Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/October

RFC on the inclusion of the phrase "Wehda Street Massacre"

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the phrase "Wehda Street Massacre" be included or referenced, and if so where and how? 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• A few options have been discussed on these; in general, they can be split into four types:

A: Unattributed alt-title (eg, "The Wehda Street airstrikes (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة, Wehda Street massacre)")

B: Alt-title attributed to language (eg, "The Wehda Street airstrikes, known in Arabic as the Wehda Street massacre (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة)")

C: Alt-title attributed to group or region (eg, "The Wehda Street airstrikes, known in Palestine as the Wehda Street massacre (Arabic: مجزرة شارع الوحدة)")

D: Attributed lede (eg, "The strike has been described in Palestine as a massacre.')

It should be noted that these examples are provided for ease of understanding, and no consensus exists on them even as options. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support C, using "Palestine". In my opinion, enough evidence exists for the use of the phrase in Palestine that its use as an alt-title would not be WP:UNDUE. However, per MOS:LABEL attribution is required; "massacre" is a value-laden statement per the WP:COMMONAME example, and thus we are required to dismiss A as an option. Of B and C, I believe C is more appropriate, for three reasons; one general, and two specific.

1. A language does not use a statement; a language is used to express a statement. As such, we cannot attribute statements to a language. Further, to do so risks confusion; some readers may interpret it as a non-literal translation, which means that MOS:LABEL is not satisfied.
2. The Arabic-speaking region is broader than the region within which sources support the common use use of the phrase. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of sources that use the phrase outside of quotes are Palestinian, while those that use the phrase in quotes are solely quoting Palestinians.
3. To the best of my knowledge, only one source qualifies who uses the phrase. This is Al-Monitor, which states "... in an attack the Palestinians have dubbed the "Al-Wehda massacre."" BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support C. If there's some sort of controversy regarding it being described as a massacre, go with D. You said there's no consensus, though, so I agree with the above. It satisfies neutrality. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• A or B - the sources support that the common Arabic term for this event is "مجزرة شارع الوحدة" which translates to Wehda Street Massacre. It is known by that name in more than Palestine, non Palestinian news accounts use the same name. The Arabic Wikipedia in fact uses that name as the title. We should also include a Hebrew title if there is a commonly used name for the events describe in our article. But making things up and implying it is known as this only in Palestine should not be the correct course of action. It is the Arabic name, and the Arabic name is relevant because that is the language of one of the involved parties. It is not a Palestinian name or something that is limited by geography, and our article should not pretend that it is. nableezy - 02:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• D or better E (not in lead). This is one sided POV and hyperbole. Can be mentioned in the body.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• A We don't say Wehda Street airstrikes (as described by English speaking people in English language media in the West), do we? Best stay woke, folk. Anyway, this RFC is quite unnecessary, MOS:ALTNAME applies, "significant names in other languages".Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is questioning whether the policy applies or not. BilledMammal is asking HOW to apply it. - Daveout(talk) 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any option but A (which is vague and may lead to confusion). B may be a bit of a stretch, but it's not an unreasonable stretch imo. When it comes to Israel, Arabs act like a monolith. That's why "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and "Israeli-Arab conflict" are practically interchangeable. That said, Options C and D seem to be the ones that are more "policy compliant", per BilledMammal's arguments. - Daveout(talk) 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Zat so? I'll let the UAE and Bahrain know that they are just wasting their time, being part of a monolith and all. And I am certainly pleased to hear that Palestinian citizens of Israel is acceptable to you.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And I am certainly pleased to hear that Palestinian citizens of Israel is acceptable to you. What? - Daveout(talk) 12:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That you apparently have no idea what I am referring to speaks volumes.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support C. This option seems to be the most neutral in nature and it denotes that the event is viewed in Palestine as a masacare. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• C B would also be acceptable, but C is more accurate as the appellation comes from Palestinians, not a translation convention of Arabic. BSMRD (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• A>B, not C or D: as discussed at WP:ALTNAME, "Wehda Street massacre" is a "relevant foreign-language name" in an otherwise uncluttered lead sentence, and should be included in bold. Option A is fine, as the inclusion in parentheses with the Arabic script is commonplace in presenting translation. If I say (German: versteckte bedeutung, hidden meaning), I can trust readers to associate the foreign words with the translated ones. B adds a little clarity at the expense of verbosity, which troubles me only a tad. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• A Some quick searches, and "Wehda Street Massacre" seemed to be commonly used, not just in Arab language sources Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

could you mention some of those sources outside the arab sphere? - Daveout(talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Lead image

I don't think that the current lead image is appropriate. It shows some shirts piled up, surrounded by rubble. The caption is "The effects of the bombing on the shops in Al Wahda Street". I am struggling to find a way to say this that could not come across as flippant: the effects of the bombing were not a pile of shirts in some rubble. It's hard to imagine a photographic representation that could do the subject justice; if I were writing this, I'd probably go for a map rather than an image, because I'm not sure that it's possible to find an image that neutrally and usefully represents the situation. What do others think? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Me either, copyright the usual problem.Selfstudier (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a map would be much better. The Arabic article has a map.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

NO. We already have a map below. The lead requires an image. This is unsausagefactory - too particularized-, but can stand till a broadimage of the street's devastation becomes available.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What does 'unsausagefactory' mean? I don't agree that the lead needs an image - yes, the MOS says that leads should have images, but it doesn't follow that any image is automatically better than no image. A pile of frilly tuxedo shirts? When I first saw it, I thought it might have been vandalism, someone taking the piss with a silly picture. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)