Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

This is the former lead discussion page. Lead discussions will now continue at the ordinary talk page. Reasons:

• The huge size/high traffic during the conflict making the split necessary will be reduced as the conflict is over.
• Lead discussions happened here as well as on the ordinary talk page (forking)
• No unsolved issues left on this page.

Skäpperöd (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[THIS] is hardly suggestive that there are "No unsolved issues left on this page". In fact the existence of an ongoing NPOV Dispute is emphasized at the above link just prior to the archiving edits. Please restore this page to so that the disruption can be mitigated.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

---

Vandalism of the lead by User:WanderSage

Despite several discussions and an explicit talk page consensus, User:WanderSage vandalized the lead a couple of hours ago. See this diff. Not only does the material added here violate NPOV, it misrepresents the sources at several points. I placed a warning on this editor's talk page a couple of days back regarding similar behavior. I wonder if some administrative action may be in order here. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

At some point of time in the past few hours, the term "Hamas Leaders" has appeared on the first paragraph. From what I understand and from the sources, I've seen, this term is being used far more widely throughout the Arab media and also in many other parts of the world media. The first paragraph is conveying the common name that is being used to refer to this in a large swathe of the world that is much larger than the Hamas leadership. I feel this phrase should be removed.

Moreover, from these discussions, it seems that a single recalcitrant editor is taking up the time of several other editors, because s/he refuses to acknowledge that this is not a value judgment but a name that is now in common use. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the sources, the term 'media' is superfluous as well. The sources cited include French, German, American, Turkish and Arab news sources. Each of these sources convey that leaders and people in the Arab world are calling this the "Gaza massacre". I emphasize that this is a name, not a value judgment, and what is in discussion here is the common use of the name. Edited the first para accordingly. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you daft? Exactly what sources was I misrepresenting? Exactly what consensus was I breaking. At least attempt to establish yourself as a contributor and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before making such accusations. I've contributed to and added to much of the lead, and the idea that every single addition needs to be run by discussion prior is absurd. I will reinstate this, if you are concerned with it, bring it up in talk, but do not continue to remove sourced information. WanderSage (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. There was discussion above on including the text you inserted and the majority of editors was against it. Your initial edit misrepresented some sources (like when you replaced "according to the UN" with "according to Palestinian sources") and violated NPOV. The lead, especially the first two paragraphs, are being debate intensely and courtesy demands that you discuss major edits before you make them. Please follow this protocol. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Second, the issues that you raise including Israeli justifications and Hamas allegations are already included in the rest of the article. The lead should concisely summarize the facts (as reported by reliable third parties), not go into accusations that both sides make. This is the consensus that has evolved and you have violated it repeatedly. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to only take issue with edits that don't adhere to your strict, clearly non-objective personal bias, Jacob. You speak of some non-existant consensus, and of the discussion page as it is some grand, intricate marketplace of ideas, rather than just two or three editors agreeing with each other. The casualties paragraph is awkwardly short and needs to be put into context and expounded upon. This article exists to put the conflict into context, not merely give raw data. Unless you can explain to me how my additions violate NPOV (genuine POV per Wikipedia's standards, not POV relative to this article, where the concept of "evenhandedness" assumes the marginalization of the Israeli position), they will be reinstated tomorrow morning, in spite of your best efforts to drag me into an edit war. WanderSage (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to drag you into an edit war. If you are unhappy with the talk page consensus, please get other editors involved and try and persuade them with your arguments. Unfortunately, the alternative you adopted is to bypass the talk page altogether. Your text misquoted sources at several points. I've already pointed out one example above and in another case you referred to an Amnesty report that accused both the IDF and Hamas of using civilian human shields but in the text, you only mentioned the allegations regarding Hamas. Second, the substance of what you wanted to insert already exists in the third paragraph. I quote: "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons and personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[62][63][64][65][66][46][67]" This states the notable facts concisely without going to accusations and counter-accusations. That is the purpose of the lead.

Your text referred to allegations made by Hamas and detailed other allegations made by Israel against Hamas including motivations that Israel ascribes to Hamas. As far as I understand very few other editors support the inclusion of such contentious allegations in the lead. In any case, I'm going to post the text that you inserted here, so that everyone can have a look and comment.

Hamas has cited the high civilian casualties as evidence that Israel is perpetrating a "holocaust" on Gazan civilians.Israel dismisses the claim and says they are taking all possible measures to minimize civilian casualties and blames Hamas for the civilian losses, asserting that Hamas militants deliberately operating from within dense civilian populations with the intent of eluding and deterring Israeli strikes and politicizing the casualties that result.

Other editors, please weigh in on whether you feel this is appropriate for the second paragraph of the lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see disruptive editing by WanderSage, there is increasing determination on this page to bulldoze over talk page consensus and wiki policy. RomaC (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

both of those positions are covered ad mortem in the article, not necessary in the lead. Untwirl (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of the lead by User:Jaakobou

User:Jaakobou made this highly inflammatory addition to the lead. I call this nonsense.

1. User did not discuss it here first
2. 'We will not put any extra information on the first paragraph lead. It's only the names and the time. I wish this has been clear from above discussions.

Has this been clear Jaakobou? --Darwish07 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This constitutes a pattern of disruptive editing by Jaakobou over two days now. Editors should not have to repeatedly clean up after others. RomaC (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We are going to get a lot of this, particularly when (if) the heat of this event dies down. Involved editors on all sides who have worked hard to get a reasonably comprehensive and balanced text would do well to keep the page on their watchlist, even when things quieten. The structural damage is usually done when no one is looking any longer.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat absurd. This edit doesn't even make a pretense of relying on neutral reliable sources. Instead, it refers to an extreme right-wing site, and some original research from Youtube. Does User:Jaakobou really want a neutral article or is s/he just interested in creating havoc? Jacob2718 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Look into his history . . . RomaC (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be great if my concerns about the lead would actually be addressed instead of a small clique accusing me of disruption for daring to make 2-3 edits (among a few more edits) they chose to revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You arbitrarily changed the lead twice, a lead that has been discussed in a number of discussion that took no fewer than 20 hours of many of our lives, exactly what response did you expect? Nableezy (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And your changes contained gross inaccuracies, blatant misrepresentation of the sources, and no RS sources backing them up, and then you accuse, and I counted, the minimum of 18 users who supported the lead as is as gaming the system. You really are trying hard to make this as confrontational as possible. Nableezy (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you've went ahead and counted... how many were against a unilateral inclusion of Arabs call it Massacre? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sense you are using the word 'unilateral' in? The inclusion was supported by an overwhelming majority of editors. Someone did a headcount upstairs, but even that has changed, since some editors changed their stance and agreed that the sources supported this name. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Point me towards the poll, please. I'm curious to the statistics on this 'overwhelming majority'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There was never a 'poll' but in discussion the vast majority of editors favored a certain phrasing. And I was wrong about the minimum 18 users, it is actually a minimum of 19 users who supported the current phrasing. If you would like to call for a poll, feel free. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And my count for those against was 8. This may not be a full representation, as this discussion spanned several archives and I very well may have missed some names. But like I said, if you are so insistent on this, ask the rest of the people. Nableezy (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And 19 people cannot under any circumstances be described as 'unilateral'. I respectfully ask that you stop making this accusation that it was a small group of people trying to game the system. Nableezy (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Intensified, started

Seriously, regardless of one's political viewpoint, it should be perfectly clear that the "Gaza Israel conflict" did. not. BEGIN. on 27 December. There are multiple POSSIBLE starting dates, such as start of Cast Lead, November incursion by Israel, November rocket salvos by Hamas, etc., all of which can be debated. However it objectively did not START(!) on the date in the lede. I am changing this single word from "started" to "intensified," which is objectively true, again, regardless of whether you support Israel or Hamas or both or neither. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Israel-Gaza conflict". There is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then there is the Israeli military offensive (the subject of this article) which began on December 27th. The problem with the lead derives from this article being misnamed, using a neutral euphemism for a Israeli military assault. We cannot say that a conflict which does not exist intensified. Tiamut^talk 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't name the article. Since we have to edit the article under current title (unless you are proposing rename/move, which case I am listening), "intensified" still is more accurate than "began." Kaisershatner (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to propose a move, but it's been discussed a number of times now, and there is little hope that we will reach consensus this time around (though we could try again soon anyway).

Until then, how about something like:

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict refers to an intensification of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which began on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[29] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[30][31][32] Tiamut^talk 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that sounds ok to me, I wonder if intensification of the Israeli-Hamas conflict might be more accurate? Also remove the comma before "which began" since it makes it read as if the entire conflict started 27 Dec. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

wholeheartedly agree this would be better. Nableezy (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful, we are stuck with an inaccurate title as it is. This article was precipitated by the Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, that is a fact. If we backtrack where do we stop? ceasefire violations? rockets? blockade? suicide bombings? further? Also as Hamas is not the only Palestinian party listed (there are five listed now in the infobox) suggest we stay with "Israeli-Palestinian." RomaC (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with my suggested version (other than the Arab allegation title being a-miss)? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh let me count the ways.

• The lead, as it currently stands, says the following:
  The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in much of the Arab World.
  
• Your lead said the following:
  The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. While the Hamas leadership has declared their people has a "desire for death" and that they favour the use of women, children and elderly as human shields in combat, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) as well as a Gaza Holocaust in much of the Arab World and Iran as well.

• In the original, the first sentence briefly describes what the title refers to, then the Israeli name, and the mission statement from the Israelis. Next, the second sentance describes the name of the conflict according in the language of the other group involved in the conflict. End paragraph, simple clean and without any arguments in favor or support, just the basic facts of the situation.
• Your lead, with the same first sentence, then goes onto to describe comments that Hamas made, that is fully without relevance to the basic facts about the conflict, the time, place, and name. Beyond that, the 'source' for this is a youtube clip. Now I know that you know that youtube is not a reliable source. Beyond that, that quote is entirely without context, and you are completely misrepresenting their view. Next, the line "and that they favour the use of women, children and elderly as human shields in combat", references, again the same youtube clip, and again is taken completely out of context to purposefully misrepresent the source. If you actually listened to what the man said, he said that the Palestinians would themselves 'challenge the Zionist bombing machine'. Beyond that, you reference the same video twice, as if trying to convince people that the statement is sound. And both sources are utterly unreliable, both of them linking off of a youtube video. For the written sources, you have one from November of 2006, which reports that Palestinians voluntarily challenged, successfully, a bombing raid by having "hundreds of relatives and neighbours gathered at the house, where about 50 people reportedly climbed onto the roof." If you want to call that using human shields, you are sadly mistaken. I would suggest you take a look at this to gain a better understanding of the term. Also, what exactly is the relevance from an article from 2006? Also, you have an Israeli MFA report from March that accueses Hamas of using human shields. First, nothing that the Israeli government accuses Hamas of will be presented as fact unless reliable sources present it as fact, the same way that nothing that Hamas accuses the Israeli government of will be stated as fact without reliable sources presenting it as fact. Also, you need to find a newer source, this is claiming this occurred in March of last year, not in this conflict. Finally, the Gaza Holocaust name. Your sources for this are as follows; an AFP article, a non-RS blog, and iranian.com, which describes itself as 'Iranian.com is a community site for the Iranian diaspora -- the Iranian expatriates who care about their identity, culture, music, history, politics, literature and each other, as well as friends and family living in Iran.' How is that a RS, and beyond that, why is the name Iranians are using, even if this website actually represented anything in Iran as it clearly does not even claim to, relevant at all? Iran is not involved in the conflict, we do not have the French, Italian, German name for this, we only need the English and Arabic and Hebrew. Now to the AFP article, where I think you showed particularly bad faith in using that as a source to back up your claims that it has been used as a name in the Arab world. Here is the full quote from Khaled Meshaal: "The enemy has failed by creating a real Holocaust on the soil of Gaza". It is clearly not used as a name for this conflict, and he doesn't even say 'The Holocaust' much less 'The Gaza Holocaust'. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of the source, the only RS you cited in all of your changes.

Now all of this is argument to not contain any of this in the lead whatsoever, further it goes to show that none of what you added met policy in terms of RS or V and NPOV (presenting the allegations of using human shields as fact), and as such this should not even be in the article at all. But the most basic reason that none of this belongs in the lead paragraph is that none of this meets what are asked to provide in the first paragraph, the names, date and location. Nableezy (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said same first sentence, I meant the same first sentence that was there at the time of your edit, so I make no assumptions as to whether you are wishing for that first sentence to be restored. Nableezy (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not "my" verion at all but rather an attempt to work the full Arab narratives with the current lead as the current phrasing is suggestive and unblanced towards the Israeli self-defense perspective. To the point, my actaul suggetsed version was stated here:

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎, Mivtza Oferet Yetzuka), refers to the second major Israeli incursion into the Palestinian Gaza Strip since Israel disengaged the area in August 2005 and Hamas became the governing body in January 2006.

The events of the conflict are currently ongoing as the Israeli incursion ensues and Hamas is launching rockets into Israel.

Move the rest to the body of the article.

I believe this version will help the article move forward and prevent many of the current bickering about the lead, which is way too big on top of beying not-neutral and innaccurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the other side of the conflict here is Hamas which hardly represents anything beyond the Gaza Strip, not the entire Arab World. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

First, we are not unbalanced in the lead, as we do not say it was self-defense or that it was not. That much should be clear. Second, I dont think the lead you are now presenting is neutral. It makes no mention of any Arab name for the conlict, on top of that it makes too big a mention of 2 things, while certainly precede the conflict, dont necessarily have much to do with it, or at least not on the scale of the seige of gaza/rockets from hamas/ I would wait for a lil bit and let the discussion above about how to refer to the arab name wraps up before making such a change. But I personally do not feel that the intro you provided is neutral though. And as for as what intro was yours, i was going off of this edit. Lastly, Gaza is 'the other side of the conflict', and the name in the wider Arab world says is certainly part of the discussion here, as the name in Gaza will almost certainly be the same name in Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, . . . Nableezy (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The actual battle related input should be in the background and it's much eaiser to avoid wiki-bickering and multiple drive-by edits by edit ninjas if they are moved to the body of the article. Just take a look at the length of the lead and tell me if it makes sense (also make note of WP:LEAD). I'm willing to compromise on the massacre title if it is refered to the actual/direct other side of the conflict - I do believe Hamas is the elected and de-facto gov. as Israel is the opposite gov. Agreed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what are you proposing?VR _talk 12:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing my suggested version with an addition of the current "massacre" title, only that it be attributed to the active government of Gaza who's in conflict with Israel instead of the entire Arab world which is mostly an opionated spectator. Moving all the background to a background section will clear up a huge stone and help stabilize a main piece of the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that you will stop destabilizing the lead, if this is agreed to? :-) No, not agreed. We are trying to list common and notable names for this conflict in the first line. The title refers to the conflict as the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. In addition, we have the common Israeli name for the operation. Finally, as dozens of sources have demonstrated, a large part of the world, is using a different name for this conflict; we are listing that as well on the first line. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) P.S: Also, this conflict involves the entire population of Gaza not just Hamas. So, I suppose you could try and replace "in much of the Arab world" with "in Gaza and much of the Arab world", except that, as yet, we don't have sources that tell us what people in Gaza are calling this. Perhaps this will change in a few weeks. Jacob2718 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the actual battle stuff goes in the background section and not the lead paragraph, but why does that mean we should insert things from an even deeper and more distant background into the lead? And we are discussing the phrasing of the called by arabs a couple of sections above this in #My_long_subsection.__Sorry Nableezy (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The background should include soft references to historical articles such as the 1948 war and the global blockade on Hamas after they won the elections as well as their 2007 forceful takeover on top of the prelude to battle notes. The lead itself should give a minimal naming and time frame for the designated parties of dispute so that a reader will know the immediate past -- in chapter titles -- between Hamas and Israel and Gaza. Certainly, this method is better than keeping the current erratic style of lead that will change on an hourly basis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about this:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in much of the Arab World.
would be changing hour by hour, I dont see how your proposed lead is any more concise, and beyond that introduces topics in the lead that are not specifically related to this conflict. The lead should just be the date and names of the conflict, I fail to see how the current lead does not accomplish this but your proposed lead does. If anything, your lead obfuscates what the background of this conflict is by introducing events not entirely relevant. Nableezy (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the first issue on where that paragraph is faulty - this article is about a clash that Fatah is supporting. It's relation is more entwined with Hamas' 3 year rule over Gaza than anything else, certainly more than a generic link to a 100 year conflict. How can a reader understand who Hamas is and what the current incursion is about if they are referred 100 years back in the first sentence? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

These are only your opinions, for which you provide no evidence. I see a massive amount of effort done in links, evidence etc., by Nableezy to counter your proposal. And in reply he gets generic opinions, which may be valid, but are just that personal opnions unsupported as yet by any convincing array of evidence.

A reader, secondly, can look at Hamas, which is linked. Thirdly, the majority of editors on the actual page see no point at this time in troubling a stable lead, and therefore a discussion between three editors is rather pointless, because the consensus would only be 2:1, not sufficient to justify an alteration in the lead to which far more hands have contributed. Until I see a serious, thoroughly documented, exquisitely sourced alternative proposal to the good one we have, I do not think it worth exploring what remains the otherwise eminently respectable dissenting voice of one editor. The hard work is with the larger part of the article. The issue with the lead should be resolved once we have the conflict over, the text therefore out of its pressurized oven of coping with news boiling over, or boilerplate newsing over, and can sit down collectively to review it all, establish a stable body of text that is comprehgensive and neutral to the parties, and only then secure a lead which reflects that text.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And, there is a background section for any background information. Nableezy (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed Lead tries to influence the reader by telling one editor side of the history. There are dozens of other explanations, and none of them should be in the lead. The lead contains when the war begins, when the war end and its common names. Calling our own version of history is not our job. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Destabilizing the lead

So Israel has a right to self-defence. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15941.htm True, [so does Hamas, according to its leaders]. Tundrabuggy7 has now altered that lead, meaning either it is reverted, since it is not consensual, or one sticks a correspo0nding phrase about Hamas asserting its right to defend itself. The former is the simpler and cleaner option. But I expect this is only the beginning, unless cooler heads prevail. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is garbage, we are not putting either sides argiments in the lead, and there is no consensus for changing 'Gaza Massacre' with a 'massacre.' Nableezy (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead should not be changed unilaterally, by someone who edits saying don't change until consensus is achieved. He has no consensus, but expects his faits accomplis to be overturned only by consensus. That is garbage. I myself have no intention whatsoever of clogging the lead with addditional language using each other's claims. I gave that link ('What we are doing is resistance. Because it is a reaction against the Israeli aggression and a reaction against the Israeli occupation of our land. The resistance is the legal right to defend ourselves)', only to show that if Tundrabuggy starts frigging about with parentheses, others will insert pro-Hamas balancing parentheses, and the result would be chaos.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been changed unilaterally when you revert it. It is only "stable" by virtue of the fact that your "side" consistently reverts to the same POV version. My edit was not just for me but for others here who have objected to it as it invariably stands thanks to your reverts. I have no idea what you are talking about about "frigging around with parentheses" - I merely dumped "The Gaza Massacre" and the corresponding presumed references -- the huge list that do not claim what we are told they do. How is it "clogging the lead" to tell the "why" of this "conflict" "operation" "war" "massacre" from the perspective of the party who, according to this article, started it and is certainly one-half of the conflict? How is it ok for the Arab world to claim its a Massacre, but not OK to say the other side has another view? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors have reverted the version you have put in, you cannot explain how giving both sides name to the conflict is POV, you are only arguing about this because you dont like the name one side has given to it. Nableezy (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A "massacre" is not a name. It is an accusation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea of Gaza Massacre being "just another name" like Operation Cast Lead, or the Hamas-Israel Conflict or even the Gaza War is merely a trick of rhetoric to try to draw a parallelism and say it is fair. It is not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NO, it is the name used in the Arab world. That the name implies an accusation is plain, but it is the name in the arab world. Accusations of individual massacres are in the incidents section, as well as Israeli responses. That you cant accept this is not something I feel necessary to attempt to change, as it is clearly futile. You do not listen to reason, so I see no sense in attempting to reason with you. Nableezy (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means stop. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it acceptable. Taken from the AP, but it will do. Cryptonio (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you people find it alright to exclaim that Arabs call it The Gaza Massacre in the lead? Those references do not even say what is claimed. If anything is "destabilizing the lead" it is the POV and lack of RS to make your case. As long as you are going to call it a "massacre," you at least can put in Israel's view, ie "self-defense". I have a reference that says just that. None of you have listened to the other side in this and merely revert revert revert (9 X out of 10 without even an edit summary). Your references do not show that the Arabs call it "The Gaza Massacre" no matter how many links you put up they simply do not support it. Consensus does not trump accuracy OR WP:NPOV. You people need to compromise here and my compromise is fair: "The operation, which Israel says is in legitimate self-defense, has been called a massacre in the Arab World" --I left in all your references as appropriate to the claim of "a massacre" and it is balanced now and neutral. What seems to be the problem here? You want an article that says the Gaza Op is a massacre in the lead and make the rest of the article prove it? No that wont do. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this:

There are a plethora of sources that give these names, both english sources that translate statements from Hamas and other arabs (eg SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [3]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman '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.' [4]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [5]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [6]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera)

dont you understand? There are sources that explictly show Hamas leader saying 'the gaza massacre' in english as a title referring to this event, and sources in arabic that use the title مجزرة غزة in their coverage. What is not sourced? What is not sourced impeccably? What dont you understand about what the first paragraph is intended for? What about the notice "Give only the name, dates, involved parties and location of the conflict" that is placed before the firt paragraph is unclear. The names are '2008--2009 Israel-Gaza conflict', 'Operation Cast Lead', and Omrim noted earlier 'Gaza War' is being used in Israeli media which should also go, as well as 'the Gaza Massacre'. Even people that you say agree with you have disagreed:

Omrim: Okay, it seems there is no way I can stay out of it any longer. Here is what I think: The reason don't take active part in this discussion (as well as in many others) is that I am having a hard time to crystalize an opinion. I must say that I am appalled by the "massacre" terminology, as I find it to be nothing short of simple case of racism, yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way (i.e. "Gaza Massacre"). That said, I guess I would have no objection to include the term in the lead. However, most Israeli media outlets call it "the Gaza War". If "massacare" goes in so should "war"

tomtom9041: Wikipedia is NPOV and that the title should also be NPOV. However, I have nothing against the how it is known in the Arab world being in the lead along with Operation cast Lead. I believe that there is plenty of precedent for that in wikipedia. I also remember Black Saturday Massacre being in the lead for awhile.

Why can you not let this go, the Israeli reasons and arguments for the legality and morality of the conflict are shown throughout the article, this lead is well sourced and completely neutral. It give the english name, the israeli name, and the arabic name. How that can possibly not be neutral is beyond me. Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And no, those references do not support it. They refer to a massacre in Gaza. Nowhere does it say the Gaza Massacre: always it is in small letters. They are claiming a (generic) massacre in Gaza. Israelis specifically do NOT consider it a massacre but self-defense. You are engaged in WP:OR when you make the claim from your references that "it is known as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me assume for a second that if you can type english that you can then read english. There are no fewer than 4 english sources presented above that the call it, at leat, 'the Gaza massacre', not 'a Gaza massacre'. If you cannot read that im sorry there is not much more that i can do to demonstrate that. Second, if capitalization is such a point of contention i would be willing to not capitalize massacre, but as i said earlier it seems odd to not capitalize a proper noun. What else the problem. Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit read, "it is referred to as a massacre in the Arab world." I can accept that, however! Israel refers to it as a war of defense to protect its population. That needs to be in there as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel refers to it as 'Operation Cast Lead', if you can find sources where it shows to them naming it 'War of Self-Defense', then add that. But no arguments are given on either side, and you still refuse to acknowledge the above sources clearly has hamas leadership referring to it as 'the Gaza massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, naming it not describing it. Nableezy (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I utterly resent 'you people'. You have Israelis, Arabs, Americans, and (I think) Europeans that disagree with you. What does 'you people' mean in this case other then members of the human race? Nableezy (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please! I don't care whether the Israelis, Arabs, Americans etc agree with either one of us. The "you people" refers specifically to you'all here in this "discussion" that to me (and others here) are pushing an anti-Israel POV in this article. I empathize with your position, but it is not neutral. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine, respond to the points raised above, how can you possibly dispute that they are calling it the gaza massacre after the quotes above? Let get that first point out of the way then we will deal with the rest of your complaints Nableezy (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And i hardly see how omrim or tomtom9041 could be accused of pushing an anti-israel pov, in fact i would call them both some of the more neutral editors that have worked on the page. Nableezy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

I see that WanderSage has deleted references to reaction by journalists and demonstrators. His edit summary states: "What does this have to do with the paragraph it is attached to? Awkward and unnessecary." I find this justification completely unconvincing. If the passage is "awkward", it should have been reworded. If unrelated, it should have been moved, or intergrated. WanderSage does neither. Since the deletion occurred without discussion, I call for restoring it without further discussion. NonZionist (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a reminder. Neither Israeli rights, nor Hamas rights, neither Israeli arguments, nor Hamas arguments, belong in the first paragraph of the lead. I've explained this several times. The first paragraph is for discussing name of conflict, time started, parties involved and locations where it is taking place. The second paragraph is for background and POVs of both sides for conducting the conflict. I ask everyone to respect this order.VR _talk 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows that you have a right not to be "massacred." So by putting that so-called "name" up you are presenting the Palestinian "right" not to be massacred. I am not trying to be funny here. I am deadly serious. If "rights" belong in the second paragraph so does the accusation of a massacre.Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IT IS JUST THE NAME USED. If you want the lead to develop into the unholy clusterfuck that the majority of these articles have, go down that line, you will have 40 sentences with 50 parentheses in the lead, discussing the illegality of blockade/siege the right of occupied people to violently resist aggression and occupation, the legal opinions of the whole world that gaza is currently occupied and is 'an open prison' that, in violation of international law, is collective punishments, as well as israeli arguments about self-defence, illegality of targeting civilians, . . ., if that is what you want keep pushing for including including the stuff you are talking about. That you find the name objectionable is not reason to remove it from the lead. Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that 's original research. Somehow you're interpreting a name to mean "the right not to be massacred". First of all, I've never heard of such a right, and secondly, the text is not claiming that.VR _talk 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course one has a right not to be massacred. It's part of our Natural and legal rights. The text is pretending to that it is simply a "name" like "Bill" or "Joe" and doesn't really mean anything at all. The the article attempts to prove the Arab view for the reader on the basis of what "information" is permitted into the article and what is taken out. Start out neutral and you can stay neutral. Veer off in the beginning and you get a biased and bad article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"unholy clusterfuck". Nableezy, such language is uncalled for. Be concise and to the point.VR _talk 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was the only phrase i could come up with to describe that type of lead, where the entirety of the I/P conflict is rehashed in full. Nableezy (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]It is hard to think you are not purposely pretending to be dense. It is not "just the name" and shouting doesn't make it more so. Move the "massacre" part out of the lede and put it somewhere else, along with Israel's justifications. It is "recentism", it is POV, it is a value judgment. Operation Cast Lead is a name. Gaza War is a name. Gaza Massacre is a judgment. The reason I 'don't like it' is because it is POV and does not reflect the references. I don't object to making that claim in the body of the article, though I don't think your sources support it -- but definitely not in the lead. Israel didn't happen to call it "Operation Save our Israeli Asses from Hamas terrorists" so they are stuck with dull Operation Cast Lead while the Arab propaganda is included in the lede -- and you guys can't see what's wrong with that? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Israel is behaving in a professional manner, while the Arabs are getting emotional or spreading "propaganda". That is indeed wrong. But it is wrong for Arabs to that, it is not wrong for us to report what the Arabs are doing. We are not claiming that the conflict should be called "Gaza massacre", we are only claiming that Arab media is claiming that the conflict should be called "Gaza massacre". Can you not see the difference between the two?VR _talk 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] :::No I am not characterising Israel's behavior. I am allowing Israel to characterise it. Whether this 'operation' rises to a "massacre" or a "genocide" time will tell. But the article should not pretend that Israel just woke up one day and decided to massacre her neighbors. There have been years of provocations by Hamas. Israel does have a responsibility to her people to prevent her neighbors from bombing them. Hamas could stop this thing tomorrow if they wished. But they have clearly stated that they do not wish. Certainly say what the Arabs call it. The articles given demonstrate that the Arabs are calling it a massacre. They are not calling it Black Saturday Massacre as was initially alledged, or "The Gaza Massacre" -- they are calling it a massacre. "A massacre in Gaza" -- It does not belong in the lead as it implies a condemnation and we do not take sides in wiki. Am I making myself clear? I am getting hoarse Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is an outright lie disputed by the facts that they do call it 'the Gaza massacre' why dont you actually read the sources? I provided direct quotations from 4 english sources where they call it clearly, and in the body of the article, 'the Gaza massacre'. That you keep denying this shows bad faith. Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I cannot shake off the idea that you are purposefully playing dumb, you have yet to recognize that there are sources that explicitly show Hamas leadership naming the conflict 'the Gaza massacre'. That you refuse to acknowledge such a simple fact shows considerable bad faith in this whole discussion. Stop accusing us propagandizing, we are fulfilling the requirements of NPOV, while you keep trying to circumvent them. You cannot reasonably say that we should have what the israelis calls the conflict and not what the arabs call it, that is non-NPOV, it is the very definition of non-NPOV. The lead as it is is balanced and factual. Nableezy (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And recentism? this whole conflict is recent, the name is as recent as operation cast lead. see this is how i know this is done in bad faith, you keep looking for policies to back up your position, you dont consider the policies when making your position. this entire discussion is shows demonstrable bad faith on your part. Nableezy (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And it CLEARLY reflects the references, something you have been unwilling to see. Nableezy (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I'm getting tired of repeating. If I find myself saying the same thing over and over again, then I'm just going to stop responding to you.

"But the article should not pretend that Israel just woke up one day and decided to massacre her neighbors." No, the article claims that the Arabs claim that Israeli operations should be called "Gaza massacre".VR _talk 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest you try to uniformly apply policies, instead of pulling them out when you think it is to your advantage. Bringing up recentism when you apparently feel that ""Recentism" is not a wiki guideline and the WP:recentism article itself is ambiguous about the pros & cons of it." [7], so please dont make accusations that you dont even feel are relevant. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, are you trying to play a role of being dumb to censore Wikipedia? I've put 10 fucking references on the last sentence alone including ~6 that directly says the term "Gaza Massacre" for a damn reason. This was not even including the 10 Arabic references we've talked about on the Archives before; 10 references is propbably the biggest number of references that cite a single sentence in Wikipedia. I'm not debating or reasoning with you anymore; we and lots of others have done enough of that. You do not listen, you're embarrassingly trying to justify your stance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm sure that you do understand that we're not calling it a massacre, you're saying bullshit arguments from the start (NPOV of the term itself, recentism, no "Gaza massacre" cited although we've put 5 extra references with the exact term "Gaza massacre"), and you're either a)stupid, b)playing stupid to make a point. I'm sure you're the second case. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy is right here. Pretty much every event that includes Israel is called both a "massacre" as well as a "divinve victory". Either we put up the full "desire death" + "massare and hoocaust" narrative or we postpone it for the body of the article... you can't trick wikipedia into using only the half that is meant for thewest while censoring the half that is meant for the Arab world. Personally, I think this should be in the body of the article.

The Israeli name balances the Arab name and that will be the whole story. There's no twist or tricking, those are the stupid names themselves. And it's not your say Tundrabuggy to tell me "x OR y". We're not in the Mafia here to do this silly threats, I don't get threatened. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're playing those ugly games, OK. I will do so too. I'm going to add in the lead that Israel is the occupying force (several UN references), and with a shady human rights history (several UN and Amnesty references). You see, I can also piss others and maybe even do it in a more professional way than you do. It will be just better to stop this pissing match, just go on together and agree that those are frickin names that only get balanced by other names, not our frickin own prose. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Darwish07, please review WP:NPA as well as WP:CIV. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, ignore editors who try to censor content by wikilawyering one argument after another. Please, revert editors who ignore consensus and policy. Do both of these apply here? RomaC (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, please revert the edits RomaC. I don't want to break the 3RR. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Some are removing any mention of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Gaza, while leaving mention of casualties and damage in Israel. Both pieces of information are relevant extremely well-sourced and belong in the lead (and should be expanded in the article). Their removal is not productive, and further removals should be started to be viewed as contentious and unproductive editing. --Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties should be mentioned in the infobox, not lead. Infrastructure damage should only be described in general terms, not specific details.VR _talk 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions have supported having a concise casualty count in the lead. RomaC (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They have not RomaC. You have pushed for it and people have reverted you. Almost everyone agrees that for reasons of space and ease of updating, they belong in the infobox. Besides, the lead is a joke, people are treating it like the sandbox. --Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the lead is unfortunately being treated like a sandbox. But Cerejota you are wrong writing: "almost everyone agrees that for reasons of space and ease of updating, they (casualties) belong in the infobox" -- Actually, that's what you argued, but more editors supported having casualties in the lead. See the discussions here: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_5#Casualties_in_the_Lead, where the consensus was for having concise Palestinian and Israeli casualties in the lead. I assume you forgot about this discussion, it's been a busy few days -- so, I would appreciate it if you could please strikeout your assertion above? Cheers! RomaC (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lead requires a concise casualty count. To many readers, that is the most important consequence of the war --- the cost in human lives. We must have a sentence about that upfront and not way down in the article. Jacob2718 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion earlier supported having concise casualties for both sides in the lead. see here: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_5#Casualties_in_the_Lead. Agree with Jacob, The loss of human life is central (even defining) information in a conflict and concise casualty figures belong in the lead. RomaC (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I think that the current way the casualties are presented in the lead could be improved. It compares soldier figures with women and children figures, and then redundantly counts children again. Despite the obvious human tragedy, I think that the repetition of children causalties and the emphasis on women/children is non-encyclopedic in this context.
I propose: "As of x January 2009, x1 Israelis, x2 of which civilians, and y1 Palestinians, y2 of which civilians, are estimated to have perished in the conflict.[sources]". Rabend (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

:Are you referring to the infobox or lead?VR _talk 11:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see. Yes that should be changed.VR _talk 11:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, except for the word perished. I would say have been killed. But that is just me. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed comparing military and civilians casualties in the first sentence to women/children in the next is not neutral and should be fixed. 16x9 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Warcrimes

Warcrimes are as important as casualities, it's warcrimes that make a war so ugly and different from other many everyday deaths. so IMHO we should consider it in the lead, just after the casualities like this:

As of date, X Israelis (including x1 civilians) and Y Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in this conflict. The Palestinian fatalities include y1 children and y2 women. Hamas is alleged to warcrimes for operating in civilian areas and Israel is alleged to warcimes for use of Palestinian families as human shields by soldiers, Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs, attacks on ambulance crews, aid workers, journalists, and schools, Using powerful shells in civilian areas, attacking UN office and international press and media building.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/israel-gaza-war-crimes http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/israel-stop-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090115/world/israel_gaza_media_1 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gVdIrWVpZJwhf6XCWn5ET9CP741Q http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6D7123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63

please any comment? i'm going to put it in the lead. Lordpezhman (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. There is no symmetry between Hamas attacks on civilian targets and Israeli Army attacks on Hamas militants, which include indirect damage to civilians.

Besides, Hamas is comitting more war crimes than you listed. It is conducting illegal arm smuggling accross tunnels, fired phosphorus bombs against civilians (Israel did it against militants, which is legal), it conducted several suicide bomb attacks against civilians in central Israel and on Gaza gateways, it killed Fatah opponents, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't try to compare a terrorist organization to a sovereign country, just leave it alone. -- Gabi S. (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

REFs please dude! We need references here. if Hamas is committing more war crimes, come on help list them. Hamas is legally elected governor of Palestine, so their buying arms is not illegal. How Hamas may fire phosphorus bombs? did you mean Israel? and about bombing military targets with phosphorus bombs, it's against international law too. whatsmore, by military targets, did you mean UNRWA Schools? or something else?Lordpezhman (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My long subsection. Sorry

Hi again. I thought I'd take another look at this. I still feel pretty much the same: I'm happy to include the non-English term if I feel it is the usual name, or maybe one of two, in that language. I see that there are now quite a few sources up there to support the term. I've always felt, quite aside from this article, that 10 citations doesn't prove that an idea is widely held any more than a single one does. But I know that is just one of the problems we always have on Wikipedia. How can on prove that a notion is widely-held? We can't really. If we are lucky we will be able to find someone saying that it is. But other than that, we are really left to think for ourselves.

Back to this specific issue. I still have the same problems that I had before. I simply don't know that "Gaza massacre" is the name. But since we have all those sources, I thought I'd check the four Arab-world ones and see how the conflict is described in general. So I looked at the front page of those four, translating the two non-English ones through google. Since Gulf News also had a whole section called "Gaza Massacre" I looked through that section as well.

From what I saw, "massacre" certainly occurs, notably in that section title. But it is not terribly widespread. I counted only three occurrences of the term at all (plus one that talked about "massacres and killing of children"). Al Jazeera and BBC did not have the term at all. Other terms occured more frequently. I counted 13 occurences of "Gaza war" and its variants as well as four of "attacks". Most of the Al Jazeera references were "war" related.

I was also feeling more comfortable with my google news searching translated through Arabic (and copying terms from WP.ar). And nobody has complained about it yet so I thought I'd try that again. Searching in Arabic I find occurrences of "Massacre" (4766) but that is fewer than the other terms I found on the new sites including War (19443) Assault (13985) and Attacks (9334) although it does beat Holocaust (618). Certainly massacre is said but it doesn't appear to be the common name or even the most common.

Nableezy did bring up the point that the Hamas name alone is a unique reason for inclusion. I agree with that. I don't think that names have to balance each other. I think that they are valid if they are used commonly or officially. I could see having five or six names if each was valid. And we do for some articles. Yom Kippur War has five for example.

So how do we know what is the Hamas name? That's hard to say, isn't it? Surely it has been used by Hamas officials. But then so have other names. I saw a quote from Khaled Meshal today which used "holocaust" so I decided to do another search, in Arabic and also in English, for "Meshal" plus the various terms. And again, Massacre does come up (285 Arabic 110 English) but less frequently than of the other four terms: War (538 Arabic 964 English) Assault (105 Arabic 569 English) Attacks (285 Arabic 1390 English) but more than Holocaust in Arabic (80) though less in Engilsh (233).

I feel bad about all of this. There seems to be a lot of passion for the various viewpoints. I know that many of the editors here feel quite strongly that "massacre" is the name. I am sympathetic to that viewpoint only because I know they are so sure of it. I'd like to agree. I'm looking hard but I just don't see it. I'm not asking for proof of the claim. I'd just like to see more likely than not. And to be perfectly honest I see a lot more evidence that other terms are more common, especially "Gaza War". Just my thoughts. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have compiled quite a reference. I would have to agree with most of it, but what I see on Aljazeera is the term assault, aggresion, and attack. But you are right, I there are now many less references to massacre that the BBC Arabic, Aljazeera, and Al-Arabiyya all had. So I would think that term is not being widely used by the media, and would then support the removal of the 'widely used by the media in the Arab world.' But, as far as the Hamas statements go, I am afraid you are mistaken with the holocaust title, and this has been discussed below as to why it is not being used in this way. The sources that I have from statements of Hamas officials are as follows: SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [8]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman '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.' [9]. As far as the rest of the wider arab world, I see the arabic wiki now using the following citations for these names: Attack on Gaza (BBC Arabic, CNN Arabic, and Jordanian site I am not familiar with) and for war in Gaza (Inter Press Service and qudsnet) I think the Hamas sources are enough to keep it as the name that one of the main belligerents use Gaza Massacre, but not for the wider arab press. Omrim noted earlier that the Israeli press is call it the Gaza war, so i think that should go in with both languages, and the hamas calling it the gaza massacre as only a name given by one of the parties (hamas). Nableezy (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would question the usage of the google news search for finding what Hamas has called it, almost every article that refers to it as war or attack will have some thing referring to hamas or meshaal, I think for their name we should stick with direct quotes. But thoroughly well researched I must say. Impressive even. Nableezy (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What I would see as a reasonable way of phrasing this would be the following.
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[29] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[30][31][32] The conflict has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas, the government of Gaza, and widely named the Gaza War (Arabic: الحرب غزة, Hebrew: (i have no idea)) in the Arab and Israeli media. (with sources for both hebrew and arabic usage).
Thoughts? Nableezy (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and for addressing my concerns. I checked those names on the Arabic sites last night but I was too tired to write them up here then so they may be different today. Hamas was harder. I did see the "Holocaust" term attributed to Meshal in a news story today which is what made me think of searching for terms along with his name. I realize it wasn't perfect but I thought at least it was some sort of compilation. I do agree that the "massacre" term is more widely employed by Hamas than I know than it is in the general population so I think that it is probably a fair characterization.

Anyway, I do think that your draft paragraph looks very good. My only comment is that perhaps we should say that Hamas is the "de facto" government. Remember, we have to consider the Fatah POV. =)

Incidentally, just out of curiousity I also checked our two common Israeli sources last night and "Gaza War" seemed to be the name they used most also. I think that "operation" and "Gaza op" may be have been about as common. "War" was also one of the most common names when I searched through English articles. Not to restart the name debate... --JGGardiner (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]*Sorry I thought I had put something here yesterday, but today it seems to be missing. What it was was asking you to clarify a bit what you are saying since I frankly am not clear on it. On the one hand it seems that you are agreeing that the Gaza Massacre is not a name, and on the other it seems like you are still agreeing that it is the name given by Hamas. The other point that I was asking for clarification on was whether you believe that calling it the Gaza Massacre in the first paragraph in fact "balances" Operation Cast Lead and is not POV? My main contention here is that Gaza Massacre is being used in such a way is not a proper name but in fact a viewpoint and a condemnation. This is not "balanced" by Israel's name Operation Cast Lead. I believe this should not be in the lead at all, unless there is counterbalancing of Israel's view. I would appreciate your comments on this. Again, I am sorry this query was presumably up here yesterday. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read what he wrote he agrees that it is the name used by Hamas. He also clearly said that names do not need to balance each other out, that is not what NPOV means, NPOV means we provide both sides names, that one side chose a name that is not balanced by the other is irrelevant. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tundrabuggy. I think Nableezy did already answer your question about my thoughts. But you did seem to unearth a relevant issue. This paragraph is not what I would have written. It is a compromise. I gave up a little and so did Nableezy. In the end we arrived at a draft which we both felt was reasonable, NPOV and, most importantly, one that we could both agree on.

It looks like the issue is mostly stalled on the main talk page now so it isn't really relevant for the moment. But you should take a look at what happened. Version 2 had no chance of achieving consensus status. Yet a lot of people supported it. They'd have been better off supporting this version. With their support it would be alive and kicking and they'd be much better off than with the status quo that they got.

This paragraph wasn't written with your views in mind per se. Frankly I don't think that I share your views on the subject and neither does Nableezy. But I think that a modest, reasonable, NPOV version is in your best interest. It is in everyone's interest. We're never going to get an ideal consensus where everyone is happy. But we should be looking for a more practical Wikipedia consensus where most people can agree that the thing is reasonable. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as adding 'de facto' to 'government of gaza' I would disagree, but I would ask the rest of the people their opinions. Mine is this, that Fatah claims to have authority over Gaza is irrelevant to this article. Beyond that, I would argue that the only de facto government the oPt is Fatah in the West Bank, that Hamas is actually the de jure government of the PNA, and also de facto of Gaza, while Fatah is the de facto government of the West Bank. I would think that adding 'de facto' would be an unfair representation of the fact that Hamas did in fact win the most recent elections and exercises de facto governmental control over the Gaza Strip, it would be in my mind trying to strip away the legitimacy of that government by not recognizing that they indeed did get the most votes. And if somebody wants to get some more information, they can always click the wikilink. Nableezy (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there was one user concerned about the ordering of the words of the Gaza Massacre sentence, they favored having who has called it that before the actual term, I dont think this would be a bad thing, so I propose the following lead:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[29] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[30][31][32] Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎). The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War (Arabic: الحرب غزة, Hebrew: (i have no idea)). (with sources for both hebrew and arabic usage).
Thoughts? Nableezy (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, my compliments. If only all our exchanges were as intelligent. JGGardiner's point is well taken. I am hampered by a lack of knowledge of the languages, but I trust he has cause for his challenge. Nableezy's suggested modification looks fair. The central issue, I assume, is that we have Israel and Arab world counterposed, whereas indeed, this is a war between Israel and Hamas. Potentially we would have five names vying for a right of notice, that chosen by Israel for the operation, that used by Hamas, that used by the Western media, and that used by the Arab world, with the rider that Fatah also is an interested party. It is not clear to me how West Bank official declarations describe the event. I agree with Nableezy's view that Hamas is the duly constituted power of Gaza. It won a certified, democratic election. It is the 'governing authority' of the Gaza Strip. However much rhetoric is spilled, or loose language employed, smudging this historical fact, by insinuating it is a terrorist organization (meaning that it is not also many other things, a government administering a territory, conducting health, education, and planning decisions and imposing security, as it conceives it), Hamas is the de jure government. Therefore its choice of terminology must be registered.

The evidence for 'Gaza massacre' was compiled at the outset, from a large variety of sources, which however, am I mistaken, have now, in many instances, 'neutralized' their language, and call it the 'Gaza War'. Thus, if there is an agreement by those who can review and consult the evidence from Arabic sources that this term has now taken over as the standard denominator, the distinction Nableezy makes between Hamas and Arabic sources would appear not nonly reasonable but obligatory, even if one could argue that, at the outset (perhaps this is for a footnote to a source), the Arab world used the term Hamas now employs.

So, if the two of you think that Nableezy's compromise fair and adequate to the sources, I suggest you copy the compromise, which I, for one, would support and ask that all editors now review this in a subsection on the other page. Not to reopen up the whole lead, but simply to readdress this particular formulation? I say this because evidently, not too many editors have watchlisted this page, and have, apparently, ignored it, for a variety of reasons.

Thanks to you both. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks to you Nishidani. Sorry, I think that I phrased that Fatah line awkwardly. It was really mostly a joke to make my comment seem more innocuous but I think had the opposite effect. What I was trying to say is that there is no such thing as a government of Gaza per se. Either Hamas is the governing party of the PA and only able to exert their authority in Gaza (as Hamas says) or they have no legitimate authority at all but control Gaza (as Fatah says). So I was just trying to say that they aren't the government of Gaza per se but that is the de facto position left to them, not by the elections but by the later Fatah-Hamas conflict. But it isn't a big concern, and I was careful to only use the word "comment" above. I think "government of Gaza" is reasonable shorthand for the situation and the link is there like Nableezy points out. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I still support staying with current tight format: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World." I would however support dropping "(11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)" down into the body of the story. The proposed new lead is more complex, therefore more can go wrong. RomaC (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copying RomaC's comment to the normal talk page, lets find if we can work it out there with more viewers involved. (I really don't want to spend another 20 hours working in this so somebody can say a small group tried to claim consensus and is gaming the systems again) Nableezy (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed a comment further up. I thought that I had made the comment yesterday here but it has seemingly disappeared. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

The first paragraph defines the conflict as having begun with Israel's operation. This is perfectly reasonable, although other definitions would also be reasonable, depending on the well-hashed question of what, precisely, the subject of this article is. However, if we're defining the Israeli operation as the beginning, there has to be some context showing what brought it about. Obviously there is some controversy over this, though my impression is that, overall, the media accepts the Israeli gov't's position that the operation was a response to increased rocket attacks from Gaza. I have two suggestions for how to put this in the paragraph while trying to avoid controversy:

1. Say that Israel stated that the operation was a response to increased rocket attacks.
2. Say that the operation "followed" increased rocket attacks, without taking a stance on causality.

I prefer the second possibility as it's more brief. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree, we make no proclamations why Israel began the operation, nor do we make any proclamations for why Hamas launched the rockets. I think the first paragraph should be without any arguments on either side, just simply define what it is we are about to discuss. I would say most of that info belongs in the background. If we were going to include stuff like that in the lead paragraph we would end up with Israel said Hamas was launching rockets at helpless civilians, while Hamas said the Israel was engaging in an illegal and immoral seige of Gaza that was in violation of international law. It will just keep expanding if we put any arguments in the first paragraph. On a related note, we are talking about this paragraph up in #My_long_subsection._Sorry and we would welcome any comments. Nableezy (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. Changing the first paragraph, and inserting the Israeli rationale there, could open a can of worms. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph edit

Michael Sayfan has pumped up the first paragraph. While I agree in principle (as I said above) that Hamas post-ceasefire actions should be here, I think his addition goes into way too much detail for this particular spot. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted, there are ongoing discussions about the lead paragraph and this was inappropriate to do without any discussion at all, much less without any consensus. Nableezy (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have posted a message to his talk to that effect. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Here I am. This, for those joining the discussion, is the diff in question. Per the diff, here are my changes and why:

• Used December 19, 2008 (expiration of truce) not December 27, 2008 (Israeli counteroffensive) as the start date for the conflict, because:
  • Violence already started on December 19, 2008 with minor cross-border skirmishes (supported by timeline reference by Reuters).
  • Hamas's rocket barrage on December 24, 2008 was a key factor in Israel's subsequent airstrikes on December 27, 2008. To ignore the December 24 (and subsequent) Hamas rocket attacks paints a one-sided, skewed picture of events.
• Noted that the Hamas rockets reached further than ever before and that this was a factor in Israel's decision to retaliate.
• Noted that Israel gave Hamas the opportunity to stop, before attacking, since, again, it would be unfair to omit this.
• Removed statement about prior violations of the truce, since neither side adhered to a truce. Hamas violated the truce first (although the statement seems to imply the opposite), however, this is not relevant to the current conflict, which began after the expiration of the truce.
• Rephrased so that it is clear that Arabic sources refer to Israel's, not Hamas's, actions as a "massacre."

Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This version needs some fine-tuning. For example, a quieter word should be used instead of "barrage". But the current format is far superior to the unagreeable and unreadable scheme that was around for the last week. It gives a quick and concise historical perspective and gives a very good overview of the events leading up to the recent flare up. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Agreed. It is not perfect but a much more logical concise and neutral version of events. Please do not revert it immediately back to the version that has given us so much grief up til now. Let's discuss this one before summarily rejecting (reverting) it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I didn't see the latest version at the time of posting. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming, but we should have consensus before changing it. The current lead was the result of much discussion and debate. I suggest you join the discussion on the main page with the newer proposal and post your proposal there so we can get some more eyes and see if we can establish consensus. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as specific problems that I at least have is that it provides more information than is necessary for the first paragraph. If you wish to make mention of the range and effectiveness of Hamas rockets, the paragraph would then have to include information of the 'targeted assassinations' and their firepower and capabilities, as well as a discussion about the siege of Gaza and the accusation that the siege itself was a violation of the ceasefire agreement. I really dont see how you could argue that the proposed lead is NPOV, it clearly plays up the story that the Israelis give as the cause without any type of response on the Hamas arguments. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the use of the word counteroffensive as the operation is clearly POV, Hamas has called this aggression, wouldn't you object if I used the wording 'Then Israel launched its aggression against Gaza'? Nableezy (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy and believe we must keep the lead as simple and neutral as possible -- "just the facts". If needed, the two sides' accusations and rationalizations can come later. Otherwise the lead spirals off in a blame game. RomaC (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC. Moreover, the edit that started this dispute was far from neutral. Michael, many claims that you portray as fact are, in fact, intensely disputed. The dispute is covered at length later in the article, but the lead must stick to the most essential (and not disputed facts). The names, the total casualties and a brief and neutral description of the tenor of the war, as it currently does. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There was never any sort of consensus about the lede prior to Safyan's overhaul. Please stop reverting to the highly disputed version. Instead of entrenching yourselves with your version, try to work with this highly improved version. Don't just revert, work with your fellow editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All Michael's proposals say is that in the lead we must make explicit Israel was acting in defence, and underline this in great detail, in a way which will elicit counter-stuffing by pro-Palestinian editors, and violate all fundamental criteria for lead-writing. I.e. succinctness, and the gists of the sections in the body of the article, pared down to the bone. Every suggestion I have seen so far to revise the lead threatens to blow it up. This is not the time or place for something that requires concentrated work, impossible given the chaos on the other page. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who broke the truce?

I am bothered by this sentence from the second paragraph "...Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for breaking the truce, and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities," since it implies that Israel broke the truce first and also, by not stating that Israel claims Hamas broke the truce first, suggests that Israel acknowledges Hamas's accusation. The source supporting that Hamas broke the truce first is from November 5th. However, this article by the New York Times from June 25th shows that Hamas violated the truce first. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I've asked you several times before to read beyond the headlines. The text says Islamic Jihad fired those rockets. Hamas is on record during the lull as threatening to arrest those who break an agreement they signed. Until it is shown that Hamas itself fired rockets down to November 4, and not some group like Islamic Jihad, or even Fatah (which did fire rockets), which disagree with Hamas on points (as in Lebanon 1970s-80, the PLO underwrote ceasires, which were broken by factions that fired off to challenge the executive body's decision with Israel, in protest). Of course, in a conspiratorial vein, one can always suggest Hamas is behind everything, but we know where that logic leads.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It implies no such thing, it just states that Hamas has blamed Israel for not lifting the blockade and breaking the truce, it clearly says that this is a Hamas accusation and not presenting it as a fact. It is fact that Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the blockade and breaking the truce, likewise it is a fact that Israel has blamed Hamas for breaking the truce by allowing rocket fire to continue. Nableezy (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it should say in the second paragraph that both Hamas and Israel accuse each other of having broken the truce first, should it not? Otherwise, it might read that Israel blames Hamas for the rocket fire following the expiration or violation of the truce. It seems, at least to me, to imply that Hamas and Israel agree that Israel broke the truce first. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support that the mortar attacks should be worded so that it is an accusation of breaking the truce. Nableezy (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying which rocket/mortar fire Israel refers to (e.g. pre/post 19 December) for its rationale? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 07:40

Yes. At least according to the Israeli government's MFA website, they were responding to post 19th attacks ([10][11][12]). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Think beyond 'truce broken+19th+rocket attacks'. Eventually we will detail in the background that intense and well documented negotiations were current from the end of the first truce, until the 27th., to reestablish a truce. The choice to go to war was not related to the 19th.attacks, whatever the Israeli government says on its site. Israel had long argued it had an impossible structural situation, in its reading, with the presence of Hamas in Gaza. It did not go to war because on the 19th. something broke off all possibilities of a renewed truce, for the simple reason that Yuval Diskin told the Cabinet on the 21st, two days later, that Hamas was seriously committed to negotiations for a renewal of a truce. It went to war for many reasons at this time. The major one was an IDF calculation that whatever, Hamas had to be taken out some time or another (as Diskin himself had always affirmed). That is what historians will say. Just as many historians will say that Israel had no choice. We will duly register their differences. No historian of repute is going to follow the government line, or Hamas's line verbatim. And we do well not to tinker here with one thing, tinker there with another, unaware that we are just creating narrative dissonance Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it's not the reason Israel ended the truce... My understanding was that Israel wanted the truce extended and Hamas not. The whole formulation is kind of shaky and confusing. May I suggest the following?

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008. Hamas declined to extend the truce, contending that Israel did not lift the Gaza Strip blockade and for did not halt raids in Gaza and resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation in response with the stated objective to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.

This is, in my opinion, a more clear and concise timeline. Some refs are missing but could be mined from the article body. Opinions?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 14.01.2009 11:23

Michael, I agree that the phrasing, as it currently exists, is not neutral. I've removed the phrase "breaking the truce". In fact, if you look at the sources cited, Hamas blames Israel for not lifting the Gaza blockade and for continuing raids while Israel blames Hamas for continuing rocket fire; this is symmetric with what each demands.. each demands the cessation of the activity the other party is blamed for! anyway, I've changed that phrase accordingly. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps for the intro, only a reference should be made to the fact that Israel blames Hamas and Hamas blames Israel - referenced, of course. To me, it sounds more NPOV to quote the differing opinions than it does to try to determine for ourselves who broke the truce first. It might be nice to add opinions of experts about which side broke the truce first, but that might weigh the intro too much. Perhaps as more analysist and experts offer their insights about the legal aspects of this conflict, they could be covered in a section devoted to legal/expert analysis? PinkWorld (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I agree with Jacob's suggestion.VR _talk 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Additional Data

This might fit into the intro near the sentence "On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes..." I'm worried that I personally might not be NPOV, though, so I am leaving it here for others to decide whether to add it or not.

Israeli warplanes rained more than 100 tons of bombs on security installations in Hamas-ruled Gaza on Saturday... "Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200" By IBRAHIM BARZAK and AMY TEIBEL, AP 27 Dec 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians retrieved 08 Jan 2009 by Pink PinkWorld (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Fleshing Out References

I clicked some of the references for this article in order to add more information (title, author, date, etc.) to them. My findings are below.

Hamas: We're using PA arms to battle IDF
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
Jan 4, 2009
Updated Jan 5, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733174237&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel rejects EU calls for immediate cease-fire
Radio Netherlands
05 January 2009
Last updated: Monday 05 January 2009
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/6122316/Israel-rejects-EU-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire

Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza
Marie Colvin, Tony Allen-Mills and Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
Times Newspapers (? - Copyright 2008 Times Newspappers Ltd)
28 Dec 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5404501.ece

Israeli Troops Mobilize as Gaza Assault Widens
By IBRAHIM BARZAK and KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writers
28 Dec 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195
ABC News - Copyright © 2009 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6536195

Palestinians say Gaza death toll now 1,010
CNN
14 Jan 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/14/israel.gaza/index.html

חיילי צה"ל נפצעו היום באורח קל
יום שבת, 10 בינואר 2009
14.1.2009
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1414914
(I can only hope that I got the title of the article and the date of publication.)

http://www.nrg.co.il links are in Hebrew. Can a Hebrew speaker get the article information from them, please? Thank you. PinkWorld (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Oh, for crying out loud - I posted this to the wrong talk page! How do I move it? Can someone help, please? I am so sorry. PinkWorld (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I am copying this over to the main talk page and do not know how to delete it from here. PinkWorld (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Original Research - The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World

The last sentence of the first paragraph claims: "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]." However, after having read each of the references, it is clear that some have made the claim that massacres have occurred. However, none have said that the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre. Therefore, this sentence appears to be in violation of WP:OR. Doright (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the archives of the main talk page. Nableezy (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. The last sentence of the first paragraph appears to be in violation this official English Wikipedia policy. Doright (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Doright, I think you need to read the archives. Unfortunately, there are 16 pages archived on the main site, but we've discussed this issue several times and each time the majority of editors has supported the retention of the phrase as the common name in the arab world.Jacob2718 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of those sources have Hamas leaders and other Arab leaders, as well as the 'Arab man on the street' calling this the gaza massacre. Again, please read the archives and if you have some new argument that has not been addressed to present then fine, but we have been through this too many times for it be raised by someone who has not looked through the relevant discussions. Please read the archives. Nableezy (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to provide a link to a diff in the archive that shows this is not a violation of WP:OR, I will be glad to stand corrected. Alternatively, if you can provide WP:RS sources that say that the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World, I will also then be glad to stand corrected. Hand waiving does not count as evidence. Please provide diffs and quote the sources that you are relying upon, otherwise our time is being wasted. Respectfully, Doright (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU DO NOT HAVE CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE LEAD. It is not necessary that we have a source that specifically says 'this has been described as the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world' what we do have is a variety of sources that show statements from arab leaders calling 'The Gaza Massacre' and arabic news sites that call it 'The Gaza Massacre' It is not for you to unilaterally change what you dont like. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And instead of coming here 3 weeks later and saying you dont want to read the archives, go READ THE ARCHIVES. Nableezy (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding SHOUTING to your hand waiving does not an argument make. Neither, you nor the the archives provide a WP:RS for your claim. Furthermore, you have provided no citations. Thank you for admitting that you have zero sources that make your claim. Your assertion that you don't need to cite such a source is interesting although not entirely persuasive. Since you have no sources, what you do claim is some kind of grammatical mish-mosh. For example, you say "...what we do have is a variety of sources that show statements from arab leaders calling 'The Gaza Massacre' and arabic news sites that call it 'The Gaza Massacre'... ." However, you do not identify what object is being referred to as "The Gaza Massacre." I request that you provide the citation for your quoted material. Respectfully, Doright (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not dealing with this anymore, if you want to change the lead get consensus. Nableezy (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that last line was out of frustration, and I dont mean to get upset at you. But, here is what I mean by no needing a source that specifically says that this "has been widely called the Gaza Massacre" is this. We have statements from Hamas ans other leaders referring to this conflict as the Gaza Massacre, that should be clear by the fact that they have called it this through several weeks now. We have a multitude of arabic sites that use the exact term in arabic throughout the conflict. The first day was widely called "The Massacre of Black Saturday" and this term "The Gaza Massacre" has been used since then. If you dont think the sources justify saying it has been called the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab world, you surely cannot object to it saying that it has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world, as we clearly provide numerous sources that do call it just that. Again, sorry for the frustration, but we have spent countless hours discussing this very topic. Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not complied with my repeated request that you provide a WP:RS that shows the conflict has been described as "The Gaza Massacre." Again, it is not sufficient to merely cite references that claim a massacre has occurred. You must find references that describe the conflict itself as The Gaza Massacre. You continue to make claims without providing any citations or sources. Again you claim, "We have statements from Hamas and other leaders referring to this conflict as the Gaza Massacre." Please quote me the exact statements that you purport to have and then I will then stand corrected. Otherwise, the apparent violation of WP:OR will have to be corrected without further delay. Doright (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here you go: ::There are a plethora of sources that give these names, both english sources that translate statements from Hamas and other arabs (eg SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [13]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman '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.' [14]; Aljazeera magazine english 'since Israel's Gaza massacre started on December 27' [15]; gulfnews 'Emirati and Palestinian citizens, who expressed their anger at the Gaza massacre in interviews to Gulf News' [16]) and arabic sources that are without question reliable that use the arabic term: (eg BBC Arabic Al-Jazeera) (and you could have read this as it was straight copied and pasted) Nableezy (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are those RS examples sufficient Doright?VR _talk 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, I am reading your posts but missing your point. There are ten cited WP:RS that describe the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. RomaC (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets not antagonize, I want to see if he 'stands corrected' Nableezy (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

restarting indent for readability It seems the best way to proceed is to take the references one at a time. So, I will copy and paste the current text and references from the article as it stands now. Then, I will address each reference in order.

The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة) in much of the Arab World.

The first citation should be removed because the article merely quotes Assad as follows: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called on Tuesday for Israel's "massacres" in the Gaza Strip to stop, as he met visiting US Senator Arlen Specter, the official SANA news agency reported. Assad's implied claim that massacres occurred is not the same as him describing the entire conflict as a massacre. Again, our article says, "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre ..." Respectfully, Doright (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the references I provided above. Would they be sufficient to have as the only references to this sentence? Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, as I stated above I believe the best way to proceed is to address the citations that are actually in the article since apparently you and someone else thinks they are appropriate there. The purpose of the discussion is to improve the article not have an endless discussion. So, I'm focusing on the article itself. Since no one has even attempted to refute my argument for why the first reference should be deleted, I submit that my argument stands and the first reference shall now be subject to deletion.Doright (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, read Archive 11. War in Darfur is bold without a reference saying "The war is called war in Darfur". In Iraq War, it's told that it's also known as "Occupation of Iraq" without a reference saying "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq". It was mentioned as so because a cited reference directly called it "Occupation of Iraq", as in exactly our case. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also check Battle of the Bulge where 5 other names are mentioned. There, event name "X" is cited by one example directly calling the event X, not saying "the event has also been called X". This is a basic and non-debatable logic of any encyclopedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also by your claim, if we have references sourcing people A to Z calling an event "lambda", then we can not add to Wikipidea "People A to Z call the event lambda" unless some folk on the Internet say "People A-Z call the event lambda"!!!??? Doing so, you require a previous Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia itself, which is absolutely false logic. Anyway all those topics has been debated on Archive 9, 10 and 11. Please folks check them before re-opening the same argument again and again each day. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are all wrong. What happens is that if People A to Z call the event "lambda", then the BBC or some other RS runs a piece that mentions that the event is commonly called "lambda". That is exactly the case, by the way, with the Occupation of Iraq example given above. In the Gaza case, I didn't see any RS calling it a "massacre". Even Al Jazeera calls it a "war" and refrains from the "massacre" demagogy. I think that the article should make clear that the "massacre" terminology is used sparingly, and mostly by fringe elements. (You can use the sources currently cited as examples of these elements.) -- 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've misrepresented the citation method used in the Iraq war article to falsely support your claim. In that article, it's called "Occupation of Iraq" citing a single reference of a book with a title "Occupation of Iraq", as in our case, and not by the method you described above. You've also completely avoided the other articles I mentioned, which also supports my claim. And in trying to disprove the theory of "people A-Z calling event lambda" I've provided, you didn't challenge my given logic at all, you've just re-represented your claim using the symbols I've given. Putting all previous sentences in mind, your reply didn't challenge even a single argument of mine. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you say, so I'll try to rephrase it more clearly:

1. The book title cited in the Iraq War article shows that "Occupation of Iraq" is a commonly used term. Of course it is easy to find other examples. There are no such examples with the term "Gaza Massacre".
2. The articles you cited show that indeed there are many Arab people using the term "Gaza massacre", but none of them claims that this is the common term. The Al Jazeera example that I gave is just one example of a common Arab media source that doesn't use the term.
3. Your logic is actually fine, I didn't try to challenge it. If you have references sourcing Arab people calling the event "Gaza massacre", then you can add to Wikipidea "the following Arab people call the event "massacre"' but you cannot add "the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World" because it is a synthesis of published material which advances a position. I can accept some milder phrasing, such as in some parts of the Arab world or something like that.

-- Gabi S. (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Now, we agree we must not have a reference saying "people A-Z call event X" to say so, since wikipedia, as any other encyclopedia, can compile raw data. That was my logic I've given above, which I supported by a logic theory and examples, and which you didn't challenge nor refute; saying it's fine. Now, let's move to your new set of arguments:

1. "Of course it is easy to find other examples. There are no such examples with the term Gaza Massacre": If it's easy to find other examples saying "Iraq war is also called occupation of Iraq" as you guess, I challenge you in finding WP:RS sources using such a sentence. And if you mean it's easy to find other examples calling events "Occupation of Iraq", then I also say it's double easy to find references describing the conflict as the gaza massacre. We've given lots of examples over the debates.
2. "none of them claims that this is the common term": We just said it's described as the gaza massacre in the Arab world. We've given BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Egypt Pope statements, Jordan official news agency, Arab news network, Gulf news and IslamOnline and several others actually calling it exactly "Gaza Massacre" in Lead Archive 1 and subsequent archives. Also see below point about "commonality".
3. I understand your proposed statement "in some parts of the Arab world", and I can agree with it :). --Darwish07 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and change it. Thanks. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabi is quite right regarding the [WP:OR] synthesis of published material which advances a position. This discussion also demonstrates that Nableezy's argument that his preferred version is already a settled matter not subject to further change is false. Additionaly, one must certainly note that to put this in the first paragraph that some claim a massacre occurred without providing equal balance for those who say a massacre has not occurred is a violation of WP:POV. Doright (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Added NPOV Dispute subsection

Doright said: "Additionaly, one must certainly note that to put this in the first paragraph that some claim a massacre occurred without providing equal balance for those who say a massacre has not occurred is a violation of WP:POV." The first paragraph does not say that a massacre occurred, it says that in the Arab World, a common name for the event is "Gaza Massacre." This is a critical distinction. RomaC (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are some people, mostly Arabs, that call the Gaza events a "massacre". But the common name is "Gaza War", as exemplified in Al Jazeera and many other Arab media outlets. So putting it in the lead, adding a zillion of references, and on top of it claiming that it is called a massacre "in much of the Arab world" is waaaaaaaay NPOV. It must be changed ASAP. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabi makes a good point. Furthermore, if you want include anything about what some in the Arab world call whatever event it is that you think you are referring to, then NPOV requires that you also include what others not in the Arab world call it, for example, The War on Terror. Doright (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the lead also evolved here

| A discussion regarding the lead is also happening hereDoright (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as per WP:TALK: no value in discussion to add to article

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.