Talk:Qana massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:1996 shelling of Qana)


May05, from a tactical point of view it is really not a good idea to put that image here, because the many Israel sympathizers here may add pictures of bus-bombings and so on in retaliation, and this is not want we want. I suggest a compromise: simply provide a link to the pictures at the bottom for people to follow if they want. Ok? -- Viajero 17:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I understand and accept your compromise. You know I'm new in here, and needed a little time to know how a truce is made in here :) Sorry for any inconveniences. Regards, May05 23:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Overall Bias in wikipedia[edit]

Its just getting tiring to see every military operation by Israel being detailed repetedly in wikipedia as if this resource is being turned into a megaphone for Islamists fundementalists and anti-semites worldwide.

If every terrorist event in Israel, and every anti-semitic genocidial death of Jews in the Middle East had received this much space then you would need a few more blade servers just to cover them all.

This whole page needs to go. At best, this "topic" should have been a sub papragraph under the Lebanese-Israeli war, 50 words at best. If they want this much detail, let them read the origianal first hand accounts in the NY Times.

Ruben Safir

I agree with Mr. Safir above. The whole encylopedia has the wrong approach.

Its just getting tiring to see every internal domestic policy of nazi germany being detailed repeatedly in wikipedia. The holocaust should be a 50 word sub paragraph underneath the 'world war 2' article. --Irongaard 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum aside, this article clearly meets standards of notability and describes an extraordinary occurrence with serious repercussions. It definitely deserves an article, just as lesser casualty Islamist attacks on Gilad Shalit, Jerusalem city buses and London commuters have them.--Carwil 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you Zionists for proving my point above about the pro-Israeli bias in wikipedia! Thanks... really, did all my work for me. When you get your head checked and realise you can't cover up deliberate massacres forever, come back to Wikipedia & contribute constructively. Thanks ;) Gamer112 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Fisk paragraph[edit]

I removed the following paragraphs from the article:

Robert Fisk, a British journalist for The Independent was among the first to arrive there. He wrote:
It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head [...] A French UN trooper muttered oaths to himself as he opened a bag in which he was dropping feet, fingers, pieces of people's arms.

This does not add any information of encyclopedic value to the article, and was just included to stir emotions. There is no dispute that an artillery shelling of unprotected people has terrible results - and there is no need to go into the graphic details, either by means of pictures or a verbal description.

Also, Fisk is hardly an NPOV source - he is known for his anti-Israeli writings. I kept the link to his full article in the "links" section in the bottom, together with other accounts of the events.

-- uriber 13:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, uriber. before you made this change, I had added a clause about Fisk being known for, among other things, his anti-Israeli writing, which Zero reverted. However, I think you gave in turn too much space to quotes from Israel's denial of intent; better to let the documents speak for themselves. +sj+ 13:47, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

If the eyewitness description does not account then what does?. Isn't the aim of any source of knowledge (encyclopedia, research,...) to reaveal the truth and make an image in the mind?? That's why the eyewitness is an important factor, if not the most important, in any legal investigation. If one word from the quotation is wrong then I agree to change, but simply it is the truth. And changing the article that way is hardly an NPOV!!! And tell me, what is more neutral to write down what I've seen myself or what a journalist saw??! STOP DISTORTING THE TRUTH. May05 18:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The eyewitness testimony of carnage is indeed part of the truth, however in an encyclopedia article like this it is inappropriate. So I support its removal. Something else that should be added is the story about the unmaned observation drone which Israel had in the area during the shelling. Another possibility (which I have two minds about) is the interview published in Kol Ha'ir with people from the unit that did the shelling. "A few arabushim die, there is no harm in that" (etc). As for Fisk, the "stupid" comment I removed was indeed stupid but the reason for removing it was that it was just the POV of the writer inserted into the article contrary to how we are supposed to write articles. The reason Fisk gets such slurs is that he writes about things like Qana. Anyone who actually follows his work over time will know that he is constantly criticising Arab governments as well. --Zero 00:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to slur Fisk -- he's a good journalist, not afraid to speak his mind, and he goes where reporters need to be. He is highly decorated for good reason. But he is biased, as almost all journalists are; he does have an agenda that he feels it is right to promote, and (in contrast with, say, a UN commentator) I wouldn't look to him for an even-handed report of an Arab-Israeli clash. +sj+ 01:24, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

And there isn't too much to gain from posting interviews with assholes; after every attack you can find such people on the side who issued the attack saying "I'm glad we attacked; they're scum; all [insert group here] are dogs who don't deserve to live". I'm just as happy leaving those bits out of reports on individual events, confining them to reports on the overall conflict. +sj+ 01:24, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
I'm sure fisk's comment should be included, as we don't have eye witness' testimony here

I cannot see why Fisk report has been removed. It is clearly an eye witness account. It should be posted on the article so people know what happened.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed for the luck of encyclopedic value. Please take a look at WP:NOT. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has encyclopedic value.It is an eye witness report on what happened. It is a statement of the facts as seen by someone who was there and recorded it. It presents a real view of what happens when shells are dropped on human beings.It is relevant. Censoring this piece is like the BBC and other news networks not showing the full horror of wars and thus people just see one side of it with no graphic detail of deaths.Showing and describing the deaths will make the public think about what actually happens in a war, sanitizing it makes people think it is not that bad really. War is death, people get blown to bits and that is reality, not including this piece is wrong on all accounts.Fisk is a very well respected reporter.There is no good reason not to have this piece in the article at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's a really nice piece of prose. You've got skills, you know that? However, that's exactly the type of drama we are trying to avoid in encyclopedia. May be, and I'm saying just may be, it will fit into another article, such as Shell (projectile)? Surely it misses a section Effect on Homo sapiens. And seriously, take some time to read WP:5P and WP:NOT. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Massacre in Qana and its Context[edit]

Awhile ago, I stumbled upon an extensive analysis titled The Massacre in Qana and its Context, which is now defunct. Anyone have a copy? Adraeus 09:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the same article that you had but there is this.The Massacre in Qana and its Context Owain the 1st (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Context[edit]

I've added information, but I require sources for those parts that still lack them. It would be good if I am provided a link to the drone statement and the UN report. Any information on the anniversary or whatever still need to be added. It is also lacking a map. Finally, only anti Israeli activists seem to call this a massacre, so I am going to move it to Qana Incident.

Edit: I added most of the information. Anniversary still needs some work, and sources need to be cited for UN report and the drone.

Guy Montag 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Movement of page[edit]

Please stop moving this page to Qana incident, Guy Montag. That is a very POV move and should be discussed in talk or I will keep reverting it.Yuber(talk) 23:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you are on your last life here, your arbitration will be coming up by the end of the week, by vandalizing this page, you are digging your own grave. Everything that I have added is cited information. There is a reference subsource on the bottom of the page, and you can check everything I have added through searching on google. I don't have to prove anything to you, you have to point out what I added that is factually incorrect, and you have to do it without reverting all the information I've added to a pathetic excuse for an article. If you do, you will be blocked by one of the editors, not for 24 hours, but for days, because this is blatant vandalism Yuber, there is no other way to put it. You just crossed the line.

Guy Montag 23:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And of course when you can't vandalize the page you have nothing to say. Typical.

Guy Montag 00:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of material[edit]

I've protected the page following a complaint from Guy that Yuber was reverting his work.

This is a very good example of what's going wrong with the editing process between you too.

Yuber, first, you have no right to revert edits that are well written, seem to be accurate, and are well-sourced. Guy has expanded and improved the article, and his version is superior to the one you're reverting to. If you disagree, you must say so on talk, and explain why, even if it's time-consuming and a lot of work, because that's how Wikipedia works. If you think material is missing, you should add it. If you think the sources are poor, object to them on talk. But don't go in for these wholesale reverts and deletions.

Guy, your edits are good and well-sourced. But when it comes to the deaths of the people, you sort of glide over them, so that the article is now about the military operation, rather than what Qana is famous for, which is the deaths of the civilians. There should (in my view) be a separate section after the section called Operation Grapes of Wrath, perhaps starting with the sentence: "According to UN spokeswoman, Sylvana Foa ..." and then go into the incident in detail, because that's what the page is about. I recall there were accusations, for example, that ambulances carrying the injured were attacked — this is from memory; that would need to be checked — but if there were allegations of that nature, from reputable sources, they ought to be included. There should also be more about the UN condemnation of it. Also, perhaps more about the Israeli claim that the deaths were effectively caused by Hezbollah using the victims as human shields, and perhaps an opposing statement from someone about that issue.

Also, you should source the claim that Israel warned residents to evacuate their villages, and make clear that it was within 48 hours of those warnings that the attacks began.

The sentence at the end that Israel sees the marches as a cruel condemnation of the victims needs a source. Also, you should decide how you prefer to write Hezbollah, as you have Hezbollah, Hizbollah and Hizballah in the Operation Grapes of Wrath section.

I hope some of this helps. Let me know when you're both prepared to try to cooperate, and I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, although I highly doubt that Yuber can cooperate on anything, the valuable information you provided on how to improve this article has been noted. I will find more sources and add information pertinant to the article. The problem with these kinds of articles is that they are always presented in a vacuum. The background is never given. If people can see the whole picture (in this case, a military compaign), and Hezbollah's tactics, it sheds alot of light for people to understand the subject better. But I see that the background has in some ways shaded the actual death toll. I will see what I can do, perhaps I'll email Zero, as he knows about this subject, and most importantly, we can cooperate.

Guy Montag 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right now I'm focused on the title. It was a massacre, and it's totally POV to claim that it wasn't.Yuber(talk) 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's your pov. Or should I say, the POV of Israel's enemies. Neutrally, it is reffered to as an incident. Unless you can prove deliberate targetting of civilians by Israel, you can't call it a massacre. And you can't, so it stays.

Guy Montag 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is an objective definition of a massacre by the Merriam-Webster dictionnary

  • 1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
  • 2 : a cruel or wanton murder
  • 3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals
  • 4 : an act of complete destruction

Therefore I don't see why the events of Qana could not be qualified as a massacre. --equitor 22:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

so can we come to some sort of agreement? or are you going to stall further? it's been 5 years, yet no compromise has been found. quite sadMaz640 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

When I wrote the above, I didn't realize the page had recently been moved. Sorry, I should have read the talk page more carefully but I was focused on the article. A page should only be moved if there's agreement, so it should be moved back, or better still, a third title should be found. Qana massacre is also POV, suggesting intentional killing. I'm going to look around to see what the mainstream press have called it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Using google, Qana incident gets 214 hits, Qana massacre gets 5000+ hits. I will try variations of the spelling and see what happens. Qana incident is only used it seems by ultranationalist Zionists, like Guy Montag here.Yuber(talk) 01:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slim, says that an incident is " 4. An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident. " This looks like the most NPOV definition out there for what happened.

Guy Montag 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but it nevertheless looks like an attempt to avoid what kind of incident it was. I've had a look at some articles about it, but can't find any common name. "Qana massacre" is not used by non-biased sources. "Qana incident" gets very few hits. Some suggestions: "Qana" (because the village is Qana, Lebanon, and the thing it's known for internationally is the UN-compound shelling, so just that one word would do it, "Qana killings," "Qana attack," "Shelling at Qana," "Israeli shelling at Qana," "Israeli shelling of UN compound at Qana." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Slim check these ones out. It looks like the same format exists already. [1] [2] (this is doesn't mention that something was blown up in the title][3]

Guy Montag 01:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though it's not clear that people died in the second. If this were called the Qana incident by anyone, we could use it, but it doesn't seem to be a name that has stuck; and the point is there's been an objection, so the page can't be moved in the face of that. There may have to be a vote on this talk page. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there any UN report on this euh... event? Why don't you check if they used the world "massacre" or "incident"? I think that the UN won't be biased at all, since it involves the point of view of most of the countries. And another thing, I think that this article lacks of an extensive Hezbollah point of view. 500LL

You are free to add information on Hezbollah as you like.

Guy Montag 00:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

17:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I searched myself into the site "". 19 results for "Qana incident" and 11 for "Qana massacre". But since the results are so close (notice that UN does use the "massacre" term), and according to Yuber, 5000+ hits for "massacre" and 200+ for "incident" in google, I think that the "Qana massacre" should be the title of the article. Open for discussion. 500LL 17:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

We've already established that massacre is a pov term. The UN is also not a npov source as Israel legitimately feels bias within the UN against it. Qana Incident would be the most NPOV choice, but if we are going for specificality here, I don't mind "Qana Bombing", or something of that nature. That after it was established that other articles have used the term Incident without specifiying the action.

Guy Montag 00:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

500LL, the UN reports that I read avoided using any term to describe it, but stuck to the facts. If you go to the UN website, and type in the search terms "Qana massacre," the 18 hits that return are from speeches and papers submitted by biased observers e.g. a Lebanese delegate. If you read anything written by someone who works for the UN, or was commissioned by the UN, they don't use that term, at least not that I've been able to find. We should try to avoid terms used only by one side or the other. Do any of the titles I suggested above work for anyone? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I should also add that the editors on the page should make a decision fairly soon, because the page was moved unilaterally, and an objection has been raised, which means it ought to be moved back if no compromise title can be found quickly; at that point, you'd have to organize a poll on this page. So I'll be moving it back soon if someone doesn't come up with a workable alternative. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I propose Qana Bombing then.

Guy Montag 03:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, after further inquiry, I think moving it to Qana, Lebanon would be ideal. Qana is only known because of the bombing, and there is no reason to have two articles with divergent information. In any case, the Qana, Lebanon article has only five edits. If we change the name simply to Qana, we can transfer the information there, and the article can be improved from then on.

Guy Montag 20:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense; the Qana article has very little unique information in it. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you wanted it moved to Qana, Lebanon or just Qana, so I chose the latter, but can easily move it to Qana, Lebanon if you'd prefer that. I've deleted the Qana, Lebanon that was there, because there was nothing in it that isn't in here. You'll probably want to rewrite this intro to reflect the new name. Let me know when you want to start editing, and I'll unprotect. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Now that I re-read your comment, Guy, perhaps you meant you wanted the other one to be called Qana, and this one Qana, Lebanon? Let me know, because it only takes seconds to change. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Where did the original Qana, Lebanon article go?Yuber(talk) 03:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the original Qana, Lebanon because it was only about the civilian deaths and didn't contain anything that wasn't in this article. So now we can either leave this one at Qana or move it to Qana, Lebanon. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Qana is a simpler name to remember, so I think keeping it in Qana is just fine. As for the suggestions you gave to make this article better, I almost compiled everything you asked for. I should be able to edit within 1-2 days.

Guy Montag 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this page being unprotected? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Any indication that Yuber won't revert it the second he sees it's unprotected? Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you objected to Qana Massacre being moved to Qana Incident. Are you willing to compromise with the title Qana, and are there any other current issues on this page that will cause you to revert again? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Qana is fine for a title. You should also check with User:500LL as he is actually from Lebanon.Yuber(talk) 05:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Yuber. I've left a note for 500LL. I'll unlock the page now, but if it gets reverted, I'm going to re-protect it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the title, it's totally NPOV. But I think that the article being entitled "Qana", it should talk mainly about the village, the incident or massacre have to be in a "History" section. But this event is too wide to be treated in a section, it should have a article alone. And we go back to the good old dispute. So what do you think?500LL 18:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't anything written about the village in the Qana, Lebanon article, so I'd say this title is fine for the civilian deaths article, and if anyone wants to write an article about the village, we can recreate Qana, Lebanon. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
What about "Qana event" as a title? 500LL 21:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Qana's massacre is POV as it implies deliberate killing. But Qana refer to a city, not to an event. The article should be named Qana's shelling or Qana's bombing.--equitor 15:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Qana is only known for one thing, the bombing. Other than that, it is an insignificant little hamlet.

Guy Montag 16:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a village, not a hamlet don't confuse Qana and the neighbouring UN compound. To use 'insignificant' to describe it is really pejorative, even insulting if you want my opinion. By the way Qana is also a place of christian pilgrimage and a lot of people believe that Jesus did his first miracle there. But the fact that the place is mainly known for its bombing is not a reason to call the article Qana instead of Qana's bombing. But whatever Qana is known for, Qana's bombing better reflect the content of the article and is a more accurate title.--equitor 16:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you think that there is some information that could be added, (pilgrimage or whatever) feel free to insert it into the existing article.

Guy Montag 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the point is not about adding information on the 'pilgrimage or whatever', if you read the conversation well. The point is that contrarily to your claims, Cana is not an 'insignificant' place and is known for something else than the massacre. The title could and should be replaced with something that actually reflects the article content. Qana's shelling sounds good to me since there was a shelling and it doesn't imply that there was a deliberate desire of killing people, so it's NPOV. If I wanted to create an article about the pilgrimage grotto in Cana, I would create a disambiguation page and a separate article since the two articles (the shelling and the religious pilgrimage) have little in common.--equitor 04:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Originally, I wanted it named Qana incident, but an internet troll recently banned opposed the transfer on weak npov grounds. We could move it there again. Qana's Shelling just sounds badly worded.

Guy Montag 05:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's a title that nobody seems to find unNPOV Bombing of Dresden in World War II--equitor 19:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

so? Bombing_of_Guernica is another nice article--equitor 04:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not good. Either its an incident, which is the most npov word there is for what happened, or it stays as it is.

Guy Montag 18:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to accept an ultimatum here, nobody owns this page. You should argument and justify your point of view, not close the discussion. You have the right to present the POV of a party as long as the article remain NPOV. The incident term is not completely NPOV because it connotes that the event is minor, not important. I think that Bombing of Qana or shelling of Qana are NPOV titles (if not please explain why). Bombing/shelling are not pejorative or unNPOV terms and since they describe the article content more accurately than "incident" (which could mean anything), the term should be used. --equitor 20:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Read the discussion on top of the page about the title. says that an incident is " 4. An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident. " This looks like the most NPOV definition out there for what happened.

Guy Montag 21:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Shelling of Qana" seems more popular. "Qana Incident" is even more popular. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read that but you seem to miss my point. The word 'incident' carries a lot of meanings, it can also mean that the event was minor - I consider that you are trying to mix this meanings in order to manipulater the reader. And even if you consider 'incident' to be NPOV, 'bombing' is also NPOV and it have two advantages: it's consider NPOV by the other party (me) and it describes the content of the article better. And Jayjg, if you want to go by the google score, you should know that Qana massacre is even more popular (and if you read the definition of a massacre, which is above, you'd notice that the term can be be applied to the events). --equitor 22:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bombing isn't good, because as far as I know it wasn't bombed, it was shelled. There's a difference. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the difference (put this on my english level), but we could replace bombing with shelling. Bombing or shelling is OK for me.--equitor 22:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree about "incident", nobody speaks of the "Guernica Incident" or "Dresden Incident" or "World Trade towers Incident".. it is a pretty loaded word as well for its banality. Dan Carkner 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The image with the caption U.N. Compound pictured with bombardment trejectory has trajectory spelled all wrong-like... since the page is locked I cannot fix it... and since I don't know if I'll ever come back to this page I'll just leave the notice here for a regular editor to fix it. gren 05:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I won't get involved in editing this article, but to avoid future disputes about the intro, I'd suggest something very factual along these lines:

The Fijian battalion of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), based in the village of Qana, southeast of Tyre, Lebanon, was shelled by Israeli artillery on April 18, 1996, during heavy fighting between the Israeli army and Hezbollah, as part of what the Israeli government called Operation Grapes of Wrath. Around 800 Lebanese civilians had taken refuge in the compound to escape the fighting. Over 100 of them died and 300 were wounded during the shelling, which also seriously wounded four Fijian soldiers. [4] [5] SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am using your intro then.

Guy Montag 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qana massacre redirects here, and as it was the title of this page for many months, it should be mentioned in the first paragraph that many people call what happened a massacre.Yuber(talk) 16:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just made an edit, forgetting I'd been involved in protecting the page, so I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you object to my edit?Yuber(talk) 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intro already says that it was Israeli shelling; repeating it in practically the next sentence is poor form and obvious POV pushing. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, now it seems EnviroKainKabong has gotten involved. I will leave this up to 500LL for now.Yuber(talk) 22:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Footnote 5[edit]

Guy, where is footnote 5 used? I couldn't find it when I fixed the footnote format. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must have missed it somewhere. I will comb the sources and fix it for tomorrow.

Guy Montag 07:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about fixing the source. I had an overload of work. It will be fixed pretty soon.

Guy Montag 07:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critics of Israel[edit]

Who are these evil sounding "critics of Israel" of the intro? Does this mean that only "critics of Israel" consider what happened to be a massacre? Presumably, it is because of their anti-semitism and not because of what acctually happened?

This phrase is in dire need of being unweaseled. I suspect that labelling the UN a "critic of Israel" is seriously POV. NJC 12:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The U.N. doesn't appear to call it that. Can you find a neutral party that calls it a "massacre"? Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
neutral does not exist whent it comes to these issues. But I agree on the fact that all people hostile to Israel would qualify this as a massacre, but I think that the inverse is not true.--equitor 08:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but this is ridiculous, HRW and BBC are "critics" of Israel? What complete nonsense. Someone is politicising this entry.Anzar 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRW is quite definitely a critic, and while the BBC is not supposed to be a critic of anyone, they do often report on Israel in a critical way. "Massacre" is an inherently judgemental word, and it would be wrong for the article to use it without attribution. On the other hand, the word is frequently enough used about this incident that it should be mentioned. I think attributing the word to "critics of Israel's actions" balances these issues correctly. Attributing it to "human rights organisations and the media" is both too broad (not all the media would use the term) and too narrow (other types of organizations will surely use it too). – Smyth\talk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smyth. I'm sorry, I do not agree. This is about the use of the words "critics of Israel's actions" not the word "massacre". Critic is a judgemental word. It has two meanings. Anyone can choose which of the two meanings the word has that most suits them. According to Wikipedia: A critic is a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation. ( [6] ). However, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives a secondary, more negative meaning, leaving the word open to judgement by the individual: one given to harsh or captious judgment (

With regard to "human rights organisations and the media" is both too broad (not all the media would use the term) and too narrow (other types of organizations will surely use it too)", this is why I used the passive form initially, but I am willing to accept the latest change: "Human Rights Watch and the BBC have both referred to the attack as a "massacre". " Anzar 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this item a "massacre" is disgusting[edit]

The item should be on Qana, Lebanon. The war of Lebanon wasn't/isn't a nice thing, but there are fightings and civilian deaths for both sides. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a battle zone against Israel. As we do not put items on each bombing in Tel Aviv, the shelling in Qana should be mentioned but cannot be the header of the item.

In fact, this article is a about the event, massacre, accident or wathever you'd call it, and not about the town. The reason for this confusing title is NPOVness (see discussion above). I, myself would like to see the page moved to Qana event, since this title is totally NPOV and implies that this articles is describing an historical event and not a place. CG 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wrong to publish this article about the Qana massacre. It's a historical event. If you want to publish articles about bombings in Tel Aviv, do so, you are free, but please let others also publish their articles.
Just one more thing, imagine it was Hizbullah that shelled an israeli village and killed 100 people, I don't think anyone would complain about publishing an article and calling it a massacre.

The BBC always refers to this incident as a "massacre". Obviously the Israelis will try to water down any crime they commit, including a take over of Wikipedia...

You can found some UN documents that use the term "massacre" to describe the attack [7]. --Banzoo 11:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting? Oh please be a little more dramatic why don't you, shouldn't u say it's Anti-Semitic as well? Give it a rest you diehard Zionists, everyone but Israel considers it a massacre, get the hell over it.

Gamer112 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename[edit]

I'm suggesting we move this article to Qana event. This title is completely NPOV, and more descriptive. The current "Qana" title might confuse readers about the content. So I suggest we move the information about the event to "Qana event" and we keep the information about the village in "Qana". CG 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. People looking for details about the event have no trouble finding the article under its current name: just look at how many redirects there are. There is no point in performing a split until there is a non-trivial amount of content in the article which is unrelated to the incident. The total size of that content currently stands at 2 sentences. – Smyth\talk 11:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if we could do better, and provide a NPOV and precise title, why not? see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). An example: the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse is about the event in the Abu Ghraib prison located in the Abu Ghraib city which is only known by this particular event. Even though the long title has been retained for precision. CG 13:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something over a hundred people were killed in an "event" seems horrifically euphemistic. I know some people don't like the idea of it being called a massacre, but I'd sooner keep the current title than move to this. Jayjg mentions above "Shelling of Qana", which would seem better. Palmiro | Talk 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok "Shelling of Qana" or "Qana shelling" is great. Do you agree on this move? CG 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support it. Let's list it on WP:RM. I prefer "Shelling of Qana" to "Qana shelling". Palmiro | Talk 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 move to Qana shelling. —Nightstallion (?) 09:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to "Shelling of Qana"[edit]

QanaShelling of Qana – more precise title as article relates almost entirely to this incident. Proposed name avoids controversy over use of massacre/incident/event. Palmiro | Talk 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support per discussion above. Palmiro | Talk 09:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this article just needs to be NPOVised, not moved. Just about every other Wikipedia article does this - for example the Volgograd article mentions the battle of Stalingrad in World War II. Cynical 11:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A title should be precise and NPOV, and this title fulfills the two. Although I prefer "Qana shelling". CG 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shelling of Qana, as long as a stub is kept at Qana containing all unrelated content. – Smyth\talk 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yuber(talk) 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per Smyth. I agree with Cedar-Guardian, "Qana shelling" might be even better. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Qana shelling" sounds to me more like the name of an article about a process called "Qana shelling" (possibly involving nuts), whereas "shelling of Qana" sounds better for an article about this incident. But if most people prefer the other, I certainly won't stand in the way. Palmiro.
  • Support Qana Shelling is fine. Although I don't understand the urgency to move it. We should wait until the articles become divergent enough that there is a legitimate reason to split them. As of now, Qana is known only for that perticularly tragic event in its history. If more info is added to the history of the village, move, but to leave it with a couple of sentences seems wasteful. Guy Montag 00:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also prefer Qana shelling, as it puts the more specific info "Qana," before the more general, "shelling." IronDuke 04:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.


  • Oppose its been 10 years people i request another voteJasnyc 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was shelled?[edit]

This may be pedantic, but it looks to me like what the Israelis did was to shell a Hezbollah position, and in the process they accidentally killed civilians. The first part of the article seems to imply that they were deliberately targeting the Fijians. Is there evidence that they were? If not, I think that graf could be edited for clarity. Thoughts? IronDuke 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make it look that Israelis were targetting the Fijians? It clearly mentions that the shelling took place during heavy fighting with Hezbollah, not with the UN. Guy Montag 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. What do you think of adding the word "accidentally?" Or is there evidence that the Israelis has some special desire to kill Fijians? IronDuke
This is becoming a spin-out from the facts (just IronDuke here on talk, not the article). The "Fijian" compound was the UN compound in South Lebanon. It was housing refugees from surrounding areas; apparently in far greater numbers than Fijian peacekeepers. There was a stated intent (see the article) by the Israelis to hit those residents: "The residents in south Lebanon who are under the responsibility of Hezbollah will be hit harder." So before we put in the highly POV word accidentally, let's be clear about who was bombed. --Carwil 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this clear, the above quote doesn't relate to refugees, but to people who stayed in their towns after the IDF warned them to leave. This quote, made by a man who although is in the military does not represent the official position of the IDF command, was talking about people who stayed in their houses during the fighting, not those who fled to refugee camps. That is a huge distortion of the facts there. Guy Montag 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images[edit]

I agree that the first image should be kept to keep it in line with other articles about similar subjects on Wikipedia; I think it contributes to the completeness of the article. However, I do not believe the second picture with the decapitated child should be placed. I am not for a censored Wikipedia, but it contributes nothing to the context, and is somewhat disturbing. I am going to remove it. If you disagree, please discuss here - I am not looking for an edit war on a controversial topic like this. — ßottesiηi (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is clearly brought up to inflame and infuriate. No source is given for who took these pictures and the caption says, "shortly after the massacre". It is a clear attempt to pov the article in the direction of a pov pusher.Guy Montag 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if a reference for the photograph cannot be provided, then the other should be removed as well. — ßottesiηi (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second picture should be added as well as the first one, for sources see [8], images from qana shows the date of the picture which is the same as the massacre date which means it is shortly after massacre. About sources required by User:Guy Montag if you read closely, it cite that each firing from lebanon guerillas came after an agression from israeli side on civilians: Of the total of 639 Katyusha rockets were fired into Israeli territory during Operation Grapes of Wrath, about 28 percent were launched on April 14 (eighty-one), the day after an Israeli helicopter attacked an ambulance in Mansouri, killing six civilians, and on April 19 (ninety rockets), the day after nine civilians were killed in a house in Upper Nabatiyeh in the early morning and over one hundred civilians perished in the afternoon in Qana. So please read well before removing any further information.--Banzoo 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are partially right, the Amnesty international article is an important piece of information, the only problem is this, the shelling happened on April 9, but you have not cited any such information during that time. What was Hezbollah "responding" to on that particular day (April 9th)? That is the information I asked for. If you can't cite the source, or there isn't collaborative evidence, then you cannot say objectively that they were responding to some alleged action by the IDF, especially when there is no evidence to back this up. It is incredibly important in these controversial subjects to cite eveything that might seem even a little bit controversial, or the entire article will succumb to an edit war. I've seen this happen many many times. I am proud that this article has stood the test of time without an edit war for over one year, precicely because I erred on the side of caution and cited every bit of information.

As for the pictures, they are completely unsourced, inflammatory and are there for no other purpose than to either enrage or inflame the emotions of the readers, which is contrary to everything that an encyclopedia is about. Wikipedia is about informing the reader in an objective manner on controversial subjects, putting pictures like that will immediately put off people from the information written, and hence serves no purpose in the article. You may attach the pictures as an independent website, but putting it on the front page goes against everything wikipedia is about.

Finally, the Amnesty article talks about Grapes of Wrath, which is a separate but related piece of history. I quoted information about the operation only to the extent that it relates to the Qana incident. I am happy that you found it, because now I may just be able to work on the Grapes of Wrath article too.

Guy Montag 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pertinent at all to ask what happened in april 9, we are not discussing the grapes of wrath, instead the information cited is about qana shelling, israel was agressing lebanon, so lebanese guerrillas have all the rights to defend itself by responding to the israeli attacks that killed dozens of civilians. Wikipedia is about information, removing photos from articles and claiming that are "inflammatory" reflects your own POV and is not the good way to do that: Did you want to see history books without photos? after all war and conflicts photos are not exactly nice pictures. And when accusing me that those photos are "unsourced" without even checking the site given above is something revealing the npov from your side.Besides, you removed precisions about number of victims without any clear motif.For grapes of wrath article, I see it needs lots of work, I think that civilians victims need a section to be added to the article--Banzoo 11:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is your opinion that is unsourced and pov. The photos are inflammatory and serve no purpose other than to pov the article in your direction. I am going to go and ask for a third opinion because our discussion is quickly going nowhere. Guy Montag 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about shelling, it deserves to be provided some picture of that shelling (PLEASE check other massacres article!!) those are considered pictures of historical event, it's not only my opinion, check what ßottesiηi said about "... I think it contributes to the completeness of the article. ...". I provided the source, but still accusing of "unsourced" with fixed point of view without providing any real reason or justification other than those that you are repeating indefinitely " ... unsourced and pov. The photos are inflammatory and serve no purpose ... ", even that I'm trying to deliver justifications. So please be clear and open minded. One question: is it wrong to add precise number of victims? --Banzoo 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does deserve certain pictures. A while ago, there was a UN trajectory schematic in the article, but wikipedia has long ago deleted "massacre" catagories as being blatantly pov and any pictures that go with them are also deleted as inflamatory. But they have kept a list of historical massacres, [, they all more or less follow certain guidelines. The overwhelming majority of npov articles about massacres do not have dubious pictures that serve no purpose other than to stir emotions. Secondly, Bottesini is gone. He hasn't posted one thing after he came here. I would rather consult an admin on this.

The reason it is unsourced is because the incident we are discussing happened on April 9th. Your sources don't say anything about April 9th. How do we know that Hezbollah was responding to the Israeli compaign and not simply continuing their breach of the cease fire? It is safe to catagorize certain things as responses, for example after the ambulance bombing, Hezbollah used it as a reason to bomb and we can safely say they were responding. But what was Hezbollah's reason for the April 9th attack? Was it a continuation of their own compaign? Was a ploy Hezbollah used to get causalties out of the refugees and have Israel take the blame? Was is simply another attack during Israel's compaign? You can't say for sure and neither can I why they attacked Israel at that time, so leave it as it is or find a less definitive wording. It isn't wrong to add the precise numbers, if they are in fact precise numbers.

Once again, I am keeping a very open mind on this, but again, the quality of the article is ruined with these pictures. I will try to find an alternative. Guy Montag 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion, the article as is now (perma link) has a good picture for the article. It really completes the article. — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it took me some time to find a good alternative. I hope we can keep it without at more unnecesary changes. Guy Montag 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The used picture qana07 does not reflect what the label says nor it contributes to the completeness of the article since it shows only people on the scene without seeing much of the consequences of the attack. The new (yet old) picture shows a direct consequence of the shelling that caused the death of the civilians shown in the picture.--Banzoo 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have this picture in the page at all. I told you before, it is inflamatory. if you want to have it, you can link it as an outside link, but you can't have it in the page itself. Guy Montag 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other reason I don't think the "massacre" picture should be in the article is because it is unsourced. Who are those people, victims or Hezbollah, unrelated casualties? When was it taken? At least with the memorial picture and the one with the people on site, you know where it stands. Guy Montag 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both photos are stills from the video on this page, which was apparently shot quite soon after the attack and shows a large number of UN people. Obviously neither this site nor the original video maker are unbiased, but that's no reason to doubt its authenticity.
And be careful what you say; if you suggest that the people in the pictures are Hezbollah, your opponents will simply suggest that we replace them with pictures of dead children... – Smyth\talk 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the pictures because some dont like it is not a reason to prevent others to get their hand on photos of such historical events. And why not compare genocide and massacres, afterall, all such crimes against humanity should be remembered and archived. Can someone highlight what makes such an act not being a massacre if not a genocide.--Banzoo 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to imply a conspiracy here, just mentioning that I can always confirm the memorial by going to Qana and visiting the area and I can confirm the other picture because it was taken immediately in the aftermath, but the massacre one has no context. Finally, there are other reasons to oppose that image which I've already mentioned. Guy Montag 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I find it hard to believe that a pro-Israel source would refer to the event as a massacre, as the term is accompanied by a negative judgement on the perpetrator's intentions etc. Also, you are misspelling referring. Please discuss any future changes on talk. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

There are certain things that need to be improved.

  • Please do not use op-eds as legitimate news sources unless they can be factually confirmed.
  • Please cite a source for the number of people killed during the shelling.
  • Please do not unitelaterally revert to an image that caused controversy in the past when a better one exists.


Guy Montag 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent UN document link was removed without any proper reason, as well as precision of the number of victims with no justification, I found it necessary to restore that, and calling the united nations as a critics of israel reflects is not really an NPOV. This document require at least one proper picture, and censuring Wikipedia is not the way to do it. Every body sees in Wikipedia pictures of the victims in massacres , (e.g. see The Holocaust). It's not about inflamatory picture rather than adding relevant picture of a historical event where more than a hundred human lives were lost. Older Images does not shows exactly the vicitms of such an attack since no victim is shown in those pictures, not to mention that the discussion below does not resolve the controversy. --Banzoo 11:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does require a proper picture, that is why I added a newer more tasteful picture. By the way, please do not compare an incident during heavy fighting to premeditated genocide. Guy Montag 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine the documents. Both of them state clearly at the top that they do not come from the UN itself, but were submitted to the UN by third parties. – Smyth\talk 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From organizations which have associated status in the United Nations system, which gives them 100% legitimacy. What's your point? Ulritz 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100% legitimacy to do what? Certainly not to speak for the UN, which is what was implied by attributing them to "UNHCR". These documents are submissions to the UN, which the UN has not edited or approved in any way. – Smyth\talk 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who refers to it as a massacre?[edit]

So far we have two isolated instances, the BBC and HRW. Please ensure that your edits are accurate, and do not imply that other unnamed reliable sources have used the term, or that the BBC and HRW commonly refer to the incident this way. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sure there are anti Israel activists who refer to it as a "massacre." Is that worth noting?Guy Montag 16:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that refer to it as a massacre? Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources are reliable is not relevant, since we're not using them as evidence that it was a massacre. The paragraph is simply there to indicate that the phrase is quite common even from prominent sources, as I'm sure you'll concede. – Smyth\talk 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, prominent sources would be helpful too. The point is that we can't just be quoting every blog and random website. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innaproppriate Language[edit]

The following passages "....Hezbollah has used this event to arouse ill will toward Israel and the United States,..." "...making inflammatory speaches..." make use of innappropriate language. Such statements are obviously a reflection of opinion and must be either changed or discarded if the article is to maintain a NPOV. In the meantime I will be adding the NPOV tag to this section of the article. I welcome and encourage wikipedians to undertake this revision promptly. Thanks. WaynaQhapaq 10:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree this is nothing to do with Qana Massacre itself Jasnyc 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know what went on here but someone has created a bunch of redirects and made a cut-and-paste move. There's a consensus for this title. If you want to change it, please go to WP:RM, and no more cutting and pasting, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Should make this a current situation site. anyone else think the circumstances, events, are eerily similar?

As I read through the article, the events seemed eerily similar to me. --ChrisWinter 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More controversy[edit]

Here's why I reverted your changes back, Guy Montag:

1) You say in your edit comment that "we've had a long discussion on this, it is not mostly referred to as the qana massacre" - the discussion above is about the best title for the page. I would agree that 1996 shelling of Qana is a better title than Qana Massacre but that's not at issue here. Despite what you say, "Qana massacre" is the most commonly used name. I get 195,000 google hits for "qana massacre", 515 for "qana shelling" and 159 for "shelling of qana". It's also the name used by the Lebanese government.

2) The image you removed may be unpleasant but it's the reality of what happened. The discussion of it above seems to consist of you saying you won't allow it ("you can link it as an outside link, but you can't have it in the page itself") in the face of other people disagreeing, until they give up.

3) You reverted the correction I made in the shelling section so it now says "...three Hezbollah fighters stopped outside the compound and fired two Katyusha rockets...". As I said in the edit summary for that change, that's not a correct summary of the UN report - the events are out of sequence.

4) You reverted "fire from Hezbollah adjacent to the compound" - as I said in my edit summary for that change, 200 metres is not "adjacent". Also the "see human shield" is editorialising.

5) You removed the External links and References sections. I have no idea why you did that.

Slogby 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about putting it this way:

Although all available quantifiable evidence suggests that this incident is most frequently referred to as the Qana massacre, and institutions such as Human Rights Watch, the BBC, and the goverment of Lebanon adopt this phraseology, some vociferous Wikipedians suggest that this is due to a sophisticated conspiracy against Israel which manipulates Google technology to destabilize the Middle East.

"Qana Masscare" does not make Israel less or more at fault[edit]

this title should stay,in August before 8/8/2006 my search led me to this link below"  


I am almost certain that - while you prune your deep mine of trivia - you believe yourselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.

my criticism of Wikipedia: First is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If you do, it isn't exactly a compliment.

Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.

Second: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What is going on is genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment i request the information from this undependable site Jasnyc 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of al-Qaeda/Response by Al-Qaeda asssociated individuals[edit]

this is nothing to do with Qana Masscare it does not add any value to the information Please request to move it to "al-Qaeda" info This does not add any information of encyclopedic value to the articleJasnyc

I'm inclined to agree. Osama bin Laden mentioned the Cana massacre a few times. So what? Our only source appears to be a list of his quotations. Unless we have some source indicating either that the incident had a significant impact on al-Qaeda (e.g. on the development of its thinking or on levels of support for it) or that bin Laden's remarks made a significant impact, there appears to be little justification for including that material. My view is that unless such evidence is provided in the next week or so, the sectiuon should be taken out. Palmiro | Talk 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the title is changed but it is the same and this is nothing to do with Qana Masscare

sources below do not support

23 Wright, Lawrence (2006). The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. -24 Bruce Lawrence, ed., Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden

Please request to move it Jasnyc 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Jasnyc 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its been a more than a week, this does not belong here in Qana Masscare, same as before removing Fisk from here Jasnyc


Request a revision for this paragraph to read as below or remove it, this is about the civilians who got killed not Hezbollah and what they did or will do,

"The shelled area is marked by a memorial and the marble sarcophagi of the 102 civilians killed. April 18 is held as an anniversary to commemorate the victims of the bombardment."

More details on the memorial are in Lucia Volk, Contesting the State: The history of a massacre memorial.

Qana Massacre here is about the victims not syria, syria is not relavent what they do or dont do and a college paper is not verifiable and so what who cares who pays

Done. I've also removed the silly stuff about HA which was "sourced" to an article on CNN which didn't actually say that. Palmiro | Talk 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's unfair naming system[edit]

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. Most of this so-called massacre killed less than twenty (much more than Israel's which killed more than 50). Nielswik(talk) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fair point. I'd be interested to see where this discussion goes. I will sit on the fence, and deliver a few kicks to the losing side, as is my purpose in these debates. HawkerTyphoon 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that the difference stems from Israel's claims that the civilians killed in its attacks were unfortunate mistakes, whereas the events listed as 'massacres' were carried out by groups whose stated intention was to kill innocent civilians. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? UN, Amnesty, and HRW agrees to call this massacre. Why an encyclopedia not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nielswik (talkcontribs) 07:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. When arab killed jews it was usually refered to as RIOTS and not massacres. You would see there's no difference when it's in fact murder as in Baruch Goldstein massacre. Your claim is not true. Amoruso 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page to a respectable title[edit]

No body can deny that the title is misleading and very under estimate the gravity of that fact. First thing, by saying shelling of qana, one would think as if there were only one, while in fact in that month of the year of the massacre alone there were at least dozens if not more. And the article does not discuss the shelling rather it discusses the consequences that led to more than 106 civilian victims, which on purpose or not none appears in the title. Second thing, for those protesting the use of the word Massacre: the definition of the word massacre in the webster:

Main Entry: mas·sa·cre

1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

2 : a cruel or wanton murder

3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals

4 : an act of complete destruction

All of the definitions mentionned above (apart the third) describe perfectly what happened in Qana (twice). And if we consider the third one, a slaughter of animals as mentionned in number 3 deserves to be called "massacre", then what a slaughter of children deserves to be called?

So as a reminder the massacre is the result caused by the shelling, and this article is rather discussing the result and not the cause. --Banzoo 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although no voting system has been set up, I'll submit my own vote:

  • Oppose - Was almost strong oppose, as with 2006 Qana airstrike, but if the article deals with the aftermath, then a renaming is indeed in order, but not "massacre". Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Calling something a "massacre" without undisputed international agreement is a clear WP:NPOV violation. The UN declaration cannot be considered "undisputed". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Simply because a general consensus had been previously reached and implemented. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Have you even read the article? It is a massacre. Osama bin Laden may call 9-11 collateral damage but it is still a massacre of civilians.--Burgas00 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Not a massacre obviously. In military campaigns with human shileds used there are obviously accidents. Amoruso 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NPOV & ßottesiηi. - Evv 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Do not remove the picture, other articles have set a firm precedence on including pictures of victims when such exist. --Striver 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure on this one. This article was a featured article, so I would say, if you can make this image live up to all the criteria that screenshot does, then go for it, but make darned sure it does. Patstuarttalk|edits 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you for the tips. --Striver 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I note that, as precedent, Berlin Wall and Cold War (1953-1962) have contained a picture of a dead person for a long time (Image:Peterfechter2.jpg). Personally I would oppose any interpretation of "encyclopedic" that, while permitting hundreds (if not thousands) of articles about weapons systems and pictures of their use, disallowed pictures of their effects upon people. So I support the reinsertion of this picture if copyright use is OK. Rwendland 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

odd paragraph[edit]

When he met CNN’s Peter Arnett near Jalalabad in March 1997, he mentioned Qana several times, saying that "the mention of the U.S. reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took pace in Qana," and said further that this would have consequences for American civilians: "As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and in other places, and its support of its client regimes who filled their prisons with our best children and scholars… The U.S. today, as a result of this arrogance, has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resoures, install collaborators to rule us with man-made laws, and wants us to agree on all these issues… we find that it judges the behaviour of the poor Palestinian children whose country was occupied: if they throw stones against the Israeli occupation it says they are terrorists, whereas when the Israeli pilots bombed the United Nations building in Qana, Lebanon, while it was full of children and women, the US stopped any plan to condemn Israel.”

I just noticed this paragraph. At first I assumed it was still referring to Peres from the previous paragraph, but that obviously can't be the case. So who met peter Arnett and gave that interview? Also where is the source and references. regardless of who was interviewed, the paragraph I believe could also be trimmed as it only in part deals with the Qana massacre/shelling.--Caranorn 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's actually talking about Osama bin Laden, whose presence in the article was debated further up this page. Don't have time now to go through the history, but I suspect you will find that someone went to remove the material about him (on the grounds that it's relevance wasn't adequately shown) but missed this bit. Palmiro | Talk 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make some sense, if it remains unchanged for a few days I will try to fix it myself, but I thought someone more familiar with the article might have an easier time then me.--Caranorn 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the meantime I've commented it out. Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost two years since it has been commented out. If someone wants to reinsert it and source it etc, fine. They can find it right here. In the meantime, I'm taking it out. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The guys who attempted to sue Israeli leaders...[edit]

Where were Saadallah Ali Belhas and his son when the shells rained down? Where were most of the MEN aged 17-50 when these Hezi terrorists were hiding behind civilians? Why are there rarely and men of these ages killed when these incidents happen? Why is it usually just women and children hiding in buildings that only the enemy (Hezballah terrorists) know about?

Is it because they are out launching rockets specifically targeting Israeli civilians...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Article name[edit]

I've just come across this article, but can someone fill me in on how and why this article isn't titled by the much more common term for the event of "Qana massacre"? Thanks. — George [talk] 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bueller? ...Bueller..? — George [talk] 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how about the repeated discussions on this very page? – Smyth\talk 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've read them actually, but no one mentioned any actually Wikipedia naming conventions in any of them, and it's naming conventions that dictate the name of an article, not NPOV. Hence my questioning if there is was any justifiable reason for the move under naming conventions, rather than for just NPOV reasons. I'll probably file an RfM at some point, as it's fairly clear that the article was inappropriately moved to its current title. — George [talk] 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive_names. The naming convention is to use NPOV. – Smyth\talk 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the primary policy article for naming events, you would be correct. However, it's not. This is, and it explicitly states that non-neutral names should be used "even if it implies a controversial point of view," and that "the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as 'massacre' or 'genocide' or 'war crime'". The only bar for using a controversial common or accepted name over a descriptive name is proving that a common or accepted name for the event already exists, not that it is a NPOV term. — George [talk] 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was No move. Húsönd 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month and since the discussion above took place. This article was incorrectly moved to its current title in violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions for events, which explicitly states that the common name for an event should be used for events "even if it implies a controversial point of view," and that "the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as 'massacre' or 'genocide' or 'war crime'". This article should not have been renamed to a descriptive title, as a common name for the event exists. As such, I'm requesting that this article be moved back to the common name for the event, the Qana massacre. - George [talk] 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is more commonly reffered to as the "Qana mssacre." I support this move per the naming conventions mentioned by George. --The Random Editor (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal, but I do support the move. --Aarktica 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Banzoo 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - my which I mean, let's nominate this 8000 times until finally, one time, people aren't watching the talk page and it comes through. How many times has this been advocated? And every time, it was shot down as exactly that: huge NPOV problems. You will notice that almost every single one of the links under those 70000 or so on google for "massacre" are links to propaganda websites (the exception, of course, being BBC, which in fact only has the term linked to on the page: [9]). The Evil Spartan 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been advocated one time in the past, and it was argued as an accurate title, rather than a common title per Wikipedia's policies. The current discussion began over a month ago, so if people haven't watched the talk page in over a month, I'm not sure what to tell you. Under policy for naming conventions, article names do not have to have NPOV titles, and common names do not have to be sourced to reliable sources (though, in this case, just about every major news organization would refer to it as the Qana massacre). ← George [talk] 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Almost every one of the sites that I see that are news sites and refer to it are Muslims news sites or other propaganda sites: [10] or use the word "massacre" in quotation marks as if to say "that's what someone else called it". And frankly, I'm not sure that just because Muslim news sites call it something means it's a common name. And if other people come along and assert that it's not a common name, then yes, we do need to source it. "Qana attack" seems to have almost as much press as "Qana massacre": [11], and it comes from much more neutral (i.e., not far left or pro-Arab) websites. The first set of sites is almost exclusively Muslim, the second is much more international, and frankly shows the term's usage much better in English (many of the other sites are translations form Arabic). The Evil Spartan 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, you're citing a link with 685 news source results that use "Qana massacre", then citing one with 461 articles that use "Qana attack" (76 of which also use the term massacre), and then you're claiming that "Qana massacre" is not the common name? The common name for an event isn't defined as the term used by most American news outlets, and it's not defined as the term used by most "non-Muslims" (since that appears to be a high bar for inclusion in your research), it is defined as the term used by most "English speakers who are aware of the topic," wherever they might live in the world, whatever their religion may be. ← George [talk] 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. The term is used a little bit more, but it is almost always by Arab, Urdu, etc. sources (i.e., Muslim ones), which are usually translations from the local language. The other ones are clearly not English sources. I'm sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we go by the English term. If we claim that the English world doesn't get to set the word, then we might as well use the Hebrew term for it. The Evil Spartan 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you review the listed news sources, you'll find that well over 90% are written in English – not Arabic or Urdu. But you are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the subject, and we may just have to agree to disagree. Cheers. ← George [talk] 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I consider CNN a pretty reliable and neutral source. Look at this search for Qana massacre under You get phrases like:
  • Lebanon said it was a massacre
  • Lebanese have commemorated what they call the Qana massacre
  • known locally as the Qana massacre
  • Arab networks are calling it "the second Qana massacre."
Clearly "Qana massacre" is the most common usage - in Lebanon. There is no indication that anyone outside of Lebanon uses the same term. The fact is that even if the naming conventions don't insist on neutral names, they are usually a good idea regardless. That's why we have Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 instead of Tiananmen Square Massacre. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Arithmetic Concern[edit]

There is something perplexing about the tally of 1/3 for, 1/3 abstaining, and 2 against, in the UN Reaction section, in that the first 1/3 is 66, the second 1/3 is 59 and the balance is 2. If the UN has around 192 voting members, that leaves about 65 unaccounted for. It may be that you have to be there to abstain, and that the 65 did not abstain but were absent. If I knew how, I would communicate this concern in some other manner. The foonotes to the UN Reaction section are disabled (12-10-07) because is on strike, he ways. Stuart Filler - (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 65 unaccounted for did not vote -- this is the fourth category of voting (apart from in favour, against and abstain). The page from the original looks like: On the page these countries appear grey, but you can highlight them by clicking on the button on the left: Goatchurch (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article[edit]

In a probably vain attempt to sum up the article title dispute:

It is not in dispute that the IDF shelled a UN compound which contained many refugees, and in the course of this shelling many refugees were killed and wounded. What is in dispute is whether or not they meant to do so. If it was intentional, the incident could justly be described as a massacre. If it wasn't intentional, then "massacre" is clearly wrong. I don't know whether it was intentional or not, although from reading the evidence my personal sympathies are with the dead and wounded refugees and the UN troops, and not with the IDF, who were (depending on your point of view) either criminally negligent or just criminal. But my sympathies are neither here nor there. I guess that most people who look up the article will probably be looking for it under "Qana massacre", but since that title is clearly an interpretation of the incident, it's POV and therefore not a suitable title for the article. The meaning of the event is disputed, so the article title should not try to come down on one side or the other. On the other hand, something like "Qana event" or "Qana incident" is so woolly and vague that it's useless. Many things have happened in Qana (isn't Jesus supposed to have changed water into wine there?) and the 1996 shelling is one of the more notable events. "1996 shelling of Qana" seems to me to be the only acceptable compromise, since nobody doubts that the incident happened in the first place. Lexo (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why revisit this issue? Qana massacre is apt because it refers to the death of a large number of unresisting people. Here is the official connotation from Websters dictionary Definition of Massacre:

1  : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty 2  : a cruel or wanton murder 3  : a wholesale slaughter of animals 4  : an act of complete destruction The civilians of Qana were helpless, unarmed and died in large numbers under circumstances of cruelty so I beleive that the definition is perfectly apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheelo81 (talkcontribs) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a little concerned about the support vs opposition arguments on use of "massacre" in various I-P articles, which often seems a debate defined on a partisan divide. How would you propose we more fairly determine when and where to use the M-word? RomaC (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source that claims that the Israeli attack force (I used that name on purpose)gave a 48 hour warning? i cant seem to find it. Also, where is the justification of bombing that village? I believe that the title should be MASSACRE. Even if a waing was given out, why would they bomb the city if people were still in it? dont give me the "they didnt know" crap. I'm sure they knew. The 2006 Massacre should also share that name.Maz640 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the title currently in NPOV - yet one editor already keeps trying to rename it; attempts to inject it with a title that has no NPOV sources has caused the article to be disputed. Unfortunately, everything can be called a massacre - the POV is palpable. If bombing a city with people in it (see Maz640's comments above) is a massacre, then every bombing of a populated place is thus whether it be the various drone strikes in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the bombings by NATO in Tripoli, Belgrade, etc. Someone has seriously misunderstood the word "massacre" and for POV reasons wants to push it. You will likely win some battle to rename it, because I don't care enough to keep undoing the editor, but the wikipedia loses credibility on the subject because of the POV. It is probably generalizable since if this gets renamed, most people will (rightly by Wikipedia standards) conclude that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was basically the same (a non-massacre to anyone else but the POV pushers). Get your brains on, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is called a massacre by the UN, BBC, Humans Rights watch,Lebanon, Al Jazzera, Amnesty,and a bunch of other publications in the middle east and the world.The Israeli military have been found culpable in the case by a UN investigation, that says they lied.Amnesty says they did it on purpose in their investigation into the event.We have events named in wikipedia which involve Israeli which all seem to be called massacres and there seems to be no dispute about that, some one has already brought that fact up on this page.Calling something what it is is not a POV.As for credibility, lol I think you lost all that when you tried to include Mohamed Atta as a perp in this event.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the lawsuit filed by the victims against the Israeli general it is called a "battle", see [12] first paragraph "Appellants brought this action seeking damages for injuries and deaths resulting from a battle between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah along the Lebanese border." This is how impartial justices hearing the case noted the contentions of the parties. The title "Shelling" conveys a battle which was the characterization of both sides before POV settled in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not impartial, the Judge called Hezbollah terrorists, not impartial at all I would say.Also they dismissed the case because they did not have jurisdiction to proceed and because the Israeli embassy had already sent a letter that the General was acting on instruction for the state of Israel and that makes him immune to prosecution in that court.Anyway I see you skipped all my points and all you could come up with was some biased American judges opinion.I suggest you read thru your link because it is pretty obvious you are not getting what it actually says.As I have stated the UN,HRW,BBC, Al Jazzera,Amnesty,Lebanon and many more call it the Qana massacre and you have produced very little in response.Now have you got an argument to put forth or not?Owain the 1st (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The victims had their day in court, they chose an American court because they viewed it as impartial, and they are stuck with the decision and their characterization of what occurred. Your claim that the court was not impartial is unsourced and just a POV push like most of what you want to claim here. Call it a massacre if you want, but in the only binding decision of a neutral fact finder it was a battle. Many people already see Wikipedia as an anti-Israeli tool and the extreme Zionists urge no one to believe anything on the topic from Wikipedia. Viewpoints and edits such as yours only lends that view credibility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the court is impartial is unsourced.Please do tell me how many Palestinians have won a case against Israel in an American court? Shall we say none?Yet again you have failed to address the point that all the organisations that I named call it a massacre.Your only argument is depending on the words of one biased judge in an American court, until you can find a proper argument I suggest you take down your impartiality tag that you asked no one if you could put up and just except that it was indeed a massacres, which it was.As for wikipedia being an anti Israeli tool that is laughable, you should try reading the articles on here they are very much pro Israeli.Please stop talking about have already proven that you have were on this same article a few days ago saying that Mohamed Atta(9/11 guy_ was a perp in THIS event..laughable.Now it is clear you have no argument here but you need to bounce back again and again with very little.Before you post next time please try and put forth one argument why it should not be called a massacre when that is exactly as it is known in the middle east and various media outlets, the UN..Amnesty..etc etc..Owain the 1st (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice trolling dude. You're probably a paid Zionist editor. I leave the field yours because your statements are so absurd to speak for themselves. This article, after you're done with it is more fiction than fact and any normal reader will realize that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A paid zionist editor would not be for changing it to a massacre, they would be for the opposite..they would be arguing what you are arguing.You do see that right? I guess you do not.My statements are factual where as you have failed to come up with much of an argument and are now upset because you have been found out.Any normal reader will know it is a massacre just like the list of media outlets and human rights organisations that I named do.I did ask you no to come back if you did not have an argument but here you are again with nothing to offer in this debate.Somehow I do not believe that you are not coming back.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Israel response to Israel spin[edit]

User:Banzoo seems to think it is fine to change Israel response to Israel spin.I believe that Israel spin is not a NPOV as it is considered to be bending the truth.Israel response is just that,what Israel said about the attack.This editor has now changed this piece a few times.Views?Owain the 1st (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Response to what? to its actions? The use of word "response" is highly misleading. A response is expected to answer someone else's question. In the case of the section in question, Israel is responding to the shelling that it itself has done, which is absurd! On the other hand, the word spin is much more accurate term, since it describes the way Israel is doing damage control via media outlets locally and around the world. --Banzoo (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really bad argument on your part.Spin is not a NPOV.I will be asking an admin to look into thisOwain the 1st (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response is the correct work. Using "Spin", and then linking it, is not very neutral. Their response might have been spin - but that is a matter to address in the article text with reliable sources. Unless the wide array of reliable independent sources refer to their response in this specific incident as "spin" then there is no reason to head the section in that way --Errant (chat!) 19:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All what you have been saying is that it's "NPOV" without any clarification on where it fails to meet the spin definition. So please provide your reasons clearly with arguments instead of calling NPOV without any basis. Obviously the words "response" and its equivalent "reaction" are misleading since it implies that Israel is "reacting" or "answering" to its own actions, which, I repeat, is absurd! --Banzoo (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been out voted I believe, the consensus is that you are wrong.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you misunderstood what a consensus or a vote is, like you already did with "response". --Banzoo (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a consensus is, lets see we have me,Errant and Sean who changed your revert back all saying that spin is not a NPOV and you saying it is.3 to 1..a consensus.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banzoo; spin is a generally disingenuous term implying a form of propaganda. Hence; it is not a neutral term. To use it in the article reliable independent sources would be needed to establish that their response was widely considered to be spin. --Errant (chat!) 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word response is incorrect. When you use it, you must specify what is it responding to? Is it responding to the action done by the same party issuing that "response" or "reaction"? That's absurd! Would you provide a source that classify Spin as non NPOV? Would you provide the reasons why Spin is not NPOV, and "response" is? --Banzoo (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response or reaction is an accepted neutral way of expressing their, umm, response :) Spin very definitely is not neutral, it is a negative word implying propaganda. Hence you must be able to source it. If reaction/response seem non-neutral to you (and I currently am unable to understand your argument that they are..) then perhaps suggest other words we could use. But spin, no chance--Errant (chat!) 11:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No! "response" is not NPOV. Following any understanding of the word "response" or "reaction", it should be answering some OTHER party. In this case, the SAME party is answering itself. Which is absurd! On another issue, why is there two sections for Israel Spin in this article? --Banzoo (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will humour you once more before I get annoyed:

  • Spin is an opinion. You must source this. Soapboxing is a blockable offence. Please present the source identifying this as "Spin".
  • Response is widely considered netural... they are responding to the event on the diplomatic stage, perhaps there is a language barrier but this is an accepted use of the word. I am not sure I understand your objection to it as a non-neutral term on the basis it is not used in reference to a response to another party... smells like bullshit to me.
  • If you find response/reaction to be POV and I find (IMO with much firmer rationale) "Spin" to be POV then fine. I invited you to suggest a new word that was more netural. That you simply put Spin back suggests to me your aim here is simply to insert Spin into the article. So I invite you again to suggest an alternative word, or provide a good source for "Spin", otherwise I am reverting again. This is a topic area with acres of soapboxing POV warriors, please don't become one of them :( --Errant (chat!) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that Banzoo just wants to use the word spin as a POV and is not interested in any consensus here.The word has already been changed from response to reaction and he still wants to put in spin.I see no reason to continue when he just wants to ignore other editors and do his own thing.I have just reverted it back as he has changed it yet again Owain the 1st (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of continuously diverting the main issue of the discussion, all what I am asking is to provide a source and WHAT is this section "responding" to? For instance another section in this same article suggests a response TO THE UN REPORT, unlike the case here where response is floating without accurately stating the action that is responding to. Can you clarify this? Otherwise, it's only a media action done in parallel of the killing of innocents, with the sole purpose to engage in damage control through media. Either way, the definition of the word spin holds completely here unless you can show the points that disagree with the definition of spin. When you suggest that Spin is POV provide your sources. --Banzoo (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the sole purpose to engage in damage control through media; source please. --Errant (chat!) 13:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is fully protecting the article is a way to keep it non NPOV? Is this the way to deal with all Israeli related articles? You avoided to answer any of my worries in the way the word response is being used. But you rushed away to block any edits after making yours, hence enforcing your POV. Please keep this talk classy, and answer the issues that have been raised instead of using techniques prior to any notice and without providing any reasons that back your claims! An editor is trying to force the POV word "spin" into a header [...], the same assertion is applicable to the word "response". So how come you consider your POV as the reference here?--Banzoo (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response is a pretty neutral word, by its dictionary definition. I can't really say any more than that. I have no views, other than the fact that "spin" is view that needs to be sourced. *shrug* I invited you to suggest a different word a compromise. I asked you for a source for spin. Neither has been forthcoming, you simply seem to be stalling. That doesn't cut it, I don't buy bullshitting. How about "statements", that would work & is purely descriptive. --Errant (chat!) 16:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response is neutral when used in a proper context. Anyway, using the word 'statement' is much better than response. Thanks for your effort. --Banzoo (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is against you changing the word to spin, you do not want to go with the consensus and just wanted to came back again and again to change the word back to spin.You have put forth no good argument why it should be changed.You have been reported twice for doing it but continued to do it anyway and now you cannot change it.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this from a distance. I agree that Banzoo has been going about this all wrong, of course, but I do see his point that when he asks, "How does Israel 'respond' to its own actions?" Certainly repeatedly trying to insert the decidedly POV term "spin" can't be permitted, but I think Errant's suggestion of "statements" is a better fit than "response" to describe the section, and would be pleased to see that change introduced.
As an aside to Banzoo, though, I really have to say that you've handled this in a very unproductive way. Even though you evidently believe the statements made by Israeli officials were propaganda, you still have to use NPOV words to describe those statements, unless reliable sources use the non-NPOV words you want to introduce to do so.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to go with statements.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]


Whew! Thanks to Errant for his timely suggestion, and per the statement made above by user Banzoo (talk · contribs) at 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC) we now have unanimous agreement of all parties to the preceding discussion for changing the section heading that's currently in the article as Israeli reaction to "Israeli statements". Thanks in advance to whichever helpful gnome makes the change.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was involved in this I didn't want to edit through the protection (that would be naughty, even with agreement) so I compromised and removed the protection early (and then made the edit). Seeing as the dispute is over it seemed sensible to unprotect. --Errant (chat!) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't realized you'd be classed as involved for the purpose, or I wouldn't have asked. Quite right to have done as you did, however, and thanks once again for coming up with the word that cut the knot.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Death & WP: Mil Hist Assessment Commentary[edit]

The article was assessed as C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HRW report misrepresented[edit]

In their report, Human Rights Watch condemned both Hezbollah and Israel for violations of international law in connection with the Qana shelling. Only the latter is mentioned in the article. The HRW section should probably be rewritten. Mapmad (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Amnesty International report also appears to be much more nuanced than the way it is presented in the article. A typical quote from the report: "The intention of the Hizbullah combatants in choosing that location for the mortar is unclear; it might have been to shield themselves against an IDF counter-attack in the belief that the UN compound would be too close for the IDF to respond. Even if this was not the intention of the Hizbullah combatants, by taking up positions where they did they clearly were reckless as to the consequences this might have for the civilians in the immediate area. In either case, this is a clear breach of the laws of war’s prohibitions on using the civilian population as a shield. However, Hizbullah’s action in no way justifies the IDF attack on the compound." Mapmad (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The current paragraph about Bennett seem too lengthy for his share of the event. Whether he panicked or not has nothing to do with the shelling. In my opinion, most of it might belong in Bennett's article but not here. Any other opinion? Ashtul (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HOUND. If you persist in turning up on every other page just after I edit it, then it is evidence of a reportable mode of behavior that is frowned on here.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't touch what you wrote but checked it. My point is valid which I want others to look at it.Ashtul (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ashtul. Even in "Peace Now" understand that the publication of these rumors - is only "black PR" against Bennett ahead of Elections-2015:

Stop bugging Bennett over the Kafr Qana deaths (Amos Harel, Haaretz+) Enough relevant sources insist the Habayit Hayehudi chairman was not responsible for the killing of 102 Lebanese civilians during a 1996 battle.

Accusations Against Bennett 'A Load of Nonsense'

"I don't agree with Naftali's politics, but it was important for me to speak out, as there is no reason his name should be sullied now because of upcoming elections."

See WP:Weight --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
++: my Caution-2015-01-06) --Igorp_lj (talk 09:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raviv Druker has recanted his statement (sorry for the hebrew but I didn't find an english translation) so I assume we can safely take most text out. In addition, you didn't dispute either me or Igorp_lj. Ashtul (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being tempestuous. The proper thing to do is to add that this has been recanted. By the way, I don't take seriously assertions I am 'bugging' Bennett when as the record shows, I provided very strong evidence from B'tselem's chairman in his favour. You both followed me here, and tagteaming is frowned on. I suggest when in doubt to ask a third opinion. Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! That is not a recantation and apology. It is a completely over-the-top parody of an apology, intended to ridicule Bennet for making such an issue about this. RolandR (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RolandR:Let's see. אני מתנצל, נפתלי. סליחה. טעיתי. Or in English - I apologize, Naftali, sorry, I was wrong. Yes, he then moves to criticize his nowaday politics but that doesn't change the fact.
Since you already replied, do you even think all this back and forth belongs here? I would understand on Bennett's article, but here???? Ashtul (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ashtul, Drucker writes a lot more than that. Here is my translation of the opening of his piece: "I apologise, Naftali. Sorry, I was mistaken. I hope that you will find a place in your platoon commander’s heart to forgive a jobnik like me. I can imagine how you heard about my twittering at midnight, what anguish you suffered from these 140 characters, in which I dared to quote a senior army officer who expressed doubt as to your level-headedness on that night in 1996. How that tweet must have hurt you. How you must have screamed, I imagine, 'That’s it! What a bonanza I am going to make of this'. And since then you have used infinite energy in an attempt to persuade us how courageous you were as a young officer. You have convinced me, without being at all cynical. I just wanted to ask, if you will permit it, where this courage has disappeared since you entered public life?" Can you really look at me with a straight face and insist that this is a genuine "recantation" and "apology"? RolandR (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR, yes I can! Ashtul (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ostensible 'apology' is seamed with a deep vein of sardonic mockery. Roland is correct. The only problem is, some sources may have jumped on the words to construe them as a (sincere) apology. If so, those sources 'interpret' the original, and therefore cannot be used without attribution. This is the usual problem, Ashtul: you must distinguish between a fact ('someone made an apology' and an opinion ('such and such a source' claimed Drucker apologized. As it is, the latter is the only possible construction. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how did you get to this page. I edited it, and you show up. You are under an administrative direction not to follow me around.Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had the discussion before on this very page so this is how I got to it. I gave you the source back then back you inserted it as [citation needed] when you have the article. And you guys are the once to interpet. "I apologize" mean something very specific. If you thinkit was mockery, you need to prove it not vise-versa. Ashtul (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mentions he ends up with the sentence "There is no doubt - in 1996 you were there that night, in an important [place for] Israeli society. But Lieutenant Bennett, where the hell were you all night since you Israeli politics?" So yes, he critisize his current politics but still apologize. Ashtul (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up irony or, specifically antiphrasis. It means saying one thing, and meaning the opposite, as in Anthony's funeral oration when he keeps insisting Brutus is an 'honourable man', meaning, he's utterly dishonorable, or Socrates describing himself as ignorant, to provoke ignorant people, who think he's far too clever. This is very basic in reading. That Roland's parsing of the tone of the Hebrew is how many readers took it can be shown here, where Richard Silberstein writes, in response to a correspondent who read, like you, that remark as sincere, the following:

@ Ariel: You’ve neglected to mention that the entire column is written in a cynical, ironic mode making it unclear what portions are meant to be sincere and in which Drucker is being ironic

So Roland's reading has notable textual authority in a good source, other than stating what is obvious to anyone with a sense of irony.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider Silverstein as NPOV, this discussion is pointless. I doubt you can find anyone more biased and professional blackwasher then he is. The irony presented is in relation to Bennett's current politics. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try to think in terms of relevant policy before replying. This place is not a forum for opinionizing at infinitum. Silverstein was cited not per NPOV, which is, frankly, an absurd misprision. Silverstein was cited simply because, whatever his views, he is a very linguistically competent Jewish correspondent of what the Hebrew press reports. No one, has ever, to my knowledge, caught him out fudging the evidence. To the contrary, he has often reported how the English-language press cuts out crucial information given in Hebrew newspapers. If he practiced deception or deceit, his community would jump at him and haul him over the coals. And the point is, Silverstein independently read the tone of the piece exactly as one of our own, highly esteemed, wiki experts did. NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a simple matter of Srachgefühl, and those who read purely for grammar, and miss tone, miss everything, as is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough to read the title of Silverstein's article to which you pointed to understand all he is interested in is blackwash. He will bend the translation in anyway that fits his mission. I understand you didn't mention him as an RS for the article but even on the talk page, bringing him as a proof is empty. Ashtul (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how Arutz 7 sees it. and an interview on Aruth 10 which you may want someone to translate. Ashtul (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, you have absolutely no understanding of the rules of Wikipedia, and cannot follow a normal policy-based argument on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your superior attitude towards me is tiring. I appreciate your support on Gvirtzman question but the rest you can keep to yourself.

Drucker says on the video he didn't think enough before twitting, that he was a brave soldier but is not a brave politician and wouldn't have published it again. He meant for it to be in contest of political bravery. His final words - that tweet by itself was wrong. WP:BLP demands more careful approach then what is demonstrated here. Ashtul (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Arutz 7 article cited by Ashtul refers to Drucker's response as "a questionable apology", Which should surely settle the issue.RolandR (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR, I assume you speak Hebrew, would you comment on the video? As for Arutz 7, מפוקפק is this context ,IMHO, isn't questionable as 'does he mean it' but rather 'is an apology with another attack, a regretful apology or convenient apology' (not even sure how to put it). Anyway, the video with him says everything. Ashtul (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course מפוקפק means "questionable". I would be astonished if you could find any source or expert who would deny this. I tried to watch the video, but can't get it to open on my computer. I'll have another attempt. Do you have a link to any transcript? RolandR (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. On my computer it also didn't work sometimes. Try different browsers. Ashtul (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
until Ronald disprove this, BLP require the inclusion of recanting. Ashtul (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:BLP do you find a justification for this proposal?Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look Ashtul, these are technical issues you keep missing. Drucker made a statement in Hebrew:'I apologize, Naphtali'. Not only Roland, but also a close follower of Israeli events in the original publications (Silverstein), took this to be possibly ironic, since much of the paragraph is mockery. You take it to be sincere. I took it to be sardonic, which it certainly is in English translation, but defer to others because I lack the competence.
So we have a dispute on interpretation.
The issue is unresolved, so if you make an edit like this where you write 'Drucker later recanted his statement,' this means you are passing off as a fact, what a secondary source like Silverstein states might well be ironic. It is WP:OR to take it as you did (even if it were true), because at least Richard Silverstein (a source) challenges that construal. I've noted repeatedly that you have shown considerable difficulty in understanding the difference between facts and opinions, and your latest edit buttresses my contention. Worse, your edit summary 'Per talk' is untrue. It is your view here, challenged by another editor. You acted preemptively as if there were consensus, when there is none. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What in Druckers words saying on the video interview "I wouldn't have published it again" isn't recanting enough for you?
WP:BLP states -"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". So when in doubt, WP:BLP come to protect the good name of an individual which in this case is retaining Drucker recanting. (I especially love how you added this original with [citation needed] though I have given you the source on the talk page). Ashtul (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP. It is a fact Drucker referred that information. It is a fact that I added testimony for Zonzstein (sp.?) denying that information. It is a fact that you removed my information in support of Bennett's courage. That was incomprehensible, and you never explained what on earth, while defending yourself Bennett, you were doing in removing information that defended his honour. Fifth, You still have no understanding of policy. If in the interview, Drucker says that he he wouldn't have published again', this is not a 'recantation' of the type you interpreted from his evidently ironic apology, so you confused sources. Lastly, I have no interest in this matter, and no opinion either way. I do understand confusion of sources, and misprisions of policy. And that is what occurred. I'll defer to whatever arrangement you make out with Roland, who has the necessary linguistic tools to make his call, when he manages to view the video.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. While SnowFire has put up a spirited defence, there is a consensus here that the proposed title is the significantly more common name for this incident. Jenks24 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1996 shelling of QanaQana massacre – per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOVNAME. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL Baking Soda (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for reasons stated in earlier RMs. Comparison to the examples in WP:NPOVNAME are only relevant if "massacre" is the generally accepted term for the incident. Earlier RMs showed that there were fewer "neutral" sources (i.e. newspapers, not activist groups) using "massacre" than you'd think. If this is wrong or has changed, and "neutral" sources use "massacre", please provide actual evidence thereof. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your opposition is based on arguments/sources last given in 2007? Kindly take a look at source pointers given, specifically scholarly ones. Baking Soda (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to come off as sounding lazy, but that's kind of the nominator's job. Anybody can drop off a list of links, and nobody contests that plenty of sources call the incident "Qana massacre." Also, this incident happened in 1996, so is there reason to think that the scholarship has drastically changed since then? (Okay, I suspect that to some extent it HAS drifted toward "massacre" in sources from 2007 onward, but that'd mostly be because the "pro-Israel" camp generally would want to sweep the incident under the rug and not talk about it, leaving relatively more "anti-Israel" types talking about who would be more inclined to use "massacre". I'm not sure that's a great argument to change the name, though.) Anyway, yes, I did look at the sources Staberinde linked, and I'm not really convinced. They include statements like "Hizbullah's media reinforce this construction by commemorating the Qana massacre periodically through special programmes on al-Manar and articles in al-'Ahd. " from a book on Hizbullah, the target of the 1996 attacks. Well... that means that Hizbullah plays up the incident as the Qana massacre. That isn't really under dispute, the question is what the name used by encyclopedias should be. "Library of Congress Subject Headings - Page 4515" and "The Middle East and the Peace Process: The Impact of the Oslo Accords" mention "Qana massacre" as just a passing reference. "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower" uses Qana Massacre in scare-quotes every time, and the tone seems to imply the author doesn't think much of the terminology, since he immediately quotes an Israeli military official as saying "what's the big deal, oops." To be fair, there is one very good source that uses Qana Massacre non-snidely: "Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations", which treats the topic seriously and in-depth and uses "Qana Massacre" without qualifier. I'm not sure that source is enough, though. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good on you to bring this up. The problem is that "shelling of Qana" is kind of a term Wikipedia made-up to avoid using "massacre" due it being on WP:WTA. So you don't need to show that Qana massacre > shelling of Qana - something we can all agree about - but rather than "Qana massacre" > all other references to "1996 incident at Qana" combined, because it's such a loaded word that it should only be used if common name demands it. Additionally, per the above, I suspect books will probably lean toward "activist" sources which aren't great for finding a neutral name. I searched for "Qana" and came up with this 2006 article on the 2006 incident which scrupulously avoids calling the '96 incident anything at all ( ). There IS an IHT / NYTimes source calling it "massacres" but it's from the editorial section ( ). Checking the BBC, they use "deadly air strikes" to describe it. ( ). I dunno, I just picked two famous sources, and neither are using "massacre". Again, it's not under dispute that there exist plenty of non-neutral sources that use "massacre", but sources that Wikipedia usually tries to mimic don't use "massacre." SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At risk of pointing out the obvious, the problem is that "massacre" implies that the Israelis intentionally murdered a bunch of civilians, which is disputed as it says in the article, with the Israeli president saying it was a tragic accident. Accidents aren't massacres. ("collateral damage", perhaps?) Again, even if it really WAS intentional and WAS a massacre and the IDF was just lying, I don't think this is considered an established historical fact that only fringe types disagree with. WP:VNT. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Hadassah medical convoy massacre. Kfar Etzion massacre in neither case is it a given that the Arabs murdered civilians intentionally. But we use that term because it is mostly known thus (by the community afflicted), as the Qana massacre is known among Arabs, and by the overwhelming testimony of secondary sources. If intention were the decider, then why not try and propose changing those article names as well, and call them "incidents"? I wouldn't, but you should be coherent.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with these incidents, but if the common name for them is "massacre", then fine. The problem with this incident is that it's not clear that the common, accepted name is in fact "Qana massacre", per the RM from 2007 and the sample searches / sources above that I performed on reputable news outlets generally calling it something else. SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News outlets are one thing, they are vitiated by presentism: books written after the event employ established usage. Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's POV is legitimate as such. None of the investigative bodies found anything more than prevarication in Israel's official account, including the lie no drone was near the camp. The UN site, which was by definition, never to be targeted, was subject to an artillery barrage while a drone supplying the Israeli central command with direct real time footage of precisely this UN compound, hovered directly over the site. The Israelis may not have known there were civilians, they did know as orders went down the line, that they were shelling a clearly marked (for the air) UN compound, whose nature, and precise location was known to Israel and its military planners for nearly 2 decades. It may not be standard official operative procedure, but doing this - blowing up or shelling places with 100% certainty civilians in large numbers are going to be killed, is a chronic practice in IDF warfare, attested by every reliable investigatory body that has looked into these matters. Everyone knows that, only official Israeli sources deny it.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "illegitimate?" Anyway, I don't think a politics discussion would help or be relevant to the task at hand, but to refocus on semantics, "massacre" only applies to the malicious, intentional case in normal usage. It's misleading if it was even the "The IDF was reckless and didn't care if civilians were there" case, which while really bad and worthy of condemnation, is still not a "massacre" in the usual sense of the term. As for "reliable investigatory body", per above, checking reliable sources in the usual Wikipedia sense has generally revealed sources that don't use "massacre", e.g. [13]. The linked UN report that criticizes Israel doesn't use massacre ([14]). The first G Scholar hit on "Qana massacre", and thus guaranteed to include it, uses 'massacre' in quotation marks, implying it's a contested term The only solid source linked so far that calls it the Qana massacre up-and-up is, per above, one book in "Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations" from Staberinde's GBooks search. Are there any other specific sources you'd like to call out as showing that "reliable investigatory bodies" agree this should be called the Qana massacre? SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We use massacre frequently in wiki for events where intention is not the case.(b) qana massacre+1996 =993 results in google books: 'qana massacre' alone gets 1,760 gits for books, and checking the first several pages, most refer to the 1996 incident. By contrast when the other ethnos in the conflict is the victim, 'hadassah convoy massacre' gets 34 gits, and 'Kfar Etzion massacre' gets 547. So to use the word 'maassacre' when Arabs are the victims requires in your view very strong evidence, whereas those of us who edit the other two articles have no problems with using scant evidence for 2 incidents involving grievous Jewish loses in war, knowing that intention as a criterion could be argued to problematize it. Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. I already said I'm not familiar with those incidents above, and I was trusting you when you said that massacre was the common name before for them! Hell, I didn't even know those were involving Arabs killing Jews, I assumed they were Jews killing Arabs, actually. I didn't actually read the article until your comment now.
This debate has clearly turned partisan which I have 0 interest in, but from the stance of someone interested in good article titles rather than litigating Israel, I would be happy to support removing "massacre" from those article titles as well if "massacre" is not well attested to as an indisputable WP:COMMONNAME that would override "words to avoid." Better all the articles at neutral titles than moving this article to a non-neutral title without a really, really bulletproof WP:COMMONNAME argument like Boston Massacre. SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A point Nishidani tried to convey, which I concur with, is that use of 'shelling' is a form of POV/dilution of tragic event (100 civilians plus, check out image search). It should be noted use of 'shelling' was introduced by local community, possibly as a compromise title. Baking Soda (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the news sources I investigated for this above used "shelling", actually, so I wouldn't say it was entirely an invention of the Wikipedia community.
Your point about potentially diluting the seriousness of the event is well-taken, and it's possible there's a better title that conveys the magnamity of the event out there. I don't think that the POV title "Qana massacre" is better unless you can actually show it's the unquestionable WP:COMMONNAME, which my current research - more than I'd usually do as a random bystander for a move - says it isn't. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It stands out like dogs' balls that when artillery is used, shelling is what occurs. Every report would say that. The fact that shells were used means, Qana was shelled. So? It's a bit like calling the 2014 Gaza Conflict, the 2014 Israeli bombing/missile and Hamas rocket exchange. Of course every source will report that Israeli bombed Gaza, and Hamas shot off its rockets, but that is absolutely no indication of name usage for the conflict. One needs sources that refer to it as a name known as the Qana massacre (2,120 hits)/known as the Qana shelling (1,080 results, mostly referring to the Qana massacre and not using 'known' linked to the phrase). This usage evidence is overwhelming in favour of Qana massacre.Nishidani (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) If the usage is so overwhelming then why is it that whenever searching merely for "Qana 1996" and picking a source, "Qana massacre" isn't used? SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did what you asked and got immediately:this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.etc.
This is an evidence-based thing, and you are not looking at evidence, but trying, it strikes me, to find a method that disowns the obvious and even those dodges fail.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is an evidence-based thing. I'd have signed off long ago had it been a "eh I like this better" thing, but I spent a bunch of time looking into this, and the evidence did not support it. And yes, I actually read the GBooks search links before, which is precisely why I've been so insistent about this. Like I've said before, "found a source that uses the term" is not a useful method of finding a title on controversial topics.
We're going around in circles, and I held off on this because I was mad, but please assume good faith. WP:NPOVNAME says a "significant majority" of the sources should use the non-neutral name. To me, that means something stronger than "you can find sources that use the name"; it means that you can pick a source first, check the name, and it's usually going to be the non-neutral name. And every time I did this, I didn't find Qana Massacre. If you disagree with NPOVNAME or see "significant majority" as just meaning "eh there's a bunch of sources", we'll have to agree to disagree, but that is my stance. SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt you are in good faith. I've examined the evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions to those you embrace. The arguments are set forth. Other edits will review them and draw their own judgements as to where the bulk of the evidence lists. Let's listen.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1996 shelling of Qana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Qana massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More grist for the Mill[edit]

Robert Fisk,'Shimon Peres was no peacemaker,' The Independent 28 September 2016. This can presumably be used as a reference for some points in the article. But I'm aware that it's a very controversial subject so I'm being less than bold. EdwardLane (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted it into one of the usual citation modes. Fisk has covered this in his books, so I don't know off hand if the article has anything new. But if there's material here the article lacks, and should have, it is a perfectly respectable source, since Fisk is both an historian of Lebanon and the Middle East, and was present hours later on the scene.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qana massacre1996 Qana massacre – To distinguish it from 2006 Qana airstrike, which is also usually referd to as simply "Qana massacre". Maudslay II (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The title "Qana massacre" is rarely used by RS to refer to the 2006 event. OP has not cited any sources to show evidence of a common name. (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)user disallowed from commenting here per WP:A/I/PIA.[reply]
    Taken from the article:[1][2][3][4] Many looking for 2006 massacre are confused with the 1996 one. --Maudslay II (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - when the second airstrike is called a massacre it is called the second Qana massacre (eg BBC: It remains to be seen if the "Qana Massacre No 2" - as it's being called in Lebanon - will have the same result as the 1996 tragedy - enormous pressure on Israel to curtail its operations, leading to a ceasefire.) If there's some evidence that Qana massacre by itself is ambiguous I am open to changing my mind, but there needs to be evidence for that. nableezy - 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy: Many sources refer to 2006 massacre simply as 'the' Qana massacre, in English[5][6][7][8] and Arabic[9][10]. '2006 Qana Massacre' and/or 'second Qana massacre' are used, as I said, to distinguish it from 1996. Speaking for myself, I was confused multiple times while looking for 2006 and getting redirected to 1996. It is much clearer to add the year in the title. --Maudslay II (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those arent exactly reliable sources to demonstrate a name is in regular usage. nableezy - 17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    :: @Nableezy: There are no enough reliable sources that talk about this subject, but those sources represent what the people search for when looking it up. --Maudslay II (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / alternate move target. Per arguments in the previous RM, I'd actually favor a return to the older 1996 shelling of Qana article title. While "massacre" is a common name, it's also a word to avoid without an overwhelming common name argument (e.g. Boston Massacre), and I don't feel that higher requirement is met to use such a non-neutral title - there are lots of news articles that don't use massacre (this New York Times article calls it a "raid" for example) or only acknowledge it as a Lebanese term for the event. But I don't want to sidetrack this RM solely on the year in the title, of which I have no opinion. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire: "Shelling of Qana" would be the Israeli term as well, I wouldn't say npov. --Maudslay II (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't searching Israeli sources, I was checking non-Israeli, non-Lebanese sources with a search for "1996 Qana" so as not to prejudice things. Searching on the BBC gives this for another example: "the 1996 shelling of Qana in southern Lebanon that killed over 100.", no reference to massacre in running text. Here's Al-Jazeera: "Israeli bombing", no reference to "massacre". Wikipedia should follow terminology from "neutral" sources, and favor the less "heated" word when in doubt. Neutral sources don't call this one a massacre, and when they mention the term (which the three articles I cited - not cherry picked, they were the first things to come back - don't at all), it's only as an attributed term to "what Hizbullah calls it" and the like. SnowFire (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC indeed does call it the Qana massacre in any number of articles. For example [15], [16]. We can discuss this in another section, but the idea that supposedly neutral sources dont call it the Qana massacre is very much not true. And that isnt even getting in to the book sources and journal article. nableezy - 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked the same article twice - and that's a passing mention as a sentence. You'll get more useful results if you look for more directly related articles. 1996 Qana and check out the articles (in English) that pop up, they don't generally use "massacre". I'm not denying that the term "massacre" comes up sometimes, anyway, I'm just arguing there needs to be a very strong preponderance of neutral sources using it for Wikipedia to use it on a contentious topic. This would apply equally to some incident that Israel called a massacre but was referred to otherwise elsewhere, to be clear. SnowFire (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not sidetrack this RM. It is about adding 1996 to the title --Maudslay II (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't plan on commenting further but I was replying to the above comment, which made the misleading claim that BBC casually uses "massacre". This is not really the common usage, as shown with evidence, so that is relevant to clear up. If people are willing to let it go at that, I won't have anything further to add. SnowFire (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, mis-copied urls from tabs. Posters link the massacre to later incidents in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict, including the Qana massacre in 1996 and the July 2006 war; International condemnation greeted the massacre on 18 April 1996 of over 100 Lebanese refugees in a UN base at Qana, in what the Israeli military said was a mistake.. And again, that isnt even getting in to the scores of scholarly sources that call it a massacre or the Qana massacre. Beyond that, there is no such thing as a "neutral" source, we base out titles on reliable sources. The BBC isnt the end all be all of sourcing, in fact news sources are lower on quality scale than say peer-reviewed journal articles. nableezy - 19:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking back at the move to this title at #Requested_move_18_April_2016 shows that massacre is indeed the common name, with lopsided results in books and scholar for it. If you want to run back that move request sure, but I think in this one we should focus on what is proposed here. nableezy - 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing @Nableezy: Even the notice above this article (and the other one) suggests that it is confused with 2006. --Maudslay II (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Assem El-Kersh. "Al-Ahram Weekly – Front Page – Here && Now: Turn not the other cheek". Archived from the original on May 8, 2013. Retrieved December 15, 2014.
  2. ^ Asser, Martin (July 31, 2006). "Qana makes grim history again". BBC News. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
  3. ^ "Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask". The Independent. London. January 7, 2009. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
  4. ^ Roee Nahmias (August 1, 2006). "Lebanese website blames Hizbullah for Qana deaths". Retrieved August 2, 2009.
  5. ^ "The Qana massacre: Slaughter of innocents in Lebanon". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  6. ^ "Qana massacre provokes crowd attack on UN building". The New Humanitarian (in French). 2006-07-30. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  7. ^ "Survivors of Israeli massacre in Lebanon rebuild their lives". Survivors of Israeli massacre in Lebanon rebuild their lives. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  8. ^ "Remembering the Qana Massacres". Mondoweiss. 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  9. ^ الميادين, شبكة (2014-07-30). "حزب الله يعلن أن مجزرة قانا لن تبقى من دون رد". شبكة الميادين (in Arabic). Retrieved 2021-03-25.
  10. ^ "«زي النهارده».. إسرائيل ترتكب مجزرة «قانا» في لبنان 30 يوليو 2006 | المصري اليوم". (in Arabic). Retrieved 2021-03-25.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


@Nableezy: @SnowFire: No room to settle for either "First Qana massacre" or "1996 Qana massacre" or "Qana massacre, 1996"? Because the year is really needed in the title. -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

37? 31?[edit]

Hi, the last sentence of the third para in the "Shelling of UN compound" section states: "One man, Saadallah Balhas, lost 37 members of his family in the strike", attr. ref 12. In the "Lawsuit by relatives" section, it is stated that "Among the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are Saadallah Ali Belhas and his son Ali Saadallah Belhas who lost 31 family members in the shelling including their respective wives and 12 children", attr. ref 36. Given that the numbers are taken from different sources (and assuming that they are taken correctly from them), the discrepancy in numbers is not that odd; however, such a contradiction makes for bad optics in any article. I don't know if it is a problem for anyone, or what the solution should be, but if I owned Wikipedia, I'd probably try to fix this. T (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC) T (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]