Talk:2006 Qana airstrike

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Qana airstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821200526/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060814194510/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/meast/08/06/mideast.main/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/06/mideast.main/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and massacre

Ive seen this on a number of pages, but here we have that it was a massacre noted as a significant POV. NPOV does not, and has never, meant that Wikipedia editors decide what is "neutral". It means including all significant views, and that this was a massacre is indeed a significant view. Finally, the silent removal of material that has stood unchallenged for nearly a decade is a bit much. nableezy - 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "silent"; I explicitly stated that I removed it in the edit summary. And what NPOV means is that we have to present these significant POV's in context. This context cannot be presented in categories, per WP:POVCAT, and cannot be presented in wikivoice, as was done in the infobox. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been called a massacre in third party reliable sources. See for example: Hirst, David (2010). Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East. Nation Books. p. 362. ISBN 978-0-7867-4441-1. Qana II: In the second massacre within a decade to befall the place where Christ is said to have preformed his first miracle What exactly is the context youd like to put that in? One in which this is only an airstrike but not a massacre? nableezy - 02:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

For categories, it is not enough that some reliable sources have classified an event as something, it has to be uncontroversially classified. That is not the case here, where most sources appear to decline to do so. Using wikivoice has the same requirements.

As for your example, the context I would put it in is attributed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the same argument being made at Wehda Street airstrikes, where "controversial" appears to mean "editordoesntlikeit" and not NPOV. If you have a bolded alt title it must be NPOV in order to be there so in turn it is NPOV to include it in an already existing category designed for such articles (and not only articles where the main title is that). Apart from that, it is a pointless exercise to have this same discussion on however many pages that there are, I would suggest we have a centralized discussion at some cat talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What I mean by uncontroversial is that there is a consensus in reliable sources, as the absence of a consensus means that we have to present the classification of the event in context. This is context that can not be done in categories, and why WP:CATPOV speaks about using a list "which can be annotated and referenced".

This discussion is also a little broader than just categories, as it also involves how we classify the event in the infobox, but in regards to the categories I have no objection to you opening a CFD, such as with the question "Should events termed a massacre by some reliable sources, but for which there is no consensus amongst reliable sources that they are a massacre, be included in "Massacres committed by Israel" and related categories". BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What you left out is 'Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.' That is a pointy definition of 'controversial'. Reliable sources cover several designations for the incident. To impose on these differences an idea of a 'consensus' about how an incident is described is, frankly, silly. Erasing the 'massacre' CAT when the alternative name in the lead states uncontroversially that it is also known as a massacre creates a contradiction. The policy you also cited contains the following stipulation.

A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having

I.e. that is met easily. For numerous highly qualified academic sources define the 'airstrike' as eventuating in a massacre.

• (1)Thanassis Cambanis, A Privilege to Die: Inside Hezbollah's Legions and Their Endless War Against Israel, Simon and Schuster, 2010 ISBN 9781439143605 p.81
• (2)Michael Jerryson , Religious Violence Today: Faith and Conflict in the Modern World, ABC-CLIO, 2020 ISBN 978-1-440-85991-5 p.371
• (3) Ehad Galal, ‘Friday khutba without borders: Constructing a Muslim Audience,in Noha Mellor, Khalil Rinnawi (eds.), Political Islam and Global Media: The boundaries of religious identity, Routledge, 2016 978-1-317-26708-9
• (4)Mara A. Leichtman Shi'i Cosmopolitanisms in Africa: Lebanese Migration and Religious Conversion in Senegal, Indiana University Press, 2015 ISBN 978-0-253-01605-8 p.135
• (5)Adham Saouli,Hezbollah: Socialisation and its Tragic Ironies Edinburgh University Press, 2018 ISBN 978-1-474-41954-3:’the scenes of destruction, displaced people and the killing of Lebanese innocent civilians began to arouse international public rage but also to turn the tide against Israel...the bloody attack came to be known in Lebanon as the 'Second Qana Massacre'.
• (6)Robert Trivers, The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life, Hachette UK, 2011 ISBN 978-0-465-02805-4 ‘the second bombing run destroyed another museum, built on the site of the Qana massacre of 1996. This massacre took place during one of Israel’s periodic assaults on its northern neighbour’ ’second Qana atrocity and note 269 ch.11
• (7)Eduardo Wassim Aboultaif, Power Sharing in Lebanon: Consociationalism Since 1820, Routledge 2019 ISBN 978-0-429-82705-1: 'Sinora publicly backed Hezbollah after the second Qana massacre.'
• (8)Lucia Volk, Memorials and Martyrs in Modern Lebanon, Indiana University Press 2010 ISBN 978 -0-253-00492-5 pp.181-182
• (9)Corentin Cohen and Frédéric Ramel, ’Taking Images Seriousaly, How to Analyze Them? ‘ in Guillaume Devin (ed.), Resources and Applied Methods in International Relations, Springer, 2017 ISBN 978-3-319-61979-8 pp.43-55 p.50 (2006 . . One came out often after the Qana massacre'.
• (10) John F. Murphy, The Evolving Dimensions of International Law: Hard Choices for the World Community Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 978-1-139-48737-5 p.96, n.26 Used in a Tunisian presentation on behalf of all Arab states to the UN
• (11) David Hirst,Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East, Nation Books 2010 ISBN 978-0-7867-4441-1 p.568
• (12) Yasmine Nahabe Taan, Blogging in Times of War: The July 2006 War in Lebanon and Mazen Kerbaj Imaging the Unimaginable, in Tatiana Prorokova, Nimrod Tal ( eds.), Cultures of War in Graphic Novels: Violence, Trauma, and Memory, Rutgers University Press, 2018 ISBN 978-0-813-59099-8 pp.204-223 p.215
• (13)Chandra Lekha Sriram, John C. King, Julie A. Mertus, Olga Martin-Ortega, Johanna Herman,Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, Routledge, 2009 ISBN 978-1-134-01018-9:'The Qana massacre refers to the July 30, 2006 attack by Israel on a village in Lebanon that killed 28 people, more than half of whom were children.'

That Arab and particularly Lebanese usage calls it the (second) Qana massacre'(of 2006), and that this usage is also widespread, without inverted quotation markers, in numerous scholarly Western sources, is sufficient to attest that a good part of the relevant commentary defines the event as a massacre, and therefore the CAT is appropriate. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We dont attribute unchallenged RS, and a NPOV dispute does not exist simply because a wikipedia editor says so. What sources dispute a massacre occurred here? Because here's another: Sriram, C.L.; King, J.C.; Mertus, J.A.; Martin-Ortega, O.; Herman, J. (2009). Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations. Taylor & Francis. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-134-01018-9. Retrieved 2021-10-23. The Qana massacre refers to the July 30, 2006 attack by Israel on a village in Lebanon that killed 28 people, more than half of whom were children

What sources dispute the multiple third party reliable sources that report as a fact that what occurred here was a "massacre"? nableezy - 15:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is a productive line of argument Nableezy, as the articles title is evidence that referring to this as a massacre is not uncontroversial, but if you want examples at least three of Nishidani's decline to name the event so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial is a red herring, its an altname so is NPOV and trying to elide that can't be right. If some erstwhile researcher comes along and wants to find Massacres committed by Israasel, he will be expecting to find this one as well, regardless of what the main title might be.Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Alt-names, while warranted, aren't always NPOV. For instance, the Six-Day War; "The Setback" is very clearly a POV title, though its inclusion is warranted as a "significant alternative names". BilledMammal (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The only way you can get an altname is if it's in sources ie it's NPOV (NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the way you are using it and POV is fine, bias is allowed, it's the sources that decide.).Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to say; bias is allowed in altnames etc where we can address the bias. It is not allowed in categories where we can not address the bias. BilledMammal (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You can apply the exact same arguments you are making to the main title and they will be just as wrong. Example Operation Grapes of Wrath totally POV name with a cat called that (and look at the entries!)Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Titles have an exception, WP:COMMONNAME. There is no such exception for categories.

For Operation Grapes of Wrath there are worse titles; it is somewhat common, and its neutrality issues come from being the Israeli name for the event, rather than anything inherent to the name itself. With that said, if you propose a move to an appropriate descriptive title then I would support it; the arguments towards COMMONNAME are weak in the case of that article. In terms of the category, it is clearly an appropriate category, but it should be renamed to the same as the article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Common name usually just means what the sources say so I would call it the rule not an exception. WP goes by sources.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not something is the common name or if it is uncontroversial is wholly irrelevant and we are not discussing whether it is commonly known as a massacre as nobody has suggest renaming the article. It is exceedingly well sourced that a massacre did occur here, and as of yet there is no source disputing it. When we bring sources and you come back with I don't think that is a productive line of argument and irrelevant comments about the title when we are not discussing the title but bring 0 sources that indicates to me that this is indeed not productive, but because you are attempting to impose your own views over the numerous unimpeachably reliable sources listed above. And that wont do, sorry. nableezy - 16:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Three of Nishidani's sources dispute it, by declining to use the term. I note that this "passive disuse" is equivalent to the "passive use" of five of Nishidani's other sources (I was unable to review two, so perhaps they contain active arguments for use.) BilledMammal (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want someone to listen to your objections, document them, as with the assertions about the sources I cited. Don't just make vague claims.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

See your fifth, seventh, and ninth sources, who decline to use the term outside of quotes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you 'see' my 5th,7th, and 9th sources. Since you falsified two of three (and the 5th. used quotes simply to specify standard Lebanese usage, where the use of inverted quotations doesn't disinvalidate but highlights phrasing) I've transcribed the passages. You have completely distorted the evidence. And that means you are not arguing here with any respect for objectivity, but to try and override/arguedown the unambiguous evidence by pushing a POV. You exclaim below 'We aren't getting anywhere'. That's the use of the plural of majesty. Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, sources declining to use the term do not dispute it. That would require sources that explicitly say what occurred is not a massacre. Do you have any such sources? Because as it stands we have several third party reliable sources saying what occurred was a massacre. And none disputing it. And on Wikipedia, that makes it an undisputed fact. nableezy - 18:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You're asking for different standards of proof for the two positions; you accept individuals choosing to use the term as proof for it being the correct classification, but don't accept individuals choosing not to use the term as proof against it being the correct classification. The issue with this double standard should be obvious. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That is absurd. Truly absurd. Your position is that if somebody does not say X then they deny X. Mine is if they say Y then they mean Y. That isn't a double standard, that is basic logic, so basic in fact that I am not quite sure you are being serious here. No, the standard is the same. Get a source that directly says what you claim. That there was no massacre. Not sources that dont say anything about the question at hand at all and then pretend that their silence backs your position. We have rules against such things. nableezy - 03:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

One more time, do you have any reliable third party sources that deny a massacre occurred? Absent that it is an undisputed fact backed by numerous sources that a massacre took place, and it belongs in the category and the infobox, and removing it on the basis of such an absurd argument goes past mildly annoying in to tendentious editing. nableezy - 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We aren't getting anywhere. When Selfstudier opens their broader discussion I will present my position and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I take that to mean no. In the future, when trying to argue that a source disputes a position because they dont say anything about it, take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-:0-2 See where it says A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. We have provided sources that directly supports the material in the article. You have argued that other sources dispute it based on inference and supposition. Those are non-arguments here. nableezy - 03:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your sources use this as a label, not a piece of information. The absence of arguments against a label doesn't mean that the label is broadly accepted nor that it is appropriate for use in wikivoice. But as I said, I will wait for Selfstudiers broader discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That is very much not true. Hirst repeatedly says what occurred was a massacre. I dont even understand what a label vs a piece of information is supposed to mean. And yes, the absence of arguments (sources) against something, when there are sources for that thing, means on Wikipedia that it is not in dispute. You may not claim a dispute exists without sources that demonstrate, explicitly, a dispute. At that point we can discuss prevalence and quality of sources. But I dont think you are disputing that the sources above are a. reliable, and b. directly support that this airstrike resulted in a massacre of Lebanese civilians, about half of them children. And since you are so far unable to provide any sources that contradict these then there is no dispute here. And yes it can be put in Wikipedia's voice as a fact, as there are exceptional sources supporting it and none disputing it. nableezy - 03:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointless arguing with someone who (a) won't accept overwhelming evidence (b) boldly misrepresents it and (c) invents fictive semantic distinctions out of thin air to sustain a spurious argument. The objections have fallen to pieces, so, that's it. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wehda Street, I tested out the idea of categorizing the redirect (alt names are redirects to main titles) and it results in the redirect showing up in the cat italicized. This meets my primary objection by making it simple for a reader to traverse the cat and pick up the alt name cases and should also meet the objection that the main article not be categorized twice. We can do the same here and for any other similar case if we all agree. Comments?Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. nableezy - 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow. At Wehda, the categorization as massacre was removed (here with justification WP:CATPOV)and has not been restored whereas here that categorization remains. Are you saying we should take this page by page? Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont think an alternate name is reason for the category, there need to be reliable sources that say something was a massacre, not just that it is called that in another language. The two articles are not analogous in that way, and yes this should be dealt with case by case. nableezy - 18:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong opinion about the issue so that approach is fine with me. As well as getting me out of the need to have a centralized discussion:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

CAMERA

CAMERA, besides having no expertise on the topic, is not treated as a serious source by other reliable sources. A media "watchdog" group called "a well-known source of extremist pro-Israel propaganda that is routinely challenged" and said about it that "They say they are committed to accuracy in coverage of Israel-Palestinian issues, but really they are about promoting a right-wing agenda that is not just pro-Israel but pro a religious-nationalist Israel in the Netanyahu mold". is not a reliable source for facts that they have no expertise in. What exactly makes CAMERA a reliable source for the number of casualties in a bombing in Lebanon? And, oh by the way, WP:ONUS requires consensus for the reinsertion of challenged material, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable sourcing for any challenged material. A primary source from a non-reliable and partisan "media watchdog" is not that. Alaexis, kindly self-revert your WP:ONUS violation. nableezy - 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to treat it as a deprecated source which should be purged wherever it appears. It's not, of course, and while it's been criticised for bias, we know that biased sources can be reliable. Why do you think it's unreliable here? Has its account been debunked by others? Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Nableezy explained what's wrong with it, an advocacy group is one thing, we can attribute and get on with it provided said group is otherwise frequently cited by the "mainstream" (ADL, B'tselem etc). CAMERA is not in that group (it's in NGOmonitor/EI group) maybe we ought to go RSP and get it classed as gunrel officially but it ought to be obvious that is the case without the need for that. The article is mainly about total Hezbollah casualties over a period and for this particular incident the only mention of possible Hezbollah casualties is three coffins (said to be per VOA/Lebanese official) or four coffins (said to be per an AFP photo) draped in Hezbollah flags. Even if it were the case (according to some respectable RS) that there were 3 or 4 Hezbollah fighters who died, that is also not the reason why this incident is notable.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not something is formally deprecated has no bearing on whether or not it is unreliable. It has been criticized for much more than its bias, and you have yet to explain how a media advocacy group is reliable for the number of deaths in an airstrike in a country in which they have no presence. It meets none of the requirements of WP:RS, it has no reputation for fact-checking, it has no positive reputation among other reliable sources. If your belief is that a source must be deprecated to be removed then your belief is mistaken. And per WP:BURDEN, youre the one that has to establish that it is reliable, not me establish that it is unreliable. Which I have, given that they have no expertise whatsoever on this topic. nableezy - 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

hezbollah flags on coffins

During the burial of the victims of the airstrike, three coffins were covered with yellow Hezbollah flags. is not what the source says. What it says is during a funeral in which victims of the airstrike were buried, not that it was the burial of the victims of the airstrike or that it was either all of the victims or included nobody else. Which is obvious given that the number buried (29) is not the number killed (28). Ill fix that, though it doesnt exactly seem to have any relevance except for an attempt to imply that this was a military target. nableezy - 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And actually, this seems to be incorrect from other media reports at the time: has 29 lebanese flags and 3 Hezbollah flags. nableezy - 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And found a much better source than VOA, HRW has it as a mass burial with 27 victims and three Hezbollah fighters. nableezy - 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And anecdotally, from the photo I think I can make out 26 Lebanese flags and four Hezbollah flags, which tracks with how HRW breaks it down. Ive added a bit to clarify this in the article. nableezy - 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)