Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

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

• Earlier archives;
  • Consensus for 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis.
  • Name change from crisis to conflict.
  • Poll for changing the name of the article, either to war or Hezbollah.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discussion about the name of the article;
  • Latest Developments
  • "War" Poll (This Poll is closed now - 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)) (results below)
  • Time to rename article to "war"?
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#Discussion about the name of the article
  • Including Hezbollah in the name
  • Israel-Hezbollah
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive16#Discussion about the name of the article
  • War poll results - 9 Opposed, 17 Support.
  • Requested move II: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon - results - 14 Opposed, 7 Supports.

Renaming: This is getting ridiculous

We should stop doing this in that way. There was a majority for renaming to war. Therefore we should brainstorm possible new names for this article. Requesting several moves won't lead to anything. Also it's actually not very helpful to change an already posted request during voting (requested move I). So far the following names have emerged during the discussion:

• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict (originally this requested to move to: "2006 Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon" → as this makes no sense, I posted the second request.)
• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon
• 2006 Israel-Lebanon War
• 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War

--Attraho 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Polls

These polls will close at 12noon on the 11th of August, UTC.

Comment: Whatever the outcome will be, please notice the important difference I have outlined in Why we shouldn't call it war - yet below, between using a descriptive title and giving the conflict a name (i.e. the issue of lowercase versus uppercase). Thanks Thomas Blomberg 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why there is any polling at all. An issue like this should only be decided based on what the sources say. We should have a listing of all the sources calling it "war" or referring to Hezbollah instead of Lebanon, and only then decide how to proceed. Wikipidia is not a democracy. Tewfik^Talk 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hence why I added a closing date to these polls. :) Iorek85 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move I: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Voting for the header above

• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article. Sign your entry.)

1. Oppose - I support Israel-Lebanon War. --Iorek85 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - can we please hold off any name changes until a clear consensus emerges in mainstream media? Tewfik^Talk 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Request makes little sense; by its logic, it should be called IDF-Hezbollah conflict. El_C 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Header makes no sense. --Attraho 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Please see updated header.
5. Oppose I say we move to 2006 Israel - Lebanon war.--Peephole 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose I suggest to rename it zionist Army's war on lebonan
7. Weak oppose - the name is unclear abakharev 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Please see updated header.
8. Oppose per Iorek85 and Attraho --Comrade^Wolf 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose. Per Peephole. Tazmaniacs 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose This title doesn't give any indication that attakcs are being launched from lebanese soil across the international border into Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose we had a consensus on "Israel-Lebanon"--Cerejota 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Its not just Hezbollah, Israel has stated they hold the government of Lebanon responcible to a degree. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose It seems clear to me that most of the arguments for renaming to Israeli - Hezbollah come from an Israeli perspective. The underlying impression is a wish to see this as a conflict limited to the paramilitary targets associated with Hezzbollah. This is simply spin. Take a look at the map of targets hit in Lebanon. There is virtually no area of Lebanon untouched by Israeli bombs. I agree with an earlier comment above. To be balanced and consistant, call it Israeli - Lebanon or IDF - Hezzbollah conflict rather than mixing the 2. Johan
15. Oppose I think it is pretty clear that the armed conflict is affecting all kinds of Lebanese, including plenty who are way outside the traditional Hezbollah areas of influence. So to limit it to Hezbollah would look biased. --89.49.206.73 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, It is taking place in Israel and Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Can we put together our energies to improve the article and stop renaming? . --Mainframe2000 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Lebanon's infrastructure has been destroyed (airport, refineries, bridges, main roads, communication centers) creating one the most humanitarian crisis in recnet history. Khebab 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article. Sign your entry.)

1. Support--Striver 02:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support--king_kilr 11:58, 3 August 2003 (CDT)
3. Strong Support The Israeli government has repeatedly stated that its main military objectives are to disarm and contain Hezbollah, and to recover its captured soldiers from Hezbollah. Israel has declared no military objective against the state of Lebanon, and to suggest that the primary antagonists in this conflict are Israel and Lebanon as opposed to Israel and Hezbollah is false and misleading. --60.241.140.100 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Israel has attacked mostly Hizbollah-related targets, such as neighbourhoods or villages that have a strong Hizbollah presence. --Marvin Monroe 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support The Lebanese government has declared no military objectives against Israel, in contrast to Hezbollah whose declared objective is the "total destruction of Israel." The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict is a much more accurate name. --220.233.33.142 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Most major media refer to this as Israel-Hezbollah conflict. The Lebanese government is taking no part in the actual military conflict going on. —Aiden 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support with the caveat that "conflict" should be lower-case. More accurate than the current title. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per Aiden. --Hyphen5 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. No idea if this vote is still open, but I wanted to express my Support in renaming per Aiden. Also, it's a lot more NPOV (and accurate) to say that this particular fight is not between the Israel and the Lebanese governments, but between Israel and a terrorist organization that has taken de facto control over southern Lebanon. --Micahbrwn 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Strongly Support The probelm is hizbollah. If Lebanon would've disarmed Hizbollah, we wouldn't be in this situaton today. The fighting has been between Israel and Hizbollah. --Zonerocks 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support, in addition to all the reasons already given, if this were a war between Israel and Lebanon then by last Tuesday there would have been nothing above two meters standing in Beirut. Beirut is almost unscathed, so the Israelis must have some other target. Begins with an "H" and is a puppet of "I". JDG 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per Aiden. Carson 06:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move III: 2006 Israel-Lebanon War

• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  • I feel strongly that it would be much more productive to hold separate votes on the characterisation ("war" vs "conflict") and the participants (i.e. Hezbollah and/or Lebanon). Tewfik^Talk 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - the naming (both the use of 'war' and the combatants) should be in line with the media and/or invlolved parties' consensus term. Tewfik^Talk 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, What matters is what the most common name is which is "conflict", not what some people think the name should be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose War is not the common term for it just yet -- Avi 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, war is not an appopriate word as I said earlier. We should still adhere to our official policies. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose; calling the conflict a war is hyperbole. "Conflict" is more accurate. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose We shouldnt start calling it a war until the majority of media sources do. Picking out 10 in all this time is not a mjority of media reports. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose It's just NOT a war since we are talking about a terrorist organisation and a state. Not two states. --Deenoe 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - There is no state of war between Israel and Lebanon, and the Lebanese army has played a very small role in this conflict. This is a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that is taking place in Lebanese (and Israeli) soil. -The monkeyhate 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, Its not a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Surely internationally it's not officially a war? Jamesedwardsmith 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Opppose at this point, though if the situation continues to degenerate past whatever point, go for it. If anything, I might propose 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis for the time being. Luna Santin 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Support. : It's been pretty much agreed on that it's a war and I think it's pretty clear hezbollah isn't the only one suffering. --Peephole 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Lets call a spade a spade. --Iorek85 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - A war is a war is a war. Hello32020 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Enough verifiable sources from all sides of the POV call it so. Haaretz and Labanon Star both call it a war. If CNN is stupid not my problem. Just in case I have previously resisted calling it a war, but I think now it is pointless, the duration, the tactics and a growing number of sources call it a war or what is the same "becoming a war". Lets jump into it.--Cerejota 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - See Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET); BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET); Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET); Israel, Hizbollah fight on as UN split on resolution (Boston Globe). When Reuters, AP and AFP call it a "war", I think we're safe in following the "general mood". Tazmaniacs 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support- It should have a simple name that people are using.--Scott3 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move IV: 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War

• Mainstream media call it a war
• The latest poll gave a majority for renaming to war
• The war is also taking place in Israel
• Oppose (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Oppose Combatants are indeed IDF and Hezbollah but the victims are the Lebanese people, I think that should reflect in the title.--Peephole 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose for the same reasons I listed above. This should not be subject to votes, but to a discussion of the current usage including current sources. Tewfik^Talk 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose War is not the common term for it just yet. -- Avi 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose we had a consensus on "Israel-Lebanon"--Cerejota 02:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Per Peephole. Tazmaniacs 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - the Wikipedia NPOV rules mean that we shouldn't start calling it war until the majority of the media does - and the odd usage of the word "war" here and there doesn't count; all their article and section logos for the conflict still use the words "conflict" or "crisis". Thomas Blomberg 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose; calling the conflict a war is hyperbole. "Conflict" is more accurate. TomTheHand 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Up to now it's a conflict: if Syria and Iran join in, then it's a war!Phase4 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)

1. Support - The combatants are IDF and Hezbollah, and the fighting isn't limited only to Lebanon - there are bombings of Israel. --Marvin Monroe 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support - Saem reasons above. We've already reached a consensus to make it a war, however the combatants are Israel and the military group Hezbollah mainly. John D'Adamo 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support - Almost everyone that matters (Prime Ministers of Israel and Lebanon, IDF leaders, President Bush, PM Blair, Hibollah leaders, etc.) have called this a war. A conflict is what Syria and Israel have been going through over the Golan Heights because there is no direct military action. What Hizbollah and Israel are doing is warfare. The two main combantants are the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the military wing of Hizbollah. The victims are from Lebanon and Israel but also include Americans, Canadians, Chineese, and people of many other nationalities. The title should reflect the main combatants - Israel-Hizbollah. If the Lebanon Army decides to go to war with Israel, then it would be an Israel-Lebanon War.
4. Support per John D'Adamo. --Hyphen5 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support See news web sites and TV--TheFEARgod 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Marvin Monroe. --imi2. - 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets get organized

Tewfik is right, we are being completely unproductive. We have to devide this into too main branches one on "War v Conflict" and another on "Israel-Hezbollah v Israel-Lebanon v Israel-Leabonon-Hezbollah".

We are making asses out of ourselves by this childish display of pseudodemocratic anarchy, IMHO :D

--Cerejota 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's refers to the news agencies: Associated Press, Reuters and AFP: **Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET); **BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET); **Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET)

Tazmaniacs 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Israel-Hizbollah War of 2006. I have heard US President George Bush call this "conflict" a war. I have heard Israel's Prime Minister Olmert call this a war. I have also heard the Lebanoneese Prime Minister call this "conflict" many things including a war. I have heard militant leaders of Hizbollah, in Syria and in Iran call this a war. So why does Wikipedia still debate whether this is a war? The only question is Israel-Lebanon or Israel-Hizbollah?

When the dust settles, history will show that this war was started by an organization called Hizbollah. It may also be learned that while members of the Lebanon government was aware of the actions of Hizbollah in acquiring weapons from Syria and Iran, most did not want a shooting war with Israel. Also, history will also show that Hizbollah was used as a proxy by Iran and Syria who wanted the Israeli destruction of Lebanon to further its own aims. This may also just be one battle in a more global world war. But for now, this is a war between Hizbollah and Israel that is taking place in Lebanon and Israel.

I just took a look at World War II and noticed that the invasion of Poland was a section of that article. However, there was also an article titled "Polish September Campaign" and under a redirect of "Polish-German War of 1939". Something to ponder.

News article: (IsraelNN.com) Speaking to members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee in the Defense Ministry on Monday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz stated the current military situation “is a war, not a military operation.” Case closed. --user:mnw2000 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, apart of the Hizbollah question (and making it a simple proxy of Iran is just too simple, as is the vision of Lebanon which forgets that this country's just got out of a civil war and is built on a consensus between various communities; Hizbollah recently allied with Michel Aoun, something which those who only want to make it pass as a proxy of Iran forget...) But despite this "little point", medias, governments, everybody call it a war. It is pointless to continue using weasel words. Tazmaniacs 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources using the term "war"

• Time, July 17, 2006
• =Israel seen favorable to UN draft on Lebanon war (Reuters) (Sun Aug 6, 10:42 AM ET);
• BEIRUT (AFP) - Israeli combat jets struck villages across south Lebanon...the 26-day war (AFP Sun Aug 6, 5:40 AM ET);
• Analysis: Lebanon war hurting U.S. goals (AP Sat Aug 5, 8:56 PM ET)
• Peretz sued for war crimes, Daily Telegraph August 2, 2006
• Moroccan Jews ask court to try Amir Peretz for war crimes, Haaretz, August 3, 2006
• Peretz: We’re at war, we must win, Ynet News, July 27, 2006
• Peretz: the peacenik who led Israel to war, Reuters, August 3, 2006
• CNN: "In Olmert's Monday speech, he said Hezbollah has suffered a "heavy blow" in the fighting. Israeli troops and airstrikes have inflicted serious damage to Hezbollah's capacity to launch rockets into Israel, and its supply routes from Syria have been hampered, he said. "We will stop the war when the [rocket] threat is removed ..., our captive soldiers return home in peace, and you are able to live in safety and security." (Israel OKs expansion of Lebanon campaign. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As User:Mnw2000 has noted, the case is closed. Lebanon call it a war, Hezbollah call it a war, Olmert (Israeli Prime minister) calls it a war, Amir Peretz (Ministry of War) calls it a war. Wikipedia still doesn't call it a war. Now Wikipedia does follow media & will call it a war. If you disagree with this, please provide reference demonstrating people who don't call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why we shouldn't call it war - yet

Wikipedia attempts to be such a strange beast as an up-to-date encyclopaedia. This means that the naming of articles covering ongoing events will always be difficult. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Not until the dust has settled after this conflict, will we know what the majority of English speakers will recognize it as. It may become known as the "2006 Israel-Lebanon War", but it may just as well end up being called "The Lebanon Crises", just as the 1956 conflict over the Suez Canal is known as the Suez Crisis, although it was a conventional war involving more than 500,000 soldiers from four countries, and resulted in 1,650 soldiers being killed, 4,900 being wounded and 6,000 being taken prisoners. Likewise, the 1978 Israeli attack into Lebanon, when they moved into Lebanon with 25,000 men and occupied the area south of Litani River, is today just known as Operation Litani, and the two week conflict in 1996 is today just called Operation Grapes of Wrath, although it involved some 30,000 Israeli soldiers and caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee. Nobody called the first world war World War I until the second was over. In fact, nobody called it "The Great War" until it was over.

At the moment, the ongoing military conflict is being called lots of different things by the involved parties as well as the media. Most of the English-language media seem to label it "XX Crisis" or "XX Conflict" in page, section or TV news banners, and are avoiding the word "war" in headlines while it often appears in article texts and interviews. As long as that is the case, I see no reason why we need to change the name of the article. Some people seem to want to add the word "war" as they think that "conflict" is somehow too mild, considering what is happening. However, that in itself is a POV regarding the word "conflict", as this is frequently used as a descriptive word for war, as war is a conflict and the word conflict isn't a measure of the size or seriousness of the war. A text about WW II which starts "The Second World War was a conflict which involved..." is therefore perfectly correct.

After an intensive debate the first couple of days (with some people screaming "WAR" immediately), we ended up with the current name of the article. It's reasonably accurate and encompassing, and it is in line with the Wikipedia naming conventions policy. Eventually, the final name will evolve in the real world, outside this forum of obsessed nerds who spend all to much time in front of their computers (including me), and then we'll use that. But for now, let's concentrate on more important matters. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above diatribe by Thomas Blomberg; which, as an obsessed nerd, I naturally find more than somewhat disconcerting!Phase4 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Thomas's logic, we would have called the Algerian War of Independence (from 1954 to 1962) an "operation of public order" until 1999 (date at which the French National Assembly — and therefore the state — recognized for the first time that it had been a "war", and not only an interior police affair). But if I provided numerous English-speaking sources, and first of all from Reuters, AP and AFP which are the main sources of all medias, be it CNN, Fox News or whatever, which are using the term "war". I'm not even speaking of foreign medias, some of whom of course spoke of war the first days. But when Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz, whom are respectively Prime minister & Minister of War of Israel, speak of "war", I honestly believe that using euphemisms and weasel words is a lie at worse, and a mistake at best. I am not engaging myself in the question of the title of the article, which is yet another debate. But it's a war, and both sides (whichever they might be) have clearly stated it. Tazmaniacs 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[Re: Blomberg] Oh, wikipeadia! First thanks for one of the few examples of well-reasoned, non-soapbox, stick-to-the-basics contributions. May I gain your wisdom. Now, I do beg to differ, and have divided my response into what I arbotrarily consider your main points:

1. The lets-not-get-ahead-of-ourselves argument - This one I think is weak in making a case. If at some time in history this is known as a "Crisis" and not a "War", we can always change it back. This is wikipedia my friend, its very easy to correct.
2. The Naming Conventions argument - You have a valid point there, but titles are not exempt of other policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS. If all the reliable sources (and of course all leaders of the combatants) can be verified as calling it a war, then why don't we? I agree there where those in the start who screadmed "War!" when the world screamed "Conflict!", but now you are their mirror image: you want to get stuck with "conflict" when the world screams "war"! One must recognize when the time is up. Almost a month ago this was indeed a conflict. Now it's indeed a war. Wake up and smell the spent propellant!
3. The Headline argument - This is your best one: after all we speak of the wiki equivalent of a headline, and at least my impression tends to be the same as your. But here WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:V come into play. First, there is not verifiable source that says that headlines are overwhelmingly "Crisis" or "Conflict" but the text "war". We shouldn't base a decision on content solely on original research, because we would be in violation sacred pillars of wikipedia. So then all we have is the sources themselves, which means we should cite from them, which means not relying on their headlines. And the sources say war. Read the sources in the pages and sub pages and see for yourself. Lastly it is a verifiable fact that all combatants are more or less unambigousy calling this a war. If the participants form all sides call it a war, and this is verifiable, then we must follow. Even NPOV requires that we do this.

All said and done, right now, the title expresses not an NPOV view (ie one balanced between combatants), but a minority POV that this is not a war. Its as if the title for "Sex" were "Love". Not quite weasel words (as this implies lack of good faith) but borderline. Maybe chipmunk words.

BTE I am not a nerd, obssesed or otherwise. Am a Geek. My obssesions are much more satisfying ;).--Cerejota 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if any of you have been watching CNN, but ever since Israel crossed into Lebanon last night they have been saying “war.” They have been saying the word “war” every other second. So if you are saying you do not want to call it a war because the media does not you aren’t watching the news. Right this second on “The Situation Room” (On CNN) the scroller reads “New blasts in southern Lebanon after Israel Okays wider ground war.” 550^talk 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a quick comment to Tazmaniacs: If Wikipedia had been around in the 1950s and early 1960s, we would definitely not have called the Algerian conflict the Algerian War of Independence, as that would have been considered extremely POV, and we would have had thousands of hysterical Frenchmen and Algerians involved in frantic edit wars, just as we now have thousands of fanatics from both sides trying to prevent the creation of NPOV articles about the current conflict. We would probably have called it the Algerian Rebellion, but even that would probably have been considered POV by many on either side.

In answer to 550, the term "ground war" signifies that hostilities are taking place on land, as opposed to in the air or at sea. It doesn't necessarily mean that a state of war exists. Similarly, the word "war" is often used to describe military actions, as any type of military clash can be considered a war, because the combatants are engaged in "warfare" and use "weapons of war".

However, the issue here is whether we should label the whole conflict "war" or not. There are two important issues to consider:

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

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

Requested move V: 2006 Israel-Lebanon Sectarian Violence

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

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

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

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

DOD?

Do you mean the Dept. of Defense?

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Very good! Thomas Blomberg 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Hopefully not all medias follow CNN. Tazmaniacs 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive8#Discussion about Casualties
  • 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
  • Civilian casualties, Warship is not a casualty!, Casualty figures, Lebanese Casualties, Attacks on UNIFIL, Missing from the casualties section, Israeli soldiers killed.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14#Discssion about Casualties
  • Archived info from discussion of lebanese casualty figures, Israeli Casualities, Amal Casualties?, Lebanese Civilian Casualties
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive15#Discssion about Casualties
  • Lebanese Casualty Figures, lebanese civilian casualties, "treated for shock", Hezbollah casualties and Lebanese casualties:, American casualty.
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive16#Discssion about Casualties
  • Infobox fatalties, question about hezbollah casualties
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive17#Discssion about Casualties
  • Syncing the two tables
  • Displaced persons
  • Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
  • Lebanese Civilian Casualties
  • Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC

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

Israeli casualties

• There is an official daily-upated governmental source [1], but it has one mistake. "Since July 12, 39 Israeli civilians and 63 IDF soldiers have been killed." If you DO REALLY COUNT the names of the IDF soldiers, you get 64 instead of 63. I alteady sent a feedback abount this mistake.
• There is another israeli source, but it is on russian [2]. And it also has a problem, 'cause the link is dying every day. Instead of http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/08aug2006/shem.html, tomorow you'll have to look on http://www.newsru.co.il/israel/09aug2006/shem.html, and so on. 89.1.254.24 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli military equipment losses during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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

HMMWV vehicles:2 destroyed
Merkava tanks:8 destroyed, 6 damaged
Armoured personnel carriers:1 destroyed
Apache helicopter gunships:3 lost
Battleships:1 damaged
Armored bulldozers:1 destroyed

What are your opinions?

1 000 killed according to Lebanon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli/Lebanese casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death Toll

I have to agree with you about the death tolls. We need to do a better job about handling the death tolls. For example, right at the beginning, Where it says cause belli: It states this "Hezbollah cross-border raid and shelling which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three other IDF soldiers" Do you see the error? "killing three other IDF soldiers" It was eight not three. Then under that it gives terrible statistics. Now come on. The deaths grow every day. We need to update this. But because there are hooligans who do stupid crap, we have to have censorship on the pages. So We can't keep it up to date, and that is the other issue.

The other five were killed in "hot-pursuit," but belligerence already existed by then, so I don't think they can be included in its cause. Tewfik^Talk 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel gave there reasons for the cause of it all, and that is the reason. Zonerocks22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a source please? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk

LOL, of course, wikipedia israel lebanon conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately." --Zonerocks 05:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for overlooking. In any event, there must be a subjective definition of casus belli, and I have a feeling it wouldn't include the 5 latter casualties. As opposed to many other parts of an article, a casus can't just be what is claimed by one of the combatants, but should be the international consensus. In this case (while the sources I checked weren't clear and I haven't the patience to conduct detailed research now), I'm not sure that the 8 are in the consensus, though the initial raid and barrage seem to be. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Updating death counts

We need to be able to keep up with the death counts. Also fix the beginning where it says cause belli: fix from 3 deaths to 8, to understand what im talking about, scroll up to death counts and read that. --zonerocks 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job Fixing that number from 3 to 8.--Zonerocks 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Estimates" from the tourism minister, etc.

Do we need to include every prominent Israeli's "estimate" of the number of Hezbollah militants that have been/will be killed, when the IDF is releasing solid, confirmed kill numbers? I know of at least three different "estimates" from varying ministers (including the tourism minister, whose was the highest), and various editors keep removing any "estimate" save the tourism minister's (including removing Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz' 300 estimate). If we are going to include "estimates" in the infobox, we need to include them all, or decide to stick with only the confirmed kill numbers the IDF is now releasing. Also, if editors wish to only use a "+" figure ("300+," "500+") to cover all estimates, base estimate used must be the lowest. Thanks, Italiavivi 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

good point, look at the beginning when lebanon said 1000 dead in the first week. That was defitnley a wrong number. Then CNN saying one Hezbollah Terrorist was killed in a week and a half period. --Zonerocks 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Update on lebanese civilan deaths

This needs to be updated, it is 3 days old so let's update this quickly. Over 1000 lebanese civilans have been killed . Again I'll reiterate the need to stay on top of casulties, captured, and wounded people in this conflict. So let's update this in all areas that it needs to be updated. --Zonerocks 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Over 1000 Lebanese civilians have been killed."

First of all, we don't have confirmation that a thousand Lebanese people have been killed.

There might be a thousand Lebanese who have died during these hostilities, there might be less.

There might be more.

My point is that the figures are constantly fluctuating, and that to assert definitively that x number of individuals have been killed-especially when there have been so many attempts to manipulate media coverage of these events, and when it is impossible for journalists to report from the actual scene of battle-is not a productive exercise.

Furthermore, your implication that every single Lebanese citizen who has been killed was a civilian is patently absurd.

I don't think even Hezbollah is making that ludicrous allegation.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry I forgot to post the link. Here it is. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07082006/323/1-000-killed-israeli-raids-lebanon-official-tolls.html --Zonerocks 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli or por-Israeli editors want the article to be unlocked so you can put more ISraeli propganda on it. You are trying to sound unbiased by saying you want to adjust the number of civilians murdered by Israel, whenin reality you are going to make adjustments to the causes, the history and so on. Will you add all the recorded and verified cases of Israel and the Israeli military using illegal weapons and braking international laws too??? 69.196.164.190

Rest at ease. No matter how cleverly he disguises his true intentions, he can never hope to appear as unbiased as you do. --AceMyth 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the protection page and saw someone wants to take off protection, im against that, because there are idiots like you who will put propaganda on the article. There are also ways of editing the article without taking off protection.

Zonerocks 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this war started the pro Israelis have constantly been undermining the page and trying to put the lower figures, I gave up years ago. The Best joke was when a couple of days ago i saw the figure back to 537, LOL. When are we going to add a section about the well documented attempts by israelis to change sites just like these to help their cause? # Reaper7  

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

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

These are archived discussions. Please do not edit them.

The article is too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Discussion

Earlier discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive17#General Discussion
  • It is disputed the IDF soldiers were captured in Israel, War Planned a Year Ago
  • Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets
  • Article size
  • Page reverted to out of date version.
  • Depleted Uranium munitions
  • Hezbollah using civilians as human shields
  • Global
  • Proposed template.
  • Casualties infobox, again
  • omg
  • Typo in Reference
  • Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah
  • Casualty Country Error
  • Factual accuracy
  • References
  • Dating schema - vote
  • Frivolity
  • Template Update needed
  • Updating the picture on the title
  • Hezbollah using civilians as human shields
  • "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV
  • New proposal for the lead
  • Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images
  • Re Cluster bombs allegations' section

Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Semi-Protected

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

Megaphone Software is official Israel Gov policy

"is no evidence that this is official Israeli policy, only action of WUJS" Really? [3] So when Director of 'Hasbara', Amir Gissin, aka Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promotes it hes working freelance? Check the article on Megaphone software or the email sent out by Gissin [4]. Quotes Gissin as saying: "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc. We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters. Do it now. For Israel." Why is this now changed to make it appear like WUJS are the source of megaphone? 82.29.227.171 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Quoting a statement issued by Amir Gissin, Israeli Foreign Ministry’s public relations director promoting the use of the software is "original research"? LOL, im laughing at you. Didnt you read his comments? [5] Looks like the Hasbara Dept of Israeli Foreign Ministry considers Hasbara policy to me. [6] 82.29.227.171 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

When the Director of the Hasbara Department announces a drive to get 100,000 people using the software- "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference", most would assume its policy, the announcement was made in his official capacity, making it policy. If youre looking for other policy statements on Hasbara then check some of the aims as outlined in 2005 [7] 82.29.227.171 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

— 82.29.227.171

That is WP:OR. -- Avi 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

"We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference.. Do it now. For Israel.", We being who? Him and the WUJS? The Times was reporting that the WUJS students had joined the campaign AFTER Gissen's call to arms on the 22nd. Is Amir Gissin in the WUJS? Nope, he works for the Israeli Government, he signed the call to arms on their behalf, in his official capacity as Director of Hasbara in Israel, and his 'call to arms' is "For Israel". Here is his announcement, note his, not the WUJS's.[9] Note the date- 22nd (before the Times article [10]). The IDF is spreading propaganda, the WUJS is in alliance with them following their 'call to arms'. Why the coded denial and attempt to make it out to be a WUJS initiative? 82.29.227.171 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1. The Times source article remarks on the WUJS rallying to the initial Hasbara Dept announcement made by Gissin. It is dated 27th July and refers to the period of the last 5 days when WUJS members began downloading and using Megaphone.
2. The Times article was written 5 days after Gissin made the initial announcement here.
3. The Times article does not say the WUJS created megaphone or that they started the campaign.
4. Gissin launched the campaign and policy of gathering support using Megaphone via standwithus.com on the 22nd July as the announcement posted there indicates [11]

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

beginning of conflict

the original beginning is like this,

According to Haaretz at 9:05 AM local time on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the towns of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians[18].

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

I change it to npov vesion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why was Rafik Hariri International Airport bombed?

Hello,

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

Thanks.

Evilbu 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This was the official justification for that strike,

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Why was the lighthouse in Beirut eradicated?

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

Tewfik please discuss removing sources here before

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Article

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

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

suitable lead

We have 2 edition for some part of lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Nasrallah quotation and Hezbollah actions

This part is removed frequently.:

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

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

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

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

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

Haim Ramon's Comments under "Israeli Position"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"might be assumed that his views go towards forming policy on the ground" I am tired of arguing with all the anon's that dont understand how Wikipedia works, just provide sources stating his views are guiding policy and its acceptable, else please stop assuming as it doesnt contribute anything to the article.. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why assume his views are ignored in cabinet meetings? Provide a source that says they are. His own words as a member of the Government indicate Government policy. His own words tally with whats happening on the ground. Commonsensical. RandomGalen 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that comments in a cabinet meeting indicate policy. Other ministers expressed dismay at Israeli expansion of the conflict, yet they were clearly not made into policy. To argue to what degree such comments tempered an even more aggressive plan, or to what degree Ramon's comments fanned the flames is original research unless you can show a media source reporting such analysis. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Widing of the War

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

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

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

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

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

Strikes on Lebanon's civilian population and infrastructure include Beirut airport, residential buildings,[67] clearly marked ambulances,[68] fleeing civilians prominently waving white flags,[69] United Nations posts and personnel,[70] ports, a lighthouse, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks,[71] mobile telephone and television stations, fuel containers and service stations, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.

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

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

Also, I will request again that some mention be made of Hezbollah's use of warheads filled with ball bearings (whihc are designed to maximize human casualties). All mention of this was removed, apparently by POV vandals. 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Gidklio

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

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

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

Haven't Israeli "ports...roads...factories...telephone and television...service stations" also been hit? At the rate of 150-200 Katyushas fired per day, there's no way that Israeli roads have been magically spared the destruction from cheap inacurate rockets. Why is this list put under Lebanon if it's not also put under Israel? And in that case it should be removed entirely because it's expected that in an air war, roads will be damaged.Gidklio 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Karen Kwiatkowski

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

Use of weapons with wide blast patterns

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

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

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

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

Nasrallah - spiritual leader

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

Good point.

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IRGC should be readded as a combatant

Reuters story says that IRGC members were found by Israeli soliders. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello32020 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops forgot to add name before

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

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

Criticisms of the allegation that Hezbollah is using human shields

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Boud, thank you for your help. In a fork article it will be more manageable and easier to NPOV/NOR as you said. (User:82.29.227.171) RandomGalen 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Israeli use of human shields: a look at the other side of the coin & a New light on Hezbollah

Firstly this is an article by a jounralist in Israel who has managed to give some information, as little as it is, that proves Hezbollah is not deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, at least yet. It is in depth and covers the issue through a military analysis with verification. If you will all take the time to read it you will agree and see. It is also neutral and looks at both sides with critique.

Hypocrisy About Hezbollah by Jonathan Cook http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9511

Now as for the missile claims and Hezbollah using civilian shields this has been rebuked as false almost totally by the local population, observers, international aids, the Red Cross, Lebanese government officials, on-site journalists, relgious leaders (Christian & Muslim) and Hezbollah.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20060803&articleId=2899

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAM20060801&articleId=2883

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060730&articleId=2860

69.196.164.190

Antiwar.com doesnt seem like a WP:RS source of information. Furthermore its an opinion peace by a non expert in the field. Take it as it is, one mans opinion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you have no idea what you are talking about; firstly it is a ledding jounralist talking about basically how Hezbollah is not attacking civilians, but targets in Israel that are industrial or military. It says a lot maybe you should read it. Secondly it was not written for ant-War.com, it is featured there. 69.196.164.190

Odd there are no credits for it coming from somewhere else, so either you are misunderstanding or its a copywrite violation. WP:RS doesnt extend to the journalist themself, but the agency in which they write for, perhaps there is a reason he isnt writing for his normal outlet. Its also still an opinion piece by a non-expert. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links

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

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

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

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah-Pasderan Links Seem to be Propganda

These claims seem to be propaganda because;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the impartial and fair editors of Wikipedia are perfectly able to judge PoV from NPoV and tell propaganda from well-cited material without your generous, neutral efforts to point them in the right direction, thank you very much. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. --AceMyth 11:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed UN resolution

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

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Some reading material,

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

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

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

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

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

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Big bias against Hezbollah

It looks like the international media suppresses news of big jewish losses. The chief of zionist army in the area was sacked the day before yesterday, because he was deemed "overly cautious and slow-acting". Major-General Mose Kaplinski replaced him. During first night following this leadership change FIFTEEN zionists soldiers were killed by hezbollah warriors, which is a huge loss for such a short time. Even if it is true that jews killed 40 hezbolah warriors in the same clashes, the proportion is still very good for the jihadists, considering the vast equipment overpower of jews due to tens of billions of dollars in free american weapon shipments. The fact that Hezbollah is not an underdog is not properly represented in this article. Hezbollah is the best muslim army, besides Pakistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources, I know people want to help balance the article and add information, but you have to post links or some other information for anything to be included in the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read that he was fired, first time this had happened the media said. Although what they expect him or his men to do against such well trained and well equipped Guerilla is beyond me. A former leader of 'Peace Now' who protested the previous invasions and an 'military correspondant' as prime minister may not be the best candidates for the job :D RandomGalen 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who would give a military job to someone who wants peace ... that is not sarcasm, seriously who would do such a thing? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

((removed rhetoric)) Please keep in mind this is not a political forum. Discuss the article in question directly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Various hits, situation not exactly as 195.70.32.136 describes, but close. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747986.html mdf 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Action

What's wrong with the last sentence in this section on the main page? Precis 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz References are not acceptable

References from haaretz are weakning the reliability of article. Abulfazl 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Abulfazl 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. Haaretz and JPost are in the business of selling papers to a public in battle, they are also under restrictions from the censors in Israel. Haaretz does report well but the JPost has frequently inserted words into the IDF spokesmans mouth which give a misleading impression. Editors should take care to check the actual IDF press releases/video and Hezbollah output which the journalists write about. I always take care when a strange statement, figure, or remark is reported to use the qualifier "reportedly this happened"- this alerts the reader that this may not be the entire picture. This protects wikipedia from journalistic bias in combatant nations. Just as you would not take comment from journalist in Lebanon Daily Star reports about "Israeli crimes" so you should do the same for all sources. RandomGalen 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and argue there if they are sources that meet the standards. Until a concensus forms on WP:RS that they are to no longer meeting the requirements, they are acceptable. Also if you have reports from Lebanese news sources that are in english, feel free to add them, they are more then welcomed as has been pointed out numerous times. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"the censors in Israel"? Are you kidding? It's front page news around that world if Israel's Cabinet votes to expand or not expand operations! The Israeli press is incredibly loose (how else would everyone know that Dimona-of-peace-power is actually Dimona-of-don't-tell-them-we-have-the-bomb)? Gidklio 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of Mordechai Vanunu telling it to the british press? My point is that their media is operating in national conflict, with some journalistic reportage and some censor control. I accept your point. RandomGalen 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference 22

It's a dead link... 84.109.52.88 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Section: International Reaction

• In addition, Tehran reportedly sends Hezbollah $60-100 million per year. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan criticized Hezbollah's actions, as well as Iran and Syria for extending support to the organization, although they are under pressure to change their stance. This part of the article needs to be fixed. First off let's repalce tehran and put Iran. Then Iran gives 100 million exactly, not 60-100 million a year.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/3/israellebanonConflictStirsLocalTensionResponse

• http://www.forward.com/articles/8123]] [[http://www.cfr.org/publication/11122/ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aDBGipyREFes&refer=home I could give you more. So my point is made. So this part in the section should read... In addition, Iran reportedly sends Hezbollah $100 million per year. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan criticized Hezbollah's actions, as well as Iran and Syria for extending support to the organization, although they are under pressure to change their stance.

Political Correctness BS

Should someone add that the IRA ( Iranian Revolutionary Army) Has been found amognst the dead bodies of hezbollah terrorists, and that they (IRA) should be added to the death count, and this leads to the issue of political correctness in this article. Fact is what i said above should be added to the article. Also let's stop labeling Hezbollah, Amal, and PFlP-GC as militas, let's cut the political Correctness BS and label them what they are.... TERRORISTS, Come on guys. Add this stuff and be fair like wikipedia is supposed to be. If we can agree on the stuff on the stuff that I posted all above on deathtoll, section:International Reaction and, political correctness. I would like to have open debate on this and have and it the fair way, and i think the death toll needs to be configured within three to five days. Zonerocks 17:23 (UTC)

First I heard of this, are their sources to support? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of using "terrorists" or "militants" is much more trouble than it's worth. Why all the fuss when the word "militants" has basically become a shorthand for "considered terrorists by most of the people they blow up, considered legitimate by some of the people they don't", which is NPoV par excellance. --AceMyth 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering their operate illegally under the UN Charter, they should at least be labeled an illegal militia, can a militia be legal? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"...are their sources to support this?"

Look upthread.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, didnt notice this was a break off from another discussion, seeing some of the sources are highly reliable I think it should be added, they all seem to say Iran denies it however so that should probably be included, until proof is offered that is beyond the point of doubts. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Man someone had to write something. now i lost everything i typed in my response. ok lets try again. Hey I understand, But not everyone know this ace. The sooner people understand that groups like hezbollah aren't legit, and they are more like terrorists, the sooner people will understand that what hezbollah is doing, are terrorists acts. This article is very politically correct, and it paints the picture that, HEZBOLLAH IS A MILITIA DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF LEBANON BY FIGHTING THE BIG, BAD ISRAELIS. Where in this article does it say hezbollah is the probelm and isn't supposed to be there. Ruth those articles are legit. Also ruth the un charter says alot of things, and brings the point on why shouldn't the things the charter says not be in this article, and if we don't put terrorists, then we need to put illegal milita. --zonerocks

Ruth the sources are legit so let's move to the next stage and edit the money and im ok with adding iran denies it. Also What do yall think about adding The IRA to the casualty list. Read the entire beginning of political correctness to know what i am talking about. --zonerocks

Depends if there is an accurate count and further if its ever verified or proof offered I would say. I wouldnt add them if its like 5 soldiers, but if its bordering on 20 or so, then I think it should be added. However barring Iran stops denying or mass media stops believing they are not there. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth well in that case then why do we have that one "Milita" that has one casualty, and ruth how are we going to edit this stuff it won't allow it. Do we ask to temporarily allow us to do it. --zonerocks

I don't think we should add anything about IRA as it is an Israeli claim, Hezbollah and Iran denies it. If it's added, then the article will become biased, which it shouldn't. Unless there is real proof coming from non-propaganda media, the Iranian soldiers being part of Hezbollah's army are to be considered as being false information. At least, that's my opinion. Also, about this "call them terrorists" thing, I wonder why people still have the guts to call Hezbollah terrorists.. Who calls them like that ? the US, UK, Israel ? why ? because they're against them, that's it. And it's public opinion because Israel+US govern the media... If you read other people's opinion, you'll see that Israel is a terrorist state, it used many of the Holocaust's strategies against the Arab world and if Hitler was wrong (and he was), Israel is also wrong. -- KaKaRoTo

US, UK, Australia, Netherlands, Israel, Canada consider them a terrorist organization and EU considers their senior intelligence officer a terrorist, Russia has condemned their tactics as "terrorist methods" and EU has recognized clear evidence of terrorist activities. That is just to answer your question. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The first bullet point in the first pretty pastel-shaded box in this page reads "Please do not use [the talk page] as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Please take note, and acknowledge that exactly this sort of unwanted discussion is what tends to get started when you go around calling a whole country "terrorist" and comparing it to Nazi Germany. Personally I came here exactly because I find a psychological refuge in the tenets of Wikipedia, where even people involved in highly controversial subjects are committed to NPoV and searching for the truth instead of hurling around emotionally-resounding accusations. So... Please. --AceMyth 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Begining of the conflict

Hi, why is it that the begining of the conflict states that Hezbollah attacked Israel with Katyushas and mortar? I never heard of that and I see no source proving this. The only source there is a 404 link. This should be corrected. If two versions of the story are available (from Israel and from Hezbollah) then both versions should be stated, not the 'pro-israel, anti-hezbollah' version. This article really looked biased and non-neutral. KaKaRoTo

(Personal attack removed)

It's like clamoring for equal numbers of pro-heliocentric and pro-geocentric editorials in the Times. Would we say a paper is biased because it runs off a thousand and one heliocentric aritcles before printing a geocentric one? Gidklio 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel is a terrorist entity, all the people of the Middle East; Arabs, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and Iranians alike are committed to freedom, which Israel is trying to take away from them. There were no Iranian soilders amongst the Lebanese Resistance fighting the Israeli invasion to grab more land and take water. Israel lies and has provided no proof. Israel atacks civilians, the unarmed U.N. observers, and Red Cross. 69.196.164.190

Won't respond. Too busy oppressing Greeks and Turks. --AceMyth 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a political forum. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Background of conflict

I think that some key points regarding the background of the conflict should go to the introduction instead of being stuck in the obscure lower regions of the article. Like the declared aim of Israel in initiating its attack, the status quo between Israel and Hezbollah prior to this conflict (including UN resolution 1559 and its implementation or rather lack thereof) and Hezbollah's aims in general in occupying the border. A lot of important things about this conflict stem from the historical context in which it is taking place. --AceMyth 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm able to edit the article (it's only sprotected, not fully protected). I just wanted to bring this to the talk page and see whether maybe anybody has some valid reasons against before I mess around with the article's structure like this. --AceMyth 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you edit it? So i guess i object cause i want to know.

Sprotection only lets "established" users (accounts over 4 days old) edit articles. --AceMyth 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How much background information regarding the historical context should be included?

If we want to trace this back to its root causes we can go back all the way to 1975, when the Lebanese civil war began, or to Black September and the Palestinian exodus from Jordan, but something tells me that isn't the direction you were suggesting.

Actually, Lebanon (along with other Arab nations) attacked Israel in 1948 and has never — unlike Jordan and Egypt — made peace.пан Бостон-Київський 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely accurate. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

hwo do you get Sprotection

I guess it might be to late to object. But im going to object anyway. First im sure all of would want to know what "structual" things you will be doing, and I think before you add it, we should all be able to see it, and then come to an agreement. --zonerocks 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border

There are certain editors that are helping put an Israeli POV, which is based on falsehood and propganda into this article,

Please look up where the Israeli soilders were captured...it was in South Lebanon according to Lebanese officials, the Lebanese Police, and Hezbollah. This was reported widely in Europe and the Middle East but started getting covered up...The Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the three largest news agencies in the world...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times have also reported this and I have provided a link within a link to them...

Check

http://uruknet.info/?p=m25034&hd=0&size=1&l=e http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hezbollah_soldiers.html http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html 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.voltairenet.org/article142056.html

These links themselves have links to even more significant sources...

Also 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...not to mention the Associated Press and the Hindustan Times.

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. Or even reading this says it all; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291980307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I noticed that there is a lot of pro-Israeli rhetoric on the site that is trying to give the world a false image of the attacks on Lebanon and Lebanese civilians.

God Bless 69.196.164.190

The link you posted leads to an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli military progress in South Lebanon, or censorship related to military operations.

Also, I don't think Uruknet is a valid, let alone unbiased, source.

You are not objecting to the impartiality of this article, simply insisting that your biases be included.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to mislead others or are not lookig at the wrong link. The last link shows how low and stupid Israeli propganda is. All the links are listed. 69.196.164.190

So we have one Forbes story of all those sources against every other source that says otherwise ... I think its safe to conclude that if it was the way you say, more then Urukunet and GlobalResearch would have said so by now. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You supporters of Israel or Zionist supporters are clearly trying to add misinformation on this site on behalf of Israel. It is Israel that attacked Lebanon, it is Israel that continually kidnapped people from Lebanpon, it is Israel tht continually according to the UN and ionternational observers shlled and killed Lebanese farmers before the conflict and violated Lebanese soverignty (you think any nation will allow another nations jets to fly over its territory unchallenged whenever it wishes? And this was before this conflict!); it is Israel that has invaded Lebanon 3 times; it is Israel that has used car bombs to kill Lebanese officialsand even people going to courts to testify against Israeli war crimes; it is Israel that was stealing Lebanese natural resources for years; it is Israel that does not respect international laws; it is Israel that has massacred unarmed civilians before this war; it is Israel that attacked American saiolrs on the U.S.S. Liberty and tried to frame the Egyptians; it is Israel that assasinated Red Cross workers and European diplomats trying to forge peace in the Holy Land; it is Israel that uses collective punishment; it is ISrael that uses Canadian passports for assasinations; it is Israel that has been caught fabricating and lying over and over again. 69.196.164.190

I find it ironic that you post something like this and accuse something else of being "propaganda" in the same breath. Propaganda, as I see it, is not about these claims being made or other claims being made (true or alleged). Propaganda is a frame of mind, it's the disgusting practice of trying to tell people what to think by presenting them with only one version of the truth, borne out of cowardly doublethink- being absolutely sure that a side of the issue is totally in the right while fearing that perfectly rational people might be swayed to the "wrong" side if they are presented with its position. Israel very probably has a position, an explanation, for each and every one of the incidents you mentioned. Are they GOOD explanations, are they true, are they false, are they merely flimsy excuses? Who knows. Here on Wikipedia is not our place to judge and most CERTAINLY not our place to reduce this controversy to a two-dimensional mockery of the true complexities of the situation, where one side is the sole source of all evil and is responsible for all the pain and death and lies and propaganda. This is the very thing that lies at the foundation of Wikipedia's NPoV policy, the part where we shut up and let the facts do the talking, even if we think that we could speak so much better on their behalf. It is for this same reason that though I've just read your speech, from which it all but follows that the people of my country are heartless, warmongering men without the least bit of sympathy for other human beings if they happen to be over the border, and though I /know/ that is not true, I will not fire up with virtuous speeches on its behalf. If there really are facts that show my perspective to be true, they will speak for themselves. And I will shut up. --AceMyth 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have one link that really doest prove much. Also, please be a member of wikipedia before you post your thoughts. Your post seems to be more of an opinon then a fair unbiased add to the article. Your jpos link is bull, you can't fool people on here, because we will actually check it out. This is not a forum to spew BS. Zonerocks22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism is consisely defined by WordNet as:

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;
this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Hezbollah admits, nay, is quite unabashed about doing just that in the words of its envoy to Iran:

"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. [..] We will expand attacks. The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."

Calling such deliberate targeting of civilians "terrorism" is not expressing a POV — it is stating a fact.

Whether or not Israel does the same is irrelevant. пан Бостон-Київський 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and it gives another reason why we should take out milita and add terrorists. Zonerocks 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel shopuld be added as a Terrorist state... 69.196.164.190

Timeline

This article rather bombastically states that "Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling". This particular version of the timeline is disputed by many. Here is a good article by George Monbiot in the CIF section of The Guardian. 84.48.108.238 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "good article" link states:

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. (emphasis mine)

Thus it is, in fact, correct to say, as the article currently does, that the response was triggered by the soldiers' capture. That Israel — having suffered steady stream of attacks for six years since its complete UN-certified withdrawal — had a plan prepared to respond for real (as opposite to pass the sound barrier above a village) at the time of their choosing, changes nothing.

Every country's military maintains plans for all plausible military operations, so that when the government decides to act, the military can do so in minutes.

пан Бостон-Київський 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon claims IDF troops have captured around 350 Lebanese soldiers

We should add this to the table in the front of the article. In the combatants section where it says lebanon and under where is says casualties, we need to add 350 lebanese soldiers captured in the lebanese city of Marj Ayoun. Here is an article http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/748556.html to support this claim. So let's act quick and add it, and let's think about adding it to the section: Israeli action. Hope we can have a good, and open discussion about it. --Zonerocksandproud 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS USER, Zonerocks, IS AN ISRAELI PROPGANDA ARTIST HERE; WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO MISLEAD EVERYONE ANDand HIDE ISRAELI WAR CRIMES AND ISRAELI TERRORISM! 69.196.164.190

Your caps lock key appears to be stuck. --AceMyth 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Propaganda, but fact. get it through your one sided mind. Stop Whining, Stop being part of the probelm, and start being part of the solution. Release the straight jacket around your mind, and step away from partisan politics. I don't hate you, I don't despise you, I feel sorry for you. This talk is supposed to make the article better, and you have turned it into a political forum. --Zonerocksandproud 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Soldiers were captured NOT kidnapped

For the last time, you don't kidnap uniformed soldiers conducting operations in enemy territory, you capture them, just like Israel CAPTURED 20 Hezbollah combatants - let's at least be fair here

--It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Israeli soldiers in Israel are operating in enemy territory?Yossiea 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok look The Concensus has decided that they were kidnapped, We could have a 'Concensus vote' if you would like to. --Zonerocksandproud 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that patrol was ambushed IN southern lebanon, before this invasion began --It is better to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain. 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers were patrolling the bluie line. they were taken from israel. there was NO declaration of war. Had Hezbollah done so, it could be called such. But, they chose to KIDNAP them during a somewhat peaceable time.--AeomMai 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what term we use (though I support captured for this, among other reasons), the consensus is that Hezbollah crossed into Israel, attacked the soldiers on the Israeli side of the Blue Line, and took the soldiers back into Lebanon. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have characterised the Hezbollah attack as "cross border." You can review more detailed citations at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident (déjà vu anyone). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Lebanese army had taken the Israeli soldiers, during a time of war, I would call them "captured". However, when somebody other than a country takes somebody, it's taking hostages or kidnapping them. This is especially true because they aren't likely to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, and may very well be tortured and executed. There is also no possibility that they would be returned "when the war ends", because Hezbollah will never end the war until Israel ceases to exist, which will never happen. Think of the reverse happening. What if some group of militant Jewish settlers went and grabbed a bunch of Palestinian Authority soldiers ? Would you say they were captured or taken hostage/kidnapped ? StuRat 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference broken

Reference 72 appears to be broken. The link should be.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/30/lebano13881.htm

Update: Appears this link has been removed altogether and is no longer referenced in the document? Why? ---Archeus [edit] Nevermind I see its been moved to another page International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations

I have a question. How is it possible to start a war and report as motive two kidnapped soldiers? Now over 2,000 people have died. Now the rest of the world sits and watches Israel shred Lebanon to pieces. Hundreds of inocent people are dying. I'm not saying that terrorist shouldn't be dealt with, but the childern who died in the bombings had nothing to do with terrorists. How can we in a world of so called human rights sit back and watch as these inocent people are killed? How can an entire country be destroyed for a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers? I am curious to here your opinions on this matter. I am sorry if a upset anyone but this is my personal impression on this issue.

"a handfull of terrorist and two kidnapped soldiers". What about the many thousands of missiles being fired across the border, which began before the soldiers were taken? I think the conclusion should be: "Don't attack your neighbor if you don't want him to fight back..." Valtam 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"a hand full of propganda artists and snakes are fooling the world, pretending to be peace loving, but reality want to take more land and have total control; these criminals all hide in Tel Aviv and are the real terrorists," Father Talmanous, U.S.A.

69.196.164.190

Yes, absolutely. "Mwahahahaha, yeeeessshhh, more land, total CONTROLLLL" is just about what passed through their heads when they authorized the unilateral disengagement plan of 2005. --AceMyth 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This has turned into a political forum, This is un believeable. Fact is Hezbolah 'pre-emtively' struck first. Alright There will be no change. --Zonerocksandproud 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Read this about Israeli tactics from Israel; it is about Gaza but it shows you what the Israeli occupation army does with civilians;

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

69.196.164.190

Judging by the link you just provided, it seems that all the Israeli terrorists are indeed hiding in Tel Aviv, maintaining such ambitions of conquest that sometimes they go all the way over into catatonic lapses where they mercilessly, constantly question their own actions with moral rhetoric. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been conducting no terrorist activities of territorially ambitious nature and thus enjoys an absolutely clean conscience, as evidenced in the glaring lack of similar voices on their side of the conflict. --AceMyth 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the terrorists in Tel Aviv have been causing blood to run in the Middle East since they set foot in it. Israel's creation was because of terrorism; Israel was born out of terroris,. WHo bombed the King David Hotel? Who attacked British citizens and Palestinians to bush for the 1948 formation of Israel?

Etzel. To say that their actions were not uncontroversial would be an understatement; the majority, mainstream opinion of the Jewish people in then-Palestine opposed their tactics, openly called them terrorists and campaigned for the foundation of the Jewish state via negotiation with the British rather than violence (especially considering that during most of the time-frame in question the British were busy fighting Hitler, whom the people of Israel were not very fond of either). When the Etzel tried bringing in a ship full of firearms to Israel in 1948 so it can continue acting independently against the wishes of head of the provisional government David Ben-Gurion, he ordered it drowned. Funny that this incident would be brought up, what with the interesting parallels to what the Lebanese government has been doing with its own renegade army-within-an-army, and whatnot. --AceMyth 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Message to AceMyth for editing

Have you read my post about the 350 soldiers lebanon has said idf soldiers caught in that city. If you could read it and respond to me about what you think and if it should be added. --Zonerocks 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you already added it..... So Kudos. But should we consider adding that operation to the bottom of the israel action section. Please respond. --Zonerocks 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I will. I'm dead tired, but I will. BTW if you want to message me personally Wikipedia has "user talk" pages for that (mine, for example, is at User talk:AceMyth. --AceMyth 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Were all tired, most of us have jobs beside 69.196.164.190 I mean im tired to. I understand. When i get sprotection then it will be easier as well. So enjoy yourself. Also thanks for the heads up about user talk. --Zonerocks 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Israelis yes, keep on acting and working together to put propaganda on this site; but you can not stop the truth from being seen. World opinion is growing and very soon in our life time it will be at the level will Israel will stop getting free weapons and military supplies for free (Israel is the biggest Leech-welfare state that recieves eveything for free and drains other nations economies).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imAvXIm_iuw

69.196.164.190

Israel pays for its weaponry.

In fact, the United States preconditions all of its military aid to its chief ally in the Middle East on its acceptance that the equipment will come from American manufacturers.

Hezbollah, to the best of my knowledge, gets everything from its benefactors, i.e. Syria and the IRI, gratis.

Although, I suppose murdering Americans and Israelis, and destabilizing Lebanon, is recompense enough for the two chief rogue states in that region.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

YAAAAAA, Okay..you want to talk about rogue states; your living in one. Israel is the most disliked state in the world by the masses and if you think not you need a reality check. ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST REGIME AND STATE! It is an illegal state that was created to steal money by the Zionists. No real and practiciny Jew supports Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTd08SPfckg

Look I don;t want insult you and I know you are an Israeli, but this is the truth. This violance must be stopped and you following the state line of the Israeli regime is not helping.

69.196.164.190

"The masses are asses."

I'll give you a Canadian dollar if you can tell me whence that quote originated.

By the way, I'm not Israeli, and have never been to Israel.

But feel free to throw around ignorant generalizations, and continue to exhibit your general lack of knowledge about this subject.

It's quite amusing, if not edifying.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I'm quite familiar with the Naturei Kartei nutbars and their unique, bizarre interpretation of Satmar Judaism.

In fact, I've counterprotested them-along with the rest of the "Death to Israel, Death To America" brigades-at the Salute To Israel Day Parade, so I'm not really sure what posting a video of their inane, semi-coherent ramblings is intended to accomplish.

Yes, Youtube is a wonderful website, where people can upload videos.

Now, would you care to support any of the baseless accusations you've made thus far?

Just curious.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I will look into the sources that are provided, judge them against WP:RS and edit them in if appropriate. When I feel like it. I am a procrastinator of the worst kind. --AceMyth 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When can we start calling this a war?

--Greasysteve13 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have they formally declared war on each other yet? Carson 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Israel is, with the exceptions of Mauritania, Jordan, and Egypt, technically speaking, at war with the entire Arab League.

In other words, it's never reached any sort of peace accord with its enemies, and the situation remains static, a la the 38th parallel that divides North and South Korea.

I know that there have been a series of armistices and truces-the last of which was reached in 1996, IIRC-but I don't think there is any existing peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

greasysteve, look at the beginning of the conversation webpage and you will see that we are currently having a vote on renaming the title. --Zonerocks 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

hizbullah did not start this conflict!

The history of this conflict is not only 4 weeks for you to say that hizbullah started, you cannot choose to say who started because you sympathize with the israeli's! This article is very biased! I will be editing this article to not only show the hizbullah point of view, but also the views of hte muslims, arabs, palestinians, and lebanese! also, who put the protect tag on there, obviously not an admin because editing is till possible. for the record, im not muslim, so i think im pretty neutral, however, the pro israeli POV disgusts me.Khosrow II 05:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

Those declamatory exclamation marks sure do constitute an irrefutable argument.

My bad.

It was the fault of the J0000zzze.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The protect tag

Im about to take the tag off because its useless. only admins can put on protect tags that actually work. anything anyone has to say before I do? i'll wait awhile. Khosrow II 05:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"i think i'm pretty neutral."

Well, you think wrongly.

Also, the article is "semi-protected," which means that most users-although not all-can edit it.

I think your confusion stems from that distinction.

There are various layers of protection, with "protection," i.e. the inability of anyone who is not an administrator to edit an article, being the most stringent among them.

That's what you see with extraordinarily controversial, easily vandalized subjects. For example, the article on President George W. Bush.

I'm not sure, but I think only a few dozen articles have achieved the dubious distinction of being fully "protected."

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth I reported his nick so he should get blocked within a few hours. khosrow, your a liar, your iranian. lol says it in your profile. --Zonerocks 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is protected, by an admin - User:FayssalF. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=68050390&oldid=68050316

I've already requested the page be unprotected. Iorek85 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental consequences of attacks

I cannot access that sources (81 and 82) regarding the forrest fire in Israel. PJ 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 81-for some inexplicable reason-tracks back to the Wikipedia entry on the British Broadcasting Corporation, instead of an actual BBC report on the fires.

1. 82 is a link to an online version of a New York Times' article.

You'll need to register with the site in order to access it.

Ruthfulbarbarity