Misplaced Pages

• To Cyde↔Weys: Sorry, but CNN labels it "Crisis in the Middle East" and uses headers like "Latest on conflict". See . Washington Post labels it "Crisis in the Middle East" . The fact that Washington Post have a sub-headline called "Wider Ground War Approved" doesn't mean that they call it a war. Throughout their texts they refer to "the conflict". Thomas Blomberg 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Result & Discussion of the 'War' Poll Results

Results:

• 9 Useres opposed the renaming
• 17 Useres supported the renaming

Discussion:

• Still, this topic is controversial and therefore before changing anything this should be discussed here.
• Please feel free to come up with ideas for a new lemma inculding war --Attraho 09:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Including Hezbollah in the name

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)

I agree. It should be Israel-Hizbollah_conflict, Lebanon has little to do with it. --Doom777 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Lebanon army is not a participant, though casualties are mostly Libanese. 'Libanon' in the name is false. Dreg743 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is acting independantly of Lebanon, so Hezbollah should be in the name instead of Lebanon. Insane99 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Technically, it is not the Israel-Lebanon conflict but the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Lebanon's troops are not involved. Israel is not targeting Lebonan but Hezbollah. Unfortunately, Hezbollah has established itself in the middle of Lebanon.

No. Use the example of the existing name in 1982 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this compromise The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006) any thoughts.Hypnosadist 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with TheFEARgod. Conflict or TheFEARgod's use of War is Neutral. The examples used to cite use of the term "war" are of concern. Should Hezbollah sources which refer to fighting as "Sixth-Arab-Israeli war" make it sensible to use that? Each side aims for certain propaganda/morale advantages when using term "war". Why are editors so eager to have this article renamed to a war? I can understand the reasoning behind the arguments but what is the rush? 82.29.227.171 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the rush is legitimate, because readers may think calling it a "conflict" is trying to downplay the event. It would be like someone writing an article about the "September Conflict in New York" referring to 9/11. In Lebanon, to the people dying, I'm sure they'd rather it be called a "massacre", so "conflict" would certainly be an understatement.

I don't think the precendent of the 1982 Lebanon War means anything. It was a different event in a different century and the Lebanese government was much more involved in the war, even agreeing to sign a peace treaty with Israel at one point (see the article). Besides, I feel the article should reflect the time period in which it's written and it's clear from all the discussion on this page that the "Israel-Lebanon War" would be hotly contested by the community. --mhsia 20:37, 2 August 2006 (EST)

Hezbollah is bombing Israel, so the conflict isn't only taking place in Lebanon, you'd need to include both places or use a broader term like "The Middle East" Omishark 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the title again: "Israel-Lebanon conflict." It does contain Israel.

Also, this morning, NPR referred to this as "the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict." I'm not sure how other media outlets are referring to it, but if they're also using "Hezbollah," then that's what we should do. ---DrLeebot 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Hypnosadist's idea of The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006). Does anyone have objection to this? My only concern is that it's too wordy and sounds like we're trying too hard to be politically correct, but I think it's still the best we've got.
It just doesn't seem like we're having a linear conversation about this. Isn't it clear that there are sources that use "war" and some that use "conflict", some that refer to Hezbollah and some that refer to Lebanon, so there's no use in bringing up yet another quote to illustrate these ad nauseum? Unless someone has a legitimate objection to The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006), why don't we use it, since it seems like there's plenty of objection to the current title. -mhsia 20:10, 02 August 2006 (EST)

Time to rename article to "war"?

I think it may be time to rename this article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. It's now regularly being referred to as a war in the media, and what with Israel's latest announcement of a larger land invasion, it just feels apt now, whereas it didn't really feel apt two weeks ago. What do you guys think? --Cyde↔Weys 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When the troops go in then yeah, that will be. If it wasn't a hotly debated and highly controversial issue I'd probably say go for War now, but introducing heated changes like that before they are necessary probably won't help encyclopedic quality. Best off leaving the breaking news to Wikinews and we deal more with the past tense. So once the troops go in its a war. --Narson 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about the name of the article is already taking place here: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Discussion_about_the_name_of_the_article. This discussion also features a poll on the question of renaming this article. --Attraho 23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese Daily Star newspaper seems to be calling it the "July War", which seems a bit optimistic considering that it's August now and the conflict is still continuing... -- ChrisO 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--BillyTFried 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just rename it "2006 Israel - Lebanon war", plain and simple. --Peephole 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the Combatants

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the Combatants
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about the Combatants; Summary:
  • Discussion about manpower of each actor.
  • Earlier discussion about Iran.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive4#Discussion about the Combatants; Summary:
  • Discussion about Lebanon.
  • Discussion about Hezbollah.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8#Discussion about the Combatants: Summary;
  • Is Iran a combatant?
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about the Combatants: Summary;
  • Missing an important point
  • Fourth Combatant
  • United Nations combatant?
  • Straw poll on United Nations as combatant
  • Discussion on strawpoll
  • straw poll compromise?
  • troop numbers
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the Combatants: Summary;
  • Unsourced claims about Iran
  • Volunteers are Basijis

Please don't edit these archived discussions

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Reported Events/Supposed Events
  • Summary: Effects on Oil Price, First Shots.

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

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive8#Discussion about Casualties
• Summary:
  • Israeli casualties
  • Earlier discussions
  • Displaced Israelis
  • Other
  • Civilian vs Military casualities
  • Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed
  • "Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed"
  • possible solution to the "civilians" edit war
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discssion about Casualties
• Summary:
  • Civilian casualties
  • Warship is not a casualty!
  • Casualty figures
  • Lebanese Casualties
  • Attacks on UNIFIL
  • Missing from the casualties section
  • Israeli soldiers killed

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

Lebanese Casualty Figures

The Lebanese casualty figure in the infobox has a lot of problems.

What we do know from sources is :

1. Civilians have been killed in Lebanon.
2. Roughly 400-450 people have been killed, almost all sources point out these are mostly civilians, some say "almost all".
3. as of 07-17 166 civilians in Lebanon were killed
4. as of 07-20 300 civilians in Lebanon were killed
5. other sources prior to the above source have noted an exact civilian death count

Some people like to use the fact that most sources don't specify how many "Lebanese killed" are civilians, and they remove the sources that do give some number of civilian killed, to justify omitting from the infobox that any Lebanese civilians have been killed. An example is User:Bibigon in this edit - , in which he does not even mention the deletion of sources in the edit summary. There is no reason we have to hide the fact that Lebanese civilians have been killed. We can show how many, according to sources, are civilians, and specify those of unknown status, either by subtracting the number, or saying something like "total 450 of unknown status".--Paraphelion 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since several editors are fond of removing sources, we can keep a list here :

Sydney Morning Herald - Israeli air strike kills 54

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israeli-air-strike-kills-51/2006/07/30/115%7C4197998127.html

"An Israeli air strike killed at least 54 Lebanese civilians, including 37 children"

BBC - Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea - 07-26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm

"More than 400 Lebanese"

Chosun - Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300 - 07-20

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200607/200607200001.html -

"Civilian Death Toll in Lebanon Passes 300"

"Lebanese death toll passed 300, almost all civilians."

The title is the only place this article specifies civilians, however the rest of the article does not contradict this

AP / Yahoo - Israel hints at full-scale Lebanon attack - 07-20

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

"Death toll rose to 330 in Lebanon"

News 24 - 45 killed in new strikes - 07-16

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1968721,00.html

"At least 45 people were killed"

"Nineteen civilians died in an Israeli attack"

"Almost all of those killed and injured since the beginning of the Israeli assault on Wednesday were civilians."

Reuters - Israel pounds Lebanon - 07-17

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-17T112055Z_01_L11538533_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml -

"Israel's campaign has killed 179 people, all but 13 of them civilians" (note 2nd page of article)

317 injured

at least 54 civilians in Qana (523+54=577 ?)

As of 2/3 August:

• Guardian attributes Lebanese government with "828 of its civilians"
• BBC cites the Health Minister's 750
• CNN attributes to Lebanese government "603 civilians and soldiers" & "2,145 others" wounded
• CBS "At least 548 Lebanese have been killed since the fighting began three weeks ago, including 477 civilians and 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas."

I am reverting to the 577 figure from the 828. I again stress that we either list the best (objective) numbers that distinguish civilians, or remove the civilian qualification and attribute the Lebanese gov't (a solution which has been opposed by several). Tewfik 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But none of those links support that figure. Itarr-tass also has the 828, so that makes two for it. --Iorek85 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The first three numbers are attributed to the Lebanese government, and do not distinguish between civilians and others. The CBS/AP number (548 Lebanese, 477 civilians) is the only one that does that, but Paraphelion's previous calculation's came out with a higher number for civilians (577). Like I said before, we cannot list the 828 number as either a civilian count or an objective number. Could you suggest a different way to approach this? Let me know, Tewfik 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the only possible way at the moment would be a "between" number, ie, 477 - 828, which covers the range. That, or we see how many news articles (in the last two/three days) with numbers we can find and go for the most popular. --Iorek85 07:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• And what do the Lebanese do? Some pledge loyalty Hezbollah and flash the V-sign + Hezbollah and some green flag. Also, Emile Lahoud lauds Nasrallah and Siniora sympathizes.--Patchouli 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We're going to approach a problem soon and it is rooted in the above statement. Hezbollah does a dual business in attacks on Israeli civilians and vigorous humanitarian aid for the displaced, bombed-at Lebanese. An interview with some Lebanese civilians who had lost their homes (and many loved ones, friends, etc.) caught my ear on NPR yesterday - the interview was of a distraught Lebanese man who voiced that before, he and his family, friends were not against Israel, nor in favor of Hezbollah but the bombing had convinced him that if/when Israel's troops showed up, he would fight. Support for Hezbollah is growing, if only because they're providing basic needs no one else can get the Lebanese because of the bombing. We all should be so lucky to sit at our computers and contemplate Hezbollah as a militant organization with only violent actions - but these humanitarian efforts are going to turn our "Civilian Deaths" infobox into a quagmire - more so than it already is, trying to see how many Hezbollah members are within the Lebanese civilian figures. Now we must consider how many Lebanese civilians aligned themselves in support of Hezbollah - with very non-civilian actions. Ranieldule 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty hard to give services to regions that your own army is scared to goto. People stating they will fight are not always doing it in favor of Hezbollah, they arent gonig to join the rank and file, they are simply fighting against Israel. Just because we have a common enemy does not mean you are my ally. Furthermore the illegal tactics of Hezbollah is what causes the situation in the infobox, any Hezbollah member without a gun at the time their corpse is picked up is a civilian, unless the coroner was lucky enough to find a Hezbollah glow in the dark membership ring on them. --zero faults 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't purport to ascertain Hezbollah's (or Israel's) actions as legal or illegal - nor would I attach either claim to Lebanese joining Hezbollah against Israel, collaborating with Hezbollah without actual membership or fighting Israel independent of all groups but themselves. The already blurry distinctions of who's a civvie and who's a combatant are likely to get much, much more muddled. Ranieldule 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to consider very much other than what is reported.--Paraphelion 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to figure out which of the dead are of "unknown status"? Cant think of any nonPOV reporting or announcements on Lebanese civilian casualties that ive read that would allow further discrimination of who was/wasnt purely resistance/Hezbollah/non-combatant. How is that going to happen? 82.29.227.171 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is any other way but basic subtraction, which I used to come up with "Civilians : 300 (plus 100 or more of unknown status)". I know this isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to be able to both keep the civilian tag in the infobox for Lebanon and come up with accurate figures based on what sources there are.--Paraphelion 09:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a reference to an attack on the city of Qana made ten years ago. While the attack committed recently was probably the source of international criticism, I doubt that the Qana attack of ten years ago has much relevance.Di4gram 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0728-04.htm Reaper7 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add the reference for the Qana killings 10 years back, This is important because it was a U.N base in Qana that was attacked 10 years back and this time a refugee building for the kids, mainly handicapped was bombed past midnight mercilessly resulting in loss of 60+ civilan lives with 37 of them being children (one was aged 1day).

we should understand that Israel have in past been attacking UN posts 'deliberately" and this is not a new thing world is watching, therefore, this has to be added to show the actual picture and background of this conflict. As regarding the actual amount of "civilans", the sources normally quote that 700+ civilans have been killed and if a person does not believe on independent sources, then you cannot make him believe any thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5228554.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5232434.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5231832.stm

We should also think onthe grounds that when a country is attacked, how loosly bounded a person to his birth place, he fights back with the fullest swing, therefore, thinking that Hezbollah is making the Labenese people terrorist is wrong. It is aactually the Isreali killings that is turning Hezbollah stronger in the hearts of labense people bescause they see Hezbollah as the only defender of their land and this is highly natural in these conditions that people will support Hezbollah and fight Israel. We better start opening our eyes and look from it from the view point of common people in Lebanon.

The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now reported as 828 ->

"Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far, around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children."

"The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." 82.29.227.171 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost all other news sources besides the Guardian report 828 as the total number of dead, so we should subtract the total lebanese army dead and hezbollah dead (leaving 758). For verification, feel free to search through

http://news.google.com/news?q=828+killed+lebanon&hl=en&hs=9Jq&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title

As you can see from,

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19992652-23109,00.html (top right corner)

the usually credible AFP is the source of the story. 65.94.19.135. 6:00, 3 August, 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Casualities

Please add a reference to the following statement: "Over 1,200,000 Israeli civilians were evacuated to shelters and other safe locations in fear of Hezbollah's rocket attacks. Over 1600 missiles have been fired by Hezbollah on Israel leaving over 600 buildings in damaged condition." PJ 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the info box it says that 300,000 Israelis have been displaced, quoting an article by NY Times. If we accept these figures, it would mean that 800,000 of those 1.2 million have been using shelters nearby their homes or places of work, and "only" 300,000 have moved elsewhere. Considering the fact that the total population of the Northern District is 2 million, whereof Haifa accounts for 270,000, and that there are an additional 20,000 Israelis living in the occupied Golan Heights, these figures may be correct. They would mean that 15-17% of the Northern District and Golan Height population have packed their belongings and moved to relatives further down south at one point in the conflict, and that half of the remaining 1.7 million have spent some time in air-raid shelters. Considering how officials tend to play with numbers to prove a point, it is, however, impossible know if the 300,000 displaced refer only to people who have left the area permanently during the hostilities, or if the figure also includes people who just left for a few days and then came back; and, similarly, if the 800,000 using shelters include everyone who at one point or another during the conflict have visited a shelter, or if the figure only refers to those who stay in shelters more or less constantly. Thomas Blomberg 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that someone has removed the Depotblasthaifa.jpg image, which showed the bloody aftermath of a Hezbollah rocket attack on the Israeli city of Haifa. Obviously someone wants us to believe that the Lebanese are the only ones suffering civilian casualties.

Amal Casualties?

I wasn't aware of these.

In fact, I didn't even realize that Amal was still an armed militia, and had been under the impression that their paramilitary capability had been effectively wiped out by Hezbollah towards the denouement of the Lebanese Civil War.

Can someone please clarify this issue.

Ruthfulbarbarity 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked around, and it seems that the only reference to it is the CNN story used as citation, which states that "CNN learned Wednesday that Hezbollah isn't the only militia in Lebanon fighting Israeli troops. Officials with the Amal Party, headed by speaker of the Lebanese parliament Nabih Berri, said militias loyal to Berri have been involved in every major battle since fighting began. Eight Amal fighters have been killed in the past three days, during which Berri met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss a solution to the crisis." To me it sounds like an unconfirmed claim by an Amal guy, feeling left in the shadow of Hezbollah. If it had been true, Israel would have made a big PR thing of it, considering Berri's position in the Parliament. Thomas Blomberg 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

lebonese civilian causalties

Can someone explain whyt the lebonese civilian causualties keep changing, at one point it said 600+, then 425, then 425+, then 325. It seems a little politically motivated, the lowest figure usually goes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.57.202 (talk • contribs)

This edit I made might explain: "On 28 July Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh announced that hospitals in Lebanon had received 401 dead Lebanese people since 12 July. He also reportedly said: "On top of those victims, there are 150 to 200 bodies still under the rubble. We have not been able to pull them out because the areas they died in are still under fire".

So figure is estimated beyond the 401 announced - could be higher/lower/static- but 600+ death are expected at that point but only 401 are known for sure. Also note that edit says "people"- there is dispute over if all casualties reported are civilians as opposed to civilians and some of those fighting. Also notice in the article that it says "At least 445 people, most of them civilians, have been confirmed killed in Lebanon, according to a Reuters tally." so other figures do exist. However, I believe the consensus would be to stick to official announcements of that kind unless each death can be cited and added to the total given by Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh. 82.29.227.171 07:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A few editors have been deleting sources and also it's a result of people not wanting to break down the figure, for the main purpose ot denying any civilians at all have died in Lebanon. Have a look at the lebanese casualty section up above on this talk page. I have been trying to break down exactly what is known about the casualties.--Paraphelion 07:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The current number of Lebanese casualties is today stated to be 523, citing Reuters saying that todays strikes killed 40. The NYTimes areticle, Israeli Strike Is Deadliest in Fighting So Far, says "At least 54 people were killed", which would make the total number 537. Madd4Max 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now the listed number is 750+, so I will change it back to the 523 number due to a lack of any discussion about that number. Tewfik 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Health Minister Mohammed Khalifeh told DPA that he feared the death toll would reach 750 as a result of the Qana bombing.

'The death toll may increase because we believe a lot of casualties are still buried under the rubble and our volunteers are unable to retrieve their bodies due to intensity of the shelling in their areas,' he said.

The figure of dead is being widely reported as 750, and that figure is being attributed to him as an official figure of dead civilians so far. I'm not asking that it be changed, just clarifying the previous editors mistake. Probably some journos capitalising on headlines after the 2nd Qana massacre. 82.29.227.171 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I read in a BBC News article that the health minister said there were over 750 deaths... someone keeps changing that when I source and change the casualty figure... thats why this article has POV issues, because the truth cant be told without some people getting offended.... Yahuddi 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you notice it is mostly israeli or jewish members who keep changing the figure to the lowest old figure and then very ironicly some other Israeli members sometimes who put it up again. I agree with the poster above. I would like to suggest that with this important box that shows the disproportionate violence and casualties, we let non israeli or non palestinian members edit it so it is fair, or lock it somehow and just follow the BBC on it. BBC says 750+ that is what it should read, unfortunately this place has been over run by political motivated members who are trying to lower the death toll artificially, I am really at a loss what to do - even the sourse they quote and reference says 750+ yet they still go on the old reuters figure, very naughty. Reaper7  ]]

The BBC article does not say 750+ civilians, it merely quotes the Lebanese Health Minister's statement. If they believed there were 750 civilians killed, they would say so outright. I suggest you take a look at the discussions above, especially the calculations begun by Paraphelion. Thanks, Tewfik 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we just let reuters make the 'calculations' instead of you lot? http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-07-31T235347Z_01_L30823603_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-TopNews-2 Reaper7 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the 'calculations,' as distasteful as they may be, is that while we have many numbers of people killed in Lebanon, we do not have numbers of civilians. The previous method of dealing with this (not qualifying the number with "civilians") was traded for the current practice, though if you feel that it is more neutral, you can address that. Tewfik 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The official labenese statement is more reliable than the reuters site. When they themselves give you the number of casualties then why do you have to look into other sources? this is not something to be sided with, be honest and dont make lame execuses like referring to here and there for arguments. Labenese official statement stands right above any other claim.

The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now, , reported as 828 ->

"Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far, around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children."

"The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." 82.29.227.171 13:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed it to 828 killed in the infobox- this is why i avoid the infobox- I believe, as he did last time, the Lebanese Minister gave the figure of 828 killed meaning 628 confirmed corpses and 200 year to be recovered- been looking for the actual statement to confirm that. 82.29.227.171 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties

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

1. Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support This isn't even up for debate. Not doing this is OR. Bibigon 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't something to be supported or opposed. The Lebanese health minister said that the (if I recall from the direct quote which is no longer featured in the linked article) was 750. So far, mainstream media sources have quoted him, but not cited that as the definite count. We've dealt with this plenty before, but what it boils down to is that the numbers reported by the media do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. The 'calculations' were suggested by others as a compromise, and while I agree that it borders on OR, thus far the work has been pretty well documented by those carrying it out, so that all numbers are sourced. If you find a number reported by mainstream media, we can use it. If it does not say 'civilians,' then we must remove that qualification from the conflict box. Thus far, the 750 number meets neither of these criteria. Cheers, Tewfik 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think user 'Tewfik' is only trying to minimze the death toll and making the facts foggy. He is of the kind of people who look for their own sources instead of relying on any of the reliable source. When Labenese minister himself says that the deat toll is 750+, then how come you proceed with an argument while living in safe heavens??? ... you have given only a wage statement to drop people's concentration here from the figure of 750. I know if the media had told that the death toll is 750 and the labenese minister quoted a smaller figure, then you would have sided with the minister by opposing the media. Just let me know what do you believe in actuality??? .. If you dont have a single belief then better shut up and get out of the discussion, dont make fuss all around.

I'd use the smaller number maybe in the info box and go into the figures in the main section. We should always guess downwards, in my opinion, in the info box, the 'at a glance section'. And as for the paragraph above mine...whatever happened to 'Assume Good Faith'?--Narson 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about whether it is a war
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about whether it is a war
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about whether it is a war
• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Summary of previous discussions: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia: we cannot engage in original research and must back all claims with reliable sources. Until such time that "war" becomes widely accepted as a description of this specific event, we cannot call it that. Happy editing, Tewfik 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Air strike on Qana

The relevant page of this article states that Israel claims that the house that collapsed was not targeted. In fact in an IDF briefing, July 30th, the IDF made it quite clear that the building was targeted. The General who spoke said that had the IDF known that civilians were in the building at the time they would not have ordered the strike. Further more the IDF claimed that while the building was struck between midnight and 1 am, the building had collapsed only around 7:30 am, hinting but not claiming that explosives that were in the building may have caused its collapse. I don't know if there is room for what the IDF claims but at least the first part(Israel basic claim) should be changed.

Civilian attacks

I think the page about civillian attacks is too long. to quote every single senior human rights official about possible war crimes is "problamatic". If you adopt the perspective of UN officials weren't war crimes committed in every single war? how many civilians were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are there any targets that the United States did not attack in these places that Israel is attacking in Lebanon? was the american "response" any more "proportional"? and yet looking up these wars on wikipedia you will not hear about "war crimes".

Well, the fact is, "war crimes" have occurred in almost every war (to pick one at random, the American Revolution - the British treatment of American enlisted soldiers would violate the Geneva Convention today), but since almost all major wars happened before the UN existed, it wouldn't really make sense to apply that retrospectively.

The victors write the history books. Most high school students would probably not even think for one fleeting moment that carpet bombing in Dresden constituted war crimes, but everyone, at least in passing, knows that Slobodan Milosevic and Adolf Hitler committed war crimes. Even Stalin's purges are covered in less detail than the Holocaust - because, after all, Stalin was on the winning side in WW2 while Hitler was on the losing side. So, in short... in 20 years, I think this conflict will become condensed into something like - "Hezbollah fires rockets - Israel retaliates in self-defense - " with no mention of war crimes or anything of that sort. But right now, with the conflict still ongoing... ugen64 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the captured soldiers
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the captured soldiers (most notable the discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV)) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about POV for a similar discussion. Note that there is also a discussion about whether to use "captured" or "abducted". See above.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about the captured soldiers
  • Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8#Discussion about the captured soldiers
  • Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers
  • Cross Border Raids
  • Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers

• • Captured?
  • Captured vs abducted vs ???

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the Captured Soldiers

• • Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?

• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon

I call for the removal of the beginning chapter where it notes Hezbollah's and "Lebanese Police" (there are hardly any Lebanese government presence in the border area other than Hezbollah) assertion that the IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon. This is a blatant accusation without any proof whatsoever. Here are the facts: 1)The Katyusha and mortar attacks commenced before the actual kidnapping to provide cover and a distraction 2)The 2 armored Humvees were destroyed and their remains were inside Israel, in the road used by the IDF to patrol its border. Had the kidnapping occured inside Lebanon, why weren't the Humvees there? 3)The unit attacked (3 KIA, otherws WIA and 2 captured) were made of reservists doing their annual duty. If the IDF was going to send a force inside Lebanon, it would not have been, reservists doing their 2 weeks of service, rather, they would have been conscript Special Forces. 4)The only vehicle remains that were in Lebanon, was that of the Merkava that ran over a mine inside Lebanon, which was sent to intercept the guerrilas AFTER the initial kidnapping. 5)The U.S., U.N, EU and other G-8 countries all agreed that it was an initial Hezbollah agression inside Israeli territory that precipitated the conflict.

Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest that the entry mentioning Hezbollah claims be deleted. For Misplaced Pages to include such entry is tantamount to include an entry of 9/11 where Hezbollah claims it was the Mossad who launched the attacks against the Twin Towers. Richardmiami

If Hezbollah really has said that they were captured in Lebanon, then it is accurate to say that "Hezbollah said that they were captured in Lebanon", even though it might be unlikely that the statement is correct. We should state the official viewpoint of both Israel and Hezbollah, even though they both are biased. But is this really the official viewpoint of Hezbollah? For example, did Nasrallah say on video that that the attack was in Lebanon (or in Israel)?

By the way, many of the things that is said about Hezbollah here is not that very well sourced. For example, the statement that Hezbollah calls this "Operation Truthful Promise". A good source for what the Hezbollah viewpoint would for example be some Hezbollah official saying something on video. Now we mostle have bad sources, just saying "Hezbollah says...", "Hezbollah claims...", without mentioning a name of the person who said this. --Battra 20:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree...hear are the facts the world knows that ISraeli media can not be trusted and is highly censored. Everything Hezbollah has said has been deemed more accurate than Israel or the IDF. How long as the IDF been making claims about capturing places it has not. The soilders were caught in Lebanon. What is also interesting is the connection to oil and how a week earlier according to the Jerusalem Post troops were called up or former NATO COmmander CLarks comments that this was planned over a year ago. It is clear what is going on. The facts scream that Israel is being very dishonoust. 69.196.164.190

Are you stupid? the fact that the israeli soldiers were captured within israel has been explained very clearly just a few paragraphs above. open your eyes and read. idiot. 213.42.2.25 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear that this is the official position of Hezbollah. The assertion that the IDF soldiers were captured inside Lebanon seems to have appeared on the wire services on July 12, and disappeared shortly thereafter. Hezbollah has had ample opportunities since then to explain its version of events. If someone can find a recent statement from Hezbollah that makes the claim, that can go in the article. As it is, the contradictory wire service stories from July 12 probably just reflect the confusion of the moment. Sanguinalis 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people using street language should be banned here (reffering to the article posted by User:213.42.2.25|213.42.2.25). Hezbollah is the part of war and it is the one fighting Israel, therefore, it has got its own statement and its own fact book which should be, for the sake of showing the actual picture, included in this article. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia and it shows the view point of both sides, this is not an Israeli or Labenese blog post where you can implement your desires and attack others with abusive language.

to Sanguinalis - Hezb. leader Hassan Nasrallah did an interview with Al Jazeera on July 20. See here: In it, he makes lots of threats and accusation regarding Israel, but doesn't see fit to mention that the IDF men were captured within Lebanon. Similar is true of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who at a press conference after a major meeting in Rome, Italy, was quite vituperative as regards Israel, but likewise didn't mention this, despite the fact that if anyone were in touch with the Lebanese police, you'd expect it to be he. --Lopakhin 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is because I'm new here that I'm sensing a disconnect. All this discussion over which side fo the border is all well and good, but the problem is that the article, itself, only mentions that Hezbollah/Lebanese Police claims that they were in Lebanon. For the sake of parity, the Israeli claim (and that of much of the media) that the soldiers were not in Lebanon must be presented right then and there. Then, a quick sidebar to the legal status of the Sheba Farms area (with the appropriate references to the UN blue line, complete withdrawal as attested to by UN res 1583, Syria's (not lebanon's) loss of the territory in an attack on Israel in 67 (as attested to on the sheba farms wikipage). If one side makes a claim and it is listed, shouldn't the claim of the other side be listed as well?

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about weapon types
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about weapon types
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about weapon types
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Discussion about weapon types
  • Terminology between rocket and missile
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about weapon types
  • Claims of incendiary bomb use on civilians by Israeli forces
  • US bombs
  • Equiment and forces
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about weapon types
  • Chemical weapons
  • WTF?!
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about weapon types
  • IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions

• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
  • Motivations
  • Beginning of conflict
  • Casus Belli and start of conflict
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
  • Please Visit ; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon
  • How was the beginning of the conflict?
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations
  • Begining of conflict

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Cause of the conflict

The current start of the article gives the impression that the conflict was a result of the Hezbollah operation to kidnap Israeli soldiers. As far as I am aware the situation is far more complex than this. This statement by Noam Chomsky claims that the Hezbollah operation was a response to the abduction of 2 Palastinian civilians on 24th June. Whether or not this is the case I'm sure it can't be as simple as what the article implies, which is that nothing was happening until the Hezbollah operation and that this is what's responsible. Kernow 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kernow,

I suggest you review the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Begining of conflict section above, as well as the archives linked to there. I hope this will clear everything up. Thanks, Tewfik 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I have skim-read the archives about this and I'd just like to leave a drive-by comment. I think that this "Casus belli" field is inherently POV and shit-stirring on any article about any war, and therefore should be dropped from the template. How can you summarise the cause of any conflict (which sometimes have a very long pre-war history) in a few words and expect everybody to agree? It's simply ridiculous.

Failing that all opinions should be represented. PizzaMargherita 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli, which is the legal initiation of hostilities by whichever side. The US may have been agitating the Japanese by denying them scrap and other resources, but the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an "act of war." So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers. Tewfik 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true, and for much of the begining of the conflict it was generally accepted that this was the causus belli. Yet, as is the case with 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, as information emerges, the causus belli of the encyclopedic article might change to match the information. So I think we must not be dogmatic about it.

However, those who allege the causus belli was an Israeli incursion into Lebanon have the burden of proof, as the bulk of the veriafiable and reliable sources, and even official Hezbollah communications, do not question this causus belli as it stands. This is why I support it continued inclusion as is, but think a paragraph must be included alluding to the sourced alternative.

Nevertheless even in this respect, things are not clear: It can be argued that the causus belli is the continued existence of Lebanese prisioners in Israeli jails, which forced Hezbollah to capture Israeli soldiers in order to use them as leverage in an exchange. This is were the Pearl Harbor analogy breaks down:

The USA and Japan were not involved in open armed conflict, nor had been involved before Pearl Harbor in one. However strong their disagreements, they where diplomatic not armed.

However, Israel has been involved in conflict with Lebanon since its founding, has been involved in its internal affairs, and wields strong political influence in Lebanon. It also occupied southern Lebanon for over 18 years, which is more than the entire lifetime of more than one wikipedian. This could also be considered a causus belli.

So you see, its not as simple as saying "So to here, despite all the nasty things the Lebanese/Hezbollah say that Israel had done to them, the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers". And "Lebanese/Hezbollah" don't say nasty things. Israel is doing nasty things, however you want to deny it. That Hezbollah is also doing them is a fact that doesn't diminish the former.--Cerejota 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this before. Unless you can provide overwhelming evidence, or at least a number of relaible sources (Noam chomsky is not one) then it should stay as it is - with the global consensus in the infobox and the dispute noted in the relevant section. --Iorek85 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as to the article editing but see above.--Cerejota 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An 18 year occupation might be a casus belli (I don't know enough about international law), but an 18 year occupation certified as ended by the UN is not a casus belli. I also think you may have misunderstood my analogy, as I haven't denied anything. Good day, Tewfik 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that we cannot summarise all the causes of the conflict, however there is a convention of including the casus belli

To that I say, fuck conventions. There are such things as bad conventions. There is also a convention about archiving talk pages without making such a confusing mess, but people are free to break them, in this case with horrific results. If DNA reproduced itself following the convention we would still be amoebae. PizzaMargherita 06:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"the first "act of war" was the Hezbollah violation of Israeli territory and subsequent attack on Israeli soldiers" If the abduction of Israeli soldiers counts as an "act of war" the why doesn't the abduction of Palestinian civilians? If anything, abduction of civilians is a more serious crime than abduction of soldiers. Kernow 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that abduction of Palestinians took place and that they were being treated as an independant entity, this would belong on 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. Making a connection between such an occurence and the events here is original research without reliable sources verifying that that is indeed a mainstream theory. Let me know if you still have any questions. Cheers, Tewfik 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

I have been trying to update the casualty page to correctly show that there is 1 confirmed american casualty in the conflict. This is properly sourced and accurately added, but someone keeps deleting it. - JB 8/2/06

Earlier discussions

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

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.

Maps

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Maps
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Maps
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Maps
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7#Maps
  • Requests / Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict / list of locations hit?
  • Requests of a map of Israeli incursions. We have a map of targets hit by Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya/Hezbollah and it would be nice to see a map of incursions made by the IDF. --Klepas 11:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the status of the article

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1#Discussion about the status of the article
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the status of the article
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about the status of the article
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6#Discussion about the status of the article
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11#Discussion about the status of the article
  • Vandalism
  • technical issues
  • Semi-protection: Restore

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Discussion about the talk page

Earlier discussions

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5#Discussion about the talk page
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#Discussion about the talk page
  • The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

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

Summary

• I am GOING THERE!
• Front Line Photographs Section - concerns re clear breach of NPOV
• edits by banned editor
• Citecheck / Tens of thousands of Israelis displaced?
• Iran's role isn't mentioned in the reference 185
• Just ban the vandals already!
• Fork for deletion
• Someone has vandalized the article again
• Opinions on civilian attacks??
• Am I the only one concerned with article quality?
• User Hellznrg accusation of vandalism
• Salvage French
• Article becoming a JOKE and a BLOG
• Adding Links
• Where are the kidnapped soldiers?
• New page
• Video of the shot up ambulances
• Lebanon's PM Praises Hezbollah
• By Hezbollah
• Disproportionate in what moral universe
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12#General Discussion

Summary

• Mediation
• Changes in AP story on July 12
• Pictoral bias?
• Attacks on United Nations personnel
• Claims about captured Hezbollah
• July 2006 Seattle Jewish Center shooting
• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13#General Discussion
  • Bad footnote
  • IAF/IDF alleged attacks on convoys incl. UN convoy
  • BBC analysis of the effect of the war
  • Two more Un observers die
  • Sorry, trying to fix intro
  • Unbalanced info box
  • Why no pictures of the destruction in Lebanon?
  • Categorisation
  • use of IDF leaflet is non Neutral
  • use of "Muslim Protests Against Israel" image is non Neutral
  • Breaking News: IDF going to suspend air operations for 48 hours, effective immediately
  • Added suspension of air operations to main page
  • Possible War Crimes
  • Sources
  • SOME ISRAELI KEEPS..
  • Anti Israel people/sites
  • Please help edit related articles
  • Infobox UN dead
  • Time to remove "AA -only" tag for Lebanon?
  • "Precision-guided"
  • An Analysis on the way middle east "works" that is "jews vs muslims"-free.
  • Oil Spill?

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Irrelevant facts

Should this article be a place for irrelevant facts? The Qana reference, as I mentioned somewhere above (where it is undoubtedly lost in other conversations), seems too unrelated. Someone immediately reverted my change and said it "provides context". Excuse me? I think that in the 60 years of this God-forsaken conflict, there is enough "context" to fill fifty articles, and it certainly does not belong here. This is specifically about the current (2006) conflict, and not about what happened ten years ago. While I don't mind if there is a brief historical section, I think that history should be placed in it and not in other parts of the article. What happened ten years ago is horrible, but it is not relevant to the recent bombing, and it doesn't seem to be relevant to international criticism either. It seems to be an excuse to add in just one more mark against Israel's civilian casualty record, or at least muddy the waters.Di4gram 18:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Lebanon had recently recovered from both a bloody civil war and a prior Israeli invasion and occupation of sourthern Lebanon before the current conflict started is of course relevant. Sanguinalis 20:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is fine, except I don't understand the reference. Why does it matter if this same place was attacked 10 years ago? Does it have strategic signficance? Does it have cultural signficance? Does it have any significane to the current conflict?Di4gram 20:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

moving casualties

I propose to move casualties to a seprate article because the article is too long. We can add the statistic of Foreign nationals and UN casualties in the table of casualties.--Accessible 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Support Sounds good to me. --Iorek85 08:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. oppose Stupid idea Reaper7 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - care to elaborate? The article is still over 65kb and growing, and casualties is a large section. --Iorek85 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. OPPOSE Clearly casualty information belongs here. Moving it would amount to a coverup. This conflict is more than a shouting match. Edison 14:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose By all means condense the section, but not discussing casualties in the main article on a conflict or war strains credulity. Fishhead64 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose The spirit is right, but the action would be wrong. A good condensing will do much better instead of plunking it down elsewhere.Ranieldule 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a separate article, and leaving this as the summary?

I don't know much about tables, so it could do with a little work to make it prettier, but it would be better. Maybe the casualties could be removed from the infobox if this is here? We'd want to move the rest out to a separate article because it shows the stories behind the deaths (why and by whom) instead of replacing it. --Iorek85 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Support I think it is an excellent idea. The information belongs in the article, but perhaps all the prose and details are not necessary and sure adds to this already large article. A {{main|Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict}} to round the section up. Mceder 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't know how to link the three columns for casualties in the infobox, though. Anyone with good table editing skills would be much appreciated. --Iorek85 06:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose Return the Casualty box to its original status, this big stupid box you have created is confused and the original box was far better. I cannot believe yet another key casualty reminder was removed from the main page after only one supprot vote, disgusting. Another stupid and needless move without support by Iorek. Reaper7 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Opppose Perhaps keeping track of each countries civilian loss is just not that important. Keep the count in the infobox and keep it simple. Lebanese civilians are civilians in lebanon, israeli civilians are civilians in israel, that is how we should treat people od dual nationality or who were on vacation. --zero faults 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a good comprimise, and since someone else thought it was a good idea, I was bold and changed it. No one else seems to have a problem. I don't see what you mean by 'confused'. And casualty reminder? It now has it's own article, and a summary in this article, which is more than it had before. --Iorek85 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Megaphone Software & "the battle for the internet"

In light of the fact that online polls, forums, and chatrooms are now part of some systematic effort to shape opinion I think everyone should be wary of editors arriving here to fight "the toughest battle - the battle for public opinion on the internet".

That means keep a closer than usual eye for non neutral editing, images, comments, quotations etc. Be aware of the possible casual removal of facts, events, etc. And while im sure everyone has an opinion on the rights&wrongs of the war, we are aiming for a balance in the article that reflects the facts of the events. Misplaced Pages shouldnt become a propaganda mouthpiece for one side or the other.

Offence is not my intent but as the articles show the danger of losing neutrality to some script is not imagined.

"the toughest battle - the battle for public opinion on the internet" 82.29.227.171 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just placed the same notice on the Qana Aistrike page as its obviously being targeted by these people. 82.29.227.171 20:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather interesting fact, in itself. Perhaps we should mention this propaganda war in the main article.

It was but has been removed for space issued. Propaganda efforts both sides will be getting their own section I imagine but its difficult to do that without getting sued by various people. 82.29.227.171 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A much shorter mention was made, but it too was deleted, for reasons I believe that are unrelated to length. I'm going to add it to the Israeli response section, because it is an official Israeli response. AdamKesher 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still there. I can't tell if it was deleted then readded, there's been so much vandalism. AdamKesher 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References broken

It seems the reference section has been broken after #140. Is this a technical limitation of Misplaced Pages, or is there a more mundane fix? --Keyne 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One option is to remove duplicate sources that only reinforce one item. The other is to consolidate sources, find a good source and use it for more then its current location. For instance if reference 10 covers everything reference 19 does then remove 19 and source its location with reference 10. Look for duplicate sources. Sometimes a website carries an article by another paper. I am not sure if there is a wiki work around. --zero faults 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The references for the section "IDF agrees to cease air operations for 48 hours" direct to the wrong links, the number is right, the link is wrong. I worry some overzealous editors may delete links without checking the code for the URL. Numbers are 127 82.29.227.171 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The links are numbered when you flick one it takes you to the bottom and you find the number you clicked, they always for some reason show a dif number in the URL. I believe this is because they do not update as the numbers in the article body do. I am really sure as to the why, just match number in article with number at bottom and you are all set.--zero faults 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

references seems to work OK with M$ IE6 but break differently, with Firefox and Mozilla, at the same point. That is 49... Anon user 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not war so what is war

Image:London-beyrut.jpg

If it's not war, it's an armed conflict. ;) -- 72.201.35.139 07:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soliders landing in Baalbeck

Could someone post this story in the article. I'll make a Misplaced Pages article on it later, but am currently trying to find more info on this story. Hello32020 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Quickly added sentence someone please lengthen. Hello32020 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some detail on operations that began last night in Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict section. 82.29.227.171 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures show clear POV

Fuck you people, you show a dead girl as a picture, yet the Israeli blood picture was taken down...this is clearly POV on the pictures. Shame on you people--Jerluvsthecubs 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This fair use photograph from AFP/Getty illustrates what actually happened. As I understand the issue, the Israeli picture you are refering to had copyroght problems, and was removed for no other reason than that. The way to solve this problem is by adding photographs from the Israeli side, not deleting photographs. You're free to use this image as a template for how to do this if you wish. I'm restoring this image to the page. AdamKesher 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see that this image was deleted by an anonymous user without explanation, not you. Sorry for making that implication in my response. AdamKesher 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added an image representing Israeli casualties as well. Please feel free to be bold and add your own. AdamKesher 18:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Photos taken in Qana - is a pure propaganda. a good example."

"I see non-dead people?"

Please discuss on talk before deleting WP:V information from the article. AdamKesher 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not. -- tasc _deeds 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

tasc, you deleted this news service image once again without justification, claiming that it wasa "minor edit." I will revert this once. If you persist in deleting verifiable WP:V images from this artucle, we will again have to move to the next step. AdamKesher 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This news service images - staged. I'm reverting and edits automaticaly marked as minor. I don't see how 'verifability' can be used in referring to this images. -- tasc _deeds 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

tasc, please explain to us why you believe that this photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse and Getty Images has been "staged." AdamKesher 12:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons to belive that this girl's body was taken from that building? do you have any reasons to belive that this girl died in that building? do you have any reasons to belive that building collapse was somehow related to the airstrike? did you read this? -- tasc _deeds 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

AFP is a legit source, unless the image is proven to be staged beyond a shadow of a doubt, it follows WP:V. A blog does not counter a legit news agency. --zero faults 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

tasc, you deleted these news service images once again without justification, claiming that this was a "minor edit." I have no recourse but to request informal moderation on this dispute. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_Photographs. AdamKesher 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd considered reading my responses. Thanks. -- tasc _deeds 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

News sources are considered reliable. You therefore have to provide evidence they aren't. And some conspiracy page is not evidence; but even ignoring that, that page doesn't actually refer to those photos you've removed. By applying this unproven claim to them, you are, in effect, saying all images of the conflict cannot be included because you think they are all fake. --Iorek85 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They aren't if they publish staged images. I didm't say that all images are fake. -- tasc _deeds 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

YOu have yet to prove any of them are fake. Better yet you cannot prove it, someone else has to or its WP:OR and furthermore a blog is not a reliable source to do so. Especially when the majority of publications disagree. --zero faults 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Would a moderator please take a look at this complaint and request for assistance? This problem is persistant and widespread. AdamKesher 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with tasc on one point, it is quite clear to my eyes the picture in question is propagandic in nature and there really is no proof that it isn't. Same with the articles at hand. In my opinion, they shouldn't go back up. John D'Adamo 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The image being discussed is a fair use photograph from the news services Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. This appears on CNN's website (link). Therefore, would you also say that CNN is using photographs that are "staged" or "propagandic in nature"? AdamKesher 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Added

The images on this article focus on the Lebanon civilian casualties. Despite targeting of civilians by Hezbollah this article seems to ignore that and focus on Israel. This is clearly NPOV. Until someone’s wishes to balance the images by either showing deaths on both sides or none at all it should be tagged NPOV. Redd Dragon 09:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)