Talk:2006 Qana airstrike/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV

Since edits to make this article approach something NPOV were routinely reverted, I have no choice but to tag this as NPOV. Further down in the article, it is very clear that the Israeli Airforce believed Katyusha rockets and Hizballah militants were in the building, but editors refuse to make this fact clear. Further, the only sources that call this a "massacre" are Arab press and Robert Fisk in an opinion piece, and the Guardian, hardly neutral sources. --Leifern (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if sources actually asserted what was referred to. --Leifern (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC specfically says it is called the second Qana massacre in Lebanon. Your removal of that and changing to anti-Israel opinion pieces is incorrect. And Fisk is a reliable source himself. nableezy - 13:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the BBC piece quite carefully, and there is no mention of the word "massacre." Fisk is an anti-Israeli demagogue with absolutely no credibility, but that is beside the point - the piece is an op-ed. I can find lots of op-ed pieces arguing all sides of the issue. Unless you can produce the exact quote in this specific BBC piece referring to it as a "massacre," the citation needs to be removed. What that leaves us with is very dubious sources supporting this term. At this point, I would like to remove the reference to "massacre" altogether.--Leifern (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, do not remove the NPOV tag until these issues have been resolved. There are a number of inconsistencies throughout the article, and since you insist on using op-ed pieces from biased outlets as reliable sources, the article requires careful review before a reader can trust its contents. --Leifern (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, the BBC does not say the word "massacre"? It does not have the line It remains to be seen if the 'Qana Massacre No 2' - as it's being called in Lebanon? Try reading more carefully. And I dont care what you think about Fisk, he is a highly respected journalist. nableezy - 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on the "massacre" point, but it's pretty clear that the BBC does not refer to it as a massacre, only that some people in Lebanon do. So the point remains that the "massacre" term is only used by people, like you, who desperately want it to be a massacre. And to repeat the point, op-ed articles are not acceptable as sources for facts. You have proven my point and I thank you for it. The massacre reference will be removed, and the article will be tagged NPOV until someone with less of an axe to grind reviews both the contents and the references. --Leifern (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I desperately want it to be a massacre? What is wrong with you? Take out the op-ed if that really bothers you, but it is proof of use of the phrase. We are not using it to say it is a massacre, we are using it to say it has been called a massacre. Dont comment on what you think about me again. nableezy - 14:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that WP:NPOV requires that we represent all significant viewpoints on a given subject in the article devoted to it? Have you seen these articles?:

• http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74369 in The Daily Star
• The Second Qana Massacre; Photographic Evidence of Israeli Crimes against Humanity in Global Research
• "Likewise, Condoleezza Rice refused to endorse appeals for an unconditional ceasefire at the time of the second Qana massacre." by a human rights worker at Amnesty International

Even Ynet, the Israeli online newspaper in English writes: "Notably, the incident has indeed been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media."

Is it your position that the viewpoints of the Arab world and human rights workers are too insigificant to be included? If so, how do you justify that per NPOV? Tiamut^talk 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to remove any viewpoints, I just think they should all be represented accurately. So many questions have arisen about this incident that its very foundations are shaky. I am sorry that you take the comment personally, but you are so anxious to maintain the term "massacre" prominently in the article that I have to believe that you really want there to have been a massacre. And Ynet correctly inserts the phrase that "the Arab press" has dubbed it a massacre, which is all I'm asking for - that it's been termed that by groups who have a clear interest in phrasing it that way. --Leifern (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the MoS, all alt names for an incident can be included in bold in parantheses beside the most common name in the first sentence of the article. The alt name for this event in the Arab world and some places beyond is the Second Qana massacre or 2006 Qana massacre. This is not in dispute. If you wish to elaborate on who calls it by this name, you can do that further down in the article. However, to insist that the bolded name be removed falls afoul of NPOV and our MoS guidelines. We write at Wikipedia using a worldwide perspective, not a Western one. And please do not speculate as to my motivations (i.e. you take the comment personally, but you are so anxious to maintain the term "massacre" prominently in the article that I have to believe that you really want there to have been a massacre.) You don't know what I think about what happened, nor do you know what I call it, and in any case, that is all irrelevant. The only relevant issues are how to present this information in line with our guidelines and policies reflecting what reliable sources on the subject have to say.

And please remove the POV tag. It's ridiculous to tag an article over the bolding of a name. Tiamut^talk 10:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I might also mention that google book and web searches indicate that "Qana massacre" + 2006 and "Second Qana massacre" are much more widely used than "Qana airstrike" + 2006. I think a name change to the most common name may be in order. Tiamut^talk 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on the use of the term "massacre" on Wikipedia, and I like others have only insisted that it be used consistently regardless of who the victims are. Consequently, the term is generally avoided. All I have asked for is that it is made clear - as you do in the above paragraph - that the term "massacre" is only used by certain groups. And while I did not mean to be personal, it is remarkable to me how anxious certain editors are to put alleged or actual Israeli transgressions in the worst possible light. --Leifern (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What is remarkable is that certain editors insist on highlighting anything they feel shows a certain state in the best possible light and obfuscating anything that does not. The Fisk piece is proof of use outside of the Arab media, as is the use by Amnesty. To say it is only used by Arab media is flatly wrong (did not know the population of Lebanon was part of the Arab media) and to say it is only used by Arabs is also wrong (again, see use by Fisk and AI). nableezy - 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

2010 continued discussion regarding naming of event as a massacre

I am bringing this up again as I believe that Leifern was correct in saying that this is basically an Arab usage. Fisk is an Arabic speaker and has a well-known and documented bias against Israel which would figure in his work. In this opinion piece he uses the word "massacre" twice:

• "'Israel makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties,'" yet another Israeli ambassador said only hours before the Gaza massacre."
• "Israel claimed the bodies of children killed in a second Qana massacre may have been taken from a graveyard."

It is extremely arguable that in both cases Fisk is using massacre in a descriptive sense and not as a name. As an English speaker if he had intended to convey that "Second Qana massacre" was a name, he would have capitalized Second, for sure. Acknowledge its use as a name in Lebanon, as noted in the BBC article, in the Arab media as noted in the Ynet article, and as can easily be seen in the ArabNews headline (thought the body of the article refers to the "attack") and the opinion piece in Al-Ahram. I have made the change accordingly. Stellarkid (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And reverted. Lebanon is not part of the "Arab media". And your personal opinion on what Fisk biases may or may not be are wholly irrelevant. Fisk is also an English speaker and he writes English columns. But the BBC piece on its own says more than the "Arab media" called it this. nableezy - 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the CIA World Factbook, Lebanon is 95% Arab. That would make it "Arab media." Fisk's biases are not a matter of my personal opinion, he is more than clear on it himself. As was pointed out "[blp violation redacted], but that is beside the point - the piece is an op-ed." The piece is an op-ed. The BBC does not call it a massacre. Stellarkid (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The people of Lebanon are not part of the Arab media. And kindly read WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPTALK. And then remove the BLP violation you quoted. Nobody said the BBC calls it a massacre, the BBC said it was known in Lebanon as the second Qana massacre. nableezy - 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are calling a BLP violation. Please be specific. The Arab media quote was from Ynet, and seems somewhat supported by the quote from the BBC. Other than that, there is little to no evidence that your other "massacre" names are actually official names, in common usage as a name and I am seeing from the above conversation that there is no consensus to include it. Please check out the link to WP policy. Maximally, one can say that it is noted that it is referred to that way in the Arab press, though I don't believe it belongs in the lead at all, since we can only support that it is the Arab opinion, not international opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The BLP vio is the stating of a personal opinion that Fisk is an "****". And the people of Lebanon are not part of the Arab media. And consensus does not mean everybody agrees with inclusion. You have to give a policy backed reason to remove it; consensus is determined by the strength of an argument not the number of backers that argument has. You again say that the BBC piece "somewhat" supports "Arab media". But, again, the people of Lebanon are not a part of the Arab media. The BBC piece clearly says it is known as that in Lebanon, not in the Lebanese media, not in the Arab media, not in the media. But in Lebanon, full stop. nableezy - 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a quote from someone else and I struck it. I guess it could be considered a blp vio though it is merely a critical opinion shared by many. It accuses him of nothing except a bias that he readily admits. Anyway. The exact quote by the BBC is "It remains to be seen if the 'Qana Massacre No 2' - as it's being called in Lebanon..." One assumes that the BBC was looking at the Lebanese media to determine what the Lebanese people are thinking, but perhaps they were just polling the man on the street. Stellarkid (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with SK. It's quite clear that the "massacre" term is not used by the mainstream media, consequently, per wp:npov, the massacre term should be attributed to its origin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Define "mainstream media". nableezy - 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't differ from your definition or the definition of any other reasonable person. And no, Fisk is not considered "mainstream" by any stretch of the imagination.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Obviously our definitions are different as we reach opposite conclusions. So, if I may trouble you to actually give an answer to the question, could you please define "mainstream media"? nableezy - 20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that you're claiming your basis for non-attribution is that it was used in the mainstream media, you're been officially checkmated. The people in Lebanon are not the mainstream media, for one because, uh..........they're not a media. I would explain in detail why Fisk is not considered mainstream, but I'm not interested in playing these games and traps that allow editors to run off yelling "BLP violation". Just read Robert Fisk, Fisking, to get a basic jist of why he is not considered mainstream.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I dont believe I said I dont think this should be attributed. So it may be a checkmate, but you are playing somebody else. I took Fisk out of the article, almost a year ago I said to take it out of the article. In fact, I kept the attribution, just made it so that it actually reflected the sources. I object to the labels that a couple people have inserted into the article, that either that it is referred to in op-ed articles and at one time in Lebanon and that it is only known in the Arab media as the second Qana massacre. I objected to this primarily because for 1, not only op-eds were using this as the name in the Arab media and to say "at one time in Lebanon" is clearly an OR interpretation of a plain reading of the source. The one by Stellarkid I objected to because the people of Lebanon are not part of the media. And, if you want to know, I didnt take Fisk out because because he is not "mainstream", but because he was based in Lebanon at the time this was written, so I felt like being magnanimous and removing it as redundant to make all the Fisk-haters out there a tiny bit happier. nableezy - 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware we're allowed to take back moves. You claim you have nothing against attribution, yet here you're removing attribution.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you reread the comment above and take back that one. I said I objected to Stellarkid's attribution because the people of Lebanon are not a part of the Arab media. The BBC source said "known in Lebanon", to say it is only known as such in the Arab media is clearly incorrect. nableezy - 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you kept the attribution and here you removed the attribution. Let's stop with the games. Do you support or oppose the attribution to the Arab media?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's. One of the games we can stop is misconstruing what I did. I removed an incorrect attribution, to simply say that I removed "the attribution" is misleading. I believe I have answered your question already. But to make it clear for you, I dont think it needs to be attributed at all, but I dont "oppose" an accurate attribution. Simply saying "Arab media" is not accurate, as repeatedly explained above. nableezy - 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You two are talking past each other. Brecrewer clearly defines "mainstream media" to mean something along the lines of "the media a majority of people read/watch." Nableezy's point seems to be that there's no such thing as a worldwide "mainstream media." If I interpreted Nableezy accurately, than his point is sound. However, his point supports Brecrewer's point! There is no worldwide mainstream media. There is a mainstream transatlantic media (i.e. what the majority of Americans and Europeans read) and a mainstream Arab media (i.e. what the majority of Arabs read). In the mainstream Arab media, this event is referred to as the Qana massacre. In the mainstream transatlantic media, it is referred to by various less POV names. --GHcool (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuh uh, you speak nableezy? But Fisk is a part of the "mainstream transatlantic media". But that really doesn't matter at this point. nableezy - 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further talk regarding title change Nov 2011

I'd like to bring up the point that it was a massacre, and of all the valid point previously brought up it still remains that the title is "Qana Airstrike". I wanted to talk before moving it as a show of good faith that I do not want to cause a POV war and want it to be called by its name. Maz640-Wikipedian Extraordinaire (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. NPOV requires us to call it by a neutral name. "Airstrike" will do. --GHcool (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Airstrike is non-NPOV, in fact there were dozens of Airstrikes in Qana, what makes this one notable is that it resulted in a massacre. What the article is describing here is the consequence of the airstrike, not the airstrike. --Banzoo (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Banzoo make a legitimate point about there being dozens of airstrikes in Qana, but an his/her point that we need to ignore NPOV rules and call it a "massacre" is illegitimate. I propose changing the title of the article to "July 30, 2011 Qana airstrike." --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? Do you mean the date that it occurred, not 2011 right? Also, by your standard their should be a separate article for every airstrike that has occurred at all. Just in the past three years we wouldn't be able to! It should be Qana Massacre because a Massacre (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre) is a slaughter of humans, a general slaughter. Weapon vs Weapon would fall under battle regardless of casualties. But this was simply an attack on civilians. Maz640-Wikipedian Extraordinaire (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "July 30, 2006 Qana airstrike." My bad. I'm used to writing 2011. Haha.

I'll allow the Wikipedia public to judge whether my desire to specify the date of the Qana airstrike must therefore mean that I wish to have an article for every airstrike that has ever occurred is as illogical and baseless as it appears to me. --GHcool (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Massacre" Allegations

Calling this a "massacre" is fundamentally flawed, and is borderline propaganda. This strike was carried out during times of war, it's intent was never to kill innocent civilians (the definition of massacre, by the way) but to shoot down Katyusha rocket launchers. It has not been called a massacre in known media outlets (only in op-eds which is not news), so the people who're restoring these false definitions (and by your history I can see you're problematic past and known political opinions), please stop or else you'll be reported. (Sadzee (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

The name of the massacre is not propaganda. You are violating the Wikipedia Rules by removing the name. The name has Reliable Sources as described in this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. The rule on a neutral point of view is also violated by you. And you used many IP addresses to cheat your change in to the article. That is also against the Wikipedia Rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I said borderline propaganda. The word has been used only in the Arab world, and only mentioned in Western media in op-eds - that's not reliable sourcing. "Neutral point of view", you make me laugh. The IP stuff is because I did not have a user (and there's just one listed, how's your eyesight?). Now I have. (Sadzee (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

How come you no telling truth? You used 2 or 3 IPs to cheat your change in to the article. And your last change is not true either, and your reason is not true either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please indent so the thread can be followed properly. Singularity42 (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion is going to be contructive, please consider the following two points:

• Comment on the content, not the contributer. It really does not matter that Sadzee was using an IP before he or she created an account. The issue is the changes that Sadzee is now proposing.
• Actually discuss why you think the revised addition meets or does not meet policy. Arguments such as "The old version was not a neutral point of view." "Yes, it was." "No, it wasn't. is not a constructive dialogue. Singularity42 (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Singularity42. The IP usage is better dealt with on the user's talk page or at WP:SOCK. To th content issue ... per WP:NPOV, all significant viewpoints on a subject should be expressed. It does not matter that only one party to this conflict prefers the term Qana massacre. It is the WP:COMMONNAME of the event to them as attested in the English language sources cited. Indeed, the current title Qana airstrike represents the POV of only one party and is arguably not a common name. In any case, where there is more than one common name for an event, including the alternatives in bold is common practice here. The inclusion is Wp:V, in line with Wp:NPOV and our style guidelines. Tiamut^talk 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Shadid

Not reverting for the mo. But I don't think a first-hand eyewitness account of what he found coming straight into the village is 'unencyclopedic'. We don't have photos, which are worth a thousand words (like the one of Oren Almog at Maxim restaurant suicide bombing, or the testimony of a survivor at Stage Club bombing, or the lurid photo (which I have no objection to) at 2000 Ramallah lynching, or the blood-splattered corpse of a Jewish victim of the Mercaz HaRav massacre at the top of the Al-Aqsa intifada. Extensive eye-witness accounts are at Columbine High School massacre, with a graphic photo, etc. I've trimmed it down in any case. Most articles on Israeli terrorism have lists of names, which function to indicate that real average people, not an anonymous number, died, and this was what attracted my eye to Shadid's report. As edited, it substitutes for that kind of list. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Shadid, reporting for the Washington Post, described the scene he saw that day:-

−

'Most of the dead had choked on flying dirt and other debris. Their bodies, intact, preserved their final gestures: a raised arm called for help, an old man pulled on pants. Twelve-year-old Hussein Hashem lay curled in the fetal position, his mouth seeming to have vomited earth. Mohammed Chalhoub sat on the ground, his right hand broken. Khadja, his wife and Hasna, his mother, were dead, as were his daughters, Hawra and Zahra, aged twelve and two. As were his sons, Ali, ten: Yahya, nine; and Assem, seven. "I wish God would have left me with just one child," said the bereft former father.'

I don't mind this, but I'd probably remove the "I wish God would have left me with just one child" part because its redundant with the previous sentence. --GHcool (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually your judgement here, apart from that, is identical to my first (instinctive) edit, and instincts are usually more intelligent. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

References