating people about the other side of the issue, avoiding duplicate articles, etc). We are not using the non-neutral term, merely reporting that others have done so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we aren't reporting anything in this instance. The term "Gaza Holocaust" doesn't appear in any Wikipedia articles. It's not presented as an alternative name in the Gaza War article, it's usage is not discussed and it's not used as a piped link. The term only exists as a redirect, a technical solution to a technical issue only relevant to people who search using the term.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point? It is well established that people are searching for this term, and there are good arguments for mentioning it in the article (although it is for editors of the article to determine if they are good enough) - what has the lack of internal links (piped or otherwise) got to do with anything (it is explicitly noted in the RfD header as not being a reason to delete a redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote "We are not using the non-neutral term, merely reporting that others have done so." This is not the case. We are not "reporting that others have" done anything. There is no "reporting". There is a redirect. A redirect does not "report" anything. The redirect is a purely functional technical object that exists only because some people are searching for this term. The question then becomes, are enough people searching using this term to justify the existence of a purely functional dedicated object to deal with it ? The answer to that question is fuzzy. "what has the lack of internal links (piped or otherwise) got to do with anything" ? It shows, along with this not being treated as an alt name, that we are not "reporting" anything in any way, shape or form using any technique that someone could describe as "reporting" in any sense anywhere in any article in Wikipedia. There is a redirect, that's it, and no "reporting". Reporting about the term "Gaza Holocaust" at the meta level, as we do about the term "Gaza Massacre", is an issue unrelated to this discussion which is about a functional object.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah right I understand you now, but my point that we are not ourselves using the term to describe the events but acknowledging that others do still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the term "Gaza Holocaust" is non-neutral, non-academic and does not refer to the Gaza war specifically. Because of its tendentious nature, it should be an established term used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. This is not the case. ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the preceding discussion? Being non-neutral isn't a reason in itself to delete a redirect, being non-academic is never a reason to delete a redirect. It has also been established that this is an established term reported in multiple mainstream reliable sources - if you believe any of the citations provided above do not meet the criteria please comment on them individually explaining why. Thryduulf (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone through them above and explained what's wrong with using these refs to say it's being reported as a legitimate term. -- Jethro  B  00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete- The term is offensive to Jewish people also this term could be used for other events--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please read the above discussion - offensiveness is not a reason to delete a redirect. If this can be used for other events (which?) then it should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect with a hatnote at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that Thrduulf has not followed the discussion close enough. As Activism points out, those sources are poor. I don't think a few of the could even be considered "mainstream" (see the lovely opening paragraph from "our staff writer" in the Tehran Times) so I disagree with the assertion that it is an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. Thrduulf  must have also missed BM's reasoning that WP:R#DELETE #3 clearly says that, yes, we can delete a redirect is offensive or abusive. The "sources" provided show that its little use is often sensationalist in nature with its offensiveness which we should not be emulating. I also agree with the editors (plural there, Thrduulf) that think the ambiguous term could be applied to other articles. I want to point out that much like "massacre", "holocaust" is often not used as a proper noun (Gaza Holocaust ≠ Gaza holocuast). This limits the "sources" even more. No need to reiterate your argument, Thrduulf, I've read it and disagree. Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Overly charged title. I also doubt somebody would refer to this conflict only as the Gaza Holocaust without ever referring to it at the Gaza War, or something that redirects to the Gaza War  p  b  p  20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.