Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikipedia follows reliable sources and should have a balanced coverage of different points of view, so the result is include Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Rfcid Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? Nableezy 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement of dispute

A number of users have objected to including the name used in Gaza for this conflict, that being the "Gaza Massacre", in the lead on a number of grounds. The argument that it was not well sourced seems settled with these sources having been provided:

• Gaita, Raimond, ed. (2010), Gaza: Morality, Law & Politics, UWA Publishing

  p. 1: Israel calls its war in Gaza Operation Cast Lead. Hamas calls it The Gaza Massacre, as do some Arab States.

• Fisher, David; Wicker, Brian (2010), Just war on terror?: A Christian and Muslim response, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 164: Operation Cast Lead is described in the Islamic world as the Gaza Massacre

• Wiegand, Krista (2010), Bombs and ballots: governance by Islamist terrorist and guerrilla groups, Ashgate Publishing

  p. 131: The reinstated rocket attacks provoked a full scale Israeli invasion into Gaza, named Operation Cast Lead, but known in Gaza and the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre.

Users have argued that the name is "inflammatory" and thus should not be included. Other users have argued that including the name used by either combatant (Operation Cast Lead (Template:Rtl-lang) for Israel, Gaza Massacre (Template:Rtl-lang) for Hamas) is "unnecessary" and makes the lead less concise than they feel it should be. Others have countered that WP:NAME specifies that significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. and that WP:LEAD says that significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. and that most other articles on conflicts in this topic area includes significant alternative names (for example the Yom Kippur War article includes multiple names in both Hebrew and Arabic in the first sentence). Those opposed to including the name have countered that WP:LEAD specifies that inclusion of alternate names is based on consensus and that they feel there is no consensus for including it.

Comments

• Include - among the most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it. Most of the objections to including the names stem from a personal dislike for the name used by Gazans, the feeling that what happened here was not a massacre and it is inappropriate for the article to describe it as such. That is a personal judgment that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the name should be included. If the name used by the residents of Gaza was vsjBlvcsnklvnsdjk then vsjBlvcsnklvnsdjk should be included in the first sentence as the name used by one of the involved parties. WP:NPOV requires including all significant viewpoints. The viewpoint of those attacked in this conflict is certainly significant, and the omission of that viewpoint in the lead is glaring. nableezy - 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Include - Having looked not only at the example of the Yom Kippur War but also at others such as The Six-Day War and the Fatah–Hamas conflict then I must also say that ALL names should be included in the first sentence. Bjmullan (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment
  • Although this is in a separate section on this talk page, we should not be ignoring the three other editors who essentially !voted to not include with reasoning provided in the section up above (#Name).
  • Keep in mind that we do not need to include all names in the lead. We should is the way it is written. However, readability and other issues can of course take precedent over the urge to add an inflammatory POV supported by only a handful of sources instead of the tens of thousands of sources available for other alternative names. I am not as against it now since verifiability is met but there is still a concern over giving the rarely used title any prominence. And I still wouldn't be shocked if those sources did their research on Wikipedia since it was shoved into the article for so long. Even the Arabic language Wikipedia had a dispute over it so that might be yet another reason for us to use the judgement allowed to contributors. But verifiability is finally (if barely in comparison) met.Cptnono (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Include - Per its wide use among Arabic speaking people. -asad (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Source???Kinetochore (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The 3 listed above should do fine. nableezy - 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Those sources have nothing to do with Asad's claim. Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, one of those sources says known in Gaza and the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre. "Known in the Arab world" directly supports "wide use among Arabic speaking people", or, as you put it, Asad's claim. nableezy - 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Those are different claims. "Known" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily mean widely used.Kinetochore (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Include per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Tiamut^talk 07:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, Nableezy is only suggesting that the "Gaza Massacre" term be used as the name for Gaza/Hamas, not the wider Arab or Islamic World. His sources do also speak in wider terms and it is easy to think the proposed inclusion matches that. I made the same mistake myself at first glance but I believe he included the full quotes only to demonstrate the veracity of his citations. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  That is correct. This diff demonstrates the difference in position. nableezy - 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include - 1) Hamas called the conflict several names (i.e. Gaza victory - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200915132615532555.html). They did not decide on an official name. 2) Gaza Massacre is less commonly used/less prominent than "War on Gaza" or "War in the South". It is WP:UNDUE to list a less commonly used name over more commonly used names.Kinetochore (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reason 3) Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashal referred to the conflict as the Gaza War: “As we won the Gaza war [emphasis added by me], so we will win a war aimed at lifting the siege and opening the crossings...,”Kinetochore (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources specifically say Hamas, and Gazans, use "Gaza Massacre" as the name of this conflict. I am not aware of any secondary sources saying that "Gaza victory", "Gaza war", "War in the South" or any other such name is the name used by Hamas or the people of Gaza. Your al-Jazeera link that you claim shows that they called this the "Gaza victory" actually only has a quote from an official that says "victory is coming". nableezy - 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Above is a source which disagrees with you. The head of Hamas represents and can speak on behalf of Hamas. He called the conflict "the Gaza War".Kinetochore (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-4750858-503543.html --> You'll notice that "Victory" is capitalized in the Al-Assad quote, and referred to by Hamas as "the victory"Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gaza victory has paved the way to Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev, and the West Bank,” said senior Hamas official Ismail Radhwan at a rally in Qatar to mark the “Gaza victory.” - from http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=5910.4274.0.0 Kinetochore (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your CBS source actually just has victory in caps, separated from Gaza, in quotes in the headline. Nowhere in any of the actual quotes does it capitalize victory, or even have it near the word Gaza. The quote it is referring to is a spokesman calling it a "legendary victory". Not to mention that there is a compilation of quotes from Hamas officials calling this the "gaza massacre" in the archives, but that does not really matter. Verifiable, reliable secondary sources specifically say that the name used by Hamas, and the people of Gaza, is the Gaza Massacre. Wikipedia accepts that as fact, please see WP:V and WP:RS. You pulling one quote from one official where he uses some other name or description does not in any way change that fact. nableezy - 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nab, lets discuss your sources. Once says that the conflict is 'known' in Gaza as the Gaza Massacre (but not necessarily principally or officially by this name), one discusses the Islamic world (not a side in the conflict), and the third is a secondary source which directly asserts that Hamas called the conflict the Gaza Massacre. This third source is all you've got supporting your claim that Gaza Massacre is the Hamas name for the conflict. I have shown you instances (at least one of which we can immediately agree on - when Hamas referred to the "Gaza War") where Hamas officials call the conflict other names. This contradicts your third source's claim. All in all, you have very sparse support to add in the title, and argument based consensus will not likely be reached.Kinetochore (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have added enough to this discussion over the past several years, so forgive me if I decline to get into this further in this RFC any more. Everybody is free to examine the sources here, as well as the ones provided in the past (both English and Arabic), and determine what it is they do and dont support. An RFC runs for 30 days, hopefully there will be a healthy amount of uninvolved participation, and then an uninvolved admin can close the discussion. I've found it easiest to attract outside comments when I keep quiet, so Ill do just that for the next few weeks. nableezy - 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include as there never was and most likely will never be a consensus for the inclusion of this libelous term. The sources that use term have in all likelihood (as explained in the last discussion) borrowed it from this article's lede, when it was included based on far more spurious rationales. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? You're opposing on the basis that you don't think there will be consensus in favour? Shouldn't you be addressing the issue itself instead of the process? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include Gaza "massacre". Put Cast Lead somewhere, maybe not in the lead. By Nableezys logic, the lead for Israel should say the Arabic name is "Zionist Entity" and the lead for Israel Defense Forces should say the Arabic name is Israel Occupation Forces. Metallurgist (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not my "logic", please do not make that mistake again. nableezy - 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have fully supported that solution and will continue to do so. Laying out all of the alternate names in the body without emphisis is fine by me. That includes, OCL, War on Gaza, War in the South, Gaza Victory, and anything else that can be found in more sources than "Gaza Massacre". We devoted a whole paragraph to the term and it still wasn;t good enough for some. The only alternative I see is listing all of the names since "Massacre" was used less than others and does no deserve the exceptional prominence a bold title would give it.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead of our article on what most of the English-speaking world knows as the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" (permalink) gives two versions of the Israeli name in both Hebrew and English, in the very first sentence. It should also include the Palestinian/Arabic name or names there, too, but it does get around to that eventually, sort of, by mentioning "the catastrophe" in the fourth sentence. Numerous of our articles use the preferred Israeli name (in English) exclusively, or nearly so, e.g. our Palmach article, to name just one: It speaks throughout of "Israel's War of Independence", as do a great many other articles, despite the hard redirect that causes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question. In brief, "Sauce, goose, gander?" In other words, will everyone here who wants to exclude "Gaza massacre" from the lead also support a proposal to exclude "Israel's War of Independence" and similar names from the lead of all I/P articles?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you didn't change the subject. If you want to make a point feel free to make it but red herrings or questions that involve other variables will only be laughed at. Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, humour is very subjective: I actually find your reply pretty amusing. :P Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include - per my comment and question above, and per Nableezy's observation that, "among the most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it." It's disturbing to me that a decision so thoroughly justified by so fundamental a principle had to be brought to a !vote; I think the behavior that made it necessary could appropriately be called disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• I said so above but for the record, I support include-ing the term. Nableezy has RS which show not only anecdotal use but say it is the name outright. Some editors have speculated these sources are deficient but I think there is no real basis for doing so. Most of the other opposition hinges on the meaning of the term -- unpacking it and debating whether the term is an accurate description of the subject. We shouldn't consider what role Queen Anne played in Queen Anne's War, whether the Glorious Revolution was indeed glorious or the Quiet Revolution a revolution at all. To answer Ohio's question, one can have sauce with a goose barnacle or a barnacle gander even though they are unrelated creatures. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have not addressed others arguments. The question is not if it is a massacre but if the handful of sources deserve precedence. If you are going to make an argument at least try to address the ones others have made or else it is obvious that you assumed one thing while ignoring the discussion. Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your first clause. I have reviewed my comment and I did indeed appear to address the arguments of others. I did dwell on the literal meaning arguments because I find that amusing. Did you know the cherry tomato was invented in Israel? For the other things, I did lump together the various UNDUE concerns (g-hits and anecdotal contradictions) along with the concern that the RS were parroting WP under the catchall term "deficient". I thought that was obvious enough without going after any particular editor and "fisking" their arguments. As you will recall from absorbing the entire discussion, I was the first to raise the UNDUE issue in the initial section above. I did this for the sake of complete openness even though I realized it may have thrown a life preserver to those I disagreed with, even before they had spoken.

Like I've already said, I see no real basis to believe the RS are UNDUE. You mentioned "tens of thousands" of alternate sources. I assumed by that you meant g-hits. English g-hits. Those only demonstrate, to a limited degree, the currency of the terms in English, worldwide. But here we are takling about a term used among a primarily Arabic-speaking population in a specific region (Gaza). And do you know what the g-hits show? Using NMMNG's numbers above, "gaza massacre" has more than one tenth of the hits that "gaza war" has -- in English! Is it possible that the term has wider use in the Arab world? And perhaps a concentration higher still in Gaza itself? I think it may be possible. Kinetochore raised some anecdotal usage of other terms. That doesn't invalidate the RS. Most people know well enough to not use the regional term when speaking to external people. Or they may use them interchangably. Or an anecdote may not be an example of a more general trend. Anecdotal evidence is not very useful for this kind of thing. You and Brew raised a secondary concern that the RS were influenced by WP's use of the term. That is speculative and unknowable and could apply to any source -- no reason to override the RS in my opinion. At the end of the day, we can always speculate that some RS info is UNDUE but we need a good reason to exclude on that basis and I just haven't seen it. If I missed something, just let me know. And please ascribe it to oversight rather than a priori reasoning. Apparently one is more obvious than the other. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you assumed close but wrong. As someone who has seen this debate, surely you cannot argue the amount of souring. "G-hits" no but "Google News Archive" hits yes. And since the term "massacre" as a TITLE is rarely seen in those hits and since many of those hits come from RS (both English and others) then it it is safe to say that the ratio is not even close. But yes, maybe it could be seen in Arabic, but then again please do not disregard the years of bickering over this. Al Jazeera and other major news organizations did not title it the "Gaza Massacre". Al Jazeera even used an alternate name in both English and Arabic. Other websites from major Arabic news organizations did not have the translation as a title in them. We have gone over this multiple times with listings of transalations and multiple methods of obtaining the info. You know that. So that takes care of RS, right? So how about some OR just because I have asked multiple times: Can a single person verify that they have been to Gaza and that "Gaza Massacre" is the name? I have asked a Palestinian editor and he refused to answer. I have looked at the Arabic Wikipedia page and there was a dispute there. It simply does not look like reality. We have now a handful of sources. They aren't particularly strong but they aren't exactly weak. I think that meets verifiability. But I would be lying if I said I believed it and luckily for my view point (which is admittedly on the fence but leaning one direction): NPOV and other standards can work with hand in hand with common sense. So how about you dispute what Al Jazeera and other Arabic RS call it then talk to me about Google hits (like I would actually rely on search engine hits and not the link editors typically provide on deletion discussions since it is one fantastic way to find RS) And then explain why such a little used title is deserved of space when the others ("War on Gaza" for example or even "War in the South") are not. The list necessary to allow prominence to the title is too long and MOSLEAD even addresses that issue with "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As I clarified above, this is not about the Arabic name but the name used by Gaza/Hamas. General searches of Arabic sources is unlikely to be Gaza specific. In any event it is also anecdotal and therefore mostly unusable. Now I realize sometimes we are in the awkward position where we have no real sources and the ugly truth is that we weigh these anecdotal and aggregate usages against each other. But here we have actual RS. Several of them. And you seem to be suggesting that they should be deemed UNDUE on the basis of inferences in the language or region generally, even though the proposed inclusion is specific to Gaza.

As for the MOSLEAD part, I don't think that is generally seen as an impediment to such inclusions. This proposed inclusion adds precisely one name. I won't dismiss one inclusion because several more would be unworkable. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. If you want to propose inclusions, I'd be happy to look at the sources. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do not include Absolutely ridiculous. Surely we can't include such ludicrous propaganda terms for historical events. What next, calling the Troubles the "Irish National Liberation Struggle" or the "Republican Socialist Catholic Terrorist Campaign"? — 78.110.174.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Your example seems to conflict with your "vote". Calling that conflict "The Troubles" is an example of meiosis, which is just the same as hyperbole but minimizes rather than exaggerates. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include on the basis it being useful information appropriately representing all viewpoints. Usage is reliably sourced and I see no compelling (and properly considered) evidence to suggest a single mention of each name in the lede violates UNDUE. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. This looks like the consensus is include. Can it be closed and the change implemented? Bjmullan (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does appear to go that way but it looks like "no consensus" is also close. However, those dissenting point out the other names are still more prominent. That was not mentioned in the opening statement but has been brought up by more than one editor. We actually have a previous version of the lead with all of the more prominent names listed so we can go back to that. I still don;t mind saying "Gaza Massacre" in the lead (it is verifiable) as long as prominence is taken care of. Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Unless there are reliable sources saying the other names are more prominent that argument has no validity in my view given that we have been presented with sources that make explicit unambiguous statements about the name Gaza Massacre and its usage. We can't use original research via google counts and such like to trump statements from sources. If we want a statement to say "A called it <something>" we can only do like for like comparisons to measure and compare the prominence of statements about names i.e. counting statements in sources of the form "A called it X" vs "A called it Y". When we have sources explicitly saying "A called it X" we can't count instances of Y in sources ourselves and then try to argue that the sources that said X got it wrong. We can only count and compare the different instances of "A called it <something>". It makes no difference to me which terms are in the lead but this issue finally seems to have reached the point where it can be resolved by just looking at the data and applying policy to the data without caring about the result. Of course, if evidence is presented that objectively demonstrates in a measurable way that the sources presented by Nableezy are outnumbered by sources that say "A called it <something else>" you can assume my include will then refer to "something else" rather than "Gaza Massacre". Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This does sound a lot like RfC:_Is_Bjmullan-Macrakis_change_acceptable regarding not disputing all alternative names in the lede and kindly waiting till body to do so. Article body is the place where efforts in push for WP:FA should be invested. I'd recommend to upgrade that RfC from {{Notice}} to {{Consensus}} up there in the header talk, though would not insist, since disputing names, locations and origins is usually not constructive and not P-I area specific. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include "Gaza massacre" since it is not an official term for the war used by any reliable sources, and mention "Cast Lead", out of the lead. I agree with Metallurgist. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do not include - seeing as OCL isn't mentioned in the lead either. Either we include all notable names or non at all, and given how ridiculous this discussion has become I suggest non in the lead. PluniAlmoni (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, the proposal would include OCL in the lead as well. nableezy - 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include - I find various arguments above persuasive, but I think that as Ohio and Nablee note, the "most basic pieces of information about a topic is what do the people involved call it". NickCT (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that this RfC is dead but SH just removed a sock's comment. I actually do think this conversation is fine staying open since there is not consensus and inclusion v not is essentially WP:FREQUENT. I did not notice NickCT's comment until now but wanted to address it since we have already gone over this but people seem to forget or have to rattle it off everytime it comes up. I for one think "massacre" in some form should be mentioned in the lead. Unfortunately, the assertion that it is what "people involved call it" is contradicted by the following:

• Gaza Victory: enough said but just a reminder, it can't be a massacre and a victory can it?
• "Gaza Massacre" has been disputed as a title with the sources mirroring its forced use on Wikipedia
• Hamas did not have an official name for it. This has been discussed and it is a point conceded by those in favor of inclusion. Hamas simply did not use its limited PR capabilities to clearly lay this out as their preferred title (see point 1).

But back to my point of keeping this open. I have offered two solutions. Nableezy has rejected at leas one of them.

• Include "it has been called a massacre". No bold. Not an alternative title. Just simply lay it out there. One editor recently provided a source calling it "Massacre in Gaza". It was obviously referred to as a massacre.

or

• Include every title that was verifiably used in RS at a ratio of tens of thousands to one. This could be accomplished by actually adding information in the lead about the media and its relation t this topic. This would increase the quality of the article by meeting WP:LEAD] by being an actual summary.

I'm not going to lie, I think it is time to change the title of this article altogether. notice that other language's Wikipedia projects refer to it as the Israeli operational name (some editors have equated this to POV even though it is a very common and accurate title) or one laying out the dates and calling it a conflict (as we used to do but it was really long). That discussion will eventually come up again and any decision here will get scuttled by it (or the opposite). But it is clear that giving prominence to a very little used and POV dripping title in the lead is not acceptable to many editors without thoughtful balancing. Two easy options are presented to you. It is my hope that the word massacre is used in the lead but how to do it is a hurdle. And add on top of that that we still don't even have a good main title and it shows that this process has been broken since day 1. Day 1 was years ago.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an Arabic name, comparisons to names in English are meaningless. This is not being put in as an alternate English name, so comparing the number of google hits for the English translation to other English titles is a straw man. nableezy - 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include, reliable sources show its a name used in the Arab World, Arabs being an involved part of the A-I conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a contentious RFC, I have requested an uninvolved admin close it at WP:AN. nableezy - 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Include, per the above sources as well as ones mentioned in previous discussions:
• Suchet, Melanie (March 2010). "Face to Face". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 20 (2). Routeldge: pp. 158-171, p. 167. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help): Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the invasion began on December 27, 2008, and ended on January 18, 2009. In the Arab world the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre.
• Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. July 26, 2009.: Starting next weekend, he is scheduled to address Limmud - a charity organisation focused on Jewish culture and education - at conferences in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg about Israeli policies on Gaza and "Operation Cast Lead". Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year.
• May, Jackie. Seeking the brutal truth Sunday Times. September 1, 2009: 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 don't think that there is a tenable argument against this being a name used in circles central to the event. un☯mi 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Those three sources have already been addressed. Face to Face is from a phycologist who does not specialize in anything related to the conflict. The Sunday Times has also not backed up the claim or how they came to that conclusion. However, all three used wording similar to what was in the article since it was in for so long.

But if we are to say that verifiability is met (makes some sense) then we need to include all of the titles used more or else it gives it too much prominence. So if we think that having 5 names in the lead is beneficial to the reader then lets do it. Of course, we have multiple sources from the region (who certainly know the ins and outs of Arabic) who do not use it as a title or even as a primary description so editors should still question it.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to having more names included, but I don't see that it should have a material impact on this discussion either way. Lets settle one issue at a time lest the conversation balloons further. un☯mi 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thought about non-admin closing this, but probably wiser to have an admin do it. Looking at the arguments, I think there is plenty of evidence that both terms are fairly commonly used to describe this conflict and having them in the lede seems reasonable (per WP:LEDE). Hobit (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

civilian targets in the lead

The phrase "Israel attacked both military and civilian targets" has been in this article, untouched, for many months. It has now been edit warred out of the article with one user violating the 1RR to do so, removing it twice and the other coming to his assistance when two separate editors objected to the removal (so much for some people crying BRD in the future, at least one hopes). Since you object to the inclusion of the word "civilian targets", would you rather include a partial list of the actual targets, including a university, a mosque in a refugee camp, and apartment buildings? nableezy - 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely untrue about it being there for a long period of time - I never noticed the addition of civilians until very recently. Yes, list specific targets, and then list specific Israeli defense/reason/explanation for hitting/damaging the civilian infrastructure. This is the only appropriate solution. Saying that Israel targeted civilians is highly biased, and is not appropriate for this article. Kinetochore (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever that civilian targets were attacked. That is what the sources say because that is what happened as a matter of fact. Kinetochore's edit summary "Israel did not "attack" what Israel considered to be "civilian" targets. Civilian infrastructure was hit/damaged, but not attacked" demonstrates the problem. The statement in the lead isn't about what Israel considers it did, it's about what Israel actually did according to sources. Brewcrewer's reasoning is equally problematic "this is a contentious issue, especially with the latest relevations regarding Goldstone's reversal". Goldstone's op-ed says that in his view, civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy. Setting aside the other author's objections, he's talking about targeting civilians, people, not civilian targets like a flour mill, farms, a sewage treatment plant etc. Please, can we not try to rewrite history here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please read the Palestinian militant groups' defense/reason/explanations for firing rockets at civilian centres (here for example) and consider what would happen if we applied the same faulty reasoning in their case i.e. that saying they do x, y, z is highly biased because it's inconsistent with the explanation they provide for their actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean, your analogy is boldly wrong - look at how we phrase Hamas rocket attacks in the lead - we write that "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Southern Israel... [emphasis added]". In the article's section on Palestinian rocket fire, we write that "These attacks resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure [emphasis added]". We don't say Hamas used rocket and mortars to "attack civilian targets". I don't deny that Israeli damaged civilian infrastructure, this is fact. That they "attacked" civilian infrastructure is in dispute.Kinetochore (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My analogy is about confusing intent with actuality. Please read the source cited, page 199 for example and Effects of the Gaza War. That Israel attacked a multitude of civilian targets using state of the art precision weaponry by air, land and sea and less precise methods such as by bulldozer, causing very widescale damage and loss of life is not in dispute at all. Why they did that, what the military objectives were in each case, how many were errors vs how many weren't etc are different and no doubt very detailed, complicated issues. I would much rather the lead simply briefly describe actuality based on reliable sources rather than dance around with notions of intention. I would much rather it simply described what happened in terms of known facts, the objective observable and documented effects of the conflict rather than describe things in terms of narratives. It's remarkable that the effects of the conflict are now almost completely absent from the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"That Israel attacked a multitude of civilian targets using state of the art precision weaponry by air, land and sea and less precise methods such as by bulldozer, causing very widescale damage and loss of life is not in dispute at all." Yes it is. This is partially based on the ambiguity of the term "civilian target". Striking at a building utilized by military forces might very well make it a military target. And when Israel attacked military targets but accidentaly (or even uncaringly) hit civilian buildings is different then intentionally targeting civilians. There is certainly a dispute regarding if civilians were intentionally targeted.

Over all "hit military and civilian targets" is stupid. Israel attacked targets/objectives/whatever. I kind of like the recent edit that eliminated the line since it is too ambiguous and easy to use as a method of pushing POV. Drastically reword it.

And then keep on triming the article instead of focusing on one dumb line.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the notion of military and civilian targets are somewhat ambiguous by themselves given that it's in the eye of the beholder. For example, as page 204 of the Goldstone report describes in detail, terrorist chickens and their military infrastructure can be targeted by bulldozers repeatedly under these confused circumstances for reasons that may be slightly hard to fathom. This is why I think it's better to say what happened rather than use descriptions based on opaque assessments by belligerents. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that X civilian infrastructure was damaged, with Y rationale/explanation according to party Z. Implying that Israel even had civilian targets based on specific incidents is WP:OR. For the same reason, we do not write that Hamas targeted civilians. We just write where they fired rockets, and the consequences/damage caused.Kinetochore (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If a Hamas fired a laser-guided missile and it hit a school bus, I bet we'd say they chose the target, "attacked" it, and did so intentionally. We might even echo the idea in the article's title, and reiterate it in the lead. Oh, wait. We do. From the current lead of Hamas school bus attack: "The fact that the Russian-made Kornet is a laser-guided weapon indicated that the school bus was intentionally targeted."  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hamas admitted to intentionally targeting the bus. What they said was that they did not think/know there were children on it. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-says-didn-t-mean-to-target-israeli-school-bus-1.354967). But we at Wikipedia thank users like you for your helpful input!Kinetochore (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamas fighter death figures in lead?

The last bit in the lead says that Hamas admitted to 700 deaths and that is about what Israel says as well.Is there any reason for this to be in the lead as it is already covered in the casualties section of the article?Personally I just see it as a bit of pro Israeli spin in the lead and if it stays then a bit should be added that the rest of the casualties consisted of 350-700 civilians killed by the Israelis.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Facts speak for themselves. No matter how unpleasant they are, it's still facts, uncontested and demonstrably. I see no reason to remove this from the intro. Facts are never oversimplified or biased, they are just facts. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you have no problem with the facts that the Israeli killed 350-700 civilians then.Being as that is not a problem we can put that in the lead as well.Good news.Owain the 1st (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To repeat myself: I have no problem with facts. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More WP

It would be better if editors stuck by BRD even if it is not mandatory.

I plan on reverting this diff unless previous discussions and WP:LENGTH are addressed. Editors here have previously discussed both WP and length. We do not need to list every NGOs opinion here. We have a secondary article (which I already moved this to). Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First time I have seen this.It sure looks like you do not want things included in articles that reflect badly on Israel, but everyone knows that already.The WP article is not too long as you claim, it is very very short and the piece I put in there is relevant to that article and well source, it comes from Amnesty.I do not agree with you deleting and moving it either Owain the 1st (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to your first comment at your talk page.

Articles > 100 KB should almost certainly be divided. This article is the 128th largest article on Wikipedia at over 224.

We have a balance in the section between the various viewpoints. Some would even argue that that particular NGO is not RS due to their bias.

So an easy solution was moving it into a specific article that another editor already started. It appears to be inline with WP:SPINOUT. So how many other NGOs are we going to add? What is the line? How about thinking outside of the box (while considering BRD in the future) and think of a way to include the mention "multiple NGOs" or something along those lines? Simply reverting won't do and this conversation took place awhile ago. I will have to search the archives to see where it was but I think I pointed to enough for you to read to better understand Wikipedia's standards on appropriate lengths. Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Some would argue that particular NGO is not RS"? Well they would be wrong as Amnesty is used all over wikipedia and is a reputable source.As for the WP article it has one NGO piece on it so adding another is no way over the top.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And you will note that some editors have disagreed with such inclusion. I believe they are in the minority but one thing I have always tried to keep in mind that if we do use those sources we cannot mirror their biased tone. This is not done by coatracking the section. Anyways, do you have a response to the length thing? You have asserted that the article is too short. Do you now see what our standards are?

And you still need to strike out the first par of your comment.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No I do not note that some editors have disagreed with such inclusion it is only you here complaining.Please show me where these other editors are?Amnesty reporting the facts seem to be a problem for you and of course we know it to be a fact as it is backed up by journalist and other NGO's.As I stated the WP article is very very small and has just one NGO commenting so including a quote from Amnesty is fine as far as I can see.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then don't note it. Now can you respond to the length and coatracking concerns?Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not note it as I have stated that you are the only one complaining.I see you could not come up with any other editors as per your claim.I have already commented on the length of the article a few times and am not going to again.I suggest you go back and read what I posted.I do not agree with you at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not commented on the length since I provided you the link showing that you were incorrect. You have not addressed the coatrack issue. So one final time: Are you refusing to address those primary points?Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Owain uses the term "article" when he means to say "section". I think he's saying the "whipe phosphorous" section of this article is short. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is true.I thought it was pretty clear what I was talking about.I said it enough times.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPINOUT as a solution and WP:COATRACK as a concern are still applicable no matter what he meant. Are we to add every NGO's opinion and the IDFs response to each of them? And no, it wasn't clear since you did not clarify it.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is clear to anyone who can read the English language.When I state:The WP article is not too long as you claim:As I stated the WP article is very very small:I mentioned it two times, did you actually miss that?I cannot clarify it anymore than writing it down twice.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the disconnect that you do not understand that "article" and "section" mean two different things or do you believe that the "article" and "section" are both too short?

The section was trimmed down for good reason. Rewording it but staying within some limits (ie: not picking and choosing our favorite piece of information while ignoring others as used to be done) is needed. This article is way too long and we should be rewording and not expanding sections that other editors have trimmed for good reason. Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But could you answer Cptnono's replies? He notes (as I recall it is accurate) that because this (entire) article was very long, it was agreed that some sections should be split, including the one containing WP usage. WP usage is covered in more detail at the subarticle, Controversial tactics in the Gaza War. This allows us to shorten the article a bit. As he noted, it is the 128th longest article on the project, the 68th longest that isn't a pure list. And probably one of the longest 10 or 20 that doesn't contain a list. Your addition would undo the split and do so by adding one factoid among all the WP content at the subarticle. That's a point of view but I don't think you've defended it. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, it seems to be you who cannot understand what I was talking about when I say twice that the WP article is not very long then that is just what I mean, if I was talking about the Gaza war article then I would have written that.The fact that I posted WP article really gives it away I believe.JGGardiner,Do you see me changing it back? I have not.The article is as when Cptnono reverted it.I am just stating that I do not agree with his argument for removing the Amnesty quote that I put in it.His reasons have varied from Amnesty is not a reputable source to the article is too long.I disagree but am not reverting it so do not see what all the fuss is about.This is at an end I believe.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good for now then. If you decide to bring this up again, please understand that whe editors say "article" (even "WP article") they mean an article ad when someone says "section" they mean a part of the article. "WP article" and "article" read the same. Please then adress the primary argument that has not changed once: length. Then address a secondary point: neutrality. Then find a source that will be less likely to be disputed. I did not say AI was not allowed. I said that some editors would argue it. I actually have argued it and that is why I made it clear that it was a minority opinion. And then: Figure out wording that may not be exactly as you reverted to since there is a good chance that would be more easily acceptable. And then redact your personal attack here and on other pages since me striking them was obnoxious. Please read the entire paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When I say WP article that is exactly what I mean and its a pity that you could not follow that but that is not my fault.All I can do is write in the English language.As for your continued claims of personal attacks I am not buying that as I have made none.If you want to consider factual statements are attacks then I cannot do anything about that.If you want to report it then go right ahead.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And the article is too long. I have provided you with a link to WP:LENGTH already. Was your comment at 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) not that the article was too long but the section?Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my fault that you cannot read English and it has been explained to you but you still fail to get it.I suggest you reread what I posted about 4 times now and take stock because frankly your twisting of the situation is just plain silly.Anyway you can have the last word I see you really need it. Owain the 1st (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attacks.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) The suggestion that this article is too long to include a two-sentence comment from one of the most widely-recognized NGOs in the world isn't a proposition I can accept. It leads me to question whether its actually the length that's objected to, rather than the content. These two sentences are highly relevant, they're concise, they're from a very prominent source, and they help our readers understand the topic under discussion. I've reinstated them.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have chosen to not provide reasoning to any rebutal to the arguments made but instead assumed bad faith. The reason two lines is bad is because it opens the floodgates to two more. And then two more. And then two more. Can you dispute that the article is too long? You cannot. This is verified in previous discussions and WP:LENNGTH. There is ANOTHER ARTICLE for this info. This article section needs to be summary. You failed to address the issue of actually attempting to include such information but keeping it nonspecific. So I will do it for you. I will find a source that summarizes all of the NGOs and include it. I enjoy doing the work so it is no problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ohiostandard.Two lines from a very reputable source is not going to somehow tip this article over the edge.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International is arguably the best known NGO source in the world for this kind of information, Cptnono, certainly in the top two or three, anyway. It's appropriate to cite their view, and I'd be opposed to striking it, or replacing it by someone else's summary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to keep on commenting. You two are saying the same ting and still not addressing the problem. I will fix this without your help. Give me some time to find the best source since you two are choosing to focus on why it is problematic. Maybe I will add anther twenty lines about how WP was not a problem. Maybe I won't. Since you do not think the article is too long and do not see a coatrack issue being a possibility then you will get what you get.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

EL

The Guaridan compilation that is specific to intl law belongs in that article. We have a specific article for that. If we include the Guardian compilation then I will see fit to include compilations praising Israel. Then we will be all square right? NO! We will be breaking ELNO. The external links section is not here to make a point. It is not here to highlight certain aspects over others. Provide reasoning now for picking this over others when there is a perfectly suitable secondary article or it is being removed.Cptnono (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And while you are at it: Keep in mind that I kept the EL that calls it the Massacre in Gaza. Is that me being POV that was introduced at the same time? Please make an argument on my talk page if you want to accuse me of POV though since this is not the venue.Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no good reason to remove that link.It is about the subject and relevant to the article.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not responded to the reasoning to remove. Do you have a rebuttal besides "I disagree".Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My rebuttal is above your last post and it does not just say I disagree like you claim.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"It is about the subject and relevant to the article." As I have tried to explain: This article is about the conflict in general. There is a specific article about the alleged war crimes. Removing it unless there is a direct response. I have allowed plenty of time for discussion and so far only received a contrary response that did not address the concern raised.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have had a direct response, you just do not want to take any notice of it.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you take the time to explain why it is better here than in the specific article or not?Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained.It is relevant to this article.It is about the Gaza war and this is the Gaza war article.It has a step by step timeline of the Israeli attack on it as well. Owain the 1st (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is about a specific aspect of the war that has its own article. And the timeline might be OK as an EL but it might be better as a source.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this article has a section covering what is in the Guardian article therefore it is relevant to this article.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)