Talk:2006 Qana airstrike

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Qana airstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821200526/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060814194510/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/meast/08/06/mideast.main/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/06/mideast.main/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: CAMERA, besides having no expertise on the topic, is not treated as a serious source by other reliable sources. A media "watchdog" group called "a well-known source of extremist pro-Israel propaganda that is routinely challenged" and said about it that "They say they are committed to accuracy in coverage of Israel-Palestinian issues, but really they are about promoting a right-wing agenda that is not just pro-Israel but pro a religious-nationalist Israel in the Netanyahu mold". is not a reliable source for facts that they have no expertise in. What exactly makes CAMERA a reliable source for the number of casualties in a bombing in Lebanon? And, oh by the way, WP:ONUS requires consensus for the reinsertion of challenged material, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable sourcing for any challenged material. A primary source from a non-reliable and partisan "media watchdog" is not that. , kindly self-revert your WP:ONUS violation. nableezy - 22:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to treat it as a deprecated source which should be purged wherever it appears. It's not, of course, and while it's been criticised for bias, we know that biased sources can be reliable. Why do you think it's unreliable here? Has its account been debunked by others? Alaexis¿question? 07:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Nableezy explained what's wrong with it, an advocacy group is one thing, we can attribute and get on with it provided said group is otherwise frequently cited by the "mainstream" (ADL, B'tselem etc). CAMERA is not in that group (it's in NGOmonitor/EI group) maybe we ought to go RSP and get it classed as gunrel officially but it ought to be obvious that is the case without the need for that. The article is mainly about total Hezbollah casualties over a period and for this particular incident the only mention of possible Hezbollah casualties is three coffins (said to be per VOA/Lebanese official) or four coffins (said to be per an AFP photo) draped in Hezbollah flags. Even if it were the case (according to some respectable RS) that there were 3 or 4 Hezbollah fighters who died, that is also not the reason why this incident is notable.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

message: During the burial of the victims of the airstrike, three coffins were covered with yellow Hezbollah flags. is not what the source says. What it says is during a funeral in which victims of the airstrike were buried, not that it was the burial of the victims of the airstrike or that it was either all of the victims or included nobody else. Which is obvious given that the number buried (29) is not the number killed (28). Ill fix that, though it doesnt exactly seem to have any relevance except for an attempt to imply that this was a military target. nableezy - 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And actually, this seems to be incorrect from other media reports at the time: has 29 lebanese flags and 3 Hezbollah flags. nableezy - 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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