Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Number of deaths

Number of victims reported by Red Cross

One of the sentences at the introduction of the article says : "Lebanese sources claimed that the collapse killed at least 57, including 37 children and 12 women, and injured many others, while the Red Cross reported the evacuation of 27 bodies, of which 17 were children" . While, we have dozens of references saying that the number reported by Lebanese red cross is 56 we chose to cite the only reference reporting a different number !! Please view the following links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], all of which reporting 56 deaths counted by the red cross. I' ll revert to the previous version of this sentence. --Wedian 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted above that Hezbollah may be staging the whole thing. Think about it: the day before, in Tyre, 32 people were killed. If those bodies were transported to Qana, 32 +the 27 the RC removed from the site = 59. See here: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/07/a_tyre_for_qana.html --aishel 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that "may be" or what i or you think really counts when writing a wikipedia article. IMHO, there is no place for conspiracy theories if we're making an encylopedia here. --Wedian 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's please stick to the facts reported by reliable sources and definitely not our own theories, spins, etc. Ranieldule 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the article from the Red Cross website that says that only 28 bodies were removed from the Qana rubble. See here. I'm changing the article to reflect this data. --aishel 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited says : "At the time of writing, the Lebanese Red Cross Society and the Lebanese Civil Defense have extracted 28 bodies from the rubble, 19 of whom are children. " and dates to July 30. Since the article was a press release to express ICRC "alarm by the increasing number of civilian casualties", not to count the numbers and since it states "at the time of writing" and not the total number of deaths, I'm inclined to believe that it doesn't reflect the total number of deaths. IMO, another source should be cited or please find a more recent statement by ICRC or Lebanese red cross reporting the total numberof deaths and injuries.--Wedian 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wedian above. Besides, here are some other articles reporting that the Lebanese Red Cross has confirmed the count to be 56 dead, including 34 children. I recommend we stick to the widely accepted figure until reports to the contrary come up. --Bluerain (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They are also from the 30th of July, aren't they? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So? You would report one article stating 28 dead, rather than all the other ones that say 54 dead? And the article you talk about clearly states "at the time of writing...", whereas the other ones state confirmation of 54 dead. --Bluerain (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So if article doesn't have such a clause it means that the author is get hold of final truth?-- tasc ^words_deeds 09:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Bluerain (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go by the Red Cross numbers. The media gets their numbers from the Lebanese people who are there, but its the red cross that is actually pulling out the bodies. And they have only pulled out 28 bodies. --aishel 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ICRC number of 28 is from July 30 [6]. But I have just searched their site and they have not updated the number[7].--SVTCobra 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz and selective quoting

The Haaretz article used as a source explicitly states that "more boddies are expected". Accordingly I think the "28 bodies" thing is misleading as it is selectively quoted, I am modifying to fit the actual source. Please be careful not to quote sources out of context.--Cerejota 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

presumably with more bodies yet to be found. Did you miss that part? -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Google news says: "2,140 for 37 killed lebanon." Even Haaretz says (yesterday) "Olmert also expressed regret for Sunday's attack in Qana in which 56 people, including 37 children, were killed." ^[8] El_C 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is, 28 bodies refers to the first day — that is the selective, misleading quote. El_C 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most news reporting 27-28 dead, not 50+

"A preliminary Human Rights Watch investigation into the July 30 Israeli air strike in Qana found that 28 people are confirmed dead thus far, among them 16 children, Human Rights Watch said today."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/c934b8a94f226d3ab6461928c606cb65.htm

--Bingman06 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Most news, or most reliable news?

BBC says "57" [9]

CNN says "more than 60" [10]

Der Spiegel says "at least 56" [11]

Should I continue? --Jaysweet 22:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been hearing 54 or 57 from most sources, but they've found 28 bodies. --¡Viva la Revolución! PiMaster3 ^talk 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

HRW are on the ground and recovery efforts have stopped. 13 people are still missing feared buried in rubble. Dont think there is heavy lifting equipment there except UN because it either get bombed or went north to escape bombing- was same in Tyre. 28 is not going to be the final figure but they may not get that final figure confirmed anytime soon. Report is here Jaysweet with explanation for the discrepancy in figures: [12] I did post the same detail just above Bingman06.82.29.227.171 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, news.com.au (one of Australia's biggest news groups) has 28, reuters news India has the same.

I think an independant human rights group, which explains its methodology and why the previous count was innacurate is more relaible than the Lebanese government estimates. --Iorek85 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, I believe I also read a routers article stating 28 (though I dont have a link to confirm). Either way, this is an encyclopedia. We should publish facts, not speculation as to how many "may" be there. If 28 are found, write at least 28. --Bingman06 00:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated. --Iorek85 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good Iorek. Also, Bingman, my apologies for the glib tone in my initial response to you. So many people have been coming on this page with an agenda, that when someone wanted the death toll adjusted (regardless of whether it was up or down) I just assumed you must have had an ax to grind. That was wrong of me, my apologies. You were totally right to point out the inaccuracy. --Jaysweet 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to the good update. --aishel 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia frontpage still displays "at least 57", this is outdated now. gbrandt 06:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to widely reflect the figure reported by the media (which was initially 50+) as well as the Human Rights Watch count of 28. Citing only the HRW figure with a detailed explanation debunking the earlier figure (especially in the intro) made it look kinda suspicious. --Bluerain (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Haaretz "Livni" Article

I have removed the reference to the Haaretz "Livni" article on the basis that while it discusses IDF pronouncements on Qana, it does not accord to the IDF announcements. The IDF did not claim that

• Hizbullah used the building in question to launch rockets; or
• Hizbullah operatives were in the building at the time it was struck.

The IDF claimed that

• Hizbullah fired rockets from Qana; and
• Hizbullah stored rockets and rocket-launchers in the village.

Apparently, the IDF was targeting a nearby building in the airstrike, and the concussion from the airstrike and/or ordinance stored in the building in question may have affected the building's structure.

For more info, see the IDF page on Qana: http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55356.EN

Cheers AWN AWN2 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The deleted text reads:

However, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 1 August, "questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident. It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time."Livni: Qana attack led to turning point in support for Israel, Haaretz,1 August 2006

The Haaretz questioning of the Israeli Army accounts may be valid, considering the video released by the Israeli Army was old. The presence of Hezbollah at the site at the time of the bombing is an important question. Do you have a link to the article you deleted? --Piquin 19:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Piquin

But ass backward speculation about the timing of the building collapse from Ynet is okay? The source in the article comes out and says, basically, that he's full of shit.

Hi guys. I have added the link to the Haaretz article I deleted. I think both the Haaretz and YNet articles may be a little deficient, which is why I have stuck with the IDF statement. Cheers AWN AWN2 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz has excellent sources within the IDF and information reported from those channels is worthy of notice. It can be wrong, but so can any reports and that's why we have make it clear where the information comes from. We should not delete it just because it contradicts IDF official statements. --Zero^talk 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are extracts from the Hebrew version of the article [13], which (as often) is more detailed.
"(Heading:)IDF had no information on Hizbollah people in Qana, and no launching of Katyushas were spotted from the bombed house's yard. (By Yoav Stern and Amos Harel). There was a decision to attack houses at a certain radius from a place that had been used for launching in the past [...] The house was chosen as target because in the past Katyushas had been launched not far from it, and the air force decided to attack several houses at a certain radius from the launching location, as in other launching locations too. At the day of the strike, no launchings from Qana were spotted. [...] Military sources added that the warning flyers scattered by the air force to the villagers demanding them to leave the place were spread a few days prior to the bombing and not on the weekend. The sources admitted that the IDF has no reliable way to find out whether civilians remained in the villages, and that possibly more civilians stay in shelters in villages considered abandoned."
The practice of destroying all buildings within a certain radius of rocket launchings was also reported on Israeli TV (channel 10) on July 31. --Zero^talk 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a proof to that ? Why other Qana buildings remained ? IDF clearly mention that destroyed two homes in QAna that night: the building in question and one 460 meters from it. All other buildings were not bombed. Zeq 11:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to 1996 Qana Shelling

It seems to me the article should more prominently refer to the similarities to the 1996 incident. It does link to it in the "Other Conflicts" section, but I think some text discussing the similarities might be appropriate. This article from the BBC might be a good jumping off point. In particular, I think that highlighting how the strategic importance of Qana played into both tragedies (BBC says: "The town lies at the northern edge of the Lebanon's southern uplands which border Israel and at the confluence of the five main roads running south-east of the southern city of Tyre.") would be a very NPOV way of helping people to understand why history is repeating itself.

If nobody objects to this before then, I'll probably try to write something up later this afternoon. --Jaysweet 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The similarities are of historical importance. Good linked article, too.

--Piquin 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Welp, I exercised good faith and proposed what I knew would be a controversial section on the Talk page before creating it. I waited several hours to see what people thought, and got only a positive comment. It has now been removed twice by people who have refused to justify themselves on the Talk page, but used a decieving description tag that made it sound like they were removing vandalism. I give up. If Wikipedians in this neck of the woods aren't interested in using the Talk page to justify their changes, then there really is no point, is there? The only success this sad little article has had is that it has consistently maintained that a) a few insane bloggers are getting way more credit than they deserve, and b) the death toll is somewhere between zero and a thousand. Great job, POV extremists! --Jaysweet 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why remove Reactions

Why was the reaction section moved to another page? It looks like people are going one way with the reactions (qualifying it with '...condemnation of Israel... most strongly by Arab countries...') or the other (Human rights calls it a war crime).

The truth of the matter is that there exists a wide variety of reactions including: acusations that Israel is attackign civillians, that Hizbullah is responsible, that both sides are disregarding laws of war, that it was a tragic mistake by IDF, etc. These reactions not only shed light on the event but often also on the character of the organizations making them. I suggest that we live this in the main article. Arnob 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard any arguments about why it should not be put back in. Thus acting accordingly. Arnob 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor who authored the section and added the vast majority of countries to it. I knew even in the first few hours that I'll end up moving it to a subarticle, since, even then, it was too disporportionately lengthy, taking up the majority of text in the article. I just wanted to see it stabalize a bit. Then today, once fixing the many ref errors in it, I went on and moved it. I stand by that decision. El_C 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By removing it from the main page, you allow POVed editors to hijack the page and only highlight those reactions which support their stance, banking on readers not to read the International Reaction article. The page need not list every country/organization, but it should list some.Arnob 02:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The full section was just as problematic, in that sense, so might as well enjoy the utility of that. I've heard no complaints when I created 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties timeline (Well, except from my complaint that it should'nt exist, but that's due to wholly different considerations!). NPOV will have to be enforced regardless, in that section, the entire article, and elsewhere. El_C 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Arnob while I agree that this article is being visited by suspect editors with an obvious agenda to push I think it was probably just moved for innocent reasons El_C gave. The reactions were immediate reactions and most likely if they werent given a sub article they would have eventually been removed from here as 'out of date' or whatever. 82.29.227.171 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the reactions cannot be included in this page. It isn't necessary to list the official statement of every single country, group or organisation. Besides, there has been sharp international reaction to this issue, so even if it does take a majority of space in this article, its justified. --Bluerain (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Conciseness of introduction

I think the last two sentences of the intro should be moved to a more relevant section.

"The event was reminiscent of a 1996 incident in which over 100 civilians died."

There is already a section on the similarities with 1996. It adds unnecessary bloat to the intro.

"According to the IDF, at least seven hours after the strike, an apartment building collapsed, burying a large group of civilians taking shelter in its basement."

The above sentence is redundant as there already is a substantial section regarding the IDF time-line and also the Israeli position. It seems that the only purpose it serves in the intro is to lend weight to the one POV.

Just want to see what others may think before I go ahead and make the edits. --8303JFA 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This article in other languages

Try reading this article in Spanish or French and you see a strong pov, just the title says it all, "Masacre en Qana". I wonder how often an article may be balanced in one language but totally POV in another.

The POV is very much with this article. I've also been looking at the other languages, and it appears that the massacre is called a massacre in Bosnian, French and Spanish. Dutch, German and Norwegian use some mealy-mouthed expression like we do here. Arabic, Persian and Japanese I'm unsure of, but if two or all of them call it a massacre that puts us in a minority. There is no reason not to use the word massacre in an article title when that is what has occurred: to do otherwise endorses an Israeli POV. We have a list of massacres which links to many articles that are named as such. I recommend moving this article to 2006 Qana massacre. Terminal emulator 12:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wikiality: if enough people think it's true, it must be true. If enough languages call it a massacre, then it must be a massacre. I think we should appeal to the facts instead of some kind of pseudo-vote based on other-language wikipedias!

Do you have any proves that collapsing was caused by Israeli airstrike? -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm merely reporting on the situation around the various language editions of Wikipedia. Terminal emulator 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any single reason to move article to proposed location. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the original writer's point is the English article is more balanced than the Spanish one. The sad truth of wikipedia is content becomes politicized too easily and it becomes some sort of DailyKos forum.

Actually what makes this article pro-Israeli is not the fact that other wikipedias already name the event massacre but the fact that the majority of world view says so. It is a massacre. How else can u call it? The title should be changed to Qana massacre. I hope wikipedia does it. Its sad watching a site as english wikipedia adopting the terminology of Fox-news.And its sad reading that there r people in this world who have viewed the dead bodies of the Qana babies but still insist on playing their political games in here. We all know the facts. We all (even those who support israel in this war) know that the building was chosen in purpose and that israeli army does not hesitate murdering hundrends of civilians. Wikipedia should not play that game. The important is to recognize the facts now, not after Qana massacre repeats itself.213.5.23.31 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

{pov} tag is vandalism???

I am very confused by the description attached to this edit [14]. (Sorry, I haven't figured out how to properly link to an edit, only how to do it with an external link). --Jaysweet 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

pov tag reads - talk page. Preferably topic should be started by those putting tag. Some weird IP cannot come and start labling article w/o justification. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

and btw, what is disputed in the article? hoax section? why than we need two template? -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the hoax section is disputed. Some believe (and I tend to agree) that having one of the ToC entries be "Allegations of a Hoax" in and of itself makes the article POV. Even the ToC is giving much more prominence to an extreme pro-Israeli POV. Therefore, I think the neutrality is disputed.

In any case, I don't see how you can call a {pov} tag vandalism. Saying "removed pov tag" might be appropriate, but.. well, I don't want to go slinging accusations, but when you describe it as "rm vandalism," it seems like you are trying to conceal the nature of your edits. That's the impression I got, at least... --Jaysweet 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

IP has 2 edits, one one this talk page and another - putting tag. Any edit which is not leading to improvement of an article can be considered vandalism. IP didn't give any summary for his edit. It seems that you're looking for my faults and not in a problem itself. The reasons for 'toc pov' is so ridiculous that i'm not going even to notice it. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to highlight that I have responded to each of your points very carefully, and that you have willfully ignored some of my points. I should also point out that the pov tag has been added several times over the history of this article, not just by the IP you mentioned, but by several people who can see the obvious dispute taking place in this 90 kilobytes of talk. Each time it has been removed by someone who supports the hoax allegations section and wants to downplay the number of casualties. Also, it was re-added just now, not by a random IP, but by someone with the username Jaysweet who justifies all of his changes in the Talk page (unlike other people we might mention). Regardless of all this, I can see from the many accusations against you on your User Talk page that you will win any revert war, so I surrender. There will be no pov tag. --Jaysweet 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll need a POV tag soon if IP 71.139.180.56 keeps going. He/she removed the photo because of "emotional taint" and shifted the introduction towards a POV stance of justification - instead of NPOV statement of the airstrike. Ranieldule 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV in favour of Israel

"The airstrike came after Hezbollah soldiers fired over 150 Katyusha rockets in a two week period from the village into Israel. " The words according to the IDF or something to that effect should be added to this statement. Even from the video footage released by Israel it is almost impossible to tell if that indeed is Qana or the same apt building. The point is that we should not be taking a governments word forr anything.

The rest of this article is also VERY POV in favor of israel's point of view. I have come to expect this of wikipedia articles at this point, which is sad.

I added a POV tag for the conspiracy theory and agree with you- the timeline from the initial reports was not filled in. Now, after IDF statement report to Halutz & Peretz findings arrives its entirely different. 82.29.227.171 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag because it is clearly stated that the Hoax is only allegations Omarthesecound 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As mere allegations, demonstrated above to be nothing more than black propaganda, they should be shunted off to their own article. This is the case with the 911 allegations. Its a POV to attach them to this article which is concerned with facts. 82.29.227.171 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"The airstrike came after Hezbollah soldiers fired over 150 Katyusha rockets in a two week period from the village into Israel." Is there any citation for this? And even if there is, this should come under the 'Position of Israel' section. In the intro, its highly POV, especially without any references. --Bluerain (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bluerain, you are absolutely right, and in fact that allegation has been removed from the intro several times due to its blatant POV. The intro to an article is not the time for justification (put it in the Reactions from Israel section), it is the time to only state the basic facts of the incident, without commentary or background. I have to go to work now, but if somebody wants to scour the history, I think someone is being a naughty Wikipedian by continously re-adding that blatant POV violation... WP:3RR perhaps? --Jaysweet 14:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Though in fairness, the reference to the similarities to the 1996 Qana shelling don't belong in the intro either. I actually had a separate section for that aspect (before it was deleted, twice, without either prior or subsequent justification). Anyway, I'm going to move both comments to a different section right now. --Jaysweet 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You can help reach consensus on POV tag

Okay, fellas, it's time to stop with the junior-high style revert wars and reach a concensus on the {pov} tag. It has been added several times, and each time it has been deleted within minutes -- though I do not see a clear concensus against it. Frankly, I do not think the people removing the tag have been adhering to WP:AGF, but that is only my opinion.

The important thing now is that we establish a concensus on the Talk page rather than via a revert war. So let's all keep a level head, state your opinions politely and clearly, and let's get something decided.

I think a POV tag should be included. Here is my reasoning:

• Although we have finally reached somewhat of a compromise on the Hoax section, I know there are still many people who are uncomfortable with its presence at all. And although tasc insulted me for saying so, I still think the presence of "HOAX" taking up 10% of the table of contents represents a disproportionate endorsement of the Hoax theory, even if the section only mentions the allegations. Again, I'm ultimately comfortable with the current compromise, but many serious editors are not. That means "disputed."

• The Livni article regarding what the IDF knew and didn't know... I'm not sure I trust that article either, but a lot of serious editors here have been pushing for its inclusion. Again, that's pretty much the definition of "disputed."

• Many, many, many people (including myself) have had apparently legitimate content deleted from this article with no justification on the Talk page. I finally gave up on it, after all of the comments on the Talk page for my added section were positive, and those blanking it refused to even acknowledge my existence. Wouldn't you call that a "dispute"?

• The casualty numbers have been swinging by 2x every 12 hours or so. Some of that is due to new information coming in, but certainly with an issue this emotionally charged, that is exascerbating the issue.

• There is a very subtle sort of vandalism taking place on this article where people pushing a certain agenda will make edits that are well-written and sometimes even sourced, but which are clearly pushing an extreme POV. More often than not they get reverted, but it sometimes takes several hours for the POV vandalism to be caught, because it is well-written and subtle. This means that at any given point, there's a 50/50 shot the article has been polluted with a POV and hasn't been cleaned yet.

For all these reasons, I vote for a pov tag. Would others like to please offer their opinions so we can reach concensus, rather than have a Revertocalypse? --Jaysweet 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote agains a POV as both sides point of view is clearly stated. Omarthesecound 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3) There is a category for disputed articles other than the POV tag.

4) Rapidly changing information goes with being a “current event” article, not a POV.

5) If you think widespread vandalism is going on, wouldn't a call for a partial protection be more correct than a POV? Rune X2 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The "rapidly changing" only really applies to my point about the casualty numbers. But I'd definitely be cool with partial-protection as well. Rune X2, do you have any suggestions for other "disputed" tags besides POV?

Incidentally, although I do support a pov tag, I don't feel that strongly about it; I'm just really sick of it appearing and disappearing without discussion. Very glad to see it (and alternatives) being discussed finally! :) :) --Jaysweet 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a POV tag. It seems almost de rigeur for controversial topics like this to get one. Korny O'Near 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For POV tag. Favour the hoax section being moved to its own article as its really just insubstantial froth. Isnt practical to dissect it here as it will dominate a serious article dealing with facts. Favour protection, this article has been targeted by giyus merchants since day 1. 82.29.227.171 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also voting for POV tag per Jaysweet. Now, i feel again that the current version of the hoax theory is POV pushing. The very long sentence at the beginning of the section "Some commentators have alleged that some or all of the loss of life reported during the Qana attack was either faked (by planting previously-killed corpses) or done by Hezbollah fighters themselves, in order to generate anti-Israel sympathy. Evidence cited for this claim includes conflicting reports about the time and nature of the incident, a Lebanese news website that claimed Hezbollah had destroyed the building, and a large banner protesting the incident that appeared suspiciously soon afterwards." has no reliable reference. Besides, it refers to some -proisrael jewish and conservative- bloggers as commentators!!. The article is again citing unreliable resources : a blog and a Lebanese website. The whole section is very long for some rumors -as the IAF itself said-. I'm also very concerned about the continuous POV pushing by some prticular users--Wedian 15:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So far we are 4-2 in favor of {pov}, but I'd still like to hear from more users. Also, Rune X2, I am still interested to hear suggestions from you for other disputed tags besides pov...

Also, another alternative: If the hoax section is moved to a separate article, as 82.29.227.171 suggests, I for one would be less inclined to add the {pov} tag to this one. The prominence of the hoax section -- even if that section gets its own 'disputed' tag -- is the factor that bothers me the most. It is not my only issue, but it is my biggest issue. --Jaysweet 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote in favor of keeping the {pov} tag until I see clear statements from 85% of contributors that 'their side' is adequately represented (or for those not favoring a side, that "both sides" are adequately represented). In particular, readers should be able to see at a glance what the various sides are saying about the Facts (what happened) and the Interpretation (e.g., who's to blame). --Uncle Ed 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote againt a POV. Both sides are adequately repesented. 196.207.36.249 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hesitant to name names, but I invite people to look at the Contributions of those who have removed the {pov} tag in the past. Several different users have removed it, that is true, but it is worth noting that if you look at their edits, all of those users are clearly pro-Israeli. If the article was truly unbiassed, I would assume that a roughly equal balance of pro-Israeli and pro-Lebanese editors would be opposing the pov tag.... --Jaysweet 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaysweet, are you a pro-Israeli and pro-Lebanese editor? 196.207.38.33 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question :) I would invite people to look at my contribs and decide for themselves whether or not I have a bias. I would like to consider myself unbiased in regards to this conflict -- but wouldn't everyone like to consider themselves unbiased? ;D Admittedly, though, I have been appalled at the behavior of a handful of pro-Israeli editors over the last 48 hours, and this may taint my opinion somewhat. This is why I am being very cautious about any edits I make to this page. I do not want my frustration at a couple of bad-faith editors[15] to cause me to make unhelpful/destructive edits. --Jaysweet 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaysweet, I think you might be in violation of the assume good faith policy WP:FAITH. Kindly be carfull. Omarthesecound 16:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry, Rune X2 seems to be fairly unbiased, and he seems to oppose it, so I am wrong. Still... most of the anti-POV sentiment has been from pro-Israeli editors. --Jaysweet 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we still taking tally? I'm for a POV, I think from this talk page it's fairly obvious it's needed... TJ0513 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest tally is 6-3 in favor. I'd rather it be more unanimous than that, but we may not have a choice... --Jaysweet 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article, and it seems fair and balanced. No POV needed. Awsert 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for a pov tag and a fairly major rewrite - this article, as it stands, reads like little more than pro-Israel propaganda. A rough word count I just performed showed around 600 words of vaguely-neutral text, 78 words describing the "Position of Lebanon" and over 1000 words detailing the Israeli POV, which included the IDF's version of events, some very lengthy (and clearly pro-Israel) quotes from "Meet the Press" and some 220-odd words about tin foil hat conspiracy theories which cite minor fringe sources (Surely such bizarre claims as '"a source" has told it that Hezbollah had arranged the disaster by keeping disabled children there in Qana and then launch rockets to provoke an Israeli attack' should demand a more authoritative source than "A French-language Christian Lebanese website"?). This article is about as far from NPOV as it's possible to get at present. Jacob 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my POV vote, the article has actually grown significantly more POV in the last quarter-day than when I previously voted. I think it is summed up nicely above.TJ0513 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lets see:

1. The intro, in the very first line provides Israel's justification of the incident, only later descrbing the actual incident (which is what the intro is about in the first place). You also have a link to 'conspiracy theories' which have supposedly caused "considerable controversy".
2. The Position of Lebanon is 4-5 lines, with the Postion of Israel being more than 10 times if you include the IDF investigation, plus the additional quote by Dan Gillerman (which is more Israeli position than International reaction) as well as the Hoax section (rumours started by pro-Israel bloggers), which among its references cites Arutz 7, Jerusalem Post, israelinsider.com, all Israeli media sources, plus some French site that could hardly be called mainstream media. It also confuses the fact that 'staged photos' are not the same as 'staged building collapses'.
3. The Reaction part doesn't reflect the sharp international criticism of the incident, while giving an entire quote to a correspondent who talks about Hizbollah tattoos and flags in the village.
4. The questions raised over the IDF military account, cites only one newspaper raising the questions; you could also argue over the need for citing similarities to Qana 1996.
5. There's also a lot of subtle pov in the way some sentences have been framed...

Clearly, this article can hardly be called 'neutral'. --Bluerain (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I think the article in very neutral, I vote against a POV. 196.207.36.59 08:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm re-adding the {pov} tag. The majority seems to want it, and only one person presented an argument against (the rest of those opposed just simply asserted their position and did not justify it). In addition, I continue to invite others to compare the past contribs of those who voted "for" vs. those who voted "against" and tell me you don't notice a trend...

So the tag's going back up. Now taking bets until how long it is until the tag is removed and I am accused of propaganda and/or vandalism. ;) --Jaysweet 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the tag so it links to this section. --Uncle Ed 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wiki formatting, so I need a little prodding and helping now and again :) Also, I noticed TheronJ made the same change around the same time -- so many thanks to both of you!! :) --Jaysweet 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, by my count the final tally was 8-5. I'd rather it had been more unanimous than that, but I don't think that's going to happen. However, I think our very failure to reach concensus over whether there should even be a {pov} tag is in and of itself yet another argument in favor of its inclusion :) :) --Jaysweet 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the article has pov problems as written. (1) The "hoax" stuff is gone. Even if it weren't, I agree that the hoax allegations are not notable, but even so, I don't see how saying "some people alleged a hoax, but reliable accounts discredited them" contributes to NPOV. (2) The focus on the number of words in the "reaction of Lebannon" vs "reaction of Israel" isn't, IMHO, helpful to POV analysis. First, if you moved the "time line of the IDF" out of the Israel section and grouped in in a "time lines" section with "time line of witnesses", or moved "time line of witnesses", most of the disparity would be cured. Second, if there's relevant information that's being kept out of the "Reaction of Lebannon" section, that's a problem. If not, it's the encyclopedia's job to report all relevant info. Thanks, TheronJ 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Theron -- Your edits just now were a major improvement, and you did address my largest concern, which was to move the hoax allegations to a paragraph under "Reactions" rather than dignifying it with its own section. If that were the state of the article right now, I might consider changing my vote to "against {pov} tag."

However, please note that your edits have already been mostly reverted :) I think this article has approached NPOV at times, but I think over the last 72 hours it has spent more time in a state that is biased than not. --Jaysweet 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All the various "theories" now appear here 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories please keep them away from this article which is dealing with fact. Thanks. 82.29.227.171 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry, it was Jacob who did the good edits. Also, 82.29.227.171 has now moved the hoax to a whole separate section. The article is much better than it was twenty minutes ago.

I would change my vote to "against {pov} tag" if I believed the article could stay this way for more than an hour ;) --Jaysweet 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. *smile* I've also added a link in the newly revised "Reactions" section to the new conspiracy theories page, which hopefully might avoid having the hoaxes dumped back into the main text again. I agree with Theoron's note about consolidating the timelines sections, but I can't see a simple way to do so without blurring the Lebanon/Hizbullah distinction Jacob 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt move any hoax stuff I think Jacob integrated it. The hoax article was something I wrote myself after reading the various theories, im sure I missed out some. Just added 'explanations for hoax theories' after reading this article tearing them to pieces [16] 82.29.227.171 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The current version ([17]) seems to have moved sufficiently towards NPOV now to remove the pov tag. Hopefully it will stay that way. Jacob 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. And, it has been surprisingly stable over the last couple of hours! I change my vote to "remove pov tag." In fact, the article has changed so much, I think you oughtta just go ahead and do it... --Jaysweet 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Too quick. Let it stay up for at least a day, to give everyone who was a party to the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute time to check in. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)\

It has been a week; Think we can now remove. Omarthesecound 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on WP:EL External Links and WP:V news service photographs

There has been a concerted, persistent effort to delete relevant information from pages related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, especially by tasc. This is under mediation. Please see here1 and here2. Please discuss here or at the mediation pages before deleting relevant information from this page. AdamKesher 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam -- it turns out I had already read your mediations before this, because I've been having troubles with some of the same users (see above). However, my understanding of the concensus of the mediations was that a few external links were okay, but that victim photos were not okay? --Jaysweet 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There has not yet been mediation on the photographs. This discussion is about a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). I would expect that images appropriate for CNN should at least be under consideration as appropriate for Wikipedia. I welcome alternative suggestions for photos representing the 2006 Qana airstrike, but given the nature of this incident, I believe that it would be difficult to find a better one. AdamKesher 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's deleted yet, so maybe it is okay... I tend to think those sorts of photos are a little manipulative, but I don't object strongly. --Jaysweet 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The focus of this particular airstrike in Qana, as far as mainstream media, is the death of the children so the picture fits, for now. If anyone were to find a broad-view of Qana itself, especially showing the entirety of the building involved, that would be the perfect choice. Ranieldule 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are people that would say that not having photographs of what actually happened is manipulative. As I understand the spirit here, present the facts in an NPOV way and let them speak for themselves. AdamKesher 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am just inherently biased against victim photos -- I don't like when CNN.com does that sort of stuff either! ;) Okay, I won't object to it.

On a side note, I must say it is worth checking those mediation pages that Adam referred to. Although I don't agree with all of Adam's controversial edits, some of the tactics employed by the other side are downright shameful (e.g. attacking the meditator when the compromise isn't turning out to be what they wanted). --Jaysweet 20:34, 2 August 2006

If there could be a required reading list for editing 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict sister pages like this one, I would say it should be those mediation pages. Only through diligence and cooperation are we going to succeed in our Wikideavors. Ranieldule 20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag -- as you can see here, the concensus seems to be in favor of including the picture. I'm not going to revert you, but someone else probably will. --Jaysweet 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding pictures of victims adds an emotional taint to the article. We are trying to make a neutral assessment of the situation, but adding these pictures ruins it completely. Guy Montag 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, though as Adam pointed out, similar photos have been used by reputable news sources like CNN. (I don't approve of CNN using them either! :) )

I'd love to see a more "neutral" photo, e.g. as Ranieldule suggested, one that shows a wide view of the destroyed building, but without intentionally manipulative content like a dead little girl. I dunno where to go about finding non-copyrighted photos, though... --Jaysweet 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a pretty fresh event. I suggest we wait or perhaps link to google map of the area. Thank God that wikipedia is not CNN. I think we have standards, and we shouldn't use inferior pictures just because they are available. Guy Montag 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy -- while I've got your attention, let me ask about the "blamed for" vs. "cause" the collapse of the building edit... You are not the first to make that edit (though you do seem to be the first person who made that edit and who is also willing to discuss things rationally on the talk page ;) ), yet I find that edit sort of puzzling. Despite the few scattered bloggers who are alleging that this is a hoax, is anyone seriously entertaining that the collapse might have had another cause? Like the building was poorly constructed, and it just coincidentally failed an hour or so after an airstrike hit it, but was totally unrelated? heh.... I dunno, it just seems like a strange thing to quibble about... --Jaysweet 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am going off the fact that there is a controversy regarding when the building collapsed. The Hezbollah supporting villagers state that it fell immediately, the IDF believe it fell 7 hours later from a dud ordinance going off. What is the truth? Can we really say the IDF collapsed the building when they don't even know? I like to keep things non definitive in current even articles. As always, my solution is to wait until we have definitive information.

Guy Montag 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)