Wikipedia

Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/September

< Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Nableezy in topic Refs for altname


Refs for altname

Latest comment: 3 years ago59 comments6 people in discussion

Collect here suitable refs that may justify an altname of massacre (in general or as a Palestinian description):-

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/features/bride-be-shaimaa-killed-family-israel-targets-civilians "Shaimaa’s uncle, Baha Abu al-Ouf, survived the massacre."
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2021/05/17/dimanche-a-gaza-le-massacre-de-la-rue-wehda-cette-nuit-la-on-a-tous-cru-qu-on-allait-mourir_6080427_3210.html "Sunday in Gaza, the massacre of Al-Wehda street..."
https://www.middleeasteye.net/video/haya-abu-al-ouf-survivor-wehda-street-massacre-speaks-out "Gaza: Haya Abu al-Ouf, survivor of Israeli air strike massacre, speaks out "
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/05/these-civilians-died-israeli-raid-their-homes-gaza-city" in an attack the Palestinians have dubbed the "Al-Wehda massacre."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-israel-bombing-wehda-street-b1864227.html "“It was a matter of seconds. It was a scene from your worst nightmare – smoke, gas, fire, screaming. It was a massacre.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/22/we-dont-recognise-our-own-city-israeli-barrage-redraws-the-map-of-gaza "“Al-Wehda massacre” written on it in Arabic"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/16/gaza-suffers-most-intense-bombing-as-rescuers-dig-for-survivors Gives a translation of a tweet from Al Quds (Arabic) "Translation: Rescue team still searching for missing persons at the scene of the massacre that took place on al-Wehda Street in Gaza City."
https://mondoweiss.net/2021/05/israels-wehda-street-massacre-shows-it-seeks-to-annihilate-us-we-wont-let-it Expert opinion from Haidar Eid "By committing the Wehda Street massacre, it has taken the so-called “conflict” to its origin."
https://countercurrents.org/2021/05/israel-kills-children-doctors-in-horrific-nighttime-massacre/ "Israel kills children, doctors in horrific nighttime massacre"
https://qudsnen.co/?p=27988 "when Israel committed a massacre in the area surrounding Gaza City’s al-Wihda street."
https://www.commondreams.org/further/2021/06/15/your-actions-ye-shall-be-known-implacable-israel-again-bombs-gaza-still-shattered "notably from the midnight massacre on al-Wihda street that killed 44 Palestinians, including 18 children and several generations of entire families"
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/after-nightmare-gaza-massacre-what-comes-next/ "After the nightmare of the Gaza massacre, what comes next?"
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/updated-report-israeli-massacres-during-military-attack-gaza "Updated report on the Israeli massacres during the military attack on the Gaza Strip"
https://www.africanews.com/2021/05/20/mauritanians-denounce-gaza-massacre-as-hostilities-continue// "Mauritanians denounce Gaza 'massacre' as hostilities continue"

Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate as an alt-name, as that comes too close to wikivoice, but I believe we have enough sources to place it somewhere in the lede and body as "Palestinians, along with some non-English sources such as Le Monde have decribed the attack as a "massacre"" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
No, the name used by the local population belongs in the lead in bold as an alternate name per WP:ALTNAME (significant names in other languages). I'll be adding it with Arabic references. nableezy - 03:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hold off, lets get a consensus for such a change first; my interpretation of WP:ALTNAME differs. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with BilledMammal. Something like "Locals described it as a massacre" feels more appropriate. - Daveout(talk) 03:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
What does feels more appropriate mean? The policy is fairly clear here, significant names in other languages, and the name used by those attacked certainly is that, belongs as an alternate name. nableezy - 03:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on what exactly? The sources support that this is known in Arabic as the Wehda Street massacre, hell the Arabic wiki entry is titled that. Yall not liking what it is called does not negate that, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT remains a non-reason. nableezy - 03:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:NPOV. Presenting it as an alt-title as you did puts it in wikivoice, and for a NPOV phrase we need very good reason to do that - my reading of WP:ALTNAME does not support its inclusion. In the absense of consensus, you addition (and revert of my revert) is premature. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
NPOV requires all significant POVs be included. Are you seriously arguing the POV of those bombed is not significant? What is your reading of ALTNAME? It literally says, word for word, 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. What possible reading do you make that comes up with the local Arabic name should not be included in the first sentence? And no, reverting because you do not feel there is no consensus is what is inappropriate, consensus requires reasons beyond blanket statements about policies you can't specify how they apply. nableezy - 03:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ive added several sources for the Arabic name of this event, not liking what that name is does not constitute a reason to remove it. NPOV demands that the POV of the Palestinians be included, for the name as much as anything else. We've been through this in any number of other articles, eg Gaza War (2008–2009). If there is a standard Hebrew name that should be included as well. nableezy - 03:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to change it to the style used in the Gaza War (2008-2009) - specifically, "also known in Palestine as ..." then my objections would be signficantly lessened. Does that sound reasonable to you? My objections as it stands is that it presents a name that appears to pass judgement without context, and in doing so violates WP:NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
known in Arabic is fine with me. nableezy - 03:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's fine with me too.👍 - Daveout(talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"known in Arabic" suffers from the same issues; by attributing it to a language it supplies it with some context - as a translation - but not relevant context, that explains that it is a POV name. If you want to expand it beyond Palestine, such as "known in the Muslim world", as is used in your example, then again my objections would be signficantly lessened, but we would need additional non-Palestinian sources to support such breadth. With that said, my preference remains for inclusion in the lede and body, not as an alt-name, for the same reasons; my objections are lessened by the discussed changes, but not removed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry, what? It is the commonly used Arabic name, that isnt a POV, that is a substantiated fact. You apparently feel that it shouldnt be known as that, but that is a personal opinion that does negate the fact that it is in fact known in Arabic as the Wehda Street massacre (I also see مجزرة حي الرمال Al-Rimal neighborhood massacre). Trying to diminish the significance of the POV by downplaying how widely held it is is the NPOV violation. nableezy - 07:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe you have, in good faith, misunderstood my position. If you look at my first comment in this chain, I support the inclusion of that fact. However, I believe we need to be careful how we present this, to make it clear that this is not a neutral description, something that the current method doesn't do, and while I believe there are more WP:IMPARTIAL ways to do it, such as the previously proposed alternative, I don't believe any alt-name alternative is able to do so in full compliance with WP:NPOV. I will also note that the current statement goes beyond the sources we have; we need additional non-Palestinian sources to support such breadth. Incidentally, User:Nishidani, please consider your edit summaries in the context of WP:ESDOS; I feel your most recent, along with others, perhaps aren't in the best spirit of that guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There was no guideline violation. A majority of editors said the main title should be as it stands. A point one. For the two of them challenging the alternative title as now edited, there are problems in the altname. Pushing it out looks like overkill in the face of this section which shows another majority in favour of the alternative name. "bantustans" was argued to be not neutral (compared to the euphemism 'Palestinian enclaves') but whether it was POV or not proved irrelevant. It is an attested alternative name. Simple as that, and what one would expect in an area where two parties have different narratives, and use different terminology for the same thing.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you meant "bantustans" there, Nishidani, I changed it for you, OK?Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The repeated removal is obscene, and it should be reverted and the tendentious editing reported. nableezy - 03:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The reason is WP:ALTNAME, and up above there is now unanimous agreement for including it as known in Arabic as the Wehda Street massacre. nableezy - 03:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There are a dozen English sources that reflect both Palestinian and broader Arabic use. Nableezy is correct. There is little, if any, margin to equivocate on WP:ALTNAME, esp, since the conflict regards two parties. We have given the standard English-source usage, which is also Israel's preferred term as the main title. The term favoured by the other party is massacre, and altname plus WP:NPOV requires that the two stand on par, with the hierarchy of course dictated by English usage. It's as simple as that - compare the long discussion and result at Palestinian enclaves/Palestinian Bantustans where the latter is an attested variant name and mentioned in the lead- and attempts to elide from the lead this alternative name look very much like POV overkill by editors not content with achieving a name change. Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If you're willing to work with the example set by Palestinian enclave I believe we can make it work; "the attacks are referred to as the "Wehda Street massacre" in Palestinian and some non-Palestinian sources, such as Le Monde." It would need some rewording for clarity and flow, but I believe we might be able to come up with something that will make the alt-name work without WP:NPOV issues. BilledMammal (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand your point, it is an altname, bantustans is used by Palestinian and non Palestinian sources but it doesn't say so, doesn't need to.Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Why specify some non-Palestinian sources', singling out Le Monde? Leads need to be synthetic.
I'll merge the two discussion chains here, rather than keeping them split.
The issue is that none of those sources, with the exception of Mondoweiss (which per WP:RSP requires attribution), use the term "massacre". They do quote the use of it, but they don't use it themselves - a very important difference.
Without the use of "some" we will overrepresent the use in non-Palestinian sources, as evidenced by the examples Nishidani provided above, as well as the examples in the move discussion above. The singling out of Le Monde was an attempt to correct the weasal word issue introduced by the use of the word "some"; it is awkward phrasing, and I have no issues with rewording, so long as we remain in line with NPOV.
There is a difference between the use of "Bantustans" and "Massacre". First, the case for its use is far stronger; it's a common name (though not the common name) in English. Second, the way it is presented leaves less room for misinterpretation as a neutral description. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that none of those sources, with the exception of Mondoweiss (which per WP:RSP requires attribution), use the term "massacre". They do quote the use of it, but they don't use it themselves - a very important difference. Have you read the sources? Your statement is false (unless you are only referring to the second set that I have not read myself as yet). I am still waiting for a policy based objection.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I will expand the initial list as needed so that we are not confusingly discussing two separate lists.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the second set. The first set has more uses; the first three examples use the term directly, while the last four only do in quotes (the last uses it, but is a Mondoweiss opinion piece). My policy based objection is as above; to meet WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL we need to include the term in the article, but we also need to make it clear that the term is not a neutral description of the event. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, two of the second list were already in the first list so I added only the remaining three. We need not refer again to the second list and it would be helpful if further additions could be made only in the initial list.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Where is the policy condition that WP:ALT names must be 'impartial or neutral'? That reads:

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. 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.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch:) The policy here is altname, it doesn't matter whether it is "neutral" in the sense you are using that word, neutral just means reflects sources (it doesn't matter which unless you can demonstrate an unreasonable amount of bias)Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
A second point. We all agree that the bombing killed 44 civilians with no known military deaths. Most sources spoke of the numbers in the context of an Israeli airstrike, without mentioning 'massacre'. That in itself does not mean that the sources were deliberately avoiding the term to be 'neutral' or 'impartial'. It can be read differently. The assumption here is that the word 'massacre' describing the deaths of civilians is not neutral or impartial. I don't share that assumption, since it is perfectly consonant with what the term means in English or Italian (strage). But I accept that the ruling principle on Wikipedia is that, since the dominant reportage narrative lacks it, we refer to the incident as an 'airstrike'. That is where WP:ALT kicks in, since there is significant source evidence that one party to the dispute describes it as a massacre. 'Israeli airstrike' can be considered a euphemism just as 'massacre' can be considered a dysphemism, depending on POV. The Altname indication cancels the problem by giving both, with a slight edge to the preferred Israeli term. That is what NPOV consists of, not the elision of POVs but their balancing.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The policy is WP:NPOV; WP:ALTNAME does not override; per WP:NPOVNAME, we would expect that if it did, it would explicitly say so. There is also no reason for to override it in this case, as there is nothing stopping us from including the alternative name, but presenting it in such a way that makes it clear that it is not a neutral description of the event.
In regards to your second point, it is important to note that "airstrike" wasn't chosen as the commonname, but as a descriptive neutral name, with no strong consensus for it, as opposed to a strong consensus against "massacre", as described by the closer. If you have issues with its neutrality, the best way to address them would be a second RM proposing it be moved to a move neutral name; I have no attachment to the current name and would likely support it (though if you do make such a proposal, please include "Al Wehda Street", rather than "Wedha Street", as that is the commonname). BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Western media mostly called it airstrikes so it is common name not descriptive. I said that in my support vote. As for the rest of your comment you are just repeating yourself and still using "neutral" in the wrong sense. As for we would expect that if it did, it would explicitly say so. that's just wrong because NPOV is a foundational policy and it means to reflect a balance of sources, you seem to think it means something else. And we haven't even bought the Arabic sources in as yet.Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm repeating myself because I don't feel like you have addressed my point; that NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, is against the unqualified use of the word "massacre". I will add that this is reinforced by MOS:LABEL, which requires us to only use value-laden labels - such as massacre - when they are widely used by reliable sources, and in such cases only do so with in-text attribution. There is justification for using the label; it is likely to be sufficiently widely used, though I would prefer if we could find some sources proven as reliable per WP:RSP that do so. However, as far as I can see there is no justification for avoiding the in-text attribution. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The consensus here is against you. "bantustan" is according to some, a value-laden label, but we are still using it, right? The policy is altname, which you continue to avoid, instead citing every other policy you can think of that might be applicable and undo what altname says. Of course you are free to start an RFC and see where that might go but I suspect that, as in the case of bantustan, altname will win out.Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

With the soft qualifier of "also referred to as Bantustans", which the current status doesn't have, and justified by far more sources. Further, altname doesn't say we can't qualify the altname, and I haven't seen an argument for why we shouldn't, while WP:IMPARTIAL and MOS:LABEL both say we should.
However, you are probably right that neither of us will convince the other, and so an RFC would be the best option, such that we can get the consensus of the wider community. Would you be happy with the following three options?:
  • A. Unqualified altname: "known in Arabic as the Wehda Street massacre (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة)"
  • B. Qualified altname: "known in Palestine as the Wehda Street massacre (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة)"
  • C. Qualified lede: "The strike has been described in Palestine and some foreign sources, such as Le Monde, as a massacre."
BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you should avoid mentioning any specific source (eg Le Monde) and can I just confirm before I comment further, is your alt C intended to debold the altname? Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
None of the 3 are quite sausagefactory. (a) specifies Arabic when quite a few Western sources use it (b) restricts it to Palestinian usage, ignoring that wider Arabic sources and also Western sources use it: (c) again, is a mess, restricting the usage to Palestine (and not the Arab world) and singling out Ler Monde as one of some (limited) foreign sources. Therefore your arrangement of choices is POV-cued, and cannot therefore be the basis for an RfC Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I dont think it matters if English sources use it, I dont think anybody is suggesting that is a commonly used title in English. The reason to include the Arabic title is WP:ALTNAME, and that reason makes it so that we dont need any qualification besides it is commonly known in Arabic as such. So a. Would prefer removing the known in as that seems fairly obviously implied by the link to arabic and the well Arabic letters and translation. nableezy - 18:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

To me, saying something like "in Arabic it is known as..." already indicates the POV that is being adopted. The pov of the people whose victims belonged to. Understandably, they'll use a more dramatic term. I don't think the average reader will mistake that for a 'neutral\default' term. (that type of confusion could happen if we had instead used a phrase like "also known as...") - Daveout(talk) 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I believe we should make it clearer; "in Arabic" could be interpreted as a neutral translation. Honestly, I'm struggling to see the reason for the opposition to B; it's very close to the example that User:Nableezy provided, with Palestine substitued for Muslim world while we lack sufficient sources from the Muslim world; if the use there is fine, what is the issue with the use here?
From the discussion so far, it seems that the following changes would be preferred:
  • A. Unqualified altname, eg "The Wehda Street airstrikes (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة, Wehda Street Massacre)"
  • B. Qualified altname, eg "The Wehda Street airstrikes, known in Palestine as the Wehda Street massacre (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة)"
  • C. Qualified lede, eg "The strike has been described in Palestine and some foreign sources as a massacre."
I'm leaving "Palestine" as opposed to a focus on the broader Muslim world, as while I believe our sources have demonstrated it is a common name in Palestine, I don't believe that our sources have demonstrated it beyond that, as we only have one non-Palastine Arabic source using the phrase, and no Arabic quotations using it. However, this RFC won't lock us in should such sources later emerge or be discovered, so I don't believe it will be an issue. I also believe that in the alt-title it is better to leave out the use in foreign sources, as it is not a common name in those language; I believe the situation here would be analogous to the 1947–1949 Palestine war, where it uses the phrase "It is known in Israel as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות‎, Milkhemet Ha'Atzma'ut)", and does not expand by expaining that it is used in a few foreign sources. With that all said, User:Nishidani, do you have any specific changes you would propose? I am discussing this here rather than bringing it straight to a RFC so that we can get a neutral proposal for each of the three options. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
My "vote" will be that altname is implemented, A's, B's and C's are not necessary to say so.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There are two questions contained within. Should an altname be used (at the moment, yes from me), and should it be qualified (at the moment, also a yes from me). Please note I've also changed the proposed A a little, to better align with what I think User:Nableezy is asking for. BilledMammal (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You never answered my question about bolding. (I added some more sources)Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that. I would probably lean against bolding, as C is proposed as an alternative to using an altname, but I wouldn't object to bolding similar to the use in Palestinian Enclaves if that is your preference. Thank you for the sources, though I do worry we are scraping the barrel with them; most notable, the countercurrents one has reliability is ascribed to its origional author and publication, per various discussions on WP:RSN, and in this case the origional publication was the "generally unreliable" source Electronic Intafada. Others, such as qudsnen.co are sufficiently obsucre to have never been discussed there. Do we have any sources that are established as reliable that use the phrase? BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I already know your opinion. The sources will be available to people commenting on the RFC and they will doubtless form their own opinion as to how much support they provide for the altname (that's not the same thing as using these sources in the article although some of them could be).Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Your rfc should simply ask the question whether "blah" should be considered an altname per MOS:ALTNAME, editors can then respond freely without being constrained by artificial alternatives (the same tactic was tried in the bantustan discussion and just made the resultant discussion unnecessarily lengthy). You may then press your preferred alternative as part of your own comment.Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, 'tactic'? Anyway, I think you have misunderstood what we are trying to settle here; we are trying to determine if we should qualify the altname, with option C thrown in to an RFC to prevent us from presupposing the discussion. Given that, I feel we do need examples to explain exactly what is meant by qualifiers, though I will make it clear that they are discussed examples, and not commitments. BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with B is that it downplays how widely held this viewpoint is, which is a NPOV violation. It is not simply in Palestine, it is in Arabic that it is known as this. nableezy - 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Would you be willing to compromise to B, with the specific word choice of "Palestine", "Arab world", and "Muslim world" still to be determined based on a discussion about weight of sources? It is in line with your example, and whichever one we choose corrects my objection about the use of "Arabic" suggesting a translation, rather than POV name. Plus, it should save us from having to hold an RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The Arabic is very clearly not a translation of Wehda Street airstrikes given that we give the translation of the Arabic as Wehda street massacre. I dont really think this needs an rfc to begin with, but if you want to take it to that point feel free. As far as examples, see 1947–1949 Palestine war (known in Arabic), or Six-Day War (Arabic word, and the Arabic translation), or Suez Crisis (called whatever in Arab world with translation). nableezy - 01:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to use the style used in your Suez Crisis example. To start, we can enter it into the article with "in the Arab world" as is used in that article, and then we can have a discussion about whether to shrink the scope to "Palestine" or expand it to "Muslim world". Is this acceptable to you? BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Idk why you bother to ask for editor opinions if you not going to listen to the answers. I agree with Nableezy that RFC is not really needed here.Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the historic contempt in the West, esp. in modern times, for the Arab world, the negative associations of 'Arab' itself - we all know this - trying to emphasize this as 'just what the Arabs think' looks odd, and unnecessarily complicated. The solution is simple: Wehda Street airstrikes, known also as Wehda Street massacre. Tweaking 'known as' with 'in the Arab world' and 'some Western sources' is a put down on the alternative name. The only way NPOV is secured is succinctness.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I hope you, Selfstudier and Nishidani, don't mind, but for the moment I will concentrate on the discussion with User:Nableezy. I am willing to use the example set forth in either Suez Crisis or Gaza War (2008-2009), exactly as is written in those articles (though I would want a later discussion on breadth). I assume either of those would be acceptable to you, as they are the examples you provided, but I just wanted confirm this as well as which one you would prefer? Should the two of us be able to agree on this, I do believe we will be able to avoid an RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Youre missing the point of thoe articles in attempting to make them a template. The sourcing supported known in Arab and Muslim world as blah in Gaza War (2008-2009). The sourcing here supports known in Arabic as blah. We go with what the sourcing supports, not with whatever some editor (you, me) would wish they had said. The commonly used Arabic term for this event is Wehda steet massacre and/or al-rimal neighborhood massacre. Full stop. Downplaying that to something else is both a falsehood and a NPOV violation. And if you look at the Gaza War example, it just gives also known as in Hebrew the end. nableezy - 12:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. However, in that case I don't understand how you feel using a phrase like "Arab world" or "Muslim world" would be downplaying it; could you clarify further? BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm not sure "in Arabic" is what the sources support. Of the sources, unless I have missed something only one makes an explicit statement about who it is used by: "in an attack the Palestinians have dubbed the “Al-Wehda massacre"", while the others either directly or indirectly refer to its use without clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The Arabic sources using that as the name is what supports that. nableezy - 02:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wehda_Street_airstrikes/Archives/2021/September&oldid=1256575167"