Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 21 September 2006

Military history Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

2006 Lebanon War was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 13, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Moveoptions Template:Todo priority

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27	Archive 28
Archive 29

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions

• Earlier archives
• /Archive26#Discussion about the name of the article
  • Title again, Use of year in article title.
• /Name archive (Aug-26-06)
  • Proposed move to Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006) and other related discussion

These polls will close on the 30th of September 2006 at 11:59pm GMT

Issue 1 - Date placement

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

2006

Comment here

1. Support - I actually prefer the combatant-description (2006) title, but pretty much all of the relevant conflicts/wars in this arena follow this format - 1920 Palestine riots, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1982 Lebanon War, 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. Iorek85 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - convention per Iorek, Tewfik 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Although I originally thought to follow the military history project's nomenclature, as all of the Israeli conflicts seem to follow this method, we should keep it. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - It's not broke - let's not fix it :-) HawkerTyphoon 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - If including the year is important, than this seems to be the most logical. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - I agree with Lorek that combatant-description (2006) looks better, but that we should follow the existing convention. TheronJ 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - I agree with Iorek85 and TheronJ that (2006) is the better form but I support following the existing conventions unless a consensus can be reaced in re-naming all the articles that follow the existing convention. Edward Lalone 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per existing practise. Cynical 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support this format look nice, and other existing combat articles with year seem to be titled this way Nielswik 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

of 2006

Comment here

(2006)

Comment here

1. Support Who fought is more important than when. --Doom777 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support The date is not a key feature, particularly when trying to find the article - the combatants are. Fast Rita 12:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue 2 - Description of Combatants

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

Israel-Lebanon

Comment here

1. Support - Lebanon was involved, and bore the brunt of the damage. Iorek85 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - This seems to be the most common reference in the media... Tewfik 07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

   Reply. In a Lexis search of major newspapers since July 12, "Israel-Hezbollah conflict" appears about as often as "Israel-Lebanon conflict"--51 to 58. Pan Dan 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

   That may be. However Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy. We should have an organised discussion about what is indeed the most common, as opposed to engaging in a poll which at best reflects the title most popular with Wikipedians who have bothered to read this Talk and post a reply. Tewfik 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

   I completely agree with you, but I don't understand what that has to do with the point I tried to make above--that it may be a myth that the "Israel-Lebanon" is more common than "Israel-Hezbollah" in the media. Pan Dan 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Most common reference. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support The war ranged over all of Lebanon, and northern Israel. 132.205.44.134 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Lebanon suffers most damage, and hezbollah is lebanese citizens too. and, we should also consider that Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, stated that “f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years." Nielswik 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support My understanding is that this is the most common reference from among the available choices. TheronJ 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support This is the more commonly used reference for the Israel Lebanon Conflict (2006). Edward Lalone 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support This is the most common reference. It's also consistent with other usage; for example we speak of Israel's 1982 Lebanon war - not of Israel's 1982 PLO war. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. As for this being pro-Hezbollah POV, after the capture/abduction/kidnap of the Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government itself said that this was 'an act of war by the state of Lebanon against the state of Israel' - so both sides saw it as Israel v Lebanon. That aside, a conflict where Israel is bombing Lebanon and people in Lebanon are firing rockets at Israel seems like a no-brainer namewise as far as I'm concerned. Cynical 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Lebanon was clearly involved in the conflict and arguably suffered the most from it. Crumbsucker 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - In a conflict where the overwhelming majority of the dead are non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians, excluding the name Lebanon seems absurd. --Irishpunktom\ 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support -- Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government. If Mexico invaded America to wipe out the Democrats, and indescriminately killed voters of all parties, I'd be hard pressed to to call it the Mexico-Democrat conflict -- Kendrick7 03:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support — Lebanon was certainly involved politically, diplomatically, and (to a certain extent) militarily. All international diplomacy was done through the Lebanese government and all relevent UN resolutions refer strictly to Lebanon without even mentioning the word "Hezbollah." --GHcool 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Israel may have been aiming at Hezbollah, but they hit Lebanon. Fast Rita 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah

Comment here

Israel-Hezbollah

Comment here

1. Support Hizbullah attacked Israael. Israel responded by attacking Hizbullah. The Lebanese Army was not involved. Israel did not declare war on Lebanon. Lebanon did not declare war on Israel. Any name that includes Lebanon is inaccurate and POV nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.5.7 (talk • contribs)

   Oppose Lebanese army was involved in several extent like this Anyways, Hezbollah are lebanese and israel has completely destroyed lebanon, so it deserve called Israel-Lebanon war Nielswik 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

   Dupe Support Unless someone can prove Lebanon was a combatant this was clerly not a war between Israel and Lebanon, hence it should not be falsely labeled the Israel Lebanon Conflict. --138.162.5.7 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

   Dupe vote. Crumbsucker 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Support All the fighting was between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon did nothing except get bombed. --Doom777 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support The war/conflict was between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanease army wasn't involved. --The monkeyhate 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Misnaming this conflict to include Lebanon is as POV as anything I've seen on Misplaced Pages. --67.72.98.85 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Like users above --TheFEARgod 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --Medule 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support -  AjaxSmack  05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Hezbollah is not a territory, otherwise you should call this the IDF-Hizbollah war. Pancho Villa was not Mexico, and it is not called the Pancho Villa -American war. 132.205.44.134 05:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC). No, but it is called the Pancho Villa Expedition. -  AjaxSmack  05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Support - Defines pretty finely the event, since Hezbollah is only a relatively small fraction of Lebanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CP\M (talk • contribs)
9. Support- Lebanon wasn't involved, although to be fair, the conflict did occur in these two countries HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, Lebanon the country was not a party to this conflict. This was solely between the Israeli army and the Hezbollah organization. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - This seems to be the most accurate description of the combatants. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per the first persons comments. TJ Spyke 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Retropunk 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I feel quite strongly about this; Israel was NOT at war with Lebanon, it was the Hezbollah who attacked Israel and and it was Hezbollah that was target of Israel's response. Lebanon was the unfortunate victim of this action The Perfect Name is: "Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, 2006". Anything else is misleading.Pberk

    Reply: Brand new user with 2 edits. Likely a sockpuppet. Crumbsucker 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

15. Support per the first person's comments and Pberk. "Israel-Lebanon conflict" implies that the Lebanese gov't was a major combatant. It was not. Hezbollah initiated the action without the approval of the Lebanese gov't. In the ensuing conflict, Israel targeted only suspected Hezbollah launching/stockpiling sites and re-supply routes, and Hezbollah, again without the approval of the Lebanese gov't, fired rockets into Israel. And the media's supposed more common reference to the "Israel-Lebanon conflict" may be a myth—see my reply to Tewfik over on the other side. Pan Dan 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support it's all said already --Mandavi 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue 3 - Description of Conflict

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

conflict

Comment here

1. Support - After earlier supporting "war" - I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war. It was too short, pretty much one sided, and didn't result in large numbers of military deaths. If anyone can think of smaller "Wars" then sure. Iorek85 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Again, Iorek says it best, Tewfik 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Iorek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Most common reference, not the same scope and danger as other wars such as Iran-Iraq/Yom Kippur/etc. -- Avi 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support No formal DoW issued HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, not only was this not a declared war by either side. It was a limited conflict that wouldn't classify as a war in any other part of the world. Also I would question naming it Israel-Lebanon Conflict. It would be better served at 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict. The government of Lebanon was not a party to the war but rather a terrorist organization in southern lebanon was the co-party with Israel. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I support calling it a Conflict and not a war because I do not think that this conflict meets all the requirements of being a war. Edward Lalone 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support TJ Spyke 05:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. It doesn't matter what inaccurate terms news organisations were using, legally and factually this was not a war, as there was no formal declaration of war between two countries. Cynical 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Crumbsucker 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Carbonate 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - More acuarate term. --Irishpunktom\ 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I believe it's both tan Israel-Lebanon conflict and an Israel-Hezbollah war but the first is more apt (though this still belongs in Category:Wars of Hezbollah) -- Kendrick7 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support The Lebanese Army was never engaged Fast Rita 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

war

1. It's not for us to measure its seriousness - we should just follow the general usage. Everybody calls it a war, so it's a war. And as for "If anyone can think of smaller Wars", Anglo-Zanzibar War springs to mind. Zocky | picture popups 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Everyone calls it a war, it lasted for 34 days, much longer than the Six Day War, a lot of explosives were used, Israel called out Order 8, and most call it a war. --Doom777 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment - 21,000 soldiers died in the six day war. Iorek85 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment - No one died during the Ohio-Michigan War. The Red River Bridge Controversy is sometimes knwon as the Red River Brige War, but there was no bloodshed. There's several wars that had little or no bloodshed. Retropunk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Support Of course it's a war. The fact Hezbullah acted criminally in failing to declare a war does little to negate this. --138.162.0.42 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment - Israel didn't declare war either, AFAIK. Iorek85 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment This is and should be the ONLY reason to not call it a war. Severity and length have little to do with the definition. However, I believe the UN does state that even an 'armed conflict' constitutes as a war. Retropunk 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Support - All the media use the term "war", and there was enough casualties to call it a war. --The monkeyhate 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - If this is war... --TheFEARgod 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, the US never declared war on Vietnam either, it's still called the Vietnam War. 132.205.44.134 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, due to both sides aiming for total destruction of each other, and large scale. CP/M |Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project| 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, it has killed thousands of people, isn't that war? another point : Misplaced Pages says "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups" in War article. This is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons by Israel (a state) and Hezbollah (a large-scale groups) Nielswik 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - I'm finding it hard to call this anything but a war.--Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   • comment - hey, what about "israeli destruction of lebanon"?

10. Support - AFAICT, "war" is the popular term, and it was a war, if one-sided. TheronJ 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support All the major news outlets (e.g. CNN, BBC, Fox, etc) including Israeli ones such as Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth call this a war, the prime minister of Israel, the president of Lebanon and the US secretary of state call this a war, the Israeli army calls this a war, international and transnational organizations such as the UN and the EU call this a war, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel call this a war - I think this encyclopedia should call this a war also. "Conflict" is a more generic expression which is also used but much less frequently than "war". By now the dominant expression in Israel at least appears to be "Second Lebanon War". I think "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" is the best title with "Second Israel-Lebanon war" reverting to it. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support for the same reasons that Dianelos gives. I was in Israel during the war and after about the 2nd week of the conflict, nearly all of the Israeli media have been calling it Milkhemet Levanon ha-Shniyah("the Second Lebanon War" or "Lebanon War II," depending on how you would like to translate it).--GHcool 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Defintely a war, it was an all-out war both ways. Hello32020 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Guys, what are you thinking? over 1,000 people are slaughtered in a series of systematic military operations, and you don't call it a war? It's definitely a war!! I even will surely agree if it's called a massacre. 155.69.5.236 07:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "war"

I see now that the Hebrew Misplaced Pages has renamed their article (belatedly, I think) to "the Second Lebanon War" and now with this as an encyclopedic (as opposed to journalistic, of which there are plenty) reference, I'm inclined to rename the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (i.e. beyond a conflict). So unless there are objections, I'll be implementing the move in the near future. Thanks. El_C 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The following comment was inexplicably archived; I'll keep an eye that this dosen't happen in the future and give it a few more days. El_C 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In response too ILike2BeAnonymous (and not El_C), until we do come to a decision, your arguing that "men raining destruction on each other in the form of high explosives" constitutes a "war" is fine, but shouldn't affect the article. Also, please be careful about fully reverting changes - the syntax, which I noted in the edit summary, is hardly controversial. Cheers, Tewfik 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that its called Israel-Hezbollah War, since the main combatant was Hezbollah, and not Lebanon. --Doom777 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It took place in Israel and Lebanon; we're not gonna call it IDF-Hezbollah war.

Further arguments for "war" are based on clear rationals:

1. Political echelon & media in both Israel and Lebanon call it "war"
2. Sustained high-intensity warfare throughout a period of weeks
3. Unlike in Gaza, entire divisions were mobalized (in Israel)
4. Scholarly sources call it "war" (e.g. lib.utexas.edu)

Where it took place is not as important as who fought it. --Doom777 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

El_C 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, whether it's called a war or not has nothing to do with the intensity, actors, weaponry, length, etc. What matters is what the thing is called, nothing else. Israelis call it a war, Lebanese call it a war, Hezbollah calls it a war. Even if there were no dead people and everybody called it war, Misplaced Pages would call it a war too. Zocky | picture popups 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I opposed calling it a war previously in order to err on the side of caution, I think that now that time has passed we can faithfully call it a war with legitimate backing. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Iorek85's contention that "I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war" is clearly mistaken; it involved the entire territory of one country and a good third of another, the number of casualties was far higher than in other recent conflicts universally called wars (cf. Falklands War) and the scale, scope and tempo of military operations was consistent with a full-blown war. I'll support El C's proposal to move the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. -- ChrisO 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I also got involved with the above polls, this really isn't an issue to be determined by votes. What we should do is have a listing of current references to the event, and name this article based on the factors that are most prevalent in them. Tewfik 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Israeli government opposed (and still opposes) calling this conflict a "war", because it has economic implications, dealing mainly with recompensations for damaged property. Instead of "war" it is formally called "fighting". However, "2006 Israel-Lebanon fighting" doesn't sound very encyclopedical. --Gabi S. 06:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict seems to fit best. This was not a widespread incident with a small number of casualties that took place between a country and a terror organization. There generally has to be two countries for there to be a war and it usually has to be declared. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since scope isn't apparently an issue in whether action is called a war or not, it seems to be only popular opinion that gives it the name. I agree with tewfik, but I don't know how one would go about collecting enough sources, or which sources should be used. I disagree that voting isn't important, though - wikipedians are members of the international public after all, and thus decide whether it was a war or conflict just as the public do. Iorek85 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please look this: Ten-Day War - it was a war and this isn't???--TheFEARgod 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That was two countries duking out. Our own page on conflict says - "Another type of conflict exists between governments and guerrilla groups or groups engaged in asymmetric warfare." Still, I've said size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary. Iorek85 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And Second Chechen War?? --TheFEARgod 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war." - Misplaced Pages. According to Misplaced Pages, this qualifies as a war. Both Israel and Hezbollah have the (relatively for Hezbollah) organized use of weapons and physical force and Hezbollah is a rather large-scale group (5,000-10,000 active members, 50,000 volunteers according to CNN), they both held territory that they did win and lose, and both do have a leading person and/or organization that can surrender of collapse that would have pretty much brought the end of the conflict.

Then what is a conflict? As I said "size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary". Iorek85 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole poll is really not the proper manner for deciding on a name change, rather as I've said before, there should be an attempt to analyse the various relevant sources, and name based on what is most used in them. Tewfik 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

Older discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive28#Discussion about POV
  • Older discussions
  • Intro: Blaming Lebanon
  • NPOV Violation: Casus Belli
  • The Issues

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive29#General Discussion
  • Earlier discussions

Propaganda, Amesty's accusations, Why was this changed to war?, WP:3RR, External links again, Background section

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

IDF control to the Litani

I think it should be clarified that just prior to the cease fire the IDF did not advance to the Litani but were airlifted to just south of it. This left the IDF forces in isolated pockets serving no tactical purpose and certainly not controling much. The only purpose served by this airlift on the eve of cease fire was PR, to make it appear that the IDF had made some inroads into southern lebanon. 24.69.71.229 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Controversy

Why do the staged and rather primitive PR efforts of Hezbollah merit a section in the article about this war? Nor do I find one Lebanese freelance photographer's use of photoshop to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings to be so noteworthy (Incidentally have you seen an example of what he did? – it’s so crude it almost looks as if he wanted to be caught).

I suppose all readers of wikipedia know that there is measure of propaganda and exaggeration of reporting by each side in any war - and it's the editors' job to make certain that no such propaganda leaks into the article. I trust no editor doubts that Lebanon did in fact suffer widespread destruction of its civilian infrastructure, and we should be careful not to present this article in a way that might lead the reader into doubting this basic fact. So I suggest we remove the entire media controversy section. As the story is kind of interesting we should leave a link to the specific article in the "See also" section. Dianelos 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't yet formulated an opinion regarding how important the section is in the greater article, its important to note that whatever Hajj's failings, he was supposed to be a neutral party, and he unfairly influenced public opinion in a manner that journalism is supposed to stay far away from. The section isn't about Hezbollah or Israeli PR, but about an unfair manipulation of one side's image internationally, and the varying levels of complicity in this sophisticated campaign. And while nobody (I hope) is denying the suffering of the Lebanese people, that at times the image portrayed is a false one is also significant. Tewfik 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very important. As noted here, reports that an Israeli missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact. --Gabi S. 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but those ambulances really were attacked. That blogs comments have been refuted by both the media there, the victims and the Red Cross. Iorek85 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The ambulances were not attacked. No proof was provided that ambulances were targetted. remains completely unverifiable. His only "evidence," yet again, is the testimony of the people who claim to have been attacked. And though he informs his readers that he went back to "inspect the damaged ambulances" he took no pictures to either validate his claims or to challenge the evidence here. These are the plain facts, and the pictures don't lie. They clearly show that any claims that Lebanese ambulances were hit by Israel are false, since there is no supporting evidence. Moreover, the reporter that was sent to reinforce the accusations returned with empty hands. --Gabi S. 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claim? (No zombietime.com does not count.) // Liftarn

I believe that zombietime would admit it if there were pictures proving that ambulances were really hit. But even the Hezbollah propagandists could not bring the Australian reporter to real evidence. He came back to the hospital just to find healthy drivers fabricating more stories, and no pictures. Not a single picture. I don't think that the Hezbollah propagandists would miss a chance to show real damage done, so this is proof enough for me. I count the missing evidence as a reliable source. --Gabi S. 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Zombietime is a single person crank website. It simply isn't a reliable source. On the other hand we have reliable sources saying it did happen. "Missiles hit two Red Cross ambulances last weekend, wounding six people and punching a circle in the center of the cross on one’s roof." (New York Times), "The Israel Defense Forces said last night that Israeli fire hit an ambulance"(Boston Globe) and so on. // Liftarn

I don't know what a "crank website" is, but what do YOU think about the coincidence of a missile hitting exactly the center of the cross, where the ambulance just happens to have a ventilation cover of the exact same diameter at the same location? The Boston Globe article shows just the hoax picture. And it even quotes the IDF spokesman saying "The IDF never intentionally targets civilians, much less ambulances". Newspapers make mistakes, and you can see the Adnan Hajj cases to see how easily they fall. In this case, I find the "crank website" much more reliable than the articles that you give as reference. --Gabi S. 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

with israels precision and accurate missiles it is very possible. which brings the other question as to why there were so many civilian deaths in lebanon...hint: the answer is not hezbollah used them as a human shield

As per WP:RS "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." and "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views". Also per WP:NOR whay I or you or any other editor thinks is not relevant. // Liftarn

I personally found the zombietime articles about the ambulances quite convincing. On the other hand this is indeed a one man operation and I wonder why no mainstream news media did pick up its theory about media manipulation, the way they picked the other ones. In cases where we don't really know what happened I suppose the encyclopedia article should not suggest either version as a fact. As for the global opinion I think it was shaped much more strongly by the numbers of civilian fatalities in Lebanon - many of them children - and the well-documented widespread destruction of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Dianelos 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's published in a reliable source is is fact as Misplaced Pages defines it. You may wonder why mainstream media did not pick up the story, but it may be the same reason they did not publish the findings of persons coming to the conclusion that the lunar landings was a hoax. // Liftarn

I better go change the 9/11 page to show that the towers were really brought down by the U.S government using explosives, and the planes were just a diversion so no one would notice then. Iorek85 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were civilian fatalities in Lebanon and the infrastructure was destroyed (supposedly to disarm Hezbolla). But specifically the ambulance story seems unfounded, as no real proof was provided, and the testimony of the alleged victims is dubious. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, since Hezbollah propaganda hoaxes are well-known. For example, the movie with Mr. Green Helmet shows how the body scenes are staged by Hezbollah , even though reality is still fiction for Reuters, which still claim that all of its photos are authentic and not staged . Another first-hand example is the reporter that admitted that he could not take any pictures, unless he got a letter from Hezbollah giving him permission . All this is ignored by the media out of plain bias toward anti-Israel reports, there's nothing new or peculiar about it. --Gabi S. 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the blatant pro-Israel bias in the US media it seems very strange that no real magazine, newspaper or tv station picked up the story. If/when they pick upt he story it can be included in the article. Until then it's just another conspiracy theory. // Liftarn

Pie chart

The pie chart is a POV. The number of dead Hezbollah guerillas is from Hezbollah suorces... 89.1.237.56 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As is probably the number of dead Israeli soldiers from Israeli military sources! Who is to say they both aren't lying? We deal with the appropriate data we have and should be neither pro-Israel nor pro-Hezbollah. It is only POV if you are strongly pro-Israel... Misplaced Pages does not censor information nor should it exclude factual items such as this chart. ~ clearthought 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So we should put below it a chart from Israeli sources, or at least to write that the chart was made by Hezbollah sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.24.155 (talk • contribs)

By that logic, we should have a chart showing Israeli casualties by Hezbollah sources... ~ clearthought 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you have such figures, such would be the only NPOV solution. Otherwise, this Pie chart is misleading. Isarig 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that you know perfectly what are the differances between the sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk • contribs)

Obviously there are differences. Hezbollah wants to say that they killed more IDF soldiers than they did and had less casualties as the IDF say that Hezbollah had. In addition, the IDF probably says that they have lost fewer than they actually have and state that they have killed more Hezbollah fighters than they actually have. It is all just agenda-pushing on all sides. From the looks of it, you above IP users seem to be staunchly pro-Israel whilst I am a moderate. ~ clearthought 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only, I am sure you can find more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you give us all the pleasure and do so, then. ~ clearthought 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying that only Israel is a valid source, and Hezbollah is not. I will be frank here, I don't trust either, but it would only make sense to have Israel report their casualties and Hezbollah report theirs. Having Israel report Hezbollah's figures is POV and vice versa. The best source is an independent source, which neither Hezbollah nor the IDF are. They both have agendas to push. Since we don't really have third party figures, we should use the data — however questionable — that Israel gave for their fatalities and Hezbollah for theirs. ~ clearthought 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the pie chart, as is, is original research, POV and misleading for 3 reasons - (a) it does not list the sources used, and as such it is OR. (b) while it does not cite sources, it seems that it is using the Hezbollah figure for their casualties (74), and not the list of 440 confimed dead by name and address by the IDF - as such - it is strongly POV. (c) it appears to use the figures for total Lebanese killed, and claims they are all civilian - misleading and POV. If indeed it is using the same figures that already appear in theinfobox - this information is redundant, and it seems the only reason it was added was to visually push the POV that the vast majority of casualties were Lebanese civilians. This is a vioaltion of WP:POINT. Isarig 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But the vast, vast majority of casualties were civilians! Plus, it can be argued that the IDF is just as POV as Hezbollah! ~ clearthought 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but that is not borne out by the figures so far. for example, if you assume that the # of Lebaneses casualties (~1200) includes both civilians and Hezbollah fighters, and if you furtheraccept the IDF estimate of Hezbollah fighters killed (~700), it would seem that civilians were not the majority of casualties. Even if you only use the number of Hezbollah fighters confirmed killed by the IDF (~440) as part of the overall Lebanese killed, the civilians are a majority, but not a big one. In any case, there is no reason to use a POV chart, when we have figures that present both POVs. Isarig 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Both POVs? I don't see figures saying how many IDF soldiers Hezbollah says they killed. ~ clearthought 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One POV is the pie chart as it was in the article. Another would be based on the assumptions avove, and would have Lebanese civilian casualties at around 500, and and hezb casualties at around 700, Idf casualties at 120 and Israeli civilians at 40. percentage wise, 51% Hezb, 37% Lebanese civilians. 71.202.97.61 01:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that many more than 500 Lebanese civilians died. POV is joining a side and not taking an objective or near-objective viewpoint with as little bias as possible and showing the viewpoint, if possible, of all parties to — in this case — the conflict at hand. ~ clearthought 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are of course welcome to that belief - so long as your remember that's what it is, and keep that POV out of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I was using "believe" like "think", not like "it is my opinion". All sane data shows that the figures of Hezbollah deaths at '700' and Lebanese civilian deaths at '500' are extremely incorrect. What next, Israel lost 2,000 civilians? Nonetheless, why aren't you picking on other users for their extreme POV, whereas my statements show that I am a moderate in this whole conflict scheme. Lastly, what POV are you talking about? Find one article edit of mine that shows POV! ~ clearthought 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The data that is used in the article does not support what you claim. It says ~1200 Lebanese were killed, but does not break up civilians vs. hezbollah (which would be extremely difficult to do relaiably, in any case). So while you are welcome to your "belief" that "all sane data" supports your claim, until you actually produce such data, kindly keep that POV out of the article. Isarig 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you keep your POV out of Misplaced Pages! ~ clearthought 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your remarkable POV and uncivilly in the past, Isarig:
~ clearthought 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Its foolish to try and make a pie chart that will only show one sides view when there are two hot headed sides out there beleiving their figure to be right and no third party ruling on what the real number is yet. Leave the stats to the infobox where it can be noted that there are conflicting figures. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If we can note conflicting figures in the infobox, why can't we on the pie chart? There should just be a note saying that 'the figures represented in this pie chart come from the respective sources of the ones who casualties were inflicted upon' or a like NB. ~ clearthought 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason we can't do that on the pie chart is that the chart itself will have a slice of only one size - so even if you note in the labels that there are differing figures, you will end up showing only one of these. Agian I ask you - what's the point of this chart? what info does it add that is not already in the article? Isarig 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of the chart is to provide a visual showing of the casualties. Like the ones (numbers) listed, but in chart form. It is no more POV than the figures themselves. I was also saying for the note to be put not in the image but the image frame box or on a note linked to the caption on the image box. ~ clearthought 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See above as to why the chart is more POV than the figures - the figures give two sets of claimed casualties, the chart - only one. Isarig 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See my above arguments to see why your argument is greatly more pro-Israel than moderate. Those figures (of Hezbollah casualties reported by the IDF) are there because that is what is known, not because it is any more accurate than Hezbollah's figures. We use the IDF's figures when describing their own casualties, why not do the same for Hezbollah? That is what this chart does. If you want a chart showing a more IDF-slanted stance, make one! ~ clearthought 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article anyway. We already have a summation of the casualties - it belongs in the subarticle Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Iorek85 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that no one substantially disputes Israel's numbers for its own casualties (I don't think that I've even seen a discrepancy of more than ten), while there is controversy regarding statements coming out of Hezbollah. Regardless of how one feels about Israel, it seems that certain information coming out of it, even with charges of military censorship, is more verifiable than the same information coming out of Hezbollah, which doesn't claim to be either democratic or open. Cheers, Tewfik 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tewfik, you are wrong. There have been numerous reports of the IDF reporting a couple of deaths to the public and then informing far more families of children that won't be coming home. There have also been questions raised in this discussion about including people treated for shock as wounded. A paper cut can cause shock, a long distance bill can cause shock, a girdle can cause shock, even a bad opera performance can cause shock. When we speak of wounded, most people understand that to mean something approaching "purple heart" worthy. Carbonate 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong(The first thing). Where did you get this information? Where are you from?

What does the Shock comment has to do with it? Also, It is clear that you have no idea what is a real shock. So Please check that out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.129.2 (talk • contribs)

Tawfik, as I have stated before, we can pretty much trust Hezbollah and the IDF the same, and since we use the numbers of military deaths of IDF troops from the IDF, it seems only logical to use the data from Hezbollah regarding their casualties, or at least some confirmed number. And, User:84.228.129.2, I hope this is the last time anyone has to tell you to please sign your comments; ~~~~. ~ clearthought 14:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, look at all the comments over a chart which I suggested someone create weeks ago with not a single response... Just to clarify, the chart is of deaths only, the data comes from the casualties page (that is linked just above and in the chart's upload info) and yes, it does use hezbollah's figures for their casualties. The numbers used were taken very close to the upload time (within a couple of hours) if you need to go back in that page's history. Isarig removed the chart saying it needed to be discussed but as I have already mentioned, no one seemed to care until the dirty deed was done. I don't think any amount of fiddling with the numbers (like including the 2000 people who suffered from shock as injured) will drastically change the proportions that become VERY obvious when put in chart form (which is why charts were invented). If the numbers are in question, I would be more than happy to change them (they are in a spreadsheet) but I would be inclined to favor self admited numbers over enemy kill claims for obvious reason of conflicted interest. Carbonate 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I must correct myself, it seems that Iorek did comment on the chart when I proposed it and it also seems it wasn't so long ago (it must be the very long list of changes and the archiving of the discussion that made it seem so). I belive that the chart should be in both places because they both feature lists of (often conflicting) numbers. I also believe that it is important to show what these numbers really mean in terms of human beings. These are lives that we are talking about, not the footy score. Carbonate 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please address the above issues, which you have ignored, regarding the inability of a chart to show more than one set of numbers. More importantly, your last statement " I also believe that it is important to show what these numbers really mean in terms of human beings." - is a clear and explicit violation of WP:POINT and WP:SOAP. If you want to "show what these numbers really mean" - write a letter to your local paper, start a blog , or make a sign and go demonstrate. Wp is not your soapbox. Isarig 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be extremely interested in seeing a questioning of the IDF's reporting of its own casualties in RS, but in the myriad articles which I've read since the beginning of the hostilities, and in general since I've begun to track the ME violence, that claim has been absent from the milieu of issues reported. In terms of shock, you won't get it from a phone bill, girdle, or anything else short of "actual or threatened death, serious physical injury, or a threat to physical and/or psychological integrity." And while I don't recall when you originally posted a discussion about this, it is certainly legitimate to register my protest once I've seen the manner in which it has come together. While the claim has been made that both sides' numbers are questioned, and I await a response on that issue (above), do you challenge that if one side's numbers were accepted by all and the other's were tied to controversy and potentially inflated, that it would not be fair to quote them as equally valid? Cheers, Tewfik 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what big harm the inclusion of this piechart causes. Indeed it helps the reader realize one of the most disturbing facts about this war and the one most reported on: the disproportionate killing of Lebanese civilians. Even using IDF's numbers about Hezbollah casualties we get that 66% of all those killed in this war were Lebanese civilians (the Israeli civilians killed amount to 2.5% of the total). And whose fault is this latest tragedy? Israel's and Hezbollah's of course, and also the international community's that wouldn't find a win-win solution during the last 40 years - but also the fault of all those who try to whitewash one side or the other. Shame on us all. Dianelos 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree with you; I mean, it is just a pie chart! Oh, and Isarig, Misplaced Pages is not your soapbox either, contrary to your notion that the POV and related rules seemingly do not reply to you. ~ clearthought 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The article makes it very clear that the majority of deaths were suffered by Lebanese civilians, but it makes note of when numbers are challenged. If we can find a way to incorporate that qualification in the chart, then we should definitely include it, as it is, as you say, a good visual aid. But we should be extremely concerned about the information that it includes, and make sure that it isn't used to just report one position. Again, if one set of numbers is unchallenged, and the other is disputed by a large margin, then the pie would not be neutral. Cheers, Tewfik 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said any of the numbers are undisputed? Both sides have claimed more kills than the other has admited to (can you name a battle where they didn't?) and both sides have been accused of shorting the casualties they took (although a notable exception was the agregiously inflated wounded figures for shock by the IDF). The chart I made presented each sides admissions of those killed and that is both fair and equitable. Have you noticed that the only complaint so far is in the supposed under reporting of Hezbollah's casualties? Do you understand why that is the complaint being made and not the exageration of Israeli or civilian casualties? I feel very sorry for those people who believe that a certain enemy tally can in some way justify the horrific damage done to a peaceful and democratic country. I have not yet seen anyone propose a new chart that fixes these so called POV problems but then again, it is usually much easier to critisize than to create. Carbonate 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have not seen evidence of the IDF numbers being disputed, while the Hezbollah numbers are disputed many times over. This has nothing to do with any justification, but with giving equal weight to the questioned numbers. Tewfik 04:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate, why not re-insert the piechart using the IDF supplied number about confirmed Hezbollah dead (440), with a short mention of this fact? (I think it's reasonable to trust IDF's numbers more than Hezbollah's.) In the future we shall probably have more reliable information about the number of casualties in the various groups and you can correct the piechart accordingly. Dianelos 06:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I just want to state for the record, I believe this article and this whole series of articles has come out really well, even if Tewfik at times does cut a little closer to the bone than would be in my own nature. But it's not the job of the encyclopaedist to spoonfeed the reader overarching theories. Kosmopolis gives the example, if I might over-paraphrase, that this could be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Iran. History may indeed look back at this conflict that way. But, however that may be so: a user with so much of an inkling of that idea today would have to follow the link to Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, find that the US supplied military aid to Israel from the TOC there, follow the link to Israel-US relations and it is all pretty well laid out. As someone who had an encylopedia at his fingertips for most of his youth, thumbing through three levels of see-also's is hardly a chore, and Misplaced Pages guarantees no paper cuts. Let the propagandists spoon feed people this outside our pages, and tell their disbelievers to look it up in their "Funk and Wagnalls" for verification, or rebuttal. If any of us want to shout from the roof tops that US citizens tax dollars are paying to kill and empoverish woman and children, that's an endeavour to be accomplished from a rooftop or soap-box somewheres else.

Nevertheless -- all that does need to be balanced with our duty to encourage readers to delve, which is why I prefer more meat on the bone. But it's a difficult balancing act, especially for current or recent events. All we have to write with is black letters on white screen, while all the world gives us are shades of gray. -- Kendrick7 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, I know it is all very serious, but try to keep a sense of humor. -- Kendrick7 04:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessment of the article, and especially your bit of advice in the end. I would like to reiterate that the recent source of controversy was my maintenance of a consensus "background" which had been stable for weeks, and which was originally hammered out by editors representing many POVs. While Misplaced Pages should obviously not be static, I don't feel that my actions there should be seen as advocating anything but the article's quality, and certainly not a POV. And while I'm generally not a deletionist, and I was among those who argued for the preservation of some key details when this article's size had forced others to move information en masse to sub articles, the type of detail that was added by Kosmopolis/80.135.***.*** did not seem to be the kind that should be preserved here, even if some may be relevant elsewhere. All of that said, I also welcome constructive criticism of my editing that you may offer. Happy editing, Tewfik 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stateing Israel's actions is not POV

Isarig, please explain why that is POV Carbonate 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraphs of the "start of the conflict" as I changed are below. The first does a very good job of enphasizing that Hezbollah started the conflict with a cross boarder raid. The second now does a good job of emphasizing that Israel escalated the conflict to civilians. This is balance, the second brings neutrality to the first.

At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the village of Zar'it, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three. Five others were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during a mission to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers. The UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies, including Al Jazeera, have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border".

The next day 13 July Israel escalated the conflict with air strikes on various targets thoughout Lebanon that killed 40 civilians and began what would become a fullscale blockade. In response to the attacks on civilian targets, Hezbollah began launching as many as 60 rockets in to cities in northern Israel which killed one woman in the city of Nahariya. As the conflict was drawn from military to civilian targets by Israel, the cycle of violence escalated and the civilian casualties on both sides began to mount.

Carbonate 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure you were well intentioned, the basic premise of your changes is not true - the initial Hezbollah action included the shelling of Israeli villages (non-military positions). Also, the additional details of the timeline, while relevant there, are not so helpful in the Lead, which is supposed to convey the basic ideas. Cheers, Tewfik 06:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And what are those basic ideas? As it reads now, the basic idea seems to be "Israel was justified in killing 1600 civilians". Carbonate 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming that somehow that was was even partially true, which I very much dispute, do you believe that including nonfactual information to make them look worse is then justified? Tewfik 13:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No Tewfik, the facts make them look bad enough. That is why you and Isarig want to keep the facts obscure and contained to biased sources like the IDF and Ohmert. Carbonate 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around baseless accusations. You added a nonfactual passage. I removed it. Tewfik 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about whether Hezbollah shot rockets into Israel while they were abducting the soldiers. Here is what WP's article now states:

At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the village of Zar'it, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three.

But this authoritative article published in Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's site gives a different account:

On July 12, 2006, Hizballah crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border in an ambush, killing three Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two wounded soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed after the army entered Lebanon in pursuit. The following morning (July 13), Hizballah fired a Katyusha rocket from Lebanon that landed on the main street in the Israeli resort city of Nahariya, killing one woman and injuring at least ten people.

If the JCPA report is correct then there are several errors in the current version of the article. Dianelos 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article never says that was the first incidence of rockets being fired, but it seems to merely point to the first fatality. In any event, the initial Hezbollah barrage was sourced before it was decided to remove sources from the introduction. The claim is sourced on the Military operations page, though it is now a deadlink. Perhaps the Talk archives contain the old references. Tewfik 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV editing

The following are examples of Tewfik's "contributions" over the period of three days:

Censorship:

• He deleted all references to Operation Accountability, which is basically the 1996 version of the current conflict (air strikes, Katyusha rockets, destruction of infrastructure, civilian casualties , 300,000 displaced). Is this relevant background information? Yes, I think so.
• He replaced "711,000 Palestinians fled, emigrated or were forced out of Israel" (as reported by the UN) with simply "Palestinians who fled the newly formed state". Why?
• He deleted references to the casus belli of Operation Litani - the Coastal Road massacre - and instead wrote that it was "in response to numerous attacks launched from southern Lebanon". The massacre had been three days earlier.
• He deleted the mentioning of 14,000 Lebanese and Palestinians civilian casualties of 1982, deleted the fact that Israel occupied Beirut, and instead claimed that it occupied southern Lebanon. Of course he deleted references to Sabra and Shatila. Is this relevant background information? The man who signs Hezbollah's paychecks has called Israel's former PM the "criminal of Sabra and Shatila", so yes, I think so.
• He deleted conclusions that Israel implemented the 425/426 resolutions 22 years after they had been approved. I think this is important, since it puts Israel blaming Lebanon regarding 1559 into perspective (argument has been used by Siniora, too).
• He deleted an Amnesty quote on "clear evidence of disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks" (on the part of IDF).
• He deleted an Amnesty quote on "findings that indicate that such destruction was deliberate and part of a military strategy, rather than 'collateral damage" (on the part of IDF). Gabi.S's irrational arguments only add to the damage here.
• He deleted a transcripted CNN quote about "a street where bombs had smashed nearly a quarter mile of area" and a quote indicating "virtually nothing left" by Anderson Cooper's entourage, and replaced it with allegations of Hezbollah's "misrepresentation of the nature of the destroyed areas".
• He deleted Nic Robertson's transcripted quote that "Hezbollah has a very, very sophisticated and slick media operations". According to WP, Robertson has been to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Northern Ireland, and both the Gulf War and the Iraq War.
• He deleted Nic Robertson's transcripted quote that "Hezbollah has very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut".
• He deleted Nic Robertson's quote that his guide "felt a great deal of anxiety about the situation" and that he was "very, very anxious" about his security officials telling him to leave the area. This totally spins Robertson saying that they "certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath".
• He deleted a transcripted CNN quote which said that IDF claims Hezbollah is "not trying to hit military positions" (emphasis on *claims*).
• He deleted the UNIFIL quote saying there have "also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft". Is UNIFIL supposed to be Nasrallah's press office?

False, inaccurate or unsourced information:

• He wrote about AP reporting that Hezbollah breached the ceasefire, quoting a source. In the source however, there is nothing of that sort mentioned.
• He repeatedly reintroduced Germany as a self-defense supporter (even after it was removed, because it was unsourced and it is wrong), but he just kept on reintroducing it, and did not bother to provide a source on my request. He told me to look it up in a Whitehouse transcript, where there was nothing of that sort.
• He added that Robertson (again the media controversy) "reiterated that he couldn't verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings", which is false.
• He added this gibberish to the article: "Several media commentators and journalists have alleged an intentional distortion of media reporting in favor of Hezbollah, mostly by misrepresenting the death and destruction in Lebanon caused by Israeli airstrikes". This is an accusation against the media, not Hezbollah. Tell me, is Adnan Hajj "the media"?
• He quoted the headline "IDF: Israeli soldiers kill 3 Hezbollah fighters" as "Israeli soldiers kill 3 Hezbollah fighters" without indicating who had provided the statement.
• He wrote that Hezbollah "has put considerable effort into fortifying the former security zone and establishing new firing positions", which he doesn't source and which is a suggestive platitude.
• He deleted citation needed tags without providing sources.

Selective quoting and disguising own findings as quotes:

• He wrote this about Hezbollah: ' with ball bearings, which "suggests a desire to maximize harm to civilians"'. The double quotes are his and suggest a citation, but the quote is not found in any of his sources.
• He wrote that Hezbollah's behaviour "may constitute a war crime" (which is in his article), but failed to mention that his source also mentions Israel's "failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians that may constitute war crimes".
• He failed to mention that the article said that Israel "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law".

Questionable behaviour:

• He instigates others to help him reverting disagreeable changes and is apparently keen to report editors for 3RR vio (in my case in a seemingly concerted effort with User:SlimVirgin).
• He marked edits as "shorten" or "organise", when in fact he was introducing original research, spinning citations by removing their context or deleting relevant information (see also here).

Repeated introduction of weasel words:

• He replaced "is seen by the Israeli government" by "is seen by many", failing to give a source.
• He wrote "several reports have alleged", when he cites exactly one.
• He ignored requests to stop weaseling and deleted efforts to introduce specific information, reverting passages to their weasely state.

Double standards:

• He deleted passages dealing with US aid to Israel in the military aid sub-article 12 times, arguing that the article should only deal with current aid in the current conflict. He does not object to listing every screw that Hezbollah has received from Teheran in 25 years.
• He characterized the presentation of simple statistics as "one-sided" and POV, when there were simply no numbers to be reported for "the other side". (Tewfik, it may surprise you that neither Lebanese civilians nor the Lebanese army were combatants in this conflict, so how can this be "one-sided"?)

These are largely edits from just three days, and Tewfik has an alarming 1,000+ edits on this article. Many of these issues also concerned my edits. I am not a saint, I make errors and welcome correction and directed critique, and I am by no means calling on you to "safeguard" my edits (and will not edit in the coming weeks, anyway), but I'd like to hear your opinion on these issues and what can be done about it, since I deem most parts of the article (and related ones) distorted, inaccurate and of sub-standard quality.

Thanks. Kosmopolis 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevant diffs:

That's a long list of some very serious allegations. I think you should put those on Tewfik's talk page, not here. --Planetary 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing this article almost as long as Tewfik has, and I've always found him to be unbiased, careful, and a massive help with this page. He has tirelessly toiled here, making, as you point out, over 1,000 edits on this page. Not to hide anti Israeli information, but to keep the article as balanced, NPOV, factually accurate as possible. As such, has come under a lot of criticism from random editors desperate to input their own POV about how bad Israel is or how bad Hezbollah is. He's been claimed to have pro Israeli bias, anti Israeli bias, and (in the case) both.

As for your specific claims - the first part just seems like he was shortening the article because the history section was enormous. Most of the relevent diffs you list (and thank you for not just making allegations with no evidence) are him shortening the pages, smething which dearly needs to be done. The removal of fact tags is fine - he explains that the reference is provided in the subarticle. This is a decision that was made some time ago to prevent the article getting too long. Much of these edits your claiming are his are just him defending information that has been added by other people (the germany thing and the Hezbollah ball bearings are ones that come to mind). The seen by many is because, IIRC, more than just Israel agreed (we're talking about something to do with the breaking of the ceasefire, right?) Then you accuse him of upholding the rules, because you were on the wrong side of them? Don't violate 3RR then. As for the rest, you may have a point, but they all seem to be small, separate issues that because of his high visibility, he was the one to contradict you on. Iorek85 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the "shortening", Tewfik did not just "shorten" the history section, he reverted any of my edits. Don't you think it would have been reasonable to include at least some of the information I mentioned as a background? As for the media controversy, you call removal of context "shortening"? As for the "Hezbollah ball bearings", if it isn't sourced, why does he defend it? If more than just Israel agreed on any matter, why isn't it said who agrees? On one occasion in the article, Tewfik enumerates "UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies", but then suddenly he's getting sloppy? Why is that? I did violate 3RR. User:SlimVirgin sprung out of nowhere to revert just exactly the section Tewfik and I were over at that exact moment. I removed my changes to another section and brought down the lead to its earlier size, and after that, Tewfik was happy to report me. And as for the rest, I have not heard anything convincing yet that would justify Tewfik's edits. These issues are neither small nor separate. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a very prolific contributor, but I too was surprised to see how in various occasions some relevant and well-referenced addition of mine was simply deleted by another editor. I think Tewfik is trying to keep the article manageable in size; on the other hand Tewfik does sometimes simply delete information that is clearly appropriate. Here is an example where he deleted a reference on Israel attacking civilian cars, even though the reference I chose came from a well-respected Israeli organization. I thought this information was highly relevant because Israel made much of the fact that it warned the civilian population about impending strikes, and the article even includes the (I think dubious) IDF sourced information that Hezbollah was preventing people from leaving their villages in order to maximize civilian deaths. I think that maybe wikipedia should have a policy against simply deleting well-referenced and clearly relevant pieces of information.

Now, this must be one of the most contentious articles in wikipedia. Considering all it's amazing it's coming out so well. The dynamics of give and take are rather interesting. For example after re-including the info about Israel attacking civilian cars, it stuck. Now there is even an entire side-article about this issue. So the process seems to be working - let's all keep a cool head and contribute with good measure.

I think that the idea of having a main article of manageable size, with pointers to many side-articles is sound and necessary. For example I think there should a short section in the main article with background information about this war, with a pointer to some other article with more in-depth information (I think Tewfik agrees with that too). The point is to have sufficient information in the main article so that the reader understands that this war is a flare-up of an older and complex conflict that actually precedes Hezbollah - without having to leave the main article. (Right now unfortunately such a section is entirely missing - with only a pointer to the Israel-Lebanon conflict article.) I also still think a section about the human and material costs of the war should be useful; as the article now stands the information is there but distributed all over the place. In think the typical reader would like to find this information in one place; after all the destruction caused by a war is one of the main facts about it. I find this is a general omission. I was reading the (I think excellent) article about the Six-Days war and there is no mention of civilian casualties. Dianelos 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't deal with the specifics of Kosmopolis' edit, mostly for practical reasons of size, though also because Iorek, which is certainly a neutral user, has dealt with the main issues. What I will say is that it is hard to see such a massive amount of research directed at uncovering my (perceived) misdoings from a user thrice blocked in the last week (all on this article), the most recent for evading the second block by editing as an IP, as a good faith act. Despite this, I recognise that Kosmopolis, in all his permutations, is still a new user, and may naturally be unfamiliar with certain aspects of Misplaced Pages, and so I welcome him to edit here or anywhere within the boundaries of policy. In general, if anyone takes issue with something which I've done, they should feel welcome to engage me in civil conversation.

As for the specific edit which Dianelos has mentioned, I did not delete either the claim or its source, but rather rephrased it in a more neutral manner (ie, we can't know that the campaign against infrastructure is the primary reason that civilians didn't evacuate). And yes, I'm not opposed to including a short background section, preferably something based on the previous consensus version (and thus bypassing much of the controversy of the last week, including that made reference to above). Cheers, Tewfik 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, User:Tewfik quickly goes about proposing a merge of Israel-Lebanon conflict into Arab-Israeli conflict. If that happens, I'd be surprised if he didn't declare the Arab-Israeli conflict article too long and started deleting information from it. For all I know User:Kosmopolis is a complete wingnut, but I've certainly had a vague feeling of being Mutt and Jeffed by Tewfik and User:Iorek85 while working on this article. Just a gut reaction; I continue to WP:Assume good faith. -- Kendrick7 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the good cop or the bad cop? :) Iorek85 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously, there's no subsection of the talk page railing against you. I fancy you are a Mossad agent, but perhaps just a lazy one? lol -- Kendrick7 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, my being blocked was exactly over the issues above and *nothing else*, so plase do not try to depict me as a bad-faithed user. Regardless, these are hard facts, so don't beat about the bush. Be specific instead and tell me how you legitimate your edits. And what you call "consensus version" is what I call a heavily streamlined fairy tale right out of a toddler's textbook, in no way suitable to give any reader the background necessary to understand this conflict. Which of the background sections I mentioned above (and which you deleted) do you deem unnecessary? Since you deleted all of them, I guess "all of them". Is this reasonable? No. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick7, thanks for the wingnut compliment. That's a first-timer. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way Kendrick7, but I explained exactly why I wanted to merge, which had nothing to do with space. And for the record, I did not advocate a total removal of background information from this article. Tewfik 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't see your reasons for the merge on the Arab-Israeli conflict discussion page, which is where the merge link points to. It's pointless for me to argue against a merge if you don't a least make an argument. -- Kendrick7 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that the tag points there, but my reasons were the only text on the Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I shoulda looked there. Someone already blew away your tag. But if you want a do-over, we can go about doing it right. I'll just say from the get-go that Category:Israel-Lebanon conflict has nearly 150 articles, and I see no reason there shouldn't be a main overview, even if it needs work -- Kendrick7 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you put the tag back, but still aren't making an argument in the right place, so I removed it. -- Kendrick7 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually never replaced the tag (nor did I touch the page since my sole placement of the tag). All I did was reply to the reply to my original comment. I'm not sure where you would like to hold the discussion, but let me know and I'll meet you there. Tewfik 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I restored your tag, and moved the extant convo to the bottom of Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict -- Kendrick7 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a fairly easy way to put this issue to rest. Can anyone provide editorial errors made by Tewfik that favor Hezbollah or Lebanon? If these are in fact just a few errors within a quantity of content, one would expect to see them on both sides of the issue. If however errors are only occuring on one side, then there is likely a serious problem. Carbonate 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that I've made a problematic edit, you are welcome to supply the diff and engage me in discussion, but I otherwise stand by every edit that I've made. Tewfik 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, diffs have already been presented to you and comments made about them. I would like to hear your responses to those please. You have many to address before asking more of me. Carbonate 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely if this information is verifiable and NPOV, then it should be included in the article. There is no need to exclude useful information from the article on the basis of 'shortening it' - after all, WP:NOT paper. Cynical 09:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting specific answers concerning the points I made. All I heard was a justification of the deletion of (what I think is relevant) information for size matters. What about the UNIFIL quote, what about the alleged AP report, what about the cherry-picking, what about "several reports", what about US aid to Israel, what about the IDF headline, what about Hezbollah having "put considerable effort into fortifying the former security zone and establishing new firing positions" etc. etc.? The argumentation so far has been astonishingly sloppy. Thanks. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his edit history, and you'll see a lot of these shortenings. As I don't want to conclude anything, I think this situation deserves attention from administrators. He ignores above diffs and discussions and says: "If you believe that I've made a problematic edit, you are welcome to supply the diff and engage me in discussion, but I otherwise stand by every edit that I've made".--Hossein.ir 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside; Those claiming articles can be as long as they want obviously haven't read WP:SIZE. Iorek85 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Size may matter, but if content is to be trimmed it should be done so even handedly. As a specific allegation states He (Tewfik) replaced "is seen by the Israeli government" by "is seen by many", failing to give a source. Is this how the size is being cut down? To change the specific to the general is bad enough but to also use weasle words and fail to provide sources to justify generalisation is most certianly unacceptable. Please explain this Tewfik. Carbonate 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The content is absolutely trimmed even handedly. I did revert almost all the additions to that section that Kosmopolis/80.135.***.*** made, as they often required even more additions in order to be totally neutral, and were mostly more detail than was necessary for the article anyways. The version that existed beforehand was not authored by me, but emerged and stabilised after intensive editing from all sides at the peak of this article's popularity. And when I did so, I noted that if there was a specific point that was lacking, then that should be noted and added. To Kosmopolis' request that I answer for 23 edits, I say that with all due respect, that is unreasonable. I have limited resources of time and energy, and I don't see any compelling reason for expending them on explaining edits that another, neutral user has largely defended. Especially in this case, in which while I was careful to specifically not depict them as a bad-faith user, they did violate 3rr, use their IP to bypass their block, and then use their user name to bypass the 2nd block on their IP, resulting in a 3rd block, and a total of 49 blocked hours in less than a week, something that is extremely pertinent to this continuing discussion.

In terms of Carbonate's last point, I already noted several times that the source was already included in the article (ie the US and UK if I recall - those that coauthored the resolution and made their position quite clear). Good day, Tewfik 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who requests clarification, so please be cooperative and do not ignore these requests. You have not clarified a single one of the above points, yet. Please realize that the more unspecific and evasive answers you give, the more unbelievable your behaviour gets. Hiding behind Iorek85's indiscriminative and generalizing defense is totally inadequate. Regarding the background section, the edits were a description of events that led to the conflict, as seen by Switzerland's most reputable newspaper, so which part do you regard as "more detail than necessary"? Since you keep track of the hours I was blocked last week, let me remind you (again) that this is irrelevant given the specificity and factual nature of the issues that were brought up. Thanks. Kosmopolis 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly will assume good faith about your intentions, your blocks and block-bypasses in just the last few days will colour your actions and interactions until it becomes apparent that those were anomalies, and not your normal behaviour, especially since they revolve around this specific issue. That said, I have no problem explaining a specific edit I made, but writing a detailed response to every one of the 23 edits you listed, especially when established, impartial users do not take issues with them, is both unproductive, unreasonable, and something to which I cannot dedicate my limited time. However, I harbour no animosity towards you, and I look forward to when we can edit together as colleagues. Please consider my words, Tewfik 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may opine about this edit war (or is it edit conflict?) I would agree with Tewfik that multiple reverts in one day is not helpful editing - we should all respect the WP:3RR rule. I understand that a recent war is an emotionally charged subject, and precisely for this reason it's best to keep a cool head. We know that the Misplaced Pages process of editing articles works; with time this article too will be cleaned of its biases and propaganda bits, and it will be enriched with all relevant information it now misses. On the other hand I would agree with Kosmopolis that simply deleting another editor's contribution when it is relevant and well referenced (and especially when it is short) is not helpful editing either - in fact it can be quite annoying when it is perceived as being systematic behavior. I think it would show good manners if an editor before deleting relevant and well referenced information would announce their intention to do so in the article's talk page giving the original contributor and other editors a few days time to argue the point.

Now, I lament the amount of energy editors spend in this article’s talk page. Why not invest this energy on the article itself? For example I feel we all agree that a background section should exist in this article, after all to understand the reasons why a war started is necessary for understanding the war itself. I think we also agree that this section shouldn't be too long (how about less than 250 words?). As this issue is both important and complex I think it's a good idea to prepare a new article about it (with much of Kosmolopis’ work) and link it from the short section.Dianelos 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing the background section. I reverted Kosmopolis' edits to the consensus version as he added details that were not directly relevant to this event (as noted by myself and other users who also reverted him during that time), and which compromised the neutrality of the section. I would be happy to restore that consensus version, and at the time of my reversion, I invited Kosmopolis (and anyone else) to specify if there was a specific lacking with the section. That said, avoiding edit wars and building consensus are extremely important, but they are a two way street. It would not make sense to allow any and every edit to stand until proven guilty, which would merely paralyse any attempts to maintain neutrality. If someone makes a controversial addition, they can expect increased scrutiny. And while this obviously shouldn't be used as a weapon to bring the article to a standstill, the burden of justification mostly lies with them. Cheers, Tewfik 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dianelos, I was the one who cut out Kosmolopis's work in its entirety, and I have turned it into the Israel-Lebanon conflict article, and I told him as much on his talk page. His version was entirely too long, but at the same time I decided after Tewfik's edits too much was getting thrown in the bit bucket. With that article as a basis, and with the wayback machine's pre-Kosmolopis version (?) as a guide, I imagine I, or any willing volunteer, could now distill a fairly good background section for this article. Consider it a strategic retreat, if you will. -- Kendrick7 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The section was too long even before Kosmo got there (even well before), I realize, now that I'm going through the history to link-out the above post. Part of the problem was there were many facts in there which people, myself included, thought belonged somewhere, but there wasn't an article for them, especially for events between the end of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 2000, and the Zar'it-Shtula incident. (I felt especially strongly that Lebanon arresting an Israeli spy ring, the head of which confessed to assassinating various Hezbollah leaders, just a few week before this conflict began explained a lot about the timing of this conflict; I also felt that the fact that the last cease-fire only lasted six weeks put this part of the conflict in scope.) But, in the words of Lt. Colonel Kilgore, "Some day... this war's gonna end" -- Kendrick7 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checking from time to time. Still don't have neither the time nor drive to edit. But I see that it gets even worse! Now, look at this wonderful new passage, spun around by an anonymous editor from Haifa, Israel (User:132.68.1.29):

Israel has given UNIFIL maps specifying the areas in southern lebanon on which cluster bombs were used in order to minimize future casualties.

This contains pretty much everything that is wrong with the article as a whole. The source says that Amnesty "on Aug. 31 demanded that Israel provide maps", also that Annan and Egeland are outraged, and that the maps dealt only with UNIFIL sites. It also mentions "grave violation of international humanitarian law" (which had been deleted earlier by our oh-so-well-meaning friend Tewfik). Yet, everything we see is that Israel has given out maps. 132.68.1.29 has added "in order to minimize future casualties". Yeah, right. Sweet selfless angels of mercy. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is a bunch of inhumane crackheads, but of course it has been taken care of that this is documented to the fullest in the article.

So, the article continues to be a pile of dishonest crap. It might be worth considering that the Israeli Army doesn't give a s**t about non-Israeli civilians, and neither do worthless racists who are editing this article to conceal the disgusting crimes against humanity that are committed in their name by their own evil government. Until next time. Kosmopolis 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You loose all credibility when you start spouting off the way you do with this post. If you are trying to remove POV from the article then you won't accomplish it by spouting such vitriolic POV in posts such as this. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to remove POV, I am merely trying to reinforce the proper citation of reliable sources. You may also note that it is not *my* POV that the IDF is ignoring loss of civilian life. Rather, this is the POV of multiple human rights organisations and the UN. Kosmopolis 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..Tewfik is too Israel-sided. Stop the POVs! Nielswik 10:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific edit I made, I would be glad to hear about it, but I hope that any criticism is founded on more than just the above text, which at least appears to be far from a dispassionate or fair discussion. Additionally, I've suffered this uncivil section title long enough, and I am changing the section heading per Talk page guidelines from Tewfik's Ministry of Truth; these types of edits do not lead to productive discussion. Tewfik 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Tewfik failed to cooperate and still refuses to explain his edits, I cleared up most of the issues myself. Kosmopolis 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to the instability of being a current event. Might I also suggest turning the bulleted list into prose? --Tarret 00:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly surprised. It's not even close to GA quality yet. Iorek85 00:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Special:Mostrevisions

--Greasysteve13 03:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it made 5th a couple of days ago. Crazy. Iorek85 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Debatus.com External Link or Not?

I was notified that I could not created an "external link" to the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict debates on This seems to be because I founded Debatus, and there was concern that I was self-advertising, which I can't defend against. Nevertheless, I believe strongly that this "external link" should be made by a 3rd party, not affiliated with the Debatus team, because the content and structure is very valuable to rationalizing the debate. I should add that the idea of Debatus is basically an extension of the Misplaced Pages concept over to the refinement of debate and argumentation. I would think, then, that Misplaced Pages would desire an "external link" to such a resource. Perhaps, a concensus could form on this issue in this discussion page with people varifying the legitimacy of Debatus, and someone could then decide to make the external link. Thank you. Debatus.com inspirator 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Background

Kudos to Kendrick7 on the concise and neutral background. My only issue with it was that the instability which caused the Lebanese Civil War was directly caused by the influx of Palestinians, including the PLO, into Lebanon after their expulsion from Jordan. While the founding of Israel can of course be looked at as an indirect cause, so can lots of things, and I believe this more accurately portrays what happened. Again, this was only a small part - the passage was otherwise a very good work (I also restored the categories and clarified the nature of targets hit by Hezbollah). Cheers, Tewfik 07:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've restored mention of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War to the background, and while it is certainly neutral, I still question the assertion's accuracy. While there may have been some movement of Palestinian Arabs to Lebanon in the war's wake, the instability leading to Lebanese Civil War (as is stated in that article) was primarily internally based before the post Black September events, which is when Palestinian involvement came into play. Please let me know what you think. Tewfik 15:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The information I've gathered from the other artcles suggests 711,000 Palestinians fled Lebanon in 1948. By 1967, 19 years later, they had 700,000 descendants in Jordan. So I would guess maybe 200,000 came to Lebanon in 1948? I don't how many came in after the Six Day War, but 110,000 fled Jordan after the failed coup, again, according to loosely ref'd subarticles to the main background article. I wouldn't mind having more precise data, but for political reasons, Lebanon hasn't conducted a census since 1932. -- Kendrick7 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholics and Maronites

Although most christians in Lebanon are probably not Maronites today, they were certainly the majority of christians when lebanon became independent. I think people might be confused due to the fact that today the Maronite church is in full communion with the Catholic church, so they are technically unified. However, to actually refer to Maronites as Catholic really is misleading since they actually have entirely different histories. In fact, the Maronite church is more similar to the eastern rite churches than to the Catholic church.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is the definition of Maronite according to the Encarta Dictionary 2006: belonging or relating to the Christian Uniat Church of Lebanon, an Eastern Catholic church. Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Maronites are indeed Catholics.

I believe I clarified this for Moshe, but for the record: the archdiocese of Boston is in full communion with the Catholic Church too, but I wouldn't say they are technically Catholic. It's true 98% of Catholics are belong to the Latin Rite particular Church, and the other 2% fall into one of the 22 Eastern Rite particular Churches. So, out of a billion members, that's 20 million Catholics being made technicalites. The long history of French intervention in Lebanon can largely be explained by this shared religion, despite the liturgical differences. -- Kendrick7 22:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cluster Bombs

Although Haaretz reported that soldiers in the IDF have explicitely said that cluster bombs and phosphorus shells have been used in Lebanon and that these shells are "widely forbidden" according to the international law, someone, I hope it is not Tewfik, is not happy with this fact. I have re-edited that part to refelect what was really reported in Haaretz. To say that some phosphorus shells are not excplicitely forbidden by intenational laws is funny. I'm not sure if there are some phosphorus shells that are Kosher and some that are not.

Marwan123 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Marwan123

It was me, Marwan. While the Haaretz article does say "widely forbidden," we've had many more detailed discussions on this specific point in the past (and I realise that this sounds exclusionary - you could check the archives if you like), but the results of those discussions are more or less preserved in the Targeting of civilian areas. The relevant points are that international law only prohibits them in very specific situations (ie, antipersonnel, as opposed to tracers, marker bombs etc.), and that neither Israel nor Lebanon are party to even these limited prohibitions. Thus saying that they are not explicitly forbidden would seem to more accurately represent the reality of what is a very complex situation. Let me know what you think, Tewfik 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Exodus in background

I've been going back and forth with User:Tewfik on this for a while, and we've come a long way towards a compromise. I believe, however, that the Palestinian exodus should be mentioned in the background because it did contribute the the demographic shift in Lebanon, and it explains one of the main reasons why the Palestinian refugees would be calling for Israel's destruction. The background as it currently stands makes it sound like the Palestians are refugees from Jordan, and not Israel, and is therefore completely misleading for a reader unfamiliar with the history of the region. Tewfik seems fixated on the idea that the PLO arriving in Lebanon was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War but I can't figure out where he gets that idea from the civil war article. -- Kendrick7 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue that the PLO's arrival was the cause of the Lebanese Civil War, as there were demographic tensions in Lebanon from its founding, predating the arrival of any Palestinians. What I do contend is that to the extent that the Palestinian presence in Lebanon was one of several factors, it only became such after the arrival of those expelled from Jordan in the Black September, including many PLO. These points are also made in the Misplaced Pages articles on the Civil War and Black September, which make almost no mention of the 1948 refugees (I say "almost" because though I did not find any reference, I may have missed a minor point). Again, while I don't dispute that the '48 refugees may have played some role, quoting them in the first line attributes a direct role not asserted elsewhere, and can generally open the door to quoting every indirectly relevant event. Cheers, Tewfik 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would concede, but you have left me with a gloss that is inaccurate. But this can be remedied by cutting the background back from '48 to a farther year in the past since then. -- Kendrick7 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow - what is innacurate? In terms of the argument, are you saying that the '48 refugees are as directly effective of the Civil War as the Black September ones? Cheers, Tewfik 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A note to Kosmopolis: please don't refer to edits you disagree with as censorship. There is a well-reasoned discussion on the inclusion of those specific details right here, and cool input would be much more effective at getting across your position. Tewfik 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of the discussion here. All I saw was Gabi S.'s edit comment "Removed nonsense" (which, in itself, is nonsense), so I restored the passage. Regarding the issue, I also support including the reference to the exodus article. The Palestinians were already refugees by the time they arrived in Jordan, so we should not arbitrarily break the chain of causality. Kosmopolis 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So we would then include relevant history ad infinitum - none of the articles attribute the instability to '48 refugees, but rather to the Black September events. The Black September events wouldn't have happened without the '48 events, but that goes for many other issues as well. Tewfik 02:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Katyusha?

Is there a source beyond the Israeli paper Haaretz that claims Hezbollah used this particular type of rocket? This would have been a violation of the Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, and therefore is Israel's justification for war; thus it should be better sourced. I'm asking the same question on the sub-article. -- Kendrick7 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. For starters, Israel's justification for the war does not rely on having Katyushas fired on civilian targets - when you conduct a cross border raid, kill and kidnap soldiers, you've initiated an armed attack, and Israel can respond with force according to article 51 of the UN charter. Second, it is far from clear that the Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding were still in effect, after Israel's 2000 withdrawl from Lebanon. Third, nothing in those agreements said anything specific about Katyushas. Fourth, Haaretz is a relaible source, and is used to source many other claims in the article, as it should be. And finally, to your question, yes, multiple sources other than Haaretz reported that Hezbollah fired katyushas on Israeli civilian targets that day, including this one

1st: OK, I shouldn't have said justification for war; as Israel and Lebanon have been in a state of war since 1948, I should have said, merely, as a breach of the standing ceasefire.

2nd: There's nothing in the ceasefire regarding the occupation.

3rd: According to the text, which is in full at Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, it certainly mentioned Katyushas, in the very first article:

1. Armed groups in Lebanon will not carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel.

4th: While Haaretz is a reliable source, I would certaintly take what they have to say in this matter cum grano salis, and I think editors would be fools not to. -- Kendrick7 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

5th: (sorry) I meant comtempory sources, not sources a week after the fact which could have been just quoting Haaretz -- Kendrick7 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1st: A breach of the standing ceasfire would have been a cross border raid.

2nd: The Understandings were an informal framework while Israel occupied Lebanon. As I wrote, it is not clear that they were in effect post July 2000. You're welocme to your POV that they were, but it is not a fact, by any means.

3rd: Do read the the very first article until its end: "or by any kind of weapon".

4th: That's a unique take on WP:RS, not used anywhere else in WP. You're welcome to your personal POV about Ha'aretz, but as far as WP is concerned, it is a reliable source, and we can source things to it, even if it is an exclusive source.

5th, as I said yes. Go and search them out using Google. It was universally described by nearly all media sources at the time. Isarig 05:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1st: that's an opinion

2nd: ditto

3rd: what's your point?

4th: Taking a grain of salt when trusting a country's media after that country has been invaded is unique? Well, if that is that case, I'll have to take it up with the higher authorities. Thinking a source is automatically reliable under all circumstances would be a severe deficiency in this site's policy.

5th: no, i won't. name one. -- Kendrick7 07:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1- No, that's internatioanl law.

2 - yes, that's an opinion. you have a differnt one, and you're welcome to it. but stating your POV as fact and requesting evidence to support something based on that POV is not going to get you far.

3 - my point it that when you asked "Is there a source beyond the Israeli paper Haaretz that claims Hezbollah used this particular type of rocket?" you were asking a pointless question, as it does not matter which rocket, or even which weapon was used.

4 - By all means do. Please think it through before you do so. Are you suggesting no Amercian media can be used to source claims about 9/11? No Amercian, British or Australian ones be used for the Iraq war? That's going to leave pretty slim pickins for the English WP.

5 - Don't expect others to do your homework. If you won't look it up, it'll be just Haa'retz Isarig 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, please provide some comments

Diff 1

Your edit comment says "the reference is right there", can you please show me the passage where Germany "asserts Israel's right to self-defense"?

• The reference's citation of Angela Merkel's stress on the fact that Hezbollah started everything is certainly clear enough, but to remove any ambiguity, I have supplied a Foreign Ministry statement which spells out the phrase. Anyways, there were other statements in the sub articles. Tewfik 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. After weeks of dodging the question, you finally came up with a solid reference. This is the first time in weeks I fully support one of your edits. Btw, the Merkel quote does not imply self-defense *at all*, as there are other ways to achieve goals than "an eye for an eye". Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff 2

Why do you keep deleting Nic Robertson saying that Hezbollah had "very, very good control" over its areas in the south of Beirut and a "sophisticated and slick media operations" and that his guide was "very, very anxious" about a presumably life-threatening situation?

• They were substituting the part where he stresses his doubts about the nature of the site for numerous quotations which are already paraphrased. Tewfik 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Substituting? What does the nature of the sites have to do with "good control over the areas", "sophisticated media operations" and anxiety about a situtation? Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff 3

Please show me your "several reports" that suggest that. All that you come up with is an article by the National Post, which is a *single* report, not *several*.

Diff 4

Please show me your "several media commentators and journalists". And they better be reliable and reputable. Again, your accusations are against "the media". Is Adnan Hajj "the media"?

• Isarig has answered these two in part - I requested that you look at the sourcing which is quite clearly present in the sub articles. Tewfik 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Referring to the National Post issue: I am not talking about Human shield tactics. Human shield tactics is one thing, deliberately maximizing civilian casualties is an entirely different issue. While there are several reports that elaborate on the Human shield tactics (including, obviously the UN itself), not one (not even the National Post) claims that Hezbollah "drew Israeli fire on residential areas in an attempt to maximize civilian casualties and garner more sympathy". Did you fabricate that sentence? I will correct that. Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am awaiting your comments on these diffs. Thanks. Kosmopolis 09:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Diff 4, take a look at the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies article, refernced in that section. It has multiple sources, from the Jerusalem post through Fox News to The Australian. Isarig 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments are above. Tewfik 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference severe and harsh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Clashes Spread to Lebanon as Hezbollah Raids Israel". The New York Times. 2006-07-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Lebanon divided over Hezbollah raid". Al Jazeera. 2006-07-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. "Hezbollah kidnaps two Israeli soldiers". Yahoo! News. 12 July 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A67F0AD3-7964-41BC-98A9-CA752CA5B89F.htm

• Start-Class military history articles
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics