" May 2011 (UTC)
I notice that this RfC is dead but SH just removed a sock's comment. I actually do think this conversation is fine staying open since there is not consensus and inclusion v not is essentially WP:FREQUENT. I did not notice NickCT's comment until now but wanted to address it since we have already gone over this but people seem to forget or have to rattle it off everytime it comes up. I for one think ""massacre"" in some form should be mentioned in the lead. Unfortunately, the assertion that it is what ""people involved call it"" is contradicted by the following:
Gaza Victory: enough said but just a reminder, it can't be a massacre and a victory can it?
""Gaza Massacre"" has been disputed as a title with the sources mirroring its forced use on Wikipedia
Hamas did not have an official name for it. This has been discussed and it is a point conceded by those in favor of inclusion. Hamas simply did not use its limited PR capabilities to clearly lay this out as their preferred title (see point 1).
But back to my point of keeping this open. I have offered two solutions. Nableezy has rejected at leas one of them. 
Include ""it has been called a massacre"". No bold. Not an alternative title. Just simply lay it out there. One editor recently provided a source calling it ""Massacre in Gaza"". It was obviously referred to as a massacre. 
or
Include every title that was verifiably used in RS at a ratio of tens of thousands to one. This could be accomplished by actually adding information in the lead about the media and its relation t this topic. This would increase the quality of the article by meeting WP:LEAD] by being an actual summary. 
I'm not going to lie, I think it is time to change the title of this article altogether.  notice that other language's Wikipedia projects refer to it as the Israeli operational name (some editors have equated this to POV even though it is a very common and accurate title) or one laying out the dates and calling it a conflict (as we used to do but it was really long). That discussion will eventually come up again and any decision here will get scuttled by it (or the opposite). But it is clear that giving prominence to a very little used and POV dripping title in the lead is not acceptable to many editors without thoughtful balancing. Two easy options are presented to you. It is my hope that the word massacre is used in the lead but how to do it is a hurdle. And add on top of that that we still don't even have a good main title and it shows that this process has been broken since day 1. Day 1 was years ago.  03:16, 28"