Jump to content

Talk:Qana massacre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

odd paragraph

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

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

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

RE: The guys who attempted to sue Israeli leaders...

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

Is it because they are out launching rockets specifically targeting Israeli civilians...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.185.163 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Article name

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

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


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

It certainly is more commonly reffered to as the "Qana mssacre." I support this move per the naming conventions mentioned by George. --The Random Editor (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No big deal, but I do support the move. --Aarktica 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Banzoo 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose - my which I mean, let's nominate this 8000 times until finally, one time, people aren't watching the talk page and it comes through. How many times has this been advocated? And every time, it was shot down as exactly that: huge NPOV problems. You will notice that almost every single one of the links under those 70000 or so on google for "massacre" are links to propaganda websites (the exception, of course, being BBC, which in fact only has the term linked to on the page: [1]). The Evil Spartan 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This has been advocated one time in the past, and it was argued as an accurate title, rather than a common title per Wikipedia's policies. The current discussion began over a month ago, so if people haven't watched the talk page in over a month, I'm not sure what to tell you. Under policy for naming conventions, article names do not have to have NPOV titles, and common names do not have to be sourced to reliable sources (though, in this case, just about every major news organization would refer to it as the Qana massacre). ← George [talk] 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? Almost every one of the sites that I see that are news sites and refer to it are Muslims news sites or other propaganda sites: [2] or use the word "massacre" in quotation marks as if to say "that's what someone else called it". And frankly, I'm not sure that just because Muslim news sites call it something means it's a common name. And if other people come along and assert that it's not a common name, then yes, we do need to source it. "Qana attack" seems to have almost as much press as "Qana massacre": [3], and it comes from much more neutral (i.e., not far left or pro-Arab) websites. The first set of sites is almost exclusively Muslim, the second is much more international, and frankly shows the term's usage much better in English (many of the other sites are translations form Arabic). The Evil Spartan 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, you're citing a link with 685 news source results that use "Qana massacre", then citing one with 461 articles that use "Qana attack" (76 of which also use the term massacre), and then you're claiming that "Qana massacre" is not the common name? The common name for an event isn't defined as the term used by most American news outlets, and it's not defined as the term used by most "non-Muslims" (since that appears to be a high bar for inclusion in your research), it is defined as the term used by most "English speakers who are aware of the topic," wherever they might live in the world, whatever their religion may be. ← George [talk] 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. The term is used a little bit more, but it is almost always by Arab, Urdu, etc. sources (i.e., Muslim ones), which are usually translations from the local language. The other ones are clearly not English sources. I'm sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we go by the English term. If we claim that the English world doesn't get to set the word, then we might as well use the Hebrew term for it. The Evil Spartan 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think if you review the listed news sources, you'll find that well over 90% are written in English – not Arabic or Urdu. But you are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the subject, and we may just have to agree to disagree. Cheers. ← George [talk] 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: I consider CNN a pretty reliable and neutral source. Look at this search for Qana massacre under cnn.com. You get phrases like:
  • Lebanon said it was a massacre
  • Lebanese have commemorated what they call the Qana massacre
  • known locally as the Qana massacre
  • Arab networks are calling it "the second Qana massacre."
Clearly "Qana massacre" is the most common usage - in Lebanon. There is no indication that anyone outside of Lebanon uses the same term. The fact is that even if the naming conventions don't insist on neutral names, they are usually a good idea regardless. That's why we have Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 instead of Tiananmen Square Massacre. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arithmetic Concern

There is something perplexing about the tally of 1/3 for, 1/3 abstaining, and 2 against, in the UN Reaction section, in that the first 1/3 is 66, the second 1/3 is 59 and the balance is 2. If the UN has around 192 voting members, that leaves about 65 unaccounted for. It may be that you have to be there to abstain, and that the 65 did not abstain but were absent. If I knew how, I would communicate this concern in some other manner. The foonotes to the UN Reaction section are disabled (12-10-07) because undemocracy.com is on strike, he ways. Stuart Filler - sfiller@ameritech.net 75.46.37.65 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The 65 unaccounted for did not vote -- this is the fourth category of voting (apart from in favour, against and abstain). The page from the original looks like: http://www.undemocracy.com/A-51-PV.101/page_9 On the undemocracy.com page these countries appear grey, but you can highlight them by clicking on the button on the left: http://www.undemocracy.com/generalassembly_51/meeting_101#pg009-bk02 Goatchurch (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • the title currently in NPOV - yet one editor already keeps trying to rename it; attempts to inject it with a title that has no NPOV sources has caused the article to be disputed. Unfortunately, everything can be called a massacre - the POV is palpable. If bombing a city with people in it (see Maz640's comments above) is a massacre, then every bombing of a populated place is thus whether it be the various drone strikes in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the bombings by NATO in Tripoli, Belgrade, etc. Someone has seriously misunderstood the word "massacre" and for POV reasons wants to push it. You will likely win some battle to rename it, because I don't care enough to keep undoing the editor, but the wikipedia loses credibility on the subject because of the POV. It is probably generalizable since if this gets renamed, most people will (rightly by Wikipedia standards) conclude that the Sabra and Shatila massacre was basically the same (a non-massacre to anyone else but the POV pushers). Get your brains on, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is called a massacre by the UN, BBC, Humans Rights watch,Lebanon, Al Jazzera, Amnesty,and a bunch of other publications in the middle east and the world.The Israeli military have been found culpable in the case by a UN investigation, that says they lied.Amnesty says they did it on purpose in their investigation into the event.We have events named in wikipedia which involve Israeli which all seem to be called massacres and there seems to be no dispute about that, some one has already brought that fact up on this page.Calling something what it is is not a POV.As for credibility, lol I think you lost all that when you tried to include Mohamed Atta as a perp in this event.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
In the lawsuit filed by the victims against the Israeli general it is called a "battle", see [4] first paragraph "Appellants brought this action seeking damages for injuries and deaths resulting from a battle between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah along the Lebanese border." This is how impartial justices hearing the case noted the contentions of the parties. The title "Shelling" conveys a battle which was the characterization of both sides before POV settled in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not impartial, the Judge called Hezbollah terrorists, not impartial at all I would say.Also they dismissed the case because they did not have jurisdiction to proceed and because the Israeli embassy had already sent a letter that the General was acting on instruction for the state of Israel and that makes him immune to prosecution in that court.Anyway I see you skipped all my points and all you could come up with was some biased American judges opinion.I suggest you read thru your link because it is pretty obvious you are not getting what it actually says.As I have stated the UN,HRW,BBC, Al Jazzera,Amnesty,Lebanon and many more call it the Qana massacre and you have produced very little in response.Now have you got an argument to put forth or not?Owain the 1st (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The victims had their day in court, they chose an American court because they viewed it as impartial, and they are stuck with the decision and their characterization of what occurred. Your claim that the court was not impartial is unsourced and just a POV push like most of what you want to claim here. Call it a massacre if you want, but in the only binding decision of a neutral fact finder it was a battle. Many people already see Wikipedia as an anti-Israeli tool and the extreme Zionists urge no one to believe anything on the topic from Wikipedia. Viewpoints and edits such as yours only lends that view credibility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that the court is impartial is unsourced.Please do tell me how many Palestinians have won a case against Israel in an American court? Shall we say none?Yet again you have failed to address the point that all the organisations that I named call it a massacre.Your only argument is depending on the words of one biased judge in an American court, until you can find a proper argument I suggest you take down your impartiality tag that you asked no one if you could put up and just except that it was indeed a massacres, which it was.As for wikipedia being an anti Israeli tool that is laughable, you should try reading the articles on here they are very much pro Israeli.Please stop talking about credibility..you have already proven that you have none..you were on this same article a few days ago saying that Mohamed Atta(9/11 guy_ was a perp in THIS event..laughable.Now it is clear you have no argument here but you need to bounce back again and again with very little.Before you post next time please try and put forth one argument why it should not be called a massacre when that is exactly as it is known in the middle east and various media outlets, the UN..Amnesty..etc etc..Owain the 1st (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice trolling dude. You're probably a paid Zionist editor. I leave the field yours because your statements are so absurd to speak for themselves. This article, after you're done with it is more fiction than fact and any normal reader will realize that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
A paid zionist editor would not be for changing it to a massacre, they would be for the opposite..they would be arguing what you are arguing.You do see that right? I guess you do not.My statements are factual where as you have failed to come up with much of an argument and are now upset because you have been found out.Any normal reader will know it is a massacre just like the list of media outlets and human rights organisations that I named do.I did ask you no to come back if you did not have an argument but here you are again with nothing to offer in this debate.Somehow I do not believe that you are not coming back.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing Israel response to Israel spin

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

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

I will humour you once more before I get annoyed:

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

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP: Death & WP: Mil Hist Assessment Commentary

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

HRW report misrepresented

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

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

Bennett

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

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

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

Accusations Against Bennett 'A Load of Nonsense'

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

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

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

So Roland's reading has notable textual authority in a good source, other than stating what is obvious to anyone with a sense of irony.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
If you consider Silverstein as NPOV, this discussion is pointless. I doubt you can find anyone more biased and professional blackwasher then he is. The irony presented is in relation to Bennett's current politics. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Try to think in terms of relevant policy before replying. This place is not a forum for opinionizing at infinitum. Silverstein was cited not per NPOV, which is, frankly, an absurd misprision. Silverstein was cited simply because, whatever his views, he is a very linguistically competent Jewish correspondent of what the Hebrew press reports. No one, has ever, to my knowledge, caught him out fudging the evidence. To the contrary, he has often reported how the English-language press cuts out crucial information given in Hebrew newspapers. If he practiced deception or deceit, his community would jump at him and haul him over the coals. And the point is, Silverstein independently read the tone of the piece exactly as one of our own, highly esteemed, wiki experts did. NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a simple matter of Srachgefühl, and those who read purely for grammar, and miss tone, miss everything, as is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is enough to read the title of Silverstein's article to which you pointed to understand all he is interested in is blackwash. He will bend the translation in anyway that fits his mission. I understand you didn't mention him as an RS for the article but even on the talk page, bringing him as a proof is empty. Ashtul (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is how Arutz 7 sees it. http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/290896 and an interview on Aruth 10 http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1103349 which you may want someone to translate. Ashtul (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To repeat, you have absolutely no understanding of the rules of Wikipedia, and cannot follow a normal policy-based argument on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requested move 18 April 2016

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

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


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

  • Oppose for reasons stated in earlier RMs. Comparison to the examples in WP:NPOVNAME are only relevant if "massacre" is the generally accepted term for the incident. Earlier RMs showed that there were fewer "neutral" sources (i.e. newspapers, not activist groups) using "massacre" than you'd think. If this is wrong or has changed, and "neutral" sources use "massacre", please provide actual evidence thereof. SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So your opposition is based on arguments/sources last given in 2007? Kindly take a look at source pointers given, specifically scholarly ones. Baking Soda (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Not to come off as sounding lazy, but that's kind of the nominator's job. Anybody can drop off a list of links, and nobody contests that plenty of sources call the incident "Qana massacre." Also, this incident happened in 1996, so is there reason to think that the scholarship has drastically changed since then? (Okay, I suspect that to some extent it HAS drifted toward "massacre" in sources from 2007 onward, but that'd mostly be because the "pro-Israel" camp generally would want to sweep the incident under the rug and not talk about it, leaving relatively more "anti-Israel" types talking about who would be more inclined to use "massacre". I'm not sure that's a great argument to change the name, though.) Anyway, yes, I did look at the sources Staberinde linked, and I'm not really convinced. They include statements like "Hizbullah's media reinforce this construction by commemorating the Qana massacre periodically through special programmes on al-Manar and articles in al-'Ahd. " from a book on Hizbullah, the target of the 1996 attacks. Well... that means that Hizbullah plays up the incident as the Qana massacre. That isn't really under dispute, the question is what the name used by encyclopedias should be. "Library of Congress Subject Headings - Page 4515" and "The Middle East and the Peace Process: The Impact of the Oslo Accords" mention "Qana massacre" as just a passing reference. "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower" uses Qana Massacre in scare-quotes every time, and the tone seems to imply the author doesn't think much of the terminology, since he immediately quotes an Israeli military official as saying "what's the big deal, oops." To be fair, there is one very good source that uses Qana Massacre non-snidely: "Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations", which treats the topic seriously and in-depth and uses "Qana Massacre" without qualifier. I'm not sure that source is enough, though. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good on you to bring this up. The problem is that "shelling of Qana" is kind of a term Wikipedia made-up to avoid using "massacre" due it being on WP:WTA. So you don't need to show that Qana massacre > shelling of Qana - something we can all agree about - but rather than "Qana massacre" > all other references to "1996 incident at Qana" combined, because it's such a loaded word that it should only be used if common name demands it. Additionally, per the above, I suspect books will probably lean toward "activist" sources which aren't great for finding a neutral name. I searched for "Qana site:nytimes.com" and came up with this 2006 article on the 2006 incident which scrupulously avoids calling the '96 incident anything at all ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31qana.html?_r=0 ). There IS an IHT / NYTimes source calling it "massacres" but it's from the editorial section ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/opinion/04iht-edshlaim.2386867.html ). Checking the BBC, they use "deadly air strikes" to describe it. ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11539845 ). I dunno, I just picked two famous sources, and neither are using "massacre". Again, it's not under dispute that there exist plenty of non-neutral sources that use "massacre", but sources that Wikipedia usually tries to mimic don't use "massacre." SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • At risk of pointing out the obvious, the problem is that "massacre" implies that the Israelis intentionally murdered a bunch of civilians, which is disputed as it says in the article, with the Israeli president saying it was a tragic accident. Accidents aren't massacres. ("collateral damage", perhaps?) Again, even if it really WAS intentional and WAS a massacre and the IDF was just lying, I don't think this is considered an established historical fact that only fringe types disagree with. WP:VNT. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
See Hadassah medical convoy massacre. Kfar Etzion massacre in neither case is it a given that the Arabs murdered civilians intentionally. But we use that term because it is mostly known thus (by the community afflicted), as the Qana massacre is known among Arabs, and by the overwhelming testimony of secondary sources. If intention were the decider, then why not try and propose changing those article names as well, and call them "incidents"? I wouldn't, but you should be coherent.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with these incidents, but if the common name for them is "massacre", then fine. The problem with this incident is that it's not clear that the common, accepted name is in fact "Qana massacre", per the RM from 2007 and the sample searches / sources above that I performed on reputable news outlets generally calling it something else. SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
News outlets are one thing, they are vitiated by presentism: books written after the event employ established usage. Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Israel's POV is legitimate as such. None of the investigative bodies found anything more than prevarication in Israel's official account, including the lie no drone was near the camp. The UN site, which was by definition, never to be targeted, was subject to an artillery barrage while a drone supplying the Israeli central command with direct real time footage of precisely this UN compound, hovered directly over the site. The Israelis may not have known there were civilians, they did know as orders went down the line, that they were shelling a clearly marked (for the air) UN compound, whose nature, and precise location was known to Israel and its military planners for nearly 2 decades. It may not be standard official operative procedure, but doing this - blowing up or shelling places with 100% certainty civilians in large numbers are going to be killed, is a chronic practice in IDF warfare, attested by every reliable investigatory body that has looked into these matters. Everyone knows that, only official Israeli sources deny it.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean "illegitimate?" Anyway, I don't think a politics discussion would help or be relevant to the task at hand, but to refocus on semantics, "massacre" only applies to the malicious, intentional case in normal usage. It's misleading if it was even the "The IDF was reckless and didn't care if civilians were there" case, which while really bad and worthy of condemnation, is still not a "massacre" in the usual sense of the term. As for "reliable investigatory body", per above, checking reliable sources in the usual Wikipedia sense has generally revealed sources that don't use "massacre", e.g. [5]. The linked UN report that criticizes Israel doesn't use massacre ([6]). The first G Scholar hit on "Qana massacre", and thus guaranteed to include it, uses 'massacre' in quotation marks, implying it's a contested term The only solid source linked so far that calls it the Qana massacre up-and-up is, per above, one book in "Survey of Arab-Israeli Relations" from Staberinde's GBooks search. Are there any other specific sources you'd like to call out as showing that "reliable investigatory bodies" agree this should be called the Qana massacre? SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We use massacre frequently in wiki for events where intention is not the case.(b) qana massacre+1996 =993 results in google books: 'qana massacre' alone gets 1,760 gits for books, and checking the first several pages, most refer to the 1996 incident. By contrast when the other ethnos in the conflict is the victim, 'hadassah convoy massacre' gets 34 gits, and 'Kfar Etzion massacre' gets 547. So to use the word 'maassacre' when Arabs are the victims requires in your view very strong evidence, whereas those of us who edit the other two articles have no problems with using scant evidence for 2 incidents involving grievous Jewish loses in war, knowing that intention as a criterion could be argued to problematize it. Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
WTF. I already said I'm not familiar with those incidents above, and I was trusting you when you said that massacre was the common name before for them! Hell, I didn't even know those were involving Arabs killing Jews, I assumed they were Jews killing Arabs, actually. I didn't actually read the article until your comment now.
This debate has clearly turned partisan which I have 0 interest in, but from the stance of someone interested in good article titles rather than litigating Israel, I would be happy to support removing "massacre" from those article titles as well if "massacre" is not well attested to as an indisputable WP:COMMONNAME that would override "words to avoid." Better all the articles at neutral titles than moving this article to a non-neutral title without a really, really bulletproof WP:COMMONNAME argument like Boston Massacre. SnowFire (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A point Nishidani tried to convey, which I concur with, is that use of 'shelling' is a form of POV/dilution of tragic event (100 civilians plus, check out image search). It should be noted use of 'shelling' was introduced by local community, possibly as a compromise title. Baking Soda (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A number of the news sources I investigated for this above used "shelling", actually, so I wouldn't say it was entirely an invention of the Wikipedia community.
Your point about potentially diluting the seriousness of the event is well-taken, and it's possible there's a better title that conveys the magnamity of the event out there. I don't think that the POV title "Qana massacre" is better unless you can actually show it's the unquestionable WP:COMMONNAME, which my current research - more than I'd usually do as a random bystander for a move - says it isn't. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It stands out like dogs' balls that when artillery is used, shelling is what occurs. Every report would say that. The fact that shells were used means, Qana was shelled. So? It's a bit like calling the 2014 Gaza Conflict, the 2014 Israeli bombing/missile and Hamas rocket exchange. Of course every source will report that Israeli bombed Gaza, and Hamas shot off its rockets, but that is absolutely no indication of name usage for the conflict. One needs sources that refer to it as a name known as the Qana massacre (2,120 hits)/known as the Qana shelling (1,080 results, mostly referring to the Qana massacre and not using 'known' linked to the phrase). This usage evidence is overwhelming in favour of Qana massacre.Nishidani (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
(de-indent) If the usage is so overwhelming then why is it that whenever searching merely for "Qana 1996" and picking a source, "Qana massacre" isn't used? SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I did what you asked and got immediately:this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.etc.
This is an evidence-based thing, and you are not looking at evidence, but trying, it strikes me, to find a method that disowns the obvious and even those dodges fail.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It absolutely is an evidence-based thing. I'd have signed off long ago had it been a "eh I like this better" thing, but I spent a bunch of time looking into this, and the evidence did not support it. And yes, I actually read the GBooks search links before, which is precisely why I've been so insistent about this. Like I've said before, "found a source that uses the term" is not a useful method of finding a title on controversial topics.
We're going around in circles, and I held off on this because I was mad, but please assume good faith. WP:NPOVNAME says a "significant majority" of the sources should use the non-neutral name. To me, that means something stronger than "you can find sources that use the name"; it means that you can pick a source first, check the name, and it's usually going to be the non-neutral name. And every time I did this, I didn't find Qana Massacre. If you disagree with NPOVNAME or see "significant majority" as just meaning "eh there's a bunch of sources", we'll have to agree to disagree, but that is my stance. SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no doubt you are in good faith. I've examined the evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions to those you embrace. The arguments are set forth. Other edits will review them and draw their own judgements as to where the bulk of the evidence lists. Let's listen.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More grist for the Mill

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

I've reformatted it into one of the usual citation modes. Fisk has covered this in his books, so I don't know off hand if the article has anything new. But if there's material here the article lacks, and should have, it is a perfectly respectable source, since Fisk is both an historian of Lebanon and the Middle East, and was present hours later on the scene.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qana_massacre/Archive_2&oldid=1263572459"