Talk:Qibya massacre

message: This article references to "palestinians" (see the picture) while this is not true, prior to 1967, that termed was not used for arab population in the area  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.83.111 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why call the arabs "PALESTINIANS" prior to 1967??

message: Suggest renaming to something more neutral like "Qibya incident" or "Qibya raid" Rune X2 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that does seem like a more neutral title.WacoJacko 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I don't think this information is true and the link doesn't prove anything. Is there a reliable source for this ? Alithien 20:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars, 1993 confirms Alithien 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Shoshana 

message: Based on this , where the sources are given, I think the current context is too "military-minded". More, it doesn't give a step-by-step image of the process that lead to the massacre.
I think It would be improved in adding a few words on :
* The 1948 palestinian exodus and the fact no agreement/solution were found so that they could come back. This explains why there were infiltrations...
* Giving more precise numbers about infiltrations : 10,000 to 15,000 "borders incident" between 1949 and 1954 and infiltrators motivations (just come back most of time and in 10% of case with revenge or agressive purposes. (sourcing with UN report is not fair - secondary sources is better).
* The length and route of the border between Jordan and Israel. This explains why it was difficult to prevent infiltrations.
* The cost of these incidents in Israel (0,15% of the budget of state) when the development of the country costed much (this explains why Israel mind them).
* The unsecurity produced by this infiltrations at the borders (200 israeli civil deaths) which was a major issue for Israel who wanted to install new immigrants in these areas (this explains why Israel mind them). The unsecurity threathened the process.
* That Israel considered these infiltrations as terrorism (200 deaths among civil is relevant)
* A comparison with palestinian victims (2700 to 5000), relevant too.
* The fact that if Jordanians tried to stop it they didn't succeed (despite the 2700 palestinians in jail after caught trying to infiltrate)
* The fact that retaliation outside Israel (only) started in 53. -escalation-
* The fact that they were performed by "soldiers" and they all failed.
* The fact Israel (Moshe Dayan) decided to go on with retaliations and Israel built up a special unit (unit 101) with the purpose of stopping by force these infiltrations. -escalation-
Alithien 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: I think there are too many references to the UN reports (which are primary sources) and not enough to historians (secondary sources).
Eg : This marked reduction was in good part the result of increased Jordian efficiency in patrolling its borders. Sourcing this by UN discussions is not reliable. At least, the point should be attributed. Alithien 16:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and secondary sources 

message: is the new intro accepted as a normative mention of the article's body ? JaakobouChalk Talk 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the new intro 

message: The article says that 42 villagers were killed. According to Healing Israel/Palestine by Michael Lerner (Chapter 4, page 70), 60 villagers were killed. According to Israel: A Nation is Born Part 3 (WNET 1992), Abba Eban says that 66 villagers were killed. Where does the figure of 42 come from?
Pbr2000 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The given source actually says "60–70".  I took it out. Zerotalk 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Villagers killed 

message: A user, upset that his attempt to claim occupied territory as being in Israel was unsuccessful, has changed the number of people killed. There are a large number of sources supporting the 69 killed, such as this, this, or this, or this, or this, or this. There a reason to not include the actual number? nableezy - 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And what an unbelievable edit by AnkhMorpork, which includes a gross distortion. The unanticipated development is in reference to the Ben Gurion government, not that the people were killed after the attack on the town. And when exactly did it become standard practice to downplay an event before it was even introduced? nableezy - 21:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

text: You presented some sources for consideration, I kindly examined them and amended the article exactly how this episode was presented. Start reading the paragraph beginning "Intent on forcing the Jordanian government..." and suggest how I have misrepresented this source that you presented, and how this might be improved upon. Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to justify the tendentious edit. Please do so. You are also misrepresenting the source. The source does not say there was a prolonged campaign of theft and murder. Please stop lying about sources. Please stop distorting sources, and please stop edit-warring. I will be taking this to AE shortly absent a self-revert. nableezy - 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The source states: "armed bands of infiltrators initiated a campaign of terror and murder...Intent on forcing the Jordanian government to accept responsibility for preventing such terrorism initiating from its territory, Israeli forces retaliated..."  How would you rather this is presented and what changes do you propose I make to fairly present this source? Ankh.Morpork 22:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that it is an asinine idea to justify the act before even introducing the act. I suggest that you see where I already included that material by adding The attack followed cross-border raids from the Jordanian occupied West Bank in which Israeli civilians were killed. I further suggest that if you are going to follow me around that you wait for consensus after such a tendentious edit is reverted. If you feel that the line I added is not strong enough fine, we can work on that. But before even saying introducing the topic of the article you are trying to justify it. nableezy - 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can think what you like but what counts is presenting it in the manner the sources do. This is a source that you offered for consideration which I hen duly examined and your ungracious response is quite unnecessary. Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "intent on forcing the Jordanian government" part of this is a minority opinion that needs attributing to the author.  Other sources show that the Israeli government was aware that the Jordanian government was already trying to stop the infiltration. Zerotalk 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: That doesnt mean justifying the attack before even saying what it was. It also doesnt mean you are entitled to edit-war over the objections of others. nableezy - 13:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you jabbering about justifying? What I am seeking to do is provide the context for this assault just like the various sources do. Please demonstrate why my addition is a minority view. Ankh.Morpork 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are seeking to provide context for something before even defining it. nableezy - 18:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not me, the sources are. Context is part of the definition. Ankh.Morpork 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. A source includes background on the topic of the article. That does not mean that before even introducing the topic of the article you give "background" on it. nableezy - 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  number killed 

message: Qibya raid, Qibya attack , Quiba reprisal attack would be relatively neutral titles.ShulMaven (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The main guideline for choosing article titles is WP:COMMONNAME, which is very very clear in this case. Zerotalk 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased title

message: In the "Background" section, the first paragraph is filled with information, but only at the end gives the Bennny Morris Righteous Victims source. Can anyone corroborate that this source is referring to all the facts written in the background? Quite honestly, I doubt it because it seems that the whole first paragraph is saying how people came across the border only for peaceful purposes, although we know that they engaged in acts of terror against Israeli civilians. Unless someone can confirm this I will need to add a "citation needed" note next to these sentences. Eym174 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Background Section - sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Qibya massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070903000331/http://www.avnery-news.co.il:80/english/uri2.html to http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/uri2.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140605062206/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/089/74/IMG/NR008974.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/089/74/IMG/NR008974.pdf?OpenElement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Qibya massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927144747/http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com/03-Ariel-Sharon-Biography-1953-Retribution-Acts-Peulot-Tagmul.shtml to http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com/03-Ariel-Sharon-Biography-1953-Retribution-Acts-Peulot-Tagmul.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809211518/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mid009.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mid009.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, in the introduction it is written that the target was "civilians" while the attack targeted arab attackers allegedly from the village. This is clearly bais. It is not because a certain number of civilians died that the civilians were the target. Civilians casualities were part of miliary operation all around the world, using this time the emphasis on massacre and stating that the target was civilians, is in fact claiming that there is historical proof that there was no fightings and that there was clear intention and planification. This is obviously not the case, this is clearly an instrumentalisation against this operation. I am waiting for the article on the 40000 civlians casualities of NATO war in afghanistan... --RossiGo (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a revenge attack on the village according to all evidence. Zerotalk 00:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I am not talking about the motivation, if it was emotional or strategic. Your representation is an obvious distortion. You deliberately ommit the fighting and claim that civilians were the target. This is one more of your falsifications, probably for revenge.--RossiGo (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  historiography controversy 

message: "The soldiers did not thoroughly inspect the homes in the village for the presence of residents, and when military engineers dynamited dozens of buildings across the village, scores of civilians were killed."
Surely this sentence should be removed, implying that the killing of civilians was unintentional. Source is to a website "http://www.ariel-sharon-life-story.com" which is not online anymore.
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Sharon's denials/comments don't belong in the attack section but in the Israeli reaction section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edit 

message: "post-operational reports speak of breaking into houses and clearing them with grenades and shooting"" and a few sentences before "In the words of historian Rashid Khalidi, the operation “blew up forty-five homes with their inhabitants inside." Charkow (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack: Some sentences seem to be somewhat contradictory