No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) |
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) →RfC: new section |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:::Excellent work? Some of those are so obviously not RS, you don't even need to know Arabic. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::Excellent work? Some of those are so obviously not RS, you don't even need to know Arabic. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::If you are going to judge websites based on how they look, trust me, there are no fancy looking Arabic websites . [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
::::If you are going to judge websites based on how they look, trust me, there are no fancy looking Arabic websites . [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
== RfC == |
|||
{{rfc|hist}} |
|||
Should the term "Lydda Death March" appear in bold in the first line of the lead as a ''significant alternative name'' per [[MOS:LEADALT]]? |
|||
[[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 04:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:12, 28 March 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Toolbox |
---|
Timeline and archiving of comments
- This article, 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, and this talk page were created on April 29, 2009, with the initial talk page comment, under section header "POVFORK concerns", also submitted on that date. As of this writing, on July 17, 2014, all of the numerous comments posted to this talk page have been archived to three archive pages.
- Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle/Archive 1 starts with the previously-mentioned April 29 comment under the "POVFORK concerns" section header and ends with section header "POV tag", which contains comments dating from April 30 to May 17, 2009. Archive 1 has 77 numbered section headers which include 16 sub-headers.
- Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle/Archive 2 restarts/continues the May 17, 2009 discussion under section header "POV issues" and ends with section header "New map" which contains comments dating from May 26 to May 27, 2009. Archive 2 has 36 numbered section headers which include 4 sub-headers.
- Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle/Archive 3 starts with a May 30, 2009 comment under section header "Change from guideline to order" and ends with section header "please help." which contains a comment dated September 22, 2013. Archive 3 has 49 numbered section headers which include 11 sub-headers. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Picture chosen
Hmm lets see "1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle", full of death and destruction. Can someone tell me why exactly are we depicting a conflict that was highly tense, as a friendly one?!? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The current image is a very famous iconic image. I don't think it portrays the conflict as a friendly one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can't see how famous and iconic gives it a place in infobox , especially when it is largely irrelevant to article (exodus) . Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be replaced by an image that actually depicts the topic of the article. This image is misleading as well as irrelevant. Zerotalk 21:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- How is this image misleading? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It makes it appear that an assault in which up to 400 some odd people died and up to 70,000 people were forced from their homes had a bit more camaraderie than it did. File:RuinsOfLydda.png, or File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg or File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG would be less misleading and would have the added advantage of actually representing the topic of the article. nableezy - 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- This picture has been in the infobox since at least 2010. You guys just noticed it's "misleading"? I disagree with your interpreation, so we'll just have to see what consensus forms. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I certainly haven´t "just noticed". This picture is wrong in so many ways. (But then, so much is, on Wikipedia...) Just a thing like that scantily dressed female soldier....many observers during 1930-40s noted that the Zionist often dressed scantily, as a way to be provokative towards the local Arab population. (I cannot recall seeing pictures of Israeli soldiers being so scantily dressed today?) This is a context which is totally missing from the picture. And the caption "accepts a cigarette from a Palestinian resident"...when there are countless histories of how Israeli soldiers robbed the Palestinian residents? How much of a choice did the Palestinian have? I would prefer either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RuinsOfLydda.png or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg Huldra (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would vote for the ruins of Lydda pic. The current pic being placed in infobox is plain hilarious. When I see it I can only imagine this convo "Oh hello fellow European immigrant, you did a wonderful job in ethnically cleansing this long established Arab town. Here have a cig!" Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huldra clearly didn't follow this a few years ago. Seriously: guys, try to stick to the matter of choosing a picture for the box rather than straight-up Israel-bashing, calling them thieves or "European immigrants" doesn't help matters and might give people the wrong idea. I do agree the image of the cigarette handover is rather weak, no matter how iconic it's supposed to be (I've only ever seen it on this page, but it might be more famous in Israel, I don't know). I'd say go with File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg in the box since it has people in it, and put the one of the ruins further down somewhere. Hope this helps. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Cliftonian: How Israeli soldiers behave/dress off-duty is not what we are talking about, we are talking about what they wear on-duty (which the cigarette-picture clearly is). I can accept either one of the two I mentioned earlier; I have no strong preference there. (Possibly the one with people in it is better?) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huldra, that was actually a joke to try to lighten the mood, I'm sorry not to have made that clearer. Anyway, glad we agree about which picture would be best. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Cliftonian: How Israeli soldiers behave/dress off-duty is not what we are talking about, we are talking about what they wear on-duty (which the cigarette-picture clearly is). I can accept either one of the two I mentioned earlier; I have no strong preference there. (Possibly the one with people in it is better?) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huldra clearly didn't follow this a few years ago. Seriously: guys, try to stick to the matter of choosing a picture for the box rather than straight-up Israel-bashing, calling them thieves or "European immigrants" doesn't help matters and might give people the wrong idea. I do agree the image of the cigarette handover is rather weak, no matter how iconic it's supposed to be (I've only ever seen it on this page, but it might be more famous in Israel, I don't know). I'd say go with File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg in the box since it has people in it, and put the one of the ruins further down somewhere. Hope this helps. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would vote for the ruins of Lydda pic. The current pic being placed in infobox is plain hilarious. When I see it I can only imagine this convo "Oh hello fellow European immigrant, you did a wonderful job in ethnically cleansing this long established Arab town. Here have a cig!" Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I certainly haven´t "just noticed". This picture is wrong in so many ways. (But then, so much is, on Wikipedia...) Just a thing like that scantily dressed female soldier....many observers during 1930-40s noted that the Zionist often dressed scantily, as a way to be provokative towards the local Arab population. (I cannot recall seeing pictures of Israeli soldiers being so scantily dressed today?) This is a context which is totally missing from the picture. And the caption "accepts a cigarette from a Palestinian resident"...when there are countless histories of how Israeli soldiers robbed the Palestinian residents? How much of a choice did the Palestinian have? I would prefer either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RuinsOfLydda.png or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg Huldra (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- This picture has been in the infobox since at least 2010. You guys just noticed it's "misleading"? I disagree with your interpreation, so we'll just have to see what consensus forms. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It makes it appear that an assault in which up to 400 some odd people died and up to 70,000 people were forced from their homes had a bit more camaraderie than it did. File:RuinsOfLydda.png, or File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg or File:Ismail Shammout's Where to ....JPG would be less misleading and would have the added advantage of actually representing the topic of the article. nableezy - 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- How is this image misleading? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be replaced by an image that actually depicts the topic of the article. This image is misleading as well as irrelevant. Zerotalk 21:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can't see how famous and iconic gives it a place in infobox , especially when it is largely irrelevant to article (exodus) . Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thats, if I can see correctly, myself, Huldra and Cliftonian agreeing that specifically File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg would be more appropriate in the infobox, Makeandtoss saying go with File:RuinsOfLydda.png, and Zero saying whats currently there is misleading and doesnt represent the topic of the article. @Zero0000: what are your thoughts on replacing the current infobox image with File:RefugeesEscortedFromRamlaOperationDanny.jpg? nableezy - 23:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
done. nableezy - 21:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
death march
That belongs as an alternate name, we went through this in the past. Here are reliable source attesting to this event being known as the Lydda Death March:
- (1)Paul Thomas Chamberlin, The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order, Oxford University Press 2012 p.16: 'On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.'
- (2) Richard Holmes, Hew Strachan, Chris Bellamy, Hugh Bicheno (eds, The Oxford companion to military history, Oxford University Press 2001 p.64 'On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.'
That belongs in the first sentence of the article and the infobox. nableezy - 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Two sources out of what, a couple dozen used in the article pretty much prove this is not a significant alternate name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is the Palestinian name, and per WP:NPOV its presence is obligatory.
Sandy Tolan, 'The catastrophe that never ends,' Slate 11 July 2006:' Of all the stories of the Palestinian Nakba, none surpasses this march through the hills from al-Ramla and Lydda 58 years ago this month. "Nobody will ever know how many children died," Glubb would recall in his memoir, "A Soldier With the Arabs." The Death March, as the Palestinians call it, along with the massacre at Deir Yassin, represent two of the central traumas that form the Palestinian catastrophe.
- As for the suggestion this is not authoritatively documented, it is of course.
- (3) Arthur Neslen In Your Eyes a Sandstorm: Ways of Being Palestinian, University of California Press 2011 p.236:’After the fighting for Lyd and Ramle during the Nakba, . .Fifty thousand Palestinians were sent on a ten- to fifteen-mile “death march”
- (4) Michael Prior Zionism and the State of Israel:A Moral Inquiry, Routledge 2005 p.252:' A participant in the 'death march' from Lydda recalls, 'I cannot forget three horror-filled days in July of 1948.'
- (5) T.G. Fraser The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 3th edition.p.47:’Next to Deir Yassin, the ‘Lydda Death March’ which followed etched its way into the Palestinian consciousness as a symbol of their tragedy.'
- (6) Ram Narayan Kuma, Martyred but Not Tamed: The Politics of Resistance in the Middle East, Sage Publications 2012 p.184 (Lydda) 'it became a death march’.
- (7) Saleh Abd al-Jawad ‘Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 war’ in Eyal Benvenisti, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi Israel and the Palestinian Refugees, Springer Science & Business Media 2007 pp.59-127 p.100:'The aim of this section is not to discuss in detail the massacres in Lod, but instead to discuss the exodus and how the exodus turned into a death march for the citizens of Lod.' (cf.p.70 ‘a survivor of the death march that followed the expulsion of Palestinians from Lod)
- (8) Max Blumenthal Goliath:Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, Nation Books 2014 p.37 ‘sending nearly fifty-five thousand indigenous inhabitants on a a forced march eastward to Ramallah in which hundreds died of exhaustion - the so-called “Lyddea Death March”.'
- (9) Rosemary Sayigh (ed.) Yusif Sayigh: Arab Economist, Palestinian Patriot: A Fractured Life Story I.B.Tauris, 2015 n.3:’ Many died on what was later called 'The Death March.' Citing Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, Faber&Faber 1987 pp.126-138 cf. Naseer H. Aruri Review of Palumbo in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 460-463 'Palumbo documents the "Lydda death march" relying on U.N. records, Israeli state archives.'
- (10) Elaine C.Hagopian, 'Palestinian Refugees:Victims of Zionist Ideology,' in Robert Tobin, Maurine Tobin,(eds.), How Long O Lord?: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Voices from the Ground and Visions for the Future in Israel/Palestine, Cowley Publications, 2003 pp.29-49 p.47 n 27 citing Audeh G Rantisi, Charles Amash, ‘The Lydda Death March’ The Link, New York AMEU: VOL.33 Issue 3, July August 2000
- That's far in excess of what Wikipedia requires, and this is not an extraordinary claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Nish, was going to address the incredibly spurious "two sources", even though more isnt required for a non-contested statement of fact published by top qualitty sources, sources that have already been found reliable for the statement at RS/N the last time somebody tried to relegate the alternative name to outside of the first paragraph. nableezy - 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What "isn't required for an uncontested statement of fact"? As far as I understand it, an alternative name requires significant usage. Most of the sources above call the incident a "death march" (in quotes) not the "Lydda Death March" as a noun like Nishidani put in the article while discussion is ongoing. That's not exactly the same. If you want the lead to say that the Palestinians call it a "death march", I think the sources support that. I do not think the sources support "Lydda Death March" as a significant alternative name for the first line of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reliable sources explicitly say also known as the Lydda Death March. You don't think they support also known as the Lydda Death March? That seems odd. The sources above, previously confirmed as excellent sources at RS/N, directly support the statement known as the Lydda Death March, not the limited Palestinians call it that. nableezy - 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- A very small minority of the sources use the noun Lydda Death March. Most of the sources Nishidani presented above do not use that noun, for example. Per WP:OTHERNAMES it needs to be a significant other name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you google ("Death March" Lydda) you will get 1260 results. If you google ("Lydda Death March") you will get 502 results. "very small minority"? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you didn't even look at the first page of that google search, or do you consider davidduke.com a reliable source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the results are reliable or not, I am only referring to the proportion of the terms' coverage.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It always matters if the results are reliable or not. "In RS" is always implied if not stated outright. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Google hits arent an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. You tried this before, and every uninvolved person agreed that the sources are reliable for the statement that this a significant alternative name. Your ghit argument was likewise rejected with a succinct can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. nableezy - 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't post any google hits, that was Makeandtoss. I assume you don't think it's that bad anymore? Anyway, thanks for digging up 3 year old discussions that don't exactly say what you claim they do. But that doesn't matter because WP:CCC and that phrase has not been in this article since at least some time in 2014, as far as I can see. I do notice that you are not reverting to the longstanding version per BRD. That's interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, sorry, the discussions do say what I said, and if you havent noticed thats 3 users in this section agreeing that this name is reliably sourced as a significant alternative name, and 2 more reverting to include said name, whereas you alone here are arguing that things directly sourced to works published by Oxford University Press arent reliably sourced for what they are used for. BRD means something when there isnt consensus for something, there pretty clearly is here. Sad to say that it just happens to be a consensus against your favored version. nableezy - 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine. As usual, you lead and I'll follow. TIL that driveby reverts without participating in a BRD discussion are ok, and 2 days over a holiday weekend is enough time to gauge consensus. I will be expecting not to hear a peep out of you when I use these same criteria in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- You havent given a valid argument for why when two sources, found to be reliable at RS/N published by OUP, which explicitly say that this event became known as the Lydda Death March our article should not include that it is also known as the Lydda Death March. So yeah, two days of one person arguing against 5 users either here or through reverts should be enough considering the one person hasnt given an argument to support why what two solid sources say is true is in fact not true. nableezy - 02:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's funny. First of all we're talking about if it should be in bold in the first line of the lead, not in the lead in general. Second you don't get to say if my arguments are valid or not. Third, we both know 2 days is not enough time. Would you like to test this issue at the admin boards? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You havent given a valid argument for why when two sources, found to be reliable at RS/N published by OUP, which explicitly say that this event became known as the Lydda Death March our article should not include that it is also known as the Lydda Death March. So yeah, two days of one person arguing against 5 users either here or through reverts should be enough considering the one person hasnt given an argument to support why what two solid sources say is true is in fact not true. nableezy - 02:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I´m not sure if I´m included in those "driveby reverts", but I was really surprised to see that it had been taken out of the article lead. If you recall, this article was started as Lydda Death March, then moved to this title later. I cannot recall any discussion about taking the old title out, all together. (Having said that, I have hardly watched ...or cared...about the article for years, largely because of that horrid lead picture!) Huldra (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you're included in those driveby reverts. You reverted without participating in the discussion and despite BRD. On top of that, now that you say you have hardly watched this article for years, it's obvious your edit summary was disingenuous. I've just looked at the history of the article, and the term Lydda Death March hasn't been bolded in the lead since 2010 (that's the last 500 edits) if ever, but apparently two days discussion over a holiday weekend is enough to gauge consensus for deciding it's an alternative name that should be in bold. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- ....and that was the "R"-part of BRD. Please show me a place where it was discussed removing "Lydda Death March" from the lead? I recall there was quite some disagreement over even moving the article to the new name; after that, removing "Lydda Death March" went "under the radar" (as so much on wp). (Btw, the majority for moving the article was achieved with the help of at least two NoCal-socks...)
- In any case; as was then, it is now: it is a term which is used by WP:RS. I´m not sure why we are even discussing that this should not be included in the lead? That it has been wrongly removed for 5 years, is absolutely no argument for continuing that situation. Huldra (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The R part was removing it from the first line of the lead, since it was never there (or at least not since 2010 as far as I can tell). We are not discussing if it should be included in the lead in general, we are discussing if it should be in bold as a significant alternative name in the first line of the lead. Perhaps you should first read the discussion and look at the article history before you driveby revert? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you're included in those driveby reverts. You reverted without participating in the discussion and despite BRD. On top of that, now that you say you have hardly watched this article for years, it's obvious your edit summary was disingenuous. I've just looked at the history of the article, and the term Lydda Death March hasn't been bolded in the lead since 2010 (that's the last 500 edits) if ever, but apparently two days discussion over a holiday weekend is enough to gauge consensus for deciding it's an alternative name that should be in bold. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine. As usual, you lead and I'll follow. TIL that driveby reverts without participating in a BRD discussion are ok, and 2 days over a holiday weekend is enough time to gauge consensus. I will be expecting not to hear a peep out of you when I use these same criteria in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, sorry, the discussions do say what I said, and if you havent noticed thats 3 users in this section agreeing that this name is reliably sourced as a significant alternative name, and 2 more reverting to include said name, whereas you alone here are arguing that things directly sourced to works published by Oxford University Press arent reliably sourced for what they are used for. BRD means something when there isnt consensus for something, there pretty clearly is here. Sad to say that it just happens to be a consensus against your favored version. nableezy - 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No you got me wrong. The term "Lydda Death March" has already been demonstrated to exist in reliable English sources, google hits are just being used to demonstrate that none of the terms; "Lydda Death March" and "Death March in Lydda" are used exclusively.Makeandtoss (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't post any google hits, that was Makeandtoss. I assume you don't think it's that bad anymore? Anyway, thanks for digging up 3 year old discussions that don't exactly say what you claim they do. But that doesn't matter because WP:CCC and that phrase has not been in this article since at least some time in 2014, as far as I can see. I do notice that you are not reverting to the longstanding version per BRD. That's interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Google hits arent an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. You tried this before, and every uninvolved person agreed that the sources are reliable for the statement that this a significant alternative name. Your ghit argument was likewise rejected with a succinct can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. nableezy - 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It always matters if the results are reliable or not. "In RS" is always implied if not stated outright. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the results are reliable or not, I am only referring to the proportion of the terms' coverage.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you didn't even look at the first page of that google search, or do you consider davidduke.com a reliable source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you google ("Death March" Lydda) you will get 1260 results. If you google ("Lydda Death March") you will get 502 results. "very small minority"? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- A very small minority of the sources use the noun Lydda Death March. Most of the sources Nishidani presented above do not use that noun, for example. Per WP:OTHERNAMES it needs to be a significant other name. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reliable sources explicitly say also known as the Lydda Death March. You don't think they support also known as the Lydda Death March? That seems odd. The sources above, previously confirmed as excellent sources at RS/N, directly support the statement known as the Lydda Death March, not the limited Palestinians call it that. nableezy - 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pure wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What "isn't required for an uncontested statement of fact"? As far as I understand it, an alternative name requires significant usage. Most of the sources above call the incident a "death march" (in quotes) not the "Lydda Death March" as a noun like Nishidani put in the article while discussion is ongoing. That's not exactly the same. If you want the lead to say that the Palestinians call it a "death march", I think the sources support that. I do not think the sources support "Lydda Death March" as a significant alternative name for the first line of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Nish, was going to address the incredibly spurious "two sources", even though more isnt required for a non-contested statement of fact published by top qualitty sources, sources that have already been found reliable for the statement at RS/N the last time somebody tried to relegate the alternative name to outside of the first paragraph. nableezy - 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Usage in Arabic sources mostly revolves around "what happened in Lydda in 1948 became known as 'The Death March'." Examples:
- 1- In a biography about George Habash, the event is mentioned as "قافلة الموت" transliterates into "The caravan of death". "Caravan" in Arabic is similar to "march". page 113
- 2- Described as "مسيرة الموت" which transliterates and translates into "The Death March" here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
- 3- If I tried to search for the transliteration of "The Lydda Death March" which would be "مسيرة موت اللد", it wouldn't really make sense. Its an Arabic thing... So most of the sources here describe it as "the death march in Lydda". Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work. The only thing to clarify is whether the Arabic term and its transliteration is to be introduced.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work? Some of those are so obviously not RS, you don't even need to know Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you are going to judge websites based on how they look, trust me, there are no fancy looking Arabic websites . Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work? Some of those are so obviously not RS, you don't even need to know Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work. The only thing to clarify is whether the Arabic term and its transliteration is to be introduced.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC
Should the term "Lydda Death March" appear in bold in the first line of the lead as a significant alternative name per MOS:LEADALT?
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)