Talk:Ghaziyeh airstrikes

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Lebanon Low‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghaziyeh airstrikes. 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/20061025044729/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-08T201315Z_01_L07726695_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV categories

A number of controversial POV categories that state or imply this event was "a massacre" were added, w/o consensus, and subsequently removed by me and USer:BilledMammal. They were now re-added, again w/o consensus, in violation of WP:ONUS. Categories are covered by the WP:POVCAT guideline - "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A POV dispute requires sources to dispute. But if killing 30 civilians is not a massacre because it is "controversial", I have some work to do emptying the "controversial" categories on Palestinian "terror" attacks. Toodles. nableezy - 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is a dispute as to whether this is a massacre, a POV term that requires more than a simple body count. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Massacre is an altname so not a POV term. The cat getout is "controversial" which is something else. I agree with Nableezy, two can play this game.Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We went over this at Talk:Wehda_Street_airstrikes#Recent_reverts, where the difference between saying something is "also called" a massacre by some in the article body (where you can provide the full context - who calls it that, who disputes it etc...) and labeling it a massacre in a category where no such context is possible was explained to you, including the guiding policy. Your editing with the same arguments here after you didn't get you way there is tendentious. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted your cat removal so your "tendentious" argument is just more of your usual. As I said, two can play this game.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]