Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 2

< Talk:2006 Qana airstrike
Latest comment: 16 years ago by 122.104.81.118 in topic Staging the scene?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Intro Neutrality

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

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[1] 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

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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" [2] 82.29.227.171 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be missing a point here but the HRW and IDF inquiry reports both say that two missiles were used by the IDF to strike the house...not a bomb. As a result, this bomb casing is likely from another IDF airstrike on the same night or another night (maybe even in another area). Kinda makes the page dodgy.

Hoax allegations

Latest comment: 18 years ago31 comments12 people in discussion

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 [3], Honest Reporting [4]) 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?

Latest comment: 16 years ago84 comments27 people in discussion

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)
Gruesome staging is now essentially admitted. AP's Kathy Gannon wrote two sympathetic stories about -- and in defense of -- "The Green Helmet Guy" who directed the filming of the scene. Ample video of staging exists, some of quite ghoulish. Gannon claims that he was merely being "passionate." One gets the distinct impression from this video that if Qana never happened, Hezbollah and its supporters would have invented it, which is the point the pro-Israel bloggers are trying to make. Remember, the al-Dura boy never existed. That one really was a hoax. Scott Adler 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the 'evidence' that the Al-Dura boy never existed and it is not what would constitute evidence in a court-room. Its flimsy at best and flawed in logic at worst. I mean the kid was definitely there ... that hasn't been questioned really. What has been questioned is who shot him. The claim that it was Palestinians in a position to the right (if looking at the Israeli outpost) is not easily supportable as the bullets are seen 'walking' from the direction of the Israeli outpost and that is very hard to accomplish with an automatic rifle that is not in a direct line from the target. The most likely scenario from what I can garner is that the Israeli's had no idea who was behind the barrel and saw the silhouette of a man hiding behind it, sprayed some automatic fire in his direction, hoping to make either keep him behind cover or take him out of the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (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 wordsdeeds 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 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, TewfikTalk 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 [5]

"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 -> [6]
  • "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."[7] 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 [8] AP in Haaretz[9] JPost[10] Reuters [11] Al-jazeera [12]
  • 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 [13] 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' [14]. 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 [[15]] 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)
I think this has ended up being a bad move. The result is kind of like a POV reverse-fork: Only facts that conform to the Israel-did-wrong viewpoint are permitted to remain in this article, while anything that raises any doubt or question about the "official media version", however valid is shunted off to some other article that has "Conspiracy theories" in its title, in order to discourage anyone from seeing it. I see that the video that shows a so-called rescue worker who is obviously directing a video of the "recovery operation", telling the workers to take the corpses off the vehicle so they can be filmed at a better angle, and giving signals to the camera operators, has now been exiled to the "Conspiracy theories" article as well. If anyone can watch that video and then still say that it is a "conspiracy theory" to conclude that something is very suspicious here... I just don't know what else to say. 6SJ7 00:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now can we call it a hoax?

So we now have people being fired, editors apologizing, can we NOW include Hoax Allegations and not merely conspiracy theories which sounds much worse? There are now serious allegations of a hoax and as such, it should be included and not just linked to a separate article. Yossiea 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I just wanted to add a link to the story which actually has a bit more detail than before, not only was he fired, but "On Monday, it added further charges, saying he had manipulated at least one other photo -- and that all of his recent pictures had been deleted from the news agency's data base." Here's the source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950988 Yossiea 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike/Archive_2&oldid=1079211671"