Misplaced Pages

Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.196.164.190 (talk) at 07:47, 26 July 2006 (→Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:47, 26 July 2006 by 69.196.164.190 (talk) (→Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Lebanon War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9

This page has been given 2 subpages for discussion. Please use these subpages to discuss Pictures, POV, or certain edit debates. If the topic you wish discuss isn't either of these, please place it under the headings provided here. Thank you. If you are looking for discussion on those two issues you posted here, look in the subpages. This page is constantly being re-organised.

Discussion on Pictures
Discussion on POV problems

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions


Latest Developments

I would suggest to go from 'conflict' to 'war'. Even the IDF websites calls it a war by now.

....IDF hopes that the fighting in Lebanon against the Hezbollah terror organization will be finished quickly but at the same time is prepared, in logistics and morale, for as long a period of time as the task requires. "We are doing everything possibly to shorten the operation while still reaching the objectives we have set for ourselves," said the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz. IDF enjoys widespread support among the Israeli public, which backs the war, feeling that there is no other choice in the matter. The Israeli home front is showing its strength and much fortitude, and there is a sensation that the public is prepared, if necessary, for the long haul.

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=55050.EN --Attraho 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would include the name of Hezbollah in the title for four reasons: 1) They instigated the conflict 2) They are one of the primary military force currently engaged 3) This is not a war between two soverign countries as the title suggests 4) While they are part of the Lebanon government, thier military arm has seperate command and control

--user:mnw2000 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the Combatants

Earlier discussions


Jihad Watch: Iranian Revolutionary Guards killed in Lebanon, flown back to Iran via Syria http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php

Missing an important point

One of the most notable features of this conflict so far has been the speed with which complex geopolitical theories to explain the situation have appeared in the mass media. Nobody can prove that Iran and Syria are or are not involved in the conflict at this stage, and wikipedia should certainly not attempt to "determine the truth" of those claims. What is undeniable however is that a multitude of US commentators and politicians have been promoting the idea that Iran and Syria are the true villains of the piece. That point is not currently being made in the article, and I think it's a serious oversight. — JEREMY 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claim about Iran

Under Casualties/Foreign nationals it says "Between six and nine Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers have been killed by Israeli forces." There is a source where this is claimed , but this is a very sensational piece of news, which shouldn't be hidden in this section if it was confirmed. But we must remember that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and this has not been reported by more well reputed sources. The beginning of the article doesn't really look convincing "The bodies of Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers killed by the Israeli army in Lebanon have been transported to Syria and flown to Tehran, senior Lebanese political sources said. Israeli and Egyptian security officials confirmed the news." Would Lebanese "political sources" and "Egyptian security officials" really speak of such confidential stuff to a small American newspaper? I'm removing the sentence above. --Battra 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions


Israel Massing troops

Sorry if this is already on the talk page - I didn't see it.

Israel is calling up reserves and massing troops on the border. We can probably expect a ground invasion soon. Source

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions


Civilian casualties

Currently the Lebanese civilian casualty count in our article is 306. The MSNBC article cited says "At least 306 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel’s campaign began, according to Lebanese officials. At least 29 Israelis have been killed, including 14 soldiers." Is there some reason that we are assuming that all 306 are civilians? I'm going to change it to an admittedly inferior formulation lacking the civilian qualifier. Tewfik 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've subtracted the 24 soldiers from the 306 total number given, though the sources cited for Lebanese military casualties weren't clear. Tewfik 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Info Box. The civilians/military deaths listed in the casualties info box needs to be reordered to be consistent across all 3 sections. Ugh, also, why is the 'civilians' section in Lebanon continually being renamed to 'Other:'? What do you think they are?

Nevermind, I see the info posted in the changelist; I still don't think 'Other' is an appropriate term though.. would be nice to get some better figures.
Accuracy is more important than consistency. We should not say that all the casualties in Lebanon were civilians, it simply isn't true. Surely some of Israel's airstrikes have hit Hizbollah members, after all most of them are directed at that organization. In fact, the cited article and several others that I have read do not specify that all the casualties were civilians, they say the total number of casualties and note that many or the majority were civilians. GabrielF 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously biased as an Israeli GabrielF. All your changes are based on your own assumptions. The media talks of civilians, soldiers (as in Lebanese soldiers) or Hezbollah militants. We will keep it like that. ArmanJan 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not an Israeli and you need to keep in mind WP:NPA, second, please read the source before you assume you know what it says. This is what the source actually says: "As the death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon as well as at least 31 Israelis," - 330 TOTAL casualties is not the same as 330 CIVILIAN casualties. This is from the BBC: "The nine-day offensive has killed at least 306 people and displaced an estimated 500,000 in Lebanon. There are increasing concerns for displaced Lebanese civilians. The fighting has left 31 Israelis dead, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel." Again, referring to total casualties, not civilian casualties. NOBODY knows the total number of civilian casualties. GabrielF 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
However there are numerous reports regarding how many of these numbers are civilians, which you of course know, but that does not fit your agenda.--Paraphelion 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, the "at least 355" is a very good method of approaching the Lebanese civilian death count, but none of the cited sources (, , ) say that. I am regretfully removing the "civilians" qualification until such time as we either have a documented minimal number and/or list the total and documented civilian numbers separately. Sorry, Tewfik 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"The civilians/military deaths listed in the casualties info box needs to be reordered to be consistent across all 3 sections."--I think this is a very important point. The info box is rarely in sync with what is said later in the article. It would be one thing to have the info box say something like "varied reports between x number and y number of casualties" and then to elaborate on that in the casualties section, but more often than not the info box shows one figure and then the casualties section shows a completely different figure. This is really confusing and needs to be changed.--172.145.122.194 06:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Warship is not a casualty!

If warship is a casualty, the why wodn't you wright there every single israely tank and Hezbollah's rocket launcher?

Got it. El_C 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We have already agreed that it should be listed per wikiconvention; please see the "warship" section of the archive. Tewfik 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the warship should be removed from the casualty list,if not at least take in to consideration to include the two Israeli tanks and an armored bulldozer that were destroyed,two Apache helicopters that were lost and one more tank that was damaged.Alright? Top gun 5:17, 24 july 2006

Tewfik, where we draw the line? Artillery batteries? Katyusha launchsites? Also, could you link for me the wikiconventions bit? Thanks. El_C 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.. The discussion notes that this is a conventional practice on conflict articles, and applies just to naval vessels. Cheers, Tewfik 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to catch up on it soon. El_C 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I read Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc and I still think that the warship should be removed from the casualties list, but another info box should be added in which the tanks, helicopters and warship should be put under a name like Israeli military equipment loses, c'mon a warship is not a casualty.Top gun 6:44, 24 july 2006

I think we are being dogmatic in the approach to conventions, as most of the wars that do list warships as casualties where wars where naval battles where fought, which is not the case in this conflict. (Nevertheless, the user above is wrong, Warships are traditionally counted as casualties of war, as are other forms of hardware as tanks, planes, and artillery pieces.)

I think it should be removed for this reason: I doubt we will see any major naval engagements in this conflict, and the ship was not sunken. It is basically a footnote and not really relevant.--Cerejota 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota has just said what I have been saying, remove the warship,but OK if you do not want to,at least add the two helicopters,even maybe a third as I hear today that another crashed, and also the two tanks and the bulldozer that were destroyed, and the tank that was damaged. Top gun 12:55, 24 july 2006

Casualty figures

Two more IDF ***************terrorists************** died today, along with two ****************Terror************* IAF pilots;

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280804,00.html

How come AL-Jazeera knew this already in the morning and Israeli news agencies are confirming the dead just minutes ago ?


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280804,00.html


WTF??!?!?!? ISraeli terrorist is that something new?!?!?!?!


YNET says 1,300 people have visisted hospitals, but the bulk are for shock. Since the information on injuries from Lebanon only mentions injured by direct trauma (the traditional definition of casualty), perhaps we should be careful when citing the number who visited hospitals as the "injured" figure. I will edit accordingly, substracting the number of people treated for shock to come up with the true number of reported injured.

This is NOT a POV issue but one of balance: you cannot compare apples and oranges, and since no figures are available for people trated for shock in Lebanon, including then for the israeli side gives the impression they are the same type of injured, when sources in fact say they are not. If we can find a source listing the Lebanese treated for shock, then we can included the Israeli too.--Cerejota 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what the Lebanese numbers count (We are not even clear on what the fatality numbers mean)? This sounds like it could easily become WP:OR. Tewfik 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And just FYI, Ynet is an extremely biased source, so taking grains of NaCl is advised. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me to even mention the 875 israelis having been treated for shock, since no such data is mentioned for the Lebanese. PJ 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is likely that the Lebanese casualty figures include people treated for shock as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at foreigners killed only, we find an initial statistical ratio of 20 to 1 between Lebanon and Israel. This ratio is corrobated by the claimed number of civilians killed (353/17 ~= 20/1) Then there is an odd discrepancy in the number of civilian casualties: Israel claims their ratio between wounded/dead to be about 24 to 1, whereas Lebanon only claims a ratio of 3 to 1. I would believe that, given the cruel but unbiased properties of a bomb-blast, the 3:1 figure is likely to be serious casualties (hospitalized, missing legs etc) and the 24:1 figure includes lighter wounds (scrubs, broken arms etc). In any case it is very unlikely that the Lebanese casualties includes treatments for shock!
Moving on to displaced persons, the relation of 20 to 1 can be restored if we assume that the "tens of thousinds" is supposed to mean around 40000 ...
MX44 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concede that we cannot rule out the possibility that the Lebanese casuality figure does not include people being treated for shock. However, given the present situation, I take it to be quite unlikely that the hospitals treat people for mere shock. But again, until we have relevant info, I concede the point. PJ 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem either way including the shock figure or not. It is a report by a news source and is part of what is going on. As for what kind of bias it shows, I think that can go either way. Some people may look at the Lebanese side and wonder think things are biased because nobody bother to count shock on that side. Some may look at the shock figure and think, "gee they're really hamming it up for all its worth".--Paraphelion 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I am one of the writers in the German version of this topic. I saw two inaccuracies concerning the casualities of other nations. The statement, that the four members of the Mönchengladbach family dies is wrong. The 11yo. son survived, the 14yo. daughter, teh 30 yo. pregant wife and the father died. Source: Westdeutsche Zeitung Online: Tödlicher Urlaub im Libanon, 15. July 2006. --213.155.224.232 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it as it is for the moment (including "shock"). Since we have no information on how Lebanon counts their casualties. Either that or add the "shock" number into total injured. I prefer the former. --Bingman06 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: The number of displaced is listed as tens of thousands. Is there a solid number or estimation we can use? I have read reports that hundreds of thousands are in bomb shelters (somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000). Is that considered displacement? Thanks. --Bingman06 03:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualties

The New York Times is reporting that the casualties being reported by the Lebanese government do not distinguish between civilian and Hezbollah. The New York Times article stated, "The deaths brought the toll to at least 380, Lebanese authorities said. Lebanon does not differentiate between civilian deaths and the deaths of Hezbollah fighters. The Israeli military says it has killed more than 100 Hezbollah fighters." This seems to make the previous issue on Lebanese casualties a little clearer and hopefully brings us closer to an accurate and acceptable solution. Icarus 9:10, July 24 2006 (UTC)

Right now the figure of 353 on the page is not even in the cited article. I had cited one source that indicated that over 300 "people" have been killed and indicated 300 were civilians. This NYT article makes it more important now to have something accurate in the infobox, though I still think it would be unacceptable to omit any mention of civilians there. A good temporary solution now might be to include many citations, and last I checked most said something along the lines of "3XX killed, mostly civilians" or "almost all civilians" or "mainly civilians". If we do that, stating something like "~250" under the civilians heading seems acceptable to me, perhaps followed by "~100 of unconfirmed status" or something like that.--Paraphelion 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your efforts in light of the volatility of the casualty figures from source to source. I'm also not sure of the make up between civilian and militant casualties. On one hand the focus of the military campaign seems to be Hexbollah, however there is certainly a significant level of collateral damage incurred. Hezbollah, which does not release their losses, has only confirmed 3 casualties but various media and military sources have put their losses as high as over 100. Perhaps for the time being we should describe the casualty figure as "Lebanese civilian and militant" rather than relying on our own speculation. -- Icarus 11:51, July 25 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/ I hope this site will be of help to those that are blinded by their government. I am glad to see that these members of "HezbAllah" are been punished. Shame on You! Shame on the United States! Shame on Israel! Shame on the silent! Please, do not call "HezbAllah" terrorists because with such acts you will demonstrate that you are as uninformed as our hypocrite and ignorant President George W. Bush.--68.77.163.115 04:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)USA

Would it be more accurate to refer to Hezbollah as mafia? Or radical Islamic militants?

Doesn't the UN recognize them as a terrorist organization, I know there is a resolution from long ago telling them to disarm? --zero faults 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Earlier discussions

Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • the intro looked fine to me, why did you remove the fact that "Samir kuntar" is a murderer? and instead trying to relegate this fact to some dark corner of the article? as it is 90% of the people in the world have no idea of what this whole war is about... most of them think that this guy that hezbollocks wants freed is a nice friendly neighbourhood ice-cream man? this guy killed a 4-year old by smashing her head with a rifle butt against a rock. FYI Shakespeare Monkey 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross Border Raids

There has been some wrather POV manipulation of facts going on in some main stream media about the ignighting incident. Isreal would claim that H. invaded isreal and 'kidnapped' the soldiers. H. would argue they 'arrested' two soldiers occupying Lebenon. Just like wikipedia uses 'capture' to try to remain NPOV, the description of the location should also attempt to remain NPOV. As it stands, the intro paragraph describes the action as a 'cross border raid' which, while true, misleads the reader into thinking that hesbolah crossed into isreali territory, as opposed to disputed syrian territory which isreal controlls. The intro paragraph should explain this in a little more detail.

Actually the raid took place in undisputed territory (relatively) far from the Syrian frontier (and not the Shebaa Farms area). Cheers, Tewfik 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What are your sources for the location? What about the reports by the Lebanese police that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Aitaa al-Chaab? 213.79.34.59 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

captured?

Tewfik again without discussion and against consensus has changed from "captured" to "abducted". Please Tewfik, be aware this is a salomonic choice, I am not happy with capture either, but it is as close as an NPOV we will get. You are fast becoming a vandal in my eyes...--Cerejota 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

it says captured but the correct term is POW or prisoner of war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.195.26 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The Geneva Conventions explicitly say they apply equally to undeclared wars. When was the last time a major world power declared war? And the war or "conflict" starts with the first act of war or "conflict" such as an attack on enemy soldiers.Edison 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You might be on to something here. One could see this conflict as part of an ongoing civil-war between two groups of Palestine inhabitants. MX44 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing. also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties. the article doesn't call them all terrorists. Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict". This is a conflict. And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, soldiers are people too. These soldiers were just doing their job, just like if you were doing your job, and suddenly, out of nowhere, they were abducted. It's different if there's a formal declaration of war or a state of open war, but these guys were just sitting in a border camp and were taken out of the blue. --Cyde?Weys 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people. Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time. And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits. Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. Tewfik 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the source that states there was a Hezbollah "operation" to capture these soldiers in Israel? Were they not captured during an Israeli operation in Lebanon? See references to Aitaa al-Chaab / Aaita ech Chaab above. David O'C 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aliens and Biscuits aside, it is not as though there was a peace agreement. Soldiers are soldiers, if Hezballah started the conflict by capture, right or wrong, attacking/capturing a soldier is an act of war, if it is an act of war, then it is capture, if it involved a civilian, it's an act of terrorism. Remember, even terrorist group CAN do both. Angrynight 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Countries declare wars, terrorist groups cannot. Hezbollah is a terrorist group and as such as was required to be disarmed some time ago by the United Nations. These soldiers were not captured as can be seen by Hezbollahs own actions in violation of the Geneva Convention. Captured soldiers have rights and cannot have their lives threatened, these soldiers were obviously abducted, but I have made this arguement before. --zero faults 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you've made this "argument" before, and it's just as much a non sequitur then as now. When Hezbollah captured those soldiers (of a GC III signatory, no less), they undertook a responsibility to treat them accordingly. If they fail to do so, then Hezbollah can be said to have violated the GCIII -- called a "war crime". But any such violations, had they occurred, in no way change the status of the captured soldiers. At least that's how it would go if logic had a place here. Instead, we have "policies": since we are to slavishly follow the external concensus no matter how stupid or contrary to the plain, obvious facts and trivial deductions made therefrom (cf. "war" vs. "conflict" in the archives), then the words "kidnapped" and "abducted" and similar must be used in this article, as they clearly dominate in the references used by the article. mdf 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah isnt a signatory of the Geneva Convention, they do not operate under any guidelines of the Geneva Convention, they are group of people the UN calls a terrorist group. They cannot take prisoners as they are not an army, they abduct people because they are a band of terrorists. You try so hard to have it treated like Hezbollah is a military, they are a terrorist group in the eyes of the world. The country they operate in does not acknowledge them and was told by the United Nations to disarm them. --zero faults 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that where they were taken also matters for this discussion. They were taken from inside Israel and so abducted is more appropriate. IF they had been inside of Lebanon they would have been captured. They were soldiers. But they were not engaged in any action against or in Lebanon. They were "home." If they had been seized out of their beds in downtown tel-aviv I think most readers would agree that they were abducted and not captured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

I would like to suggest that perhaps the proper terminology is that the Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. Neither captured (which seems to be closer connected to prisoners of war which are generally troops who are defeated and not killed, or who surrender), nor abducted (which seems to infer a kidnapping from one's innocent bed, as mentioned above) cover what happened between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah took the soldiers with the specific purpose of holding them on the condition that their demands (the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel) were met. This is a hostage taking with demands, not a capture in war time, or an abduction of civilians. For example: the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli atheletes is considered by wiki to be a hostage taking because the hostage takers demanded a release of palestinian prisoners held in Israel.--Axgoss 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions


Claims of incendiary bomb use on civilians by Israeli forces

As it stands this section is very one-sided. What factual base do these claims have, if any? Has Israel responded to these serious allegations at all? If so, what'd it say? If not so, then why? If we were to include any single claim made by this side about the other without any need for it to be substantiated, the article would very soon become bloated with psychological warfare and propaganda. --AceMyth 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The President of Lebanon is a pretty important (though I'm not going to say reliable) source. Thats enough to get it mentioned. I'll see if I can find the Israeli comment, but I can guess what it's going to say already.--Iorek85 02:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added the sentence "President Lahoud's claims remain unverified" to the article to help with NPOV. Hopefully that will help. OldSkoolGeek 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
White phosphorus is a very common incendiary (not chemical) weapon, and its use is not illegal. The only international agreement which regulates it is the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons", 1980. Protocol III of that covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons." In short, you can't use incendiaries to attack civilians, or military targets in the middle of a concentration of civilians such as an inhabited city or refugee camp (unless you have a reasonable expectation that the military target can be hit without hitting the civilian concentration). Israel has not signed that treaty (neither have Lebanon or Syria for example), but I believe they are essentially complying with its terms. ObsidianOrder 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's got about as much factual base as most of the other claims by government officials in the article. You're right that it could get bloated. It think these kinds of claims should be limited to high ranking officials on both sides. The possibility that Israel is using these weapons and had bad luck with targeting is not that far fetched. That they intentionally used them on civilians seems much less likely, but consider that nearly all conflicts of this size or larger have atrocities of this kind which get found out years later. It shouldn't be anymore surprising if it turns out to be intentional than it was to learn of the atrocities committed in Vietnam or Iraq by US forces. Of course these statements could turn out to discredit the Lebanese government, and if so, so be it. --Paraphelion 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The usage of the words "claim" and "allege" are used to have a cynical effect on stating facts, meaning that one side "claims" it, but it is not corrobarated with any other sources. So it is a cynical way of stating facts in the first place, lol! --Terrancommander 04:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OMG ROFL!!!! OBVIOUZORS INVADED!!! SOMEONE SET US UP THE NPOV!! +10 wiki points to Terrancommander's POV!!! TAKE OFF EVERY !!--Paraphelion 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of weaponized white phosphorus does count as a chemical weapon. I'd be surprised if Israel had actually done that (well, not that surprised, the U.S. used it against Fallujah, maybe they're just getting the idea form us). Anyway, I'd like to see a less biased source than the leader of the nation being attacked. Remember the Iraqi Information Minister saying how they were totally winning the fight while in actuality Iraq was being overrun by American forces? It's the same for any leader of the country. It's their job to say whatever is necessary to continue to bolster strength and garner international support. Because he has everything to lose. --Cyde↔Weys 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not entirely sure what makes you think that WP counts as a chemical weapon. Have you ever handled the stuff? It is extremely flammable, but the fumes are not more noxious than the fumes of many other burning substances, like tires or common plastics. And it has been used both as an obscurant and incendiary in mass quantities ever since WW2. Was it "chemical weapons" back then? ObsidianOrder 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. there is no such thing as "weaponised" WP - WP is just WP. The use of the word in this case is clearly intended to draw a parallel between WP and chem/bio weapons which are commonly described as "weaponised". That's completely bogus, don't fall for it. ObsidianOrder 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Article 2, prohibits incendiary weapons OTHER THAN THOSE DELIVERED BY AIR, which the Israeli WP undoubtedly is. Sneaky, that. Khaighle 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

might want to read again :
  1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
  2. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Yes, sneaky that Zer0faults omitted the first part. --Paraphelion 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant that the text of the treaty itself was sneaky, in that the states concerned had exempted themselves from sanction when fire-bombing civilians from the air, but I now gather that's not the case. My bad. --Khaighle 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to read it literally three times to understand that part. And I'm not completely sure - what it means is that when the incendiary weapons are not air-delivered, then it is ok, but so long as a lot of precautions are taken, right? I imagine the idea being that by air, such precautions are not as reliable, but on the ground they are, so they allow use?--Paraphelion 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a quick-and-dirty translation from legalese would be "don't set things on fire, unless 1) you do it from the ground 2) they're military targets and 3) you're super-careful not to set any civilian things on fire at the same time." And yes, the logic would be that it's much more difficult to avoid "collateral damage" when bombing from the air.--Khaighle 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming they're not deliberately targeting civilians, which they are. That's quite illegal in itself. --Tothebarricades 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have any citations that can prove your statement beyond doubt, please share them.--Paraphelion 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

US bombs

I've removed the extensive discussion of US aid to Israel as it either is not directly relevant to this conflict, or is repeated elsewhere. The only passage which should probably stay is the following, though I'm not sure where/how to include it:

Although it has not been publicly announced, "he Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hizbollah targets in Lebanon, The New York Times reported on Saturday ." <ref name="Reu 2006-07-22">{{cite news |url= http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-22T050649Z_01_N21268027_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-BUSH-WEAPONS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2 |publisher=Reuters |title=Headlines for July 19, 2006 |date=July 19, 2006}}</ref>

Cheers, Tewfik 05:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Tewfik: it as relevant to this article as having a special section on the Hizbollah rocket response to Israeli attacks, or discussing Hezbollah's funding by Iran. The funding of Israel on the part of the US is required for balance. The paragraph is well sourced, and presented in an NPOV voice.

Now, I do object its inclusion on the same grounds I object the Iran funding of Hezbollah. It is discussed in other background articles, and it predates the current conflict. THis article is meant to be an introduction to the current conflict, and its related subpages. Not an in depth discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict at large, for which there is not only a page, but a pretty through template with links to most major actors and events.

The quality of this page has been reduced, and its NPOV compromised because of efforts by POV editors, such as yourself, who fail to understand what makes a good wikipedia article as per Misplaced Pages:PERFECT as a guide. Rather than being bold in editing most people are being rude and not discussing or raising issues. Furthermore it is obvious the article hasn't been NPOV for a few days yet you an others continue to remove the tag.

This article is now in general from a good example of a manageable article to a mish mash of POV, a total lack of logical organization, an unmanageable lenght and total disregard for the existence of relevant subarticles.

You allege to not want these things but by pushing your POV you are indeed engaging in its destruction. Only thing you have going on for you is that you have the courage and decency to use the talk pages. And that except for an initial attempt at harrasment, you have been civil.-- Cerejota 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


I wish you would cease your unfounded claims of my supposed harassment, and that you would stop making broad statements about my supposed POV edits. Especially as in this case, it seems you don't actually disagree with my edit. I again say that if you have a problem with any specific edit I make, then provide a dif and we can deal with it. Again, please stop. Tewfik 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
My God Cerejota! Calm the F--- down. What makes you the supreme master of NPOV anyhow?

Equiment and forces

I would like to see a listing of the military capabiliities of IDF, Hezbollah, and Lebanese Armed Forces: Numbers of regulars and reserves, number of tanks, planes, ships, and artillery, type of automatic weapons used, type of rifles and sidearms used, type of antitank, antiaircraft, rockets, etc. In any conflict this is very important, along with training and motivation, anas well as quality of command and control.Jane's Defence Weekly and allied publications tabulate such info, so it's not all a deep dark defense secret. Edison 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/le.html says:
For Lebanon: Population: 3,874,050 (July 2006 est.). Lebanon's military expenditures are $540.6 million per year(2004) at 3.1% (2004) of GDP. Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 821,762,females age 18-49: 865,770 (2005 est.) No info on size of military or equipment.

.

For Israel, the figures are Population: 6,352,117; Military expenditures: $9.45 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 7.7% (2005 est.); Manpower fit for military service: males age 17-49: :1,255,902, females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.) No info on size of military or equipment
No Hezbollah info.Edison 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IDF page seems to have a pretty satisfactory summary of equipment used by Israel. In the interest of keeping size down, it probably doesn't pay to repeat it here. Infinitenoodles 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


chemical weapons

Removed statement about chemical weapons because I didn't think this article looked credible and the rest of the site is in Arabic so I'm not sure what kind of site it is : As-Safir newspaper also ran a story about alleged use of unknown chemical weapons, citing a member of the "French Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons" .

However I did find other articles about chemical weapons : This one claims this picture is of a scene in Lebanon of an IDF soldier handling a chemical weapon shell : This one claims that chemical weapons from Iraq were passed to Syria and then to Hezbolla : --Paraphelion 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That first article doesn't even pretend to be unbiased (it refers to "Zionist aggression in Israel"). Please, wait until we get some verifiable sources, anyone with an agenda can put any claims they want to on a website. You know what they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ... and saying that Israel somehow needs to resort to chemical weapons (which would cause more international outrage) when their conventional weapons are doing just fine doesn't make much sense. --Cyde?Weys 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I had no intenion of adding anything based on these sources. I mentioned them to show what little and low quality there is for this topic, after having removed the statement on it.--Paraphelion 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a picture of a 'chemical' weapon in the cited source from globalresearch.ca. It is a mine clearing device called 'Carpet'. http://www.defense-update.com/news/6702carpet.htm

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Earlier discussions

Motivations

Would discussion of Hezbollah's motivation for the original attack be appropriate in the body of the article? There has been widespread speculation that Iran orchestrated the Hezbollah action to divert international (G8 and UN) attention or effect international action concerning its nuclear programme. Fishhead64 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be, as would a discussion of the motivation for what the UN has called Israel's disproportionate use of force. Included in such discussions should also be both sides' self proclaimed reason or motivation, as well as cited speculations.--Axgoss 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of conflict

I changed the "Beginning of conflict" article into two sections, "According to Lebanon" and "According to Israel" that should solve our disputes (for all the reasonable people), and stop the constant changing. ArmanJan 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit summaries. Is this picture POV because that is where the soldiers were only according to Hezbollah? If so, that is not clear.--Paraphelion 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That is where Lebanon says the Israeli soldiers were when two of them got arrested and another eight were killed. ArmanJan 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I disagree completely. It is unprecedented to have two different sections showing different views. Especially since the material in both of them is largely the same. I refactored Beginning of conflict in order to have one version, but in the parts where they actually differ (where the conflict began) I put both versions in the same paragraph. This way its not wasteful, and keeps the alreday gigantic article smaller --Doom777 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself, there will be disputes about this until the year 2060. The reason I split up the article is because the edits of it are going so fast you cant get a grip on it. This way you clearly can distinguish which side said what, and if someone changes something (at the rate we are going now) you can see what was changed easilly. This page is small compared to many other war articles. Expect it to get way larger in time. ArmanJan 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The war is not even over yet, and its already gigantic. And you cannot split an article in two just because there is a lot of editing being done; an article must always have a presentable appearance--Doom777 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
However the effect and aim was to marginalize one view, labeling the views as "some Arab and Iranian" when they are based on quotes from Hezbollah cited from an Indian source. Equally absurd would be labeling Israeli PM's statements as view of "some Israelis".--Paraphelion 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I don't like your change, is ArmanJan will say its POV for Israel, and revert back to his dual, data-redundant version.--Doom777 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Completely unprecedented to show two views regarding the start of a two week old conflict that is part of a wider conflict that has not been resolved for 1,000 years? Don't worry, you'll get your one view when the victor writes the history books.--Paraphelion 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Having two sections in Misplaced Pages for a 2 week conflict is unprecedented. I am strongly pushing my version as NPOV and non-data-redundant. And if you are going to go back in history, then Israel was fighting Filistians back during King David times. --Doom777 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says you may not split an section? Take a good look at some of the other war pages. When the section is put into one you suddenly have many Israeli's editting everything to the following, "This is how it happened.... blah blah blah... and the terrorist group hezbollah claimed..." that is not Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Each side must be given an equal value of space to tell their side of the event. I do not see why so many Israeli's insist on having their view enforced upon everyone else, it will change nothing in the outcome of this war. It however does enforce what Noam Chomsky once said: (in my own words) You can not sit down with an Israeli and reach a compromise. They want what they want, and that is the end of it. ArmanJan 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am all for NPOV too. My version included both Hizballah version that Israelis were already inside Lebanon, and Israeli version. However that is the only difference between the two versions, and you have a lot of useless redundancy in everything else. I don;t see why you need to make two entirely different sections, if they are mostly just copies of each other.--Doom777 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it that in your version that includes Hezbollah's view, you did not attribute that view to Hezbollah, but rather to "some Arab and Iranian sources" - --Paraphelion 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Because I was refactoring ArmanJan version, and his version said that that the soldiers were captured on Lebanon soil, was from Some Arab and Iranian sources. If you can prove it was from Hizbollah instead, feel free to modify it.--Doom777 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Prove it how? The source says Hezbollah said this. When I read other sources about what Israel, UN, or the US says, there's practically never any actual proof that they said it.--Paraphelion 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So if you think that that's justifiable enough to edit it: by all means, edit it.--Doom777 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already changed it once or twice. That is why I am discussing it here. If no one else agrees, fine.--Paraphelion 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
ArmanJan doesn't agree. (S)He insists on having two almost same versions. Nonetheless, he is cluttering up the article. I think that mine, or ign's versions are best.--Doom777 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"I don;t see why you need to make two entirely different sections", because there are two entirely different views on the event. The Israeli article starts with, 'on 09:05' says who? Haaretz? it then continues, the "the Lebanese Islamist militant group Hezbollah initiated" says who? Israeli sources that were used to make articles? Do you see my point here? ArmanJan 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But factually, they only disagree on where the soldiers were kidnapped. Replace militants with some NPOV word, but both locations for the kidnapping/arrest, and it will work fine. You just keep cluttering up the page.--Doom777 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Casus Belli and start of conflict

I think it is in consensus and a known fact that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol on Israeli ground (in fact, I think Hezbollah admitted to it). I will ask anyone to refrain from changing the article in a manner which states otherwise. Concerning the claim made by the Lebanses police that the soldiers were "arrested" inside Lebanese territory - I will ask to regard this as a bogus claim, as there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Tweekerd 10:50, 24 July 2006

I added your sign, you should not leave your text unsigned. As for your claim. Lebanon from the beginning said they were attacked in Chaab, Israel claims otherwise. What both say should be shown for NPOV. ArmanJan 11:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to succumb to people posting blatant lies on Misplaced Pages. It has been reported on all major news agencies and there is recorded footage proof that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol. Posting all kinds of Lebanese propoganda which has already been disproved as a part of so-called "Lebanese Side" in this encyclopedia article, is only harming the Truthfulness and neutrality of the article. May I also add that only one person consistently insists on putting it there, while there is an obvious consensus that the attack was on israeli soil. I wonder why nobody debated this for 12 days, and suddenly someone comes up with some Bahrain news that claims the opposite of the truth. I suggest removal of the "Beginning of conflict" part which states "Lebanese Side". It is obviously a lie and propoganda. Tweekerd 11:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not discriminate Bahraini's, so that is all okay. There are also links to Yahoo news (AP) and some other sources. I would have added Lebanese sources if the site was not taken down by hackers everytime. Casus is split in two for Misplaced Pages:NPOV. ArmanJan 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, it just is really sad to see how a few people care more about posting propoganda and lies than trying to make this a good article. I have tried in the last 12 days to help make this article as truthful and unbiased as possible, but it seems that the pro-Arab/anti-Israeli bloc is too strong and has got too much spare time on their hands for me to fight it alone. It is this sort of things that Israel has to face all the time. A few million Israelis against some hundreds of millions of Muslims and Arabs, and two dozen Arab/Muslim countries in the world, who do you think is gonna win the propoganda war? We are powerless to fight you. You have done well on the world terrorism front, and are doing very well on the world media and propoganda front. Hooray to you. I give up on trying to make this article worth anything. Maybe after it's all over and nobody comes to mess it up anymore, I'll come back and fix it. Until this is over, you can put an article about frogs' bladders here and it will be more truthful and insightful to this matter than the current article. This has been more than enough. Sad, because I really liked Misplaced Pages.... Tweekerd 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tweekerd: don't give up on the truth. take your time. Find good sources. Zeq 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really want to, but with Persian anti-Israeli Jew-haters like ArmanJan, I find it very difficult. Tweekerd 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If there is indeed recorded footage proof that Hezbollah attacked an ordinary Israeli border patrol, a link to this would help resolve this issue, or if there is a source saying that Hizbollah has confirmed that the soldiers were captured in Israel, as was said recently by someone. Another thing: someone, maybe ArmanJan, said that Israeli soldiers often have crossed the border to Lebanon (even after Israel left Lebanon in 2000). Is there any sources for this claim? That would make the "Lebanon version" more likely. --Battra 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the Cassus Belli remain as it is? According to Lebanon? Look at the sources - it's nonsense anti-Israeli propoganda. It is well-known and widely accepted that the initiative action of the war was an unprecedented attack on an Israeli border patrol by Hezbollah, killing 8 and capturing 2. It's an aggressive act of war, simple as that. This isn't a matter of point of view. It's a matter of truth versus propoganda and lies. --Monotreme, 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tweek, but it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who just insinuated an editor is a Terrorist. It's quite clear where your POV lies. As for the actual discussion topic, I agree the truth should be represented. We're not here to present 50/50 airtime to both sides - I very much doubt the article on the Sun has half of its length dedicated to the theory it is Cheese. The sun is hot, the sky is blue, and, if you can find an overwhelming majority of evidence that the soldiers were in Israel when they were kidnapped, then we don't need to present arguments to the contrary. But while there is debate (and there seems to be more than one source) then both should stand. --Iorek85 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


If it is indeed the official Lebanon and/or Hezbollah statement that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon, then it ought to be mentioned here in some way, even if it is very unlikely that it is true. It doesn't seem that likely to me that Israel would send two humwees, partly manned by reservists, on a dangerous mission into enemy territory. But somebody said earlier something about it being common that Israel soldiers entered Lebanon. If it can really be confirmed by some sources that it is routine for Israeli Humwees to patrol on the Lebanon side of the border, then it wouldn't be that easy to take this for pure propaganda. --Battra 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you lorek85, the guy has been deleting the work of many people all over the article and he accuses me of being a "anti-Israeli Jew-hater". As for Monotreme wanting proof for what I previously said, thats just one example. They have been doing it a thousand times before this conflict. PS: It is also in Hezbollah's official statement (by leader) that they were captured in south-lebanon. ArmanJan 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me if you think that that article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/231406.stm) can form any kind of precedent to a proposed argument regarding an incursion into Lebanon. Besides, your statement 'They have been doing it a thousand times before this conflict' gives me the impression you are far more personally tied to this issue than any encyclopaedic editor should be. Take a time out. Cuomo11.
I'm sorry mate, but I think it's very difficult to consider lying and propoganda "work". I have added a few things myself and have constantly tried to keep POV and speculations out of the article. I really don't care what you say, because it is obvious that you care more about showing your POV than actually making this a better article. And yes, Iorek, I am an Israeli with a POV, but I have not been adding Israeli right-wing propoganda just because I think it's true, and believe me, there is much of it. I tried to make this more into an encyclopedia article, while some people find this a great medium for propoganda. Obviously, many people read the Misplaced Pages, and unfortunately, most of them believe it. So did I, until I saw how full of s**t the editing on this article has been so far. If there's anything I've learned from this whole ordeal, is that an encyclopedia you can let anyone write will informative in the best case, a lot of crap in the worst case, and probably extremely biased towards one side or the other in contoversial cases. And that's despite my efforts. I can't fight for the truth by myself, so I guess I won't. And on another note, I truly have a serious problem believeing someone who is constantly editing this article to be more and more POV, especially when he is from a country which is funding the Hezbollah terrorists and has called for the destruction of Israel (as well as USA, etc.) for the last 27 years, and is now threatening the world with its ever advancing nuclear capabilities, and has probably been the instigator of this entire conflict with its desperate need to draw the world's attention away from its nuclear program. Ungrateful as well, because Iran has forgotten Israel's help and the great relations the two countries had before the Iranian revolution in 1979, when Iran was going forward instead of backwards. If this goes on, unfortunately, as they said in "Spaceballs" - "There goes the planet..." Tweekerd 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof: Thus far, the only claims I have been able to find which merely suggest that Israeli troops were beyond the blue line when attacked are based on the same, unnamed "Lebanese Police Sources". The overwhelming majority of journalists, the UN, the EU, even Saudi Arabia, not to mention various countries have condemned Hezbollah for their "cross-border raid". While it is not outside of the realm of possibility that Israeli troops were in Lebanon when captured, the overwhelming amount of credible sources and world governments say that Hezbollah crossed the border. If somebody wants to put forth an alternative theory, they should produce something stronger than "Unnamed Lebanese Police" sources to back up the claim before putting it in the article, plain and simple. This isn't POV, it's simply about citing sources and verifiability. Asserting something with such lacking citations should be cleared in talk before being added to the page, not after. Bring your sources and let's talk. Idangazit 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it's reasonable to state Hezbollah's side of the story. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, it's simply what Hezbollah is saying, and should be noted as such. As long as the status of the claim is made clear, I believe it has a place in the article. On another note, could we please keep this discussion more on the issue, and less on accusations of bias? Infinitenoodles 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. So far I have been unable to find that Hezbollah has made this claim. The sole source cited by the few news organizations carrying the story is unnamed "Lebanese Police". Common sense -- WP should not include every claim by every crackpot in the universe, there should be a minimal amount of newsworthy backing. This isn't about POV. The claim isn't even backed by the people in whose name it was made. Produce a single source which doesn't rely on "Lebanese Police" that even Siniora doesn't seem to know about. Idangazit 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be eaiser to find the claim if you did not remove the source yourself - ].--Paraphelion 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion: No edit I make is a "nice job". I did the work and came up with a list of cites. I am removing all references to Israeli soldiers being in Lebanon as a claim because the claim is unsubstantiated, not because I think the claim is false. Bring credible sources and I will be happy to reword it to something like "Most international bodies, including the US, the EU, the UN, and prominent news organizations share a consensus that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Israel, however an anonymously quoted Lebanese Policeman said that they were actually in Southern Lebanon". In the meantime, it is not NPOV nor does it follow WP guidelines to leave such a weakly-cited assertion in the article, regardless of what the assertion is. Here's my list:

The UN
The EU
Al Jazeera
The Arab Times
CNN
FOX, although I have mixed feelings on the journalistic credibility of this one.
the Washington Post
the BBC
MSNBC
the Associated Press

I won't even bother to cite sources about the US, I think we can all stipulate to their position on the matter. Idangazit 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the source gives Hezbollah's statement, it's not merely anonymous policemen. --Paraphelion 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that these sources say exactly what Israel has said. We all know that none of these journalists were there when it happened, so we can conclude that they took someone's side while writing all their articles. The Lebanese government (even the Lebanese President on CNN TV) said they were captured on Lebanese territory (Chaab). Hezbollah also announced they were captured in "south-Lebanon". So this leaves us with two version, on the one hand you have Lebanon saying it was in Chaab, on the other hand you have Israeli's saying it was in North-israel. ArmanJan 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Idangazit has a good point. This needs a better source. Paraphelion, which source cites Hezbollah? Infinitenoodles 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
], which is IANS (through yahoo news), which I think is India based. I mentioned this in the edit summaries, but of course was ignored by Idangazit because he rather focus on anonymous policemen. Here is the edit in which he removes this source - . Later on Doom777 restores the text without the citation, despite having previously edited this section specifically, maintaining the citation. Good one.--Paraphelion 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, regarding the position of the UN, on International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#United Nations, it says "Kofi Annan referred to the Hezbollah attack as having occurred in southern Lebanon." The references didn't support that though, and if he really said that he probably have changed his mind by now. --Battra 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe the person who wrote this thought about the Annan quote from another reference: “I condemn without reservations the attack in southern Lebanon, and demand that Israeli troops be released immediately,” --Battra 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion: I don't prefer to ignore anything. I prefer to play by Wikipedias rules, specifically WP:V and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources, or even more specifically Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. This is no different than the Phosphorus Bombs debate, and yet nobody is putting up a map that says "Phosphorus bombs dropped here", no matter what the caption of the map says. There is overwhelming characterization in the media as this being a cross border raid, and I've cited all of these sources and then some in the article. I have been unable to find official Hezbollah press release text saying anything about having captured soldiers in southern lebanon, despite the IANA quote. The sources I quote clearly say that it is cross-border. I could even tell you that my cousin was at the attacked IDF post, but that is meaningless in WP rules, so I'm not making my case that way. These claims are, bottom line, about as well-supported as the phosphorus bomb claims, and while it may anger me to see such blatant lies in wikipedia, I am keeping my cool and sticking to the policies outlined to make the case. The edits you support are not balanced and NPOV, they include a map which says "Soldiers kidnapped here" -- and a caption does not make up for that. I think the formulation I have edited should be clear enough. Paraphelion, specifically, if you want to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, then resolve it with me in talk. In the interests of good faith I have actually left the claim in the article, opposed by the links I have cited above, while we ascertain the burden of proof necessary to make such a claim in talk -- right now the only source is still the Lebanese Police, by all means please provide some fulltext of a Hezbollah statement indicating that they kidnapped the soldier from Lebanon and not Israel. Idangazit 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: the BBC cites Hezbollah as capturing Israeli soldiers "at the border", not "inside lebanon", or "near the border", or "at Ayta al-Sha`b". The seemingly-referenced quote by nasrallah from the video at 05:33 says that the attack was "carried out by the lebanese resistance in southern lebanon", not that the soldiers were in lebanon and captured. I can argue semantics back and forth but it seems far more clear that the grouping is " (lebanese resistance in southern lebanon)' rather than "(lebanese resistance) (in southern lebanon)". If IDF soldiers were on Lebanese soil, Nasrallah would have certainly cited that as a casus belli in big bold letters. I truly, truly fail to see why this is even being debated, resting on the shoulders of Lebanese Police (who have not been heared from before or since) and some shakily-interpreted quotes from Nasrallah's speech. Link to BBC article text here (scroll to bottom), link to video here. Idangazit 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're ever going to know for sure unless some kind of investigation is conducted or someone finds satellite photos. It is in each party's interest to claim it was on their side of the border. Are there official Hezbollah press releases for anything? All the quotes I've seen that are supposedy by Hezbollah are just quotes in articles not saying how they obtained them. If we're going to pick and choose which Hezbollah claims based on whether or not they are just crazy threats or do not contradict the Israeli story, why quote Hezbollah at all?--Paraphelion 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ayta al-Sha`b is at the border, where did you think it is? Did you think Israeli soldiers walked their way to the capital city Beirut? South Lebanon means the same as what "South-Canada" would mean. It means the south of Canada... this is getting ridiculous. ArmanJan 17:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Please indent otherwise it is not clear.--Paraphelion 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I was referring to "Idangazit". :-) ArmanJan 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there official Hezbollah press releases for anything? According to the article on Hizbollah, their official site is this: Maybe someone can find something there (it's a mess)? I have no idea how official it really is though. --Battra 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan, I think that the claim that the IDF was in southern lebanon is ridiculous, so I agree that this is getting ridiculous, and I know precisely where Ayta al Sha'b is. However, I've backed up my claims with citations and pointed at the relevant WP policies governing what should and shouldn't make the cut for mentioning in articles. If you want to go a step further, in line with WP guidelines, I propose a survey on the issue. Until then, I propose the following points as an agreed basis:

big NPOV, uncited graphics saying "soldiers captured here" inside lebanon should definitely not have a place in the article unless there are substantial claims to this effect. The image is clearly extremely contentious, and text with citations does a better job right now of conveying that "POV".
Since the text does have citations (however poor) that should "hold the fort" until we reach a consensus. It irks me to see the claim even presented given the weakness of the supporting evidence, but if you truly believe it is worth including in WP, if you truly think that there is some basis to this claim, then my paragraph on the matter makes your case using the citations you have alongside the citations I have. Idangazit
I agree that the image and caption both need to specify that this is merely a Hezbolla claim. I think there is a slim possibility there is some basis for the claim, however I do think Hezbolla would have claimed this regardless.--Paraphelion 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So? That I have first-degree knowledge of where the action took place doesn't matter, but if you are interested in displaying the truth on WP, then play by WP's rules, not by big NPOV images. This conflict should have nothing to do with the conflict we are writing about. Idangazit 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


ArmanJan: I've laid out reasons on the article's talk page, I've brought citations. I've made an edit which still has the very flimsy claim in it, despite the fact that I think it has no place in wikipedia (not because it is false, but because it is poorly sourced and cited). The claim is false, and presenting it as a competitor to Israeli claims is not NPOV -- it is an extraordinary claim given the amount of citation to the contrary, and I urge you to read Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence, which explicitly lays out WP's approach to such claims. In the meantime, it is sheer POV and bias to include a graphic displaying a big "soldiers captured here" when there is so little to support the claim. The image itself, alone, is POV because it has red lettering laying out what is not even cited as hezbollah's position on the matter, while giving zero display to the claims of pretty much the rest of the world. Although it personally makes me feel like taking a shower, I am talking to you and trying to resolve this in the Misplaced Pages Way. Stop making reasonless reverts, read the talk page where I have laid out a course of action, and participate instead of bias editing. Idangazit 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This ins't as simple as we'd like. While yes, there is an overwhelming number of sources supporting the 'In Israel' POV, they all, I would assume, take this story from the Israeli government. There are much fewer sources supporting Hezbollah and Lebanon, and especially not enough to support Idangazits correct argument of exceptional evidence. However, it does really end up with Israeli govt vs Lebanon. Both of them would claim what they claim, and I think they're about as trustworthy as each other.
I would propose, then, as a comprimise, that the majority of the article, and the infobox, be dedicated to the 'In Israel' argument, while a small couple of sentences in the 'start of conflict' (and without a map) list the Hezbollah and Lebanon POV, primarily for completeness. If more evidence can be found to support Lebanon, then it could beat the threshold required by exceptional evidence. Until then, though, I think the international consensus lies with 'In Israel'. --Iorek85 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Iorek85, that was very... satisfying to read. I agree about skepticism of one side or the other -- and I've been phoning around to see if there are official media photos of the attacked hummvees. I remember seeing them both in Israeli and Global media on the first day of the conflict, sitting on an Israeli road, charred and black. Hopefully if I can track that down and include it this should lay this issue to rest. But most importantly, thank you for taking the time to read exceptional evidence. :) Idangazit 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, people. This gets a lot of discussion. But why in the world is Lebanon listed as a combatant? The Israelis would not agree with that, nor would Hezbollah, nor any observer. That just seems non-controversial. -Kmaguir1 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think mainly because they are taking casualties? Correct me if I am wrong, but some Lebanese military sites have been hit that have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Lebanon has also used AA to defend itself. If Lebanon is to be removed as a combatant, I think it would be unfair if their casualties appeared less prominently than those taken by other sides.--Paraphelion 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.--Iorek85 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Video of Hezbollah firing missiles

On YouTube there are several video's of Hezbollah firing a cruise missiles, and the Noor anti-ship missile that hit the israeli ship (huge blast). There is also another video where Hezbollah fires a land-to-air missile and hits an Israeli aircraft, it also shows the aircraft (i dont know what it is, but its large and it looks weird). Should I add it? (in thumbnail form/'click-to-view' way, if you know what I mean). ArmanJan 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hello32020 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arggh, wikipedia doesnt allow embedded objects. Is it possible to upload video's to wikipedia and then embed them? Anyway, here are the two links Hezbollah launches cruise missiles and Noor anti-ship missile, hits israeli ship and Hezbollah knocks down (possibly using Misagh-2) an Israeli aircraft ArmanJan 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

woah .. a bit too anxious again there, ArmanJan, my friend. The Israeli army has denied this to be any sort of an Israeli aircraft. In fact, they believe this to be a failed launch of a Zelzal-2 missile by the Hezbollah, which has similiar features of the Scud missile. --Dberliner 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel says lot's of things. In the video you see a Misagh-1 (or2) (maybe even another type) being launched, it then hits the UFO and you then see it crash. Take a good look for the land-to-air missile trail. ArmanJan 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: the UFO you see on the ground seems the size of 10 Zelzal-2's, Zelzal-2 is only 60cm wide. ArmanJan
Just wondering how you came to that conclusion? I just checked out that video and the apparent size of the object being filmed's diameter matches 60cm quite closely. FYI 10 x 60cm is 6 meters, or twice the size of the solid rocket boosters used to launch the space shuttle! -Shogun 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The pipe is not the only part of the UFO, around them are the rest of the parts. Also, how do you explain the anti-aircraft missile trail, the UFO being hit and then crashing? ArmanJan 11:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't note any other debris in the immediate vicinty and anyway it looks like it was a missile article The officials said Israeli aircraft targeted a truck carrying the weapons before they could be launched. The force of the blast sent one missile flying into the air, but it fell nearby. Israeli officials said the destroyed missile was an Iranian-made Zilzal, which has a range of about 120kms. Also it appears the video was a combination of two different events at different times joined together, note the discontinuity between the missile launch the the object falling (I should this is my own observation from watching the low quality youtube video). -Shogun 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but I am sure I saw an aircraft on BBC. It was falling to the ground like a bullerfly missing one wings (turning around) after it got hit by a missile. ArmanJan 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Israel does tend to depict the truth to its best, usually. Part of being a democracy, and therefore being exposed to great internal media scrutiny (and the Israeli journalists are doing that just great). When they were attacked before or had lost lives or machinery, they have admitted it or were forced to admit it pretty fast by the internal mechanism of democracy and freedom of press, which I have mentioned above. Therefore I am assuming there is no reason to believe otherwise in this case. Dberliner

Now they're shooting down UFO's. The Alpha Centaurans will no doubt enter the conflict. Seriously, I have not read that the Hezbolli have cruise missiles, only various rockets. The terms are not interchangeable.Edison 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah rocket campaign

Hello all. A deficiency in this article which just jumps out at me is the lack of detailing of the Hezbollah rocket campaign on equal footing as the Israeli bombing campaign. The result is that the Israeli campaign is mentioned once as the response and then again in relation to civilian casualties, while the Hezbollah rockets are only mentioned in the civilians section. Someone who does not read the civilians section will not be aware of this aspect of the hostilities, which is a central part of every mainstream news report, and is listed as one of Israel's conditions for ceasing hostilities. Surely this should be corrected. I'm waiting eagerly for feedback, and am beginning to put something together. Cheers, Tewfik 18:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The section on Israeli damage to civilians quotes numerous people - none from Israel - and goes into tiny detail illustrated with pictures of destruction. The section on Hezbollah bombings starts with a quote from Nasrallah (one in which he is most likely lying, too) - no quotes from Israel - and is a generic overview illusrated with a contour map. Why aren't there any pictures of Hezbollah firing rockets, or of damaged residential buildings in Haifa and other cities? Why isn't there any mention of Hezbollah rockets loaded with shrapnel? Why aren't there any quotes from Israeli sources - do Shiite militants have more credibility, or what? The whole article is lopsided.

Criticism of both sides

Any suggestions for the best way to discuss the quotes that criticise both Hezbollah and Israel? I've quoted them below:

Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory." She suggested that the actions of Israel and Hezbollah may constitute war crimes. Arbour called for Israel to obey a "principle of proportionality" and said, "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians … Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

One day after the call for a ceasefire by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 20 July 2006, a U.N.-run observation post located near Zarit, Israel near the Lebanese border was hit by direct fire during fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia. The Israeli army claimed Hezbollah rockets hit the U.N. post; however, a U.N. officer claimed that the post "was hit by an Israeli artillery shell."

Cheers, Tewfik 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone just removed (justifiably?) the duplicated statements. Could somebody please suggest an NPOV method of accomplishing this? Tewfik 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


pre-planning for the war

Does anyone know how much there is to this : "Israel set war plan more than a year ago Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength"--Paraphelion 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Most countries have plans for every war they think possible or likely. The US had plans to invade Canada and Mexico and to fight Britain for many decades in the 2oth century. That didn't mean they were ever on the verge of doing it. It would be astounding if Israel did not keep up to date plans to fight any or all of their neighbors, given several wars in the last 56 years.Edison 00:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If Israel had a plan against Hezbollah it is definitely using it now. To know that Israel is currently carrying out a plan it has been working on over the past year is certainly noteworthy, both for the critics and proponents of Israels actions. --Axgoss 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hell in a Hand Basket

What happened? This article was heading towards some sort of understandable structure a few days ago, but when I came in today it seems over the course of 4 days the article has come unglued. Its unpleasant to look at and lacks any semblance of a flow. The picture warring has continued to where people keep putting up a map as an image rather than anything good, like artillery or katyusha firing. Did something happen over these 4 days where an image of artillery firing became unacceptable? If not, why does it continually get removed? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit wars have really burned a lot of time/energy particularly the main picture. Remember i said a few days ago we should have the map as otherwise someone would be pissed enough with the picture (whatever it is!!!) to edit war over it. This is the most emotionally charged (in the outside world) conflict at the moment if not in the history of the world. Most people have strong views on this whole situation, most countries in the world are affected (oil price being one example) by these events. I just dont think you understand how important this is to some people, and that this very page is one of the battlefields of this conflict. Yes artillery firing is unacceptable to enough people that it should be respected and a map shows more usful information. I really do not understand the value of or the need for a COOL picture of something, especially as this causes so much trouble for SO little gain.Hypnosadist 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but we do not let people with agendas other than making the best article determine what we can and cannot show. People are emotionally charged, and they will be that way about the casualty numbers, about what the casus belli is, about the title. If the only objection to something is that it doesnt portray the war in the fashion they want it to be, we can ignore them. If they edit without base, we revert them, just like we would rvert the person who put the goatse-esque image up. An image of artillery being fired is the best image we have at this time that is free or qualifies for fair use. As time progresses we will get better and better images. THe map is no "safe alternative" that everyone likes, people have objected to it and it was already determined, when you first brought it up, that it is not the best thing to have up there. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1)Npov is an important principle that applies to pictures as much the words, bet you did not like the little red horse picture, that was your pov(if you didn't several people did, and that was thier pov). Someone else wants a dead lebanise kid pic to show the REALITY of the war, others want rocket crators in Haifa, its all pov. 2)What does one picture (of anything) achieve that is worth the wikistress that this is causing? Its a complete waste of time and energy hence why i have never edited the pic or done a revert.3) I'm bringing the map up a second time as after 100's of pointless changes of picture the conflict is still ongoing, it will continue, because this issue is so charged.4)Many more people seem to support the map over any given picture(as apposed to the total number of people who want thier picture).Hypnosadist 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On what basis? A picture of a red toy in the rubble does indeed outline the true nature of the war, and is not POV. Artillery being fired is not POV. Katyusha being fired is not POV. I would take any of these images over a map that shows nothing more than the "Location: Lebanon and northern Israel" does. Maps are only used in the infobox when outlining major troops movements and strategy, neither of which are happening now. I have frequently removed images if they were not free/fair use, even if they were infact better. You should not worry about accomodating people who edit with incorrect basis. We should always use the best image. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about strength of participants

Does anyone have anything about the strength of the participants here? Seems funny if there are casualties, but no strength to start off with in the first place. A previous similar post on this subject was deleted as "irrelevant" by an anon. --Terrancommander 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to restore this section, but you beat me to it. It appears your question was originally deleted because the information was covered in one of the first 2 archived sections of this Talkpage. --Doc Tropics 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the effort. But I raised this question because the infobox doesn't show anything about it yet. :D --Terrancommander 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a start towards this on the other article on the military conflict. I found info on the Israeli number of planes, but there is needed verifiable source for Hezbollah rocket arsenal, also manpower, artillery, other equipment, and need info for Lebanese armed forces if they enter the conflict.Edison 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits around 1948 and terms

I've just edited the beginning two paragraphs for three items: 1) Starting the conflict after the 1948 war is disengenous. The facts that the Arab League and Lebanon commenced fighting before Israeli independence and formally declared war on Israel are of key importance to the discussion

2) I deleted the reference to the number of current refugees. The UNHCR, the body managed all refugee situations except the Palestinians, does not count descendents as refugees. They're citizens of the new country. That UNWRA chose differently obscures the ability to reasonably compare refugee issues around the world. As a compromise, I even left in the 110,000 number that's totally unconfirmed.

3) I changed "militant" to "terrorist" in the second pararagraph. Misplaced Pages defines it http://en.wikipedia.org/Terrorist and to claim it doesn't fit only when attacking Israel is not balanced. They call for the destruction of a sovereign State and directly target civilians. They are not militants.

User:ithinktfiam 10:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1) This is not the article about the 1948 war.
2) Children of refugees born in foreign countries are not automatically given citizenship.
3) Calling for destruction of the enemy and directly targeting civilians is in no way incompatible with being a militant. Zocky | picture popups 09:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just call them "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys?" Equally POV. On the other hand, many sources have observed that Israel is seeking to destroy a sovereign state and is attacking civilians, so what does that make them?Edison 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS

This whole section:

===Claims of white phosphorus use by Israeli forces=== On 16 July Lebanese President Emile Lahoud claimed Israeli forces have used "phosphorus incendiary bombs, which are a violation of international laws, … against Lebanese civilians." Information Minister Ghazi Aridi also said, "Israel is using internationally prohibited weapons against civilians." President Lahoud and Minister Aridi's claims remain unverified. The deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilians is prohibited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III, which has not been signed by Israel or any other party in the conflict. The use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not regulated by that treaty.

Is a violation of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR - can someone find creadiable information about this subject before pushing it into the article ? Zeq 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The article does not say that white phosphorus has been used, it says that the president of Lebanon says that white phosphorus has been used. The latter is verifiable. In the same manner, there are claims being made that there are Iranian military in Lebanon helping Hizbollah. That is not verifiable either, but we can note that the claim has been made. --Battra 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Though maybe we could describe this claim with one or two sentences instead of a whole section. --Battra 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Such an extremely important fact cannot be left out. The claim is not being made from the fringes but by the Prime Minister of one of the combatants. This is extremely newsworthy and belongs in the article as such, althought I agree that the presentation has to be worked on, along with Israeli denials, if any.
Now, you cite a violation of WP:V. You seem not to understand WP:V: it explicitly states that verifiability, not truth, is what wiki is about. Planty of soucers that meet WP:RS standards were provided. You might think they lie, but thats your POV: to any rational person they meet WP:RS.
Which brings me to the other, you claim it violates WP:RS. It doesn't. Daily Star and Al-Jazeera are both recognized news outlets, with international reach and jornalistic standards. Sure, they do represent the POV of Lebanon in a better light, but Ynet, Haaretz and Jerusalem Post all present Israeli POV in a better light, and I dont see you saying they are not WP:RS.
Lastly, you cite WP:OR. I have read and re-read the section and cannot find WP:OR violations. None. All statements are sourced by WP:RS compliant sources, and no statements beyond those on the originals, or approximate allowed rewrites is present.
Someone pointed out to me that maybe you think the explanation at the bottom was a WP:NOR because it didnt have WP:RS sources. This is ludicrous: the paragraph is almost verbatim from the well sourced page on the "Protocol" in Misplaced Pages, and is linked to that article. Far from being original research, it is a reference to a wikipage. To eliminate confusion am adding a seealso.
Please before citing wikipedia policies, try to grasp what they are really about, and read them, you obviously havent. I will admit I have been guilty of this in the path, but we can all learn, and I hope you do too.--Cerejota 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not aplace where one sided unproven accusation should be used. WP:V and WP:RS are clear to the type of sources that should be used in contriversial subjects. Also just bring quotes from UN laws is good for an article about these laws but in the context of this article it is clearly WP:OR (unless you have a realiable source quoting this in connection with this very crisis). Zeq 03:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a collection of facts, not an opinion. It is therefore not OR. --Iorek85 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, we have all kinds of unproven, one-sided, declarations on the page, from all sides. For example, the allegation by the ISraeli chief of staff of over 100 Hizbollah dead has not been confirmed. Yet, we include them because they are important declarations by important actors, and are provided by WP:RS and WP:V. Remember that WP:V establishes that verifiability not truth is what matters.
As to the WP:OR objection, Iorek85 is correct, but furthermore, if we where to use your logic, we would have to remove the entire "Background information" section as WP:OR, which we all agree would be stupid.
We have to include this background information to balance the reporting of the claim, so readers to reach their conclusions with full information.--Cerejota 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blank references

There are quite a few blank references (they are given names but go nowhere). Are they O.K to delete? --Iorek85 09:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

yes. -- tasc deeds 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the infobox there is a reference "Israel says soldiers killed in clash with Hezbollah", KBCI 2, concerning the Israeli military casualities. The page doesn't exist anymore, but from the link is recognizable that it was an AP news. Any updated source info for this available?

Names of operations in the preamble?

Well, the preamble should say the most important stuff with as few words as possible. Now the preamble contains this:

"On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah initiated Operation Truthful Promise, named for a "promise" by its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for the remaining three Lebanese held by Israel, mainly Samir Kuntar. Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward, later renamed Operation Change of Direction."

Maybe all these names could be moved to other sections of the article, as they doesn't really contain any information regarding what is happening? --Battra 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Earlier discussions

Discussion about the status of the article

Earlier discussions

Vandalism

due to continued vandalism, I put sprotected. Please do not remove, and if removed, replace. Already the page is no longer NPOV, and its quality has decreased significantly (I mean, removal of news sources???) because of what amounts to vandalic activity by anonymous user(s).--Cerejota 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What specific vandalism are you talking about? Bibigon 05:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect he didn't like my edit (@05:36) and suffered a massive over-reaction. What ever happened to Not biting the newcomers? --84.193.50.72 06:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate, I did not remove any news source whatsoever. Just removed a bit of indeed a very long quote. --84.193.50.72 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention you, if you feel bitten, I apologize. I haven't given a detailed list, but I did give one example, and if it doesnt apply to you, I dont understand how do you feel aluded to? --Cerejota

~

To elaborate, I did not remove any news source whatsoever. Just removed a bit of indeed a very long quote. --84.193.50.72 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No you didn't, but you did move this thread without reason leading me to belive it was deleted as I was replying. Bad form.--Cerejota 06:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put 3 comment in this page about Israeli casualties and all of them were removed.--Sa.vakilian 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go again... erasing things from the talk page. Only the most insecure and small are unable to deal with criticism - but that's what I've come to expect from some the administrators on this page. All hail censorship!

Tag was gone... Tag is back ;) --Deenoe 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be some misunderstanding here ... only admins can protect pages. Cerejota and Deenoe, neither of you are admins. Putting the tag on the page just displays the tag, it doesn't actually change the protection status. I hope this explains everything. --Cyde↔Weys 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I explained on your talk page, I know that. I thought the page was sprotected and that he was talking : if the tag is removed, put it back. --Deenoe 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can always check the protection log to see the current protection status. --Cyde↔Weys 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should Sprotected right now due to recent immature vandalism. --Deenoe 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more than semi protection...... the image in the infobox is being changed constantly..... Ryanuk 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but inevitably if a version of a page will be protected it will be The Wrong Version. --AceMyth 22:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

technical issues

Section editing is messed up. There are some reference errors that keep slipping in, and are hard to fix. Can't spot any now, but it was a pain to locate. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 03:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Locked?

The article should be locked. There is too much debate over so many small things. We don't want to get into a World war of edit battles! I urge the admins overlooking this to please lock it! Thank you. WikieZach| talk 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate is good, shows other viewpoints and comments. But, if it is vandalism, then it isn't. So far, I've not come across any blatant vandalism here though. --Terrancommander 04:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been some vandalism today and there is a pending request for this page to be semi-protected. Whether or not that will happen, I'm not sure. I certainly did put a note in favor of semi-protection. Davidpdx 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The war of words rages just as the war on the ground does. Not surprised here. ObsidianOrder 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection is needed here. There are many vandals as well as users like lorek85 who pretend to be neautral, but don't seem to respond to the claims of lack of neutrality. the main image in this article right now is POV as long as there isn't a corresponding image, or a half-split image showing damage from the other side of the conflict. --Dberliner 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The current image is not POV. You dont need a split image to be neutral, look at Six Day War or Yom Kippur War. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
At least they dont pose to be wikipedia administrators like certain other individuals (rolleyes). ArmanJan 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ArmanJan, I'm afraid I can not, nor an admin, ever cure your bitterness which I'm afraid will last for a while longer, because we know that your edits won't really change the works of the world, maybe just waste 2 seconds of a true Wikipedian's time. as for FightCancer's comment below, I know this is quite extreme in the Misplaced Pages community, but this page has become a battleground of war, it is not serving its purpose as a medium of knowledge. This has to be done IMO until the situtation calms down. --Dberliner 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Locking the article would abolish everything Wiki stands for, IMO. FightCancer 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you don't Dberliner, but before you continue calling me anymore names and what not, take a good look at Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. ArmanJan 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You really have no shame, ha? You claimed I'm posing as an admin (although very ingeniously without mentioning my nick), and now you refer me to the personal attacks page. Well, I can use that very particular incident as a very good example of a microcosm to the whole occurrences of the events unfolding, but i'll refrain from that and keep my dignity. Dberliner

Semi-protection: Restore

I think that semi-protection should be restored due to vandalism. I already added my request at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29. Hello32020 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the talk page

Earlier discussions

Whew. After a lot of work, I've refactored the page, archived about 200kb of it, and split out the discussion on the two largest sections into separate pages. And the talk page is STILL too big! (though 50kb isn't nearly as bad as 300kb). Is this format O.K with everybody? --Iorek85 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's a total mess. Just archive the conversations from here on out. (Bjorn Tipling 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

Whoever did the work: good effort, bad judgement. Just about killed the conversation about images by moving the page to some obscure location. Just archive the discussion like you would on any other page. Thanks. (Bjorn Tipling 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

I did. And the page was still well over 150kb. The section on photos alone (after archiving round one!) was 70kb. I didn't want to archive current discussions. I thought by separating it out, we could keep discussions going longer without archiving. The photos section on its own is now over 30kb, and this page is already over 100kb. --Iorek85 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am GOING THERE!

If you don't know I am a reporter for CNN. I am planning to travel to Tel-Aviv and then go north on Monday. I will be taking Delta Air Lines 152, for about 11 hours. I will depart at 10:45pm and get there around 530pm. I will give updates as they happen! WikieZach| talk 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Will you take pictures so we can do the composite pictures without copyright issues? ;p --Deenoe 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont get yourself killed there.Cameron Nedland 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I will take pictures and will be careful. Thanks for caring. WikieZach| talk 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure no problem.Cameron Nedland 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Change of flight plans. Could leave tonight. WikieZach| talk 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a blog. Also, stay safe. (Bjorn Tipling 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

  • If you have a spouse, then it won't get stipends if you die unless you're a Muslim and become a martyr.

Though, in Islam, only females get paid provided that they dress like mullahs + headscarf instead of a turban.

<It's called humor.>--Patchouli 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Patchouli: get a blog and post your "humor" there.--Cerejota 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, quit being such a cry-baby. --NoRCaLD503 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV

This section is in clear breach of the Wiki NPOV guidelines. I see nothing encyclopedic about pushing blatant Hezbollah propaganda websites. Its not only against NPOV policy I think its almost spamming!! User Ilike2beanonymous is reverting more than 3 times and an admin should take a close look at his/her work please203.15.73.3 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The links are to websites with unedited photographs that cannot be published in Misplaced Pages as per policy, but are relevant to this page. If you are upset that they show only Lebanese children dead, please post links to websites showing pictures of Israeli children dead.
Policy doesn't require that the websites we link to be NPOV, but that they be relevant. And these websites are the very definition of relevant.--Cerejota 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm completely with Cerejota on this one. Those pictures (while very disturbing) are pictures of the damage. It'd be nice to have some of the damage in Israel, but in no way are they POV. (Apart from the POV that killing and injuring people is bad). --Iorek85 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an outrageous misrepresentation of these relevant Israeli and Lebanese blogs, none of which have a thing to do with Hezbollah and in fact are highly critical of their actions. Here is one example, pointing to a Fouad Ajami analysis of Nasrallah's decision in the Wall Street Journal. Even if there were any "blatant Hezbollah propaganda" (please do show us some), these blogs have been an important aspect of the story, and have been mentioned and featured in numerous news reports. Furthermore, just about every Misplaced Pages article has pointers to such blogs and website if they are relevant. The graphic images are from the news services: compare the images on the website stopdestroyinglebanon.com to this Macleans article. These images are highly relevant, and anyone who believes that these images are fabricated is living in a fantasy world, or worse. The relevant blogs and images should stay. AdamKesher 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not the images are fabricated. It's about reliable sources. Correct information may sometimes occur in unreliable sources.--Denis Diderot 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, we should delete links to relevant blogs and images here and throughout every other Misplaced Pages article? AdamKesher 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Unless they are reliable sources. And we can't verify their accuracy without doing original research. -Denis Diderot 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum. I'll agree then that we should delete these relevant web links just as soon as Misplaced Pages institutes this to be its official policy and declares that such links are to be deleted from every Misplaced Pages article. Until that day, the relevant blogs and images should stay in this article. AdamKesher 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove without discussion.--Cerejota 07:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A user alleged WP:EL and WP:RS violations, but failed to list them here, and furthermore, I don't see them.--Cerejota 07:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"unverified original research" (WP:EL) Refers to WP:RS: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are typically not acceptable as sources." --Denis Diderot 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The pictures aren't being used as sources, just links, and therefore don't fall under WP:RS. They come under "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks." As for removing the blogs, I've no mind either way. I can see arguments for both sides on that one.--Iorek85 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No sorry, the principle of verifiablity is fundamental and applies to external links as well. It's OK to link to opinion sites if they are "prominent sites" (i.e. major web sites) that clearly (verifiably) represent the sides in a conflict, e.g. an official Hezbollah site and an official IDF site. (In this case they are reliable sources of opinions.) Are you really comparing these websites to scientific textbooks? Perhaps you're just joking? --Denis Diderot 08:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In the external links that are "normally to be avoided", I can only see arguments for "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.) but they are photos, not random ideas and loony ramblings. And yes, I'm comparing them to scientific textbooks, because, as I quoted, they both provide "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". You don't think firsthand pictures of the destruction are relevant? But hey, show me the official IDF page that shows the damage caused by bombing on both sides, and I'll gladly support that for inclusion. --Iorek85 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Meaningfull relevant content? I'd rather say fabricated, randomly compiled propaganda. -- tasc deeds 09:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
From my comment above: The graphic images are from the news services: compare the images on the website stopdestroyinglebanon.com to this Macleans article. These images are highly relevant, and anyone who believes that these images are fabricated is living in a fantasy world, or worse. The relevant blogs and images should stay. AdamKesher 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, leave them out. While I have no doubt the vast majority of the photos are real, I can't prove it. --Iorek85 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Adam, the issue is not whether or not the images are fabricated. It's about reliable sources. Correct information may sometimes occur in unreliable sources, but we can't verify their accuracy without doing original research. These are fundamental Misplaced Pages policies.(WP:RSWP:VWP:NOR) --Denis Diderot 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
None of these wise policies applies to identifying the existence of commentary or information outside of Misplaced Pages, which is all these links do, just like every other Misplaced Pages articles with such pointers. If something in the main article was based on these blogs or images, then you would have a point, but this is not the case. AdamKesher 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The links are inside Misplaced Pages. That's the whole point. Please read what the policy says: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" "Unverified" is defined by WP:RS Also Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. People can find interesting links elsewhere or through a search engine. --Denis Diderot 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I'll agree then that we should delete these relevant web links just as soon as Misplaced Pages institutes this to be its official policy and declares that such links are to be deleted from every Misplaced Pages article. To prove my point that such links are an essential, useful, and relevant part of almost every single Misplaced Pages article, I'll just go at random to today's featured article, Lastovo. Oh look! It too has a section of External_links. Until the day that all such links are deleted from Misplaced Pages, the relevant blogs and images should stay in this article. AdamKesher 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You may disagree with Misplaced Pages policies as much as you like, but if you are to edit articles here you must follow them anyway. It is offical policy already. It's just that you don't care. And the policy says that yes, we can have many external links, but not links to sites that contain "unverified original research". What is it you don't understand?--Denis Diderot 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please return the courtesy of responding to the content of my statements, which refute your application of these wise Misplaced Pages rules to pointing out the existence of outside information, just as is done in almost every other Wiki article. AdamKesher 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Yes we may have external links". This quote from my previous reply means there may be many links to "outside information", as you call it. But not all types of websites should be linked to. Clear? --Denis Diderot 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The rules you cite pertain to sources used within the article. A bland assertion of the fact, with pointers, that other information exists outside Misplaced Pages, is commonplace. In fact, in your own deletions of this information (Revision as of 07:15, 24 July 2006, Revision as of 08:54, 24 July 2006, Revision as of 12:59, 24 July 2006), you left several other websites alone—websites which could just as well be argued to be unverifiable and original research. The fact that you appear to wish to apply Misplaced Pages's rules unevenly opens the question if there are other reasons unrelated to Misplaced Pages policy behind the push to delete all reference to relevent blogs and images from the war. AdamKesher 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The rules I cite apply to external links, I'm not going to say this again. I've already provided relevant quotes. Please read them. I removed some links that obviously didn't conform to Misplaced Pages standards. It's quite possible that I should have removed more. If you find any, don't hesitate to delete them yourself. --Denis Diderot 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You merely cited rules without explaining why they apply to the mere mention of the existence of external blogs and photography. Based on your arguments, we must delete mention of the existence of any external link whose veracity cannot be verified. For example, here are the external links to Scientology, which includes the critical Operation Clambake. According to your application of Misplaced Pages's rules, this link should be deleted, an action I can guarantee would be immediately reverted. And for good reason: it's relevant, informative, and provides plausible and reliable information. Can't you see that the solution to this problem is to have a place for frontline Israeli and Lebanese blogs, and let the Wikipedians decide for themselves which blogs stand up to the test of providing relevant, plausible, and reliable information? If someone deletes a blog that is tendentious or crummy, I sure won't stand up for it. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: there are excellent websites in Israel and Lebanon providing a realtime perspective of the facts on the ground—a pointer to these belongs in a free and open encyclopedia. AdamKesher 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Skip your cheap strawman rhetoric. Read what I've actually written above. Then read the official policies. Then apply them. --Denis Diderot 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually, I have read what you wrote and AdamKesher is not doing strawman. He in simply using analogy, bordering periously, but not quite on ad absurdum.
But he raises a valid point: since both sites you want deleted in reality contain pictures from press agencies and independent witneses, of news worthy events, of relevance to the page, I think you are substituing productive discussion of differences with name calling and wikilawyering.
I think those links are extremely relevant, and any NPOV issues can be resolved by posting similar websites from the Israeli side.
If these links are not included soon, I am raising a call for informal moderation of an editing dispute. This is the first real time I have seen outright genuine line-in-the-sand resistance to the inclusion of information here, regardless of POV.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but having read the arguments I remain completely, absolutely, 100% unconvinced that these links violate any Misplaced Pages policy, or that they are not relevant for inclusion and increase article quality.
The only issue I consider valid is the one regarding POV, but this is easy to resolve by including Israeli POV websites with similar content. If our interests is actually a quality article, I think we should all understand that showing some unbalancing while puting out news is more important than hiding and censoring news, as long as no policies are violated.
This is why I have tried to stay away from the "infobox picture" edit conflict: I care very little about that particular item, because it is ultimately irrelevant, whereas more important stuff, like having NPOV presentation, and having balance when needed, merit much more attention. Such as providing links to photos of civilian deaths in Lebanon, , just like photos of Israeli civilians dead are an undeniable, NPOV fact, and we must make every effort to include links to websites with them.--Cerejota 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just make a simple point here: The section we are arguing about comes under "Links normally to be avoided". Point out where it says we can't use them.

And for another point, lets look at the WP:RS that we're debating.

  • Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly.
  • Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. (They are photos, so yeah, they were there.)
  • Find out what other people say about your sources.
  • Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
  • Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online. (The photos match other news sources).

To sum up, I see not one reason why those links can't be there. --Iorek85 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, is it now time to restore these links to relevant and timely information within the article? I propose that this be done, and will do so soon if I do not hear any substantive counter arguments to delete this information. AdamKesher 10:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, but I doubt it will be long before someone removes them, possibly even citing this very discussion as evidence to 'support' them. :( --Iorek85 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll make one final attempt to clear this out. No Cerjota, this isn't wikilawyering. No Iorek85, that's not the only relevant section. Yes AdamKesher, the arguments are substantive.
(1) If someone wants do find these sites, it's very easy. Google for example. Misplaced Pages isn't a web directory. We should never include websites just because we think they are "relevant" or "informative".
(2) These websites are not reliable sources Some images and descriptions may be accurate and others not. It's obviously impossible to verfiy if the information on these websites is accurate or not without doing original research.
(3) They can't be included as opinion sites (as Cerjota seems to suggest). When such sites are included, they must be "prominent" (not blogs and the like), there must be balance, and the POV of each site should be clearly stated. It must be possible to verify which POV the website actually represents.
Why is this so difficult to understand? --Denis Diderot 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We understand, just disagree.
(1) - That's exactly why we should link them. They provide a unique sorce, they are relevent, they are informative, and they directly relate to the article. If those aren't good reasons to link to the sites, I don't know what you think is.
(2) - That covers, I'm afraid, almost every site that is linked to on wikipedia. Have you double checked the BBCs facts? Some people don't think IMDB is a reliable source. Some people don't think Al Jazeera is a reliable source. We don't have to check every site to link to for accuracy (a) because we're not using them for references: and (b) because thats why we link to them - its our way of saying, every time - "this website says". There are no websites that you can absolutely guarantee are 100% accurate. Thats not a reason never to link them. And, even if you consider these websites less trustworthy than CNN, say (and I'd agree with you) the exceptional relevent nature of them counters that.
(3) - What is the opinion? Killing civilians is bad? They aren't opinion sites; they are collections of photographs. Even if they were, the bolded section in my quote shows we can, if they are important, link them. And, prominent? "although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda." that guideline seems to completely disagree. --Iorek85 11:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As there are no new arguments against including relevant links to frontline blogs and photographs, I have included these in the 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#External_links. I did some quick editing from previous lists to just include those that appeared (to me) to be the highest quality and/or most relevant to current events. I also included a new Israeli and Lebanese blog. I hope that this section doesn't turn into a link dump -- please don't abuse this section -- it should represent links to the most relevant and well written commentary on this conflict. AdamKesher 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There are arguments against it. please. don't add blogs. -- tasc deeds 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We discussed Denis Diderot's arguments, and dispatched them to my satisfaction, and apparently others' too. You characterized these links above as "fabricated, randomly compiled propaganda." On what basis do you say this? I find every single link included to have relevant and plausible information, appropriate for an article discussing an ongoing event. What are your arguments against including these links to relevant and plausible frontline information from Israel and Lebanon? Until you step up and provide a convincing argument, please refrain from deleting information from the article. AdamKesher 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You did not discuss anything. Mainly because there were no 'others'. This are not a frontline information because it's written not by someone who is doesn't know a thing. they full of emotion and hatred. -- tasc deeds 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for over a day now, and longer in edit comments. Where were you? Exactly what "emotion and hatred" are you referring to? I've included all the links below. AdamKesher 13:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here are the links under question.

BEGIN

Frontline blogs

Israeli blogs

Lebanese blogs

Frontline photographs (Warning: Extemely graphic wartime imagery)

END

tasc, you have deleted this information twice without discussing it. If this dispute cannot be resolved by civil discussion, we will have to go to the next step. AdamKesher 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, you've got some frontline photos from Israel too. Nice work, that should balance out the complaints of POV. Even less of a reason to delete them now. As for the blogs, they're important enough for news.com.au, I think they can stay in the article. Blogs, while I personally think they are overrated, do in this case provide a unique and important and relevant insight into the conflict. --Iorek85 13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And the first blog, the Mukataa blog, has its own entry here on Misplaced Pages, as does just about every other blog that people find to be relevant and informative (RedState, Daily Kos, etc.). This debate is obviously not about pointers to blogs on Misplaced Pages, but the desire to censor the information contained there. In the absence of a reasoned argument why these links should not appear, I'm reverting their deletion. Please refrain from deleting relevant information from the article without discussing it first. AdamKesher 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Denis Diderot has deleted these links without discussion (13:55, 25 July 2006 Denis Diderot (Talk | contribs) (rv to Dominick per talk)), and claims in his comments that this talk page is the basis for his edits when in fact the dispute is ongoing and we have been asking for reasoned, substantiated arguments from both Denis Diderot and tasc, to no avail. I have done my best to resolve this issue with civil discussion on this talk page, and have now referred the matter to Misplaced Pages's informal moderation: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

edits by banned editor

This is a sock puppet of banned editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.1.182.215

Zeq 05:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is he a sockpuppet of? I note he's also been banned for 24hrs. --Iorek85 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni#Final_decision - he opreates out of IP address in Atlanta Geogrgia but elsewhere as well. His style is very clear: blant anti-Israel propeganda.

Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?

In the sidebox it says that tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced and then links to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200301_2.html as the source. Where on that page does it mention Israelis being displaced? This bit is the only part where it talks about displaced people:

Many were fleeing Aitaroun, Bint Jbeil and other cities following Israel's urgent evacuation orders to the 300,000 people who live south of the Litani, which runs roughly 25 miles north of the Israeli border.

Maybe the mention of displaced Israelis should be removed until a real source can be found and not just a make-believe one?--216.26.201.10 06:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too and forgot to bring it up. I'm glad someone did. IMO the statistic should be removed until it can be cited. Similarly, if someone were to claim that 6 million Lebanese had been displaced, I would want a stat for that too. FightCancer 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation in http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-havoc19jul19,0,314217.story?coll=la-home-headlines in the 7th paragraph. If you think it is good enough, feel free to add it to the article. --Yono 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Edison 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops never mind I see the new reference.--Paraphelion 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Washington Post appears to have edited an article which said "tens of thousands of Israelis" had been displaced. A search now of their website for "tens of thousands of Israelis" yields "Israel Stages Operations in Southern Lebanon : Hezbollah Continues to Fire Rockets into Northern... John Ward Anderson and Edward Cody (Edition) 07/22/2006 Article ...homes in the southern areas near the border with Israel and southern sections of Beirut that are Hezbollah strongholds. Tens of thousands of Israelis have fled the border regions of northern Israel to the center of the country, which so far has not been struck... " But when I read that article now, the section disclosed now by the search was not there any longer. It was there when I originally added the "tens of thousands" phrase to the infobox. Life gets more and more like "1984." I guess it pays to archive a copy of any article cited.Edison 04:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This happens with CNN.com on a daily basis. Last week I used a source that was then changed, however searching for exact terms using their own search engine would bring the article up, even though the article no longer contained those words. Isn't there some kind of journalistic integrity thing about this, like they should say the article was modified or corrected? The NY Times does have an ombudsman, but I doubt CNN does.--Paraphelion 05:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing from this article

Hizbula has been hiting israeli towns and cities along the border for a long time (once evety few month an israeli was killed by rockets). The new longer range and the kidnaping of the 2 soldiesr are just the last straw that brought Israel to fight back. Zeq 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing from the casualties section

Al-Jazira reported from Israeli military officials and from Hizbullah that several Israeli tanks were destroyed in the last ground operations made by Israeli ground forces. I don't know the exact number though, but it should be checked and included. Sherif9282

Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185

Iran, Syria and Yemen have given support to Lebanon and Hezbollah.. In 186 Iran is mentioned but only by an US official. Iran has supported Hezbollah in the past and quite certainly does so here but I'd like to see a reference that confirms Irans support for Hezbollah. Secondly, 185 mentions Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Algerian, Sudan and Morocco as supporters (or rather that their cause was justified) of Hezbollah's current actions. -G3, 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly you want to see? Iran saying "yes, we are supporting hezbollah"? -- tasc deeds 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ban the vandals already!

May we just report every user that vandalises the page and just get them banned immediately? Otherwise this shit will never end. The user Tasc just reverted an article on which we have reached a consensus. ArmanJan 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NO. you haven't reach a consensus. you had a talk in some obscure location with another user. And now you're calling it a consensus. -- tasc deeds 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was here for a whole day, it was then moved to the POV section (like many other articles also get moved to other sections). You did not participate in all this time we were discussing the article, and that is not our fault. ArmanJan 13:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither did dozens of editors. this is neither discussion nor consensus. And stop adding commercial and broken references!!!!!!!! -- tasc deeds 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, we're talking about it - theres a large section dedicated to it. Quite a few editors are talking about it. There is therefore definitely discussion. But you're right. There is no consensus. Either way. You don't have any consensus for deleting them any more than he does for keeping them. Shall we have a straw poll? Without checking, I'm guessing you're both pretty close to breaking the WP:3RR, so be careful. --Iorek85 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no where near breaking WP:3RR. However tasc has been banned for edit wars before. ArmanJan 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The paragraph has gone to hell, its full of POV, and unnecesary details that should go to other sections. For example, I suggest moving the details of the Lebanese prisioners in Israel to the "Background" section, and rewirting for POV. Again people, I think we are missing the point, NPOV and balance are important, but so is article quality, please when you edit have this in mind: there are almost 5 subpages, and 10 sections and subsections, pleas eput your contributions where they go. Intro should be short, have no major details, and only mention things that are really relevant to the WHOLE article, not to part of it, like motives etc.--Cerejota 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fork for deletion

Please note that I've placed the article The role of Iran and Syria during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict on WP:AFD, for the reasons stated on the deletion page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the article again

Most mentions of damage to Israel or ongoing Hezbollah rocket bombardment got removed again. Put the lock and POV tag back, please!

You Guys I'm Scared!

You guys read this article it gives an updated death toll and the Saudi reaction to this on going conflict.

website <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060725/wl_nm/mideast_israel_saudi_dc> Little Spike 2:39pm EST, July 25th, 2006.

Opinions on civilian attacks??

To quote Juan Cole as an 'opinion' this issue is misleading and ridiculous. He is known for his support for Arab causes. It is like quoting someone from a Jewish lobby as an opinion without mentioning his background!!! that entire page is out of place should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.139.87 (talk • contribs) .

If that he is "known for his support of Arab causes" is a reason for his non-appearance in the article, shall we delete all references and comments from anyone at the IDF, who are of course notorious world-wide for their almost staunch support of Israel? Or can we just accept the fact that the article has properly wikilinked Juan Cole, giving anyone ignorant of the guy the opportunity to investigate not only the cited source, but also the bonifides of the individual as well? Additionally, the reference appears to be quoted correctly and even relevantly. mdf 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If its true that he is a staunch supporter of "arab causes" then he should be introduced as such. Introducing him as simply a professor when he has obviously had some one sided commentary and views is leaving out valuable information. Its almost like stating "Ehud Olmert, a lawyer, stated Hezbollahs actions are unjust." Where there is pertinent information, it should be included. --zero faults 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article is already very long, and the limited amount of space we have to present viewpoints should be devoted primarily to the participants. The views of Prime Minister Olmert and Sheik Nasrallah should definitely be presented. Views of NGOs like Human Rights Watch in areas of their expertise are OK to the extent that they are newsworthy (that is, when their press releases get picked up by major newspapers). We simply don't have room for the views of every professor, newspaper columnist, or blogger who has weighed in on this. Sanguinalis 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

These sentences are relevant and necessary to provide an analysis of possible reasons for the tactical and strategic reasons each side has in their now widespread attack on civilians. AdamKesher 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one concerned with article quality?

The introduction is kaput, the orignal strucute of the article (Background, Begining, Response) kaput. Subpages caput.

And it isnt only the expected POV wars, but also quality issue, spelling issues all kinds, structure issues, etc. I guess this is a call for editors to remember that we are trying to make an NPOV encyclopedia here, not some kind of news item. For that try WikiNews--Cerejota 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The question of what links should be present in the article is currently in mediation by the Cabal. Please come to the case page if you can comment on the issue. Also, other questions can be directed to mediation to be resolved with assistance of a third party. CP/M (Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project) 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict"

I have created stub article on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The reason is that while I support the deletion of the "Role of Iran and Syria..." article, the debate there did raise a good point, which is that there is a need to discuss the roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors this conflict, and that such discussion could be too big for this main page, so a relevant, NPOV page seems to be needed. Remember: the page must remain NPOV and balanced, and is now a stub, so it will take some time for a good page to emerge.

Besides the already mentioned support of Hezbollah by Syria and Iran, I think we should discuss US support to Israel and the Israeli political parties, and to US and Israeli support of political parties and militias in Lebanon. Additionally, we would have, of course, to discuss Israeli support of the Lebanese Forces and the Phalange, and its funding and operational leadership of an assasination squad responsible for a number of high visibility assassinations of Lebanese unsympathetic to Israeli views. Etc, etc, etc.--Cerejota 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism

Hellznrg accused me of "stealth vandalism" for reverting to its more or less original, consensus form the intro paragraph of the article. I stated the reasons for the edit both here in talk and in the comments of the edit. I ask user Hellznrg to retract and apologize for his uncivil behaivior, and to pleas ein the future read and discuss in the talk pages before doing such a major, and controversial, edit.--Cerejota 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Combatant

Now that the U.N. troops on the group are being targeted, they are part of this conflict. Since they are supposed to stay neutral, I think the only option is to add a fourth combatant column in the info box. Thanks. Logicaldisaster 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. The infobox is already too wide.--JyriL 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Put the Hezbollah and Lebanon in one box,after all even if Lebanon is doing only anti-aircraft warfare they are still helping the Hezbollah this way or another,so then you will have room for the U.N. forces.They should be distinguesed from Israel and Lebanon.

Maybe nother seperate box for casualties of international organizes that can include UN and the Red Cross..?--Paraphelion 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up the article

As the article seems to get larger and larger, I suggest that it is splitted into different articles. At least Casualties section can be removed without breaking the integrity of the article. Internatinal reaction has already own article, now it has way too much text on this side; same goes to the Military operations section.--JyriL 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Salvage French

Can someone salvage this passage, if indeed the site is reliable. This is backed up by French website, voltairenet.org, which stated on July 18, 2006 that "Here facts: Hezbollah requires since long years the release of prisoners held by Israel, such as Samir el Kantar, imprisoned since 1978, Nassim Nisr and Yahia Skaff which is imprisoned since 1982. In many occasion, it let know that the weather would not fail to be captive in its turn Israeli soldiers - if Ci-that-Ci had been suddenly introduced in Lebanon, and to use them like monnaire of exchange. In a deliberated way, Tsahal sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aïta Al Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, making two prisoners. Israel A then pretends to be attacked and attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah, which prepared to face an Israeli aggression that each one knew imminent since the Syrian withdrawal, drew from the intermediate-range missiles on Israel.", whilst the rest of the media stated the lies of the Israel. Israel has used this to justifed the bombing of Lebanon, which has resulted in the death of nearly 400 innocent civilians.

white phosphorous

Guys, im not involved here, so im just droping the info: is Israel is using white phosphorous that targets that include children ? Is that not a serious war crime? Is that not CNN? --Striver 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not very clear, what I assume he is referring to is the linked youtube clip from CNN in that article. Direct link to CNN clip : --Paraphelion 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, they are again and still targeting sivilian ambulances . Yes, Again and still ! Imagin Muslims doing this... --Striver 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," Saudi state television quoted the king as saying in an official statement. --Striver 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on UNIFIL

I made the hezbollah and IDF attacks on UNIFIL section but someone removed the hezbollah attack that was reported by al-jazeera

How will the UN peacekeeper casulaties be incorperated into the infobox? – Zntrip 03:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought there were 2 dead and 2 missing UNIFIL. Has this been updated to 4 dead? Fcyoss 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not too clear.. a quick search showed that most recent (<1 hour) stories are saying 4 dead.--Paraphelion 07:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tirade by 203.15.73.3

After seeing this article go back and forth within the matter of seconds over these past two weeks I am now of the opinion Misplaced Pages should not document "controversial" current events. Rather, these should be re-visited with the clearness and CALMNESS of hindsight. Fair dinkum - have a look at the list of references - its almost as long as the article - each one put there by someone trying to push their side of the story - rather than to show academic research of the topic. Its all a bit like school kids bickering in the playground: I'm right....no I'm right etc. For a start lets take it off the Misplaced Pages Main Page, then Jimbo or the "wiki community" needs to think about whether a policy should be made about documentation of such contoversial current events. In this case we will never get consensus, just someone reverting more than someone else. 203.15.73.3 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider that instead of posting here you might have researched the issue with numerous citations to back up your claim the and presented it to Jimbo or somewhere else on wikipedia where they discuss this stuff.--Paraphelion 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So because it's not perfect, we shouldn't bother at all? --Iorek85 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border

Please look up where the ISraeli soilders were captured...it was in South Lebanon. Check

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24913&hd=0&size=1&l=e

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060720&articleId=2767

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FRA20060725&articleId=2813

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hezbollah_soldiers.html

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html

http://uruknet.info/?p=m25034&hd=0&size=1&l=e


http://www.voltairenet.org/article142056.html

I also want you to note that the Israeli media has proven to be censored and used for propaganda purposes...all their reports of advancement into Lebanon have turned out to be bogus, plus their claims of a Saudi fatwa against Hezbollah.

Thank you...please change the article. 69.196.164.190

We'll get right on that. Our rate is $150/hr. Or you can do it yourself.
The forbes link, which would be the most credible source in that list, does not say anything about the soldiers being captured in South Lebanon.--Paraphelion 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually two of those sites are world famous for their work, by leading experts and adacemics. Two of those links also had other links on them, plus one of the verifications is The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...

69.196.164.190

  1. "Israeli Agression on Lebanon", July 19 and 21, 2006, in As-Safir, Retrieved on 2006-07-16.
  2. "UN warning on Mid-East war crimes". BBC. 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. "Toll Rises in Middle East". New York Times. 2006-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. "'Is this the price to pay?' Lebanese PM asks". CBC. 2006-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. "U.N. post hit in Israel-Hezbollah fighting". Associated Press. 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Lebanon under Israeli attack: Sunday Roundup". Daily Star (Lebanon). 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Lebanon Accuses Israel of Using Internationally Prohibited Weapons Against Civilians". Naharnet. 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  8. "Updated report on the war in Lebanon — Day 8". Ya Libnan. 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  9. "Israel uses banned weapons against Lebanese civilians". Aljazeera. 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  10. "Israel, Lebanon Wage War Of Words". CBS News. 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons". GlobalSecurity.org. 1980-10-10. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. "Western news services agreeing victims of the Israeli military censure". www.voltairenet.org. 2006-07-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Categories: