Misplaced Pages

1. Should we change the current descriptive title to another descriptive title, by simply changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" or something else with a lowercase "war"? It seems that many think so, because they (wrongly, in my opinion) think that the word "conflict" somehow is a weasel word that diminishes the gravity of the situation. The word "conflict" doesn't measure the gravity of a conflict. It can be used to cover anything from a minor disagreement between two persons to a world war. However, almost any other word for a conflict, including "crisis", contains a measure. You can't very well call a minor disagreement a "crisis", nor can you call a world war a "crisis". Similarly, you can't call a full-blown war a "disagreement" or call a minor disagreement "war". Consequently, "conflict" is the ideal NPOV word, while "war" definitely is POV, as it carries a measure. There is nothing wrong with the current article name, and it doesn't attempt to diminish the gravity of the situation in any way. Stating that "conflict" is a weasel word just shows that some people don't know their English well enough.
2. Should we change the current descriptive title and instead give the conflict a proper name, by changing "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to "2006 Israel-Lebanon War" or something else with an uppercase "War"? Definitely not! If we were to call this conflict "Something War" at this stage, we would be the first in the world to give the conflict a name. Not only would that be against the Misplaced Pages policy, which states that we should use established names for military conflicts, but as we are at the top of the Google hit list, such a decision would carry a great responsibility, as we would actively influence the perception of what this conflict should be called. That's not our job. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a policy institute or a bloody "think tank".

What's important, when considering the name of this article, is what banners the TV news programmes and the newspapers are currently sticking on the material about the conflict, as their banners is the closest equivalent to a Misplaced Pages article name covering a developing story. Their headlines change by the hour, while their banners (if they have any) are static identifiers of which news category the articles or news pieces belong to. CNN, BBC and Sky News are all still using a banner saying "Middle East Crisis" when covering the Lebanese conflict, while Fox News have opted for "MidEast Turmoil". As for newspapers, both The Times and The Independent have banners saying "Middle East Crisis". Unfortunately I don't have access to any other major English-language newspapers right now, but I'm pretty sure hardly anyone have the word "war" in their banners yet. I agree with Cerejota, that when all the reliable sources, and all the leaders of the combatants are calling it war, then we should do so as well. But that is not yet the case. Not even Siniora, who has better reason than anyone else to call it war, has yet done so. This may change at any moment, however, following the hawks' killing of the doves in the Israeli cabinet this afternoon (well, actually yesterday afternoon, I just realised). So those who want to call it war may very soon have my support - but probably only for a new descriptive title. Good night. Thomas Blomberg 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move V: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Sectarian Violence

since nobody can get the name right, I am now proposing using the new dod terminology to classify the current events. --Stephenzhu 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that title more accurate than the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict?

Israel is at war with Lebanon, whose government is comprised of multiple religious sects and denominations.

This isn't a sectarian conflict, like the original Lebanese Civil War.

DOD?

Do you mean the Dept. of Defense?

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FOR EVERYONE THAT THINK IT ISN'T A WAR YOU MUST SEE THIS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPd-yubPdx4&mode=related&search=

--TheFEARgod 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive8#Discussion about Casualties
• Summary:
  • Israeli casualties, Earlier discussions, Displaced Israelis, Other, Civilian vs Military casualities, Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed, "Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed", possible solution to the "civilians" edit war.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discssion about Casualties
• Summary:
  • Civilian casualties, Warship is not a casualty!, Casualty figures, Lebanese Casualties, Attacks on UNIFIL, Missing from the casualties section, Israeli soldiers killed.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discssion about Casualties
  • Archived info from discussion of lebanese casualty figures, Israeli Casualities, Amal Casualties?, Lebanese Civilian Casualties
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#Discssion about Casualties
  • Lebanese Casualty Figures
  • lebanese civilian casualties
  • "treated for shock"
  • Hezbollah casualties and Lebanese casualties:
  • American casualty
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive16#Discssion about Casualties
  • Infobox fatalties
  • question about hezbollah casualties

• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Syncing the two tables

I don't mind what figures people want to use for the infobox and main casualties table, but at the moment, they are two different figures. They need to match. Also, we can save some space by either not referencing the infobox casualties because they are already referenced in the main table, or using the "ref name" reference tags to reduce the number of references. However, we can only do that once we've decided what figures we're using. --Iorek85 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Displaced persons

Why are they in a casualty box? As someone shot these displaced persons? Are they dead or injured? If so they are likely included in the other count, if not, they are not casualties. --Narson 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC

(New discussion so I can archive the old stuff)

I've been doing a news roundup of as many recent sources as I can find.

• Reuters - more than 800 total.
• CNN - more than 750 in Lebanon and Israel.
  • CNN - "On Sunday, Lebanese Security Forces said the violence has killed 693 Lebanese, mostly civilians." Just a note Tewfik 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• AP - 497 civilians though the Lebanese government said 933 total.
• news.com.au - more than 1000 on both sides though using simple math from figures given in the article it would be close to 922 lebanese total.
• CBS - at least 660 on both sides. (using their figures, 582 lebanese, total)
• AFP - close to 1000 in both total. (using their figures, nearly 922 total in lebanon)
• Lebanese govt - 828 civilians
• AL Jazeera - at least 734 people in Lebanon total.

Which gives us a range of 497-828 in specifically civilian terms, 582-933 total in Lebanon. I think we should just use 497-828 in the infobox. --Iorek85 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't fit the 'civilian' qualifier for upper limit, we should use this so as not to minimise the count. Tewfik 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we voted on trusting the Lebanese Health Minister, or is it Iorek calculations as usual for the article? Reaper7 00:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure we didn't. Actually, I was in favour of trusting him, but as Tewfik rightly points out, there is a large range of figures, so we should note that in the casualty tables. But if you can show me this 'vote' with consensus, sure. --Iorek85 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AP says that 509 civilians have been killed until August 6 2006,they also reported 29 soldier (not including 6 killed today,confirmed by russian news) and 53 Hezbollah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Top Gun (talk • contribs)

O.K good, so we can now change the lower total to 509 in the scale, and source that article as the lower figure. Thanks. --Iorek85 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/Archive14#Lebanese_Civilian_Casualties

I belive it took you one person to support you idea of removing the original casualty box. here are 2 proper votes to trust the Health Minister and stop with the dumb calcultaions. Reaper7 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article claims "thousands" of dead civilians? I only see the 38 Israeli and the approx. 500-900 Libanese. Isn't this "only" about ONE thousand dead or maybe "just" hundreds? Sorry to sound cynical ;-) - Mark, wikigeek @ gmail

• CNN cites the security forces in Lebanon as puting "the death toll at 716, most of them civilians" in an August 6 report. Therefore, I'm changing the number of civilian casualties in the infobox to reflect that. For the sake of NPOV, I'll give add and subtract 5% to that figure. --GHcool 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the well-sourced range. The reason we don't just use the latest news story is because there is a large discrepency among the media, and numbers like this one do not differentiate between civilians and others. Cheers, Tewfik 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is normal for news outlets to adjust their casulty figures one way or another as more information comes in. For example yesterday, the BBC reported that 40 lebanese were killed in a single attack on an apartment complex, yet a few hours later they were forced to concede that the airstrike killed only one individual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please this please that, lol. Lets try democracy again, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper7 (talk • contribs)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties

There has been a huge edit war with the lowest possible figures usually winning through to help a range figure that appears meaningless. I suggest we believe the Lebanese Health Minister's figures, like for example a week ago when he said the figure is a around 750+ instead of certain members making their own little calculations which is what we have now and ending up then with 577 - 832. Support or Oppose the Lebanese Health Minister's figures over wiki member's own calculations:

1. Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support This isn't even up for debate. Not doing this is OR. Bibigon 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. And if this were clearly sourced in the article, at least we, as readers, would know where the infobox numbers were coming from without having to dig around in the page history.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. A vote will not make the minister any more reliable (especially in light of this), and it won't change that the media has reported an extremely wide range of numbers. Tewfik 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

• There is an official daily-upated governmental source , but it has one mistake. "Since July 12, 39 Israeli civilians and 63 IDF soldiers have been killed." If you DO REALLY COUNT the names of the IDF soldiers, you get 64 instead of 63. I alteady sent a feedback abount this mistake.
• There is another israeli source, but it is on russian . And it also has a problem, 'cause the link is dying every day. Instead of http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/08aug2006/shem.html, tomorow you'll have to look on http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/09aug2006/shem.html, and so on. 89.1.254.24 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

List of Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict:

Up-to date (according to and reliable media sources):

• 103 casualties
  • 39 civilians
  • 66 soldiers

89.1.254.24 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Should not be included. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial; besides which, we can't list all the Lebanese dead, and having a list of only one side's dead would be seriously unbalanced. -- ChrisO 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Thus the table above should be removed.

I'm not asking you to include this. It is a reference for anyone who may say "if the official site claims 63, so it be 63". 89.1.254.24 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It does help to clarify things.

Although, those aren't "casualties" so much as fatalities.

There are tens of thousands of casualties, excluding those who have actually been killed, both on the Israeli and Lebanese side of the border.

Also, unacknowledged casualties of undeclared participants in this conflict, e.g. Iran's Pasderan (IRGC), as well as those who belong to neutral nations but who have experienced deaths during the course of this war, e.g. Canadians, Italians, etc...

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I meant fatalities. My English is far from being perfect. 89.1.254.24 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't resist this comment: The "terrorist" Hezbollah have killed fewer civilians than soldiers? Not for lack of trying, I'm sure, but I'm surprised nonetheless -- especially considering the ratio of Lebanese casualties. Icewolf34 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, but not so surprising when you think about it.

Yes, it's targeted millions of Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets.

However, their rockets are horribly inaccurate in aim, have no internal guidance system, and aren't very likely to kill people, unless they score a direct hit.

The Israeli soldiers being killed by anti-tank weapons and Kalashnikovs, on the other hand, are fighting at close range, and therefore have a greater likelihood of dying as a result of combat.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli military equipment losses during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I think we should include another link with the exact number of israeli military equipment losses.By my calculations the Israeli military has suffered since August 09:

HMMWV vehicles:2 destroyed
Merkava tanks:6 destroyed, 6 damaged
Apache helicopter gunships:3 lost
Battleships:1 damaged
Armored bulldozers:1 destroyed

What are your opinions?

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
  • Article Size, Suggested Sub Articles, Why is there nothing on the gaza strip?, Hezbollah campaign, Historical Background, Relevance? - small posts about Russian language source, "Free Lebanon" and Robert Fisk, Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive9#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
  • Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers),Relevance?, "not sure as to the relevance.", External Links, Too many links - what stays?, Various sections about evacuation, International reaction, Infobox gives me a headache, Nothing is mentioned about foreign nationals being evacuated,
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive10#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
  • Video of Hezbollah firing missiles, Hezbollah rocket campaign, Criticism of both sides, pre-planning for the war, Hell in a Hand Basket, Discussion about strength of participants, Edits around 1948 and terms, WP:V and WP:RS, Blank references, Names of operations in the preamble?, Splitting up the article, "Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict", Introductory paragraph, Missing from this article, Some thoughts on the civilian section
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
  • Article is too long, Strike on UN chapter removed, POLL, What part shoul be moved, External links, Aims section, External links International reaction
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#Discussion about the structure and general content of the article
  • Casualties table
  • Length
  • Attacks on Civilians

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.

The article is too long

I moved some part of article to Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Because the length of this this article was more than 60 Kb.--Accessible 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article becomes too long . Please add what you want in the main articles and try to shorten this article. I prefer to strat from "Targeting of civilian areas " and "Historical background " parts.--Accessible 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea in theory, but you can't just cut the bottom half of the section off - you have to leave behind a summary and keep it balanced. Thats why I reverted your change. I've had another go at removing some stuff, feel free to cut it down some more if you think there's still some excess in there - as you say, we've got to get it down to about 60kb. --Iorek85 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the sources accounts for much of the size. If I just cut and paste the article text to notepad and save it is just 26 kB. Vints 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We've done it! Down to 59kb! Now we just need to keep it there. (And yeah, those references are a biggie.) --Iorek85 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And now it's been completely undone. Almost 80kb. --Iorek85 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to long to add in some bumpf about resolution 1559 :) Doesnt that belong in the article concerned with the res? 82.29.227.171 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot of culling - lots of people like to add info, which is great, but not often do they remove it. Down to 66kb, which is still too long, but I can't find anywhere to lose it from. --Iorek85 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive10#Discussion about the talk page

Summary I am GOING THERE!, Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV, edits by banned editor, Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?, Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185, Just ban the vandals already!, Fork for deletion Someone has vandalized the article again, Opinions on civilian attacks??, Am I the only one concerned with article quality?, User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism, Salvage French, Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG, Adding Links, Where are the kidnapped soldiers?, New page, Video of the shot up ambulances, Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah, By Hezbollah, Disproportionate in what moral universe

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#General Discussion

Mediation, Changes in AP story on July 12, Pictoral bias?, Attacks on United Nations personnel, Claims about captured Hezbollah, July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#General Discussion

Bad footnote, IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy, BBC analysis of the effect of the war, Two more Un observers die Sorry, trying to fix intro, Unbalanced info box, Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?, Categorisation, use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral, use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral, Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately, Added suspension of air operations to main page, Possible War Crimes, Sources, SOME ISRAELI KEEPS.. Anti Israel people/sites, Please help edit related articles, Infobox UN dead, Time to remove "AA -only" tag for Lebanon?, "Precision-guided", An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free., Oil Spill?

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#General Discussion
  • Irrelevant facts, moving casualties, Megaphone Software & "the battle for the internet", References broken, If it's not war so what is war, Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck, NPOV Tag Added, Pictures show clear POV, Asian Cup, OMG PWND!!!, International Law, I Was Thinking, New images every second, Where is the background to the conflict.
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#General Discussion
  • POV terms used for Israel campaign

Why the Israel-Lebanon war?, Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures", The War between the Straits, War or Conflict, Introduction Numbers, Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed, Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?, Phosphorus & sub-articles, IDF casualties up to date (not 41), 12 Rhetorical support, Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article, please don't add POV pictures, Can we add this photo?, Image use in this article, Beginning of conflict is June 9th Gaza explosion?, Moved the POW stuff to its article, Repeated Sentences, Good artile, Rabbinical Question, Ayta a Shaab Claim, Hezbollah KIA, other figures, Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean, Some statistics you might find interesting, Criticism of advanced warnings, Wounded soldiers and civilians, What's that? Where did it come from?? Flayer 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive16#General Discussion

"Hizbullah committing war crimes", To solve the disaster, Hizballah military capability, Escalation, Iranian and Syrian Support What section?, External links, Removal of POW stuff, Paring, Page Deletion, Uh, where is the article?, An Important Source Where is the history, Human Rights Watch claims, National Post as source?, Battlebox., Attack on Tel Aviv -- Escalation? Arab-Israeli Conflict Template, Not sure what to do with this, What to do with WHO?, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, Allegations of using civilians as Human Shields, Claimed Amal and PFLP-GC casualties, Semi-protection not working?

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Semi-Protected

The article is semi-protected because of the non-stop removal of pics. -- Szvest 19:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is disputed the IDF soldiers were captured in Israel, War Planned a Year Ago

I understand it is a blog No cross border raid but it points to several news articles of July 12 and a contemporaneous Lebanese Police Report that the soldiers were arrested or captured while on a commando raid into Lebanon at Ayta as Shab which is close to Zarit, Israel but in Lebanon. See Map.

Additionaly it has been reported by Matthew Kalman in the San Franscisco Chronicle that the three week Israeli operation had been planned for over a year and and Israeli had been in the Pentagon a year ago with a powerpoint presentation lecturing about it. Kalman Article Will314159 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the contemporaneus report of the Lebanese Police report (French). Newspaper article of Lebanese Police Report Will314159 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the matter has been addressed before, but It should still read "alleged" cross border xxxx. Will314159 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I see in the edit history that references to reputable publications such as Asia Times that report that the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese territory have been removed repeatedly. This is not a neutral article. Accounts that are disputed should be reported as such -- when one side is simply reported as fact, it destroys the credibility of Misplaced Pages. --207.200.116.73 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Without rehashing the whole discussion, the only citations are from old articles. Asia Times has not published the claim since, because they probably accept the UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media's (including Al Jazeera) characterisation of Hezbollah's raid as "cross-border." If you can find a current article from a WP:Reliable source that makes the claim, then we could reopen discussion. Déjà vu anyone, Tewfik 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I see the lebanon police repudiated the original report, I see little reason to believe the dispute is not alive. The news org are just rehashing whatever everybody else is saying, not digging the root cause. --Stephenzhu 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just Al Jazeera, but Lebanese papers too. For example, the July 30 Daily Star says (emphasis mine) "He cited Lebanese health ministry figures saying that more than 600 people had been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah targets on July 12 in response to the capture of two soldiers in a deadly cross-border raid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.33.142 (talk • contribs)

I did as much as I can to put the cross-border issue in a neutral gear. Please see the current version. --Stephenzhu 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As neither AP nor AFP, nor any other WP:Reliable sources have repeated this claim, it is not disputed. If you can find a current article that makes the claim, then we can discuss. Until then, please don't try to increase the appearance of its legitimacy. Cheers, Tewfik 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I searched everywhere. The AP and AFP articles I saw have consistently omitted the origin of the

conflict. Even the CNN timeline describes it as "Along the the Lebanese border between the Israeli towns of Zar'it and Shtula.", which didn't put the accurate location as inside Israel Proper (inside the blue line). I guess the fact they used these terminology is some evidence that the cause is still in dispute. Before the dispute is resolved, let's keep it neutral so both sides can be heard. BTW: some partisan health ministry figure doesn't necessarily represent official lebanese position on this issue. --129.10.61.221 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets

I think this is interesting, and should be added somewhere... but where ? Observer: Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets

--imi2 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. Very interesting - I think it should go on the 'targeting of civilians' section.--Iorek85 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I always have a soft spot for refuseniks... Goes into my earlier comment that the IAF either was inept at targeting or doing it on purpose. Might turn out just jet that military intelligence is still an oxymoron...--Cerejota 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okey, will any of you two place in that suggested section ? --imi2 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious how many others here saw that article on the indispensible Antiwar.com, as I did. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I did +imi2 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota: "Military Intelligence" exists, although is often filtered, even twisted, to fit a political purpose. MX44 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size

People the article is huge once again... some subsections are back to the size they where when they were turned into subpages, etc etc etc, where can we cut and move?--Cerejota 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting worse. We actually managed to have it under 60kb at one point, then it all went to hell. 80kb is far too big. The targetting of civilians section is getting huge, and I don't think we need so many subheadings. All of these sections are summaries of their subarticles, not the whole thing. The history section is also growing, same with international reactions. --Iorek85 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it now, that Hezbollah actions section is huge! --Iorek85 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. there are not one, but two subpages the info could go into, military operations and timeline. I also think Position of Lebanon, Negotiations for ceasefire, and International reaction, each with subpages, can be shortened to briefer intros.--Cerejota 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We should do it sooner or later, most of our current events eventuallly have sub-pages when the main article gets too long. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Making summaries is the normal way to proceed. But summaries mustn't exclude valuable information. See Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Tazmaniacs 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we must summarise with the most important information in the main article. ;) --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Page reverted to out of date version.

Hi, User:Tazmaniacs in attempting to correct an issue they have with the external links section, has reverted the page back a couple of hours, losing some updates to the main article. Can someone go through and correct this, since I don't want to be accused of 3RR. --Barberio 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium munitions

Looking on the article:

• The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International because some studies suggest that they may pose a significant health risk.

Looking on the reference:

8.3 Depleted Uranium Weapons

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal used particularly in armour-piercing ammunition. DU weapons are denser than conventional arms, meaning they can penetrate heavy armour more easily. They burn up on impact, creating a radioactive dust, the effect of which remains the subject of safety debates. Like other heavy metals, DU is toxic and constitutes a health risk independent of any residual radioactivity.

AI is calling on governments to consider refraining from the transfer and use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. There is much controversy over their long-term effects. Some studies suggest that DU dust, which remains in the vicinity of targets struck by DU weapons, poses a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested. AI calls for a moratorium on their use pending authoritative conclusions on their long-term effects on human health and the environment.

According to media reports, the USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon.

Unless we have a reference for:

• that USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs (I know, it is easy to find)
• that GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads (Are they?)
• that Israel uses GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs against targets in Lebanon (Who knows?)

We mustn't say that:

• The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International.

There is no proof. 89.0.219.66

UK protests at bomb flights' stop in PrestwickDepleted Uranium in Bunker Busters Quit being such an apologist 89.0.219.66. for death and destruction. Best Wishes Will314159 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It 's better to move this part to "Amnesty International reports"--Sa.vakilian 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It actually belongs in the environmental damage subsection. The pollution of the munitions is what makes them remarkable in the context of the conflict, not their use. 82.29.227.171 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah using civilians as human shields

Have you read the source calimed for "Hezbollah using civilians as human shields"? The author in wikipedia claimed "numerous reports of Hezbollah using civilians as human shields". But as we look in the article, we find a talk with some Lebanonese people, especially with a Christian woman(It's not know that she's real or not, but this is not the problem).

1. Most of the attacks are on Shiat's villages, and if there's a
2. Most of the fighters of Hizbollah live in the villages with their family. It's obvious because there have been no military forces/equipment movement from Hizbollah.

"Hezbollah are using as human shields," said Rima Khouri, gesturing overhead as Israeli warplanes sliced through the sky.

The Lebanese Christian woman fled from her village of Ain Abel to one of the swelling refugee shelters in the city of Tyre.

Also this claim "Hezbollah using civilians as human shields" was heared from Israelese when bombing Qana, and there were no rocket luncher there. I'm going to fix this part. --Hossein.ir 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have some sources in other articles. Give me a couple of minutes to bring them here. -- Avi 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's there. I've replaced it with a better source from Ghana article. --Hossein.ir 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just brought seven sources for Hezbollah using human shields. that should be sufficient. -- Avi 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous sources documenting Hezbollah's use of human shields.

For starters,

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/archiv/30.07.2006/2660279.asp

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hizbollah-using-civilians-as-shields/2006/08/02/1154198177544.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hunting-enemies-who-brazenly-use-human-shields/2006/08/04/1154198329236.html

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think at least oneof those is in the article already, but feel free to add the rest. -- Avi 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, who has been critical of the US and Israel lately, has come out and told Hizbollah that the use of human shields is a war crime. I am very concern that much of the news coming out of Southern Lebanon is being staged by Hizbollah. I have heard reports that reporters and photographers have been threatened with death if they transmit news or pictures of Hizbollah fighters located in civilian areas. We already know that there has been at least two photographs from Reuters that have been edited to make Israel look like they are doing more damange than they are. Can we have a section on the manipulation of the media? --user:mnw2000 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that. If you try to post that you'll have some IP users calling your edits NPOV and reverting them.

Israel is the one that uses human shields... literallyYahuddi 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that those links are not relevant to this conflict. Let's have a long-winded debate about who is at fault in the Middle-East, because none of us will live long enough to see it through. Tewfik 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Global

We have quotes from the US, Israel, Canada, and Australia. That is not too narrow of a viewpoint. -- Avi 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Germany for good measure. -- Avi 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may add a few comments to Ruthfulbarbarity's list of websites "proving" the human shields thing:

• The first one, from www.canada.com, is just the same old Canadian story about the ex Sarajevo, pro-Israeli major general Lewis MacKenzie "interperting" the email from Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedner.
• The second one, www.tagesspiegel.de, is just a list of reader comments, whereof one reader claims that Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, while the rest are attacking Israel for what is going on.
• The third, www.theage.com.au (the Fairfax-owned newspaper The Age), contains a statement from Israel's ambassador to Australia on ABC radio, where he repeats what his boss Olmert has been saying.
• The fourth, www.smh.com.au (the Fairfax-owned sister newspaper to the Age, Sydney Morning Herald), is an article from Jerusalem by their reporter Jonathan Pearlman (who happened to be on a three month assignment to the Jerusalem Report magazine when the conflict started). He is just reporting what an Israeli "Colonel A, 42, who cannot be named" is claiming. That colonel, by the way, seems to think that you can fire a Katyusha rocket from within a living room and survive the experience...

Consequently, the value of these "proofs" is rather questionable. Thomas Blomberg 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont see anything questionable about the The Age nor SMH. Since they are both acceptable under WP:RS I think those two should be added if they are not already included. The Canada.com one can be added as long as its specified what the source is stating and who is stating it based on what. --zero faults 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed template.

This article has too many pastel-shaded boxes.
Please try your best to eliminate some of them as per the instructions given inside, but please do not remove this notice until the number of boxes has dropped to at most two.

--AceMyth 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL.

It's funny, because it's true.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But when some now-with-administrator-rights users don't let us include even a word, what can be done with the POV? Yes, Hezbollah is considered as a terrorist organization by US, UK, Canada, maybe Australia, but when no one let anybody include opinions from the rest of the world, what can be done? Other parts of the world consider them "Last standing men". Some users try removing the boxes. Does that make the article NPOV? --Hossein.ir 21:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That Arab-Muslims view Hezbollah favorably is not the issue.

Hezbollah, and by extension, Al-Manar, has been designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries in Western Europe and North America.

They are on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations.

These are ineluctable facts, not opinions.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that the State Department considers Hezbollah a terrorist organisation is both a fact AND an opinion . Dublin Rich

Casualties infobox, again

Is there any particular reason we're taking the Lebanese government's casualty counts at face value while noting Israel claims that 450+ Hezbollah members have been killed? There is good reason to doubt both figures honestly, and I don't see why the Lebanese government is being given more credence than the IDF. Bibigon 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see why Hezbollah's figures-and Hezbollah is the main source of the low Hezbollah death count-should be taken at face value.

I'm not saying that the 400+ figure published by the Israeli government-which also can't be completely verified-should be stated as fact, but their numbers do strike me as a more reasonable estimate, considering the extensive three+ week bombing campaign against Southern Lebanon and Beirut.

I don't think either should be presented as unalloyed fact.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

omg

To quote a comment on the page: Daaaaaam, That "Bitch got Owned"! --Striver 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Typo in Reference

Could someone with a login please correct spelling on reference number 2 - it should say "says" not "syas" 67.55.199.6 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah using civilians as human shields

Challenged not only by commentators on Hezbollah and their activities but also by HRW who said they found no evidence of this "shielding" in incidents of attacks on civilians they looked into. Just another example of the unbalanced slant this article has adopted. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its better to make a point with sources then just comments. So you may want to provide sources to counter the existing ones and open a conversation about the idea and validity of the sources. --zero faults 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any independant (non-Israeli/Lebanese) sources that can confirm that Hezbollah is currently using human shields in Lebanon during this conflict? All of the above links seem to indicate that Israeli intelligence is the source for all of the current laims, and that's just horrifyingly biased given the casualty situation. --Keyne 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a source on the ground who has looked into the claims is probably enough. Eyewitness testimony supporting the IDF claim is great but without the balance of people who have been in the area and found no evidence of the 'shielding' claim (which exists in spades) its appear as some kind of Hasbara POV. 82.29.227.171 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You should post your sources here that claim no use of human shields has been going on then people can look at them and weigh them against the sources stating there is human shielding going on and we can have a discussion and a result. However just stating its not happening and saying eyewitnesses support you does not help elicit a meaningful conversation on the topic. --zero faults 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brought them up already on the talkpage for civilian areas. Hard to see why the detail on 'human shields' appearing there is duplicated in this article in a pretty unbalanced hasbara POV way. 82.29.227.171 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your tone conveys much about your intentions, however feel free to add what you feel is important, other people will judge it and discuss it. Also you may want to post the sources here since you are attempting to have the conversation here. Telling people my sources are somewhere else ... well not many people care to dig for them. I think just to point out some of opposition you will face, most people consider storing weapons in a civilian structure, where civilians still are, as using them as shields. Much like the whole UN outpost thing. --zero faults 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My aim is balance in the article and bringing the slant in the article to the attention of others. I already gave a link to the source of the HRW report which dismisses the 'human shield' myth. Problems with the "the whole UN outpost thing" arose after 6 hours of shelling, despite being told to ceasefire numerous times, the IDF dropped a bomb on the patrol base destroying it. The human shield issue, addressed in the article on targeting civilian areas and duplicated here, is without balance from witnesses & investigators attesting to its falsehood. Dont blame me, I just noticed the imbalance, I didnt edit it like that. 82.29.227.171 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure who is blaming you for anything. However as I said and you seem to not want to, I would in my last reply to you here reccomend bringing your sources here for other to see. HRW may have said there is no human shields but other sources may say otherwise, hence the need for collaboration on topics. Have a good day. --zero faults 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is HRW not reliable enough to be a counter-mention, that Human Shields may not be under the employ of Hezbollah? --Keyne 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is depending on the date of the reports. If HRW says no, but they said it before any report said yes, then it may not be. --zero faults 10:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TAKE A LOOK!

Megaphone Software is official Israel Gov policy

"is no evidence that this is official Israeli policy, only action of WUJS" Really? So when Director of 'Hasbara', Amir Gissin, aka Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promotes it hes working freelance? Check the article on Megaphone software or the email sent out by Gissin . Quotes Gissin as saying: "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc. We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters. Do it now. For Israel." Why is this now changed to make it appear like WUJS are the source of megaphone? 82.29.227.171 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments while welcome need sources to support them. Since you have not proven it is, other then by your own original research and assumptions, its best to start again with sources stating it is official policy to convey your point. --zero faults 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a statement issued by Amir Gissin, Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promoting the use of the software is "original research"? LOL, im laughing at you. Didnt you read his comments? Looks like the Hasbara Dept of Israeli Foreign Ministry considers Hasbara policy to me. 82.29.227.171 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I see where it says using this software is their policy. I appreciate your juvenile comments, but please refrain from using them. --zero faults 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the webpage doesnt call it a policy ... --zero faults 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When the Director of the Hasbara Department announces a drive to get 100,000 people using the software- "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference", most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy. If youre looking for other policy statements on Hasbara then check some of the aims as outlined in 2005 82.29.227.171 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The announcement was made for the organization if I am reading your source correctly, not directly for the government. Doesnt the other source specifically mention it was not a gov policy, the cyber soldiers one? --zero faults 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Israel’s Foreign Ministry must avoid direct involvement with the campaign but is in contact with international Jewish and evangelical Christian groups, distributing internet information packs. " It seems he, or his department, is not the originators of the idea either, he just send emails out telling people about it. The source actually specifically states these points. --zero faults 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats from the Times correspondant, not the Director of Hasbara in Israel, Amir Gissin. To repeat: When the Director of the Hasbara Department announces a drive to get 100,000 people using the software- "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference", most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy. What the Times have to say about them avoiding "direct involvement" is redundant when the Director of the Hasbara Dept publicly announces it via one of the sites in question. 82.29.227.171 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current formulation stating that the Times reported that Gissin made those comments, and assigning responsibility for the software to WUJS, is the best way to discuss this in an NPOV matter at the moment. Cheers, Tewfik 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy.

— 82.29.227.171

No its just a reasonable assumption. Gissin is Director of Hasbara in Israel, he sends out a communique urging use of the software on 22nd July, (before Times gets a further quote from him on 28 July)-

"We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference.. Do it now. For Israel.", We being who? Him and the WUJS? The Times was reporting that the WUJS students had joined the campaign AFTER Gissen's call to arms on the 22nd. Is Amir Gissin in the WUJS? Nope, he works for the Israeli Government, he signed the call to arms on their behalf, in his official capacity as Director of Hasbara in Israel, and his 'call to arms' is "For Israel". Here is his announcement, note his, not the WUJS's. Note the date- 22nd (before the Times article ). The IDF is spreading propaganda, the WUJS is in alliance with them following their 'call to arms'. Why the coded denial and attempt to make it out to be a WUJS initiative? 82.29.227.171 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tewfik in this matter, hopefully others will chime in however. --zero faults 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik, thats what the source say. Now, Hasbara should be mentioned, as this is a widely acknowledged practice that goes back at leasts to the Jewish Authority and Haganah. Thats not OR, bayby. --Cerejota 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The Times source article remarks on the WUJS rallying to the initial Hasbara Dept announcement made by Gissin. It is dated 27th July and refers to the period of the last 5 days when WUJS members began downloading and using Megaphone.
2. The Times article was written 5 days after Gissin made the initial announcement here.
3. The Times article does not say the WUJS created megaphone or that they started the campaign.
4. Gissin launched the campaign and policy of gathering support using Megaphone via standwithus.com on the 22nd July as the announcement posted there indicates

Is anyone reading that announcement or what?? Why weasel word the piece on Israeli Government Hasbara Dept. and try to make out the WUJS started it? 82.29.227.171 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV

I find this absolutely ridiculous. Every subsection in the "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section makes little to no mention of Hezbollah and instead focuses exclusively on Israel's actions.

Amnesty international and HRW have BOTH released statements critical of Israel AND Hezbollah, and yet only the criticism of Israel is quoted? This is blatant POV.

Why is it that all mention of Hezbollah's use of shrapnel-filled warheads, including the two references to this fact, have been removed (one of them being the HRW report on Hezbollah)? I asume this is POV vandalism, because this was a key point backed up by references, and there was no reason to remove it.

Also, qualifying statements about Nasrallah's assertion that Hezbollah previously only attacked military targets have also been removed. Instead, it appears as though Nasrallah's quote is taken as truth. And yet similar assertions quoted from Israeli sources are surrounded by equivocal wording obviously meant to cast doubt on their veracity.

I do not have much time to fix these problems now, but they should nonetheless be fixed.

Last week this article actually had some semblance of NPOV, but has quickly degenrated back into volleys of POV vandalism from either side. --Uncanny Marbles 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be true. You are invited to contribute and discuss any sources you have. -- Szvest 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many editors just doing what they want when they want. No discussion, just deletion/rearranging to suit their POV. Article is a mess quite frankly. 82.29.227.171 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for the lead

We need a lead (introduction) which is short and to the point, containing only a very brief description that is no longer than three paragraphs, as everything is expanded further down. It has to try to be NPOV and should not contain names of operations or names of the different arms of the IDF, as those things are relatively unimportant and can be found further down in the article. Nor is it necessary to include any references in the lead, as everything is repeated and expanded further down in the article, with hundreds of citations. In the lead we should also limit the linking to other Misplaced Pages articles to only such things that are absolutely essential, i.e. things that readers may not understand.

First of all, the lead should only mention the two main fighting parties. The fact that the Israelis have bombed some Lebanese army positions, and that units of the Lebanese army has shot at Israeli helicopters violating Lebanes airspace, does not make Lebanon a major fighting party.

The main sticking point seems to be if the lead should contain a phrase stating that Hezbollah went over the Blue Line when they captured the two soldiers or not. As no side in the conflict seems to contest this (Hezbollah or the Lebanese government have never stated that the soldiers were captured on the Lebanese side - and they definitely would state that, over and over again, if they felt that this was the case), and as the only references to the trespassing story are a few newspaper sources claiming that the Lebanese police initially said so, I don't think it would be wrong to have a writing that says that Hezbollah went across the Blue Line. However, in order to avoid further discussion, it could be phrased in such a way that both sides are satisfied. If the second paragraph starts "The conflict started on 12 July 2006, with Hezbollah shelling into Israel and the capture of two Israeli soldiers" this should satisfy both parties and would definitely be a NPOV. Nobody contests that the shelling happened or that the shells went into Israel. Some people like to add "diversionary" to the shelling, but that's both POV (only Hezbollah knows if it was a planned diversion) and rather unimportant in the lead. The issue of the border-crossing is covered in detail in "Beginning of the conflict", which should be sufficient, and the fact that three Israeli soldiers also died during the capture is not vital for the lead, as Olmert's two arguments for justifying Israel's reaction have always been the 12 July shelling and capture of the two soldiers. If some editors feel that the death of the three must be included in the lead, they are not trying to remain neutral but are busy pushing an agenda (i.e. trying to strengthen the arguments justifying Israel's actions).

It's also important that the lead tries to, as much as possible, follow the chronological development of the initial events without becoming lengthy and hard to read. Consequently, the order should be 1) the Hezbollah initial action, 2) Israel's response, and 3) Hezbollah's counter-response. The fact that the the two latter parts actually took turns (with Israel first doing this, then Hezbollah responding with that, followed by Israel doing something more) is to complicated to cover in the lead.

Based on this, I have put together a proposal for a lead which I think satisfies all these requirements:

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of ongoing military actions and clashes in northern Israel and Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The conflict came two weeks after the start of the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict.

The conflict started on 12 July 2006, with Hezbollah shelling into Israel and the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated with an air and naval blockade of Lebanon, large-scale airstrikes across the whole country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon. Hezbollah in turn immediately responded with large-scale rocket attacks into northern Israel.

The conflict has caused the death of probably more than a thousand persons, has displaced more than a million people, has caused widespread infrastructure damage in Lebanon, and has disrupted normal life across most of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel. Attacks on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally, and most countries are calling for an immediate ceasefire.

We have enough edit wars as it is, in this and related articles, so if we can agree on a proper lead we will have reached consensus for at least the first three paragraphs - which would be a major achievement. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree generally with your proposal, but differ on the point of the three soldiers killed. As that happened as part of the initial raid, it is part of the casus. Whether Israel chose to stress it or not doesn't make it's inclusion POV. Cheers, Tewfik 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers die in war, nothing special. Unless you want to push a POV that justify this as a "vengance war", I think any figures on non-civilian casualties should be out of the lead. The job of soldiers includes the dubious honor of dying for their country, and are a given in war. Now, civilains, thats relevant. Of course if you want to insist on this I see no problem if you want to provide as justification for killing hundred of civilians the deaths of three soldiers. Your choice. :D--Cerejota 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When their being killed is part of the casus belli, their inclusion in the lead is as relevant as the abduction, shelling, and of course the cross-border nature of the raid. Tewfik 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree witht he proposal but disagree on this "The conflict has caused the death of probably more than a thousand persons, has displaced more than a million". This is editorializing that will change with time, and I think more general language like "Many have been killed, injured or displaced" that way we don't have to update for a while until major developments happen (BTW major developments I could consider are the entering of other combatants, the use of nuclear weapons, or a cease fire... not yet another bombing of civilians or some relevant but non-lead fact).

I would also add an editorial line like "This page is an introduction and pointer to other sub-pages with in depth information." Seems obvious, but since people have actually argued that readers don't visit subpages, a short one line exhortation could help them disabuse of the notion.--Cerejota 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a war. It is pointless to deny it. Misplaced Pages:No weasel words. See Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Discussion about the name of the article and the following section which gives numerous sources, including Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert & Minister of War Amir Peretz, who call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tazmaniacs, I think you put your comment in the wrong place. There are several discussions about the name of the article going on elsewhere, but this has nothing to do with that. If there is consensus that changing the name of the article is essential and that it has to be done right now, then the bold text in the lead will of course reflect whatever that name is. In all friendliness, Thomas Blomberg 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Misplaced Pages policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

beginning of conflict

the original beginning is like this,

According to Haaretz at 9:05 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians.

it has a defective citing and also I think using the Haaretz alone cannot be considered npov (it probably just cite idf sources). same can be said of using lebanon newspapers/al manar.

I change it to npov vesion.

--Stephenzhu 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Haaretz is not like al-Manar. But nevermind, not Haaretz alone is used, several prominent sources are also mentioned. Al-Jazeerah also calls it cross-border here. --Yms 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am only saying it seems that both Israeli/Lebanese sources are suspect as wiki sources. Also, I am aware of prominent sources calling it cross-border but it doesn't mean the notation is not in dispute. -Stephenzhu 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If both Ha'aretz AND Al-Jazeerah call it cross border, I think it is no longer reasonable to consider still in dispute. -- Avi 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am only using a neutral sense here. I am not subscribing either version of the story yet. As I said, if AP and AFP explicitly repudiate their earlier reports and the Lebanon source repudiated it as well, we can consider it not in dispute. Al-Jazeerah doesn't really count since they don't have people witnessing the causing events. --Stephenzhu 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to explicitly repudiate, as they have not repeated the claims. And none of the agencies had people watching the event; as an extreme defining its limit, Al Jazeera is absolutely credible in this instance. Tewfik 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The practice of medias like AP and AFP is that they will post a correction if the original report is wrong. You see that all the time. I am not saying the current Al Jazeera is not credible in general, only saying that they don't have the first person reporting on that event so the specific reporting on the causing event has no weight in this issue. It seems only two sources are relevent here, IDF and Lebanon/Hezballah sources. Everbody else gets their info from them.--Stephenzhu 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

12th of July is not the "beginning of conflict." 12th of July is the beginning of the regime in Beirut to have a real world problem (with Hezbollah/Israel.) MX44 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalists determine what is WP:Verifiable, and us based on their reliability. Those are the principles at play here. Cheers, Tewfik 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah

I don't know how many of you noticed it, but there's been a report in Jane's Defense Weekly about Iran supplying Hezbollah with more military equipment, should a potential cease-fire develop.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060807_1_n.shtml

Ruthfulbarbarity 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read it more closely, you'll notice that it their source is "Western diplomatic sources", and that Jane's further down state that the SAMs mentioned have been used by Hezbolla all along, according to the Israeli Air Force. Consequently, it isn't anything new. And there is nothing about "should a potential cease-fire develop" in the article, so that's obviously your POV. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Country Error

"Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. Therefore, it is innacurate and dangerously misleading to list "Palestine" as one of the countries on the casualty list. A more accurate terminology would be "Palestinian Authority" as the area is under Palestinian Authority rule. However, it is not yet a country. Please make the change accordingly. --160.81.239.98 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Agree. 89.1.254.24 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Cluster bombs allegations' section

Hi Fayssal,

The HRW report about Israeli cluster bombs and Hezbollah ball-bearings was removed due to space constraints to

Hi Tewfik. I am sorry to express my disagreement. The reason is simple. Please tell me if i am wrong. If we accept that, we'd be accepting bias. There's a big photoghraph out there alleging of Hezbollah launching rockets from Qana inside a section related to using human shileds. We need a balance Tewfik. I understand your concern about the size of the article, no doubt but that is really important and relevant info as much as other allegations are. -- Szvest 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol! I understand what happened now Tewfik. You are refering to what Avraham did. Well, logical and i totally agree as i told him. Cheers -- Szvest 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If balance is the concern, then we should use a neutral description of the HRW report - one that mentions both problems. I only suggest using the one above because it was in the main article for a time (until space demanded it be removed), and is consensus/NPOV. I'm not sure what these two claims would add to balance of the article specifically. Human-sheilds is its own issue; balance would be including claims of Israeli use of human shields, not just reporting something else critical of Israel. If we took this path, we would end up restoring all of the numerous reports and supposed violations on both sides. (What did Avraham do? =D) Let me know, Tewfik 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Tewfik. I've just answered Avi. There's a balance there Tewfik. Every party in this stupid conflict got its part of allegations and accusations. HRW accuses everybody according to their observations on the ground. We've heard enough comments in the talk page from editors supporting both sides (everyone is taking one anyway ;)) and that must be dealt w/. That's why we are admins. By the way, where are you from? Israel? Don't tell me Haifa or any targeted area there please. We want to see here alive as we want to see this conflict resolved so that every party gets what it needs w/o attrocities. -- Szvest 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, and sorry for unilatterally removing before getting your response, however I'm still not sure why anything other than the version at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons should be inserted, or why the set of claims should be inserted at all. It doesn't balance the human shield section, but adds a new section. Let me know, Tewfik 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. That wasn't unilateral to me as you stated that you are waiting for a reply. I don't see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Use of wide dispersal pattern weapons. Anyway, my point is that the section i added is very relevant to the conflict. Both sides using humans and shields and using cluster bombs are war criminals. We cover the use of human shields and we do not cover the rest? Also, see the sub-sections!

• Advance warnings of attacks by Israel
• Allegations of Hezbollah's human shield usage
• Reports of Israeli pilots refusing to bomb civilian areas

What does that mean to the reader? If we have to remove that than we have to remove everything Tewfik which is against WP principles, policies and guidelines. If you're still doubting, Let's keep it here and discuss it in the article's talk page. -- Szvest 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(Feel free to paste this all to the Talk; I just have few words right now) It may well need to be removed and replaced with a short but detailed summary of all the claims, but I think with the amount of claims and counter-claims, that may get unwieldy. In the meantime, if you feel that the wide pattern weapon claims are important enough to merit their own inclusion, then it should be the NPOV and vetted (its a great word) version that I linked to. As an entirely separate note, I'm not sure how you see this as providing balance, as if the pair of claims are added, then any percieved imbalance in the shields section will still exist. Let me know, Tewfik 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Hi again. It makes sense of course. But if i follow your reasoning Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Hezbollah.27s .22human shield.22 tactics should be removed as well as it is on the other fork article. Please let's get it back and discuss it at the talk page if you wish.

Tewfik. Why is that considered POV? HRW is accusing someone and that encyclopaedic as much as everthing there is encyclopaedic. The size of the article is not a big issue and it is only a guideline. If that section is the only one creating a havoc re the size than so do the rest of sections. We've been working on articles longer than that. Many featured articles were as twice as long as that. Hizbollah is accused and there is a section but accusations re Israel are to have refuge to a fork article? That is not logical Tewfik. It's a real accusation and it's more important than 2 pilots refusing to shoot. It is as important as using human shields. If i were a judge i'd have given life sentence to both of them and not only to Hezbollah. Sincerely Tewfik. -- Szvest 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My main issue is that the NPOV version of the HRW statement, that dealt with both Israeli and Hezbollah actions, should be used. I say NPOV, because it was up on the main page for a long time and went through many revisions to reach its current state. I'm getting the feeling we may be talking about different things.

My secondary point isn't one of content (at least I don't percieve it as such =D). It is that while the human shields claim may be given undue prominence in the main, I'm not sure what distinguishes the wide-dispersal weapon critiques from the other half-dozen critiques. I think that a detailed but short summary may be in order. To that effect, general accusations of mutual war-crimes are already mentioned under UN and HRW sections. Let me know, Tewfik 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First point... Yes, it is removed by Avi and i agree w/ that as a new sub-section was inserted by me. It should be inside the "targeting civilians" section and not outside of it. If you agree that one line os sufficient than so it be for all the rest. Human shiled (1 line), refusnik (1 line), dropping leaflets (1 line)... I don't agree as it is a very important issue as much as the other issues. NPOV! yes it was NPOV and the new sub-section is still NPOV, no, Tewfik?

Second point. I'd suggest that we remove the above sub-sections about the reports as some already talk about the same. So we can keep the rest and putting the Israeli and Hezbollah positions sub-section down. -- Szvest 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't totally understand what you meant here - could you clarify? In terms of NPOV, I meant that the mention on the subpage dealt with both Israel and Hezbollah, and I replaced the section with that one. Cheers, Tewfik

As you know I oppose the deleting of reliably and verifiably sourced information in all but extreme NPOV reasons, but one of the very few things we are unequivocally and demostrably in fvaor is a reduction in article side.

So perhaps a subpage? Or move to existing? Whatever, I agree this critique-countercritique circus has to stop. This isn't a blog, nor a soapbox and if weneed daits, subpage the damn thing.

I really are begining to get mad at all this grusome, uninformative display of minutae on attacks as it hides the big picture which is what the main article should be about (ie Beginning, Background pointers, Pointers to issue and information pages, ELs etc, no indepth discussion).

That said, be careful you don't end up, as has happened with other edits (not necessarily by you, and even some of mine!) destroying NPOV. I think we need to discuss things more widely and give a day or two before doing major edits. If not we end up with ugly POV forks (like "Role of Iran and Syria") or hiding relevant information in the name of space (like has happened with mention of what hezbollah is section and with the International reactions)--Cerejota 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I see that the article is under a neutrality dispute, as it should be. I think it should also be under factual accuracy dispute, because it presents the Israeli version of the story -- that the soldiers were taken on the Israeli side of the border -- as undisputed. A factually accurate article would say that both sides make different claims. I find the argument of Tewfik, that the big dogs of the Anglo press support the Israeli version so there is really no dispute, to be unconvincing. --172.191.149.54 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a quote from Al-Jazeerah calling it “cross border”. They are not the Anglo press, last I checked. 8-) -- Avi 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to do anything to make us think that burnt IDF Humvees could jump over the border back to Israel, and that some reservists went to Lebanon like it was their backyard? 89.1.254.24 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your point is? -- Avi 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying to 172.191.149.54, that those captured reservist had nothing to do on the Lebanese side of th border, and that burnt Humvees were on the Israeli side of the border. So it was clearly a cross border attack... 89.1.254.24 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been a long day 8-) -- Avi 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This belongs in my userspace page Bombing Lebanon to the crunchy, Hezbollah nougat center... althought seriously, has any other verifiable or reliable source said that the initial capture happened in Lebanon. I really defended the inclusion of this because it was verifiable minority view, but since the initial mention has this happened? Is Hizbollah claiming it was? If not it should slowly fade as fog of war rumor...

I know a former section editor in the Asia Times, so ill speak with him...--Cerejota 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There were some other details whose factual accuracy could be debated as well as some claims made that either aren't cited or don't correspond to the facts presented in their citations. I don't think it really needs a factual accuracy template, but people should go through and double check some details against their sources. If there turn out to be a significant number of dubious citations, we can put a citation tag on the page or section in question. --Epsilonsa 06:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the deleted Asia Times citation demonstrates factual accuracy dispute. It looks like it was deleted twice. This is indefensible. --NathanDW 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

References

As of late, some sort of reference template has been used, and as a result many empty fields remain on the page, presumably contributing to the space defecit. Additionally, the numerous separate lines make viewing difs a little harder. Any thoughts? Tewfik 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the empty lines, but having each option on its own line makes it MUCH easier to copyedit/debug the text than having it as one long run-on citation. -- Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating schema - vote

The article is comprised of both European and American schemes. We should pick one and stick with it. As an initial impromptu poll of preference, please sign under which option you prefer. Thank you. -- Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day-Month-Year

Month-Day-Year

1. --Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Click on your "my preferences" (top of page, right side), and pick your own style. Enter dates into articles in accordance to WP:DATE. mdf 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day Month Year --user:mnw2000 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for voting. See WP:MoS for guidelines on date format. Neither Israel nor Lebanon uses American Dating. This article uses International Dating overwhelmingly. --Jumbo 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FOr some reason that is not working, but you have a good point in that since there was no predominant method used originally, the fact that both Israel and Lebanon use the international schema is a reasonable method for resolution. Thanks. -- Avi 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Frivolity

I object to all vandalism, of course, but I thought this was pretty amusing. It made it onto Wonkette, too. -Hit bull, win steak 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha.

Yes, that is quite amusing.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Update needed

2006 Shiyyah airstrike 2006 al-Qaa airstrike 82.29.227.171 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating the picture on the title

What about this one?

The image is provided by the iDF, and was released by the IDF spokesperon, as well as the picture we use now. 89.1.205.36 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was Rafik Hariri International Airport bombed?

Hello,

at this point nor the article Rafic Hariri International Airport nor this article provide a reason for bombing that airport. I know that this is a controversial topic but it could be done in an objective way by providing Hezbollah's and Olmert's explanation for instance.

Thanks.

Evilbu 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the official justification for that strike,

Israel said it targeted the airport because it is a transfer point for weapons and supplies to Hezbollah. The airport was closed and all flights were diverted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, well (but there is a lock now) that is something we could add. Evilbu 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the lighthouse in Beirut eradicated?

Eye-wittnesses have said that it looked like some boored out IAF crew having a local competition between themselves? MX44 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1 000 killed according to Lebanon

Tewfik, I'm sorry, but if Lebanon claims 1 000 dead including 1/3 children, then the box can't just say 500 dead and bypass that. Tazmaniacs 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely Tewfik, you seemed to agree at one point that the range 400-800 had to be given, but the box now is 500, while Lebanon say 1000. Range should be 500-1000. Do not minimize losses from one side or another. Thanks. Best regards, Tazmaniacs 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It doesn't bypass that, but rather gives range of reliable media estimates. I suggest you look at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC. Not that its completely relevant, but one of the reasons we do this is to prevent repeating a blunder that even PM Siniora made (40 casualties became 1). The news generally say what they can verify, but still preserve the context of the greater numbers. Cheers, Tewfik 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(2nd Edit conflict):I agreed to 400 when it was the case. Whether and how we should include official Lebanese numbers should be discussed above, but we last decided not to include them in light of the lack of distinction of combatants and general lack of clarity surrounding their numbers. Cheers Tewfik 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, I'm sure you realize why you can't continue saying "we decided". Misplaced Pages:No binding decisions. Who is this "we"? Not everybody. Yes, we should include the Lebanese claim that 1 000 civilians were killed including 1/3 children, it has been reported by Reuters & others news agencies. This is simple respect of reality. Tazmaniacs 07:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying "we decided and that's it," but I am saying that what was decided shouldn't be ignored. Take part in the discussion, a case could be made for including the Lebanese position to some degree (though as it stands now, I oppose that =D). However totally replacing the sourced range isn't appropriate. See you there, Tewfik 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik please discuss removing sources here before

Relating to this last edit, could you explain it here? Please adress important casualties problem above. See also discussions concerning term "war": everybody calls it a war, we should follow use. Please do not claim your POV is "consensus", it's a war, "consensus" is not the correct term to use when you revert 1 000 dead to 500 and change "war" by "conflict". Peace brother, Tazmaniacs 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit has nothing to do with the "war" issue; I only removed a redundant source due to space issues and changed the characterisation of "all" to a more encyclopedic and verifiable "most."

In terms of the "war" issue though, we should only make a change once the entire procedure finishes. This has nothing to do with POV - as can be evidenced by supporters for competeing titles on both sides of the spectrum. There's just no rush. When we change the page title, we should change the internal reference, but to call it war when the consensus has not arrived at it is pointless. I do hope you understand. Cheers, Tewfik 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit shown was the reason of the name of this section: why did you remove that source without discussion? Concerning the term "war", do not mix together the issue of the title of this article which is no emergency, and the content of this entry. All mainstream news agency, the Israeli governemnt and Lebanon call it a war. No, I do not understand your support of Tasc's revert of my edits, which include lowering 1 000 killed to 500 and erasing the term "war". Regards, Tazmaniacs 07:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the terms "conflict" and "war" can be used interchangeably, although I honestly don't think it's a major issue. Most observers will characterize these events as a war regardless of how Misplaced Pages, or Reuters, or The Guardian choose to describe them.

I think insisting that 1,000 fatalities is an accurate and reliable figure is another matter altogether.

As someone's already pointed out, several major news agencies-and the current prime minister of Lebanon-have already been caught exaggerating the casualty figures on the Lebanese side. I don't think it's Misplaced Pages's job to elicit sympathy for one side of this conflict, especially not one that is accomplishing that task quite well on its own.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I do agree with your common sense, you can't argue in favor of the exclusion of the word "war" under the grounds that it doesn't makes any difference. It does. Words have sense. Regarding the 1000, Reuters has deemed the information noteworthy enough to be said. I make no judgment on its reliability, but the fact is that the war is ongoing in Lebanon, and that, as far as I know, the Lebanon government is as valid a source as the Israeli army. Dividing numbers by two is lying. Period. Tazmaniacs 08:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it matters a great deal, that is reflected in the ongoing discussion about the name. There aren't two separate discussions; if its a war, than it is one in both the title and the content, and if not, likewise. We don't call things by one name in their title and another in their body. Cheers, Tewfik 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli/Lebanese casualties

Although the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed, we have a slight problem with figuring out the number of wounded/injured people and the severity of those cases. This is partially because "injured" is a grey-zone unlike dead (which is or is not!)

As numbers are running up, I would like to ask: Can we skip the injured, and let people deduce for themselves the numbers of injured from the numbers of dead? MX44 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I say "yes". I told it before: I, as Israeli, have no idea how many Israeli injured since the begining of the conflict, not mentiioning how many Lebanese injured. It is a grey-zone indeed, and we should not report the number of injured at all. Flayer 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree here. There are big issues with what "injured" means. Lost a limb? Slightly upset by a bang in the distance? Stephen B Streater 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will wait another 24h for other editors to voice their opinions before doing anything "bold."

There is also the "dead" vs "missing" figures giving me a hard time calculating anything reasonably. MX44 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought: The "missing" may or may not be dead/wounded/whatevever, so if I sum up the dead, that will be it! MX44 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (feeling uneasy, summarising tragedies to statistics)

I think we should just keep dead. Injured can mean anything and missing can lead to duplicating figures. --zero faults 12:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that was what intended to say, but to clerify: Agreed! :) MX44 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it strange for you to start by claiming that "the figure for people dead is (more or less) undisputed", although Reuters has reported that Lebanese claim 1000 dead (including 1/3 children) but that here some tireless editors decided 500 would be better? Tazmaniacs 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be the "lesser" part of undisputed, but the lower numbers always comes with the qualifyer "at least." What can be said is that Lebanese gov now claims 1000+ dead and Israel claims 100+ The BBC reports as of today: More than 1,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the month-old conflict, the Lebanese government has said. More than 100 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also died. This is also in line with what Reuters reports: The war has cost the lives of at least 1,005 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and more than 100 Israelis. NY Times detailed the Israeli figures yesterday to be 36 civilian and 65 miltary, but since then 15 more Israeli soldiers have been killed. MX44 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Article

Another intresting article. this information needs to be added to ensure NPOV. It echoes Galloways information. --Striver 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehh .. Would you care to quote what is missing? MX44 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

suitable lead

We have 2 edition for some part of lead:

1- On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise, consisting of a alleged cross-border raid resulting in the capture of two soldiers and shelling into Israel as a diversionary tactic. Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward, later renamed Operation Change of Direction. Israel's strike has included massive bombing raids by the Israeli Air Force (IAF), an air and Israeli Sea Corps naval blockade of Lebanon (especially southern Lebanon and Beirut), a force of tanks and armored personnel carriers, and some small raids into southern Lebanon by IDF ground troops. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has engaged in artillery rocket bombardment of Israel's northern cities and towns, including Haifa.

2- Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling across the Blue Line into Israel, which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three Israeli soldiers, Israel retaliated with an air and naval blockade of Lebanon, massive airstrikes across the whole country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon . Hezbollah in turn immediately responded with large-scale rocket attacks into Northern Israel .

I think the first one is more suitable.--Accessible 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The first one is more suitable, but the word "alleged" sounds like it is not proven yet. It is proven.... 89.0.219.66 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't propose to answer the question of whether it is or isn't proven, but "alleged" (implying they might not have done it) seems inconsistent with "initiated" (implying they did it).--82.69.133.230 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The important difference is that the first version is a mile long. We need to keep this already long article down by not including rather irrelevant details in the intro that are repeated further down anyway, like the names of the various operations and different branches of the IDF. The fact that some Lebanese policemen initially claimed that the Israeli soldiers were taken on the Lebanese side is also something explained further down. As that claim is not supported by the Hezbollah announcements or by the Lebanese government (and they would repeat it over and over again if they felt that the claim was valid), indicates that we do not need to write "alleged" in the intro. Thomas Blomberg 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the second one is suitable for "Begining of the conflict" not "Lead".--212.6.32.3 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand. Everytime I check the lead there is written a new thing. But nobody participate in this debate. If the talk page is a joke, Please tell me too.--Accessible 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the Operations is not the most interesting, and, at any cases, they is no reason to put them in bold. These are military details, which is not like the 1000 dead (which concerns civilians). Tazmaniacs 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing Nasrallah quotation and Hezbollah actions

This part is removed frequently.:

On 25 July Nasrallah has announced the launch of the "second phase of our struggle" in which his long-range rockets would "go beyond Haifa," Israel's third-largest city. Israeli officials have been bracing for possible rocket attacks on Tel Aviv. On 29 July in a televised address to the Lebanese nation Nasrallah said:

"I tell the Lebanese that no one among you should be afraid of the victory of the resistance.. I assert that the victory will be for all of Lebanon, for every Arab, Muslim and honorable Christian, who stood with Lebanon and defended it."

30 July reportedly saw 140-146 rockets fired from Hezbollah positions into Israel- the most fired on a single day since IDF Operation Change Direction began. On 2 August rockets also landed near the town of Beit Shean, about 70 kilometres (43 miles) from the border. Reports of rocket attacks reached 300 striking 15 targets inside Israel despite the IDF's claim that the three-week offensive in Lebanon had eroded Hezbollah's firepower.

I think the reason should be written.--Accessible 09:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because we are trying to keep the article short. That section is a summary of the main article, where this information is (or if it isn't, should be) included already. July 25 was two weeks ago, and his comments are old, and also irrelivent - his actions speak for themselves. Details of his speeches are not needed in a summary. July 30 was over a week ago, and it is already mentioned that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets into Israel - the specfic number fired on one day is of no concern here. Please, remember this is a summary - and all of the main info in there (that Hezbollah have fired a lot of rockets on northern towns, and that they have reached quite far south) is already in the section. --Iorek85 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Haim Ramon's Comments under "Israeli Position"

Earlier I removed Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon's comments from under "Israeli position". In my opinion their mention a few sections below is sufficient and placing them in that context is highly misleading, as regardless of Ramon's words "all civilians in southern Lebanon are terrorists" and "villages should be flattened by air force before ground troops move in" are not Israeli policy in any shape or form, let alone an official one. My changes were reverted by user:El C with the explanation that the comments are "historically significant". I think that still doesn't change the fact that Ramon was merely expressing his opinion of what should be done and not in any way voicing official policy, so the quote should be included but in another part of the article. --AceMyth 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, not every comment from a person with a government position is expresing said governments views and policies. --zero faults 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile I changed the "X but Y" syntax (which is basically an underhanded way to say X, but disregard X, because Y), and replaced the very rough paraphrase of Ramon's words with his actual phrasing. I think it's less jarring now, but should still be moved elsewhere. --AceMyth 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He was expressing his "opinion" in his official capacity at an Israeli Government cabinet meeting. As a member of the Government currently in power it might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground. I believe Ramon's comments are valuable because they go some way to explaning this idea that South Lebanon is a free fire zone. Yesterday it was announced that it was IDF open season on all moving vehicles. Conflict of policy? Drop leaflets telling people to flee then blow up any vehicles moving? 82.29.227.171 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are assuming is whats wrong. Furthermore there was a warning given regarding moving vehicles and an explanation why. Lastly they were told to flee some weeks ago, those still there I doubt have just been packing bags all this time. Again, stop "assuming" as assumptions are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. --zero faults 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a fair assumption. Assuming that the Justice Minister's views count for something isnt farfetched at all. If it is why is he in the post? Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings?

The warnings are quite useless when faced with bombed roads/bridges/convoys, a lack of living drivers, a lack of money to pay them, a lack of vehicles which arent on the "strafe on sight list". Even when people do flee they get shot at. PLUS we now have examples of areas being bombed without leaflet drops. Check this article which provides examples to back up everything I just stated. Although based on your comments I think youre more likely to agree with Ramon when he said "all those in South Lebanon are terrorists" 82.29.227.171 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Widing of the War

Where should it be mentioned that the Israel's Security Cabinet approved the widing of the war? Israel Security Council OKs Wider Ground Offensive in Lebanon Red1530 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BUTTTTTT Israel said it would widen the war if and only if diplomacy at the UN doesn't work. It's not an immediate green light to widen the war. --68.1.182.215 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request that "Civilians..." section be cleaned up

I am unable to edit right now, so I would like to draw a more senior user's attention on this matter:

This paragraph needs to be changed to use less inflammatory wording:

Strikes on Lebanon's civilian population and infrastructure include Beirut airport, residential buildings, clearly marked ambulances, fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags, United Nations posts and personnel, ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks, mobile telephone and television stations, fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.

"clearly marked ambulances" and "fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags" is ridiculous wording, clearly showing an Anti-Israel bias.

It is fine to say that there have been confirmed instances of ambulances and fleeing civilians being hit, but to use language like "clearly marked" and "prominently waving white flags" is completely unacceptable and should be removed.

Also, I will request again that some mention be made of Hezbollah's use of warheads filled with ball bearings (whihc are designed to maximize human casualties). All mention of this was removed, apparently by POV vandals.

The part about the ball bearings was moved down and is now next to the part about Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, I believe. --AceMyth 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this article which provides examples to back the wording up. Is it "anti-Israel bias" when its factual? The detail on the shrapnel rockets does belong in this article. 82.29.227.171 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think the objection he expressed was regarding the tone, not necessarily the content. 2. I can't access the source for the civilians "prominently waving white flags", for example, because I'm not registered on the NYT website, but as it stands the article implies basically that Israel attacked civilians waving white flags and Hospitals and so forth for no reason in particular except that it sounded like a fun thing to do at the time. I mean, is that it? Has Israel denied these allegations, issued any official response, anything?... I smell PoV by omission. --AceMyth 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Karen Kwiatkowski

This belongs in Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where you will find corroborating evidence on NSA sharing SIGINT with the IDF- check the Salon.com article cited there 82.29.227.171 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of weapons with wide blast patterns

The merging of Hezbollah's ball-bearing use into a section with other critiques of Hezbollah while creating a section just for claims against Israeli cluster-bomb use creates a skewed presentation of facts, and minimises Hezbollah's problems while highlighting problems with Israel. This is especially true in this case where Human Rights Watch feels that the two issues are related and deals with both under one subheading. While I'm sure this wasn't the intent, the outcome is an extremely POV section. Please address, Tewfik 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This section should be renamed—the title naïvely misrepresents the issues with these weapons.

Ball-bearings are a normal feature of certain high-explosive fragmenting warheads, HE-Frag—others use metal fragmentation casings designed to turn into shrapnel. These are conventional antipersonnel weapons intended to be most effective against unarmoured targets, including unprotected civilians. Cluster bombs release a series of grenades or minelets, particular ones are be designed for antipersonnel or anti-armour use, or both—like antipersonnel land mines, they may leave behind unexploded munitions which render the ground dangerous, and may indiscriminately maim or kill civilians long after a conflict.

It also should be explicitly mentioned that the Katyusha-type artillery rocket launchers being used by Hezbollah are bargain-basement area weapons, sacrificing accuracy for the economy of their launchers and ammunition, and for a high volume of fire. One of their characteristics is their shock action against even experienced, prepared soldiers, when they are used en masse. Launching them at inhabited areas is an indiscriminate attack on civilians, and in my opinion practically constitutes a terror attack by definition. —Michael Z. 2006-08-09 19:14 Z

Nasrallah - spiritual leader

Are you sure? Isn't it old Fadlallah? 89.1.208.97 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point.

Nasrallah's title-to the best of my recollection-is "Secretary-General" of Hezbollah.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IRGC should be readded as a combatant

Reuters story says that IRGC members were found by Israeli soliders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello32020 (talk • contribs)

There were reports they were fighting before, and this is proof that they are there, so it makes since to include them in my oppinion. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that Iran is supplying Hezbollah with weaponry, not even the Iranian government itself.

And the fact that their have been Iranian casualties, most likely Pasderan, has also been well-established, IMO.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops forgot to add name before

We should readd if we get one or two more people due to consensus. Hello32020 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While Iran is involved to an extent (documented somewhat at Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - though more detail would be appreciated), I'm not sure that they should be considered a combatant yet, just like China was not considered a combatant in Viet Nam. I don't claim to know the line they must cross to be considered, but this, like so many other issues here, may be subject to the Elephant test. Cheers, Tewfik 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields

Someone removed the subsection Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields. i have put it back in.

Please explain why the criticisms of the allegations should not be present in the article. The allegations are disputed, so WP:NPOV means we have to present the arguments for and against. i don't understand how someone can remove this, unless s/he is attempting to present only one POV in this section.

Thanks. Boud 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I'm about to vastly shorten both sections. That section is a summary of the sub article, where the larger quotes and details can be found. The article is currently far too long. Iorek85 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "sub article"? The present version looks something like an NPOV summary, though i agree that more splitting off into a new article and then bringing a better summary back here would make more sense. Boud 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boud I believe this needs its own article to be dealt with, there is both too much detail on it and too much criticism. It is overpowering both this article and the article on Targeting civilian areas. I will leave a message on your talk. 82.29.227.171 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Breaking off into a separate article X sounds fine to me - then NPOV debate can happen in the discussion of the new article X and this article (2006_Israel...) can have whatever the latest NPOV summary of article X is and we can tell people to stop doing things here which could sound POV since the debate is happening there. So then the main question is: what title? (one that delete-maniacs will not try to delete). How about:

Allegations of human shield usage in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict ?

i think you'll find in Jonathan Cook's article, that there's something like an allegation that Israel has deliberately built military facitilies close to Israeli-Arab population centres - so that's more or less an allegation that Israel has been using human shields, in which case the allegations go both ways (that doesn't mean that they are equally true, just as "Israel-Lebanon" conflict does not claim that one side is more morally/legally right than the other). Anyway, the point is the allegations go both ways enough for NPOV to require that the title go both ways.

IMHO, part of the article would be documenting the rhetoric by "both" sides and other parties, and the title reflects this, and (briefly) its relation to human rights law, the geneva conventions etc, some comments by analysts (not wikipedians ;) about whether or not the concept of "human shields" makes any sense or not, the history of the term itself (AFAIK it only dates back to the 1991 attack on Iraq, when it was used to show that Saddam Hussein was not just a US-installed dictator, but he was also a really evil man - but don't quote me on this, i'm just saying this from neural memory). It would be necessary to avoid too much overlap with the numbers of civilian victims, though of course, that a summary of civilian victims would presumably be part of the article.

i can't promise much work on the article, but i think we have enough material as it is and then the NPOV + NOR process can go on from there... Boud 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote in the article that says not using human shields would be "like standing in an open field waiting to be shot" is absurd. Hezbollah could build bunkers, tunnels, etc., in which to hide, they don't need to hide behind women and children. That is, of course, not true if their real goal is to maximize Lebanese civilian casualties to try to elicit world sympathy and/or to excuse their own killing of Israeli civilians. StuRat 23:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links

Here are some of the sources that lend credibility to this assertion:

http://www.nysun.com/article/36326

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5242566.stm?ls

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8505160247

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T215844Z_01_L09100220_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-LEBANON-IRANIANS.xml

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just heard reports on WABC news that reporters were shown Iranian identity papers discovered on the person(s) of individuals killed in S. Lebanon.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda

These claims seem to be propaganda because;

• Military personal of a covert natural wil never wear or have anything that can be traced back to their nation

• The Israelis are making a claim, nothing has been proven and verified by a neutral party

• Hezbollah & the Iranian government have said there are no Iranian troops in Lebanon; this are official statements to 'consider', but note that so far Hezbollah has been more honest than Israel has.

• It is a clear Israeli and White House objective to produce a smoking gun for Iran; meaning blame Iran for the attacks for justification of somesort of future conflict with Iran.

• The claims are made about dead bodies; how can they tell they are Iranian? Even if they are they are not wearing any Iranian uniforms, etc.

• So far a lot of the Israeli claims have either proven to be false and/or contradictory

I also want it to be noted by all impartial and fair editors that there is a strong and repeteaded eagerness to involve Iran in this conflict by Israel and the White House as part of their PR, there are also certain editors who wish to do the same and their history and actions have given strong indications to where they stand on the issue and who they favour. Also remeber that it has been discovered that Israel and the Israeli lobby have declared a cyber-war where they are lunching a campaing to manipulate the internet with propganda. Just checking a lot of these IP histories and so on will confirm what is being said. Thank You

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20079382-23109,00.html http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-09T233401Z_01_L09130902_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-LEBANON-HIZBOLLAH-DENIAL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3 http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L10130494 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/09805695-3577-421D-BC35-8FE01E8EAD06.htm http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/597/597_10_MythsLies.shtml 69.196.164.190

Proposed UN resolution

Is there a Misplaced Pages article on the proposed UN resolution? I've started to write something at Lebanon and the United Nations but don't know if that's the best place for it. HieronyMouse 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the United Nations per se, but an article about the reaction of international organizations does exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_by_Organizations

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have started 2006 United Nations Security Council resolution on Lebanon and need help with it. HieronyMouse 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some reading material,

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/08/08/diplomatic_divide_on_halt_to_fighting_stalls_new_proposal/

http://www.nysun.com/article/37518

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/REPOSITORY/607260363/1043/NEWS01

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7f9a2caa-5e39-48e5-8d4d-760139d63710&k=71041

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/15148142.htm

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there is already an article called Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict which the 2006 United Nations Security Council resolution on Lebanon should be linked to, just as the Siniora Plan already is. Negotiations for ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is in desperate need of a re-write, by the way. As for the first UN draft text, you'll find it at the Democracy in Lebanon website. However, judging from what's happening in New York right now, that text will either be re-written a lot, or totally scrapped, as France and the US are quickly moving in opposite directions. Regards Thomas Blomberg 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "Israel hits hard but suffers 15 deaths". AP. 2006-08-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. "Escaping Lebanon". Porterville Recorde. 2006-07-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Hezbollah Raid Boosts Group's Image". WTOP 103.5FM. 07-12-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. "It's war by any other name". Asia Times. 2006-07-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. "Israel for rules change in south Lebanon". United Press International. 2006-07-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. "Israel to Lebanon: No to ceasefire". Ynetnews.com. 2006-07-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. "Lebanon-Israel Developments". Forbes. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. "Rockets fired at Meron, Safed; no injuries". Ynet. 2006-07-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. "Lebanon-Israel Developments". Forbes. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
10. "Rockets fired at Meron, Safed; no injuries". Ynet. 2006-07-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
11. "Israeli strikes may boost Hizbullah base", Christian Science Monitor, 28 July 2006
12. "What Next, Lebanon?". Washington Post. 2006-07-30.
13. "Analysis: Too late now for an invasion?". Jerusalem Post. 07-26-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
14. "WRAPUP 16-Israel raid kills more than 60, Lebanon shuns Rice=Reuters news". 2006-07-30. Retrieved 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. "10:44 am: Hezbollah guerrillas fire record number of rockets at Israel". 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
16. "300 Hezbollah Rockets Strike 15 Israeli Targets". 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
17. "10:44 am: Hezbollah guerrillas fire record number of rockets at Israel". 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2006-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)