Wikipedia

Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/December

< Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Selfstudier in topic Recent reverts


Recent reverts

Latest comment: 3 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

Two of them both stating, in effect, that the bolded approved alt title is POV for cat purposes, which is obvious rubbish.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the alt title is based not on factuality (whether the attack technically constituted a massacre), but on how the victimized people perceived it (it is based on the 'feels'). No evidence has emerged so far indicating that Israel purposefully targeted civilians (for fun? sadism?) when there was nothing to gain and much to lose (international outrage). Not long ago, a clumsy airstrike by the US killed a lot of children. My point being: sometimes catastrophic unintentional mistakes happen during war. So the categories are inappropriate. - Daveout(talk) 10:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks for policy based objection, doesn't find one, just a variant on "Idontlikeit". If the main title is NPOV then so is the alt title, by definition (otherwise it wouldn't be there).Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Policy? We have the consensus that found that the word Massacre was inappropriate for the title of this article based on the lack of reliable sources calling it that. The understandably dramatic alt title was maintained solely bc this event is intrinsically related to the Palestinians (the victms) and not because it has any objective merit. - Daveout(talk) 11:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Consensus redefined by a random WP editor.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Selfstudier, if you dispute the close of the RM, you should bring it up at the closer's user talk page and possible proceed with a move review. Until then, consensus as summarized by an experienced closer is the best option we have. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories a recovered by the WP:POVCAT guideline - "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. " Inf-in MD (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hogwash. The cat exists, Category:Massacres committed by Israel, therefore it's not controversial or POV.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thta's an illogical argument - the category exists, so any article can be placed in it without controversy? Inf-in MD (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
You're right about that cat not necessarily being POV, in the sense of giving a minority view more weight than the RS. The next paragraph of the guideline brings up the "commonly and consistently" test. I don't think the RS I know about commonly and consistently define this event as a massacre, though I do know it definitively was one. Unless new sources have come out, we have no reason to suspect an RfC on this matter would differ from the recent RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is already in it's "commonly and consistently" cat, that doesn't mean it cannot also go in another cat as well if that is what the article is also about, many articles are in multiple cats depending the content.Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
"Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view" - and this one does not, as 4 editors have told you. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The cat exists so is NPOV by definition, the argument is about whether this article should be in it and I still see no reason why it shouldn't.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
That's an illogical argument, see above. Can I put this article in that category, just because it exists? Inf-in MD (talk)
That's illogical because that article is not about a massacre, no alt title and it's an individual. Please compare apples with apples and not oranges.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
SO, you concede that simply having a category labeled "massacres" is not a license to add articles to it willy-nilly. This article is not about a massacre either, but about an airstrike. Saying it is a massacre in a category is a violation of NPOV. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to concede what I have never advocated. There are articles in the cat that are airstrikes. It sounds to me that you are objecting to the cat itself not whether this article should be in it, this article calls it a massacre as well as an airstrike, no contradiction is involved.Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Your argument was that because a category exists, it is automatically NPOV to put this article in it, that's illogical. I do not object to the category - there are articles that unambiguously belong in it, e.g. Kafr Qasim massacre. But this article does not, because it is highly controversial to say it was a massacre, and suggestions to name this article that way were rejected. Putting it in a category that calls it a massacre seems like an attempt to get around that rejection. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Where did you get the quixotic idea that it is 'controversial' to call a 'massacre' (a description of a result determined by the numbers of innocents killed) an event, an operational fuck-up based on inferences from inconclusive intelligence - as the AIF planners admitted - that caused the death of over 40 people and no known combatant casualties. Massacre 'the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of human beings' (O.E.D.). No strategic necessity was demonstrated, and whatever the Pr waffle, bombings of intensely crowded areas has always, in Gaza, caused numerous civilian deaths, exceeding the numbers of Hamas militants ostensibly targeted. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
because it is highly controversial to say it was a massacre Only as main title, it isn't controversial to call it a massacre altogether, that's why there is an alt name calling it a massacre. Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The main title is okay in wiki terms. No need to challenge that. it does represent the mainstream Western press POV, itself a reflection of military thinking which asserts that to be a 'massacre' intentionality is required. So as long as one is absolved on each occasion of a will to harm civilians, one can continue bombing regularly civilian areas and call the damage 'collateral', which however, even under our legal system must be 'proportionate.' Dozens of cases where the rule of proportionality does not appear to obtain, since civilian casualities outnumber militants, still squeeze through.

“We take all measures during the targeting process . . . to comply with the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict,” U.S. Marine Major Adrian J. T. Rankine-Galloway said. The essence of this legal code is that militaries cannot intentionally kill civilians. It is true that no one in the chain of command wished to massacre civilians that night—not the pilot or the targeteers or the lawyers. The U.S. points to this fact in calling the Tokhar incident an error, regrettable but not illegal. Yet, though it is reasonable to invoke intention when referring to the mind-set of an individual—this is the idea behind the legal concept mens rea—it seems odd to ascribe a mental state to a collective actor like an army or a state. It is clear, however, that the coalition could have foreseen the outcome of its actions: it had filmed the area for weeks, and intelligence indicating that the village was populated would not have been difficult to gather. During the coalition’s campaign against ISIS, it often based its bombing decisions on faulty assumptions about civilian life; in Mosul, it targeted a pair of family homes after failing to observe civilians outdoors over the course of a few afternoons. Iraqis typically avoid the blazing midday heat. Four people died. The Law of Armed Conflict excuses genuine errors and proscribes intentional killing, but most American warfare operates in a gray zone, which exists, in part, because the law itself is so vague. Anand Gopal 'America’s War on Syrian Civilians,' The New Yorker 14 December 2020

So we toe the 'neutral' line (our official Western line) All of this however is not applicable to alt names ( WP:Systemic bias): which reflect how the other world's press (that proximate to the victims) calls these outrages. That alternative perspective, what those killed think, has right to coverage in any objective NPOV initial definition. The intense efforts to downcase, tweak, modify to restrict the alt name's definition, are clearly motivated by POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The policy WP:POVCAT is quite clear on these one if the category is controversial we shouldn't use it Shrike (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The cat exists so not controversial, if you think it is, go get it deleted.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The category itself is not controversial, this article's placement in it is. This has been explained to you several times. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ghaziyeh airstrikes is in the cat, lead says "The 2006 Ghaziyeh airstrikes also referred to as the 2006 Ghaziyeh massacre..." Ring any bells? Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but thanks for the tip, I'll fix that article, too. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
What you mean is you will force your POV on others, not for the first time. Have fun. Don't forget 2006 Qana airstrike.Selfstudier (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I will follow WP:BRD, remove the recently added POV category, and ask those who support its inclusion to get consensus for it. You know, follow Wikipedia editing policies and processes. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the ONUS argument (the one based on you being right and everyone else wrong unless proved otherwise).Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
No, the argument that those who want to include content which has been challenged, like the addition of a controversial category, need to show there is consensus for their position. You know, one of Wikipedia's basic policies. Try it sometime. Inf-in MD (talk)
You need a valid reason for a revert (or a challenge), you can't just say "controversial" or "Idontlikeit" and hope that works nor can you throw the kitchen sink and hope something will stick. BRD is not a policy by the way, precisely because of people who do that.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I gave a valid reason - placement in categories needs to be NPOV, and this is not NPOV. 3 other editors agree. BRD is not policy, but WP:ONUS, which is part of WP:V, is. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Where does it say that? And where does it say that putting an article with an alt name into the category of that name is non NPOV? There are at least 3, probably 4/5 on the other side of your argument so it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be, I'm afraid. Re ONUS, see above. 4/5 beats 4 but personally I don't count votes.Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I've already quoted this to you, above: from the WP:POVCAT guideline - "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view" Inf-in MD (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I say that a bolded alt title is sufficient reason by NPOV to add the article to the category that exists for that naming. So we disagree, you say it's not NPOV and I say that's exactly what it is. If the cat was being created as well, you might have a better case but it already exists so is uncontroversial and NPOV to have it in the first place and this discussion is only about what kind of articles should go in it. Your response to this discussion has been to go around deleting the articles from it that you don't agree should be in it ie enforcing your POV.Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I see you also attempted to rename a massacre article, Massacre of Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque. To clarify, for those articles removed from the cat that do not have a massacre alt title I have no argument. I do have an argument in the other cases and suggested elsewhere that the matter be discussed centrally rather at each individual page.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That something has an alt title (or even a title!) with a certain word does not automatically make it appropriate for inclusion in a category with that word. Killer Whale is not in the "Whales" category - because it is not a whale, even though it is called that. An alt title that explains that this is what Palestinians call the even may be ok, as the article can provide that context (i,e - this is what it is called by some people ) .Categories lack that context which is why placement of articles in them needs to be uncontroversially NPOV. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. An alt title has to meet all the usual requirements for a title, one of which is NPOV as well as unambiguous, short, etc. It is not the idea of an alt title to put it in and then then pretend that it isn't there. Anyway, as I have said, this needs to be discussed centrally as it affects multiple articles as well possible future cases. If you or Billed mammal don't want to take up that suggestion, I'll do it myself.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
We don't pretend it is not there - it's there, with context that explains that this is what it is called by some. Since we can't have that context in the category, it can't go in the category since it is not unambiguously a massacre. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Some call it an airstrike (stressing method of attack), some call it a massacre' (result of the attack). One cannot prioritize one to the exclusion of the other. Both are valid.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The WP:CATPOV and WP:CATDEF is quite clear we cannot use massacare in that case as the sources not A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define Shrike (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
It's an altname so NPOV ie it is defined by sources as that, that's how you get an alt title.Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing all mention of an alt name

Latest comment: 3 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

Idk whether it is in his purview but I have asked the RFC closer to comment on this.Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  • On this topic, Firefangledfeathers the entity you instated, as an unattributed alt-title, is one that there is no consensus for, with "sometimes referred to" almost identical to "also known as" and as such it needs to be re-removed; I would ask that as the individual who implemented it, you do that.
If you can find an option that it has not been demonstrated that there is no consensus for then I probably have no objections to its use, but I couldn't see one, hence the revert to the "last stable version" per WP:NOCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleting all mention of an alt name seems to me not correct, lets see what the closer has to say about it. He did say that you could propose a narrower RFC and perhaps that would have been a better way to proceed, simply ask the question directly.Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it seems to be the only way to proceed. There is no consensus for an attributed alt-title, and there is no consensus for an unattributed alt-title, which leaves us with few options, and thus the only policy-compliant is to revert it to the "last stable version". As for which version is the "last stable version", I believe it to be this one, unless you disagree?
As for an RfC between A and C I would be happy to throw my 2c's in, but for the present time I wish to focus on other areas and so don't want to open one myself. BilledMammal (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I am content to rely on the closer's opinion (assuming he is willing to give one) as to "last stable version" which is something of a tricky area.Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that my edit was at all similar to Option A or the "also known as" option discussed very briefly pre-RFC. Qualifying with "sometimes" minimizes the alt name in a way that I perceive to be overly restrictive; I am deliberately introducing a compromise measure, as the whole removal option is so clearly opposed by consensus. As far as I know, there has been no reasoning presented in objection to this option. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this is why WP:NOCONSENSUS requires us to revert to the "last stable version" rather than try to discover a hereto-undiscussed compromise; in this case, I feel the compromise isn't acceptable because the RfC was on whether the alt-name should be attributed or not, and your compromise takes a position on that question. As such, unless you disagree with my belief on which version is the "last stable version", I would ask that you self-revert. Selfstudier, your opinion in which version that is, in light of the clarification provided by TheSandDoctor (Thank you, by the way), would also be appreciated here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
A no consensus close is not an unending endorsement of some prior version. Normal editing can continue. I am not taking self-reversion of the table, but I am unlikely to do so with no objections presented. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier, BilledMammal, and Firefangledfeathers: I don't really know enough to weigh in here. Arguments could be made that it is WP:DUE or undo. I believe that the best way forward here would be, as I mentioned in the close, a more narrow RfC that is well advertised. One thing I can say is that no matter the version chosen to restore to in the interim, some won't like it. With that said, please, everyone, refrain from edit warring; it isn't a good look and it can have undesirable outcomes. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    I will also state though that the last stable version, while open to some interpretation, typically is among the last versions prior to the additions/removals that resulted in the disagreement which led to the RfC. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    This is tricky area, looking back at the RFCbefore there was at one point a semi consensus (from both sides) for inclusion of an alt name and imo that or something similar to it is likely where we ought to be now pending any new RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Um BilledMammal, you agreed that the Arabic belongs in the lead as a significant foreign language name. No consensus on the attribution is not a reason to remove that. The Arabic inclusion does have consensus, there is exactly one user who made a totally non-policy adjacent argument that it should not be in the lead at all. And by the way, no consensus is not a reason to revert. nableezy - 13:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I agreed on it with attribution, I didn't agree on it without. And as such, let me propose something different for the compromise; "... sometimes referred to by Arabic speakers as ...". Little bit of column 'A', little bit of column 'B'; it's wider than I believe acceptable, and its narrower than you believe acceptable, but I don't believe either of us wants to waste any more time on this. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Your compromise fails WP:OR. It is not sometimes referred as that, it is known as that (and also "مجزرة حي الرمال"). You keep trying to diminish what the sourcing supports, and sorry but by our policies that is not an acceptable compromise. You have done it with "known in Palestine" (this is a Lebanese newspaper, this is an international one based in London, another Lebanese one, here is al-Jazeera, Qatari. Your compromise would make our article say something that is not true, that is provably untrue in fact. There has been no response given to the requirements of WP:ALTNAME that significant foreign language titles belong in the lead as alternative names. Just attempts to downplay a name that some users find distasteful. nableezy - 15:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
What is the problem with noting an Arab title, really. NPOV insists we deal with both sides. Trying to tweak to diminish the Arabic alt name is pointless. I'm fine with Firefangledfeathers's compromise - we're supposed to do that. Like them, I dislike 'sometimes', but that concession should be as far as it goes. Pushing to dilute even that is to take a decidedly hostile line about Arabic usage, which should have no place here. Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
”NPOV insists we deal with both sides.” Thats not what WP:NPOV insists we do, care to try again? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
It insists that we include all significant viewpoints. Is it in dispute those bombed have a significant viewpoint here? nableezy - 20:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and whose viewpoint exactly is it that multiple names should be used? Please be specific and provide an english language source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
HEB, I can't understand this line of questioning. Do you have an opinion here that you care to share? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's viewpoint is significant foreign language names be included as alternate names. See WP:ALTNAME. Where it says When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Is there any dispute that the name used by those attacked is not a significant name in another language? nableezy - 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
* Part of airstrikes against the Hamas Metro tunnels. Free1Soul (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC) sock
Bring some sourcing for a Hebrew common name and nobody will object to including that. Censoring the Arabic name because there is no common Hebrew name is however bs and not one word in WP:NPOV supports such a tendentious argument. nableezy - 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: It would appear that your request not to edit war is being ignored, care to intervene? Not that I would blame you if you want to bow out.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To satisfy the request that this be watered down, ive adopted BilledMammal's preferred wording. Can we put this to end now? The repeated removal of what there is unequivocal consensus in the RFC to include, the Arabic name as an alternate name, is disruptive and tendentious. nableezy - 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I have no objection to that wording. In reference to the discussion about the Israeli name, I don't believe such a name exists, but if it does I would note that it also needs to be attributed to Israel, rather than Hebrew. BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Now that an Israeli alt-name has been added, I'm not sure the sources support its use, at least as currently used. Specifically, the sources are talking about the broader metro strikes, and not this singular component of it. I suppose it could be rephrased as "and in Israel as part of the ...", but even then I feel its inclusion as an alt-name is stretching the definition of alt-name and might be WP:UNDUE. It can and should be mentioned in the body, and perhaps in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I cant read Hebrew so I wont speak to what these sources say, but if they do not call this specific event the Hamas "metro" strike then including that as an alternative name is a straight forward source falsification issue. User:Inf-in MD, can you provide quotes and translations, per WP:NONENG, to verify that the sources actually support what you placed in the article? nableezy - 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with this as a temporary compromise. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
If as Billed Mammel states ' Specifically, the sources are talking about the broader metro strikes, and not this singular component of it', then that alternative name goes out. This is about a specific airstrike along1 km, not all airstrikes over a tunnel network estimates to extend over 80km.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
is Gtranslation of the ynet source. ¬ the maariv source (seems about something else altogether? The invasion feint? I won't do the third one, think these are not to do with Wehda St as such.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it; I think we can reasonable say we have a consensus to do so, at least for now. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The specific night operatoin was Metro B, I added a source for that. Plenty of sources in English have Metro+Wehda. Overall, I propose this article refocus on the attacks overall on the early 16th, most sources cover the night attack on the Rimal tunnels as a whole.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make a new article about attacks on tunnels (I have never heard of Metro B, the Walla source calls it Metro Stage II (an IDF designation) and Wehda is not even mentioned afaics, you can do that, this is specifically about an event where HRW say there is no evidence of tunnels and one of three specifically identified incidents involving significant civilian casualties described by HRW as a potential war crime (there is also a separate article about Destruction of al-Jalaa Building).Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The Hebrew is "מטרו שלב ב". You can translate ב to B, 2, or II. Most sources cover the military operations of the early 16th May morning as a whole. There is no reason to focus just on a by product of the attack, buildings that collapsed because they were near the tunnels that held dangerous rockets and ammo in them. By products are a side event of the main attack.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I just gave you the reason, there is significant coverage of this particular event, that's what makes it notable. See also 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Alleged war crimes, that article also discusses the events in some detail and also mentions the Israeli "Metro" attack about which more seems to have been written by the IDF than anyone else. The IDF targeting practices are still interesting the media https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/30/15-high-rises-higher-than-five-floors-targeted-in-mays-gaza-conflict/ Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't designating the bombing as one that struck an underground 'Metro' when we have no evidence (so far) that a so-called Metro tunnel/Rimal street tunnel existed, somewhat pointy?Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wehda_Street_airstrikes/Archives/2021/December&oldid=1077260366"