Talk:ICRC: 28 bodies, 19 children, pulled from rubble after Israeli airstrike, Qana

copyedits
have removed the external link, is not directly related to the current incident, and including it raises pov concerns. what is the source for the Pope staatement - the comment is mangled and i need to see the source to fix it. Doldrums 14:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The building was targeted directly according to Reuters
There is much to write, but I think there is better to make a new article about warcrime accusation and other related things. international 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Building did not collapse due to Israeli strike
"An IDF investigation has found that the building in Qana struck by the Air Force fell around eight hours after being hit by the IDF." Ealturner 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Video of Hezbollah shooting rockets from behind three-story residential building. Apparently Israel leafleted Qana about the impending attacks three days ago. The children should have been removed from the village not put together in a prominent building. Ealturner 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand that it is in Israels interest to put everything about this tradgedy that blaim them in doubt. If the structure colapsed afterward is inself not that interesting in article specially if it look as if it contradict the 'flattened the houses' statment. I will remove it as unnecessary info. If things point to staches of explosives in the house it is another thing but it needs to be somewhat substantiateed or proven. The video is not claimed to have anyting with exactly the bombed building, am I right? international 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * reg. the eight hour thing, here's the statement and source.
 * "Eshel said the air force raided the area three times between 12:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. yesterday. While the earliest attack probably hit the building, the report of its collapse came about eight hours later. The later two attacks hit targets as much as 500 meters (1,640 feet) from the building, he said."


 * -- Air Force Brigadier General Amir Eshel

POV
Again this is not NPOV, add comments about why Israel targed this building used to launch rockets etc, plus initial IDF investigation shows that it collapsed about eight hours after being hit. The investigation has raised the possiblity that Hizbullah explosives stored in the building were behind the collapse. I'm getting sick if this anti-Israel POV that shows on this site. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ealturner 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, i am so sorry that WikiNews does report what you don't want to see. Poor believer. Any facts available should be reported, no matter if it makes one or the other party look good. If the IDF behaves like the biggest assholes since a long time, then thats what should be reported. It is not our duty to sugarcoat atrocities done by one party, so that they don't look so bad. It is neither our job to sugarcoat atrocities done by the other party. Thats the job of political propaganda, not Wikinews. The purpose of journalism is to inform the readers as good as possible about any facts - no matter if they are nice or not, no matter if it makes one or the other party look good. As long as all POVs are covered and facts sourced and reliable, its okay. --82.141.51.150 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Any facts available should be reported" Hell yes thats right, and its a fact that Israel claim that the building used to launch rockets etc. It is also a fact that a initial IDF investigation shows that it collapsed about eight hours after being hit, Isreal have also raised the possiblity that Hizbullah explosives stored in the building were behind the collapse. we need to report that as that is a "[f]act available [that] should be reported".
 * When Hizbullah "behaves like the biggest assholes since a long time" then that's what should be reported Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim about explosives must be written clear, not hidden in the text. Feel free to add it propperly as a good part of npoving. And I dont realy like theese accusation of anti-Israel POV in wikinews. Write articles and chose the subject yourself, for exampel about Israeli victims of this conflict if you like. international 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article looks like shit now!
Thanks alot. international 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At least its far more NPOV Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if you call megafoning IDF-propaganda npoving. But it looks bad. Congratulate. international 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you have the article full of Terrorist groups propaganda Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There were a whooping two quotes from Hezbollah as far as I could see... --Jambalaya 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me, and BBC and Reuters, litle more specific what you mean insted of in a vandalistic something bad excuse for povpuching trash a article? international 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the statement of Annan removed? Is the secretary-general of the UN now considered to be part of "terrorist"-propaganda? Why were so many reactions from around the world removed - are they now all terrorists? This stinks for right-wing censorship. If you want to make the article balanced, then *add* POVs from the relevant parties, instead of removing valid and sourced information. This event was condemned by almost the entire world - except of israel and the US - and blame was put on israel by those countries. Regardless of who is really to blame, it is destructive and abusive to skew the reactions from the world, so that it looks like as if the US and Israel would account for 50% of the world. If the "world" is wrong, then prove and add it, instead of censoring reactions. --82.141.50.34 10:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did this go? And do anybody see this contradictfull to other IDF statement?
A senior air force commander said Israel had dropped a bomb on the building in Qana on the assumption it was sheltering Hizbollah crews and was unaware civilians were there. The commander said "Had we known there were that many civilians inside, especially woman and children, we certainly would not have attacked it,"

international 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's back :-) --Jambalaya 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda? Who started it all? Who's providing who with weapons?
I had to chuckle reading the edit above about "terrorist groups propaganda". Just today I must have heard and read about 20 references by different western media sources referring to this one-sided massacre(now about 20-1 civilian body count in Israel's favour). They consistently feel compelled to repeat over and over again that this all started in July when Israeli soldiers were attacked and kidnapped. That's a blatant lie. Then there is the comments about Hezbollah weapons coming from Iran while Israel's planes,helicopters and bombs come from the USA with more being rushed across the atlantic as we speak. The Nazi propaganda guy said "tell a lie often enough and people will believe it"...boy was he right...and it's USAGOV and IsraelGOV who are telling all the provable lies; and killing 95% of all the little children being killed in these 1 sided bully wars. Neutralizer 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have CNN and FoxNews sources been removed?
Why have you removed CNN and FoxNews sources, from head of the sources, and why have you put the cynical question back at the end of the report. "What do you expect Israel to say"? Well the answer is as you see: Israel is investigating. Israel has stopped the bombing.

Anyone with eyes in his head can see that there is no fire or smoke during the video of ambulances reaching the site. And rather than sleeping in a shelter the witnesses say they slept under the first floor. Why did you remove this clear evidence of well established news sources from the article?

Why did you remove the plea for a cease fire turn-down from Hizbolla (BTW even WikiPedia agree that it should be pronounced Hizbulla...) where it is clearly stated in the CNN source, by a woman from the village who is not suspected of being pro Israeli?

Do you not know that this is all a power showdown of the Hizbulla? Preparing for a ground war with Israel, filling the south with explosives, and pushing away the possiblity of rehabilitizing Lebanon. What is with you people, its simple reading, almost as simple as 1+1=2: Here's the link (Pro Hizbulla, not the Israeli view): http://www.cggl.org/scripts/document.asp?id=46225


 * Why were FoxNews-Sources removed - LOL? Your other selectively choosen and therefore misleading arguments are not even worth to be debunked. Dream on about the global phantom-threat of witche... err, i mean commies.... no, thats wrong.... terrorists, yes thats right. --82.141.50.34 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese reaction first
The disaster happend in Lebanon. The responsible for the bombing should not have their pov presented before those who got bombed. We should not bringing Israels excuse for this mess before Lebanons condemnation. international 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NO! Its the Lebanese through there Terror group who stated this; they need to stop their excuses Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting - so according to you, the lebanese (not Hezbollah) now have no voice anymore, because they're all barba... err, terrorists? Are you sure that NPOV is your goal? How about calling Israel terrorists, because of gross violations of almost every sentence in the geneva conventions? And since the US is delivering weapons to them, maybe they as well should have no voice at all, because they could be considered "sponsors of terrorism". Now, you see, every party in the war - lebanon, hezbollah, israel and the US, have no voice anymore, because they're all terrorists. Their POV should be completely obmitted from WikiNews, right? Bullshit. --82.141.50.34 11:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And also the reported time for the first bombing, and mention of the reported second woulf be a good idea. international 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Brian. What we must remember is that USAGOV/UKGOV were quite complimentary of Lebanon's embrace of democracy over the past year and the west also was quite insistent that Syria remove it's presence. Now,in Iraq, Bush/Blair etc. keep saying "democracy takes time"..it's been 3 years in Iraq and far less in Lebanon(since Syria left). We can all have different povs about this event but it is not worthy of your esteemed reputation,imo, for you to now see Hezbollah as being under the control of the elected Lebanese government. This whole notion that the Lebanese gov. is responsible for Hezbollah's actions is like saying the UK government was responsible for the bombings of the IRA (the IRA had elected MPs in the British parliament at that time); both theories are absurd in the extreme and only useful as desperate attempted justification for an unjustifiable military attack (the aerial attack of a country with no air force nor air defences). You are entitled to believe Hezbollah is working for the Lebanese government if you wish to believe that, but I urge you to reconsider that opinion. Neutralizer 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Journalism
a. Good journalism brings both POV at opening statement. b. Lebanese online is full of anti Hizbulla. c. You cannot use the newspaper to fight the war. The news should show both POV especially if these are substantiated by proof. It should clearly state what is NOT fact.

a reminder
to all editors that (Wikinews' resident busybody), Doldrums 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) this is a place to discuss the article. the discussion would do well to focus on what needs to be done to improve the article.
 * 2) it would be good to... ahem, respect each other's views and critique each others' edits, if need be.
 * yes, I'm guilty of far too much side talk. Doldrums is absolutely correct and I will try to stop my opinionizing on article talk pages. Neutralizer 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli claims
Some Israeli claims that contradict statments from witnesses is given to much space. This make the whole article pov in favour of the Israeli state. I whould advice to limit theese statements as it can be seen as psy-ops or blatant lies to whitewash the Israeli attack. international 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) source
 * At least those Israeli claims are seperated from the rest and clearly marked. Even if Israel claims that the world is flat, we should still write about it. As long as we clearly marks that this is what THEY believe. --Jambalaya 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Israeli claims, I think they said that Qana villagers had been warned of the coming attack. I scan the current version, and see it does not mention it. Why not?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30390156.htm

Tomos 23:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because we occupied our minds with this "structurcollapsclaim" its been edited away. Its been mentioned in articles early versions. international 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ICRC Press release
Added to source and changed misleading title. Ealturner 12:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ICRC: 28 bodies, 19 children, pulled from rubble after Israeli airstrike, Qana Ealturner 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * reads as if 28 bodies and 19 children were pulled from the rubble. not clear that the children too, are dead. Doldrums 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "28 bodies from the rubble, 19 of whom are children". A specific term i.e. "adults" or "terrorists" was not used so "children" must be a subset of "bodies". If you want to change "28 bodies" to "28 dead" I won't oppose that. Ealturner 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * am speaking of the title, which doesnt have the "among whom". Doldrums 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Among whom" was deliberately not included in the title to make it shorter. If you think it needs that phrase to get the meaning across add it in. Ealturner 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

late addition
pls do not add substantial content to a published article. wikinews articles are not works in progress and only report information as known prior to date of publication. the statement about rescue efforts being halted is surely not from July 20th. additionaly, the HRW report is not listed in sources and so info about it cannot be added to the article. see Content guide and the links to What Wikinews is and What Wikinews is not therein for policies and guidelines regarding this. u can start a new article to report further developments in this incident. Doldrums 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, thanks. I think an in depth page is necessary to report the corrected death toll in this terrible incident. Moreover, the Israeli investigation has been published today and is also newsworthy. Should do it myself, but I'm heading for work now. Have a nice day. 88.152.56.209 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

16 children, not 19
As per the Human Rights Watch, can we please move this article so it says 16, not 19 children? --71.125.180.71 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just registered an account (didn't realize it was different than wikipedia) and figured out how to change it myself. --Aishel 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont edit more in this article, write new ones. About number of dead bodys, there are people missing. international 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)