Talk:2006 Qana airstrike

Archives
Jul 2006 – August 4, 2006

Category:War crimes

I recently added Category:War crimes to the article but it was removed by User:Smyth. The same category was re-added by User:Mani1 and re-removed also by User:Smyth saying it is a controversial category. Quoting from war crime "war crime is a punishable offense under International Law, for violations of the laws of war" and from Laws of war which states that the main sources for laws of war are the United Nations Charter, the Geneva conventions and the Hague conventions. Also, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is categorized under war crimes. I can't really see how bombing a builiding and killing 54 civilians including children is not a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may not be regarded as war crime!--Wedian 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

Fourth Geneva Convention is not relevant here, as the civilians that were involved, are not in territory controlled by Israel. Regarding the international laws of war, Israel Is Within Its Rights , and the one side that is committing war crimes is the Hisbula, that is using civilians as shelters in Lebanon, and firing missiles intentionally against civil areas in Israel.

Quoting the PM of Lebanon as an authority regarding "War Crimes" of Israel, is as good a source as Quoting Nassralla..., I suggest removing this quote.

While I am inclined to agree with you, the Fourth Geneva Convention only applies to civilians in the hands of another party in the conflict. For example, if Israel attacked a Lebanese city and killed hundreds of civilians, that would signify a violation of the convention. ugen64 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but is this not what happened here? Or do air attacks not count as "in the hands[...]"? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Until a court has decided that a specific action is a war crime, any such categorisation is POV and should be avoided. Cymruisrael 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear cymruisrael: If you check out an article like Osama bin Laden you'll see that it's in Category:Saudi Arabian terrorists and Category:September 11, 2001 attacks despite the fact that no court has ever decided that ObL is a terrorist, nor that he has any links to the Sep 11 2001 attacks. If you want to remove Category:War crimes from this article, then we would have to remove all the categorisations of alleged terrorists in the wikipedia from those alleged terrorists' pages. (In fact, if you check out the historical record, you'll find out that the Afghanistan government was willing to give up ObL to be tried in a court of law, but the US/UK didn't want to have a court trial in a third-party, neutral country.) For NPOV in this case, it should be sufficient to quote someone who considers the Qana massacre of this morning to constitute a war crime, just as people are quoted who consider ObL to be a terrorist despite his not having been tried in a court of law. Boud 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This was not a war crime because it was not a deliberate attack on civilians. There have been leaflets dropped and radio broadcasts warning residents to leave. On Fox News they showed a video of missiles being launched from directly next to the building that was hit. --PiMaster3 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Even attacking the homes of civilians is regarded a war crime. The war crime stamp should stick until the UN and others define it not to be one. --User:Royk 18.41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There will be plenty of time for history and the UN to decide if this is a war crime. Right now, we should stick to the facts as we know them, rather then assume that the facts are. This is a highly controversial issue, and cool heads must prevail when editing the article. Whether or not it is a war crime is irrelevant 24 hours after what happen; we should concentrate on finding background and verified facts for the article right now.

The US was to condemn the action as a war crime, but the USA blocked this. So, in effect, this in indeed a war crime as settled by the UN wasn't it for the US abvuse of its veto.

The idea that something IS a war crime until the UN and others define it NOT to be one is not NPOV. When homes of civilians are used for military purposes, attacking those homes is not regarded as a war crime. More importantly, an NPOV article would take no position on whether this is a war crime. 141.154.225.213 19:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi's used to drop leaflets too. Guess that made it all ok. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law. 141.154.225.213 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about war here. The nazi reference is relavant.Self-Described Seabhcán 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything said by someone using the phrase "The nazis did X. Guess that made it all OK" is irrelevant and rather pointless regardless of what X is. If you have a point to make about leaflets, make it. Are leaflets good? Bad? Irrelevant? Say what you want to say without bringing up Nazis or you'll just be another internet jerk follwing Godwin's law and getting laughed at. 141.154.225.213 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PiMaster3 claimed that bombing civilians is not a war crime if you give them prior warning in the form of a leaflet. I was simply pointing out that the Nazi's also informed thier victims by leaflet, yet we don't absolve them of guilt. Not raising the example of the Nazi's when the discussion is about war crimes is like not mentioning a gold medalist when the topic is the olymipix. Godwin's law doesn't apply. Self-Described Seabhcán 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PiMaster3's post speaks for itself and makes no such claim. Perhaps you should read his entire post again. Or perhaps focus on the article. You wish to include this article in Category:War Crimes because civilians were struck by bombs. PiMaster3's point is that a rocket launching site was targeted AND civilians were warned. Please stop reading selectively and making fatally flawed comparisons and begin discussing the article. Do you think it is a war crime to attack an area that has been used to launch rockets across an international border? Do you think that's what Germany did after Sept 1, 1939? 141.154.225.213 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany also faked a border clash inorder to invade and occupy a weaker neighbour. There are lots of parallels. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You either get your news from a different planet or your analysis is flawed beyond all recognition of reality. Hezbollah has said it kidnapped the soldiers in a border clash. Seabchan reads this and thinking Israel faked the same border clash. Maybe you think Hezbollah and Israel are working together in a great conspiracy against Lebanon? This thread was about placing the article in Category:War crimes. Please focus on that topic if you are able to. 141.154.225.213 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a border clash alright, but which side of the border? If you are illegally on foreign terroritory, is it a kidnap or an arrest? [1] Self-Described Seabhcán 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to UN Resolution 1559 Hezbollah is in Lebanon illegally, and no I did not claim that bombing civilians is not a war crime if you give them prior warning. --PiMaster3 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hezbollah is committing war crimes by using civilians as human shields at its launch sites and arms depots.

• So wait, since when is bombing civilians a war crime? None of the World War II city bombing articles are considered war crimes. It doesn't really make sense to say it was a war crime for Israel to kill 60 civilians, but not for the US to kill 60,000. -00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing changes to the 2006 Qana airstrike article." 141.154.225.213 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the leaflets do not work at all considering that those people do not have any supply to leave their position in a desert hot place. With no basic suppliers they do not even have GAS to move away with cars or other vehicles as the GAS STATIONS have been bombed. There have been constant information that the roads including the cars fleeing have been bombed, 2 days ago BBC reporter moving along with his cameraman and mobilized civilians in a road from south have been shelled and it has been recorded. So moving away is fatal, staying is fatal and eveybody talks about conventions which are very improper in these conditions as Hezbollah hijacks Lebanese people which should be out of war as Israel claims it is not a war to Lebanon. Let's assume that Israel is not guilty in terms of LAW but definately NOT INNOCENT. At last the world community shall know the mistakes that Israel did and most probably in future they will be guilty, guilty of war crimes. And I think if further investigation was to be done Israel would be a war criminal. What is going on is a mere DOUBLE STANDART my friends and no one is going to speak like a lawyer here mocking up with other peoples ideas or sayings, here is not a court no one should always speak superlogically, this is a discussion page, please be human, at least a bit this is not a humiliation just a WISH. And sorry for my English if it is meager I am not native. (cantikadam 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

I cannot stress enough that this is the talk page for the 2006 Qana airstrike article and not in any way, anything else. Also, since when do we Wikipedians get to point out events and classify them as war crimes? Please put all this energy into keeping this article NPOV, relevant and current. Ranieldule 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, mine is just a comment I am profoundly eager to improve Wİkipedia's liability and its creditibility.(cantikadam 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

May be i didn't make myself clear above . Please review the articles in Category: War crimes . Many of the incidents in the articles in this category were not classified as war crimes by international courts. Same applies to other categories asCategory:Terrorists. I am sure some of these subjects could be regarded as heroes in other countries. Yet, these categories still exist. Killing 57 civilians including handicapped children is a war crime and was described as a war crime by other sources e.g.[2], [3] , [4] and [5]. As i understood from the above discussion, some users think it might be a war crime but it is not wikipedia's job to classify it. But, as i said, these categories still exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and certainly shouldn't have double standards. So IMO, either we categorize the article in Category:War crimes or request to delete the whole category as it may be regarded as a POV category.--Wedian 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the category should be deleted, or even better, renamed to "Alleged war crimes". – Smyth\^talk 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For a previous discussion about deleting this category, see [[6]]. Deleting or renaming an entire category because one particular article is not in it would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point...big mistake. War crimes are real and there should be a category for them. If you think some of the other articles in the war crimes category should not be in that category then remove them and discuss the issue on those talk pages. Wedian says "killing 57 civilians inclusing handicapped children is a war crime." However, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is not currently in this category. Do you think fewer people were killed there? Maybe fewer handicapped children? Perhaps the atomic bombings were a war crime, but the talk page of that article indicates a huge and continuing fact-based debate over 60 years after the event. In this article we are talking about a very recent event. Users like me who think it might be a war crime are simply asking for more time so real arguments and counter-arguments may be made. This is not a double standard. This is waiting for additional facts to emerge. 151.203.7.6 12:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on talk pages are not disruption to wikipedia and i don't think that war crimes are classified according to number of victims. Is one civilian not bad enough? My question is as simple as this " What are the criteria or standards for categorizing articles in this category?" Is it common sense? Is it classification by international courts? How come the article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a war crime but this one and Hiroshima bombing aren't? Who decided this? Is it because the UN personnel article states that HRW are investigating the incident as a possible war crime? Well, same applies to this article. How come that Kfar Etzion massacre is certainly a war crime ? Who and what decides this? What i mean is, if there are certain criteria for categorizing in this category of which i'm ignorant, please inform me to end this dispute and save everybody's time. If not, don't you think the whole category is POV? BTW, do you really think that after some time this won't be disputed? so why Hiroshima bombing is?--Wedian 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said discussions on talk pages are disruptive. I said that renaming or deleting an entire category name would be disruptive if it were done by someone with the attitude "if this one article isn't in the category then the category shouldn't exist." Discussion isn't disruptive, but if you're interested in a discussion about what should be in Category:War Crimes in a global sense, then the talk page there is the best place for it. This talk page is for this article. After some time, this issue will probably still be disputed. Who decides and how? The decision is made the same way as everything else in Wikipedia I guess. I think that involves a lot of arguing about details maybe with a poll or request for comments or something like that. But I think that before getting to the point where that is possible, time must pass for additional facts and official opinions to emerge. 151.203.7.6 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never meant it to sound like this "if this one article isn't in the category then the category shouldn't exist". I was replying to the question above "since when do we Wikipedians get to point out events and classify them as war crimes?" Wikipedians do classify articles as war crimes. Otherwise, the category wouldn't exist. Keep in mind that there are no criteria for classifying except what editors actually think. I think categories are there to help browsing and not for POV pushing. So, if in one article it is ok to categorize according to wikipedians thoughts and in another (not specifically this one) it is not ok -not because of the dispute but just because wikipedia shouldn't do that -, haven't we just lost nutrality? Another thing, i don't think that there polls are used for categorizing articles. Remember, wikipedia is not a democracy. Yet, I agree this discussion might not totally belong in this article's talk page.--Wedian 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you wrote "either we categorize the article in Category:War crimes or request to delete the whole category as it may be regarded as a POV category." You never meant this to sound like what? Wikipedians can classify or not classify anything. My argument is that classifying such a recent event is a huge mistake because otherwise rational people often believe nonsense and garbage on conspiracy websites and half-baked news stories when events are new. After a little time has passed and more facts and official opinions are known, only irrational people tend to believe such things. An encyclopedia would reserve judgement for a little while longer. 151.203.7.6 13:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read what i've said above? I 'll try to make it as clear as i can for the last time. The sentence you are refering to was an answer for the question above. I'm not arguing your point about when to classify articles. I'm arguing the idea that this article couldn't be classified as war crime if the only reason was that it is not wikipedians job to classify events as war crimes. If it was not wikipedia's job to classify events, then the category should be deleted because as i pointed out above, there are no criteria for classifying these articles. For example, if the only criterion for adding articles to this category was classification by international courts then the category would be ok. But this not the case here, wikipedians are only classifying them according to their thoughts. Again, if in one article it is no problem to categorize according to our thoughts while in an another it is a problem -not because there is a dispute and not because of the timing but only because wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't classify events- then these are double standards. Can you understand it now? One more time, if you think this is a war crime but you still don't want to categorize it because you think that a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't do original classification then the category should be deleted or renamed because this would be the case with all other articles. It is not about the timing of this categorization or the dispute about this categorization, it is just about the neutrality of categorizing in this category and the neutrality of categorizing one article and refusing to categorize another to avoid bias thugh bias was not a problem in the first article. I hope it is clear now because i feel it is a little bit strange that there is a SPA just to argue my comment here.--Wedian 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anyone who says in one article's dispute "Wikipedia must categorize this a war crime" and in another article's dispute "Wikipedia can only maintain neutrality by not categorizing war crimes" has a double standard. The category label was not removed by such a person for this reason. I am sorry that you feel strange. I have a user account, but I've never used it to post opinions about current events. I am also a different IP address that made the change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Qana_airstrike&diff=prev&oldid=66723663 and discussed things with Seabchan above. I didn't know that my ISP changes my IP address and I don't know if according to Wikipedia that makes me some kind of sock puppety chamelion jerk who should go away. If you ask me not to post here again using an IP address, I won't. But I hope this article is not categorized in war crimes until Wikipedians have a fact-based discussion, and I hope that does not occur for at least another week or so for the reasons given above. 151.203.7.6 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think the article would be categorized in war crimes now or anytime soon, at least without being reverted in 60 seconds. Unfortunately,WP:CG currently provides no guidelines for controversial categories and discussions about the neutrality of this category don't belong to this page anymore. As for your IP address, i think it would be much appreciated if you use your user account. It is my first time to comment in a current event too but i can't see anything wrong about that. Accorging to WP:SOCK use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. --Wedian 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like the terrorism category, War crimes probably does more harm than good to the encyclopedia, but it survived a deletion vote. Maybe we should take this debate to the War crimes talk page. (I'm headed there now, if anyone wants to join). TheronJ 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Time of collapse

Something doesn't add up with that, the IDF claims it attacked the building somewhere between 12-1am. The building collapsed at 8am.

What time does the sun rise in Lebanon in July? If the building collapsed at 8 AM in an area under intense military surveillance by a nation with total air superiority, why have no pictures taken between dawn and 8 AM been released? Herne nz 07:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The hour gap suggests this is not a direct IDF's strike that made the building fall down, but something else, it could very well be Hezbolla's own rockets that took it down, as it was known there is a large amount of ammunition in that place.

[7]

If it really took the building 8 hours to collapse after the israeli strike, how come there were still more than 60 people in the building, & do you think Hezbolla would let anybody enter the building they were hiding there explosives or weapons in there.

[8]

So did it take 10 minutes for the building to collapse or 8 hours? There needs to be a time of full collapse in the article.

I belive that in order to count this as a war crime, it would have to be delibirated aginst the civilians, according to this information, this is not the case.

I guess we have to wait and see as more information about this reveals itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroLeveL (talk • contribs)

Are you really suggesting that a deliberate bombing of an occupied appartment building was not a war crime? By that logic, if a hamas bomber kills 55 people on a bus in Tel aviv is ok so long as the bomber thought there might have been an IDF soldier onboard. Great logic. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Poor comparison. If a Hamas bomber killed 55 people on a bus in Tel Aviv that had just fired rockets across an international border then it would not be a war crime nor an act of terrorism. But, unlike Lebanese homes, Tel Aviv buses do not fire rockets across international borders. 141.154.225.213 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that the building fell hours after being hit comes entirely from the IDF itself, as those linked articles state. I don't think they count as a reliable source in this case. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Who dicides what is a reliable source, and their is no evedince that this was a deliberate bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.37.228 (talk • contribs)

For information to be added to the article, see WP:RS. What I meant above is that the IDF claim shouldn't be taken as fact. If we were to add this information to the article it would have to say the "IDF claims that...". On the issue of deliberateness... The IDF certainly deliberately bombed this building, there is no question of that. Whether they knew there were civilians in the building or not is a different question. (Shortly after they bombed all the roads, they dropped leaflets warning people to leave. It seems they didn't care if people did leave or could leave) Self-Described Seabhcán 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What time do IDF give for the leaflet drops? I mean is it possible to establish a timeline for the road bombing, the leaflet drops, then the attack and aftermath? A timeline would be preferable. 82.29.227.171 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some details from the residents of Qana:

"Witnesses at the scene corroborated the IDF claim that the strike on the building, which is located in the Hariva neighborhood of Qana, was carried out at 1:00 A.M. After the initial strike, some of the building's residents exited in an attempt to survey the damage, in effect saving themselves. A few minutes later, IAF planes struck the building once again, causing the walls to collapse on the residents who did not vacate, killing them in the process. Arab media began reporting on the incident after dawn Sunday, approximately seven hours after the strike. The reports did not note, however, that the building collapsed a short time prior to Arab journalists' arrival on the scene"[9]

. The links in the 'Lebanon position' section used to support IDF claims are in Hebrew, can we get some corroboration of the IDF claims of explosives/timeline in English? 82.29.227.171 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "war crime" issue, I'm not sure that there is a definitive definition in international law. But, attacking a civilian target and/or disregarding civlian casualties (even though they are unintended) or even carrying out an attack where there the attacker knows that there is a high risk of civilian casualties is often described as a war crime (or at least being against the Geneva Convention). Are there any experts on intl. law available here?Osli73 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro Neutrality

The double airstrike on an apartment building in the downtown district which Israel claims was housing Hezbollah militants, killed at least 56, including 37 children, 12 women, and injured many others

Proximity of "Militants" in same sentence along with the children, women, and injuried implies that the dead/injured were in fact militants and as such the intended target and/or so far 'un-proven militants'. Does even IDF claim the dead/injured in strike were militants?

Please, lets keep this article neutral or does a neutrality dispute have to be added? 82.29.227.171 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The proximity of these words in the same sentence does not imply that they are linked in this way. 141.154.225.213 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole article just doesn't sound very neutral to me. I'm in favour of adding a neutrality dispute. Gargouille 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Gargouille

Perhaps your native language is one where when two referents are mentioned together all descriptions in the sentence apply to both referents? Rest assured this is not the case in english. Nobody is seriously going to think that the children are being reffered to as "militants". As to how many of the men or women were militants is unknown, and the sentence does not take a stance on that. Brentt 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is clearly in question, based on the usage of recovery statistics, versus death statistics and the inordinant space given to unsubstantiated blog rumors regarding a possible hoax. There appears to be a concerted effort to diminish statistics and news reports that are commonly accepted across major international papers. POV tag added. 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.24.167 (talk • contribs)

Both sides of the argument is stated - neutrality is fine - remove POV Omarthesecound 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Omar -- what are you talking about?? Even the death toll has been modified about a dozen times today, swinging by a factor of nearly 3x. How can you call that "undisputed"? BTW, for the benefit of others who might be reading this, Omar has accused me on my user page of spreading propaganda and refuses to justify his accusations. I also suspect he is the same as IP 196.207.36.121, who has been deleting legitimate information from this article all day. --Jaysweet 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jaysweet. The aricle is proposing theories and original ideas, citing blogs and turning into a propaganda to unverifiable ideas. That is typically what wikipedia is not. I support the POV tag.--Wedian 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the 3rd paragraph of the intro as it stands now meets NPOV standards. Although it is well-sourced and cited, I think it is pretty clearly trying to make a case against the actions of the IDF. Of course, I note that it was an admin who moved it out of the "Position of Lebanon" section[10] Whoopsies! ;) Anyway, I agree it is not Lebanon's position, but maybe "Reaction of European media" or something like that? I dunno, it just feels a little POV for the intro... --Jaysweet 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I mentioned has been picked away it until it is now gone, so nevermind. I do think, however, that the BBC report (that residents had been asked to leave but found it difficult due to bombed-out roads) is relevant somewhere, but I totally agree it was POV to have that in the intro. Maybe another section? Or maybe moved to the international reactions section? --Jaysweet 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I did not agree with citing the blogs, but now many newspapers have picked up on the hoax claim. I think that it deserves a paragraph, or it can be briefly mentioned and spun off to a different article with press reactions and accusations. But we can't just not mention it as many people have cited them.

Guy Montag 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy -- There is an entire three-paragraph section devoted to the hoax allegations! Frankly, I still think that is too much, given that (in my opinion) these allegations are somewhat offensive and disgusting. However, as you can see below, there has been considerable discussion over the issue and we finally reached a concensus based on ChrisO's attempt to write a NPOV section on the allegations. I for one still do not like how long it is, but I am comfortable with the compromise.

I am not sure why you commented under this section. What change specifically are you requesting? --Jaysweet 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I responded in the wrong discussion sub article. My mistake. I am always in a rush these days. Whew. Guy Montag 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is becoming a POV battleground again. The pro-Israeli camp is adamant about inserting the Hezbollah rocket attacks detail, which then incenses the anti-war camp, who put a counter-source, and before you know it, the "Reactions" section is being echoed in the intro. Suggestions??? --Jaysweet 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, the intro is getting worse by the minute. I'm considering doing some major chopping of it... --Jaysweet 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit poor, wasn't it? I've shortened it significantly now. -- ChrisO 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! Much better now.. BTW, is "storey" the British spelling or is that typo? (excuse my ignorance :) ) --Jaysweet 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes, it's the Queen's English. :-) I'd forgotten that particular difference between US and UK English... -- ChrisO 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a bit off-topic, but the general policy on Wikipedia is to just leave the spelling either way, whether it's the British spelling or the American spelling, right? At least, that's what my co-worker told me... --Jaysweet 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, but I rewrote most of the intro from scratch and in doing so automatically used the British spelling. Feel free to change it back to the US spelling if you like. -- ChrisO 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll re-add "claims" to the sentence "in response to Hezbollah firing numerous Katyusha rockets from Qana over a two-week period into northern Israel". See HRW questioning of these allegations .--Wedian 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The cause of the collapse is still disputed; as is stands now it seems if the airstike caused the collaps Omarthesecound 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the into accordingly Omarthesecound 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bomb origin / greater specificity needed

The article refers to the bomb name. Further details are needed: Was the language of the bomb name Hebrew or English? If it were the latter, then the bomb could likely have come from the US. So, the origin of the bomb is of great importance. Dogru144 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

English, unsure if details appearing now are right but a google has some other pages referencing same make- needs a source tying the bomb make cited in the previous shipment with the code on the piece of bob fin found imho. 82.29.227.171 12:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added some detailed info at 2006 Qana airstrike#Bomb details. The munitions used appear to have included at least one US Mark 84 bomb fitted with a BSU-37/B bomb stabilization unit. -- ChrisO 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for citing it, there appeared to be more text on the fragment that identified the bomb. The Guardian article didnt give all the text, washington post did "For use on MK-84, Guided Bomb BSU-37/B (ASSY) 96214-700922-6" [11] 82.29.227.171 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax allegations

IDF may not have caused building to collapse

There is growing evidence that Israel was not responsible for the collapse of the building. I think this should be included in the article. See here, here, here, and here. --aishel 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we stay away from conspiracy theories. The events are days old and more information about the cause of the explosion, be it Hezbollah ammunition/ unexploded missile eight hours after airstrike or Israeli airstrike. It amazes me how quickly this stuff is written. I am not saying that Hezbollah is above using civilians as shields and pawns, they've done it before (keeping civilians in a warzone at gunpoint, firing from civilian populated areas and UN observation posts, and forcing civilians to be used as shields within their compounds) but this is a clear case of conspiracism. There are better alternative sources about why the building collapsed, lets find them. Guy Montag 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read any of the links. The photo's have been analyzed, and have shown that the same bodies were paraded around for more than three hours at a time! Hezbollah did this purely for propoganda against Israel --aishel 05:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, Hezbollah is not above to stooping to such tactics, but we have to wait for mainstream sources to pick this up. Blogs are rarely cited in wikipedia. Guy Montag 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is understandable, but we shouldn't discard it just because the source is a blog. Don't forget the killian documents (aka Rathergate) was only exposed because of blogs. --aishel 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't discard it then, but it's not going into this article until refutable news sources pick it up. Ranieldule 13:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we have to discard it just because the source is a blog and the claim is outrageous, see WP:RS. By the way, I rank this stuff right up there with "Jews did WTC". --Cyde↔Weys 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was "don't discard it from your own pocket" ..keep all the conspiracy blogs you want in your Favorites. And Cyde's connection is apt, same vein of insanity. Ranieldule 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found a Lebanese newspaper saying that Hezbollah is responsible. Lebanese Paper, and its translation (using Google to translate). --aishel 13:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the "hoax" theory can't find a place in this page. Beside the blogs, there are more publication-like sources (Israel Insider, Ynet News [12], Honest Reporting [13]) that cover the possibility. And even if you think it's comparable to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, even those can be found here. Korny O'Near 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, if anyone wants to make an article entitled "2006 Qana airstrike hoax theories" that would be a fine place for such. And those links are just mentioning the same blogs we wouldn't put in this article, right? Ranieldule 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, forking is done solely to keep articles from getting too long, not to marginalize any information. And yes, those articles mostly mention what's in blogs, but it's not like they have an obligation to write about everything blogs write about. And most of the Killian documents story was about research that originated in blogs too. Korny O'Near 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The new "hoax" section is a little better, but it's still mighty long considering that most of the sources for this are just some angry bloggers. I do agree that it's worth mentioning the hoax allegations, but given how little coverage and/or credibility they have been given in the mainstream press, I think it's hard to justify more than a couple sentences about it... --Jaysweet 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If this every gets to vote then right now I'd say remove the "hoax" section (at least for now, until the evidence works its way into more "mainstream" media). I think right now its presence promotes (and maybe even exposes) bias because it seems to be a program to discredit through (at least point) speculation. I think the appropriate compromise would be to move the hoax stuff to its own article, and leave what's in the article for mainstream-established information.TJ0513 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My proposal would be to add a single sentence at the bottom of the "Position of Israel" section, something along the lines of: Some Israeli pundits and bloggers have suggested that the shelling may not have taken place at all, and is in fact a hoax intended to discredit the IDF. (plus a couple citations). Reading it again, the section being that big is a travesty. It's like a fifth of the article, and yet it's like half a percent of the actual news coverage! That kind of imbalance is a clear POV problem, even if the content of the section itself is fairly neutral. --Jaysweet 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jaysweet - I know people will be tired of me saying this but suggesting that any party would 'invent' such gruesome footage and carnage is a form of tragedy denial and dehumanization of the victims. In other words, given the reliability of sources under WP:RS, definitely not Wikipedia material. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ynetnews, which is cited in the section, is a fairly mainstream media source. Yes, they're citing web speculation, but, as I said before, they wouldn't be citing it if they didn't think it was newsworthy. And it wouldn't really fit into "position of Israel", because it's not an Israeli government position, and many of the bloggers/web sources are non-Israeli (including some Lebanese). I'd be fine with shortening it, though, if there's some consensus for that. Korny O'Near 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To all honest editors

Please be aware that details on this "Qana is a Hoax story" are being widely disseminated by an Israeli Government run, online, propaganda operation using GIYUS.ORG & Megaphone software. Details on Megaphone & the Israeli Government online propaganda op. Some recent dissemination from GIYUS.ORG broadcast throughout the Megaphone network a few minutes ago here.

With that in mind, this article is degenerating into a farce. Let wikipedia stick to the facts presented to them and steer clear of obvious smear/propaganda, including that from Hezbollah. When major outlets corrobate this hoax tale, or when the IDF investigation announces some grand plot involving (variously) refridgerated trucks, rockets on top of the buildings, secret banners, deals with Christian sources etc.) then great. I await the IDF/NGO investigation for news of this grand conspiracy because no doubt they read Koret (Israel Insider) et al. also and will be able to assemble all the so called "evidence" that 1 ultra-Zionist, 3 neo-cons in the USA, and an anti-EU blogger were able to assemble.

I suggest the entire Hoax thing gets deleted. If thats too much then leave in one line with the simple fact- certain bloggers allege the attack/whatever is a hoax. The 'smoking gun' bullet points need to disappear regardless, even Lyndon LaRouche would dismiss them as a joke. 82.29.227.171 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to feel that a one-liner with a couple links is the right approach. I totally agree that the bullet points are inappropriate here. Go ahead and *link to* one of those stories that has the bullet points, but it's sort of sad to see this article become a forum to tout the conspiracy theory. (That said, I still think the existence of a conspiracy theory is important enough for a one-sentence mention) --Jaysweet 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudo's to whoever started the allegations section. It is being mentioned everywhere, on the internet and on talk radio. I think it definitely deserves mention. --aishel 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against reducing the allegations section even further, if it's justified, but I'd like to hear a better justification for it than what's been said so far. Let me note two points I made earlier: all the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are presented in Wikipedia, even though most people find them ridiculous, and at least one mainstream source, Ynetnews, has picked up on the allegations story. Korny O'Near 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the 9/11 conspiracy theories are covered in a separate section, and only given brief mention on the main page. (shrug) Any other users wanna chime in? --Jaysweet 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support removing the section completely. To my knowledge, even the Israeli government didn't officially support any of these allegations. Wikipedia shouldn't cite blogs or articles using blogs as references. See WP:RS. The section is highly unverifiable and not neutral. According to WP:NPOV, if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. --Wedian 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wedian. The section's presence just lends itself to (and is likely the creation of) bias, especially because none of the claims are the product of mainstream media, but rather outlets on the frindge. Since I'm posting, also, let me say that the Ynetnews story is itself merely reporting a phenomena (the hoax theories) occuring in the blogosphere, it is not origional reporting...furthermore, the article is primarily concerned with allegations of "milking" the incident...even if these particular allegations are untrue, that's not to say it hasn't happened elsewhere in an attempt to "rally the troops" against Israel, which I'm sure it has, but frankly milking the incident and evidence that Hezbollah itself pulled the building down are two very differnt things.TJ0513 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the hoax theories should make more than a one-line reference in the article. These conspiracy theories could become important in the future if they become the official or even speculative Israel position. For now it is just internet speculation based on an early comment comment by the IAF Chief-of-Staff Eshel about the timeline. He has backed off his initial statement as the investigation moves forward. I find these conspiracy theories interesting and there should be a seperate place to document and discuss them. JBull 07:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeping it these hoax allegations out until mainstream media, sans blog referencing, is for the best. The best point brought up so far is that all these YnetNews and other links are reporting on a phenomena of bloggers considering the theory. Kudos to TJ0513 and Wedia - read those above postings and you should be convinced we can move on to other areas of this article. Ranieldule 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well, clearly I'm outnumbered on this issue. There should at least be a one-line reference, though, and of course we'll wait to see what further investigation has to say. Korny O'Near 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but feel like putting my 2c worth in anyway :). Remember that it only deserves a line if a reference can be found. If the investigation backs up the story, then I reckon it'll get much more than a line! Chovain 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there were references found, all right. Most people here felt that wasn't enough. You can go back through the article history to read the section for yourself. Korny O'Near 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If an investigation back ups these allegations, we can rewrite the whole section again. But, for now, this section should stay out of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a propaganda for unverifiable theories. --Wedian 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think unverified theories don't belong in Wikipedia, I refer you to the articles on dowsing and UFOs, among many others. :) The key is that such theories be labelled as unverified. Korny O'Near 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Staging the scene?

Not doubting the happening of the bombing and the collapsing of the building, there are many evidences show that the photographing afterwards was staged and that the bombing was miled. Read here for a summary (well, it's an Israeli newspaper but the evidences it shows are not). Staging was probably used by Palestineans in some cases (look here for a film. Tierecke 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

Tierecke, see my comments in the section directly above this one.--aishel 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

see also here. --88.153.145.232 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoax Section

Why did the hoax section dissapear? Yossiea 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

because it's wikipedia. every one can delete and insert what he wants. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See the "IDF may not have caused building to collapse" section above for the full discussion. Korny O'Near 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but all I see is that people want it deleted because there were no sources, even though there were sources???? I say we put it up. The allegations had clear points and clear sources.Yossiea 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; put it back 143.160.124.40 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to stick it back in if you want it back. You can find the old section in the history. Korny O'Near 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussions above--Wedian 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I did, and I don't see the reason why an allegation of a hoax should not be included.

1) There were sources for all the allegations.

2) It's not coming out of left-field, they have been known to do things like this in the past (Jenin Massacre comes to mind right away.)

Yossiea 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the hoax section with a prior edit that included that it was coming from pro-Israel and anti-Hezbollah commentators. I think we can leave this one up. Yossiea 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory is, at this moment, not verified by any reliable source. The existence of a theory has been reported in some media sources but until an actual investigation it is a rumor, a possibility and because of the propaganda mills churning (Megaphone and/or Anti-Israeli hatemongers)there's good reason to merely wait for verifiable evidence reported by a mainstream media outlet. Try Wikinews if you want minute-by-minute possibiities about Qana, the entire conflict itself - but this article is for posterity, for verified facts. Yossiea, your version of the article made an attempt at NPOV, I can see that, but prefixes cannot change the basic, glaring problem - unverifiablity. Ranieldule 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If it is in the news, then we can include it as per wiki policy. Otherwise, you'd have to remove most of this article's entries. (Anyway, it's called Allegations of a Hoax) Yossiea 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We should keep the section, however, we should remove the blog references and leave the Ynet and LIBANOSCOPIE references. --¡Viva la Revolución! PiMaster3 ^talk 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Wikipedia can't cite blogs or articles just reporting blogs. Ynet is only reporting what is occuring in the blogs. As i said above , if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY.These allegations weren't not supported by any of the parties in the conflict and are completely unverifiable. They are merely theories. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original theories and is not a propaganda or advocacy of any kind. I'll remove this section again, please don't add it again without prior agreement. If later on, an investigation provides proof for these claims, you can re-add this section.--Wedian 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to reiterate my compromise proposal, even though I know compromise on anything regarding this article is about as likely as any compromise regarding the Mideast.. but anyway, I think a one sentence mention of the hoax allegations is appropriate. The existence of hoax allegations is a verifiable fact, and as such I think it is useful to include for posterity. The substance of the hoax allegations is unverified rumor, and Ranieldule is quite right to object to its inclusion. Do you see what I am saying? It is both verifiable and important to know that some commentators are calling this a hoax (after all, it helps to put in perspective just how polarized the two sides are right now!), but what it is those commentators are actually saying is not at all verifiable, so it doesn't belong. Make sense? --Jaysweet 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to that, with including the stuff cited by news sources, we can leave out the blog sources. But to ignore the allegation is ignoring facts. There are allegations that it's a hoax, and it quite rightly needs to be mentioned on the page discussing the act. (Or, in the allegation section, we can mention how many of the sources are currently blogs. But as it has been pointed out, blogs played an important role in Rathergate and the fake Funeral, so just being a blog is not a reason to discount it.)Yossiea 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comentators as in, bloggers. We do not cite blogs and we do not cite sources who are reporting merely on claims by blogs and bloggers. I do not want this to become a revert war but the Hoax section will not stand in this article until verified by an investigation - not verified, or cited from blogs or media sources that refer to them for the basis of the allegations. Ranieldule 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I replaced the Powerline reference with a more mainstream source (Jonah Goldberg) that I just found , making the same allegation. So now no blogs are cited directly. Whether that will change anyone's opinion, who's to say. :) Korny O'Near 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If news sources are running with it, we can include it in our entry. 1) They wouldn't run with it unless they did some investigating. 2) We're not saying it's a hoax, we're saying there is credible evidence as reported by news sources and elsewhere that indeed, the incident is a hoax. Yossiea 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ranieldule says: "We do not cite blogs and we do not cite sources who are reporting merely on claims by blogs and bloggers." I disagree with that statement. When rumors and/or opinions about a given topic become a major part of the story, lots of times Wikipedia will cite news sources reporting on what bloggers or other jokers are saying. Or should every single "Controversy" section from every single Wikipedia article be deleted? Because that is all unverifiable opinion... but the widespread existence of certain opinions or rumors is a relevant fact. (That said, I think granting more than a sentence or two to the hoax allegations is a travesty) --Jaysweet 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumors don't belong to wikipedia. Yes, there might be rumors but i'm sure there are other rumors as well. Shall we cite tham all? Remember, this is an encyclopedia. It is about facts, not gossips. I'm now quoting (for the 3rd time) from WP:NPOV. This was originally a post by Jimbo:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" Do we have a reliable reference here for this viewpont? no, we don't.
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" Do we have prominent adherents for this view here? i don't think so. Just some bloggers.
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Well, IMO, this is our situation here.

BTW, not citing blogs is part of wikipedia's policy. It is not about what we think. Again read WP:RS: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources"--Wedian 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let it be a single sentence - I see no evidence of the "topic [being] a major part of the story" , and Wedian above makes the best points - the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority and Wikipedia's policy does not give the greenlight for citing blogs - stop ignoring that policy and the reminders of it. The difference here is "widespread existence." A sentence describing the existence of allegations of a hoax ..I can cope with that, but I sincerely believe we should be qualifying anything with the fact that none of the involved parties in the conflict have even mentioned the possibility of such a hoax. All we have is media sources pointing out allegations, which are steeped in a few blogs. Ranieldule 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JaySweet's comment "I think granting more than a sentence or two to the hoax allegations is a travesty" and with Wedian's comments. This is really just a transparent attept by a few pro-war editors to pervert the article and hijack it into a launchpad for their conspiracy theory- then they can report back to the blogs- "Look even wikipedia says it- its True!!" Seen it all before with 911 article. 82.29.227.171 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The section about Israel's version and timeline makes mention that the building could have been knocked down due to a Hezbollah missle. That makes Israel a claimant that there is a possibility of a hoax, in addition to the several mainstream news sources.Yossiea 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ranieldule, Wedian -- I guess it is hard to say how widespread this opinion is, and I think we all three agree that should be the determining factor on whether it is relevant to include in an article. FYI, I just re-read WP:VERIFY, and while it does clearly prohibit citing blogs, it does not prohibit citing news sources that cite blogs -- at least not yet, I just asked about for a clarification in the talk page ;) So please, don't say that I am ignoring policies (although I agree that clearly other people are). My case for including a one-sentence link to the ynetnews story is 1) it might satiate some of those who are clamoring for a whole separate section, and 2) frankly, being an American, I read all the time about insane anti-Israeli extremists, but I don't often hear about insane pro-Israeli extremists. The existence of such a nasty and hateful allegation as this, believe it or not, was very enlightening to me. Still, you make a good point in saying it is just not widespread enough to merit mention. Meh, either way, I'm not making any edits to the article myself anymore, I think >50% of the edits are being made by people with an ax to grind and I'm not interested in being a part of that. But I'll sure run my mouth on the talk page! :D :D --Jaysweet 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reoved further attempts to insert blog material until consensus is reached on TalkPage ie. here. 82.29.227.171 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yossiea just placed it all back in citing my preferance of not using a username to remove what he described as a "controversial edit". Its "controversial" Yossiea as no consensus has been reached on its inclusion- the reason I removed it. Your edit of your userpage reveals your ideological allegiances, as does this campaign to have blog entries included to an encyclopedia. My edits on the otherhand reveal nothing more than an interest in the subject and articles on the conflict. Please try an adhere to the policies and rules of wikipedia in making your edits of this article. 82.29.227.171 16:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So because I'm Jewish I can't be neutral? When did you stop beating your wife? My point with you not having a username is that when you have a username you think twice before editing something, you don't want to ruin your "reputation." As for your statement that no consensus has been reached is not a valid reason to remove it. It would have been one thing had only blogs been the source, but now you have "real" news sources, that makes it acceptable. I did not edit the page and say that the airstrike is a hoax, that would be POV, but there is indeed an allegation of a hoax. That's a fact. Yossiea 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Yossiea. My reputation isnt in question- im not the one pushing the "hoax" theory. Your political agenda is clear, making a nonsense of your ideas on neutrality of this article. Please try to curb your own transparent prejudice or give up editing. 82.29.227.171 16:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So put a sign up saying No Jews Allowed?? You're in violation of WP:Assume Good Faith. I wasn't majorly editing this entry until I noticed that the hoax section kept disappearing. Since we have knowledge that this has been done before and there are credibile reasons for a hoax theory, it makes sense to include it.Yossiea 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yawn.... quit playing the race card Yossiea, and quit asserting there is "credible reasons" or "we have knowledge" or there is "sense" in the hoax- it only appears so to those who buy into the ideology of the bloggers and those who have nothing to lose in asserting a conspiracy. I believe you are too close to the issue to make an objective judgement on its encyclopedic worth- leave it to others or let a consensus of editors be reached, that is how its done on wikipedia. 82.29.227.171 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• New proposal: Can the Wikimedia software do flashing text? If so, I propose we leave in the Hoax section, but make it so that it blinks on and off once per minute. After all, what's happening now is basically just a much more labor intensive way to accomplish the same thing! :p --Jaysweet 16:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good one! As of right now it seems to be on...let's see whatever happens, and I think whoever wins is going to be the one with more time on their hands to win the delete/revert war. I've said it above (maybe in the other section) I think it should be removed, Jaysweet has a good compromise with the one line hoax-theory reference. The amount of space that is takes up now is unacceptable for all the reasons listed above. I say do no more than reference this now until it's leading off the 6 o'clock news....no no, just kidding, but until some media source a median foriengner has actually heard of picks up on it.TJ0513 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am OK with having the factual banner displayed before the hoax section. Can we now continue on with our lives? :) Yossiea 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I want truth, verifiable claims and Wikipedian policies to win. I also want people to be wary of those with an ax to grind, on either side of the issue. We have atrocious things like Megaphone out there, not to mention classic prejudice lurking around Wikipedia. Jaysweet points out that WP:VERIFY does not explicitly oust sources citing blogs. This is very true. TJ0513 is also correct in that it is ridiculous how much space the Hoax section takes up. We have to reach a consensus - so in that vein, I'm with one sentence pointing out that allegations exist, orignating from bloggers, the blogging is reported on by some news sources and that regardless of what anyone may infer, no involved parties have mentioned or given a mote of creedence to the allegations of a hoax. Ranieldule 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This has now changed - the IDF has acknowledged the rumors; see my addition. Korny O'Near 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It has changed, a little. See what a little waiting does? The most important aspect of this is the results of the investigation by the IDF. We still must be wary of anything steeped in the blogosphere. Ranieldule 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is categorical on this issue: blogs must not be used as reference sources. Virtually all of the hoax section was based on blogospheric speculation, which is explictly excluded by our reliable sources policy. I've added an Associated Press story and retained the existing Jerusalem Post line, but I've deleted the rest. Blogosphere conspiracy theories must not be included in the article, because they can't be reliably sourced. If the mainstream media pick them up, fair enough, but until then the blogs have to stay out of the article. -- ChrisO 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the hoax section is now of reasonable length (I was lobbying for one sentence, but now that the IDF has acknowledge the allegations, I suppose one can argue for a little bit longer) and employs strictly reliable sources. Good job, ChrisO! Of course, you realize that now that you have made the section level-headed and reasonable, it will be reverted inside of twenty minutes, right? --Jaysweet 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree - that is the most relevant, NPOV and verifiable Hoax section we've had yet. Take heart, Jaysweet, at least we have something solid to revert to once people start trying to change it. Ranieldule 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO - did you actually read the section you just deleted? There was not a single cite of blogs. The "mainstream media" have picked up on the story - Ynetnews, Jonah Goldberg, the Jerusalem Post. They were the ones being cited. Korny O'Near 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left in the reference to the Jerusalem Post. I'm not familiar with Ynetnews or JewishWorldReview, which printed the article by Jonah Goldberg (who I note is a blogger) - are either of them reputable outlets? Given the amount of propaganda being churned out by both sides in this conflict, I'm inclined to take a very conservative view of what constitutes a mainstream outlet. JPost and AP, yes, but fringe outlets, no. -- ChrisO 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is not a blogger, he's a journalist - see the article. He might contribute to blogs, but that's not what he's known for. See the article on Ynetnews too. Your eagerness to delete seems odd given your self-declared lack of knowledge on these sources. In any case, the JPost article mentions all the same allegations - would you prefer it if that were cited as the source for all the specifics? Korny O'Near 20:14, 2 August 2006 (UT

I think using the JPost to cite the specifics would be preferable. It's a reliable source reporting on what other (unreliable) sources are saying, so that would satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. -- ChrisO 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Ynetnews and/or commentator Jonah Goldberg say that JPost and AP don't say concerning the hoax allegations? Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems they line up - and by using JPost we are definitely within WP:RS. Ranieldule 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version is much more reasonable, verifiable and non POV pushing. Very good work.--Wedian 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that good - though it's only three sentences long, it still manages to confuse the two separate allegations of Hezbollah commiting a hoax and press photographers staging photos. Korny O'Near 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix that. Hope it worked, Tewfik^Talk 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Include a line in the 'IDF investigation' section, along the lines that they are "aware of the rumours" and are probing into it. An entire section to conspiracies started by bloggers and picked up by 3-4 media sources is not justified. It's hogging major space in the article; almost as much as the Position of Lebanon, apart from overshadowing the Reactions section. --Bluerain (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Smyth -- please do not relink to blogs as a source for quotes, or quote blogs in the article. This section describes why not, as well as WP:RS. Please, we have worked very hard to reach a compromise on the hoax section, let's not trash it with a revert war.. --Jaysweet 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've not investigated the content of this section; all I saw was one anon take a reasonably neutral and well-referenced section and turn it into crap, and then a few minutes later a different anon on the other side saw the crap and deleted the whole thing. So obviously I reverted both edits. – Smyth\^talk 07:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to the Hoax story

"emergence of a right-wing equivalent of the Sept. 11 conspiracy theories"

theory laughed at here WashPost blog [14]

"The follow-up questions for the bloggers touting the alternative theory are obvious:

Who killed the Hashems and Shalhoubs, if it wasn't an Israel bomb? Korvet and the other bloggers don't offer any theories.

How did Hezbollah truck in bodies to the Qana site without the pervasive Israeli aerial surveillance catching it on film? Israel has released footage of what it says are Hezbollah fighters firing rockets from the area. Presumably, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is not covering up the story.

As for EU Referendum's claim that a Lebanese rescue worker seen in many photos from Qana was a "Hezbollah official," I e-mailed co-author of the site, Richard North, to ask for his evidence. '

"All I have to go on is gut instinct," North replied.

I appreciate his candor. It confirms that he has no evidence to support the central claim of his blog posts. North says he is just trying to "raise questions," which is certainly a legitimate goal. My question is: What is it about the photos from Qana that made Israel's supporters prefer fantasy to fact?" 82.29.227.171 05:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Former blogger for Hoax recants all his assumptions -> [15]

• "the claim of bringing bodies from a morgue was a result of incorrect reporting of the time of the collapse. No one is saying that anymore."
• "While some, including myself, latched onto the evidence of rigore mortis to question the source of the bodies, it was in response to early reporting of a 8 AM building collapse. Later we learned that the building was attacked around 1 AM and collapsed a short time later. This later correction explained the situation with the bodies. In fact much of the early reporting was as erroneous as our reasonable observations."
• "..the death toll is believed to be half has high as reported and it happened in a home at the outskirts of Qana and not a four story building in the center of Qana - as reported. These errrors in reporting led others like myself to speculate from bad information."

So what is the big conspiracy now reduced to? Nothing the IDF hadn't said already:

• Hezbollah has clearly used that village for military purposes, which include rocket launches and possibly arms stashes.
• "there is no doubt the pictures have a staged quality to them"

Still, the bloggers did their damage and smeared the dead with their nasty propaganda. The section should probably either be removed or ammended to read that the hoax has been dismissed as a horrible misunderstanding, but I am writing an article on war propaganda so far for main -it will make a nice addition there. 82.29.227.171 06:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And final piece of the 'puzzle' for these numbskulls- who is "Green Hat"?

"Naim Raqa, head of civil defense in the nearby town of Jouaya, sat on a pile of rubble, his black uniform covered in a fine concrete powder. "I was in Qana in '96," the exhausted rescue worker said. "Israel, when it is weakened, commits bigger massacres. "We were told about this massacre -- I don't know what time it was. We couldn't move at night, even in ambulances, because of the shelling. They should allow us to move so we can work."[16] 82.29.227.171 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for keeping it civil and calling people numbskulls. It is clear from the pictures that "Green Hat" changes his clothes while parading around the same dead child. What is that if not for the cameras? --216.75.93.104 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do IDF say after their full & final investigation on Qana given only to Halutz & Peretz today? The statement [17] AP in Haaretz[18] JPost[19] Reuters [20] Al-jazeera [21]

• Nothing about the gaps in timeline they claim.
• Nothing on exact IDF timeline.
• Nothing about why no weapons in the area/building.
• Nothing about the conspiracy theory they said yesterday they were investigating.

All IDF confirmed is what is known already- a policy of attacking civil structures in areas where rockets have been fired in the past because it may/may not be used to house weaponry/Hezbollah. The buildings are the targets because the IDF cant get to the rockets. Statement says: "Other buildings in the area had been targeted with no civilian casualties."

IDF said that their intelligence was that no civilians were in the buildings and that they contained weapons. They say IDF fired 2 bombs at the building, one of which was a "dud", yet they claimed 3 strikes inside 8 hours on Monday. Statement says: "The IDF operated according to information that the building was not inhabited by civilians and was being used as a hiding place for terrorists" Proof of this 'information'? None, and the report isnt made public. Dont forget- this is the final report into deaths of 28+ women & kids who their supporters have smeared over the last 5 days.

Regarding the conspiracy theory, nothing in statement, absolutely nothing. Only JPost, who have clearly examined the theory and discovered it to be worthless, (they dont run the details again), keep some life in the conspiracy theory by mentioning an "anti-Syrian Lebanese Web site" that says its all a Hezbollah fake up. No doubt the anti-Syrian Lebanese website references the details in this article. 82.29.227.171 09:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Added POV tag due to the fall apart conspiracy theory appearing in it. 82.29.227.171 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that it is only allegations, hence removing POV tag Omarthesecound 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As mere allegations, demonstrated above to be nothing more than black propaganda, they should be shunted off to their own article. This is the case with the 911 allegations. Its a POV to attach them to this article which is concerned with facts. 82.29.227.171 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, 9/11 conspiracy theories are featured prominently on the main article. I think everything that doesn't fit you own POV is a POV violation. What is your deal? --216.75.93.104 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Omar are you going to discuss this or just going to engage in an edit war when someone applies a POV tag to this article? This is the second time [22] you have removed a POV tag without discussion, entirely on your own view of the matter. Now you wont respond. 82.29.227.171 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IP 82.29.227.171, We have discuss this to death. Please read this page. Omarthesecound 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discussed to death before the entire exercise was unmasked as a vicious fraud, denied by everyone they tried to implicate. Only people that appear to be lending it any credibility are certain editors on this article. Allegations that are baseless do not belong here Omarthesecound. Please come up with some explanation, in light of the denials, and recanting being done by these bloggers when faced with facts, or get rid of the conspiracy theory onto its own weird little page. 82.29.227.171 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Get off your high horse, 82.29.227.171! --216.75.93.104 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV website claiming an "analysis" of the images. Here is a "rebuttal" of the conspiracy theory from every single press agencies involved in the photography' [23]. All part of the "conspiracy" of course.

"The AP said information from its photo editors showed the events were not staged, and that the time stamps could be misleading for several reasons, including that web sites can use such stamps to show when pictures are posted, not taken. An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."

The AP had three different photographers there who weren't always aware of what the others were doing, and filed their images to editors separately, said Santiago Lyon, director of photography.

There are also several reasons not to draw conclusions from time stamps, Lyon said. Following a news event like this, the AP does not distribute pictures sequentially; photos are moved based on news value and how quickly they are available for an editor to transmit.

The AP indicates to its members when they are sent on the wire, and member Web sites sometimes use a different time stamp to show when they are posted. " 82.29.227.171 10:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV'd the link to the rocket video. IDF video doesnt show rockets in Qana, shows them away from the buildings to the SouthWest. Nor does the video indicate that Qana housed rocket launchers, it merely adds footage of vehicles which IDF say are rocket launchers parking inside buildings. Areas footage shows isnt named. Footage showing rocket launchers housed in Qana, or in Qana buildings is not shown all in the video. 82.29.227.171 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Alternate" theories??

To actually use up space for the conspiracy theories floating around is bad enough, but by changing the section header from "Hoax theories" to "Alternative theories" we're basically saying that the whole Qana thing is just a theory, and below you find some other, alternative theories (sort of like that strange US phenomena called Intelligent design. The allegations that Hezbollah is using civilians as shields have been made all along by both Israel and the US at the highest levels, so that's an established view, which may or may not have some validity. However, all the websites claiming that Qana didn't happen, and that dead children were moved in the night from various morgues, are either run by people who refuse to believe that nice Israel could do anything wrong or run by people who are just spreading black propaganda. Most newspapers and TV stations in the world have wisely ignored mentioning these "theories", In Wikipedia the pressure from some editors is such that we have agreed to mention these "theories", but please let's not call them "alternate". Next, I'll expect a large section of the Wikipedia article about Earth to be devoted to the "alternate theory" of the Flat Earth Society. Thomas Blomberg 00:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is too much credence given to these conspiracy theories. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think, at most, there should be a couple of sentences saying some people claim it was faked. --Iorek85 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked the original title of "Allegations of Hoax" best. --aishel 02:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I'll change it to that especially since it sounds much less POV. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All the various "theories" now appear here 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories please keep them away from this article which is dealing with fact. Thanks. 82.29.227.171 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just tried integrating this section into the main "reaction" area, only to see it instantly reverted. I'm not going to get into edit wars here (some of us have lives to lead) but here's a simple [[24]] to compare my revised version with the previous one. I think it's a good start from a NPOVing perspective. Jacob 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats nice, but they now have their own article just like the article on 911 conspiracy theories. Detailing & debunking the theories here one by one is just not practical. Sorry. An article on the theories themselves wont have a problem achieving NPOV either- both the theories, "evidence" supporting them, claims/supposittions made and their debunking can all happen without restriction to space or offense to peoples common sense/good taste. Suggest you integegrate the theories over on its own article rather than begin an edit war over it here- this article is concerned with facts. 82.29.227.171 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment earlier in the above section - that's essentially what I've done, though retaining a paragraph in "reactions" mentioning the two major ones, particularly the one claimed to be under investigation by the IDF. Jacob 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is ok. These nasty allegations are getting more and more press, and it's only fair to give a link to the hoax article (especially so it can be debunked! ;p ). However, I think the order of paragraphs in the Reactions section could use some clean-up. It's sort of confusing to jump from international condemnation, to Dan Gillerman justifying it (in the same paragraph!), to conspiracy theories, back to HRW condemnation, and then to historical significance.

I would propose that it be shortened anyway. The international condemnation should be covered in the International Reactions article, right? And the Dan Gillerman quote is way too long for just one guy's opinion. --Jaysweet 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but trying to trim that right now would take a lot more time/effort (due to inevitably edit/revert wars) than I can put in. Hell, in the past few minutes I've already had to remove expanded hoax sections twice - once after my initial revision and then again when 2-3 more paragraphs about "hoax theories" were re-inserted into this section after the new conspiracy theory page was created. It might be simpler just to merge the external article on international reactions back into this section as the final subsection of this page. I notice, incidentally, that that article has been marked for deletion now. Jacob 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jacob says: "I've already had to remove expanded hoax sections twice." Jacob, this is why I continue to support the {pov} tag.  :) I believe that the ratio of POV-pushing editors to good-intentioned editors on this article means that NPOV can only be achieved for brief periods of time. Kind of like those exotic particles that are created in supercolliders, that collapse in on themselves after only a few milliseconds... ;D ;D So yeah, I hear ya....

Merging the international reactions might be a good idea. It would certainly make it easier to balance the amount of text on each side of the issue... --Jaysweet 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Created "2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories" article

Suggest all the stuff related to this appears there, and it is only linked to from here. The theories have all roundly been condemned and debunked. Detailing the theories and their debunking would overly dominate this article to the point of ridicule. Someone please move them over there and link to get these vile nutjobs away from an article dealing in fact. 82.29.227.171 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Linked, using {{main}} template. The "main" place for the conspiracy theories is now the 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories article, and a summary paragraph is in the present article's "Conspiracy theories" section. --Uncle Ed 16:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Number of victims reported by Red Cross

One of the sentences at the introduction of the article says : "Lebanese sources claimed that the collapse killed at least 57, including 37 children and 12 women, and injured many others, while the Red Cross reported the evacuation of 27 bodies, of which 17 were children" . While, we have dozens of references saying that the number reported by Lebanese red cross is 56 we chose to cite the only reference reporting a different number !! Please view the following links: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], all of which reporting 56 deaths counted by the red cross. I' ll revert to the previous version of this sentence. --Wedian 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the ICRC number of 28 is from July 30 [30]. But I have just searched their site and they have not updated the number[31].--SVTCobra 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz and selective quoting

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

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

Google news says: "2,140 for 37 killed lebanon." Even Haaretz says (yesterday) "Olmert also expressed regret for Sunday's attack in Qana in which 56 people, including 37 children, were killed." ^[32] El_C 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Most news reporting 27-28 dead, not 50+

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

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

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

Most news, or most reliable news?

BBC says "57" [33]

CNN says "more than 60" [34]

Der Spiegel says "at least 56" [35]

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

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

HRW are on the ground and recovery efforts have stopped. 13 people are still missing feared buried in rubble. Dont think there is heavy lifting equipment there except UN because it either get bombed or went north to escape bombing- was same in Tyre. 28 is not going to be the final figure but they may not get that final figure confirmed anytime soon. Report is here Jaysweet with explanation for the discrepancy in figures: [36] I did post the same detail just above Bingman06.82.29.227.171 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Haaretz "Livni" Article

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

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

The IDF claimed that

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

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

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

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

The deleted text reads:

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

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

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

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

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

Here are extracts from the Hebrew version of the article [37], which (as often) is more detailed.
"(Heading:)IDF had no information on Hizbollah people in Qana, and no launching of Katyushas were spotted from the bombed house's yard. (By Yoav Stern and Amos Harel). There was a decision to attack houses at a certain radius from a place that had been used for launching in the past [...] The house was chosen as target because in the past Katyushas had been launched not far from it, and the air force decided to attack several houses at a certain radius from the launching location, as in other launching locations too. At the day of the strike, no launchings from Qana were spotted. [...] Military sources added that the warning flyers scattered by the air force to the villagers demanding them to leave the place were spread a few days prior to the bombing and not on the weekend. The sources admitted that the IDF has no reliable way to find out whether civilians remained in the villages, and that possibly more civilians stay in shelters in villages considered abandoned."
The practice of destroying all buildings within a certain radius of rocket launchings was also reported on Israeli TV (channel 10) on July 31. --Zero^talk 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to 1996 Qana Shelling

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

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

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

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

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

Why remove Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conciseness of introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article in other languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

{pov} tag is vandalism???

I am very confused by the description attached to this edit [38]. (Sorry, I haven't figured out how to properly link to an edit, only how to do it with an external link). --Jaysweet 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV in favour of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can help reach consensus on POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting question :) I would invite people to look at my contribs and decide for themselves whether or not I have a bias. I would like to consider myself unbiased in regards to this conflict -- but wouldn't everyone like to consider themselves unbiased? ;D Admittedly, though, I have been appalled at the behavior of a handful of pro-Israeli editors over the last 48 hours, and this may taint my opinion somewhat. This is why I am being very cautious about any edits I make to this page. I do not want my frustration at a couple of bad-faith editors[39] to cause me to make unhelpful/destructive edits. --Jaysweet 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lets see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didnt move any hoax stuff I think Jacob integrated it. The hoax article was something I wrote myself after reading the various theories, im sure I missed out some. Just added 'explanations for hoax theories' after reading this article tearing them to pieces [40] 82.29.227.171 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The current version ([41]) seems to have moved sufficiently towards NPOV now to remove the pov tag. Hopefully it will stay that way. Jacob 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no rockets launched from Qana.

It is stated in the article that "IDF admitted that there had been no rockets launched from Qana" but did the IDF ever admit this? Omarthesecound 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They certainly didn't. They even released video footage of rockets firing from Qana. --aishel 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read that part of the article - it says that no rockets had been fired on the day of the attack. The cited Haaretz article says: "The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday. The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike." -- ChrisO 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris, your point taken, but the claim that the IDF admitted this is questionable. Do we have other sources? If this was true; I'm sure other sources would have reported this. Omarthesecound 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All IDF said was that previous rocket launches had taken place from that area. No rocket launches on the day the IDF struck implies no rocket launchers or Hezbollah firing rockets. No rocket launcher or Hezbollah firing them implies no military target that day to drop the bombs on.

The phrase "the site [Qana] was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site" implies the target for that day was the buildings "in proximity to a previous launching site" ie. the building the people of Qana were in when it was hit. 82.29.227.171 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense, given that it's been reported that Hezbollah has been storing rockets in and under civilian buildings. The IAF may well have assumed that the targeted building was empty. -- ChrisO 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References

The "cite news" template is only partially in use. Please let me know if this is intentional. Tewfik^Talk 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, no, I don't think so. Theres a good mix used, especially in the main article, where some are just direct linking instead of referencing. I think a cleanup/standardisation is in order after the conflict is over. --Iorek85 07:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of us are just learning how to cite properly (like me). Tips and cleanup help are appreciated! :) :) --Jaysweet 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty of evacuation

There's some dispute about where to put this (or whether to keep it?):

The BBC reported that although Israeli officials have stated that leaflets had been dropped in the area warning civilians to leave their homes, Israel had been bombing civilian cars and convoys on the roads and many residents were too afraid to move and leave their homes or had no means of transport.<ref>"Analysis: A second Qana Massacre?", BBC, July 30, 2006</ref>

As a former military man, I can tell you that the fear of being bombed is quite urgent and visceral. No one wants to drive on a road that might shelled by enemy fire (or by friendly fire for that matter, which is no joke).

So if civilians had been "warned" but were "afraid", that's a powerful argument somebody is making that Israel is to blame for the civilian deaths: it's the POV that they had no place to go, so the 'warnings' were meaningless.

We need to identify the source of that argument. Is the BBC arguing that? Was that an anti-IDF commentary?

If so, perhaps we need an additional section for pundits and commentators in the media - not just what countries say. I daresay the BBC carries a bit more weight in the English-speaking world than any half-dozen Arab countries. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, it was a BBC correspondent who reported this. The BBC is pretty good about differentiating what they are reporting as fact vs. analysis by their correspondents, which is one reason I like BBC. So this was a little analysis-y, but on the other hand, those correspondents often have good insight into what is going on on the ground.

I share your qualms about this... I think it is very relevant information, but I'm just not sure where to put it. --Jaysweet 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If the report came from a correspondent on the ground, it probably reflects what he was told by the locals - I'd call it direct reportage, not speculative analysis. -- ChrisO 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you. It's just a little bit less fact-y than, say, an official document or a press conference or a picture of a blown up building, since it's just what some people were saying. But I still agree that a Beeb correspondent is reliable enough for inclusion. And it does yield an important insight into why/how this tragedy occured.

Any thoughts on where to put it, though? It was originally in the intro, which I think is the wrong place for it. I'm at a loss for where it should be, though... --Jaysweet 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, analysis of the reasons people remained in the area is significant, if only in that it fuels arguments condemning or exonerating the bombing. Suppose a published source argues that Israel is to blame for the 20 to 60 deaths because "despite leaflet warnings, civilians had no way to leave the area". We could include that, along with any opposing POV such as "Civilian noncombatants were warned and should have left; terrorists who use civilians as human shields are to blame, not us."

The Reactions section doesn't distinguish between POV and insinsuation. Stating part of an argument (phrased as a mere dry recitation of well-known facts) is a tricky way of making an argument without taking responsibility for it. I think this evades NPOV.

Better to say, X & Y condemned the airstrike because of A, B, & C. While Z justified the strike because of D & E. --Uncle Ed 14:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of attacks on civilian areas is in the article Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Dont think media speculation on why the people were there is helpful- its conjecture. Statements from the people who survived would probably be best, with you may find in the recent 50+ page Human Rights Watch report "Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon" [42] 82.29.227.171 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF issued a statement not a report

Fixed this misleading section on the statement. Interesting to note that the statement wasnt actually linked to anywhere in the text, only 2nd hand reports of the statement. A report was not issued, a summary of the report by Chief of Staff Halutz was issued in the form of a statement. Also it was the JPost who claimed information on the 'previous attacks'- it is not present in the statement. JPost POV clearly. Please discuss here before messing around with the section as it is now accurate in terms of what the statement was, said, and its quotes from the statement. If in doubt try reading what the statement says. 82.29.227.171 12:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline move

I moved the local and IDF timelines to the same subsection to clarify the distinction between the two. If the more recent news reports make clear when the collapse actually occured (i.e., at 1:30, rescue then delayed by the difficulty of moving at night; or at 7:00, shortly before rescue and initial news reports), then maybe we can just delete one of them and make a single timeline based on all news sources. TheronJ 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Timeline according to the IDF, points #1, #3 and #4, all seem to mention Israel's reason for striking the village, i.e. they thought it was empty and that Hizubllah was firing rockets from there. They have very little or nothing to do about the timeline of events. Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I suggest these be removed from the article - you could argue about placing them elsewhere (Position of Israel or the IDF investigation sections) but those mention the same points as well - and that we make the Timeline section continuous, not dividing it into two separate accounts, while keeping #2 from the IDF account (which seems to be the only one discussing the timeline). --Bluerain (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan Gillerman

Is Israeli ambassador to the UN not a journalist. 82.29.227.171 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted - I missed that. Anyays, I've now shifted his quote into "Position of Israel" section Jacob 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we must give extra attention to the identity of each person/group advocating a POV on this matter. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Details on the building

Available here from Lebanese Daily Star 07/31 [43] notice the conflict with the 0/30 reports of it being the reinforced building- the reports the conspiracy theorists picked up on. 82.29.227.171 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Human rights watch

This sentence was added by Omarthesecound to HRW section "The HRW also labelled the Hezbollah's attacks in Israel as serious violations of international humanitarian law"[44]. The reference he used was [45] which dates back to July 18 and is a statement by HRW on Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on the previous Sunday and Monday. Does this have anything to do with Qana airstrike ? At best, this belongs to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.--Wedian 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

HRW made a statement on the 30 July regarding Qana:

"Responsibility for the Israeli airstrikes that killed at least 54 civilians sheltering in a home in the Lebanese village of Qana rests squarely with the Israeli military", Human Rights Watch said, and added:

“ Just because the Israeli military warned the civilians of Qana to leave does not give it carte blanche to blindly attack. ”

as did ICRC:

The inference made by the Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon that those civilians who remain behind are "terrorists" has been criticised by many human rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who in a 30 July statement on the IDF's attack on Qana said:

“ Issuing advance warning to the civilian population of impending attacks in no way relieves a warring party of its obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. In particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality must be respected at all times... The ICRC once again urgently calls for a distinction to be drawn at all times between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. All necessary precautions must be taken to spare civilian life and objects and to ensure that the wounded have access to medical facilities." ”

82.29.227.171 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is important that we state both sides of the story. If we have to mention the HRW report on Israel then we must be fair and highlight that the Hezbollah’s actions is also considered “serious violations of international humanitarian law” by the HRW. We must be careful that this article does not become one sided. Omarthesecound 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the article about Qana airstrike. It is not the article about the HRW view of the parties in conflict. We list here HRW statement about this particular incident. Wikipedia has other articles about the conflict in general 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to which this content can be added.--Wedian 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To keep this part of the article NPOV, I suggest we remove the HWR statement completely.Awsert 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that to keep the article NPOV or to push the point of view of only one side of the story. You don't seem to mind the use of HRW statements in general or the use of the same HRW statement to estimate the number of victims in the introduction of the article .--Wedian 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is to keep this section NPOV. Please assume good faith -- Awsert 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The first word in assume good faith is "assume." That means that, in the absence of contrary evidence, you believe that an editor is acting in good faith. As soon as you have contrary evidence, though, you don't need to AGF any more. As others said, edit histories don't lie. --Jaysweet 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Comments on the contributor is not helpfull! Awsert 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me where I commented on the contributor in that last statement. I commented on Wikipedia policy, not about anyone in particular. --Jaysweet 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with Awsert; there is alraedy a whole section about the Human Rights Watch. It does look POV 196.207.36.130 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch are speaking for the victims of the attack. So far their POV is not represented in the article very well. There are apologies from IDF, some condemnation, and thats it. Not balanced at all. As for assuming 'good faith' why should anyone? Edit histories do not lie. 82.29.227.171 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Awsert 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Until investigation of edit history proves bad faith, misleading edits, and a campaign to distort. Thanks for pointing that out. 82.29.227.171 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my words seemed like a personal attack. I guess i'm not very comfartable to see a number of single purpose accounts who have just joined wikipedia to edit this article only and who show greater familiarity to wikipedia than most newcomers.--Wedian 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, could we please get back to discuss the article:) Awsert 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Qaa airstrike

Added this article and linked to it here. 82.29.227.171 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can help establish concensus on inclusion of statement from Yesha Rabbinical Council

This is another piece of info that might as well be put in flashing text, cuz it keeps disappearing and re-eappearing. :p Anyone want to comment? I'm not intimately familiar with how prominent this council is in Israeli society. I would say, if this is a really important group over there, it's worth including their reaction. Otherwise, it just seems like a way to discredit Israel by making them look particularly unrepentant. :shrug: I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but revert wars always bug me anyway :) --Jaysweet 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are an important group or not. This specific statement has been covered by many websites and agencies. The Saudi Embassy has also reacted to these statements. 62.163.161.226 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some reputable sources that are covering this in detail? Also, can you source the reaction of the Saudi Embassy? Those would be important things to see. As it is right now, the source you add is just a short blurb of what they said on YNetNews. It looks to me like the Council issued a press release and YNetNews reprinted it, and that's that. More prominent sources covering this issue might help.

In the meantime, I'll check the Wikipedia article you linked to... --Jaysweet 17:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

hehehe, I can see why you removed the link to the Wikipedia article in a later edit. On the contrary, I think the Wikipedia article on the Council makes them sound pretty minor ;)

Still, if the Saudis were that ticked off, it might still be newsworthy. Can you provide a source for that claim? --Jaysweet 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same council. 62.163.161.226 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't many point made on this page being backed by press releases? Then surely that quote from Ynet, a well known press agency in Israel, can be used too. [46]

62.163.161.226 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a science subject thus according to Wikipedia you may use a press release. The fact there is one means that the council enjoys a certain amount of attention. 62.163.161.226 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I entirely disagree with your last statement. Heck, my band could issue a press release if we wanted to, but nobody would read it :) I'm fine with sourcing a press release if you can convince me the council is more than just some random anti-Arab cranks. (and they may very well be, I just don't know enough about Israeli politics to say..)

Better yet, though, as I said, if the Saudis are pissed about the statement, that is really newsworthy. If you can find a source that the Saudi embassy has reacted to the comment, that would be really great! --Jaysweet 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a link. The Saudi Embassy reported prior to the attacks a condemnation of a statement made by that council, another similar statement. Note there is a big difference between your band and AP, AFP et cetera. Thanks to that we accept press releases made by these bureau and not those who are made by your band. 62.163.161.226 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link which proves that this council is influential: [47]

62.163.161.226 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, my sincere apologies, I missed the link.  :) So that other people don't miss it as well, here is the link showing the Saudi Embassy's reaction. Well, thanks for providing that. I still do not have a strong opinion either way on the inclusion of this detail. I would like to hear from other editors. --Jaysweet 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are cranks, there are a lot more influential politicians making the same claims in more veiled terminology. 82.29.227.171 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, remove statement for now Awsert 18:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored the info. It comes from the english version of Ynet website which is owned and operated by the notable Yedioth Ahronoth of the Yedioth Group, Israel's largest media company. Note that Ynet is one of the most visited Israeli news websites. -- Szvest 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I do not dispute the fact, but I do not belief this statement is part of the Israeli Position. If it is please ref a source which states it is. Awsert 19:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very relevant though i know it is an unofficial statement. I've just created a sub-section for that reason. -- Szvest 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

What does it have to do with the Qana airstrike? I'm not clear on that. This probably belongs in the 'targeting of civilian areas' article where you can make a case for its inclusion based on the influence this group exercises in Israeli society 82.29.227.171 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not an important group. Yesha is an acronym for the Hebrew names of the occupied territories, so the Yesha Council is the council of settler representatives (see also [48]) and the Yesha Rabbinical Council is the council of settler rabbis. I suppose that they can be said to represent the 150,000 or so settlers, but whoever has been calling them the "powerful Yesha Rabbinical Counsel" on the main page can't possibly verify that characterization. The only time they show up in news stories that I can find prior to the current conflict is when they oppose (unsuccessfully) Israel's various pull-outs. TheronJ

They are important Theron. We all know the weight of Israeli settlers on the Israeli policy. 150,000 is a very large number considering the size of the Isreali population. -- Szvest 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While I acknowledge your point on pressure this group might exercise over a leader like Olmert what does it have to do with the Qana airstrike? I'm not saying its unimportant just that this article is about the attack. It would only become relevant if you could demonstrate that the pilot/mission planners intentionally attacked the civilians and they were influenced by these people. This information is better placed at the page talking about civilian areas where you can make the case on their influence on government policy in lebanon. 82.29.227.171 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad naseum in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict thread.[49]

As I've explained there, the council statments have nothing to do with the Qana strike, which is the most relevent point, and secondly, the ynet article is erreneous as the statement was made weeks before. Anyone interested can read the discussion. The statement is completely irrelevent to this article and the person who tried to insert it is pov warring from article to article.

Guy Montag 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I "warring" from article to article? Prove it! You have my IP so you should be able if you speak the truth. Secondly who are you to decide the article is erreneous? Prove it! For now it's your word against a press release from a well known Israeli source. The statement is not irrelevant because it is a response to the Qana attack hence very relevent. 62.163.161.226 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not about to engage in conversation with someone who doesn't have the common decency to read the talkpage from another thread discussing this same topic. But for everyone else. The statement was made July 12th [50] in response to rocket attacks, and another statement was made after eight Israeli soldiers were killed in Bint Jbeil in response to the outrage of the Israeli government not using the proper force to subdue a terrorist stronghold, and the percieved inability to put the lives of Israeli soldiers above Lebanese civilians. It is in line with a statement made by Prof. Asha Kasser, who wrote the IDF Code of Ethics, and on July 28th told the Jerusalem Post that it may be morally justified to obliterate areas with a high concentration of terrorists, even if civilian casualties result.

This statement has nothing to do with the airstrike or the article. So, stop reinserting this irrelevent nonsense.Guy Montag 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Professor Asa Kasher 'IDF may be morally justified in flattening terror strongholds' 82.29.227.171 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you have not noticed but I am refering to another statement made by that council. I have read the other thread. This is another statement with a clear time stamp. The piece will go back to where it belongs. 62.163.161.226 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure, a quote from that statement

The Yesha Rabbinical Council announced in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna that "according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy."

62.163.161.226 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ynet has made a mistake. The announcement was made on July 12th. The airstrike was on July 30th. Can the council see the future? Because that would be more relevent news than their press release. Now get a grip and stop reinserting this nonsense. Guy Montag 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they made a mistake? How can you be so sure that this quote is part of a previous statement? Please provide some evidence. 62.163.161.226 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure that it was not part of a previous statement? That's why it wasn't included in the Israel Lebanon article. Guy Montag 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The onus of proof is upon you. This is a press release published by a renowned Israeli source. No rectification can be found related to that statement. Put it back because you keep deleting it. 62.163.161.226 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure but these two statements [51] (July 12th on jpost) and [52] (July 30th on Ynet) seem to have some similarities. Both are mentining the need to ignore christian moralities. Aren't they?--Wedian 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike

I'm not sure if i should mention this here but i'll say it anyway. There is currently an Afd regarding the International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike. You can vote here. Most votes are either to keep it or merge back to this article. As editors of this article, i thought you would be interested to vote .--Wedian 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)