This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boud (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 8 August 2006 (→proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:56, 8 August 2006 by Boud (talk | contribs) (→proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)See also:
i suggest this be a talk page for Qana the village in general.
Boud 16:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
npov describing the two conflicts
Are these conflicts "with Hezbollah" are conflicts "with Lebanon"?
Israel claims that they are conflicts with Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is a political party, part of the government coalition in power in Lebanon. So that makes it a conflict with the Lebanese government, and hence against "Lebanon", where "Lebanon" means the state of Lebanon. Since Israel is also killing civilians in Lebanon and destroying the infrastructure of the whole country - surely not all of this is controlled by Hezbollah - ports, roads, airport, i don't see how using the Israel description can be NPOV. Just because a lot of the mainstream media are repeating the term does not make it WP:NPOV.
Since someone wants to use this term, i've put:
- during military conflicts with Lebanon (Operation Grapes of Wrath and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict), which Israeli spokespeople described as a conflict "against Hezbollah":
This way it properly attributes the claim that the war is only against Hezbollah and not against Lebanon to the source of the claim (Israeli spokespeople).
Boud 16:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Try looking at these two maps and then tell me if this is a war against a political party with an armed wing or against an entire country: http://maps.samidoun.org/Infrastructure_map_12-24.jpg http://maps.samidoun.org/lebanon_map_July_12-29.jpg
Boud 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- What you did is even wronger than before, you're saying: "Israel has a military conflict with Lebanon, but they deny the truth and say it's with Hezbollah". Hezbollah has a militant wing and a political wing. Even if it is a legal Lebanese party, its "army" is definitely not the Lebanese army. If the Lebanese army is not involved, it can not be a conflict between Israel and Lebanon. ⌠Yellow up
⌡ 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely a conflict with Lebanon as civilian infrastructure was immediately targetted, including roads, bridges, banks, airports, Lebanese Army bases, UN building, and a dairy company. These are incidents far away from 'Hezbollah fighting'. Including areas claimed to be sites of Hezbollah fighting would be civilian towns, apartments and shelters. Furthermore, Israel has killed several official Lebanese soldiers with Lebanon still sitting out of this for peace's sake. More Lebanese soldiers have been killed by Israel since this new conflict started than the initial attack by Hezbollah which captured the two soldiers.
- Its a genocide taking part in front of our eyes...and we still argue wether it is a conflict or not. 213.5.32.247 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- In addition to being demonstrably false-and patently absurd-the description of what is occurring in Lebanon as "genocide" is not neutral.
- By the way, if that is genocide, then how would you describe the indiscriminate shelling and deliberate targeting of civilians living within Northern and central Israel by Hezbollah?
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thewyzewun replying to npov's comments
"Hezbollah is a political party"
Actually, Hezbollah has many faces; read the article about them.
The killing of Lebanese civilians is cited as accidental (although my personal view is that they don't really care; they call it an accident but not a tragedy, but that's not based on facts. That said, they're just defending their people at any cost, which is fair enough in "real terms" (i.e. the world's screwed up), not like the UK and Germany didn't kill each other's civilians much in WW2!).
Also the damage to infrastructure is to stop Hezbollah's ESO from attacking them further, not that this seems to be working...
"Israel has killed several official Lebanese soldiers with Lebanon still sitting out of this for peace's sake."
IMHO Lebanon is "sitting out of this" because they're a very small country and Hezbollah's military strength is likely greater.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewyzewun (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Israel may claim that they are attacking Hezbollah only and that they attack infrastructure only to "stop Hezbollah", but wikipedia is not the place to present Israel's point of view as a fact. This page on Qana is also not the page to try to sort this out. Let's just stick to something NPOV. Boud 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
proposal
i propose we stick to: caused civilian deaths during military operations in Lebanon (Operation Grapes of Wrath and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) just slightly NPOV-ed further from that suggested by Yellow Up. If we want to add anything about this being a conflict with Hezbollah, then IMHO that must be attributed as a POV, but IMHO it would be better that that be done in the individual articles on the two incidents. Boud 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, i've removed (Operation Grapes of Wrath and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) since some people don't want to have too many links there - they are in the short descriptions of the two incidents. So i'm proposing/putting: caused civilian deaths during military operations in Lebanon. The Israeli point of view is not an objective fact, only the fact that they claim it is a fact. The fact is that the attacks have occurred throughout Lebanon and in the majority have killed Lebanese citizens, independently of whether not these were the wishes of Israeli politicians and/or military. Boud 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, maybe i forgot to click on save. This time i've saved. So the present text is Qana is known internationally for two separate incidents in which the Israeli Defense Forces is charged with having caused civilian deaths during military operations in Lebanon: Boud 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Why long statements from Israel?
Why is there such a long statement from Israel, one of the participants in the conflict? In order to present a balanced view, one must then also include comments made by the Lebanese government, which would make this page unnecessarily wrong. Anyone interested in the details can check out the link to the 2006 Qana bombings. Arnob 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't expand the 2006 Qana airstrike stuff in this article!
This is an article about the village, not about the two tragedies that it has encountered. Let's keep it that way. This article links to two sub-articles: 1996 shelling of Qana and 2006 Qana airstrike. That's where the material about those two tragedies should be. Please don't expand the text following the links further. All those arguments for and against are already in those articles. Thomas Blomberg 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Currently there are two referrals to the 2006 Qana airstrike article. Surely both aren't necessary? I'm going to remove the second one, if no one objects. -Fsotrain09 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Kudos
Good idea Thomas -- it was getting a little ridiculous! Cheers =) AWN AWN2 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
References to Cana
I removed these because these statements are unsourced and apparently in disagreement with academically established information concerning Cana. Who are the "some" who believe that Qana is Cana? Unless we can find a notable primary source, it does not belong in the article. If it doesn't belong in the article, neither do rebuttal statements concerning the supposed location of Cana. The Crow 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Number of Dead?
According to the Red Cross (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/Lebanon-news-300706!OpenDocument) the number dead in Qana '06 is 28 total, 19 children. This clashes with the widely reported figures of 56 or 57 total. I would have changed this article to reflect the Red Cross's numbers but I am too new to Misplaced Pages (just got an account and just don't have the time today to read through all the rules of posting carefully) and don't want to start touching up articles, especially on such heated subjects. Maybe some of you can chime in and make the changes? I believe they are warranted because from what I can gather the 56 number was some initial number come up with in haste, and the 28 numbers are the official-thus-far tally from the ICRC. Counting the dead for scorekeeping is idiotic but everyone does it, so it's best to be accurate. --Dahno1 20:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The report was probably written fairly soon after the incident: In today's military operations... At the time of writing... and it presumably ignores neighbours'/families'/friends'/civil administration's records of who was living there, who is missing, who is thought to have been there and may still be under the rubble etc. Anyway, this should go in the individual article on the 2006 event for discussion. Boud 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to ICRC numbers (from above article) since the numbers are attributed to them.
unsourced detailed sentences removed
i removed:
- It is believed that Hezbollah placed the children in the building after launching missles at Israel from the building itself. They attempted to use the children as human shields, in violation of the Genava Convention.
This sort of stuff should be NPOVed on the 2006 Qana airstrike page (if the author takes it seriously).