Talk:2006 Lebanon War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article 2006 Lebanon War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Two Israel Soldiers captured were Released[edit]

Here is a Interview with one from the Soldiers who was captured by HA and was released http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talkcontribs) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That interview was with a "survivor of the attack" i.e. not either of the two who were kidnapped (Eldad Regev and Udi Goldwasser).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the video from the captured of these IDF soldiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo and this news agency from Israel is a interview by one of two soldiers who were captured alive by HA inside the Military vehicle http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talkcontribs) 05:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the youtube video is just a video of the combat, not proof of life. Secondly, the interview is not "by one of the two soldiers who were captured", the article says the interview is with a "survivor of the attack". The interview also speaks of "the widow" of one of the two kidnapped soldiers which implies the soldier has been killed (hence, widow).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The interview from this Soldier in 2012 http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel is the same person who got the attack by HA in the video attack from 2006 on border, I think the confusion is from 4 guys inside the military vehicle - 2 soldiers got killed but 2 were captured and at least one was released HA Just take the bodies from others two.

The Report from Israel TV News Said "One of the soldiers who survived the attack and Wash The video" He mean this video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo )

It's not enough evidence at least one from the two was released ?

I'm not 100% sure anyway I just provide you the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talkcontribs) 07:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A radical proposal[edit]

Let's remove all so-called "supporters" from the infobox. This was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, and if we are to include everyone who somehow contributed to the war, we would have dozens of small militias on the Lebanese side. Let's keep it simple and correct. Anyone agree/disagree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah Strength[edit]

The infobox currently reads "Several hundreds" for Hezbollah Strength. Seems dubious, also considering previously the article mentioned thousands. The references are a random unnotable news article that doesn't say much anyway, and a book that's inaccessible online. Anyone has better references or info? 217.132.221.42 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook source[edit]

@Wlglunight93: Again, you repeat this behaviour. I have asked you before to discuss first instead of multiple rapid-fire edits without regard to 1RR. Please revert your edit and discuss here first to find an acceptable solution. This disregard for process is very annoying. Your dislike of some source does not make it automatically not WP:RS. It always depends on context. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

CounterPunch is an anti-Israel website just like Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, blogs in general, etc. We can't use unreliable sources like those. With your criteria we could also cite HonestReporting, NGO Monitor, the Anti-Defamation League, UN Watch and many other pro-Israel organizations to state facts (without even proper citation). I changed the content of the paragraph to reflect what The Guardian says. What is your problem with the present version? There's no need to cite Mr Cook, the Winograd Commission already recognized what Olmert said.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My main problem is with your disregard for 1RR and WP:BRD. The 1RR rule exists for a good reason, to help discussions. Yet you continue to make edits disregarding it. Coming to your point, you not only removed the reference, but changed the wording to make it more "NPOV". The earlier reference by Cook said exactly what is present now regarding the facts, so there is no dispute at all about the reliability. You removed the reference to "casus belli" and the "mitigating factor". This is removing context from the paragraph, and not making it "NPOV". These are precisely the issues which are supposed to be addressed by 1RR. Please revert it and thrash out a consensual version here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
He did not break 1RR there are long time consensus that first edit even if removing material that was not recently added is not a revert.--Shrike (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)--Shrike (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid that is simple wikilawyering. He removed content, I restored it, he removed it again. Whatever be the niceties of 1RR, this is edit-warring. Things should be discussed, not imposed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more careful with 1RR, although I'm not the only one breaking it. We should state what The Guardian (not CounterPunch) says. The source is very clear: Israel's preparations for the war were drawn up at least four months before the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers (no mention of "mitigating factor" in The Guardian... whatever that is). This is what Olmert himself told the Winograd Commission. Why do you keep seeking to split hairs?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but edit warring doesn't happen in vacuum there is always at least two editor who edit warring.Anyhow counterpounch is really unacceptable source.--Shrike (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93: Everyone breaks 1RR in this area occasionally, I have broken it twice myself, even accidentally, and I revert when someone asks. This is very simple way to avoid disputes and improve discussion. You are welcome to try to improve the sentence: the aim is to get to a consensual version without people imposing their will. As to your edit, does anyone doubt that the capture of the two soldiers was the casus belli for the 2006 war? If not, why did you remove it? @Shrike: I am not sure where you got the idea that 2 editors are required for edit-warring. If you are suggesting that I edit-warred, I would be happy to see the evidence, and stop it in the future. Kingsindian (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: The Guardian doesn't mention any "casus belli", although we could write "[...]suggesting that Israel's preparations for the war were drawn up at least four months before the two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hizbullah, the casus belli for the war". Are you happy? You can see that CounterPunch is unacceptable as source just by reading the language it uses: "the main mitigating factor for Israel's show of aggression" (apparently this POV-pushing is what you want to add in the article... UNBELIEVABLE! this is not even the language used by Cook). Take a look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I am indeed aware of both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I will quote two sentences from here. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Jonathan Cook is WP:RS, which trumps the venue in this case, and as an opinionated source, he is given in-text attribution. None of the facts reported are inaccurate, opinions of course are a matter of ... opinion. I am happy with removal of the latter (Israel's show of aggression), which is needlessly POV language, but the former part about casus belli is proper and accurate. I suggest this:

According to Jonathan Cook, the Winograd Committee leaked a testimony from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggesting that Olmert "had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbullah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006."

Actually The Guardian talks about kidnapping, not "capture", but I agree with the paragraph you proposed. Could you please change it accordingly and remove the POV-language?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, so I suggest any changes in the infobox should pass the discussion page before being made. For example, IP's keep adding "Israeli invasion repulsed" although the article explicitly states otherwise (the IDF withdrew following the ceasefire). I suggest we stick to the pre-edit war version:

  • Ceasefire through UNSC Resolution 1701
  • The Lebanese Army is introduced into South Lebanon and UNIFIL reinforced
  • End of the Shebaa Farms conflict

Is this something we can agree upon? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)