Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edison (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 22 July 2006 (→"War" Poll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive1

Archive2
Archive3
Archive4
Archive5
Archive6
Archive7

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions

"War" Poll

It seems out last poll helped us reach a clear concensus about including Hezbollah in the article title, but now having read some responses it appears many people believe it should be renamed as a war (some very passionately). Lets put this one to a vote. Criptofcorbin 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Oppose. Our grounds for deciding whether or not to call it a war cannot be what media outlets call it. Surely, there is some fairly standard definition of the word "war," and we should attempt to apply this definition. If it fits, then it's a war; if not, then it's something else.--128.186.13.112 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Can only be called a war ex post facto. Not Wikipedia's role to label events before a consensus arises first. 16:43 18 July 2006
  3. Oppose as the Libanon army is not (yet) involved 195.85.146.234 12:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose war as there has neither been a declaration of war nor a concensus on it. If the 50-year Arab-Israeli situation is only a "conflict," this can be no more only on the basis of the amount of destruction or by a definition of the word war. Also, someone has already changed words in the article to "war" - I will now change back, as there is no concensus, and should match title. -65.35.57.80 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - Sorry-that was me before I logged in. -Preposterous 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OpposeI would say they have been at a 'cold war' state for years and this incident may be considered to be possibly the first political/military actions leading up to an active, 'hot' war, whether deliberately or not. So this is an incident, or some other such term, to be seen as part of a broader, 'cold' state of war.
  6. Oppose Until we start seeing it constantly being called a war in a varaity of major media sources, we shouldn't jump the gun. Frinkahedr0n 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose As above, we need everyone to start calling it a war before we do. Fine for wikinews to be sensationalist and jump the gun a bit, but not the pedia. The primary conflict isn't even with a sovereign state but an organisation. And yes, while it is current hyperbole to call things like that wars (war on drugs, war on terror, war on sesame street) they arn't acctually wars. Inaccurate language use in the wider world does not make it ok. Until such time as Israel starts handing out declerations of war or there are actual meaningful clashes on the ground between sovereign nations, its still a crisis or a conflict. --Narson 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. In wikipedia it seems the standard is to call ongoing military engagements with no declarations of war a "conflict". For example Arab-Israeli conflict. "War" is used usually post-facto or if an official declaration of war, for example, Six Days War and World War II.--Cerejota 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. In response to the dictionary arguments, the fact that a war is a "state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties" does not mean that every open armed conflict between parties is a war. A knife fight between myself and another person would fit that definition. Sure, the distinction between war and conflict is blurred, but as an encyclopedia, it makes sense to reflect consensus rather than rush to judgement when history might judge differently.--Kanmalachoa
  10. Oppose wikipedians that have the need to make history instead of writing about history. --TheYmode 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Why should wikipedia be the first place calling it a war when the majority of this entry's citations are from sources that have not called this thing a war. However, if we can find stuff about why everyone is avoiding calling it a war, that is notable and could be mentioned.--Paraphelion 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources and people since this poll started have started calling it a war, please provide links. Previously they were saying everything short of "this is a war".--Paraphelion 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose This should only be renamed when a consensus emerges in popular parlance. Wikipedia needs to reflect, not determine. Fishhead64 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose A war in my books is only when there is a military conflict between two or more states.--86.130.89.70 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. OpposeHad Israel counterattacked and bombed Iran (the real culprit, the ones we all know who finance "Hezbullocks" in the first place), then of course it would be war. At the moment, this is just a needle in a haystack kind of randomness on Israel's part without the concern as to who the ultimate casualties (even American civilians unlucky to be living in Lebanon are fair game to this Israeli assault) are or the new set of enemies that Israel may develop as a result of this. The only war is among the stock trading bulls and bears who are considering how this event will affect the stock prices of oil companies. (many apologies if I did not use Wilkpedia etiquette, this is my first such response; this conflict has me annoyed in general) sydbarrettcares 22:30, 21 July 2006
  15. Oppose: I repeat: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. TewfikTalk 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But everyone is calling it a war! Calling it a war is hardly original! A few examples:
    Reuters: “Marines help Americans flee Israel's war in Lebanon”, Israeli support for Lebanon war overwhelming-poll
    CNN: Mention of the term “World War III” every five minutes, using term “war-torn” (not “conflict-ridden”) to refer to Lebanon.
    Ynetnews: Olmert: War Israel’s stamina test
    Haaretz: Lexicon of Lebanon War II OzLawyer 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those are a tad dubious and clearly attempts to beef up a headline. Over here ITN (The Independent Television company news) refers to it as being war'like, but not a war itself, and the BBC has yet to call it a war from what I've seen. Beyond that, I'm not sure wikipedia should weight into the 'declaring war on -isms' debate, which admitting that you can have a war against hezbollah is. Well, unless you will all let me declare war on post-modernism. Ironically of course. --Narson 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. No formal declaration of war. Simple.Rob.derosa 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is an idiotic reason; as explained below, the U.S. hasn't formally declared war since WWII. Do you really think that it should be called the Vietnam Conflict? The Korean Disagreement over Principles? The Iraq Crisis? Not calling something by its proper name doesn't change the fact of its existence. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose Not yet, give it time. Maybe after we have significant ground forces accross the border. ObsidianOrder 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. So far it's only the Israelian government trying to fight against what they recognize as a "terrorist organisation". Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon official, therefore it is a conflict, not a War. --Deenoe 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. The headline above sums it up ">>Israel's war in Lebanon.." A war, preferably declared, is prolonged fighting between two states. Attacks in the North of Lebanon are collective punishment, airstrikes against a state in retaliation for a border provocation by a private stateless militia. Most of those killed and harmed by the destruction of infrasturcture are not combatants. The Lebanese army has generally not participated. It is comparable to the Pancho Villa Expedition when the US army entered Mexico in responsse to a cross-border attack by Villa in 1916.Edison 16:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "War" (State your reasons for supporting the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)
  1. Support.War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.Dudtz 7/20/06 6:47 PM EST
  2. Support. I see it as a war. It has been discribed my many as a war, and has been dubbed a war by both parties. some even go as far as to dub it as the third world war. I see much reason to name it as a war.--70.39.205.84 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. To use the word "war" in this situation -- then refer as to what a war traditionally is called. "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups." See War Also, from Dictionary.com: "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war By definition, this current event is indeed a war. KyuuA4 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I believe this is a war. The amount of destruction and miliary operations merits that this should be called a war. Hello32020 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Although this conflict may seem like a war, it has not escalated enough to be a war. This is a one-sided conflict that needs to be stopped immedeately. Until the conflict drags in other nations, which it most likely will, this should not be considered a war nor a conflict. This is an unfair and unjust fight...this is one step away from being a genocide. Whilst older news outlets are refraininmg from calling this a war due the conutations for international law and the Geneva Convention, it sure looks like a war to me--Manc ill kid 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I see the media everywhere calling it war. See this video which shows Dan Gillerman, Israel Ambassador to the UN, declaring it war, as well as the media themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_ykNverhQ&search=gillerman --aishel 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. How hard is it to identify a war when you see one? Obviously a war, and it reaches much farther than Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon. Kyleberk 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. How hard do those cautious souls who dicker and prevaricate about whether this should be called a war or a "conflict" need to be beaten over the head before they realize that this is a real live shooting war? The only interests served by not calling it by its proper name are those of the aggressors (I'll leave it to you to figure out just who that is in this case), who don't want that particular blot on their national reputatation. Besides, I heard my local Fox "news" affiliate call it a war as a matter of course in a report just last night.::Actually, to temper my own vote, the term "war" may be a little grotesque here because of the incredible disporportionality of the conflict, with virtually all the firepower and destruction coming from one side. Still, I think it should be called war. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. This is a full-fledged war with many casualties. The world oil price went up to a record amount on the start of this war, and many countries are on the verge of becoming militarily involved. It should be renamed to "war". ArmanJan 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Ground operations with air support with one army entering another country is war, because an opposing side is striking back. There is no doubt this is a combat. Not to mention the fact that the Lebanese Defense Minister announced that if Israel went with a full ground evasion. The Lebanese army would have to fight the IDF. This is war. Lebanon is ready to go to war with Israel along with Hizbullah. Hizbullah has a stranglehold over Lebanon if Lebanon cannot control a militant wing in a political power this is war. Hizbullah says it is open war, Omert says it is war. IT IS WAR.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. In response to Cerejota's comments above about undeclared ongoing conflicts not being wars, the US hasn't declared war since, I believe, WWII. The Iraq War is both ongoing and undeclared, but it is a war. So is this. OzLawyer 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong my friend. Article I Section 8 states that congress may declare war, it does not state the manner they have to do it. As we look earlier in the Legislative Article we see that Congress sets their own rules and since they can set their own rules they can pass legislation that the constitution permits in any way they please. Article I Section 8 does not state Congress has the power to give a declaration of war, but declare war. The Framers didn't want to limit the congress in the MANNER they can pass a war resolution. A declaration of war was simply the way they use to do it, now Congress does it in the paticular manner they want. The AUMF does delcare war as it authorizes force to the President giving him full power over MILITARY operations. AG Gonzales tried to make it both ways in his hearing, he knew the Article II claim on wire tapping is a load so that is why he said we aren't at war after he said we were....so don't try using that example on me.--Jerluvsthecubs 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck do you know about the intentions of the Framers? Talked to them, have you? Sounds like original research, to me. Traditionally, when countries were at war, they would declare it. My point was simply that the US has not declared war since WWII. No comment on whether war can be officially initiated without a declaration, no comment on whether forgoing a declaration is a good or a bad thing. OzLawyer 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Everyone in the world (except a few very POVed) is already calling it a war. ActiveSelective 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - All the WP:RS presents ironclad, indisputable evidence for "war", and has done so for almost a week now. Using "war" as a summary adds absolutely nothing new (ie, it can't possibly be OR). mdf 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - A war is a conflict where more than 1000 people get killed per year. Extrapolating about 300 people in 10 days to one year, makes it absolutely a war (even though I hope it will end right now). - Mårten Berglund.
  15. Support Ofcourse a war Reaper7 01:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support If this isn't a war what will it take to call something a war? -jdevries 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. jdevries - it will take a couple of US casualties then everyone will start calling it a war... apparently 400 civilian deaths don't mean anything because they're not American casualties. ugen64 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. The Lebanese media in constantly using the term "war", but different names are used: "War on Lebanon", "July 2006 War"... CG 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Poll

To avoid another chaotic debate, I suggest that we have a poll (which is in itself not binding), which could also avoid a repetition of the same discussion and the same arguments. It would also give a clear view on how many people support and oppose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict". Sijo Ripa 14:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (please add your name and your arguments for "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments against the current or another article name.)
  1. Support This is not generally seen as a war against Lebanon, but a war against the people who kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese Prime Minister has repeatedly called for a peace treaty. Despite the attacks on bridges and airports, the Israelis have been concentrating their fire power on Hezbollah targets only. Israel has not officially declared war on Lebanon, but have said they want to destroy Hezbollah's military capabilities. The Lebanese are simply the people stuck in the middle.
  2. Support The Lebanese government has been doing all it can to end this conflict. However, they are a very weak force within their own country, and very little control over Hezbollah. I believe putting their name in the title implies they are the main combatants of Israel. They are clearly not, nor do they want to be. Hezbollah on the other hand is the clear adversary of Israel. They are the ones holding the Israeli soliders hostage. Yes, Israel is holding the Lebanese responsible for the return of their soldiers but this is clearly just a political tactic meant to create pressure. The Israeli military has struck almost exclusively Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. They did strike the Beiruit Airport and Highways leading out of the country, but these attacks seem to have been meant to prevent Hezbollah from moving the kidnapped soldiers to countries where they would be harder to reclaim. I agree this is not the very best way to title this situation but anything regarding Kidnapping or abduction sounds too clumsy. Criptofcorbin 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hezbollah commited the first act in this conflict, has fired rockets at the Israeli's, and has been targeted by the Israeli's. They should be included. Hello32020 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Hezbollah is waging the war against Israel. Hezbollah doesn't have a country (except Iran or Syria, but it's so much better to risk someone else's back yard than your own). Lebanon is a victim. Kyleberk 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Elatanatari 19:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Hezbollah is the only known successful government in Lebanon. The capture of the 2 israeli soldiers can be negotiated but the israelis use this as an advantage to invade Lebanon as a form of revenge for its invasion during the invasion of lebanon. I urge Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to take action against this. How can a developed country bully a 3rd world country?
I have recently been authorized by Iran, Russia, Libya and Syria to speak on their behalf and they would like to let you know that they have taken notice of your pleas here on wikipedia and do not take them lightly. Expect a response from our collective governments within the next few days.--Paraphelion 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Support If Israel wanted to attack Lebanon proper, Israel could and would certainly do things which were much more damaging to all of Lebanon. Everything they have done so far has been directed at either killing Hezbollah personnel, destroying Hezbollah weapons and bases, or destroying infrastrcuture that Hezbollah depends on for logistical support (such as bridges into Syria). Facilities of the Lebanese government have been attacked only when used by Hezbollah. If Hezbollah did not exist or did not attack Israel first, there would be no basis for the conflict. Israel's stated goal is the destruction or dismantlement of Hezbollah. How is this a conflict with Lebanon (the nation-state) then? ObsidianOrder 02:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per above, in the war poll. So far, it is a conflict because it opposed the Israelian army to a terrorist organization. --Deenoe 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (please add your name and your arguments against "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments for the current or another article name.)
  1. Oppose While Lebanon isn't really a direct combatant, you certainly can't ignore them in the title (Bearing in mind that Israel not only holds Lebanon responsible but seems to see this as a wider Middle East situation). The arab nations also seem to see that as a wider thing than just Hizbollah. If we could only come up with a suitable word for 'capture' or 'abduct' we could have the 2006 Soldier Abduction Crisis (Middle East) or something less clumsy. But again, this is short sighted by me as any escalation woudl require a total renaming. I say we wait 2 or 3 days, see if any other parties show up as a party to this. Its the encyclopedia not the news, snappy up to date titles are not a must. --Narson 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Lebanon needs to be mentioned as they are a major factor in this, whether they want to be or not Frinkahedr0n 14:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Takes place in Lebanon. Name of a country in the name of a war/crisis/whatever doesn't always mean it has anything to do with the government and should not imply that government's position one way or another.--Paraphelion 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose the "Hezbollah" part, Support the "Conflict" part. In fact, I think I'm going to be bold ... Cyde↔Weys 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose; total fucking weasel words. The article should be titled "2006 Israel-Lebanon War". This is as outrageous as the continual use, here as elsewhere, of the euphemism "enter": IDF soldiers apparently "enter" Lebanon, with the same kind of ease one enters a room in one's house, as another commentator has pointed out. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until the rest of the world calls it a war or if war is actually declared, we can't go that far, as much as I agree with you. Frinkahedr0n 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far as that goes, both Israel and Hezbollah have virtually declared all-out war. As you know, no state (or even other non-state entity) now bothers with the formality of "declaring war", a musty, dusty, quaint pre-20th century ritual that apparently gets in the way of a modern state's bloodlust. So I think we must judge for ourselves in this case, as a formal declaration of war may never happen. (Judiciously, of course.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree with the sentiment, but that is not our job. If there is an article about why this war is not being called a war, that might be appropriate for inclusion in this entry.--Paraphelion 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shit or get off the pot. We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus, not parrot whatever consensus was achieved at Israel or Hezbollah's Ministry of Agitprop, as mangled^H^H^H^H reported by CNN. Given the scale, ferocity, and the results, war is the only honest characterization of the event. Do the missiles land softer in a "conflict"? Is the RDX more powerful in a "war"? mdf 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:RS and WP:OR. We are not in the business of making the news, only reporting on it and summarizing it. Until it is commonly being referred to as a war I think we should defer to conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. And here I was recently reading Qana shelling, where the most common external reference to the event is the "Qana massacre" -- for blindingly obvious reasons -- but somehow, against all of the assumed reliable and previously published sources, the official Wikipedia moniker of the event was watered down to "shelling" for reasons of "concensus". Or was that political propriety? I guess it doesn't matter. While I am a huge believer in common sense -- to the point that it trumps even Wikipedia policy -- I'll switch my "vote" from "war" to whatever Israel or Hezbollah say this business is at the current time. "Operation Change of Direction" was it? mdf 20:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'massacre' is POV. That aside, the Qana article mentions in the text that it is commonly called a massacre. UOSSReiska 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106 dead civilians is also a POV. The central issue to these debates is which POV gets to be called "neutral" and thus expressed at Wikipedia. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the two POVs both have significantly differing information, we mention both and note that it's disputed? UOSSReiska 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose: Israel attacked Lebanon. Hezbollah is the causus belli, but Israel is in Lebanon. (I have no opinion of conflict vs. crisis). TheronJ 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to come up with "our" concensus based on all reputable sources out there that we can find. Coming up with a concensus that is not expressed by any reputable source is where original research and op-ed begins. We are closer to parrots than anything else, and if that does not sit well with you, you might do well to start a blog.--Paraphelion 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet all reputable sources and reports strongly suggest that the word "war" is an accurate one-word summary of the events in Lebanon and Israel. mdf 12:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, then you should have no trouble finding at least a half dozen reputable sources calling this conflict a war, verbatim.--Paraphelion 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose: Let us not forget that we are not here to analyse current events - the title of this article should reflect what it is known as in the wider world. Period. We mustn't forget the basics: No original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. TewfikTalk 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Hezbollah are a militant group that exist in Lebanon. All attacks on civilian, military, Hezbollah targets are therefore on Lebanese territory and hence the violation of Lebanon's sovereignty is instrumental to Israel's aims. This is surely the more significant aspect of the conflict which is why its too narrow to restrict the title to just Hezbollah. 16:32 18 July 2006 (BA)
  3. Oppose Hezbollah and support most of the comments above. Had Hezbollah and southern Lebanon been Israel's only target, then I could see this as a conflict solely with them. However, Lebanon as a whole has been a target, including the airport, major roads, ports, and other infrastructure not directly owned or controlled by Hezbollah (regardless of the possibiliity that Hezbollah might use these locations for its own purposes). --petes5266 10:25pm, 18 July 2006
  4. Oppose Lebanon is under constant attack and there are barely any Hezbollah casualties. This is a war against the Lebanese people. ArmanJan 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Total Fucking X-Treme Penetrative Oppose, Obscene Edition it's edgy to curse when you're voting. My reasons are given in above discussion.--Paraphelion 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose "Lebanon" describes the locality, and Hezbollah is a component of Lebanese society and the Lebanese government. Fishhead64 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose. It's clearly not an offensive against Hezbollah or against muslims since many christian areas have been hit (Jounieh, Jbeil, Amsheet, Sannine, Marjayoun, Ras Baalbeck and more...) CG 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the Combatants

Earlier discussions

Iran a Combatant?

We have been debating this already, but today there was a big development in this story. Ehud Olmert himself proclaimed that Iran had organized the kidnapping of the two Iraeli soldiers.[1]. I have moved the old debate about Iran up to this section. Let the debate begin.

Olmert claims Hezbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers was timed by Iran to deflect attention from its nuclear program. Bush says Syria is to blame, they're trying to get back into Lebanon.[2] On the current evidence we should add neither nation as combatants, unless we create a new category for proxies, and add the US to that as well.Karldoh 04:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karldoh makes a good point. I agree at this point that we should refrain from adding Iran to the article. A reader who is persuing the root causes of the current conflict will undoubtably read articles that outline the connections between the various actors in the Arab - Israeli conflict. Speculating, which is what I believe it is at this point, in not in best interest of readers. I believe that stating in the article that Iran stands accused by Israel, Syria by the United States, and the US by Hezbollah (and others) of being involved (either directly or by proxy) may be a good neutral stance until there are more developments in this area. This is an area that could see rapid change so I think that keeping the discussion regarding this issue going is benificial. rex 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the current evidence, Iran should definately be added as a combatant, although not Syria. Hizbollah is Iranian proxy in the conflict, receiving funding and weapons, and many Hizbollah fighters are Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops. There is strong circumstantial evidence that Olmert was right that it is an Iranian diversion during the G8 summit which had Iran at the top of its agenda. This is a tactic used very often by Hamas and Islamic Jihad during the peace process -- whenever a high profile peace meeting was held, the day before or morning of the meeting it would be guaranteed there would be a suicide bombing in Israel, and the meeting would be defocused and the lose condusive atmosphere for peace.Darianb
Unless Iran is directly involved in the conflict, it should not be considered a combatant. Yes, Iran does sponsor and support Hizbollah very much, but that goes for the United States supporting Israel as well. Israel is given weapons and money by America just as Hizbollah is given weapons and money by Iran. If Iran is to be considered a combatant, so should America.
I do not see any reason not to include Iran as a combatant. It is well known that Iran supplies Hezbollah with weaponry and training. Also, several sources have stated that upwards of 300 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Troops are actively involved in the conflict. The only debate should be whether Syria is listed.
By that logic should we not also add the United States? Israel is a Major non-NATO ally, receives funding, and receives weapons from the United States. I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence that the United States and Israel have shared intelligence information. And there is evidence that the United States has influenced Israeli policy. rex 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that iran should be added as a combatant. After all the conflict they have encountered, they have no reason to intervene with palastanian/israili/lebanese affairs. The kidnappings dont correlate with iranian interests, therefore iran could possibly not have anything to do with the kidnapped israili soldiers. AR


Neither Iran nor Syria should be added, since there is no evidence that they are combatants. When they say that they declare war, or when an Iranian officer in Lebanon is interviewed on TV, then we could add them. Before that happens, adding them would just make Wikipedia seem unprofessional.--Battra 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Iran should be added, at least not directly. For guidance, see Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where the "Combatants" are the rebels, though it informs the reader that the U.S. supplied them. Perhaps a similar compromise? Zenosparadox 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that compromise. Good example. -Preposterous 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too will support that compromise. TewfikTalk 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support this compromise. I have seen sources that directly say Iran/Syria is supporting Hammas, but also sources that merely say that US/Israel claim that Iran/Syria support Hamas. If you can express that they are just claims rather than present them as absolute fact, that would be fine, but I doubt the infobox will fit all that. Alternatively if one can find a source citing credible evidence about US/Israel's claims, that would be good too. I myself am "pretty sure" that Hezbollah is supplied by Iran and Syria, not having seen a piece of direct evidence or even a statement about direct evidence - i.e., someone capturing Iran smuggling arms to Hezbollah. There used to be mentioned in the Hezbollah section of this page, however it has since been removed. I would be for adding this back. I do not know the circumstances of the US support for rebels in Afghanistan, but I did notice that there is no citation for it. Consider also who gives aid to Israel in direct arms or money used directly for arms, yet somehow no one wants to see those countries named?--Paraphelion 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to add Iran, we might as well add every country supporting Israel. If Iran actually gets involved with their own current troops, then we can add them. - 216.106.107.43 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add Iran and Syria for Hezbollah, and add the United States for Israel. Following precedent set by soviet_invasion_of_afghanistan, except have "supported by nations such as" clause on both sides. -Preposterous 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is NOT a combatant. Iran only stated that they would support Syria if Syria would get attacked by Israel. --Deenoe 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to some sources Iran has 100 military advisors in Libanon to help Hezbollah. Having boots on the ground makes you a combatant. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2195665

Discussion about POV

Earlier discussions

  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3#Discussion about POV
    • Discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped" or "abducted". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term than kidnapping. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Discussion about the captured soldiers for a similar discussion. No consensus was reached about "captured" vs. "abducted".
    • Discussion about whether or not to mention "Israeli war crimes".
    • Discussion about whether to call Hezbollah militants or terrorists. Preference for militants (except when using quotes).
    • Discussion about UNSC 1599.
    • Discussion about "who started this crisis"
    • Discussion about the expression "political rhetoric".

Bias in the historical background section

This part of the article is both biased and factually incorrect (and I haven't even looked at the rest of the article yet). It states that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 (Operation Litani) and left "mostly" in 2000. Here are my problems with this presentation:

1. As anyone can see from the entry on Operation Litani, Israel withdrew shortly afterwards, and returned to Lebanon only in 1982. This presentation makes it appear as if there was constant Israeli occupation in Lebanon from 1978 to 2000 (oops, I forgot "mostly").

2. Amazingly enough, only a paragraph later Israel suddenly invades again in 1982, even though it had apparently never left in the first place in the intervening years! Marvelous peace of logic, that.

3. No mention is made that at the end of the 1980's Lebanon War Israel withdrew from all of Lebanon except for the Security Zone. Once again this omission makes it appear as if the Israeli occupation was full and constant, whereas in reality most of the Lebanese territory was returned long before 2000.

4. What is "mostly" supposed to mean, anyway? I assume it refers to the "Shebaa Farms" deal. Need I state that the UN had determined it occupied Syrian territory, not Lebanese? Why is it even brought up without any context?

  • According to the section on Israel in CIA - The World Factbook, Lebanon have claimed Shebaa Farms since 1948 ??. UN appears to have a different opinion, possibly based on ignorant French cartographers mistakes back in the 1920's. MX44 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither the CIA Factbook article for Israel (to which you linked) or for Lebanon say what you've written above. Check the Shabaa Farms article for more details on the history of its status (Lebanon ceded it to Syria in the '60s, since Syria has never backed Lebanon's claim and asserted full rights, an assertion backed by the UN). Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhmm ... Both of those sections lists the area as disputed, claimed by Lebanon. Given the source I think it can safely be considered an indisputeable fact that the area is disputed. MX44 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They do not say that Lebanon has claimed them since 1948, as you claimed. Furthermore, if you read the Shebaa Farms article and its sources, you would see that 1948 has no relevance to the place (it was not under Israeli control until 1967). Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see that section of the page for a discussion on the matter. I've found some UN resolutions that could clarify that. Tamuz (Talk) 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about the '48 claim, the CIA page is kind of busy. I did an overstrike and replaced it with '??'. Anyway, If you look at the grandious map of what Syria believes should belong to them, you will understand why Syria considers this a non-issue and why they refuse to lay out any agreements of borders (with anybody!) The locals appear to have considered this area as belonging to the town of Sheebaa since ... since always? Not worth fighting for though, and definately not on this scale. MX44 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Why are the Qana shelling and the Sabra-Shatilla massacres haphazardly tossed in? Are they relevant to this current conflict, or is this just a reminder to readers how nasty and evil those Israelis are? Shouldn't there be a parallel list of atrocities committed against Israeli civilians by Palestinians based in Lebanon at the time, and earlier (such as the Maalot Massacre, for example)?

6. If this section is going to do a tally of Israeli-Lebanese invasions, shouldn't it also mention the Lebanese invasion of Israel in 1948 (along with six other Arab nations), instead of the oblique reference to the 1948 war? Or would that spoil the nice picture of Israeli aggression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naughtius Maximus (talk • contribs)

Mistakes happen and sometimes information is overlooked. That's not necessarily on purpose, and by the way, there are some who claim that this article is biased in favor of Israel. It is possible that whoever wrote that part wasn't aware or did not have sufficient knowledge on the subjects you mentioned. You seem to have extensive knowledge on the subject, so you are more than welcome to fix that section. Bare in mind that it is very difficult to write an article on a subject like this with a complete NPOV. Oh, by the way, I'm Israeli. Tamuz 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user is rewriting this section from the version of the last few days, without discusion in the talk pages. I am reverting the changes to the last good version available. I asked him to stop. See history.--Cerejota 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background was biased and uninformative until I changed it. The changes I made to this section clear up the bias in it which is displayed by only citing Israeli aggressions, and provide more detailed background about each conflict.

There is no reasonable argument why my changes should be reverted back to the biased "Israel has invaded Lebanon twice before" version. --BillyTFried 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over it again, Cerejota may be correct in that it is difficult to have all the details there in that section. However, the prior version is clearly both biased and uninformative. Possibly some of the details, like a comment about the cause for the Israeli motivations? JoshuaZ 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am open to further edits if others think there is too much info there, but I won't accept a revert back to the biased version it was before I changed it. --BillyTFried 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following before reading yours, JoshuaZ
Why is it biased? I dont think so and for days people havent thought so, in spite of contentious editing all over the place.
Yours is too long, complicates the article, goes too far back in time, and there are not one but TWO template/infoboxes on the Arab-Israeli COnflict on the page, which to any person with a third of a brain should suffice to satisfy any need on clarity and/or depth in historical background and current events not directly related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
Furthermore, you started your edits without first discussing it in this page, which considering the prominent POV Check and Controversial tags (which are there for a reason) shoudln't have let you to belive that it might be a good idea to discuss a major change before doing it.
This is a major breach of ettiquette and you cant possibly expect people to just sit there and watch as you destroy hard to build consensus.
If you are concerned about POV, please discuss it, and I am sure we can workout something short, simple, and not article size breaking.
--Cerejota 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not open to further edits and oh by the way there are no resonable arguments for there being any further edits. Just kidding, I just wanted to see what it was like to use that line of reasoning. Or lack of reasoning would be a better term.--Paraphelion 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now lets work it then, what is your concerns on the specifics? I mean, there ARE mossad agents, israeli reservists, and all others kinds of pro-Israeli POV editors who seem to have overlooked this, so I am all ears...--Cerejota 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your version was CLEARY biased. Do you really want to waste everyone's time trying to argue that it wasn't or would you rather focus on the argument that my far more informative and unbiased version which got all it's info from other established Wiki articles may be a bit too much info. Which is it? --BillyTFried 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove anything that was pertinent to the article. I only added info that made it more informative and less biased.
Please state which parts you feel are inappropriate, or what info you feel I removed that shouldn't have been --BillyTFried 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, it wasnt my version. It was the version in the article for ages. Second, I haven't wasted anyone's time. I simply assume that if people from both sides of the POV didnt botter thinking it was POV, then it wasnt POV. You just dont waltz in, declare THIS POV and then play g_d/god/allah. Now, could you explain why the version before your edits is POV? I dont think it is, but I am open to have my eyes shown the truth. BTW, wikipedia ITSELF is not considered WP:RS so please have this in mind.--Cerejota 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont reply soon I am reverting to the original section, until a discusion can be had.--Cerejota 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hold on there, I think I have mastered BillyTFried's argumentation style and feel I can fill in for him at this time : You have no rational arguments to make and my actions are above questioning.. oh right any discussion with you is a waste of time. Do you want to waste everyone's time? You wouldn't want to do that would you? Then the terrorists have won. You wouldn't want them to win? Are you going to say you want the terrorists to win?
There, how was that? I think I got it down pretty well.--Paraphelion 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't have the right to revert all of my work because 90% of it was VALID ADDITIONS and not removals of info already there. DO NOT remove ANY of my additions unless YOU have valid reasons.

Second, I have already stated why the original version was biased. Because it only named Israeli aggressions, and never gave what their reason for such actions. Do I really need to pick the entire thing apart and point out every single example of that when it was so obvious to anyone who read it? It that good use of both of our time? Do you really think that section has been damaged by my additions? --BillyTFried 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphelion, unless you have anything constructive to add, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself and focus on making this a great article. In the meantime you may want to review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Civility and try not to make any more personal attacks. --BillyTFried 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what changes you specifically made and I probably don't have any problems with them. I just find that your telling people that your actions are above questioning and telling people discussion is a waste of time is not productive, is not civil and that you're a dick.--Paraphelion 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BillyTFried: you started with the insults right of the bat. Of you give pain expect some in return. Its what people call, well, being normal. As to the thing at hand, your rewrite is too long, POV, redundant, and mostly souced by wikipedia which is not WP:RS. Will be editing accordingly, not reverting because it seems there is consensus that the previous was POV.--Cerejota 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote me where I insulted anyone or admit that you made that up --BillyTFried 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged targeting of civilians"

I've noticed that all mentions of the continued bombing on Israel - which are still taking place - were removed (except for half-a-sentence in the Casualties section), while on the other hand the section Alleged Targeting of civilians was added. To balance the article, I believe that the bombings on both sides should be noted, as they are unquestionably an integral part of the conflict. Tamuz (Talk) 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. also, no mention of the shelling of Israel is mentioned in the intro, making it look like the only offnesive move by Hezbullah was the initial attack. 217.132.255.161 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now my short edition, adding a little about Hez' attacks was removed! What is this???? 217.132.255.161 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now it's returned. I think this should be elaborated. 217.132.255.161 16:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" targeting of civilians. Why "alleged" Israel DID kill 300 civilians and DID target civilian infrastructure. Robin Hood 1212 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they claim it was because Hezbollah placed its facilities in population centers. This is a known tactic, not just something made-up from thin air, so as long as this claim isn't proven-beyond-doubt to be a lie, we should keep stating that it is unclear whether or not they intended to hit civilians. Tamuz (Talk) 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged targeting of civilians" I feel that parts of this section is aimed at making Israel look bad. While I agree with most of the points made, and i think that Israel indeed is looking very bad, this section is not NPOV. Sentences like this, which states that Israel is purposefully targeting civilians, using weasel words "It has been suggested that the intent of Israel's purposeful strategy of targeting civilians is to simultaneously weaken structural and political support with Lebanon for Hezbollah", or this one, "In one example characterized to be a striking violation of the Geneva conventions" is certainly not improving the article. Rewrite! Mlrts 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for thinking along, but please make some suggestions for rewording.
I just zapped the last few sentences of that paragraph for failure to cite. Reading the remainder makes me think the whole paragraph should be dumped in the crapper, but perhaps someone can rearrange it better than I. mdf 13:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section is problematic, both from a POV point of view and from an encyclopedic point of view. First of all, it should be divided into two section, onw detailing (alleged) attacks on civilians by Israel and one - (alleged) attacks by Hezbullah. Also, as most of the section is quotes, we should see which of them add anything to the understanding of the allegations, and delete the rest, which are just plain repetition. Also, Israel's claims for the reasons for the attacks on civilian infrastructure, and other civilian targets must be included. I am willing to do so, if needed. 217.132.255.161 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments is mine M. Butterfly 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since my edits got reverted, I will try to do it another way. Here is the section in question, and I will add my comments and questions on it:

"...because Hezbollah placed its facilities in population centers". Yes of course. Hizballah fighters were hiding on the runway of Beirut airport, under bridges, and inside oil tanks..... Israel has been using collective punishment for 50 years, why think this is any different? 86.17.246.75 00:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged targeting of civilians

/// I believe this should be divided into two sections, according to each side/// Strikes on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are alleged to include Beirut airport, ports, grain silos, bridges, roads, factories, medical and relief trucks, and the country's largest dairy farm Liban Lait.[1][citation needed] In one instance, according to Lebanese reports, families evacuating the village of Marwahin in South Lebanon were struck on an open road by an Israeli missile attack; 13 or 18 were killed, some of them women and children.[2][3] Human Rights Watch called for an investigation into this incident: “The IDF needs to investigate this attack on a civilian convoy and provide more details about the circumstances … Having warned civilians to evacuate their village, Israeli forces should have been aware that civilians would be using this road and should have taken great care to avoid harming them.”[4] /// The IDF actually apologized for this incident - we should note this///

///This section is about Hezbollah attacks, but instead of starting with the attacks themselves, it starts with Nassrallahh's apologetics, and the first phrase is completely POV and misleading. And all this when there is not one Israeli response to the allegations in the entire section!!!/// After widespread attacks on Lebanon by Israeli forces, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said "In the beginning, we started to act calmly, we focused on "Israel" (sic) military bases and we didn't attack any settlement, However, since the first day, the enemy attacked Lebanese towns and murdered civilians... Hizbullah militants had destroyed military bases, while the "Israelis" killed civilians and targeted Lebanon's infrastructure."[5] Artillery rockets by Hezbollah were fired at civilian targets throughout the conflict, landing in all major cities of northern Israel including Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberias, Nahariya and Safed.[6]

Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights, expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory." She called for Israel to obey a "principle of proportionality." She also suggested that actions on both sides may be war crimes, telling the BBC that "indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians … Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable." [3][4] [5] The UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland has said that one third of the dead are children.[7] ///I think there were UN official condemning the Hezbullah - why are they not here?///

On 16 July Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said Israeli forces have used "phosphorus incendiary bombs, which are a blatant violation of international laws, ...against Lebanese civilians."[8][9][10] Information Minister Ghazi Aridi also said, "Israel is using internationally prohibited weapons against civilians."[8][9][11] The use of incendiary weapons on civilians is prohibited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.[12] ///These claims have been unsubstatiated by anyone, and are coming from people who are obviously biased. yet no mention is made of that, and we are left to assume this as fact///

Some military analysts ///Weasel Words/// have said that Israel is intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure. James Dobbins, head military analyst for the Rand Corporation said he believes: "The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," [6] ///He says that on targeting civilian *infrastructure* and not on "intentionally targeting civilians". There is a difference, so Dobbins is not saying what is claimed in the first sentence////

Human Rights Watch stated on 18 July that "Hezbollah's attacks [on Haifa] were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." [13] ///This should be added to the part about Hezbullah attacks///

Amnesty International condemned both parties and called for UN intervention, stating: "The past few days has seen a horrendous escalation in attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Yet the G8 leaders have failed conspicuously to uphold their moral and legal obligation to address such blatant breaches of international humanitarian law, which in some cases have amounted to war crimes."[14]


It is preposterous to think that attacking ~1500 targets which results in ~200 civilian casualties is targetting of civilians. A better description would be extreme care in avoiding civilian casualties. Please bear in mind that each attack typically destroys everything within a few hundred feet radius. Also please bear in mind that Hezbollah has situated most of their facilities right in the middle of residential areas as a deliberate strategy. Israel has done a lot better than might be expected, mainly because they warn civilian populations to leave the areas they are about to attack well ahead of time. ObsidianOrder 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also preposterous that one side using state of the art equipment has killed an order of magnitude more civilians than the other side which has poor equipment firing randomly at towns and cities. Also others have said Hezbollah have fired 1500 or so rockets. Please bear in mind firing into a crowd of people, killing 20, to terminate one person that you are after doesn't excuse you for murder in most civilized nations.--Paraphelion 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Israel hasn't been using state-of-the-art equipment, they're still using the older model M109 Howitzers, compared to the latest model developed by the U.S., the Paladin, which actually has guided artillery rounds. And you need to understand ... these casualty numbers aren't unreasonable. Bombs and artillery are made for killing people and destroying targets, not minimizing casualties. I don't think there's any evidence that Israel is intentionally trying to kill civilians. Saying something like that just betrays an ideological demonization of Israel. --Cyde↔Weys 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parahelion - did you get anything of what I said? Most Israeli attacks kill no (zero, 0) civilians. If, as you claim, they were deliberately targetting civilians, they are doing a very poor job of it. There are many places they could target in which a single similar attack would kill a few hundred. True, Israel is targetting some Hezbollah instalations in the middle of civilian residential areas. But they try to get everyone to leave first, hence the low casualties. The target is not the civilians, it is Hezbollah, which is a legitimate military target considering they have fired thousands of rounds into Israel before this. ObsidianOrder 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the section title change at least. I have not read anything saying that most Israeli attacks kill no civilians, but if that is so and there is some credible source, it should go in the article. I'm not saying I believe Israel is targetting civilians, but at this point I haven't seem much to rule it out, considering that officials have threatened to put Lebanon 20 years back, which is only slightly more civil than Hezbollah's call for the destruction of Israel.--Paraphelion 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IDF attacked 1500 targets as of 07/20 [7]. There were ~300 civilian casualties reported by the Lebanese government as of that date. If each casualty resulted from a different attack (and it doesn't), there still must be at least 1200 attacks which had zero casualties. That can reaonably be described as "most attacks kill no civilians". ObsidianOrder 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is an understandable way to look at it. I am not totally convinced it is true because I don't think most of these numbers are accurate, given how many people are supposedly displaced and damage to infrastructure. I'm not sure if such a calculation is original research or not, but I think the numbers are reliable enough to suggest that 1200 attacks have zero casualties, rather than saying for sure that is true. I admit I am getting a little mixed up with debating the issue rather than the sources.. but basically what I think we have is a good number of sources saying that Hezbollah is targeting civilians or probably targeting civilians, and on the Israeli side, it is more of the issue that there is enough doubt that it should not be ruled out. Actually I now am not sure what you and others here are arguing should be done - if it's for a subsection for each side's targets in civilian areas or however it is going to be phrased, I don't see anything wrong with that.--Paraphelion 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes?

Link to Israeli war crimes. I think that the link to Israeli war crimes should be deleted. That article is currently up for deletion via AfD, the vote so far is 23 delete 2 keep. When 96% of editors think that an article should be deleted on the grounds that it is a POV fork, we should not link to it in other articles. GabrielF 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes category. Until it is proven, agreed and established by the UN or some international court of law that war crimes were commited during the events, I have removed this article from Category:War crimes. Tamuz (Talk) 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that war crimes don't belong in the introduction of the piece. This is supposed to be a balanced article, stating facts, not suppositions, kind of how it was 10 hours ago - before sections of "targeting civilians" and "war crimes." Where do you think the Katyusha rockets are aimed? Civilian population centers. I think we should stick to events, not accusations. -Preposterous 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The war-crimes allegations should not appear in the introduction, though they should be mentioned later on. Tamuz (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If you add this article you'd also have to add every other conflict in human history since allegations of war crimes have been made in all of them. In that case the category would become meaningless. Lets save the war crimes category for articles where there is solid evidence of war crimes. GabrielF 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes. 300 civilians died. Israeli forces bombing houses on purpose. Israel blocking humanitarian aid. Survining civilians with their view: Terrible bombing and shoting on the night. It is 100% war crimes. Killerman2 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but jewpedia Wikipedia dosen't really care. After all these people are "islamic terrorists". --Werto 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not pro jewish- its the Encyclopedia of the people, and as far as I know Arabs are people too.

Too bad your Islamic laws are strict, maybe if you were more open as a society you would use the internet more and then your voices will be heard. I also think you should be aware that your insults are pointed at a very general direction; not all jews are pro Israel- there are many different voices, also inside Israel I for one am against the Israeli occupation and I live IN Israel. So don't write things like jewpedia, arabpedia or Allahpedia if you ever want peace between our people. 

 Who said Islam forbids the use of the Web? I know a lot of Muslims who do so. Robin Hood 1212 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may post quotes of people saying that these are war crimes, you may put links to articles that call it a war crime, you can write the facts as they happened and let the readers decide if it's a war crime. Really, you can do all of that, I won't stop you and I will defend your right to do this. But you cannot just say that war crimes were committed, as neither the UN nor any court of international law has decided that this is the case.
Werto, there is no need for such comments here. You have no reason to state that the English Wikipedia supports Jews. Please concentrate on making the article better and more balanced instead, and assume good faith by all writers here. Thank you, Tamuz (Talk) 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Killerman2 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse NPOV with "must make both sides look equal on everything"

Yes, the English Wikipedia is not neutral. It has a decided Israeli slant. The French wikipedia says the attack on the Israeli Humvee took place at Aita al Chaab, which is clearly in Lebanon. The English wikipedia omits this information. This was not a mistake, as it allows the false claim that the attack took place in Israel. If the English wikipedia makes this claim, then it should provide facts to support this assertion, which is a VERY VERY important detail. I have already posed this question in the main article. I expect to have it omited. Secondly, ONLY on wikipedia have I heard the claim that Hezbollah began firing rockets into Israel BEFORE the soldiers were captured, an astonishing and also false claim that has not been made anywhere else. These two facts leave me with my doubts.

I notice many comments in these discussion pages in the end mean things like "by saying that you make X look worse than Y" or "Y looks worse than X and that's POV".. No. Who says neutral point of view means forced equality? Neutral point of view is closer to being cool and reporting the facts, rather than an operation of making everyone look as bad (or as good) as everyone else. --fs 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but when it comes to an ongoing issue, and one that is controversial worldwide and upon which there is no unanimously-agreed opinion in the international community, then - in my opinion - the only way to keep the article NPOV is by keeping it balanced as well. Tamuz (Talk) 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israel?

I think the 'destruction of Israel' thing is, as long as it remains unverified, too perjorative and biased a claim to include in an NPOV article. At least, you should balance it by stating the fact that Israel has repeatedly called for the destruction of Hezbollah, a claim that can easily be backed up by a plethora of DIRECT quotes from Ehud Olmert to Dan Gillermann. So, once again, the bias of wikipedia on this issue is simply glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.166.77 (talk • contribs)

I see that the statement about Hezbollah's political platform calling for the destruction of Israel has been removed. Isn't that true? I thought the mini-Hezbollah bio reached a good compromise, stating Hezbollah's own view of why it was formed, but also mentioning that it seeks the destruction of Israel, which I think is noteworthy given that they are in a conflict with them. We did have a source for that statement and I gather it would not be hard to find more sources, but they have been removed along with the statement.--Paraphelion 04:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a sources with a more direct statements about Hezbollah's call for the destruction of Israel :
[8] : "Both organizations' charters call for the destruction of Israel." Both in this case is Hamas and Hezbollah. This is an op-ed piece.
[9] : "...Hamas and Hezbollah, terror gangs whose charters call for the destruction of Israel, acting as proxies for Iran..."
It would be nice to be able to link to an English version of the charter itself.--Paraphelion 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that this should be included, and I think I will be WP:Bold and insert "According to the BBC, Hezbollah's political doctrine has consistently called for the destruction of Israel." The sources you have presented will not fly as they are both op-ed style pieces, so the BBC analysis will have to suffice for now. There should be other sources on teh Hezbollah page, though I haven't time to look them up now. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive I might have removed this myself. I think they are worthy of mention in the Hezbollah page, not here. In terms of balance, we would have to discuss the exclusionary Jewish-only establishment of Israel, go into explanations of Zionism, Arabism, etc etc etc. If we star filling out this page with all background information, even relevant one, we will end up with a page about the whole Arab-Israeli Conflict. There are not one, but two templates to deal with the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, with multitudes of links to background information.
For this same reason I removed Hezbollah's flag, which I had originally placed, and are trying to shorten it to a bare intro to point into its main page. Likewise "historical background", or why I suggested and then moved the bulk of the battle info into Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
Do you get my point? I belive the quality of the page is greatly increased if we provide quick info points, lots and lots of internal and external links, and continue to edit the othe 3 directly related page, timeline, military operations, and international reactions.
I think in our preocupation with NPOV, factuality, and all those other concerns, we lost light of quality. I have been guilty of this too, but it doesnt change the fact at all. I think that with the consensus removal of the POV tags, we must move in the direction of quality and viligance, and stop trying to make this article about what it isn't but about what it is...
--Cerejota 05:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being an exclusionary ethno-state is a long way from calling for the destruction of a state, which, and perhaps this is just my opinion, is, among other things, tantamount to calling for the killing of innocent civilians. Israel has called for the destruction of Hezbollah, and that should be in the article too, and would correspond to that statement. And BTW - the article already does have a good amount about the Arab-Israeli conflict in the historical background section. I understand that you removed it to save room, but I think one sentence, as Tewfik has restored is all that is needed, however, I do think it would be optimal to be able to cite the charter directly.--Paraphelion 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tewfik: Explain why do we need an extensive discussion of Hezbollah and its political ideas here, when we have the Hezbollah page for that?--Cerejota 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct about limiting the size, and we do not need extensive discussion. I reinserted one line: "Hezbollah's political doctrine has consistently called for the destruction of Israel." This is among the most pertinent pieces of information about Hezbollah. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have discussed with Tewfik on our talk pages I will try to re-word the other part of the mini Hezbollah bio. We can probably combine the whole thing into 1 sentence :
"Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shi’a Muslim organization primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation and has consistently called for the destruction of Israel.[41]"
Of course anyone else is invited to come up with whatever they like.--Paraphelion 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, all you can come up with is an unverifiable, probably POV BBC article when there must be a primary source, namely Hezbollah itself. If this is so central to their political doctrine, theny would obviously be proud of this. As such I am qualifying the statement as a quote from a BBC report, as a compromise until we can get an english version of Hezbollah's charter. If not it remain unverifiable as a true statement.--Cerejota 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that say basically the same thing. I am looking for something with direct quotes. Your logic that Hezbollah would be proud of this does not make any sense since one could argue there should be something in their charter that they are proud of, yet their charter is not available online, as one would imagine it would be if Hezbollah would publish something online out of pride. We of course do not have source documents for everything; I'm willing to bet 90% of this article is written off of secondary sources like the BBC and those are probably most of the sources you have used, no?--Paraphelion 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are usually a voice of reason even when we differ, but your logic here escapes me. The very reason why one puts something in a Charter is to make it know that this is what one is about.
I cannot phantom how someone would have a Charter they are not proud of, simply because you can ammend it later, if you so wish to, even if with corssed fingers behind your back.
The PLO charter, which DID include the destruction of Israel (or more correctly quoted "the destruction of the Zionist Entity", which was understood by the PLO left-wing as meaning the theocratic Israel, not a secular state with recognition of all religions as equals), was ammended accordingly when the PLO ceased to believe in that after the Oslo Accords.
Its your charter and you do with it as you please. So please, think again about what you just said and admit it doesnt make sense! :D I mean, why would you have a charter in the first place. Makes no sense at all!
One of the things that fascinates me is that not even MEMRI, which does great work translating primary sources from arabic and farsi (albeit unfortunatelly with a heavy POV slant), has this charter translated. Again, since I havent read I cant say, but its lack of existence seems suspect to me.
This "whole destruction of Israel" thing reeks of confusion, and for such a central fact (as Tewik correctly describes it), too little verifiability is available. Yes, precisely because its importance and relevancy, its standard of verifiability should be better than just an analysis (which is a form of op-ed!) in a press organ.
--Cerejota 06:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if it's really true, but thanks for the compliment. Actually you are right, I didn't consider that there might not be a charter at all. There aren't whole lot of articles that talk about the charter, and I think all of them are op-ed. The BBC article we are using does not refer to the charter, but rather to general statements made by Hezbollah leaders/figures - and that we should be able to get more direct quotes. I do suspect that if there is a charter, it is worded not as directly as we would like for simplicity of this article, and that whatever is said, in the charter or quotes by Hezbollah leaders, is open to interpretation. I think looking for a quote by a Hezbollah leader is the best solution, until the charter surfaces, if it exists. A quote will be better because we can quote it instead of relying on interpretation. It would be good if others comment on all of thise please.--Paraphelion 06:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a direct quote from a current Hezbollah leader would be great and would moot questions about charter or anything.--Cerejota 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely sounds relevant ... in fact, if you had to trim down the entire Hezbollah section of this article to just two sentences, I'd still put the whole "destruction of Israel" thing in there. That, and them not being the official government of Lebanon, are the two most important facts about them in relation to this conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a POV article, of course those are the only to two things that matter. But we want an NPOV article.
1) their having the destruction of Israel as central to their politics is not a fact or at least it is a disputed non verifiable fact. Yet I agree that by virtue of it being mentioned in the BBC should be included in a qualified way. Until we dont find the primary source, we cant say for sure.
2) Cant have it both ways. First you dont want this named the Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon conflict, then Hezbollah is illegitimate and not part of Lebanon. Make up your mind people!
3) The fact that Hezbollah has two wings, that the armed wing has a name, and that it has the explicit support of nearly 30% of the electorate in Lebanon are also relevant facts to this conflict. Also relevant is that they are part of the current Lebanese government.
Other than that, there is a Hezbollah page, where further information can and is made available.
--Cerejota 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me rephrase. All I was saying is that it's important to note that Hezbollah is not Lebanon. The conflict is between Hezbollah and Israel, but the fighting is taking place in Lebanon and the majority of the casualties are Lebanese. Wars are typically named by the countries involved, not the names of the factions involved. I'm not trying to have it both ways by saying that Hezbollah is not the same as Lebanon but that the article should also be named Lebanon rather than Hezbollah. --Cyde↔Weys 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, maybe a short note in the introduction? Something like "The conflcit has mainly enaged the military forces of Hezbollah and Israel, but has been fought by both sides in Lebanese territory." Or something like that? But this is beyond the discussion on Hezbollah itself...--Cerejota 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas all calling for Israel to be destroyed. Israel call for terrorist to be destroyed, its acceptable, terrorists are a group without civilians. But not for a terrorist to call for the destruction of a country, this will mean many civilian casualties, and terrorist don't care. There is no bias, it is a fact. 69.109.166.77 is taking Hezbollah to be a country? For heaven's sake, its a banned terrorist organisation under the UN charter! --Terrancommander 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Targets in civilian areas" vs. "Civilian targets" and "Targeting of civilians"

I think "targets in civilian areas" is a more NPOV discription. Reasons: (1) Israel denies it is deliberately targeting civilians. Rather it claims that it is targeting Hezbollah targets, which are hidden in civilian areas. This can be the case or not, but assuming Israel deliberately aims at hitting civilians without any military purpose is POV and OR. "Targets in civilian areas" leaves it to the reader or the future to decide what the purpose of these attacks was. At the same time this proposed title emphasizes that most casualties are civilians (including civilian infrastructure). (2) Hezbollah attacks are on civilian areas, though there seems to be at least some doubt whether Hezbollah (only) wants to hit civilian targets. Therefore "Targets in civilian areas" is also a better term for this conflict party. Sijo Ripa 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those titles are useful or appropriate. Think about it this way: any title that includes the word "target" in it assumes a certain amount of mind-reading, or special knowledge of (Israeli) military operations which, I'm guessing, no contributor here has. After the fact, of course, it may be revealed that Israel did or did not target civilians or non-military assets, but there's really no way to know that with certainty now.
What I'd propose is simply using the rubric "Civilian casualties"; verified deaths, injuries or destruction of buildings, etc., can be included under this heading. It may be boring and canonical, but it's still useful. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Civilian casualties" is fine for me. Thank you for pointing that out, ILike2BeAnonymous. Sijo Ripa 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've written that and looked back at the article, I'm not so sure: after all, the bombing of grain silos, civilian fuel storage depots, hospitals for chrissakes, does look a lot like targeting to me, and one doesn't need a crystal ball or IDF security clearance to call this particular spade a fucking shovel. So I'm now agnostic on the issue. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Israel denies it and that there is no media consensus about Hezbollah's intentions. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to make own conclusions. I'm also fine with "targeting of civilians?" (the emphasis on the "?"). We just cannot claim to be sure. Sijo Ripa 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should leave Hezbollah out of this particular equation, simply because they're not capable of "targeting" anything (cf. the discussion of missiles, w/guidance systems, vs. rockets, with none.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section title "Targeting of Civilian Areas" is NPOV. I might prefer "Targeting of Civilians", since that is what the section is really about and thoroughly documented with cited news reports and eyewitness accounts. However, there are also well documented attacks on the infrastructure as well, and this is covered by adding "Areas." The change to "Civilian Casualties" whitewashes the content and is POV. And anyone reading the news reports and says that we cannot claim to be sure is using the fallacy Argument from ignorance. AdamKesher 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward your arguments. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, AdamKesher. The title "Civilian casualties" was based on ILike2BeAnonymous's suggestions. The news reports don't say Israel/Hezbollah target civilian areas, they say Israel/Hezbollah hit civilian areas for whatever reason. Targeting implies that Israel/Hezbollah wants to hit as many civilians as possible, which is not the same as Israel/Hezbollah kills and injures many civilians. I can live with the title "Hitting civilian areas" or "Targeting of civilian areas?". Sijo Ripa 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or re-formulated: "Targeting" seems to imply that Israel/Hezbollah hit these areas because these areas are civilian, while there are possibly ulterior motives for these attacks. "Hitting" does not state the reason for the result of the damaged infrastructure and killed/injured civilians. Sijo Ripa 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I was editing while you were replying:) see the above difference between targeting and hitting. A subtle but important difference. E.g., Israel denies it is hitting civilian infrastructure because it is civilian - it claims to target hidden Hezbollah militants/infrastructure. So we are not sure what they are targeting - civilians or Hezbollah's? We do know what they hit however. Sijo Ripa 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. That is what the section includes: an analysis of why each side would want to target, thereby hit and kill, civilians. Hezbollah wants to terrorize Israel and assert its military capability in the region at a time Israel is dealing with problems in Gaza. Israel, it is said, would like to targets civilians to both weaken Hezbollah and to force a conflict between Lebanon and Hezbollah, the result of which would either eliminate or weaken Hezbollah—just like they did so successfully between Jordan and the PLO. If anyone has alternative, reasonable, and cited analysis, they should post it to strengthen the article. But the the targeting of civilians is an undisputed and central part of the conflict, for both sides. AdamKesher 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question the content of the section, I merely think that the title is inappropriate/misleading as it seems to suggest what the targets are, something that the section doesn't claim to know. The hitting of civilians is undisputed, but it is not undisputed that the conflict actors deliberately want to hit civilians. Sijo Ripa 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, so the section should include a cited assertion from the IDF that they're not targeting civilians—those are easy enough to find. But both sides are most definitely targeting civilian areas, hence the natural choice of the title Targeting of Civilian Areas for a section describing the targeting of civilian areas. AdamKesher 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith, but I'd like to get to the good logic part. Hezbollah launches hundreds of rockets at Israeli cities. How could anyone say, categorically, that they're not targetting civilians or civilian areas(!) Likewise for Israel: fleeing families of civilians on open roads are being hit directly with missile fire from the air. Hospitals, factories, and aid convoys have likewise been hit. Who will say that this is not the targeting of civilians? Are you saying that you're unsure about this? AdamKesher 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to boldly strike out and change this heading, when I looked at the article and found it currently says "Attacks on civilian areas". Seems like a good compromise that doesn't weasel out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was better, I will implement it. ObsidianOrder 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing about this: I repeat my suggestions to splitting this section into a part about attacks by Israel and into a part about attacks by Hizbullah. each part should include, in this order: 1. A summary of the attacks themselves, and their effects (in the Hezbullah attacks part, it should include the section now titled "Hezbullah rocket campaign"); 2. commentary about how these attacks are targeting civilians, 3. Claims of use of illegal weapons 4. apologetics by the attackers (Israeli army saying they shoot at Hiz, Nasrallah's claim that he is shooting at infrastructure). Anything that does not fall under these headings should be removed somewhere else (like the UN post that was hit, which is *not* civilians). This would make it both more organised and less POV M. Butterfly 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV article

This article is only getting more and more POV. I am getting really tired of adding comments in the talk page and cited addition in the article, only to see my addition reverted and my comments either unanswered or deleted. The big reason is that for some reason, Israel's attacks are under the neading "attacks on civilian ares", while Hiz' attacks are under "Hezbullah Rocket Campaign", while in reality, Hezbullah attacks are on civilian areas (you can't really refute that) and actually almost everyone in Israel and many Americans claim that they are deliberate attacks on civilians. In addition, while the section on the Hezbullah attack is written in clean, 'military' language, and no mention is made of tragedies such as the two Arab children killed in Nazareth, the section on the attacks made by Israel goes into detail, telling of specific events and using words like "mass grave" and "massacre". Also, while unsubstantiated claims by Lebanese sources as to the use of illrgal weapons are in the article and even get highlighted, the following (cited) claim, added by me, was reverted without explanation:

Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav told VOA that among the rockets that have hit Haifa are some clearly designed to cause massive civilian casualties. "The specialty of these rockets is that they contain thousands of metal bullets which are going to be spread around when the rocket hits the ground," he said. "In this respect, it has the same effect as the belt of a suicide bomber." [10]

This is exactly the same kind of claim, made by one od the fighting forces. Wither both this and Lahoud's comments are relevant, or not; any other option is blatant POV. M. Butterfly 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Effects on oil price

It seems this crisis/war is driving up the price of oil. According to Radio NZ at least.

¿Why? Neither Israel or Lebanon have oil to speak of.Cameron Nedland 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR, but I'd imagine that it'd be affecting oil prices because: 1) International uncertainty tends to do it, and 2) Oil companies in the region are probably nervous about their tankers being messed with by Israeli or Hezbollah forces? UOSSReiska 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for oil prices being driven up is not from Lebanon and Israel having any substantial oil reserves, but rather from investors being nervous about another war the USA could be dragged into, bringing the economy and consumer confidence down with it. If the Middle East destabilizes, the world's primary source of oil is then in jeopardy. If it is cut OFF, we're back in 1979, with oil past $120 per barrel (adjusted to 2006 dollars and inflation), long line-ups, queuing, even rationing. The main underlying fears are that Syria, Iraq, the USA, and Iran are pulled into this, making it an international and regional affair. Most people agree that this may very well happen, if Hezbollah does not stand down. Of course, destroying Beirut's port and airport so people can't flee isn't exactly logical if Israel "is not at war with Lebanon, its people, or its army". Now, there are already concerns that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad may target oil tankers, either to further destabilize the region in copycat attacks, or to divert attention from Lebanon, in more coordinated attacks. For this reason, i wonder... who would send an oil tanker(s) through a war-zone? and since this conflict began, i saw oil rise from 0.92 Canadian Dollars per litre (2.87 US Per gallon), to roughly 1.08 Canadian Dollars per Litre (3.09 US per gallon).
If you thought the constant suicide bombings from 2000 to 2003 were horrible, this may be preparing us for "World War Three", as Newt Gingrich told NBC News this evening (Courtesy: WDIV Detroit). In a way, he's right. We have a war on several fronts: The Phillippines, Indonesia (The Bali bombings), Afghanistan (War on Terrorism), Iraq, a potential crisis with Iran over nuclear fuel (and now, about funding and aiding Hezbollah, and Syria, for threatening Israel with "severe punishments and retaliations" should they continue their assaults on Lebanon, or even attempt a direct invasion of Syrian Territory. These six fronts can easily merge into one large war, "involving The West, and The Islamic world" (Gingrich, NBC News), as they are not only long-lasting in duration, btu they are relatively close togehter, related in causes for disputes, and even with many of the same "players" in each dispute.
Times like this make me wonder where people like Lester B. Pearson are when we need them... Depending on how things go, it could be a repeat of the 1975 war that lasted 15 years, the 1982 crisis that threatened to bring Syria and Israel to direct confrontation, or possibly even 1939, the spark that set off World War Two.
While i feel that Israel has every right and duty as a sovereign nation to defend itself agianst any agressors or threats, i feel it has crossed the line from self-defense to aggression by the indescriminate killing of Hezbollah terrorists and civilians trying to flee the renewed chaos. Israel needs to show restraint if it wishes to maintain the respect and credibility to the world that it needs. Greece has already condemned Israel's actions of unrequired strength and shows-of-force in the christian neighbourhoods of Beirut, and much of the world is disgusted from Israel's actions, as well as Hezbollah's. The kidnapping of two troops in Northern Israel IS justification to bomb known Hezbollah hideouts, but not to attack civilians. I do not pick sides in this, and i am trying to remain as neutral as possible.

However, i welcome opposing viewpoints and opinions. Let me hear from you on this. (Sources: WDIV, CBC Newsworld, NBC News, BBC News.) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the effect on oil prices should go in the 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict article (which by the way I think should be renamed), which has space for this sort of thing. Sanguinalis 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First shots

According to a leading intellectual: "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately." [11] Anybody else see any sources for this version? The source is impeccable, but Im sure people here would want to see "official" "proof." -Ste|vertigo 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly would want "proof" in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The archive will reflect that this statement was presented in the name of Noam Chomsky. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What more proof could there be? It's published on a reliable web page. Here's more proof: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it belong in the article about 2006 Arab-Israeli conflict? Tamuz (Talk) 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, yes. FightCancer 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Israel Massing troops

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

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

Discussion about casualties

Earlier discussions

Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.

In most (if not all) Wikipedia battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. (I actually think they are seldom mentioned in war articles, simply because information is not available or reliable) Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have the equipment losses seperate from casualties? It seems more appropriate to count as casualties those individuals wounded/killed not various pieces of equipment. Personally, I've never seen a warship counted as a casualty before in any media account or historical record. For example, in every media account I've seen of the incident in this particular conflict you are referring to, the INS Hanit is never referred to as a "casualty"--it is referred to as an Israeli Navy ship damaged by a missile. The casualties mentioned are those sailors who were killed, not the ship. As such I'll be changing the info box to reflect the generally accepted principle of counting equipment as equipment and casualties as casualties.Publicus 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. (1) most of the times accurate information is not available, which explains why such casualties are not always mentioned. (2)The argument of navy battles (which you used on my talk page) is not appropriate either as the Yum Kippur war was mostly a ground war. (3) equipment losses are in conflicts and wars often more significant than human casualties as such (in tactical/startegic terms). I don't object a separate listing in the infobox, but please do not remove it from the infobox itself. Sijo Ripa 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with removing equipment losses from the infobox. This is not a conventional war, the tank and warship were attacked by militants, not soldiers. It is a misleading 'tally' because the war is asymmetric and not all sides are utilising these weapons systems.

16:30 18 July 2006 (BA)

Sijo Ripa, I think your suggestion is a good solution-keep "warship/tank" in the info-box, but under an different heading titled "Equipment losses". That works for me, since they are important to track, but I just didn't think they should be with the civilian/soldiers numbers. To the other comment on this, as far as whether to track the losses because militants did this vs. soldiers--I don't think who destroyed them is relevant. The fact that they were destroyed as a result of the conflict is important as Sijo has mentioned, so they should be in there somewhere. 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is very relevant and should mentioned somewhere (and currently isn't). We could have a section below the "Casualties" section called "Damage to Possibly Combat-Relevant Property" (well, we'd need a much better name than that, but that's the idea) that lists the warship, tanks, etc. that Hezbollah has damaged/destroyed (or has claimed to) along with the airports, bridges, etc. that Israel has damaged/destroyed (or has claimed to). What does everyone think about this? --srostami 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah casualties

No reference is given for the claimed "4 Hezbollah Deaths" in the infobox [UPDATE: Ok, somebody added a "no reliable source" to the infobox]. This claim can be found later in the article (search for "Four Hezbollah") with a reference, but the reference does not mention anything about Hezbollah deaths [UPDATE: This problem still remains]. This does not appear to be a case of the site changing the story that the reference links to since the title of the reference in the wikipedia article is the same as the site's title for their article.

(I think 2 of these deaths took place during two failed infiltration attempts.)

For that matter, the same problem exists with the claimed "3 Lebanese Soldiers", also in the infobox.

Whatever the previous total of Lebanese soldier deaths was, my intention is to increase it by 8 due to the following very recent story on aljazeera.net: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4BA16706-0A31-4524-ACE6-FD3420939327.htm.

Anyone know about the existing numbers? --srostami 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, every 5 seconds all the numbers are different and have different qualifiers. Can we, like, agree to only update these numbers at most every hour or something? --srostami 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hearing Hassan Nasrallah or a spokesperson for Hezbollah is claiming 4 Hezbollah deaths - I'm urgently trying to find a source, it's just a shame NPR hasn't web-posted it yet, but they have spoken of it on the radio. Can we trust news organizations trusting Hezbollah to give out accurate numbers of their own casualties? Ranieldule 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to qualify with "Hezbollah says" or "Hezbollah sources" if there are no external citations. TewfikTalk 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tewfik. Doing that makes the statement true, and having it at all is better than nothing.

I am still seeing the exact same problem with casualties that I have pointed out before and it's getting pretty frustrating. Specifically, numbers are claimed, references are given, and the article says absolutely nothing about the claimed numbers. Note that, as before, this is *not* a case of the link pointing to a different article (one can see this by considering the name of the link on wikipedia vs. the name of th article on the target page).

One thing I noticed that is excellent is the "grid" style listing of casualties in the "Causualties" section, naming several sources and giving their respective dates and numbers with no attempt to choose one over the other. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is missing from this section. I think we should add it (it used to have a Hezbollah section anyway, not sure why it's gone) --srostami 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli casualties

There were no Israeli wounded? I find that hard to believe. -71.156.37.218 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reality is that there is NO NEWS AT ALL from Israel that doesn't have to go through 100% Israeli Defense Forces censorship. My understanding that Israel has declared martial law and nobody can release any info at all on Israel. Why Israel is different from every other country on the globe is that there are ZERO international relief or humanitarian agencies in the country, including The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and The International Committee of The Red Cross. So ANY 'news' out of Israel has to be accepted for what it is, an IDF press release, for what that is worth.

Please see discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis injured. Where have the hundreds of Israeli injured civilians gone? They were mentioned in the table not many hours ago. --Joffeloff 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were miraculously healed. Just kidding.. there's discussion about it elsewhere here. Some people don't want to show any injury statistics at all, some only want to show one side, some want to show both. I've replied last in the discussion and will add back the Israeli injury stat later today if no one else has done so.--Paraphelion 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously both are relevant, I don't know exactly what the stat stands at so I can't re-add it myself, but you should go ahead and do it. --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not re-add it. See discussion above ("Sources for the number of casualties")--213.65.178.172 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else has already put it back, and I see no reason not to based on my last response in the discussion above, which no one has yet responded to.--Paraphelion 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to find better sources, not just omit it from one side only. --Cyde↔Weys 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove the injured of one side, remove the other aswell. Anything else would be unbalanced. --Joffeloff 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as was said also in the discussion above, the best is to remove the number of injured on both sides in the infobox, and keep them in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth these figures are always going to be iffy because it's in the interests of each side to inflate the numbers as a justification for their continuing fighting. I have no doubt that Israel is using a very loose definition of "injured" (probably everyone who ends up going to the hospital), but their death count is probably at least accurate. On the Lebanese side I bet the death count is probably inflated, as they don't have the right kind of media infrastructure in place to keep those kinds of numbers honest. Of course, all of this is just my own personal opinion, so it shouldn't go into the article unless we can find a verifiable source. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are different issues here. Some people are saying injuries are not part of the "most important information". If you want to argue that, fine. Others doubt the numbers; however, we have used some of them as sources for fatalities or their numbers of fatalities agree with other articles we are citing for fatalities. If we are going take fatality figures, I do not understand why we won't take injury figured from same or similar sources.--Paraphelion 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: ..."injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.--213.65.178.172 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be consistent, please include the name of the newpaper for each entry on casualities. As it is, there is no reference to Ynetnews in the article itself. Further, can we find a better source for this reported data (500 Israelis injured). I find the wording in the Ynetnews article quite ambiguous; all it says is that 500 people were treated at the hospital during the given time frame. First, we want to make sure that only people whose injuries were caused by the fights are counted; and secondly, we need to know what criteria are being used to defined "injured". The last remark is general and is relevant to the entire section on casualties. PJ 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The real number of Casualties?. According to [12] and [13] the real number of Israeli casualties is more than what is officially announced. How should we correct the casualties table?--Sa.vakilian 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli casualties. Please look at the table at the above of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The soldier Casualties is declared 17 by israel but the nomber of is casualties is more in independent media like al jazeere. Is there any agreement that we only write official number of casualties. The independent American or Arab media aren't trustworthy. As you know the government tries to cover the real number of casualties.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any agreement that we only write official number of casualties. The independent American or Arab media aren't trustworthy[14]. As you know the government tries to cover the real number of casualties.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put 2 comment before but nobody answered and I can't find them now.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All numbers must be cited from WP:Reliable sources. TewfikTalk 06:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese casualties

Can we please be careful when labeling casualties civilians? The current Lebanese civilian casualty count is based off a Reuters article which says "He said more than 300 people had been killed and 1,000 wounded in the eight-day-old Israeli assault." The article does not specify civilians. As a result, neither should Wikipedia. It's that simple really. Bibigon 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However there are sources that do specify civilian death tolls of over half that number, but of course that source has been removed and now you and others for some reason would rather forget that piece of information, which presents the infobox as one particular side as the only one to have civilians killed.--Paraphelion 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be cited in conjunction with the infobox text, then. Nysin 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now 300 people dead and 500,000 people displaced by the fighting, Could someone add this? (I don't know how to properly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5196800.stm

BBC Casualties update. There is now 300 people dead and 500,000 people displaced by the fighting, Could someone add this? (I don't know how to properly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5196800.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Other

Civilian vs Military casualities

Honestly, there is no way to say if there are X civilians casualities and based on media reports. We have to admit that either Hezbollah either Israël's special forces may be fighting with civilian clothers, and most probably does. One part of the psychologic part of the ware is to play down your losses and to "improve" your civilian losses. Of course, no doubt for a 11 years old girl: she is a civilian. But what about a man blasted with his truck: civilian, or bringing supply for Hezbollah's fighters, or trying to spot target for Israël. Only a invastigation could make it for sure, and due to war time this is not always possible and media people are not crime scene invastigator and led by local people. So even such account has to be very cautious and should have a warning. Specially in such a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.150.106 (talk • contribs)

Civilian casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding hiding the reported number of Lebanese civilians killed

If this logic was applied to a rapist who raped both children and adults, and if one source cited 10 children raped, and then later another source cited 20 unspecified raped, you savages would omit any mention that 10 children were raped. But I suppose it's useless trying to argue this point with people who don't understand what's wrong with this and have consistently made edits only in Israel's favor, barring complete vandalism.--Paraphelion 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

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

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Earlier discussions

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

Cross Border Raids

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

Actually the raid took place in undisputed territory (relatively) far from the Syrian frontier (and not the Shebaa Farms area). Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?

According to the French wikipedia, the soldiers were arrested in Aita al Chaab. Where is Aita al Chaab located? Why is NOBODY apparently answering this very important question? Again, UNLESS wikipedia is an Israeli front, this vital information should at least be MENTIONED in any discussion of this event.

http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage2.php?lp=fr_en&urltext=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCrise_isra%25C3%25A9lo-libanaise_de_2006 http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers

The second paragraph states that a claim has been made that the soldiers were on Lebanon's side when they were captured, and cites one source. Does anyone know of any other source where this claim is written? I've never heard it before, and if such a thing has only one source, I don't think it should be put on the article's opening. Tamuz (Talk) 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten it to be more NPOV, but I think it should stay. Asia Times meets WP:RS and well, however unlikely, the claim is sourced correctly. It belongs to the intro because the into is explaining that. Dunno, maybe move it into "Initial..." section?--Cerejota 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rewrite :-). I agree that the claim should remain in the article, but since it has only one source and this source doesn't even say exactly who made the claim (except that they were on the Hezbollah's side), I believe it should only be briefly mentioned in the detailed description of the events, i.e. under Hezbollah raid. Tamuz (Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I remember It has been argued on Iranian television and some other Arab media. I think it should be included for this reason. --Paradoxic 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the cynicism, but of course they're gonna say that. I notice that it took them a week to think that up. It sounds more like an attempt at retroactively excusing Hezbollah's behavior than actually discovering the truth. If that really was the truth from the get-go, why did it take until now to start making that claim? Sounds like it was just made up. --Cyde↔Weys 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about truth, its about Verifiability. But of course you know this.--Cerejota 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I do, hence why I'm just speculating on the talk page and not actually inserting my POV into the article. --Cyde↔Weys 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read newsweek's report on the conflict - Newsweek claims (pp. 27) that the abducted soldiers were at a military post in Shebaa Farms, which explains the controversy - Hezbollah considers Shebaa Farms to be part of Lebanon. Thus, we as an encyclopedia can safely say that the soldiers were taken from within israeli territory. -Preposterous 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually acording to the United Nation's the Shebaa Farms are in Syrian territory UN Document S/2000/460 and as Syrian has the right to ceed territory to Lebanon which it seems it has at this point, so then Hizbollah was only attacking enemy forces, this is onlt if the attack took place there. Anyway when are they all going to grow up ge. Enlil Ninlil 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Syria has not ceded the territory. -Preposterous
This important claim seems to have disappeared. It appeared in a Bahrain News Agency report [15] and in an IANS item reported on New Kerala [16]. The claim is that at least two of the Israeli soldiers were in Lebanese territory when they were captured. These articles mention "Aitaa al-Chaab" which I'm guessing might be the same place as "Aaita ech Chaab" which I understand to be in Lebanon (see [17]). In these reports the claim is attributed to the Lebanese police and not Hezbollah. It is possible that some fighting took place on the Israeli side of the border after the abduction. David O'C 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus that posession of this territory is a grey area--Manc ill kid 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - if all sources agree that the attack took place in the Sheba Farms, then it is - as a fact - Israeli territory, though Israel's right for that territory may be questionable. In that case, we should state that the soldiers were captured on Israeli territory, but that the Hezbollah consider this area as Lebanese territory. I see that the claim has been completely removed from the article by now, but I think we should probably state the the Hezbollah consider that area as Lebanon's (If we can source that claim). Tamuz (Talk) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont belive Lebanese, Syrian or Israeli claim's to the territory, the report from the United nations establishes that the territory was somewhat disputed by Lebanon and Syria between 1946-1967, even though Lebanon didn't bother much with the area, only after 1967 did Israel claim the area as its own. From what I have read above at the U.N which is about as neutral as I have found. Is that the report from 200 establishes the Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory which Syria might have ceeded to Lebanon, but that is hear say. And it should be stated that the soldiers were captured on Syrian occupied territory if it's true! Enlil Ninlil 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was wrong , the report states that the Lebanese-Syrian border committee that concluded in 1964 that the farms area is Lebanese and not Syrian, If you dont belive me then read the report la. Thankyou kind people Enlil Ninlil 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the UN's website and found that in resolutions 425-426 of 1978 the security council demanded that Israel withdraw all its forces from Lebanese territory, but without specifically mentioning how far south does "Lebanese territory" go. However, in later resolutions of years 2000-2005, the council states that Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon was complete and in accordance with resolutions 425-426. This statement was made in several resolutions, including - among others - the following:
  1. Resolution 1583 of 2005 (Can be found here).
  2. Resolution 1310 of 2000 [18].
  3. Resolution 1614 of 2005 [19].
(You need Adobe Reader to view all these)
So, as the UN is probably much more NPOV and reliable than Israel, Syria or Lebanon, I believe we should write that the Sheba Farms are officially Israeli, but that the Hezbollah believes that they belong to Lebanon. Tamuz (Talk) 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the specific part concerning the Sheba Farms. In Secretary General Report S/2000/460, paragraphs 14-19, the dispute about this area is mentioned. The argument is a bit hard to follow... but it is written there that this area is already under the jurisdiction of the UN force that was in charge of the Israel-Syria border - in other words, the UN recognizes this area belonged to Syria before being captured by Israel, which means that Israel is not obliged to retrieve it to Lebanon. Tamuz (Talk) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only partially true: Israel is not obliged to retrieve (or return) it to Lebanon, but they are obliged to return it to Syria along with the rest of the Golan Heights. Retention of territories captured in war is inadmissable. Once returned to Syria, it's up to Syria and Lebanon to work it out. Of course it gets messy because Hezbollah believes that the Sheba'a Farms are Lebanese territory, although Hezbollah itself is supported by Syria. The one thing of which we can be certain, however, is that Israel is illegally occupying the Golan Heights, including the Sheba'a Farms --Jobrahms 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion is irrelevant, as the soldiers were capture/abducted/kidnapped from an area nowhere near the Shebaa (note the correct spelling) Farms. They were definitely on the Israeli side of the internationally recognised border between Israel and Lebanon. Also to claim that "the retention of territories captured in war is inadmissable" is simply not true. Wars eventually end with a peace treaty between the two sides. Both sides may decide as part of the peace treaty to exchange territory. There is no obligation to return to the pre-war status quo. What *is* inadmissable is to initiate a war for the sole purpose of gaining territory, but that is a different argument :-) . Cymruisrael 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain as how obliged they (or should I say "we" - I'm Israeli) are to return it to Syria, but I don't really have sufficient knowledge on the subject... But this is irrelevant. The soldiers were on a territory that was de-facto held by Israel, whether rightfully theirs or not. And, Cymruisrael, can you please link to the source saying exactly where they were kidnapped from? Thanks! Tamuz (Talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I 2nd that as there seems to be confusion as to where the soldiers were captured, I have never read of the specific area of capture. Cymruisrael is right I belive as in the report I posted the U.N states that Israel and Lebanon agreed on a border before 1967 and exchanged territory, but I dont know if Syria and Israel have? Enlil Ninlil 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible dispute is the Shebaa Farms area (which the UN certified as not being Lebanese, but Hizballah, and now the Lebanese gov't claim), but that is regarding the 2000 event. This "abduction" took place on a part of the border not disputed even by Hizballah, though in the last week they apparently made some claim about the soldiers being across the border. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER

There are some various differences in approach by what some media report,

  • Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers Within the blue line.
  • Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers Outside the blue line.

Both should be included.

Also, The article was for a long time made to seen as if Hezbollah started the war by words like "Hezbollah Initiated..etc" when this is infact a ongoing conflict.

It is a fact that Israel has ever since its withdrawal flown planes inside of lebanese airspace and thereby violated lebanese airspace and has attacked parts of Lebanon with these planes such as the assassination of Abbas Musawi by Helicopter, senior Hezbollah leader.

It should also be stressed much more that there has always been an exchange of fire between the two and that this was not something "Hezbollah brought on itself because it attacked soldiers" as the article seems bias for a very long time and does not sufficiently provide the Hezbollah/Lebanese viewpoint.

The reader should know both of these sides and what their argument is for the war, not what some writers would like to parrot from mainstream media as simple as the conflict may seem to some one sided people its far from simple.

--Paradoxic 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said earlier, I agree that the claim the soldiers were captured on Lebanon territory should be presented, but not at the intro. By the way, if you know of more sources that could verify who made this claim, please reference them in the article.

Here's the French wikipedia. Read it.

http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage2.php?lp=fr_en&urltext=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCrise_isra%25C3%25A9lo-libanaise_de_2006

Here's another:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers

  • I would just like to note that the article you have cited specifically mentions that it was a "cross-border raid," that means in Israel. And while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it only mentions that this is a Lebanese claim, then qualified with other information. Best of luck with that, TewfikTalk 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the POV matter, until not long ago it seemed to me that the article made it seem as if evertything was Israel's fault, because the introduction explained about the harsh bombings in Beirut without reminding the Grads launched against cities in Israel. What I'm trying to say is, it's very hard to write an article that would seem complete NPOV to everyone. Of course that the viewpoints of both sides differ, but I believe that the article still manage to maintain NPOV. As for you specific complaint, I agree that it should be mentioned that the Israel\Lebanon border has never been quiet, and that Hezbollah didn't just kidnap (er, sorry, capture) soldiers.
Oh, by the way, just to make it clear - I myself am Israeli. Tamuz (Talk) 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my own personal musings, but since Hezbollah isn't the official army of Lebanon they have no right to capture other nation's soldiers for territory encroachment. --Cyde↔Weys 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal viewpoints are ultimately irrelevant. As I gather it, there is a difference of opinion in the specifics of what really happened. It should be reflected in the article, if it can be sourced, and presented in NPOV. Simple.--Cerejota 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

captured?

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

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

If Osama bin Laden kidnaps you, would you consider yourself a POW? Remember, war had not even started yet, since there isn't even an official declaration of war (as required by the Geneva Conventions). --Terrancommander 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a soldier, yes.--Paraphelion 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, war has not started yet, you call him a Prisoner of War? Wrong context. And, they're terrorists, not even proper participants. Does that mean Israel has a 58 year-long war lasting from 1948? Cause there's not been a single year without violence. --Terrancommander 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you read Prisoner of War before commenting. --Terrancommander 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict has started, regardless targetting of soldiers is capturing. also note that civilians killed is not called murder anywhere in the article, other than quotes from involved parties. the article doesn't call them all terrorists. Yeah I read the entry on POV, perhaps you should re-read it. - "who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict". This is a conflict. And nice try on the 58 year old war rhetoric.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is nothing about the word "capture" that does not suggest they are not people. Yes, out of nowhere, as if by aliens visiting earth for the first time. And just as if I were doing my job, say I don't know, making biscuits. Making biscuits is about on the same level as border patrol.--Paraphelion 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be just like making biscuits if there is no war. The point is that Hezbollah specifically stated that the aim of the operation was to take these soldiers, they weren't captured incedental to combat. TewfikTalk 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I diagree that soldiers on border patrol should not be significantly more expected to be the tartget of an attack, be it killing or capture, than civilians.--Paraphelion 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions

Terminology between rocket and missile

I think we should use rocket only. A missile is something with intended target...more technological. A rocket is more sensical, because they are just shooting them over...there is no intended target beside the a city. Kind of shooting off a bottle rocket...you can't come close to pin pointing it.

And a more accurate assesment of a missle is percision guided...these rockets aren't precision guided.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're confusing guided missiles with missiles. A missile is anything shot through the air ... could be a rock, a bullet, an arrow, a Taepodong, etc. --Cyde↔Weys 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - the term is rocket. What Hezbollah is using was originally developed by the Soviets during World War II. They were either truck-mounted or on towed cassions. These rockets were not guided but intended to be fired in salvos of hundreds of rockets and used to totally soften up some sector of the German lines that Soviets would then charge thru with Tanks and infantry. Firing them in a couple at a time is really more of a nuisance (terror weapon) than an actual tactical weapon. In a way, their very inaccuracy is unnerving to the Israelis - "where will the next one land." That the Israeli army feels no threat at all from them, is clear when you see the Israeli IDF pilling up palot after palot of 155 shells with NO overhead protection - with point detonating fuses (geesh that's dangeous - you can set one off with a hammer) literally screwed into the projectiles. Also you see the wooden boxes carrying the propellant - itself highly explosive, just sitting out in the open. All these practices would be suicidal if the IDF felt there was even the remotest possibility of enemy return (counter-battery) fire. I've even seen photos of Israeli kids writing "death to Hezbollah" on the projectiles with markers - Incredible! I'm a retired US Marine Artillery officer and I know this is kind of nuts. Almost reckless. SimonATL 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had to find something geeky warefare technical to get in on this with! *smiles* The term should be rocket. To be exact, it is a rocket powered missile. The rocket engine making it fly makes things rockets to engineers. But any unguided rocket powered missile is considered a rocket by common convention. A jet powered missile with wings is commonly called a cruise missile, no matter if it is crusing or not. A rocket engine powered missile of war that is guided in flight to the target is technically called a guided missle, but is just called a missile by common convention. Now, rockets are often shot toward targets, intended targets, and sometimes quite accurately. A hellfire rocket, shot from a helicopter, is unguided, certainly aimed, and often hits an intended target with plenty of effect. I don't understand why the Arabs shooting so many rockets over so many years haven't learned to shoot with at least some useful effect. If it is not the people being completely untrained or untrainable, but the rockets are really that bad, shouldn't they be classified similar to landmines left unattended for long periods, and possibly be banned on humanitarian grounds? This is like an arrow. If you can aim it to hit an enemy soldier that is one thing. If the only use it so shoot the arrow into the air, blindly, to land someplace in a village of people going about their business, just because your upset at the butthead who lives in the palace.... that's not nice, or fair, or civil, or humane and is not OK because somebody else also once played not nice. Find another weapon or learn to shoot at a target. Bptdude 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketry was officially invented by the koreans some hundred years ago, theirs were similiar to the earlier mentioned "stalin orgel" used by russians in WW2. A jet engine doesnt make a rocket a cruise missile. V1 and V2 invented by the germans in WW2 were using those and are called rockets. A cruise missile is a guided rocket being able to fly mid to long range whilst being able to react to its surroundings aka mountains, valleys, trees etc. @bptdude give hizbollah some 100mil $ and they might be able to build guided rockets or buy a helicopter to shoot them accurately. jaysus 11:55, 20 July 2006 (CET)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Earlier discussions

Motivations

Would discussion of Hezbollah's motivation for the original attack be appropriate in the body of the article? There has been widespread speculation that Iran orchestrated the Hezbollah action to divert international (G8 and UN) attention or effect international action concerning its nuclear programme. [20] Fishhead64 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Earlier discussions

Article Size

Wikipedia is warning that the size of the article is too big. I suggest we find ways to fix it. I would begin by moving all info besides an introductory paragraph from the "International Reactions" section into the main article for that. Also maybe two new subpages, one on attacks on ISrael another on Lebanon might be in order. Support, objections?

Please keep in mind that what we want is to reduce article size without reducing article or information quality.--Cerejota 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"International reactions" does sound like the logical thing to move to a subpage, as it's not entirely relevant to the core of the article anyway. Support! --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for moving International reactions at first Frinkahedr0n 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually bigger now!

What about we move all of the "Attacks on" sections to either one page for both countries or two pages for either?

I mean, this is getting critical and a lot of it is the necessary citations, which would diminish if moved to to other pages.

Don't know, and even toying with the idea of turning this into a kind of portal page that then links to a range of subpages... some of which havent been explored fully (such as weaponry used in the conflict). --Cerejota 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long!!! I know is an ongoing event and need to be well cited with information. But the article is too long, takes time to load in a slow computer and need to be purged to safe room for new edits. To make things worse there are many photos that are a litte bit out of content like the 3 sailors looking with binoculars. 1) the picture looks like a photo from a 90s military comedy movie. with 3 soldiers one tall other small and the thin one looking to the same thing. 2) The photo may try to show that this conflinc is a sea battle. And you know that the blockade is a fact but not so representative of this conflicts like the city bombins. 3) There are already a photo of ship(much more better than the 3 sailors) and another navy phot make the article a little bit misdirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The article is still huge, I suggest we start moving stuff to sub pages... objections? --Cerejota 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved most of the military operations related stuff to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict-Military_Operations for size reasons. I have edited the remainder in this page to be an overview, feel free to fix up etc.--Cerejota 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section in Israel's response about Al-Manar reporting casualties seems out of place. I have deleted it.

Although it is still "too long" (47 kb>32kb), the prose part, excluding tags, pics, and links and footnotes (see WP:SIZE), is only 22kb. So we're fine stylistically. -Preposterous 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Sub Articles

Operation specific information on Operation Truthful Promise, Operation Just Reward. and Operation Change of Direction would be more appropriate in my opinion as to ensure article length considerations, and as to ensure ease of reading and full information on the Operations. 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the section Possible expansion and resolution should be removed entirely, as it's a little close to a Crystal Ball for my liking. It also doesn't add that much to the article. The Historical background could be moved out, too. --Iorek85 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely agree, Wikipedia is not here to predict the future, and speculation can easily turn into a masquerade for opposing theories and POV. It also clutters up the article with random factoids. 17:18, 18 July 2006 (BA).
    • I have deleted the section, it is too much like extrapolation and speculation to remain and violates Crystal Ball policy. I believe the article flows much better without it, and addresses the problem of length, 21:28 18 July
      • Correction, apparently it is vandalism to remove sections and it has been reverted. Does anyone else agree that Possible expansion and resolution should be removed entirely to keep the article coherent? 22:38 18 July
Regarding the section "Possible expansion and resolution", I agree that it should be deleted, since we shouldn't speculate. That section also contains paragraphs that strays from its subject, such as "The situation is further complicated by the thousands of foreign nationals who are stranded in the country. Although at least 15,000 tourists and Lebanese citizens fled via road into Syria on 13 July, an Israeli strike on that road has now made travel into or out of the country much more difficult." (The evacuation is already being discussed at two other places in the article.) There are some things I think should be somewhere in the article, for example Syria backing up Hezbollah, and Iran backing up both Hezbollah and Syria. And the talks about ceasefire, in the subsection "Proposed ceasefire" should of course remain in some form. --Battra 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have removed the section. It is not up to wikipedia standards. (Downs 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox Military Conflict. I have been thinking of making that Infobox a template, but the idea of it being an included subpage looks much better. The reason for this is that the Timeline page is out-of-sync with this page. -- Jokes Free4Me 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format of infobox (labeling of civilians, soldiers)

As you may have noticed, the format of the infobox has been changing, namely under casualities. Specifically, Israel and Lebanon. For Israel, it is formatted as "Civilians" > "Soldiers" and for Lebanon, it is constantly presented as "Lebanese military" > "Other". I feel that there should be universal labeling, "other" makes no sense, even other falls into a particular category. According to virtually all media outlets throughout the world, the majority of casualities in Lebanon are civilians and should be presented as such. For both parties involved, Civlians and Soldiers should be listed on EACH SIDE. Please discuss. -- Sohailstyle 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS THERE NOTHING ON THE GAZA STRIP?

acording to cnn Israil has invaded the gaza strip and there is fighting on that front as well (the second front) i couldnt find any mention on that in the article, i think it should be put in.

Because Gaza is not part of Lebanon? Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's always fighting in the Gaza Strip. No offense, but that's like saying Detroit has a high crime rate. It's not news.
HOWEVER, didn't Hamas kidnap two soldiers a month ago, and Hezbollah simply did a copycat attack in Lebanon/Northern Israel? I'm not one to normally be racist, but that sounds like Israel wants a justification for invading another sovereign nation (Lebanon) for either annexation or to attack Israel (like how Germany invaded Benelux to defeat France early on in World War Two. Being a Lebanese-Canadian, this issue is of particular concern. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the Gaza conflict see 2006 Gaza conflict. This is about the current war in the Gaza strip. Enlil Ninlil 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i believe hamas did kidnap a soldier but THIS IS NEWS and should be put in, it shows that israel is fighting 2 fronts, if we dont put it in we are hiding information or not giving a ful account of it, its like writing an article on ww2 without mentioning the russian theatre of operations!

What did you not understand about Blnguyen's reply? The Hamas kidnapping belongs in and IS in another article. This is Hez-bol-lah. Not Ha-mas. Ga-za is not in Leb-a-non. --srostami 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnap?? Israeli POV??? I dont class captured soldiers as kidnap, considering the peace agreement is only in place in theory not reality. Enlil Ninlil 04:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be as inaccurate as POV or you claim, if two nations (or in this case, one nation and Hezbollah) have not declared war on each other then they can't legitimately "capture" each others troops. --Cyde↔Weys 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing on WHY Hezbollah captured two soldiers... the Cause of war is not the capture of the soldiers but rather Israel's occupation of Palestine and the ongoing struggle in the region including Israel capturing and holding thousands of Palestinians/Lebanese prisoner. Yahuddi 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Cyde, so that is why the U.S.A didn't declare war in North Vietnam, or the U.S.S.R on Afghanistan, they are classed as the similar type of war. Except the central government (Lebanese) is not on the Israeli side. Enlil Ninlil 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background

I have no problem with it stretching back to 1948, etc, but I have reneged on my promise to edit because I cannot find a way to reduce it that still makes sense, and in time to not get an edit conflict.

It HAS to be shortened, I think we must agree on this. I mean, by choosing one storyline on background over the other we are dangerously approaching POV, but if on top of that all that we are doing in citing other wiki pages, then why not just go out and out and do it?

This is what I suggest: either we rewrite it to make it shorter, or come up with a minimal paragraph or two pointing at specific events, and then linking to seealso's. If we have done it with Hezbollah, I think we can do it here.--Cerejota 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah campaign

I understand that we are trying to keep the article short, but non-coverage of the Hezbollah rocket attacks makes creates a twisted perspective on the events. I am going to restore some of the removed information in the interest of balance and NPOV. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean? Are you sure they weren't removed to Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? --Cerejota 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have been, but the main conflict article makes one passing comment on what is a major component of the hostilities. I don't have time to do it now, though someone should. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

The editor of http://pixane.net/blog/

Claims that his blog isn't frontline when he said : "Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline" in his "Frontline?" Issue. I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Russian

A person who browses English Wikipedia most likely doesn't know Russian; therefore the link to a Russian website is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Free Lebanon: WTF?

What the hell is "Free Lebanon", why is it quoted in an encyclopedia article, and why do its press releases sound like they were copied and pasted from a 13-year-old's blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Robert Fisk

I removed this from the article - not sure as to the relevance. TewfikTalk 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

", most notably Robert Fisk claims to be witness to many thousands killed when "17,500 Arabs were slaughtered during three months in Lebanon"R Frisk Quote Ref, of which included such incidents / massacre's as"


"not sure as to the relevance."

approx 17,000 "missing" dead Lebanese are not relevant in a encyclopaedia entry about a Lebanese occupation/war? I hope everyone is reading this.

the relevance is the "missing" or dead people. of which there is 17,000 if you want to hide this generally accepted fact then keep deleting the number.

--Theblackbay 01:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC}

Excuse me, but this statement:
Human Rights Watch on April 13, 2000 urged the Lebanese govenment to effectively investigate the cases of an estimated 17,000 Lebanese civilians who were kidnapped or "disappeared" during the occupation
is completely unsupported by the link provided! the link talks about disappearance of Lebanese during the civil war (1975-1990) and blaims much of it on Syria, while the statement makes it look like we're talking about 1982-2000 and blaming Israel - There is absolutely no relevance! M. Butterfly 07:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?

Okay, this is it. In te article and related article are three are used. Yet only one its true (or truthful, he-he). So why dont fetch the arabic original term, request some arab speakers with near dual fluency in english, or even better translators, and get this one settled.

Once we do, lets freaking get it together and for qualities sake edit the thing all across the boad with just one name... how about that?

--Cerejota 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Truthful Promise" is what Daily Star of Beirut translates it as, and they are probably better in translating Arabic than most Western news agencies. Also, if you Google the various expressions, "Operation Truthful Promise" gets four times as many hits as "True Promise". I've now changed the one "True" to "Truthful", so there shouldn't be any variants anymore, as "Fulfilled" disappeared some time ago. Thomas Blomberg 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! it might still exist in some of the related pages (Military operations, timeline, and international reactions) so lets check that!--Cerejota 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is with general links to news sites? If it's not an article, it shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I am removing them. --Iorek85 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I'm in two minds about the blogs - the general rule is no, but I suppose some would provide useful information. --Iorek85 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current event nature of this page calls for the inclusion of these links, to allow people to have a quick reference to news sources accross the POVs.
--Cerejota 07:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what google is for. Should we have links to all news sources on all articles with current events? Theres nothing wrong with links to those news pages that relate to the current conflict, but a blanket listing of news sites is not needed. --Iorek85 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many links - what stays?

The VAST MAJORITY of these news media are Israeli or Jewish owned and operated. Should it be mentioned as it relates to the POV? In fact, should more effort be made to find Lebanese and Arab newspapers? And, al jazeera, owned by the US puppet state of Qatar shouldn't count as an 'Arab' source.

Do we really need 41 links at the bottom, apart from the citations? Instead of getting into an edit war about deleting links, we should make a list here of what links should stay, and why.

I'll start by saying, in News sources category, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Daily Star, JPost, Fox, CNN should stay to represent UK, Arab World, Lebanon, Israel, rt wing USA, lft wing USA. I don't see purpose of frontline blogs at all (can someone cite example of other wikipedia articles with frontline blogs?). In the last category, I'll nominate keeping the first two maps (New York TImes and BBC) because they add something that the article doesn't have, and needs. Please contribute your nominations, and maybe we can delete the rest. -Preposterous 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update:sry i got to it a few minutes after you. moved mine to be next to earlier discussion. -Preposterous 00:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I removed the news sources because anyone can find them, and its just a collection of links that have no relevance to this article. The blogs are tricky; "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.". It's a judgement call on whether the blog is of a high standard. If they aren't, we don't need them. The Additional commentary, fact files, and miscellaneous seems fine to me, as they add to the aritcle. --Iorek85 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them add to the article? I doubt that all 23 do... -Preposterous 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence seems fine. I've not read them all, but the general idea is fine. If you want, remove the links that don't add to the article; replicated maps, etc. --Iorek85 02:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various sections about evacuation

We now have three different sections about the evacuation of foreigners, which have been moved out to seperate articles:

I suggest some kind of merging.--Battra 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Picture

Usually, in war infoboxes there is picture that 'represents' it (e.g for Yom Kippur there's a picture of Egyptian Soldiers after crossing the Suez Canal). Is there a particular reason for it in this case? I was thinking of adding a picture showing the current state of Beirut, but I don't know anything about adding pictures in Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Mysticflame 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed it, without a stated reason. I've restored the image that was there previously.--Iorek85 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction

There's far too much information in there. There is an article for that stuff: International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Some of it's POV, too, such as The US: Even though 65% of Americans say "the U.S. [should] stay out of the situation" between Israel and Hezbollah The US government continues to back Israel’s actions. --Iorek85 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Earlier discussions

Requests

The article is very informative, and amazingly short, considering how long the discussion page is. But, is there a map of the land practically held by the Hezbollah's? I checked the Hezbollah's page in Wiki and there is no map there? I would appreciate it. Bptdude 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take this BBC map and make an equivalent for Wikipedia? It's by far the best map I've seen so far. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it. The map of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in the scond infobox looks like poop. It's beyond blurry so as to provide little to no information to anyone coming wanting to learn about this important topic. It should be fixed or reverted to the old map. Njjones 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional objection: this is the map of the Arab League, rather than the Arab World. The main difference is that the Arab World Map includes Western Sahara and partially excludes Sudan and Somalia. IMHO, neither should be used. North and East Africa (apart from Egypt) are historically tangential to this conflict, and a closer study of the actual area surrounding Israel/Syria/Lebanon with some focus on extremely relevant but non-Arabic Iran would be preferable.

Volunteer

Hello, I am hereby volunteering for map-making, here is an example. I will consider the outstanding requests and see what I can do tomorrow. KWH 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to overlap with the second map illustrating the rocket-attacks in Israel, if you follow somewhat the format of the previous maps and incorporate some conflict zone, then please extend it to the current reach of those rockets (I can supply further information if you like), which would require extending the map a few cm south. Other key features are the Israeli blockade of Lebanese ports (Beirut, Tripoli, etc.) as well as bombing of various airports (Beirut, Rayak) and the highway to Damascus. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map. I'd love to see what you can do for this article! --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update

I'm trying to go through the notes of all members or contributors here, but it's not quite clear and I'm confused of how is it possible to update the map. I am more than open to editing it and make it fit into the information, facts and representation issues. So please sum up what you'll be needing to add, substract or change for the map and I'll be more than happy to edit it for you. And I would take the suggestion by members mostly NOT anonymous contributors. -- Omernos 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of locations hit?

What do people think about creating a list of all locations in Israel and Lebanon hit as a seperate article, and linking it from here? Ideally we should have a table and map showing the break down of all known strikes and casualties, if we can keep up with the news that is. Dsol 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a page for that Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. You could make an infobox with the known strike, althought I think it could get unwieldly. We already have an infobox showing casualties.--Cerejota 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Earlier discussions

  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2#Pictures (Discussion about the infobox picture)
  • Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of previous discussion about the infobox picture:
    • The aerial strike picture was rejected, because some thought it was a bad photo.
    • The three-Israeli-binocular picture was rejected, as some thought it was not newsworthy, others considered it POV.
    • The map picture was rejected as a solution by some, as it didn't add anything new.
    • The Israeli artillery picture solved the previous two problems, but some hoped for a picture which would emphasize the "human aspect of warfare."

Graphic Images Removal

Whilst I accept people are suffering terribly as a result of the conflict, can we please remove the Graphic images from the article, or at least have a MAJOR warning at the top of the page as to what lies below.Ryanuk 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a standing Wikipedia precedent not to display images like this. What ends up happening is that people search for the most gruesome pictures of both sides (remember, civilians from both nations have been killed), and the article becomes a battleground over the images rather than the issues. Although Wikipedia isn't censored, that isn't a blanket license to always add the most gruesome photographs you can find to articles. --Cyde↔Weys 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have been removed, looks like I just loaded the page after someone had added them. Ryanuk 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all understand how much people (on both sides) are suffering without having to see images of that kind. If you want to find images such as that, there are places you can go.Ryanuk 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need at least 1-3 images to see the suffering. There is nothing heinous about posting reality to give a glimpse thereof. I didn't suggest sprinkling the article with dozens of disfigured bodies.--Patchouli 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there should be images of suffering (but not extreme images).Flanker 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdamKesher and others, if we are going to put graphic images in the article can we please discuss here and come to an agreement. Ryanuk 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the (alleged) targeting of civilians is a major component of this conflict. An image of the consequences gives context to the claims by some of the disproportionality of the response, as well as photographic evidence for the claims of civilian targeting. I agree with the suggestion that a warning at the top be issued, but an encyclopedic treatment of this subject demands a treatment of one of its most important aspects. The pictures (here), should stay. AdamKesher 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Patchouli, Flanker and AdamKesher. There are two images of Nasrallah, two maps of the area in conflict, two pictures of military equipment, and a picture of the israeli defense minister. At the very least a picture of the casualties or some kind of human suffering cause by the conflict should be in the article. Cattus 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you realize, folks, that often these images are the property of news organizations. As such, they're copyrighted; and thus, not always available to Wikipedia anyway. -- SwissCelt 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such images belong in Wikipedia in general. We're not a blood-and-gore tabloid; there's a reason we don't have images of Nick Berg's head being severed right in the article, and it's not because we want to cover up its gruesomeness---it's simply not useful or courteous to our readers to include in the article. --Delirium 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, have some respect for the dead child, and his family. Putting that picture would be sensationalism. That's it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news network. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to show the horrid truth but rather to show the facts. And also, we got some young people visiting the site! Can we just keep the map image? --Deenoe 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marwahin.jpg

where does Image:Marwahin.jpg come from? It does not appear in the linked BBC article. I have no problem with graphic images but at present we have no idea where this image comes from, who the people are, when and how they were killed, or whether there are any copyright issues. These all need to be adressed or cannot be used. Dsol 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who uploaded it is claiming it as a montage of "private photos" without releasing any more source information. This image has significant copyright issues. Also, we don't know the image source, so we don't even know that it's from the current conflict. --Cyde↔Weys 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they are almost certainly from Lebanon -- it's a hallmark of war that this sort of stuff becomes as common as spit. You can peruse more at http://fromisrael2lebanon.com/ and similar (http://www.cryptome.org is also hosting daily selections, with his usual acerbic commentary). The images, however, are likely to be news agency "rip offs"; I recognize several at the fromisrael2lebanon.com site that were distributed by AP. mdf 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say they are almost certainly from Lebanon if they don't even have any sources given? They could just as easily be from Iraq, or they could just be older pictures from other violent outbursts. No source information means we can't say anything for sure about them. --Cyde↔Weys 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bayesian inference. Notwithstanding, it is likely the problem of provenance will be solved when the copyright is worked out. mdf 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After f/b from Cyde, I double checked the provenance of these photos. They are from the attack on civilian families at Marwahin (Macleans has the story and one of the images), but one is from the Associated Press, and therefore therefore I expect that the others are too, and thus copyrighted. AdamKesher 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely can't use them if they were don't know for sure, and anyway, who wants to get involved in a propaganda edit war? Leave the gruesome pictures out of it. If you must, get a picture of a missile that hit its target, like a building or something. -Preposterous 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here to keep discussion together Ryanuk 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removal

File:Idftroops.jpg
Israeli soldiers advance towards southern Lebanon near the northern Israeli village of Avivim.

Why was this picture removed? There is certainly a large bloc of text that could use some color. If no one objects, I will reinsert it soon. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a good picture, there is no reason why it shouldn't be there, and some more color would definitely make the article better. Tamuz (Talk) 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't anyone think of the children? (oh wait theres micheal jackson, nm) --mitrebox 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it is a picture from 19th July, and should go into Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. As explained in the history when removed. Please read explanations for edits, they are there for a reason. --Cerejota 04:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw your edit-summary, and I apologise for not making note of that. My point was and is that that reason shouldn't stop it from being inserted as long as there aren't better candidates. TewfikTalk 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With a massive amount of edits on the page, a number of which are by you, finding the correct revision is far from easy. Anyway, to my untrained eyes the image looks very appropriate for illustrating both articles. --Kizor 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree the image is newsworthy, but the only place I would want it in the main page is in the caption instead of the howitzer which lacks a human angle. There is no other relevant place in the main page I think it could go, as it shows operations on the 19th, so it doesnt serve the purpose of illustrating the initial section, nor the background, nor etc. I think we are good with maps, pictures of leaders (As long as there is balance), and the picture of the helicopters evacuating people (its getting boring tho, can we get something else similar?) etc.--Cerejota 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.. this conflict is not primarily about troop warfare yet, simply artillery/airstrikes and navel blockades. Rob.derosa 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll get back to this should a spot open later on, the article won't stabilize for a good while yet. --Kizor 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper photo of Nasrallah

Can we please find a photo of Nasrallah? Using a photo of a billboard is inappropriate for a few reasons, including 1) it is a photo of a painting, and therefore it's accuracy is suspect. and 2) the painting used is a glorification billboard commonly seen in the middle-east and to use it as Wikipedia's sole representation of the man violates the article's neutral POV. This image is so glorifying, he practically looks deified.

If there was a normal photo of the man at the top with a caption of his name, and then lower down there was an image of this billboard explaining about where the billboard was and about these forms of propaganda - that would be fine.

--Drewson99 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I agree a photo is preferable, but no photo that is valid is available. When it is, we will surely substitute the billboard image.

2) We use an official israeli press photo of their commander in chief, which is also a propaganda image, and hence represents a balance, which is what you strive for when you inevitably have to present POV materials.

3) I know many realist artists who would disagree with your derision of painting. As will of course the Wall Street Journal which routinely carries realistic artistic representations of news events in lieu of photographs.

4) Your assertion of photography as truthful is a subject of debates in many fields, not to mention that any semi-competent photographer can achive wonders with the camarera. THis is without mentioning the power of digital photo editing and manipulation. --Cerejota 07:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"depicted on a billboard"

The picture of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah notes "Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, depicted on a billboard.". I've removed "depicted on a billboard" because this seems a bit irrelevant. There's a photo of the Israeli defence minister but this is not noted as "depicted in a photograph". Perhaps the caption editor was seeking to point out that the Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah image isn't perhaps purely photographic, but it could be argued that no image is "true", they are all constructed in some manner by the author/ photographer/ makeup artist etc. Or maybe that masters degree at art college has made me think too deeply about such things! :-) --mgaved 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your analogy is flawed. There is no need to say a photo is a photo. But a propaganda image such as this which is easily mistaken as a photo at first glance is not appropriate for a neutral source of information.

Information itself doesnt have to be neutral, but its presentation must be as per WP:NPOV. By including the equally propaganda photo of the commander in chief of the IDF, we achieve balance. BTW, a principle of wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Dont like it? Open a blog. Set up your own wiki. All kinds of alternatives are open. But that policy is not negotiable. And dont get mad at me, am just a messenger boy...--Cerejota 08:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the billboard is pertinent info - it is a propaganda image and completely innapropriate to be used with a simple caption of Nasrallah's name under it.--131.107.0.81 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just call it a billboard, without the propaganda part. Otherwise the picture of the Israeli commander should perhaps be called a propaganda photo as well.

Youtube videos?

If someone could post the links to the Youtube videos of the conflict from inside Israel and Lebanon, that would be much appreciated.

(Most of the videos appear to be from the Israeli side of things, and might not be particularly neutral.)

Where'd the Israeli navy picture go? I thought it was pretty good. Also good for illustrating the blockade part of the conflict. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First picture

I personally don't think it's appropriate to put the picture of a dead child in the beginning of the article. It's just TOO much. --Deenoe 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I think if possible, it should be something including the active Israeli military and effect on civilians at the same time. If not possible, possibly a splitscreen? (not sure how that would work) Hello32020 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to WWII front page picture Hello32020 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I opened the article this morning, it kind of struck me as a little over the top. Yes, wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we have to have a picture of the charred corpse of a small child as the first picture people see. --Iorek85 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is one of the most notable things of this conflict? The suffering Lebanese civilians IMHO. Conflicts and wars in general are not pretty and this is the essence of a conflict. I even dare to speak of a bias against showing casualties in main pictures. Most often pictures of "cool" military equipment or "distant" military actions (video game like areal strike picture) et al. are shown. I think it is time th casualties are shown. Sijo Ripa 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in balance. It is a thought provoking and highly educational irony after gun firing to see images of dead people, however, I suggest after the current morbid image is shown for a while to be replaced by the map of the areas of conflict (like other wikipedias do) or be simply left blank. --fs 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The piture is totally appropriate, those who don't like it - put your energies into stopping ways of the bombing instead of ways of attempting to be politically correct and shield viewers from the horrific reality. Reaper7 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is showing a dead CHILD. I think we get the importance of the conflict with the picture of the tank/artillery we had before. If it would be an adult, I don't think I'd bother so much, but it would still shock me. We should maybe have a little respect for the death of this child. Besides, you said to put my energy into stopping ways of the bombing. That's impossible. It's a conflict between two armies where we cannot interfer and that, unfortunatly, we can't do anything about. I am not trying to shield viewers from the horrific reality but picturing a dead child is sensationalism and some viewers might not be able to support the picture, IMHO. --Deenoe 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a picture of destructed building or a ghost town would be PLENTY enough to see the horror. Even the news I listen to don't show the dead bodies by RESPECT. --Deenoe 01:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether these dead or their families would have wanted it not to be shown. What I notice is that Al-Jazeera shows much more casualty pictures than for instance BBC or CNN. The sensitivity argument is in my opinion mostly a Western phenomenon as Western viewers (though I'm one myself) are not used to such pictures and in general only see "clean" pictures. A ghost town does not show the real horror of a war. It is another example of a clean picture. Sijo Ripa 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess we'll never know, but we should be safe. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news network, therefore, it should not in my opinion practice such sensationalism. And beside, why don't we put the picture of, citizens in tears, or the Blue Dawn. --Deenoe 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I understand and respect your argument of "sensationalism", can't the same be said about video game like air strikes or about sensational military equipment that fires its projectiles with an enormous blast? I don't consider the child casualty picture as sensational, but as necessary to point out the reality of a conflict/war. I also didn't mention the news networks to argue that we should copy their behaviour but to point out the differences in sensitivity. (Another example: the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page nevertheless shows the cartoons, while many Muslims find that extremely offensive/shocking. Their sensitivity wasn't enough to prevent it as the main picture of the page.) As a consequence, the sensitivity and sensationalism arguments aren't enough imho. Sijo Ripa 01:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point of showing the horror, and I think we could probably find a picture of the coffins aligned against the wall in Haifa.. I think that that should show the horror, without necessairly showing the bodies themselfes, especially the childs.--Deenoe 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to say that the Muslim issue is different. The picture on Wikipedia is not portrayed as an attack but really to demonstratre the facts. In this case we can demonstratre the facts without using the picture of a dead child. Also, I think as soon as someone find it offensive, we should remove it cause that means a LOT of people could find it offensive. --Deenoe 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If another person wants to continue the picture revert warring I can have him blocked too. Enough of this, people. --Cyde↔Weys 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a revert war on this folks. I only want to have some RESPECT to the victim that was pictured considering that it was a child and that is just unacceptable. There is a limit to showing "the horrid truth".--Deenoe 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the guy inserting the picture of the dead child was blocked. --Cyde↔Weys 02:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were talking to me. People like you make Wiki better, thanks. --Deenoe 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Very lucky there is no democracy on this issue, if there was the piture of the dead child would stay, I for one support the image as it shows the truth and does not shield the reality as some would want. As for the family of the child if they are still alive i doubt due to obvious reasons, I am sure they would want the world to see the horrors and not some American false image of the war ala iraq. Reaper7 13:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's even debatable. Putting the picture of a dead child is sensationalism. It's a child for god's sake, have a little respect for his person. I think that a picture of a picture of Israel's coffins lined against the wall would be plenty enough to demonstratre the horror of the conflict. We've been thru the debate. Admins have decided to take off the picture for sensivity reasons. Let's remember that some people are VERY, VERY sensitive. --Deenoe 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reinstatement of the uncensored Wiki picture of the realities of this war which was recently removed:

Oppose for the reinstatement of the uncensored Wiki picture of the realities of this war which was recently removed:

Splitscreen

I believe if possible, it should be something including the active Israeli military and effect on civilians at the same time, in a splitscreen. Similar to WWII front page picture. User:Hello32020 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support a split picture, on condition that casualties, whether they are Israelian or Lebanese, are shown in one of the component pictures (which is not the case for the World War 2`split picture). Sijo Ripa 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why any picture at all

I think to stop all the edit warring.There would be better if there will be no picture at all.--Shrike 10:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit warring - only people trying to reach a consensus. A picture is needed - it makes the article look better, and illustrates the conflict for people. There's no reason to remove it. I fail to understand why you think a picture showing the damage in Lebanon is POV. It's a picture that shows real damage in a conflict that has primarily taken place in both civilian areas and in Lebanon, and it passes no judgement. If you think it looks bad, thats because bombing civilians is a bad thing. If you want, find a free use picture of the damage in Israel, and ADD that to the current pic, splitscreen like some have suggested. But until someone does that, please leave the best image we have in.--Iorek85 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict may be mostly taking place in Lebanon, and certainly the death is, but not so much that one picture of damage in Lebanon is a balanced view. Correct me if I am wrong, but some sources say Hezbollah has fired up to 1500 rockets into Israel.--Paraphelion 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might be able to find a photo where where the area is sufficiently destroyed that we don't know where it is. Any single photo of either a Lebanese damage area or Isreali military unit is going to seem biased to someone. Maybe we can superimpose two photos of destruction in Lebanon and Israel, have no caption and just let the reader decide for him/herself what it is a picture of, or just say "Destruction from the conflict". I sort of liked the 3 guys on the boat with binoculars, but mostly for humor reasons. It's good to have a picture, but if we can't find something most people agree on, it's better to have nothing probably.--Paraphelion 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just get rid of the picture. Point. --Deenoe 14:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please pay more attention to the copyright status of your image sources. I'm tired of having to remove and delete images that were uploaded in violation of very basic copyright law. If you try to take an image from a source that says "(c) All rights reserved", guess what, we can't use it. The exception is for fair use images, but you can't really make legitimate claims for fair use on some random photographer's image in a Flickr photostream. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture that was on the page right now at NO copyright at ALL. I finally got the source and I saw that there is no copyright. --Deenoe 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image description page was tagged as "source unknown". "No copyright" isn't really a valid term ... pictures are by default copyrighted unless they have been released into the public domain by the person who owns the copyright to them, at which point you'd say it's in the public domain, not "no copyright". I didn't see any evidence that the image had been released under a free license, just evidence that no one had tried to look for the copyright status ... which isn't good enough. --Cyde↔Weys 14:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I send an email to the owner of the website where the picture was (without any clear indication if the copyright) to know if it was possible to use it on Wikipedia. So now we wait. --Deenoe 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future you may want to use one of these: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. My basic viewpoint on this is that this conflict is so big and so many people are in the affected regions that we shouldn't have to resort to using an image with an unclear source (and thus risk legal trouble). There has to be someone out there who's willing to release an image under the GFDL or Creative Commons, if only to spread the images of the horrors of warfare. --Cyde↔Weys 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copyrights on the current image is plain bullsh*t simply because I saw it on CBC News yesterday. Might be wrong thought. If we can get an image like this that is FOR SURE GFDL then this would be perfect. --Deenoe 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, picture has been reverted. But, I still think a map would end all the debates about whether to show Israelian side or Lebanese side. --Deenoe 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the status of the article

Earlier discussions

Vandalism

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

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

~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about the talk page

Earlier discussions

NPOV tag

Please review Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. If you believe we need the tag, please note specific reasons why below (ie, dispute): TewfikTalk 07:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure where Cerejota's reply went, but here's my response:

Read the policies. These tags are applied based on specific problems, not IP vandalism. I'm removing. If you feel we need either NPOV or POV check tag, please discuss specific reasons why here. TewfikTalk 08:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
where did my comments here about NPOV problems go? Is it your new policy to delete comemnts from talk pages? M. Butterfly 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pretty please

I'm not sure where that section went exactly, but this is my response:

I try to. That said, there are extremely basic pieces of information that you have removed. Subpages don't mean that nothing on that topic is included in the main page. Rather a few paragraphs summarising the most important parts of the subpage should be included under the section title. TewfikTalk 08:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Report of Attack on Canadians Unconfirmed"

We should add this. Not sure what section though... [21] Hello32020 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible solution to the "civilians" edit war

This israeli source talks about "370, mainly civilians": http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279504,00.html. You could add "mainly civilians" up there since also, it can't be seriously said that the "500,000 displaced" can be something else other than mainly civilians anyway. --fs 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV emendations

The following passages are either continually removed or added, as specified, and lend to an extremely POV presentation.

  • Hezbollah has concurrently engaged in extensive rocket attacks on Israel's northern cities, including areas like Haifa which thus far have been out of range, as well as a number of attempted infiltrations.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). This is continually removed from the intro. Without it, the reader would have no knowledge of the Hezbollah rocket campaigns which so dominate the hostilities both in media coverage and as one of Israel's stated motivations.
  • The "Hezbollah rocket campaign" subsection after "Israeli response" is continually removed under the same reasoning and that it is covered in the "military operations" subarticle, which creates the same effect. Subarticles are meant for expansion of information in the main, not in place of them.
  • The Juan Cole observation/accusation/speculation on Israeli motives which discusses war crimes and some grand scheme of manipulating the MidEast is extremely POV when presented in the "Civilian casualties" section, especially in light of how controversial the man and his belief's are.

Please discuss if you disagree that these actions lead to non neutral POV, and form some compromise. In the meantime, please try to preserve balance here. Cheers TewfikTalk 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some general things that I would like to see changed Infobox -

When you say "displaced", do you mean those whose houses were ruined, or also those who fled their houses in fear? Because if it is the latter, then we can safely had tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their houses in the north to cities, hotels and campsites in the south. Need a quote? I'm here and I can see it for myself.

Hezbollah Raid -

"Possibly transporting them to Lebanon" what does that mean? Where else could they have been taken? Alaska? Of course, their journey hasn't necessarily ended in Lebanon, but could have continued to Syria and/or Iran....

Israeli Response -

"following several days of Israeli bombing raids" - How about "following several days of Israeli bombing raids and Hezbollah rocket attacks"??? Sounds more NPOV....

There is a whole part of a paragraph which deals with Hezbollah attacks on Israel and should be moved to the correct section.

Hezbollah rocket campaign -

The map is missing many sites of targeting such as Tiv'on, Afula, Nazareth etc., as well as the entire northern border towns locations

Civilian Targets -

Qana shelling belongs in History and not here

The whole "Israeli bombing campaign of Lebanese civilian infrastructure" paragraph is bogus. Thew writer is obviously bias and I could find a hundred examples that would state the opposite and make worse allegations against hezbollah - which, BTW, IS targeting civilian targets in order to harm citizens, while Israel is at worst attacking any infrastructure which could be used to transport militia supplies for the Hezbollah, who are famous for using civilians as a shield....

In History - Israeli-Lebanon conflict -

There is no mention that while Israel held the Security Zone strip in Southern Lebanon, northern Israel was continually attacked by Hezbollah rockets and infiltration attempts targeting civilian targets.

in Hezbollah -

Wow, sure sounds like Hezbollah is legitimate political party, and not a terrorist organization. Seems like there should be some kind of mention here of its terrorist activities and inclination.

Previous prisoner exchange - No mention that HEZBOLLAH carried out the attack on Israeli soil and kidnapped the soldiers (or their remains) to Lebanon. People could think that the attack was an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Again, it was another ordinary border patrol just like the one who was attacked at the beginning of the current conflict.

Tweekerd 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your quote of 10,000 fleeing - Are you using one of those hand held click counters? Because if you are, can you please take a picture of it and put it on your photoblog and release the image? We can just replace the infobox with that photo.--Paraphelion 07:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my crucial timeline paragraph unjustly deleted

my paragraph was deleted by Sanguinalis under the pretext that it was 'commentary' - 'this is a timeline, a summary of events, not a place for commentary' he said. I was trying to neutralise the implicit POV the timeline endorses by listing hizbollah's actions first with no mention of the events that took place very close beforehand, which, one side would argue, constituted the first provocation. so please add my paragraph back in, make it snappier if you think it reads too much like 'commentary' (I stressed chomsky so nobody would delete it on spec as unreferenced weasel-words). the fact is that only the majority opinion of americans and israelis (and as such wikipedians) is being represented - making it a popular piece of POV, but POV nonetheless - in the most crucial part of the article; the part which concerns the root cause. here is what I added to the timeline at the beginning:

Debate as to which party made the initial provocation

Political commentators largely agree Hezbollah started the conflict but a minority of experts disagree. Noam Chomsky contends that this "latest phase" of Arab-Israeli conflict began with an Israeli abduction of civilians in Gaza:[22] 

   It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don’t know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That’s Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don’t have to repeat. It’s reported on adequately.

Chomsky's opinion is that the subsequent Hezbollah raid was instigated in reaction to Israel's actions and in 'solidarity' with militants in Gaza.

so let's improve this para and reinsert it please. --86.143.171.239 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

The main picture has been deleted as it is EXTREMELY biased and does not portray the conflict accurately. The picture implies that Israel launched an attack first...that is wrong! and aren't Israeli victims equally important too??????????? Therefore the main picture should show Hezbollah launching rockets at Israel since HEZBOLLAH STARTED the conflict.

Trying to establish clearly who started the conflict is nearly impossible. Unfortunalty, we can only put one picture, and it happends that Lebanon is the country with the most civil losses. PS : Please sign your post on talk pages. --Deenoe 04:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Obviously killing 300 and displacing 500,000 civilians is justified because zomg they started it!!!!!!" Very insightful. ugen64 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths and displacement of civilians is tragic and regretable. But let's not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis that have been displaced in northern Israel because of this conflict. It is important to note that if Hezbollah did NOT start the conflict, there would have been no conflict as Israel has no desire to start a conflict. If Hezbollah hadn't attacked in the first place no one would have been displaced. Not to get off topic, but the same thing happened when the Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan. Had they accepted it, there would have been no Palestinian refugees. Keep in mind also that Israel has given civilians warnings to leave before they attacked. This is definitely humanitarian and no other country in the world has done such a thing. And if you disagree, please cite it.

Folks, let's not have a debate on who started it. The main picture was perfect and it has been restored by i-dunno-who. --Deenoe 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deenoe, if Hezbollah hadn't started it there would be NO fighting and NO suffering on both sides. Please keep an open mind and be honest. The main picture should show Hezbollah launching rockets. Again, if Hezbollah did not attack, there would be NO Israeli operation. Rather than avoiding the issue, please discuss it if you disagree. Let's be honest. --68.1.182.215 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the Best Way to Report What Happened, NOT what a reporter thinks on wikipedia

I don't understand why this conflict is do debatable on wikipedia. We should all put aside our emotional feelings and forget about our support to whatever belief we have. Let's just look at the facts. Israel left Lebanon in the year 2000. And six years later, Hezbollah launches an attack against Israel (Israel had NOT done anything to Hezbollah or Lebanon provoke such an attack). Therefore, the fact is simply that Hezbollah is a terror organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. Another point to be made is that each time Israel withdraws for a territory, the area becomes a stronger base for terrorist organizations as we see in southern Lebanon and Gaza. Why don't Hezbollah and Hamas seek peace? READ THEIR CHARTERS! They seek Israel's complete destruction. So my point is...please LOOK AT THE FACTS and stop trying to twist everything to meet one's own view. I only want a FAIR and HONEST view of the conflict. And if someone disagrees, I welcome any challenge --68.1.182.215 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first challenge is to produce an english version of the Hezbollah charter. Actually I would just like to see it and be able to cite it on the page.. I am sure it's pretty ugly. Additionally, I don't know all the details, but I'm sure you can find people who would argue about what went on in those 6 years and whether or not Israel left Lebanon amicably. It is difficult to believe you want a fair and honest view if you don't even acknowledge or try to address any possible issues regarding this.--Paraphelion 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This conflict is not being debated. The article in Wikipedia is being debated. Really different. I don't think that you bring a NPOV either by the way. --Deenoe 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deenoe, I agree that debating is important. But it is hard for us to debate, if you keep deleting people's comments. Deleting our comments indicate that there is a truth you want to suppress since you are unwilling to discuss it. --68.1.182.215 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never deleted someone's comment upon purpose, because I believe in free speech. I checked all my history in this talk page and I don't see when and where I erased comments. Sorry if by accident I did. I find it very offending that you jump to conclusions like that. Erasing comments would be plain censorship and I don't play this game. --Deenoe 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, this is not a forum on the conflict only the reporting of it. Israel, Lebanon and Palestine all have there good and bad people/point's. And the U.S.A attacked Iraq, so what does that make the U.S.A a terrorist country?. Enlil Ninlil 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is the use of violence and force for a political, religious, and economic agenda. Islamic fundamentalists preach hate and desire the destruction of Israel and the United States. Our entry into Iraq can be looked upon at multiple levels. Even though WMDS were not found, thousands of terrorists that seek to continue more attacks against the US have been killed. Furthermore, it is widely known that Saddam Hussein funded the terror organizations that seek Israel's destruction. The USA did not enter the country with an intent to destroy Iraq and murder its citizens, but fundamentalists seek to kill Americans and much of Western society. The USA does not seek to kill innocent Iraqis, as a matter of fact, we have trials for those who abuse prisoners. Iraq and every fundamentalists seek the deaths of civilians. That is terrorism.

Also, reporting shouldn't be debated. Reporting is telling exactly what happened without twisting statements because of a bias or belief. The fact is that Hezbollah attacked Israel. That is what happened. Don't change it and say well, Israel escalated its operations and displaced many Lebanese citizens. That's wrong. That's being biased against Israel. Something honest and fair would be: Hezbollah attacked Israel and initiated this conflict which resulted in the displacement of Lebanese citizens. This is accurate reporting because if Hezbollah had not attacked Israel, these citizens and Israeli citizens would not have been displaced. Please be accurate and logical! --68.1.182.215 06:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is not trying to kill Civilians either, I know because I'm part of the organization. They're trying to force israel to release the thousands upon thousands of Arab Civilian prisoners inside the State of Zionisim.

This is all, of course, very WP:POV and WP:OR, to point out the obvious. What WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources report is exactly what Wikipedia should be stating, not some internal notion of 'truth'. Nysin 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to list the number of rockets fired into Israel? Please read the casualties and notice that tons of Israelis have killed and injured. Thousands more have been displaced. The question is, why did Hezbollah attack Israel first? Israel left Lebanon in the year 2000. And nearly a million Arab-Israeli citizens live in Israel and many are happy there. They have more freedom and rights than any other country in the Middle East. Just so you know, a survey in the year 2000 indicated that Arab-Israelis would much rather be a minority in the State of Israel rather than be a majority in a future Palestinian state. What does that tell you? Arab-Israelis love Israel and the freedoms offered there. Israel holds trials and imprisons those seek its destruction. Perhaps if Hezbollah recognized Israel and sought peace, perhaps there could have been negotiations. And Israel is not Zionism because there are plenty of Chrisitians and Muslims who live happily in Israel. --68.1.182.215 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedia editor, it tells me what WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS sources say it tells me. Nysin 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced Israelis

(my comment was removed probably by mistake)

Why is there no estimate of the number of displaced Israelis? I'm from Haifa, and for almost a week now I've left my city and the northen region and moved to central Israel. So have a lot of other Israelis (tens of thousands? maybe more) that live in northen israel. Eranb 06:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was something there that said 10,000 displaced Israelis, however there was no source but I did try to find one. If you can find one post it. If you post it here I will be happy to read it and edit the infobox. Actually I did find one source, Debka - [23], but I think people had some issue with this as a source. I don't know much about it. I found a vague source and put that up there. It's not exact but I think it's worth noting something rather than nothing.--Paraphelion 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a random article, 220,000 in shelters. Sorry, I don't have the source, it was on google news. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz quotes an estimate local officials estimates of 30% - 50% of the northerners[24]. I'm not sure what the term "northeners" covers (north of the Akko - Amihood road? maybe also south of that line, like Haifa and Tiberias?). The official number of "people under rocket/missile threat" that the media here states is 1.5 milion. I don't think that 300K people have left, but the number may certainly be over 100K. I'll try to find more sources. Eranb 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction section getting long?

I think the International Reaction section is getting a bit long again. The country-by-country breakdown that has reappeared is better suited for the dedicated International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article in my opinion. --Age234 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Lebanon and Chris Matthews

I would rather see a direct quote from the PM about this. Also I cannot find this statement elsewhere. I have found a few links. One

He said the intensifying aggression "in this barbaric way proves that Israel has decided to push Lebanon back 50 years." [25]

"Continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon could set its development back 50 years, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said Tuesday" - [26]

"Lebanon for years has been trying to build itself back up and come back after many years of civil war," Shalhoub said. "This has set us back 50 years. All of us are affected. People are running out of supplies and food and there's no way to get anything in from the outside. We're going to do our best to help." - [27]

Shaloub is the Rev. Elia Shalhoub of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church in West Palm Beach. Unless Lebanon has a West Palm Beach I think this guy is from Florida.--Paraphelion 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody else think the title is preposterous?

The first sentence says The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of ongoing military actions and clashes in northern Israel and Lebanon involving Hezbollah's armed wing and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).. So, a conflict between Hezbollah's armed wing and the Israel Defense Forces is a Israel-Lebanon conflict? How's that again? ObsidianOrder 06:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Israel is bombing all parts of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, eg Bridges, roads, other infastructure even a bloody dairy farm (thats smart) and Hezbollah is targeting as much of Israel as it can. Enlil Ninlil 06:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, bridges like the one between the Bekaa valley (a Hezbollah stronghold) and Syria (one of the main arms suppliers to Hezbollah). Cutting enemy lines of supply and communication is a basic war strategy. Do you gave the problem with that? ObsidianOrder 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the conflict is in Israel and Lebanon... Israel has hit civilian and Lebanon Army targets. I think it's the consensus at the moment.
Other suggestions have included, but are not limited to -


Once the war has ended, then I think we can have an official name. I don't think that is the most important issue right now. --68.1.182.215 06:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should use the titles World War III or even classify this has a World War because, so far, it's only between Lebanon/Hezbollah and Israel. Syria and Iran might become part of it but so far this is not a war, it's a conflict and it's not a World War *yet*. --Deenoe 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN Security Council resolution issue

On Saturday [July 15, 2006] the United Nations Security Council again rejected pleas from Lebanon that it call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon.

The above statement statement from the article seems to me to be inaccurate and misleading. Based on the following article [28], it seems to me that Democracy Now's website (from which the statement is a direct quote of), may be inaccurately describing the situation. The statements seems to imply that the council voted in to reject a call for a ceasefire when reality it seems that the issue was really a disagreement over the text of the call for a ceasefire. It appears the U.S. is the only security council member rejecting a call for a ceasefire at this time. It should be corrected to more accurately reflect what really happened at the UN Security Council meeting that day. --Cab88 11:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chemical weapons

Removed statement about chemical weapons because I didn't think this article looked credible and the rest of the site is in Arabic so I'm not sure what kind of site it is : As-Safir newspaper also ran a story about alleged use of unknown chemical weapons, citing a member of the "French Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons" [15].

However I did find other articles about chemical weapons : [29] This one claims this picture is of a scene in Lebanon of an IDF soldier handling a chemical weapon shell : [30] This one claims that chemical weapons from Iraq were passed to Syria and then to Hezbolla : [31]--Paraphelion 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Proposal for Image Article

Ever since the inception of this article, I have seen score of images posted and swiftly removed. I suggest that we create 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in pictures. That article should include different section for each side, political leaders, and other images relevant.--Patchouli 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that idea has been brought up on other articles and turned down. We're an encyclopedia, not a picture gallery. --Cyde↔Weys 14:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Beirut2.jpg
Destruction in a Beirut neighbourhood

The current picture seems best fitting for the article. ArmanJan 15:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture was a blatant copyright theft and has unfortunately to be removed. Thomas Blomberg 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best picture was the Map, IMHO. It fixed a lot of issues regarding we we're showing the Lebanese side therefore.. blablablabla. --Deenoe 15:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can't we just put up the map again? --Cyde↔Weys 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a representative of Red Plastic Riding Horse Unlimited we would like to say that we do not appreciate images of our product being used in this manner.--Paraphelion 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a representative of You are really not funny, we would like to say that we do not appreciate you making jokes like representing a toy company, or Iran and Syria. --Deenoe 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict

This page should be renamed to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict to clarify the parties involved . A title stating 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is misleading as it implies that the conflict is between Israel and Lebanon , whereas the conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has explicetly stated that they have no conflict with the country of Lebanon itself or its people.--CltFn 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)--CltFn 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion above, this has already been looked at and rejected. --Cyde↔Weys 14:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we should rediscuss it and today is not then. There is no finality to anything in Wikipedia, the issue can be brought up again. --CltFn 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just discussed a few days ago. I know there's no binding decisions, but bringing it up every few days is just wasting time. --Cyde↔Weys 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it keeps coming up , then it is not a resolved issue now is it.--CltFn 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't keep coming up. You're the first person who's brought it up since the old discussion stagnated, and you did it in a terrible way, by trying to do thrice over before even starting to discuss. --Cyde↔Weys 16:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture Again

The main picture was deleted again. Although the picture was better, it was biased in subtle manners. If the map shows where Israeli operations were located in Lebanon (i.e. Israeli blockade and Israel airport strike) then the map should also show where Hezbollah has struck towns and cities in Israel. Therefore, for the map to stay up, either mention both sides' places of operations or don't mention any of them and just show a map. --68.1.182.215 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAHH NOT THIS DEBATE AGAIN! The City of Haifa was clearly indicated on the map, there was NO reason to change it. --Deenoe 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Democracy Now!" ??????

Can a left-wing news program be considered an NPOV source???? If not, I suggest removal of all its quotes and the paragraphs in the article based on them immediately. Tweekerd 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "?". The Daily Mirror. 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "'Their bodies litter the road'". BBC. 2006-07-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "Israeli Attacks Kill 13 Lebanese Civilians". All Headline News. 2006-07-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Israel: Investigate Attack on Civilians in Lebanon". Human Rights News. 2006-07-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ "Hizbullah leader promises enemy `more surprises`".
  6. ^ Major Attacks in Lebanon, Israel and the Gaza Strip, New York Times
  7. ^ Fighting inside Lebanese border — BBC News, Thursday, 20 July 2006
  8. ^ a b "Lebanon under Israeli attack: Sunday Roundup". Daily Star (Lebanon). 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  9. ^ a b "Lebanon Accuses Israel of Using Internationally Prohibited Weapons Against Civilians". Naharnet. 2006-07-16. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Updated report on the war in Lebanon - Day 8". Ya Libnan. 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  11. ^ "Israel uses banned weapons against Lebanese civilians". Aljazeera. 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  12. ^ "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons". GlobalSecurity.org. 1980-10-10. Retrieved 2006-07-20. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. ^ [32]
  14. ^ "Amnesty International. "UN: Security Council must adopt urgent measures to protect civilians in Israel-Lebanon conflict". Amnesty.org.
  15. ^ "Israeli Agression on Lebanon", July 19 and 21, 2006, in As-Safir, Retrieved on 2006-07-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=65233957"