Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 28 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
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive29#Discussion about the name of the article
• Rename to war

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)
11. Oppose, since this convention does not reflect namefinding elsewhere, e.g. this conflict is named "July War" in Lebanon or "Lebanonwar II" in Israel. --213.155.224.232 20:14, 25 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)
16. Support Israel fought other militias operating inside of Lebanon besides Hezbollah. Geedubber 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --Peephole 20:58, 26 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)
17. Support conflict between Israeli forces and Hezbollah forces. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 12:49, 24 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)
15. Support "known in Lebanon as the July War and in Israel as the Second Lebanon War" If both sides call it a war then why shouldn't wikipedia? Geedubber 22:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I read somewhere a definition that 1000+ casulaties is one criteria for a war. (sorry source not available) --213.155.224.232 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support--Peephole 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support--THE voting system is too complicated for me. My vote is for war, but I can't figure out how to cast it. The conflict thing is pxxing me off b/c when I make an edit then I see conflict at the top of the screen, it looks like an edit conflict. Everybody else calls it a war, why does somebody here trying to make it different? Have a coold drink today! Will314159 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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, Media Controversy, Pie chart, Edit Wars, Failed GA, Special:Mostrevisions, Debatus.com External Link or Not?, Background, Catholics and Maronites, Cluster Bombs

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)

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)

Browsing WP I found the following references about what happened the 12th and 13th of july: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, and Haaretz. Only BBC and Haaretz mention Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel on Wednesday July 12, the day they captured the two Israeli soldiers. Wahington Post and the Jerusalem Center mention Hezbollah firing rockets until Thursday July 13. The Washington Post article is quite detailed and states that Israel started bombing Lebanon the early hours of July 13 before Hezbollah started its rocket campaign that same morning. The New York Times article is not as explicit but mentions Israel’s bombing of Lebanon first. (You need to have an account to read this article, so here is the relevant passage: “The Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah surprised Israel with a bold daylight assault across the border on Wednesday, leading to fighting in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and at least eight killed, and elevating recent tensions into a serious two-front battle. Early on Thursday morning, Israeli warplanes fired missiles at the runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, shutting the airport and potentially stranding thousands of visitors at the peak of tourist season. Israeli warplanes also hit numerous locations in southern Lebanon, adding to the civilian death toll. The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying that the airport was a target because Hezbollah receives weapons shipments there. The Israeli government also confirmed that Hezbollah fired several Katyusha rockets into northern Israel, injuring three people.”)

So, at best it is not clear that Hezbollah did fire rockets on July 12. Until the fog of war settles we should either remove this item from the WP article or else mention that according to some sources Israel started bombing before Hezbollah did. Dianelos 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the New York Times article. It does state that according to the Israeli military Hezbollah did fire rockets as a diversion on july 12. I don't know how unbiased the Israeli military should be considered. I wonder if there is any other independent confirmation of these alleged rocket attacks - I could not find any. Dianelos 08:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this article which states: "There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion." So there's the independent source I suppose. Dianelos 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this report by Unifil settles the issue: "New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more." Dianelos 11:37, 22 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)

I added the NPOV tag under the "Background" section because I feel like it weak and stupid at best, but evil at worst. The background makes no reference to Hezbollah's violent history since its inception in 1985 nor does it mention the failed Syrian peace talks that, in part, led to Israel's unilateral withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000. As it is written now, it looks like Hezbollah "forced ... an Israeli withdrawal in 2000" reveals a very superficial, simplistic understanding of a multifaceted process and decision. --GHcool 05:02, 25 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)

Editing 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? (italicised text added after Tewfik's response)

• 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)

I respectfully ask that you keep this communication civil, and not refer to my editing as one of my 'usual revert orgies', for example. For that matter, I don't appreciate your claiming that I've been dodging any questions - I invited you to question any specific edit of mine, but I refused to be put on trial. This will be far more productive if we keep open minds, cool heads, and assume good faith on the other side. I should also point out that if you edit a previous statement, you should somehow make note so that all comments can be understood in the proper context (which I took the liberty of clarifying, though you can use a different method if you like).

In terms of your questions, I'm not sure what you feel noting how nervous Nic Robertson's minder was adds, and why it cannot be paraphrased, but I'm completely puzzled as to why its addition should come with a deletion of his suspicions about whether what he was seeing was real (ie civilian vs Hezbollah targets), which is the reason that the passage is significant to begin with. I also don't understand what issue you are taking with the "human shields" summary, as 'deliberately maximizing civilian casualties' is exactly what is implied by the allegation. Tewfik 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your excuse for not having clarified the edits I brought up constantly changes. Your latest claim is that I've put you "on trial", but you tell me to assume good faith? Think about the following passage in WP:AAGF and consider reducing your excessive referral to WP policies in the future: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." Thanks. Regarding the article, Robertson's assurance that Hezbollah facilities were hit *is* and *was* included in the article, but you deleted and "paraphrased" far more than just that. And you equal "human shield tactics" to "deliberately maximizing civilian casualties"? Please see Human shield and note that the implication of a "desire to maximize casualties" or "garner sympathy" is your own POV. Keep it out of the article. Btw, these tactics lead to higher civilian casualties only if the enemy will open fire anyway. Exactly this accusation has been brought forward by the UN and several human rights organizations against the IDF, but you repeatedly streamlined these passages to your personal liking. Kosmopolis 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I too feel that the "human shield" expression is inappropriate even though it's often used by Israeli propaganda. To hide between the civilian population is a time-honored practice in asymmetrical warfare and was used by the Minutemen in the American Revolution, by the French Resistance in WWII, and by the Vietcong. I guess Jewish underground groups used the same tactic pre-1948. I also agree that "desire to maximize casualties" doesn't sound right as it is well documented that Hezbollah, as all successful guerrilla movements, is very good at gaining the civilian population's support. BTW, there is also a bit in the article that mentions Hezbollah preventing civilians from leaving the war zone that does not sound factual either and neither is a major POV. This article certainly needs some cleaning up. Dianelos 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosmopolis, when you refer to my edits as 'usual revert orgies', then at minimum I should remind you to assume good faith so that we can progress on the article. If you keep your comments civil and don't say things that suggest you think others are acting out of some sort of malicious intent, then no one will accuse you of thinking that. I've explained my rationale for not answering your original post of 23 diffs, and when you presented individual edits, I've been glad to discuss them. Unfortunately, you seem to have reverted several of the points without even acknowledging my responses:

Comment: You ignored multiple requests by several editors to explain your edits. A lot of these could have been treated en bloc. In the meantime, you made well over 23 other edits, but still refused to cooperate, varying your excuse from time to time. While I accused you of your usual revert orgies, you accused me of putting you on trial. Now, we can either continue throwing mud at each other or comment on edits. Like I tried to show you, I prefer to stay on topic. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not continuing with this part of the discussion: Iorek85, an extremely neutral editor, had given a very good response to your request, and I have also replied to you numerous times explaining why I needn't "cooperate" with that request (I have no 'excuses' as I made clear that I don't believe the request to be legitimate), even though I have responded to your later questions. I'm glad that you are committed to staying on topic, but if you make a statement suggesting an assumption of bad faith, there is no reason for you to cite WP:AAGF in response to a request for WP:AGF. Tewfik 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment: As I said, hiding behind Iorek85's indiscriminative and generalizing defense is inadequate. But at least we have a definite (and hopefully final) statement from you now (besides missing time, reasons of size, being put on trial etc.): You deemed the requests not to be legitimate. If you ignore my requests for clarification based on that premise, fine. But if you ignore that other people also demanded clarification following my initial post, then there is definitely something wrong with your attitude. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Please stop trying to manipulate my words. As I explained from the very beginning, your request was unreasonable. I am not having this discussion again. Tewfik 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I can only repeat myself: if you ignore that other people also demanded clarification following my initial post, then there is definitely something wrong with your attitude. And you're pretty good at contradicting yourself, so I don't even need to try manipulating your words. I also see that you prefer to take the easy way, now, and just use MPerel's batch revert instead of going through each passage one by one. What a wonderful coincidence that yours and MPerel's POVs are so perfectly in unison, maybe you would like to help him out? Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • I refer you to my above statement, Tewfik 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• You insist on adding the lines 'had "very, very good control" over its areas in the south of Beirut and a "sophisticated and slick media operations" and that it' and 'He stressed that his guide was "very, very anxious" about the situation,' while removing the line 'he reiterated that he couldn't verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings.' While I don't see a problem from a content perspective in adding those quotes, I'm not sure what they add, since instead of perhaps contradicting some position, they merely repeat in unnecessary detail what the passage and the section are already stressing - that Hezbollah was good at PR. This is why I don't understand your deleting the reporter's reservations about Hezbollah's story at the same time as adding all those unnecessary quotes.

Comment: Those "unnecessary quotes" are important in understanding the nature of the tour. The Hebzollah guide was not the only factor that prevented Robertson from going through the rubble. I added your paraphrasing in an effort to end the edit-war. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • You did not 'add my paraphrasing,' but instead removed his qualification of the "civilian properties" line. And it is still not clear why the "good control" and the "slick" quotes need be stated separately, when such a noncontroversial point can be simply paraphrased. Tewfik 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment:I *did* add your paraphrasing in an effort to end the edit-war. Take a look at the latest revision. And if the quotes were so "noncontroversial", why did you so eagerly remove them over and over again instead of even trying to paraphrase them? Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • My comments clearly state my objections: they repeat unnecessary detail - aside from being bad stylistically and lengthwise, they also reduce the clarity. At most, the line about anxiety should be there, but only that. Tewfik 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I can only repeat myself: Those "unnecessary quotes" are important in understanding the nature of the tour. The Hebzollah guide was not the only factor that prevented Robertson from going through the rubble. Your "length" excuse is pretty weak. As for style, perhaps you're right, but that's why it's called collaborative *editing*. What is it about the editing part that you don't get? FYI, I rephrased disputed passages and introduced your phrases to try to bring disputes to an end, but I still see nothing else than indistinctive batch reversal on your part. Shall I dig out some diffs, again? Maybe the background section, to begin with? Or some of the 23+ other edits? Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • The anxiety due to imminent airstrikes is legitimate, as I said above. Just rephrasing out of a quote to maintain the reiterations of how in control Hezbollah is, while again removing the reporter's own reiteration of his discomfort with accepting the Hezbollah line, and minimising the general point that Hezbollah's control might have influenced the reporting (which is the point of the section), is not fair though. Giving more room to one position than another influences the passage's POV. Tewfik 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• You continue to limit attribution of this claim to National Post. I again (for the third time) refer you to the subarticle - particularly relevant is Jan Egeland's comment.

Comment: And I told you countless times to keep your POV out of the article. Egeland's comment does *not* say that Hezbollah was trying to "maximize civilian casualties". Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I'll concede that the motivation (an attempt to maximize civilian casualties) is only implied and not explicitly stated in those sources (and this NYT too), but this Times article says it outright. Anyways, that wouldn't justify removing the mention of the allegations themselves (several reports have alleged that Hezbollah fired rockets from residential areas to draw Israeli fire on those areas). Tewfik 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment:So you "concede" that this is your own POV claim, but you still keep inserting it? Very truthful indeed. Neither the NYT nor the Times article contain the claims you attribute to them. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • You are reading extremely selectively - I conceded that the original sourcing that I pointed you to only implied, and then I supplied a sourcing that said it explicitly. You then say that my sourcing doesn't say what I claim - so then how can you claim to even mistakenly think that I 'conceded and still inserted POV.' You really must cool down. The passage I was referring to is: Using the civilian population as cover is an integral aspect of asymmetrical warfare, and it follows that innocent civilians will die in large numbers in air attacks. The attacker, in this case Israel, subsequently loses the all-important international public relations battle. Tewfik 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Too bad that you still haven't brought up a quote saying that Hezbollah is "deliberately trying to maximize civilian casualties". FYI, I am not the only one who thinks your interpretation is fishy. Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • Perhaps other editors could share their understanding of this passage? Tewfik 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• You again reverted the background section. While there is a debate about whether to include the Palestinian Exodus in which I would be happy to engage you, the reference to those calling for Israel's destruction as also calling for the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contradictory, in addition to being anachronistic and unsourced (including in the relevant sub-articles).

Comment: I reverted it because you try to use Gabi S. irrational edit (which was marked as "Remove nonsense") as the new starting point for this section, while we had a consensus version. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I did not use GabiS's comments as a starting point, but rather my discussion with Kendrick. Again, the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" part is totally out of place here (which you didn't even attempt to discuss), and the Palestinian Exodus can be discussed - however it is far from consensus. Tewfik 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment:No. Before Gabi S.'s comment, the exodus was well in place. The rewrite of the whole background section (which has now become the widely accepted Israel-Lebanon conflict article) was largely my work and was deleted by you (why do I waste my time discussing with you, after all?). So the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "out of place"? What was the PLO doing, in your opinion? Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Regardless of whose work it was, it was not consensus - I had a long and productive discussion with Kendrick on it in which we limited the points of contention to only how important the Exodus' role was. I have invited you to this discussion numerous times. Yes, the fighters "coordinating attacks against Israel, calling for its destruction" were not calling for "the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I have requested sourcing in the past. Please stop making this change until you have some. Tewfik 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Which conclusion did you reach with Kendrick7 in your "long and productive discussion"? I am happy to share your consensus. Btw, you forgot to answer my question: what was the PLO doing? Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • Both questions are answered in my previous reply. Please, if you cool down, you'll see that we're both just trying to make the article better. Tewfik 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the point of excessive quoting the Amnesty report. It could be equally possible to extensively quote from sources with other POVs, but rather than a clearer and stronger worded article, we would end up with a lengthy list of quotations. Doing it for only one position undermines the article's neutrality.

Comment: Your argumentation suggests that you have a deeply flawed understanding of "neutrality". Neutrality does not mean deleting passages only because you can find no reliable sources that support "the other" position. I reduced the "excessive" quoting and made the passage more descriptive. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I did not say that - I am saying that if we choose to expand one point of view while keeping the others as succinct summaries, we have the effect of promoting the POV with more coverage. That is why adding every detail and quote undermines neutrality. My summary did not miss any of the major contentions as far as I can tell, though feel free to let me know if you disagree. In any event, you didn't reduce anything, but just removed the words "according to the report" and the citation. Please be accurate about what you actually did... Tewfik 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment: Your summary surprisingly missed all of the major points that are brought forward against the behaviour of the IDF, and Amnesty is not the only party bringing these up. As I said, I reduced the quoting and made the passage more descriptive. This last sentence sounds like a joke coming from you, given your documented history of misleading edit summaries. And I see, you already reverted again, now even introducing factual inaccuracies. According to your latest edit, Israel now "attacked the government of Lebanon"? Are you kidding? Oh well, but your accurate edit summaries say "shorten", "add context", and "summarising". If you think that this style of editing has a future around here, you're *terribly* mistaken. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • My 'documented history of misleading edit summaries' - indeed, you are not interested in slinging mud. This whole comment is a misleading twisting of facts. You first of all did not do what you said, but rather merely reverted and removed the three words and citation as I said above. The summary "shorten, add context" goes with this edit, and that is exactly what I did. The line which you ellipsed actually reads "A recent report presented facts suggesting that Israel deliberately attacked the civilian population and government of Lebanon in a conscious effort to turn them against Hezbollah..." If you think that this style of editing has a future around here, you're *terribly* mistaken. Tewfik 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Accusing someone of putting him on trial is throwing mud, and so is throwing the AGF bomb one thousand times in a row, but let me remind you that your documented history of misleading edit summaries over the past months is spread over three or four talk pages (yours and other articles'). And yes, the line which I ellipsed actually reads "A recent report presented facts suggesting that Israel deliberately attacked the civilian population and government of Lebanon in a conscious effort to turn them against Hezbollah..." Again, I can only copy-paste myself by saying: Israel now "attacked the government of Lebanon"? Are you kidding?! Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • Even if your claims were true, which they aren't, they have no bearing here. Your accusation above of misleading edit summaries is a cumulative diff for several edits, the last of which had that edit summary, and is thus totally misrepresented. I suggest you review the history if you really believe that I did what you say - I also provided the specific edit to which that summary was attached ("shorten, add context" goes with this edit). The same goes for the ellipsed sentence - perhaps you can explain what the problem with it is. I should note that it isn't my original work, but I was reverting back to the short summary from your quote-laden version, which I discussed above. I pray that we can all take deep breaths and just focus on the edits. Tewfik 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, before any more reversions, address these concerns. I also stress that the key to improving this article is for all of us to maintain cool attitudes. Cheers, Tewfik 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I did. It strikes me that you accuse me of "reverting", while I was usually the one who *added* information to the article in the first place. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of Conflict

As we now have a pretty conclusive reference that the july 12 Hezbollah attack took place in Israel proper I propose we delete the redundant:

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".

Dianelos 12:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree in theory, but the last two times that we removed it we ended up with users suggesting alterate versions of what happened. I generally regret not having protested the more removal of sourcing from contentious claims, as often, much energy has been spent on simply affirming that those claims were indeed sourced. Cheers, Tewfik 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try again. I think by now everybody will agree it was cross-border. Dianelos 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

I find the member Tewfic very pro Israeli in all his edits, can there be some sort of review to question his neutrality? # Reaper7  

If you have content disputes regarding this article, please deal with those specific issues, rather than focussing on other editors. Jayjg 15:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reaper, when you see edits pushing a certain POV go in there and fix them. That is the cure. Normally in a free play situation where anyone can edit things balance out but there are scarcely any Lebanese, Arab, or Palestinian editors in Misplaced Pages. And frankly there are those that take advantage of the situation to push a POV and delete and revert unmercifully for no reason and any reason. Whoever said life was fair. Go out and recruit fair minded counter-balancing editors. That is the solution. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do these kinds of reviews happen often on Misplaced Pages? It reminds me of McCarthyism... Valtam 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just seems instead of trawling through the article and wasting so much time, those who are seen to have soley one agenda only be allowed so many edits a week or something like that. It is well documented how the Israeli mandate on the internet influences articles, but this one is even ridiculous by those standards. Reaper7  

Instead of cursing the darkness, it is far better to light a candle folks. The cure is to go out there and recruit disinterested editors that won't push a POV. Or failing that counter-balancing edirors to the POV that is being pushed. I used to think that what mattered was the quality and not the quantity of the argument. Wrong. You can have have a debate here for months and fashion a compromise position and some zealot will come in and revert it out of the blue. Misinterpreting some rule and setting you back months. You just stick the truth back in. It's not going to be in there all the time, but it"ll be there some of the time. Somebody has played a trick with my IP address. Had to log out to post. Best Wishes. Will. 65.184.213.36 04:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is all fine, but please stop the ad hominems (like the edit summary fate of Israelis very relevant to most people heartless Tewfik; ironically, this was in response to someone else's edits). All other considerations aside, it is still practically more effective if you address specific edits, rather than general, unsubstantiated complaints. In terms of the compromises that have stood for months, this new flurry of editing has generally been contrary to the consensus, rather than upholding it. Tewfik 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My bust Tewfik and apology. I misread the history line (the shaitan interceded) and there was no way to back and correct it. However, you are known as the man of the thousand edits on this article and many of them IMHO just pure POV pushing. I remember when I put a Moshe Arens opinion in and you took it out, saying why is he notable? I see he's back in now. Best Wishes Will314159 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that it was a mistake, and that's ok; my problem isn't with the name, but with the comment. I might very well have made that edit (and made a similar one in the past) - regardless of what you think, you should strive to stick to the arguments and not the people - that way we have an environment where we can eventually agree to disagree, and thus make the most improvement to the project. In terms of the Arens comment, I am still not totally in favour, but as the article has generally become less strict in certain aspects of size, its inclusion is slightly less of an issue. If I do at some point challenge its inclusion, it will be with a calm and civil argument. Cheers, Tewfik 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"War" or "Conflict"?

I think it's obvious that the voting above will not lead to any kind of consensus. I think that when the rest of the world calls something "a spade", this encyclopedia's article should call it "a spade" too. This is not a matter of what is the more correct expression for some reason or other. You might find it interesting to read this article in Haaretz to see how overwhelmingly this event is called a "war" in Israel. Dianelos 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages's relevant policy here: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names). What counts is how something is commonly called, and really everybody is calling the events that happened in Israel and Lebanon between July 12 and August 14 a "war". By keeping "war" out of the title we only make it more difficult for WP's users to find the information they are looking for. For example the searches "Israel Lebanon war" "2006 Israel Lebanon war" "Second Lebanon war" in Misplaced Pages's seach engine will all fail to find the relevant article. I think that's unconscionable and I suggest we put "war" in the title as soon as possible. Dianelos 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let wikipedians decide. You're welcome to make those pages redirects, by the way. Iorek85 11:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people who voted above appear not to know about the relevant Misplaced Pages policy that applies here (see their comments). I think that policy should have been mentioned at the beginning of the voting section. Dianelos 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Israeli tanks hit/destroyed?

Currently the article says that 14 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks were destroyed by Hezbollah (what does destroyed mean?). But in the Merkava article it says "50 Merkavas were hit and damaged", so which one is accurate? Geedubber 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an educated guess or SWAG. Destroyed means beyond repair. Hit and damaged means you can tow it back with a tank tow vehicle and do repairs. With a modular vehicle like the Merkava, it was engineered for repairability. When I served in Vietnam a long, long, time ago on the DMZ. When the tanks hit mines, there was a behemoth of a tracked vehicle that towed them back. Best Wishes. Will314159 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone care if I changed the article to match the Merkava entry ? -- switch "14 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks were destroyed" to "50 Merkavas were hit and damaged" Geedubber 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the source for "14 destroyed" requires a subscriber login to access, and the source at Merkava is a direct link, I think your change is preferable. --MPerel 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can try to verify Will's claim first? I don't think that there is good reason to include damaged vehicles in this article (it is a big enough stretch to include destroyed materiel), though perhaps the Merkava entry should note the two different numbers, again, contingent on verification of Will's hunch. Tewfik 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume Will is right. Nevertheless, 'destroyed' is a vague, narrow descriptor . Hit and damaged is a more inclusive and informative term. (also, I have a suspicion the number 14 actually refers to the # of tanks hit during the last 2 days of war. From the article cited in the Merkava entry "In the last two days of the war, in the battles in Wadi Sluki and Marjayoun, 14 tanks were hit") Geedubber

The best way to think of it is this. You give the total number of casaulties and then break it down into 1)dead and 2)seriously wounded. Destroyed means killed. Hit and damaged means no simple field repair like fixing the track shoe but had to use a tank recovery vehicle to do serious repair. Best Wishes Will314159 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think the term 'hit and damaged' would include tanks destroyed. Destroyed=severe damage. Geedubber 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Debatus.com

This has a number of structured wiki debates going on the conflict. I just thought you might find this a good outlet for the argumentation presented here that's not supposed to be in the main article and that is difficult to organize on the talk page. Plus, you can't refine eachother's work on the talk page. Isreal-Hezbollah Conflict Debates

"strongly suggested" etc

A briefing presented facts "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" and "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage, which, according to the report, indicated a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

Kosmopolis, in reply to your request for further explanation, what I object to is stringing parts of quotes together out of several paragraphs into a combined sentence that misconstrues what was actually stated. The above implies that "facts" "strongly suggested" "a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah." The article quoted did not say that. Also on another of your recent edits, regarding the email about "tactical necessity". Either that should be expanded to include "Retired major general Lewis MacKenzie explained, "What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces).'" Or better yet the whole thing should be summarized since there's already a whole article on the event, yes? --MPerel 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding your second issue, I rephrased the passage to include the jargon interpretation.

Regarding the first issue, this is the actual quote:

The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.

Statements by Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign.

The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict.

I had paraphrased this passage to this:

A briefing presented facts "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" and "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage, which, according to the report, indicated a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

Now it reads like this:

A briefing presented evidence "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" of public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage. According to the report, statements by Israeli military officials suggested a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

The later parts of the article largely deal with the proportionality issues. While I welcome your comments, it would be reassuring to know that you maintain the same exactitude on other people's edits, as well. Kosmopolis 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the way to do it, point by point, not by ungxdly wholesale reversions. Best Wishes Will314159 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Edit The person that wholesale reverted was "she" so it was her wholesale reversions. Best Wishes Will314159 13:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all Will, thank you for noticing I am a she and not a he. I don't hold it against anyone or even bother correcting people when they assume I'm a "he" but it's nice when someone has bothered to look at my user page. On the reversions, first of all let me say it's not my normal mode to revert people, I usually focus my effort on the talk page. The reason I reverted Kosmopolis is that I observed there was too much (quantity) of edits that hadn't gained consensus that was getting rammed into the article. I see he's blocked for a bit now for 3RR, and I won't be reverting because I don't want to violate 3RR myself, but when he gets back I would like to gain his support to work together with all editors on this page to move a little more slowly in bite size pieces through these changes. If we could hammer them out piece by piece I'm sure we'll have more success. He'd probably be surprised at how much we can all agree to if we hammer it out together. Otherwise, I find it too overwhelming to even discuss when the edits come at such a rapid pace without consensus first. Anyway, that's what I propose, I'll return in a bit to try again, and hopefully things will be cooled down here so we can make better progress. --MPerel 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

The conflict began when Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli military positions and border villages to divert attention from another Hezbollah unit that crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers and killed three. what the hell is this? Hezbollah did not fire Katyusha rockets to divert attention... the one who wrote this is either an idiot or he is covering for israel Hezbolla captured two soldiers and stopped. Irael started babling about the right to defend her self where Lebanon cannot fight for shib3a farms and palestine cannot fight for pre-48 palestine lands.... you call hamas terrorists because they fight israel.... wake the hell up... in 48 palestine was occupied every one knows this .. after world war II israel was created on PALESTINE land.... so stop calling resistors terrorists

back to the topic Hezbollah didn't fire rockets to divert and they didn't fire rockets at colonies as i call them until israel attacked the lebanese airport hezbollah attacked israel air ports israel attacked bridges hezbollah fire at bigger military targets israel attacked southern villages and used forbidden weapons as israely soldiers confessed then hezbollah fired rockets at israel colonied stop messing with peoples minds!

Israel masacred lebanese civilians using forbidden weapons and firing randomly this was all written in israeli press taken from israeli soldiers confession

wake up already! every time a resolution that is not for the sake of israel... USA uses VITO to hell with USA and VITO and now there is this thing about Irani nuclear program... Wow... just wow... USA has over 2k Nuclear boms... no one says a thing Israel is the only one who has WMD in the middle east and no one cares And Iran wants nuclear power for electricity.... all the world wakes up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.69.209.2 (talk • contribs) .

Hear what your saying and there forums to say it. This isn't one of them. Not a soapbox. Soapbox doesn't mean a dish to hold soap but a wooden crate that soap came in that was discarded and then people would stand on and give speeches. The soapbox pix on this page is a joke I hope. But it's all right to soapbox about WP. The aim is to produce a quality article that people can rely on and which even little schoolchildren can base their reports. Talking about right and wrong is not going to convince anybody here, they come that way already. Start by making point by point edits backed up sources. Also recruit other editors fluent in English that are just sitting on the sidelines and don't want to get involved. Are things out of balance here? The fault is not in the Israeli apologists, it lies with the lack of counterbalancing editors. Best Wishes Will314159 14:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the reference cited. It's from the United Nations and it is clear enough: "3. The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon." Now it's true the UN report doesn't say that the rocket attack was "diversionary" but I can't imagine any other reason for Hezbollah to fire these rockets at the same time they were attacking the Israeli patrol. Also other sources speak of a diversionary attack, for example Amnesty International's report about the events on july 12. Here is what it says: "On the morning of 12 July 2006, Hizbullah fighters (known as al-muqawama al-islamiyya, Islamic Resistance) crossed the border into Israel and attacked an Israeli patrol near the village of Zarit. A number of Israeli military vehicles and a tank got involved in the clashes, at the end of which Hizbullah fighters returned to Lebanon with two captured Israeli soldiers. Eight other soldiers were killed. At the same time Hizbullah carried out diversionary attacks along the border. Hizbullah officials told Amnesty International that no civilian was targeted on 12 July, although according to press accounts a number were injured in these other attacks.(1)" Dianelos 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Lebanese police contemporaneous report says it ocurred on Leb soil. But crossborder now sounds more credible. Two crossborder incidents 1) the capture and 2)the diversion. After that it escalated. IMHO the true motivation was to help the Gazans under inhuman siege. To establish deterrence Israel could have acted porportionally. However, it went whole hog and attacked all of Lebanon and the civilian infrastructure. Part of the reason HA has all the rockets is to deter Israel from such bombing of civilians and infrastructure. Remember the 90's when the IAF used to punish the resistance for resisting by bombing the Beirut power plants (A violation of the 4th Geneva Convention). HA had to re-establlish its deterrance by unleashing its rockets. Israel probably figured there would be a ceasefire within a week but Bush kept it going for ov.er a month for his purposes and even tried to egg the Israelis into attacking Syria. There is a Haaretz report that Halutz informed Olmert by day SIX that all the objectives had been met-taken to mean the bombing aim points. Now we have a situation where both sides have in their minds regained their DETERRENCE. Guess what- Debka reports today that HA picked clean the armory at Shomona in a crossborder raid and made off with much loot Debka. No more a violation than IDF still being in Lebanon, pumping the Wizzani springs, or the failed commando raid after the ceasefire. This synopsis is partly based on this column. Helene Cobban. The above is not offered as a soapbox but as a guide toward editing the article from a more neutral POV or at least not a total Israeli POV. Best Wishes. Will314159 08:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fulfillment of Request

Action regarding Grammar has been taken place as requested. Please check for accuracy and completeness as well as any typos introduced by word processing software. Neutralaccounting 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah number

why do we put "5,000-20,000 militiamen" as the hezbollah number?

• the range was so wide that it isnt informative
• It is cited from a TV, not a good source to determine strength of a guerila group in a war. The previous source was IISS, a research institute which is better Nielswik 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is due to the ambiguity of the source that you are presenting. While we know how many Hezbollah active, available, and reserve fighters there are, we do not know how many participated in the hostilities, since Hezbollah has not published any such numbers. Perhaps we can find a way of relaying this ambiguity in the article without choosing a specific number (unless of course we do find a source of that nature)? Tewfik 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

THERE are several layers of combatants that are being identified as HA. 1) the core HA and 2) the civlian meta-Army. The short answer to the question is HA forces less than five thousand in every single source I"ve seen. The confusion is counting the meta-Army as HA. You know the right of the ordinary citizens to bear arms in defense of their country. Just like if Israel was attacked there would be a lot more that the IDF resisting. Even though almost the whole country is part of the IDF in the reserves. in case of attack the old folks would grab their hunting rifles and become part of the resistance. This is what happened in Lebanon. The following makes it clear: " Not just Hezbollah? Indeed a 3 August NYT article reported:

For the past week, the Israeli Army has thrown everything at Kfar Kila. ...so far the defenders, local fighters with Hezbollah and allied factions, have held on.

"How could you stay silent when you see your land burn and your children get killed?" said Yahia, who said he was a platoon commander with the local defense force. "The whole population here is resisting."

He is part of the Amal movement...

Pat Lang wrote on 10 August:

"Even I have been surprised at the tenacity of these groups fighting in the villages," Timur Goksel, who served with UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon from 1979 to 2003, said. "They have fought far beyond my expectations and they haven't even committed all their fully experienced troops yet." " London Times

I hear that the Israelis have been engaged so far with "village reserves," and that they have not yet met the standing forces of HA. This echeloning of categories of forces sounds a lot like the Viet Minh/NVA/VC politico-military set up.

From a Washington Post article:

Some residents said it was not Hezbollah that fired on the Israeli troops in Marjayoun, but operatives of a secular, leftist party whose posters still adorn the sides of buildings and telephone poles across the region.

Angry Arab also reports that Lebanese communists were into the fight too. He also writes:

the right to resist Israeli occupation. This is the factor that allowed leftists and Arab nationalists in Lebanon--people who don't share the ideology of Hizbullah--to support its resistance in South Lebanon...

This connects to the last article to quote, a detailed account of the siege of Aita al-Shaab. This town is right at the border with Israel, the Hezbollah commando that kidnapped the two IDF soldiers crossed the border nearby. Over 30 days, the IDF launched three major attacks on the town but failed to take it (but didn't fail to reduce 80% of it to rubble). The passages summarizing the essential point:

The vast majority of the fighters were locals, backed by highly trained and well armed guerrillas drawn from across the country.

Across the south the Israelis discovered that instead of facing a few thousand Hizbollah fighters, they were confronted by tens of thousands of armed men.

This was a popular resistance organised in cooperation with Hizbollah or under its leadership. Locals defended villages, freeing up Hizbollah fighters to take the offensive against the invading Israeli troops.

As other Lebanese organisations declared for the resistance, Hizbollah was able to draw on resources well beyond their ranks...

"The Israelis lost the battle because we all became the resistance," said Ahmed. "The left, the Arab nationalists and the locals all worked under the leadership of Hizbollah for the defence of our town."

So it wasn't a small militia vs. a large army. Hezbollah led a meta-army, which beyond their best-trained troops that used the most potent weapons, involved local militias and people from other political directions. (This is in line with how Hezbollah originally organised itself, binding all levels and branches of Shi'a society regardless of strength of religious conviction.) And apparently all of these forces weren't just deployed in a coordinated way, but got tactical training:

"During the final assault, the Hizbollah fighters took up positions around the community centre while we attempted to tie down the Israelis around Moscow Square. We ducked from house to house, firing then changing position," he said.

"For us it was a last stand - we feared they would trap us in a few houses and then call in bombs on us. " The above was taken from. Be careful Israeli apologists, exposure to the clear headed analysis there may cause cognitive dissonance. There is also a very excellent battle map at that site. Best Wishes Will314159 09:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Will, I appreciate your efforts, but I wish that you would not call editors names - while you probably don't mean to, this type of attitude sours the working environment, and doesn't actually serve to improve the article. In any event, this still doesn't solve the problem of which numbers to use, though we have already made note of the fact that there was Amal and LCP participation. Tewfik 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

THE remark was not toward editors. The discussion page can be read by anybody. The warning was directed at whom it was denominated, present company excepted Tewfik. The number to use for HA is the generally excepted number that Moshe Arens, former defense minister uses, 5,000. You cannot count everybody that resisted in the meta army as HA. Best Wishes. Will314159 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"ON 12 September, former defense minister Moshe Arens spoke of "the defeat of Israel" in calling for a state committee of inquiry. Asked what questions he thought should be addressed, he said that Israel had lost "

• to a very small group of people, 5000 Hezbullah fighters

, which should have been no match at all for the IDF." He stated that the conflict could have "some very fateful consequences for the future." Best Wishes Will314159 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)EDIT Of course Arens is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance, IDF did not lose to HA, it lost to the Lebanese People acting as a whole defending their country even those that despise HA. Take Care Will314159 15:57, 28 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