Talk:Qana massacre

message: May05, from a tactical point of view it is really not a good idea to put that image here, because the many Israel sympathizers here may add pictures of bus-bombings and so on in retaliation, and this is not want we want. I suggest a compromise: simply provide a link to the pictures at the bottom for people to follow if they want. Ok? -- Viajero 17:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Its just getting tiring to see every military operation by Israel being detailed repetedly in wikipedia as if this resource is being turned into a megaphone for Islamists fundementalists and anti-semites worldwide.
If every terrorist event in Israel, and every anti-semitic genocidial death of Jews in the Middle East had received this much space then you would need a few more blade servers just to cover them all.
This whole page needs to go.  At best, this "topic" should have been a sub papragraph under the Lebanese-Israeli war, 50 words at best.  If they want this much detail, let them read the origianal first hand accounts in the NY Times.
Ruben Safir
ruben@mrbrklyn.com
I agree with Mr. Safir above. The whole encylopedia has the wrong approach.
Its just getting tiring to see every internal domestic policy of nazi germany being detailed repeatedly in wikipedia. The holocaust should be a 50 word sub paragraph underneath the 'world war 2' article.
--Irongaard 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reductio ad absurdum aside, this article clearly meets standards of notability and describes an extraordinary occurrence with serious repercussions. It definitely deserves an article, just as lesser casualty Islamist attacks on Gilad Shalit, Jerusalem city buses and London commuters have them.--Carwil 13:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall Bias in wikipedia

message: Awhile ago, I stumbled upon an extensive analysis titled The Massacre in Qana and its Context, which is now defunct. Anyone have a copy? Adraeus 09:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Massacre in Qana and its Context 

message: I've added information, but I require sources for those parts that still lack them. It would be good if I am provided a link to the drone statement and the UN report. Any information on the anniversary or whatever still need to be added. It is also lacking a map. Finally, only anti Israeli activists seem to call this a massacre, so I am going to move it to Qana Incident. 
Edit: I added most of the information. Anniversary still needs some work, and sources need to be cited for UN report and the drone. 
Guy Montag 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Context

message: Please stop moving this page to Qana incident, Guy Montag.  That is a very POV move and should be discussed in talk or I will keep reverting it.Yuber(talk) 23:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement of page

message: I've protected the page following a complaint from Guy that Yuber was reverting his work. 
This is a very good example of what's going wrong with the editing process between you too.
Yuber, first, you have no right to revert edits that are well written, seem to be accurate, and are well-sourced. Guy has expanded and improved the article, and his version is superior to the one you're reverting to. If you disagree, you must say so on talk, and explain why, even if it's time-consuming and a lot of work, because that's how Wikipedia works. If you think material is missing, you should add it. If you think the sources are poor, object to them on talk. But don't go in for these wholesale reverts and deletions.
Guy, your edits are good and well-sourced. But when it comes to the deaths of the people, you sort of glide over them, so that the article is now about the military operation, rather than what Qana is famous for, which is the deaths of the civilians. There should (in my view) be a separate section after the section called Operation Grapes of Wrath, perhaps starting with the sentence: "According to UN spokeswoman, Sylvana Foa ..." and then go into the incident in detail, because that's what the page is about. I recall there were accusations, for example, that ambulances carrying the injured were attacked — this is from memory; that would need to be checked — but if there were allegations of that nature, from reputable sources, they ought to be included. There should also be more about the UN condemnation of it. Also, perhaps more about the Israeli claim that the deaths were effectively caused by Hezbollah using the victims as human shields, and perhaps an opposing statement from someone about that issue.
Also, you should source the claim that Israel warned residents to evacuate their villages, and make clear that it was within 48 hours of those warnings that the attacks began.
The sentence at the end that Israel sees the marches as a cruel condemnation of the victims needs a source. Also, you should decide how you prefer to write Hezbollah, as you have Hezbollah, Hizbollah and Hizballah in the Operation Grapes of Wrath section. 
I hope some of this helps. Let me know when you're both prepared to try to cooperate, and I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, although I highly doubt that Yuber can cooperate on anything, the valuable information you provided  on how to improve this article has been noted. I will find more sources and add information pertinant to the article. The problem with these kinds of articles is that they are always presented in a vacuum. The background is never given. If people can see the whole picture (in this case, a military compaign), and Hezbollah's tactics, it sheds alot of light for people to understand the subject better. But I see that the background has in some ways shaded the actual death toll. I will see what I can do, perhaps I'll email Zero, as he knows about this subject, and most importantly, we can cooperate. 
Guy Montag 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now I'm focused on the title.  It was a massacre, and it's totally POV to claim that it wasn't.Yuber(talk) 00:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of material

message: The image with the caption U.N. Compound pictured with bombardment trejectory has trajectory spelled all wrong-like... since the page is locked I cannot fix it... and since I don't know if I'll ever come back to this page I'll just leave the notice here for a regular editor to fix it.  gren 05:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Guy, where is footnote 5 used?  I couldn't find it when I fixed the footnote format. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 5 

message: Who are these evil sounding "critics of Israel" of the intro? Does this mean that only "critics of Israel" consider what happened to be a massacre? Presumably, it is because of their anti-semitism and not because of what acctually happened? 
This phrase is in dire need of being unweaseled. I suspect that labelling the UN a "critic of Israel" is seriously POV. NJC 12:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.N. doesn't appear to call it that.  Can you find a neutral party that calls it a "massacre"? Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: neutral does not exist whent it comes to these issues. But I agree on the fact that all people hostile to Israel would qualify this as a massacre, but I think that the inverse is not true.--equitor 08:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: HRW is quite definitely a critic, and while the BBC is not supposed to be a critic of anyone, they do often report on Israel in a critical way. "Massacre" is an inherently judgemental word, and it would be wrong for the article to use it without attribution. On the other hand, the word is frequently enough used about this incident that it should be mentioned. I think attributing the word to "critics of Israel's actions" balances these issues correctly. Attributing it to "human rights organisations and the media" is both too broad (not all the media would use the term) and too narrow (other types of organizations will surely use it too). – Smyth\talk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics of Israel 

message: Hi,
I find it hard to believe that a pro-Israel source would refer to the event as a massacre, as the term is accompanied by a negative judgement on the perpetrator's intentions etc. Also, you are misspelling referring. Please discuss any future changes on talk. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Massacre" 

message: There are certain things that need to be improved. 
*Please do not use op-eds as legitimate news sources unless they can be factually confirmed. 
*Please cite a source for the number of people killed during the shelling. 
*Please do not unitelaterally revert to an image that caused controversy in the past when a better one exists. 
Thanks, 
Guy Montag 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent UN document link was removed without any proper reason, as well as precision of the number of victims with no justification, I found it necessary to restore that, and calling the united nations as a critics of israel reflects is not really an NPOV. This document require at least one proper picture, and censuring Wikipedia is not the way to do it. Every body sees in Wikipedia pictures of the victims in massacres , (e.g. see The Holocaust). It's not about inflamatory picture rather than adding relevant picture of a historical event where more than a hundred human lives were lost. Older Images does not shows exactly the vicitms of such an attack since no victim is shown in those pictures, not to mention that the discussion below does not resolve the controversy. --Banzoo 11:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It does require a proper picture, that is why I added a newer more tasteful picture. By the way, please do not compare an incident during heavy fighting to premeditated genocide. Guy Montag 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please examine the un.org documents. Both of them state clearly at the top that they do not come from the UN itself, but were submitted to the UN by third parties. – Smyth\talk 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From organizations which have associated status in the United Nations system, which gives them 100% legitimacy. What's your point? Ulritz 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 100% legitimacy to do what? Certainly not to speak for the UN, which is what was implied by attributing them to "UNHCR". These documents are submissions to the UN, which the UN has not edited or approved in any way. – Smyth\talk 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: So far we have two isolated instances, the BBC and HRW.  Please ensure that your edits are accurate, and do not imply that other unnamed reliable sources have used the term, or that the BBC and HRW commonly refer to the incident this way. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am sure there are anti Israel activists who refer to it as a "massacre." Is that worth noting?Guy Montag 16:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the sources are reliable is not relevant, since we're not using them as evidence that it was a massacre. The paragraph is simply there to indicate that the phrase is quite common even from prominent sources, as I'm sure you'll concede. – Smyth\talk 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, prominent sources would be helpful too.  The point is that we can't just be quoting every blog and random website. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who refers to it as a massacre? 

message: The following passages "....Hezbollah has used this event to arouse ill will toward Israel and the United States,..." "...making inflammatory speaches..." make use of innappropriate language. Such statements are obviously a reflection of opinion and must be either changed or discarded if the article is to maintain a NPOV. In the meantime I will be adding the NPOV tag to this section of the article. I welcome and encourage wikipedians to undertake this revision promptly. Thanks. WaynaQhapaq 10:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Innaproppriate Language

message: I don't know what went on here but someone has created a bunch of redirects and made a cut-and-paste move. There's a consensus for this title. If you want to change it, please go to WP:RM, and no more cutting and pasting, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaos

message: Should make this a current situation site. anyone else think the circumstances, events, are eerily similar?
:As I read through the article, the events seemed eerily similar to me. --ChrisWinter 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEVELOPING SITUATION 

message: Here's why I reverted your changes back, Guy Montag:
1) You say in your edit comment that "we've had a long discussion on this, it is not mostly referred to as the qana massacre" - the discussion above is about the best title for the page. I would agree that 1996 shelling of Qana is a better title than Qana Massacre but that's not at issue here. Despite what you say, "Qana massacre" is the most commonly used name. I get 195,000 google hits for "qana massacre",  515 for "qana shelling" and 159 for "shelling of qana". It's also the name used by the Lebanese government.
2) The image you removed may be unpleasant but it's the reality of what happened. The discussion of it above seems to consist of you saying you won't allow it ("you can link it as an outside link, but you can't have it in the page itself") in the face of other people disagreeing, until they give up.
3) You reverted the correction I made in the shelling section so it now says "...three Hezbollah fighters stopped outside the compound and fired two Katyusha rockets...". As I said in the edit summary for that change, that's not a correct summary of the UN report - the events are out of sequence.
4) You reverted "fire from Hezbollah adjacent to the compound"  - as I said in my edit summary for that change, 200 metres is not "adjacent". Also the "see human shield" is editorialising.
5) You removed the External links and References sections. I have no idea why you did that.
Slogby 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More controversy

message: this title should stay,in August before 8/8/2006 my search led me to this link below"
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre  
AND NOW AFTER 10 YEARS SOME OF YOU DECIDE TO CHANGE IT. WHY?
THIS WILL MAKE THE SITE LESS CREDIBLE SITE FOR INFORMATION OF ANY KIND 
I am almost certain that - while you prune your deep mine of trivia - you believe yourselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.  
my criticism of Wikipedia: 
First is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament.  If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself?  To which I reply:  
because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If you do, it isn't exactly a compliment.  
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions.  The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it.  In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise. 
Second: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect.  To which I reply:  that does not inspire confidence.  In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous.  
What is going on is genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment i request the information from this undependable site Jasnyc 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Qana Masscare" does not make Israel less or more at fault

message: this is nothing to do with Qana Masscare it does not add any value to the information
Please
request to move it to "al-Qaeda" info
This does not add any information of encyclopedic value to the articleJasnyc
:I'm inclined to agree. Osama bin Laden mentioned the Cana massacre a few times. So what? Our only source appears to be a list of his quotations. Unless we have some source indicating either that the incident had a significant impact on al-Qaeda (e.g. on the development of its thinking or on levels of support for it) or that bin Laden's remarks made a significant impact, there appears to be little justification for including that material. My view is that unless such evidence is provided in the next week or so, the sectiuon should be taken out. Palmiro | Talk 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of al-Qaeda/Response by Al-Qaeda asssociated individuals

message: Request a revision for this paragraph to read as below or remove it, this is about the civilians who got killed not Hezbollah and what they did or will do,
"The shelled area is marked by a memorial and the marble sarcophagi of the 102 civilians killed.
April 18 is held as an anniversary to commemorate the victims of the bombardment."
:More details on the memorial are in Lucia Volk, Contesting the State: The history of a massacre memorial.
Qana Massacre here is about the victims not syria, syria is not relavent what they do or dont do and a college paper is not verifiable and so what who cares who pays
:Done. I've also removed the silly stuff about HA which was "sourced" to an article on CNN which didn't actually say that. Palmiro | Talk 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commemoration

message: I'm just wondering why Wikipedia is so pro-Israel in naming articles. When Israel is killing mass of civilians, the corresponding article is not named massacre -because the title 'massacre' is said to be too POV See:2006 Qana Airstrike (50+ dead), 1996 shelling of Qana(106 killed), 2006 Shiyyah airstrike (50 dead+61 missing]], etc. If Hezbollah, Hamas or any other resistance groups are killing Israeli settlers (with much lower casualties than Israeli massacres), wikipedia enthusiastically call it massacre, like Kiryat Shmona massacre, like Ma'alot massacre, Coastal Road massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, Munich massacre. Most of this so-called massacre killed less than twenty (much more than Israel's which killed more than 50). Nielswik(talk) 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a fair point. I'd be interested to see where this discussion goes. I will sit on the fence, and deliver a few kicks to the losing side, as is my purpose in these debates. HawkerTyphoon 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that the difference stems from Israel's claims that the civilians killed in its attacks were unfortunate mistakes, whereas the events listed as 'massacres' were carried out by groups whose stated intention was to kill innocent civilians. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure? UN, Amnesty, and HRW agrees to call this massacre. Why an encyclopedia not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nielswik (talk • contribs).
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. When arab killed jews it was usually refered to as RIOTS and not massacres. You would see there's no difference when it's in fact murder as in Baruch Goldstein massacre. Your claim is not true. Amoruso 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's unfair naming system 

message: Do not remove the picture, other articles have set a firm precedence on including pictures of victims when such exist. --Striver 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure on this one. This article was a featured article, so I would say, if you can make this image live up to all the criteria that screenshot does, then go for it, but make darned sure it does. Patstuarttalk|edits 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thank you for the tips. --Striver 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, in the meantime I've commented it out. Palmiro | Talk 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  odd paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE: The guys who attempted to sue Israeli leaders... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Bueller? ...Bueller..? — George [talk] 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, how about the repeated discussions on this very page? – Smyth\talk 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: See Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive_names. The naming convention is to use NPOV. – Smyth\talk 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arithmetic Concern

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: In the lawsuit filed by the victims against the Israeli general it is called a "battle", see  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: Whew! Thanks to Errant for his timely suggestion, and per the statement made above by user  at 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 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!
* http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles18.htm
** In 1996 shelling of Qana on 2011-05-25 06:22:59, 404 Not Found
** In 1996 shelling of Qana on 2011-06-08 04:23:16, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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!
* http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsouthlebanon/un/milo.htm
** In 1996 shelling of Qana on 2011-05-25 06:23:01, 404 Not Found
** In 1996 shelling of Qana on 2011-06-08 04:23:18, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: The article was assessed as C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Death & WP: Mil Hist Assessment Commentary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HRW report misrepresented 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1996 shelling of Qana. 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/20070520003524/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be?OpenDocument
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121006102803/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/042/1996/en/dbadaf6a-eaf6-11dd-aad1-ed57e7e5470b/mde150421996en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/042/1996/en/dbadaf6a-eaf6-11dd-aad1-ed57e7e5470b/mde150421996en.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120411123147/http://www.ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-qana-and-belhas-v.-ya%2526%2523039%3Balon to http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-qana-and-belhas-v.-ya%2526%2523039%3Balon
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070520003524/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/62d5aa740c14293b85256324005179be?OpenDocument
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040805114525/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ce90 to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ce90
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Qana 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/20010121131000/http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0796/9607019.htm to http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010121131000/http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0796/9607019.htm to http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010121131000/http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0796/9607019.htm to http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm
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) 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More grist for the Mill 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No Consensus  User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Qana massacre →  – To distinguish it from 2006 Qana airstrike, which is also usually referd to as simply "Qana massacre". Maudslay II (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 March 2021 

message: No room to settle for either "First Qana massacre" or "1996 Qana massacre" or "Qana massacre, 1996"? Because the year is really needed in the title. -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hi, the last sentence of the third para in the "Shelling of UN compound" section states: "One man, Saadallah Balhas, lost 37 members of his family in the strike", attr. ref 12.  In the "Lawsuit by relatives" section, it is stated that "Among the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are Saadallah Ali Belhas and his son Ali Saadallah Belhas who lost 31 family members in the shelling including their respective wives and 12 children", attr. ref 36. Given that the numbers are taken from different sources (and assuming that they are taken correctly from them), the discrepancy in numbers is not that odd; however, such a contradiction makes for bad optics in any article. I don't know if it is a problem for anyone, or what the solution should be, but if I owned Wikipedia, I'd probably try to fix this. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  37? 31?