Talk:Al-Qaa airstrike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Qaa airstrike article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

I can tell right now this will be a controversial topic too :) Let's pre-emptively try and keep cool heads, everybody.

Contents 1 Do we like the name? 2 The inevitable debate over casualty numbers 3 Template 4 Reason for the airstrike 5 Do we have any other more credible sources?

[edit] Do we like the name?

"2006 Qaa airstrike" is probably indeed the most accurate name, and Qaa does seem to be the most common Romanization of that villages name... But man, it's one letter different from the 2006 Qana airstrike, very confusing to say the least. Ah well... --Jaysweet 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it called al-Qaa in the news reports. Same as I see Qana called Kfar Qana or Kana in some news. Ive no preference, whatever the locals use would be best since its their tragedy. 82.29.227.171 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth renaming the article to "2006 al-Qaa aistrike" just to avoid confusion... --Jaysweet 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"al" in Arabic means "the" but it is not a separate word as in English, it becomes a part of any word it is used with. So i guess, both names could be used "al-Qaa" or "Qaa". However, i also prefer al-Qaa to avoid confusion with Qana.--Wedian 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of Jaysweet's suggestion. And for an entire article on Wedian's point, see Al-. --Fsotrain09 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought "Qaa" was a mispelling of "Qana". After all, there is only one letter's difference.Andrewia 22:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If its causing confusion then remain it, 2006 Qaa bombing maybe, im reluctant to use the word 'massacre' Mema435 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are reluctant in calling it massacre though it clearly is one. You see even Qana massacre (which is titled as massacre in most other wikipedias, and by thousands of newspapers) in english wikipedia goes still by the name Qana airstrike. It seems in this war according to english wikipedia we only have airstrikes during which civilians are being massacred. It is a massacre but i dont think they ll let you change it. You see coverage of the news includes always a form of propaganda. Then history comes and some justice is sometimes thrown in the facts. But until then we ll call Qaa and Qana massacres as airstrikes, and people in Lebanon will continue being massacred...I hope wikipedia will wake up in the coverage of these massacres and at least give them the right to be called what they really are...MASSACRES. 213.5.23.31 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "thousands of newspapers" are calling it a massacre, but the most reputable ones are not. BBC mentions many people refer to the 1996 Qana shelling and the 2006 Qana airstrike as massacres, but they are careful not to assert as much themselves, at least not in the news articles (opinion and analysis are another thing entirely).

Do I think these incidents could be rightly termed massacres? Probably. But that's my opinion, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. It should be obvious that term is not NPOV.

If I get some time later this afternoon to figure out how to change the name of articles, I'll switch it to "2006 al-Qaa airstrike," to avoid confusion. It sounds like most people like that idea. --Jaysweet 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

213.5.23.31 if the article renamed to massacre then organise a vote, its really that simple. Do be prepared for opposition on that change. However, like any vote its a numbers game so bring of plenty support for the idea (like the support that was organised to include conspiracy theories in the Qana article).

Article on wikipedia says a massacre is "individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities" So you make a fair point. 82.29.227.171 15:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

213.5.23.31 :Though i do think it is a terrible massacre, i wouldn't vote to change the name accordingly. Not just because of the NPOV policy but also because i wouldn't expect to read such descriptions in an encyclopedia. I don't mind seeing something like "terrible massacre" or "civilians were slaughtered" in a newspaper, but in an encyclopedia, let the facts speak for themselves. I still agree with Jaysweet's suggestion for "al-Qaa". Did you notice that differnce, self revert and subsequent change at Qana article. The name is indeed confusing. If i wasn't sure whether there would be a vote or not i would have renamed it. --Wedian 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it, since there do not appear to be any objections to that aspect of the name change.

Many thanks to Wedian for pointing me to instructions on how to do this! :) --Jaysweet 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The inevitable debate over casualty numbers

The BBC is saying 26 dead, 20 injured. It appears to be newer than the Reuters article, so I'd tend to go with that. What do you think? --Jaysweet 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

More inclined to go with what SANA say- Syrian, even if their language describing it is rather "emotional" Change if you want but leave in the conflict 82.29.227.171 19:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I first read about al-Qaa in al-jazeera when it mentioned only 23 dead , but on a later report, the number rose to 32 [1], so i also think 32 may be the final number. But, you can cite both numbers as in the case of Qana deaths.--Wedian 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't really careful about checking the timestamps on articles :) If the most recent reports are saying 32, I say leave it. --Jaysweet 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Omar added in "according to Lebanese claims" in the casualty count. Is there really any dispute over this? If so, then yeah, I agree with the add.. but my impression is that every nation involved agrees about 30 farmers were killed. If there is no dispute, then adding "According to Lebanese claims" just makes it unnecessarily hard to read.

Please correct me if there is a dispute over the claim, preferably using a source. --Jaysweet 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem is actualy with the wording: "as they loaded plums and peaches onto trucks in a refrigerated warehouse" and not with the casualty numbers. Omarthesecound 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, you have a point there. Conceivably, I might be in favor of moving that claim down to a later section, and using the intro to simply state "33 farmers, mostly Syrian kurds, were killed in the airstrike." --Jaysweet 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of how it is now? --Jaysweet 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The confirmed death toll of civilians is 28 [2] [3] 82.29.227.171 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Seem to be more recent references. Feel free to change accordingly.--Wedian 20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Look at the template. Qaa should be mentioned before Tyre. Flayer 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
Zar'it-Shtula – Baliste – Bint Jbeil – Qana – Ayta ash-Shab – Baalbek – al-Qaa – Tyre – Shiyyah – Ghaziyeh – Marjayoun – Litani

You are ofcourse free to change the order, but may i ask why?--Wedian 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep chronology... and I don't know how to edit a template. 89.0.229.237 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I added Qaa to the template but didn't notice the chronological order. I'll fix it.--Wedian 20:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for the airstrike

I reverted this change by Omarthesecound . Please refer to the reference used [4] and to reuters. This justification (stoping the flow of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran through Syria) was given for bridges bombing which occured the same day and not for al-Qaa airstrike.--Wedian 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence revered to "The campaign" and not the attack. I have removed the sentence. Omarthesecound 14:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have any other more credible sources?

While I am sure Syria was working on agricultural projects in a Hezbollah stronghold, do we have any other more credible sources? I think it is a little too rash to state that the casualties were farm workers. Syria has a history of supplying Hezbollah. So there is fairly significant "reasonable doubt," so to speak, against that claim. I think the opening paragraph needs to be edited to reflect that. --Bingman06 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What about a 2006 Qaa airstrike conspiracy theories article? 82.29.227.171 13:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what purpose that would serve. Why don't we just make the article balanced, instead. --Bingman06 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bingman, The fact that they were farm workers was cited by reliable sources including reputable news agencies. What you think of Syria and your view of the incident is irrelevant, no offense intended. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to publish your ideas or reasonable doubts and it is not a place to publish your point of view. --Wedian 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of moving the "farm workers" language out of the intro if there are credible neutral (i.e. non-Arab/non-Israeli) sources that dispute whether they were farm workers. So far, all int'l coverage I have seen of the incident appears to be unanimous in saying it was Syrian Kurdish farm workers... --Jaysweet 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If these are not assumptions as i assumed and if a number of reliable neutral sources dispute they were not farm workers, please add them.--Wedian 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Got to go on what is reported. Articles say farm workers. More of them were bombed in a truck transporting fruit on Tuesday- 5 dead. Its happening. 82.29.227.171 23:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On the off chance that this isn't already referenced here, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-04T205040Z_01_L30823603_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST1.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3 Tewfik^Talk 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)