Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Foreign press reports identified?

The IDF states 'according to foreign press reports, and this is one of the reports we are relying on, the house collapsed at 8 A.M'.

Has this foreign press report relied upon by the IDF been identified yet? Herne nz 09:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If those press reporters have not been identified or come forward, shouldn't this be simply stated to reflect the accuracy of the original IDF statement? Herne nz 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Accuracy of statements? What are refering to? -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The IDF specifically claim 'according to foreign press reports ... the house collapsed at 8 A.M' I am asking why the IDF seems incapable of naming the foreign press reporters who give a different version of events from those of other eye-witnesses. Herne nz 05:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it and it was changed back later. If the IDF has a claim it can not substantiate, is it editorialising to bring this to notice? Opinions ?Herne nz
Yes. Isarig 08:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


German version of this article was deleted

The German version of this articel was deleted by the admin, as "not relevant". Therefore, I removed the inter-wiki-link--213.155.224.232 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cause of the colapse is still unclear

I removed that line from the intro since it seems to be POV. Any thoughts? This has probably been discussed before. Thanks --Tom 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The cause of the collapse is still unclear; the line is factual correct and should not be removed. We have already discuss this under Intro neutralityOmarthesecound 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be more satisfactory all round to say that "the cause of the collapse is still disputed." At least everyone can agree on that point! -- ChrisO 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes Chris, I am happy with that. Omarthesecound 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories/hoax allegations

A couple thoughts on the "conspiracy theory/hoax allegation" section.

  1. Can we all tone down the personal attacks, please? I understand that everyone's offended, but additional sharp language won't help.
  2. I'm flexible about the wording, myself, but while the allegations are still under investigation, I think there should be at least a couple lines about this topic. Is there a compromise we can reach?

Thanks, TheronJ 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention the topic. The section provides a useful jumping-off point to the 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories article. From User:Rm uk's comments, though, I would guess that he objects to even mentioning the conspiracy theories. I don't think that's a reasonable position - one may not like or agree with them, but the allegations certainly exist. We need to note that neutrally without giving undue weight to the partisan bloviators who've been making the running on the issue. -- ChrisO 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Qana airstrike wasn't in Qana

A significant point which a lot of people seem to have missed: the airstrike wasn't actually in Qana itself, but in a hamlet called al-Khuraybah about a mile away. It's mentioned in this Daily Telegraph article and the squeaky wheels over at eureferendum.com have at least made themselves useful by finding a satellite image of the place. I've added this clarification to the article. -- ChrisO 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Map appears misleading

Hi guys -- the map of the location of the rocket launch and airstrike appears misleading. The area circled is much larger than the area from where the rockets were launched. The precise location of the rocket launch -- a junction just south of the residential area -- is clearly visible in the IDF footage. I'd be interested to hear what people think before making any changes. Cheers AWN AWN2 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) File:Qana area map v2.png

Having had a look at it again, I'd agree - would you say this was more accurate? -- ChrisO 07:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup -- I think this one looks much better. Nice job! Cheers, AWN AWN2 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism in "Annan's report to the Security Council"

This whole section is basically a cut and paste job from the BreakingNews.ie article. I labeled it as such and added the necessary quotations so that it is technically not considered plagiarism. However, I think it needs more sources and perhaps a complete rewrite. --GHcool 10:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading the section again, it adds very little to the article. It is not an "Investigation into the incident," but rather a political piece of hot air given by Annan. I emphasize my original call for more sources, a complete rewrite, or (if nobody responds to this thread within a week) deletion from the article. --GHcool 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Nobody responded, so out it goes. --GHcool 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

It is widely known as Qana massacre, in many news sources& others. A search on googld shows a ratio of 7/2 for usage this title. There are neumerous articles in wikipedia with massacre in their title, so it's not strange to use this widely-know title for the article, like Ma'alot massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, and others. --Hossein.ir 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that these events were deliberate. Same goes for some massacres concerning Arab deaths in 1948 using the same language, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre and so on. This strike was accidental in the course of a war. Therefore, it's not a massacre. The use of the word is wrong and if you found it on google it's allegations of a massacre. false allegations. Amoruso 11:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Google shows that a lot of people consider this attack "not accidental". Search engines do not create contents, they only index them. --Hossein.ir 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Are we making an encyclopedia based on WP:RS or a blog? "a lot of people consider" the earth flat, so what. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems some people want to change it into a weblog, but I do not agree with them. You may know that humans moderate news sources, so it seems strange to me that you talk about weblogs. What that means? --Hossein.ir 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 qana airstrike is much more common. Amoruso 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 qana massacre : 69 results. [1]

2006 qana airstrike: 341 results. [2]

Drop 2006 as this exact title comes from wikipedia. Tell us the results. --Hossein.ir 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

if you drop 2006 you don't know what it referrs to. there's a previous qana incident in lebanon and it's also a place in Israel. it's referred to as attack / incident / bombing / accident / strike and other names. Most arab sources actually used "attack". Airstrike seems most accurate and NPOV. Note differnet uses here: [3]. you can't call such a disputed incident as massacre. For same reason the Deir Yassien massacre article should change its name regardless of use btw. If the perpetrators of avivim or maalot would say they killed people in accident or because they were used as human shields for the soldiers then it will also be disputed. Amoruso 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It may, but it seems that all the results lead to 2006 qana massacre. With google we can confine search to a period of time.--Hossein.ir 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot of difference. --Hossein.ir 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And also, it was a massacre by airstrike: 2006 qana airstrike -massacre about 137,000 over the past 3 months for 2006 qana airstrike -massacre

This one shows more exact result. --Hossein.ir 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

that only means that there were allegations of a massacre. To remain npov you can't call such an incident as massacre since massacre is a plural of murder. Obviously there was no murder here. at the most it was negligent killing. This by law definition. Amoruso 12:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Google hits are irrelevant here, because it wasn't a massacre. It wasn't a massacre by airstrike. It was just an airstrike during a war. The Google hits represent yet another cynical atttempt by people around the world to demonize Israel. 6SJ7 12:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why Wikipedia is so pro-Israel in naming articles. When Israel is killing mass of civilians, the corresponding article is not named massacre -because the title 'massacre' is said to be too POV See:2006 Qana Airstrike (50+ dead), 1996 shelling of Qana(106 killed), 2006 Shiyyah airstrike (50 dead+61 missing]], etc. If Hezbollah, Hamas or any other resistance groups are killing Israeli settlers (with much lower casualties than Israeli massacres), wikipedia enthusiastically call it massacre, like Kiryat Shmona massacre, like Ma'alot massacre, Coastal Road massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, Munich massacre, and much more. Most of this so-called massacre killed less than twenty (much more than Israel's which killed more than 50). Nielswik(talk) 04:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a simple reason for this. The reason is that in the Qana airstrike (28 Lebanese civilian casualties, not 50+) and the others you cited were done in war and with the intention of targetting combatants. The Qana airstrike was a fatal mistake on the part of Israel, but to classify it as a massacre in the same sense as the Passover massacre, in which a suicide bomber killed 30 Israeli civilian at a Passover seder would be grossly overlooking key situational factors and would result in Israel being judged by a double standard. If it makes you feel any better, the Kafr Qasim massacre is labeled as a massacre (and rightly so). --GHcool 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theory in WP:LEAD

GHcool, you reverted to include this sentence in the lead: The exact cause of the collapse and the sequence of events before, after, and during the collapse is still disputed. Please take a look at how September 11, 2001 attacks handles alternative theories. The cause of the collapse and sequence of events is only disputed in non-WP:RS, not in the mainstream media. Kosmopolis (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. "Alternative theories" should not be in the lead. I think it is safe to say that the IDF caused the Qana incedent. However, the sequence of events is disputed even in reliable sources. Personally, I believe the IDF's timeline, which is the only timeline in the article. We should certainly take out the phrase "exact cause" and I would be willing to take out the entire sentence if everyone else agrees on the NPOV nature of the IDF's timeline. --GHcool 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead is ok, now. And no, the sequence of events is not disputed in reliable sources, because nobody is able to present solid facts on this issue, and reliable sources won't indulge in speculation. Btw, regarding a combatant's POV as neutral is not particularly clever. "Neutral" and "combatant" are contradicting terms. Kosmopolis (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't mean that the IDF has a neutral POV on the issue of the Qana bombing. I said that I personally believe it to be it to be the most likely scenerio for what actually occurred. Judging by the fact that you do not seem to have an issue with the IDF's timeline as it is currently written in the article, I am inclined to think you agree with me on this point. --GHcool 04:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline section says that IDF says the airstrike caused the collapse, while we also quote IDF accusing Hezbollah of causing the collapse. Which "version" of the IDF timeline do you mean? Btw, what I believe to be most likely is irrelevant. IMO, unless there is a timeline in a reliable source which is widely agreed upon, we should omit it completely. Kosmopolis (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Funeral & fighters

I'm giving CAMERA more space here than it probably deserves in deference to the POV implications of my human outrage against this airstrike. However, I must note that (a) CAMERA has no presence in Qana or knowledge of the relevant details; (b) argues based on secondary sources; (c) bases its argument on coincidence regarding the number of fighters; (d) uses the wrong numbers based on photos of the funeral (to be fair, it relies on media accounts). Basically CAMERA says 26 civilians buried plus 3 Hezbollah fighters = 29 dead people in Qana. But photos (scroll down past the gruesome images to the funeral) show four fighters and 26 civilians = 30, no coincidence left to prove anything. In short, I doubt that they meet WP:RS for this incident, but chose to include their view as an opinion even though I think it's relevance is questionable.--Carwil 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: report vs. assert: Don't assume equaility of claim without reading the actual sources involved here. The Hezbollah description is by militia members at the funeral of their killed comrades (primary sources for the matter), on which several media sources (RS) based their report. CAMERA's claim is made without conflicting evidence at all, but soley based on the very media sources involved. Indeed CAMERA doesn't come out and say what I summarized, though it seemed dishonest not to read the implication, but asks the following series of rhetorical questions: "That explanation leaves unanswered why they were buried with the victims of the bombing, and it raises another question: If only 26 of those buried that day in Qana were civilians, why were the remaining three civilians not buried? Is it mere coincidence that number of people buried was 29–the exact number of confirmed victims? Was it coincidence that three or four of the civilians were not interred, but the same number of Hezbollah corpses were transferred to Qana?" I'm changing CAMERA's verb to "speculates" on the basis they didn't actually say it. --Carwil 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a very basic misunderstanding of WP policy here. 'You' may find CAMERA's reasoning to be unconvincing, or speculative, but on WP, we are interested in verifiability, not truth. For an editor to be engaged in an evaluation of the merits of the conflicting claims in a contested issue would be a violation of WP:NOR. As long as we have a WP:RS that claims something, that claim can and should be presented as is, without editorializing on the merits of the claim. CAMREA does not even have to explain anything. As long is it says: "we assert these fighters were killed in Qana" - we need to report that as is. The readers can then go and read the CAMERA article and decide if it makes a case for their claim or not. To present one side of the argument in the neutral term "reports", and the other side in the non-neutral "speculates", based on your personal analysis that the claims are not of equal validity is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Isarig 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
On Hezbollah: There's no OR here, just passing on the claims of two RS journo accounts that militia men identified the place of death (I'm standing down on "reports"; though a death certificate/autopsy etc. would presumably be authoritative). On CAMERA: You said
As long is it says: "we assert these fighters were killed in Qana" - we need to report that as is.
Um, they don't. My re-characterization of CAMERA's claim is based on reading their statement and descrbing it as accurately as possible. Nowhere is there even a declarative assertion, at all. --Carwil 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The OR I'm referring to is your analysis of the CAMERA claims ("(a) CAMERA has no presence in Qana or knowledge of the relevant details; (b) argues based on secondary sources; (c) bases its argument on coincidence regarding the number of fighters; (d) uses the wrong numbers based on photos of the funeral ..), which seems to have led to the statement that the 2 competing claims are not "equal", and subsequently led you to charecterize one claims as a "report" and the other claim as an "assertion". Since you have stepped down from calling the Hezbollah claim a "report", and since the CAMERA claim did not explcitly say "these men were killed in Qana", but just questioned the claim that they ween't, I'm fine with labeling it a "speculation". Isarig 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Leafleting

I heard in news reports at the time that Israel leafleted the village prior to the airstrike. If a citation can be found for this, it should be incorporated into the article. 66.109.50.135 12:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Requested move

2006 Qana airstrike → 2006 Qana massacre — The title is misleading, there many airstrikes targeting qana and the article discusses only one that results the death of dozens mainly children and women Banzoo 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Oppose - I appologize. I thought it said this was a move from "Qana airstrike" to "2006 Qana airstrike." I oppose for the same reasons given by Isarig below. --GHcool 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "massacre" is POV, and civilian casualties, while regrettable and tragic, are a part of every war, and are not typically called "massacre". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Oppose - massacre, I'm sorry to say, looks ridiculously POV, even if you believe it was true. Airstrike might be too sanitary, but massacre is worse. If you want to disambiguate, use a the year. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support 134,000 google hits for 2006 Qana massacre (result over the past year) and only 438 for airstrike. WP:GOOGLE test (and I believe other search engine test) strongly supports massacre by 300:1. I wonder why an encyclopedia don't and follow the 437 438 instead. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • support as per nom & see below  ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, causes the article title to express a POV. – Smyth\talk 18:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose this would be a serious violation of POV. Not everyone considers it a massacre and the entire event was controversial. It could turn out that it was fabricated like the supposed "Jenin massacre". Valley2city 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV. Amoruso 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV. (I don't think my !vote is needed, but it's still clear.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose POV and unjustified moral judgement, TewfikTalk 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Discussed above. Using a common name. --Hossein.ir 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support NPOV, in this case, is "massacre" because that's obviously what it was. BhaiSaab talk 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV. In any case, at least a few years would be needed for academic work to determine common English usage along the lines of WP:UE. - Evv 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Yossiea 15:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above -- ßottesiηi (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[the following was moved from the survey section --GHcool 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)] In all truth, because the other term [refering the word "massacre" as a description for the 2006 Qana airstrike] is POV. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'll be willing to bet that George W. Bush gets a fair amount of hits for fascist asshole, but does that mean it should go in one of the articles? No, because it would fail WP:NPOV. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Using word massacre is not always POV, especially When google test show that massacre is use overwhelmingly more than airstrike, and only 438 pages in the world uses the term airstrike. And look if we search for result without the word wikipedia, it lost half of its hits, and become 210 now. It means half of usage of "airstrike" comes from wikipedia or mirror sites. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The Google test is a great indicator of popularity, but an extremely poor indicator of NPOV. I'll tell you what, Nielswik. I accept changing the name of the "2006 Qana airstrike" to the "2006 Qana massacre" if and only if we change "Palestinian political violence" (365 sites without the word "wikipedia") to "Palestinian terrorism" (300,000 sites without the word "wikipedia"). --GHcool 05:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • this particular bombing is noteworthy for a reason: it killed many innocent civilians. that's why the article is here so obviously that reason goes in the title. 'massacre' is an appropriate descriptive term (look it up in a dictionary). the fact that a word or phrase annoys a few people does not make it biased, tendentious or (the in bullying term around here) 'pov'.
    • See the discussion of the word at Massacre. This is not a neutral term, and Wikipedia should not be applying it to anyone. – Smyth\talk 18:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • procedural points to GH but also everyone else: be real carefull moving stuff around in this section. & there's a talk page on the palestine article, so stick to the point here.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not advocating changing the name of any Palestine articles for the same reason I wouldn't support the changing of the name of this Qana article. I just used it to prove how the Google Test is inherantly unfair to judge NPOV. --GHcool 18:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna show you that use of the word "massacre" is not always avoided. See this. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Touche, Nielswik. You've succeeded in convincing me that although the word "massacre" is POV, it is not (nor should not) always avoided. Unlike the Google Test, this is a valid argument to support the opinion that this article should be renamed. Still, it is my opinion that it should not be changed for a variety of equally valid reasons that reasonable Wikipedians support the name change could disagree with me about. Again, Nielswik, I thank you in all sincerity for elevating and supporting your opinion logically and with a reasonable argument. --GHcool 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, that title is POV, and should be changed. But the question is now, would you be for a change on the al-aqsa article, or just this one? If you're against this one, I don't see how you could be for that one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said to Nielswik above, I am for keeping this one to say "airstrike" and also keeping the al-Aqsa articles to say "massacre." I have my reasons for this, but I don't think that this talk page would be the most appropriate place to discuss them. --GHcool 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? This one is done by israel where al-aqsa wasn't? It's a double standard, then. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If at all other usage is relevant: the suicide bombings listed at List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada are called 'massacres' because the perpetrators openly declared that their goal is to kill civilians (which they argue is justified). That would only be relevant if Israel openly declared the murder of innocents at Qana as its goal, instead of apologising and calling it an accident or mistake. TewfikTalk 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that I said more or less the same exact thing in the discussion above. --GHcool 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we stick to the point we are debating wether this article title is to change. so can those opposed please justify keeping a title that euphemisticly ignores the reason this event is notable? opinions on other titles are irrelevant, except where those titles are examples of current practise (for which one example is not enough), although it wld be better to refer to guidlines when available. those of you who dislike the term 'massacre' need to establish (by reference to quidelines, or current practice, and reliable dictionary definitions) why the descriptive term 'massacre' (roughly the killing of a number of people in cold blood, regardless of intention) is innapropriate. again, dislike of a word doesn't make it 'n-npov' & simply complaining about it because it doesn't fit your take on the matter most certainly isn't 'neutral'  ⇒ bsnowball  13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pic

Regardin emoving POV picture that serves no purpose. Pictures of dead babies is not acceptable., the presedence set in Holocaust. Picture of dead bodies are appropriate in the article when people died in the incident. --Striver 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this same child was removed from the rubble by Green Helmet Guy about a half dozen times over a several hour period. This photograph is likely staged, which makes it POV. Removing. Crockspot 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Any sources for that? It souns like OR to me. --Striver 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To crockspot:Where is your source that it was staged? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To be honest guys, this smells like trying to sanitize the event. Would you, of the pro-Israel faction, be OK with any images which depicted the deaths of Arabs? The article's imagery is already far too clean as it is. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Patstuart on pic issue. And Amoruso has to explain his reverts on talk page. But why does alternative theory appear at WP:LEAD? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 06:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How's this?

"This is in the back of an ambulance, presumably at the top of 'Stretcher Alley.' We see two Red Cross workers in again what is clearly a contrived pose. One is holding the head of the baby to the camera. Whatever else, this cannot have been a spontaneous shot. From the angle, the photographer seems to be inside the ambulance - partially at least - what is effectively private and certainly controllable space. Had the workers wished to exclude photography, they could have done so. Instead, they posed for yet another shot, and the 'snapper' willingly took it."[4]

And to answer Patstuart's question, the pro-Israel faction would be OK with any images which depicted the death of Arabs provided that the reliability of those images were not subject to debate. See Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident and 1996 shelling of Qana. --GHcool 07:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Whom are you replying to? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Blog is not RS. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
And alternative theories should not appear on lead. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Vis-a-vis Quadell's comments on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, there probably not be pictures of dead people in any event, regardless of whether they are Shia, Sunni, Druze, or Jew. TewfikTalk 07:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. WP:PROFANITY says it quite well, that images should be kept if they add something to the article. I can't think of a way an image could add more to any article, whether it's Holocuast or whatever. Patstuarttalk|edits 08:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about censorship, but about neutrality. There is a great difference between 'Holocaust and whatever.' TewfikTalk 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so the holocaust gets to have pictures, but Palestinians should not have pictures, since that would be not neutral, right? --Striver 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
{whispers in Striver's ear}Psst. Qana's in Lebanon. Palestinians weren't harmed in the Qana airstrike. --GHcool 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. My points stands though. --Striver 12:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

article about Qana is not neutral- It does not meet wiki requirements

I apollogize in advance for my english- I am portuguese.

The wikipedia article is not neutral. As everyone knows when it comes to qana there are those who believe a massacre took place and are those who believe the wholle scene was staged.

The author of the wiki article does make a reference about the latter. Let us what he does say : 

quote

"Several controversial conspiracy theories emerged in the aftermath of the attack alleging that some or all of the loss of life reported during the Qana attack was brought about by Hezbollah fighters themselves, in order to generate anti-Israel sympathy".

1- The author of the wikipedia article was not neutral. He does misrepresents what many bloggers claim.

Actually many bloggers claimed the wholle Qana massacre was staged, created.

EU referendum claims that the Qana events were staged.

They do not claim Qana attack was brought by Hizzbullah.

They claim that the wholle event was created in order to convince the world that a massacre had taken place.


The author of the wiki text does fail to accuratelly inform about that theory Shared by dozens of bloggers.

note: At the end of article I make a quote of the EU referendum theory in order to show I got it right.


2- The author of the wikipedia text does fail to mention the existence of a German Television video Footage in wich one can see a rescuer acting as a movie director.

Very conveniently that evidence ( that would strenghten the staged theory ) is forgotten.

3 - That author of the article does call the theory of the staged events (quote)"" controversial conspiracy theories".

Once again the author of the wiki text does take sides.


Conclusion : Not only the author of the text fails to acurrately report the opinion of those who believe Qana was staged.., but he hides evidence from the readers and does take sides calling the stated theory , quote : " " controversial conspiracy theories". By that token the Qana massacre should also be called controvertial since many do not believe it ever took place.

links.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284546,00.html


Note :

EU referendum does write:


(The Qana images ) " were fake. /.../

Not fake in the sense that they had been doctored - as in the infamous photographs taken by Reuters' Adnan Hajj - but in the very real sense that the scenes has been staged. They were artificial, devised entirely to create shots that the media would lap up - a grisly exercise in propaganda by a terrorist organisation which had its own agenda.".

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Blogs aren't regarded as reliable sources and we're not allowed to cite them in most circumstances. -- ChrisO 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statement

It's very likely people were buried in the building, but specifics about who they were or what they were doing there should come from reliable sources. Anynobody 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Story vs. Storey

In American English, story is used for both the narrative and the building, while storey is considered a misspelling.[5] As the article isn't about anything British, and as nothing in the article currently uses any spelling that is British English, the Manual of Style specifically states that: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." — George [talk] 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As a Brit myself, I honestly don't think it matters much. The meaning is clear enough from the context - nobody is going to interpret it as a "three narrative house". As long as confusion is avoided, that's the main point. -- ChrisO 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Another option is to use "three-floored" possibly... would that ever ben used in British English? It might be in American English, though less frequently. — George [talk] 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that formulation would be used normally. No, I'd just go with "three story" and look happy. The article has used that spelling since 2 August 2006, as near as I can tell from the history, and nobody's complained of confusion, so I can't see that the spelling makes any difference. -- ChrisO 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't care that much. I don't want to make an issue about it. I won't revert or change the spelling of storey/story anymote. --GHcool 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Aww, I didn't even get to use my "This is Sparta!" line and kick anyone though. :( Cheers anyways. — George [talk] 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Qana idf video s.jpg

Image:Qana idf video s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Qana04.jpg

Image:Qana04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

About this (and the previous) picture: the movie was apparently made or uploaded on Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:15:52 GMT
$ HEAD -USe http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/3/55363.wmv
HEAD http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/3/55363.wmv
User-Agent: lwp-request/2.07

HEAD http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/3/55363.wmv --> 200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:04:08 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
ETag: "c8ad77f414b4c61:d8b"
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Length: 1566311
Content-Type: video/x-ms-wmv
Last-Modified: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:15:52 GMT
Client-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:06:05 GMT
Client-Peer: 212.143.30.110:80
Client-Response-Num: 1
Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

human shields

regarding this reversion. The sources for the sentence that a "tactic used by Hezbollah militants throughout the war" are the following:
An unnamed editorial in the Washington Times
The Israeli MFA, a primary source
and a Catholic News Agency article that reports it as the allegations of Christian Solidarity International.
GHcool, could you please explain how these source support your version of the sentence? An editorial, a government source, and a source not reporting it as a fact are being used to support this as a statement of fact. Please provide better sourcing or leave it as an accusation as I edited it. nableezy - 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you would not mind explaining how this is not well-poisoning SYNTH to even include this coached in accusation that would be appreciated. nableezy - 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. The fact is verified by 3 reliable sources. Since Nableezy isn't satisfied with the above three reliable sources, I will gladly add the following five as well: [6][7][8][9][10]. --GHcool (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Only one of those 5 come anywhere close to verifying the sentence as a fact. The first timesonline one comes close but not quite, will explain in a second. The second source is reprinting allegations from the IDF. The third source is an IDF allegation. The fourth source is from the text of House resolution. The last source is a foreign ministry spokesman. As for the times online source. The relevant section is:

This doctrine appears to have failed. The Hezbollah guerrilla force is still intact. What the planners forgot is that Hezbollah would use hospitals, schools, apartment blocks and other civilian infrastructure as cover for its activities. Hezbollah knows that it would be suicide to fire rockets from open areas; it would be unlikely to last five minutes if it did. Using the civilian population as cover is an integral aspect of asymmetrical warfare, and it follows that innocent civilians will die in large numbers in air attacks. The attacker, in this case Israel, subsequently loses the all-important international public relations battle.

This does say that Hezbollah would use the civilian population as cover, it does not use the loaded words "human shield" to describe this and it does not say that they did use this as a tactic throughout the war. The rest of the sources are just as poor as the current ones though, so I would suggest replacing the current ones with this until better sourcing or better wording can be found. And you didn't answer why this is in the article. Is there a source bringing up Hezbollah using human shields other times in relation to this airstrike? Or is this just synthesis to advance the position of the IDF that they did use human shields here? nableezy - 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, while the source does not specifically say "throughout the war," it is heavily implied since the article is an analysis of the war as a whole. I'm sure you couldn't find a source saying that the American army used B-25 Mitchell aircrafts "throughout World War II," but any analysis of the American military during that period would lead you to that conclusion. This isn't a case of original research or synth. Its just looking at the sources and writing what they say.
Secondly, I reject the use of the loaded term "human shields" is cited to a statement by Dan Halutz. He said the words. We quoted him.
Thirdly, I see no problem with using this source, but I will also add this one to the article. --GHcool (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
GHcool, you keep bringing sources of peoples opinions. The forward.com source attributes the human shield line as follows: "Peretz, leader of the left-of-center Labor Party, made in the course of the past three weeks, saying that he had directed the Israeli military not to be deterred by Hezbollah’s use of civilians as “human shields.”". Also here: "Michael Walzer, a professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and a leading authority on morality in warfare, told the Forward that Israel’s conduct is well within the confines of international law. “From a moral perspective, Israel has mostly been fighting legitimately,” Walzer said. If Israeli commanders ever face an international tribunal, he added, “the defense lawyers will have a good case,” mainly because Hezbollah uses civilians as human shields. In several recent articles, Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz has advanced similar arguments." The sources are presenting these as opinions and accusation, you are presenting them as fact. And when you have "a tactic used by Hezbollah throughout the war" following an accusation of using human shields you are equating "a tactic" with "use of human shields". What is synth about it is you are using sources not discussing Qana to support the statement of the IDF. But I dont even care about that, the issue to me is you presenting accusations as fact. Accusations invariably sourced to sources presenting them as accusations or to editorials, or to government sources. None of these sources supports the statement of fact that Hezbollah used human shields throughout the war. nableezy - 16:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, you are confusing opinion with facts. It is not the IDF's "opinion" that Hezbollah is blending amongst civilians. It is what they have found to be true based on the available evidence. What you are trying to do is logically equivalent to saying that the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around is "just Galileo's opinion." The IDF is capable of making opinions that some disagree with (such as the opinion that Israel ought to be defended against attacks from neighboring countries), but this is not a case of opinion. This is a case of sound evidence.
The only "opinion" part of the statement is the choice to call the tactic "human shields." I am open to other suggestions for a less pov version of the same concept. Perhaps "blending among civilians" would be more appropriate? --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is what they have found to be true, it is not something a reliable secondary source found to be true. It is an accusation from the IDF. We dont say something is a fact because the IDF says so. You cannot say that Hezbollah used human shields as a fact sourced to the IDF saying so. nableezy - 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is not a "just because they say so" kind of thing. What you are saying is logically equivalent to saying "You cannot say that the Earth revolves around the Sun is a fact sourced to the Galileo saying so." The Earth revolves around the sun regardless of who said so. Galileo discovered and published his findings that the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun, but anyone could have published the same evidence provided they had the tools available for discovering it. The same goes for the IDF and their discovery and publication of Hezbollah's tragic, unforgivable use of Lebanese civilians during the war. --GHcool (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, its like you are not even trying to listen to what I am saying. Is there a reliable secondary source that says as a statement of fact Hezbollah used human shields throughout the war? The IDF, the MFA, editorials, or secondary sources reporting it as an accusation do not meet that threshold. If not, this sentence needs to be phrased as an accusation, not a fact. nableezy - 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And the earth revolving around the sun, if it were challenged, can be cited to millions of reliable secondary sources. The IDF aint Galileo and this aint something as trivial as you are making it out to be. The report also examines Israeli allegations that Hizbullah’s fighters used civilians as “human shields”. Evidence seen by Amnesty International suggests that, in some cases, Hizbullah stored Katyusha rockets within villages and fired from civilian areas. However, it is not apparent that civilians were present and used as "human shields" in the instances examined. Nor does evidence examined by Amnesty International substantiate Israeli allegations that Hizbullah prevented civilians from fleeing areas under attack.
Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack.
You need to provide a reliable secondary source supporting this statement of fact, so far you have not. nableezy - 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy's reluctance to accept that official Israeli sources are reliable is troubling, but not of great concern to Wikipedia. I have decided to change the wording of the statement in question in the article to "... a tactic that, evidence provided by the IDF suggests, was used by Hezbollah militants throughout the war" (emphasis added). --GHcool (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That is OR, you need it to say which the IDF said was a tactic. And we quote Israeli sources all the time, we dont quote them for statements of fact, but for what they say. It is a primary source, I dont see how you can argue in good faith that we should use it for statements of facts about groups it is actively engaged in fighting. nableezy - 22:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Not OR. Verified by a reliable source and cited accordingly. The fact that you personally won't accept the evidence is none of Wikipedia's concern. --GHcool (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
According to what reliable secondary source does the evidence presented by the IDF suggest that using human shield was tactic throughout the war? Again, primary government sources do not count, secondary sources presenting it as an accusation do not count. nableezy - 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
your latest source presents it as an accusation from an anti-Syrian Lebanese website. Again, not saying that this is a fact. What is wrong with wording it as an accusation? Why is that so objectionable to you? nableezy - 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more fruitful if you would be so kind as to propose a way of wording it that would be acceptable to you. I will read it with an open mind. Please post it on the talk page though rather than in the article. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the version I put in the article you reverted? "a tactic Hezbollah was accused of using throughout the war". nableezy - 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to accept something like that, but the sentence as worded is ambiguous. It could mean that the accusations were being made throughout the war; or it could mean that the accusers allege that the tactic was being used throughout the war. I would accept a statement more in line with the latter meaning. Consider this: "a tactic used throughout the war according to the IDF." --GHcool (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool with me, all I have really been asking for. Thank you. nableezy - 23:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike/Archive_5&oldid=1136312298"