Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Discussion about POV

This page is for the discussion of Point of View issues in the article.

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".
  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive8#Discussion about POV
    • Destruction of Israel?
    • POV emendations
    • Position of Lebanon and Chris Matthews
    • "Democracy Now!" ??????
    • NPOV tag
    • Re:Pretty please
    • UN Security Council resolution issue
    • Hezbollah raid and ensuing border clash
    • "Alleged targeting of civilians"
    • Alleged targeting of civilians
    • Don't confuse NPOV with "must make both sides look equal on everything"
    • "Targets in civilian areas" vs. "Civilian targets" and "Targeting of civilians"
    • POV article
    • Discussing the Best Way to Report What Happened, NOT what a reporter thinks on wikipedia
    • Haaretz as a source
    • my crucial timeline paragraph unjustly deleted
    • Page quality, NPOV, etc
    • Pro-Isreali admins
    • Coverage of "Hizbollah's Rocket Campaign" ghastly lacking
    • Clarification on NPOV
    • History of US aid to Israel
  • Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive16#Discussion about POV
    • Heavy anti-Israeli bias
    • Deleted part of Negotions for ceasefire
    • "Beginning of conflict" is pro-Israeli
    • First real NPOV quality edit ever
    • More on this section - let's work for an NPOV and better article
    • This is getting ridiculous
    • Support to Israel v. Support to Hezbollah
    • This is too much
    • Quote on "10 residential buildings in south Beirut for every Hezbollah rocket"
    • Sequence of Hezbollah/Israel/Lebanon in Military and Civilan Sections
    • Reaching consensus on "Beginning of conflict" section
    • Mitigating comments on confirmed Israeli attacks on ambulances and hospitals
    • Need new article?
    • Lead
    • balance or truth
    • "Disproportionate" vs "Retaliatory""
    • The following is a paragraph from the introduction:
    • The Aim of Hizbollah
    • Template figures: shock
    • Way too much Israeli Proganda
    • NPOV?
  • Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV box at top

I've added a POV template at the top, but this was quickly reverted by Ryulong. I added it again now. It is fairly obvious that people on both sides have issues with the content. If anyone thinks it should not be there, please state the reasons here. ehudshapira 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • One thing that's constantly getting undone is images. There were more showing the Lebanese side (3 vs 1), and by now there are none from Israel. Even the International Reaction section, which says there are supporters for both sides, shows an image of a pro-Lebanese demo. ehudshapira 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats because there's more damage on the Lebanese side! I agree we need one pic from Israel, and we did have it (don't know who removed it), but any more than this would actually be more POV than having them all Lebanon. Again, the "pro lebanon" rally is shown because a)we're trying to keep size down, so two pics is one too many, and b) most (but of course, not all) the rallies are calling for an end to the conflict, only some supporting Israel. But I must thank you for actually listing your concerns, rather than just adding the tag and expecting us to guess like some people do. If you tell us what you think is wrong, we can work to fix it. --Iorek85 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how more damage equals more images. An image shows the state of things, whatever it is. (Excessively) more images to one side are biased. Showing the dead Lebanese kid is bias, also because no such pictures are taken or spread in Israel (which also had kids die, even if less).

About the demo section, either show demos for both sides or none. ehudshapira 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Intro: "Hezbollah's armed wing" seems biased to me. Hizballah's main reason for existence is militant. Other aspects (assuming they exist), are only annexes. ehudshapira 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Intro: "Both sides' attacks on civilian population". Suggest equality between the behavior of the two sides, i.e., like Israel is indiscriminately attacking civilians. ehudshapira 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The beginning of the whole thing wasn't only the abduction of soldiers, but also the shelling of towns and IDF posts [1]. I added that fact a few days ago, but it was getting edited and marginalized until it's gone. ehudshapira 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an image shows a state of things - and the fact is, there is more damage, and thus more to show, in Lebanon. Is it our fault there are no pictures of dead children in Israel? No, and showing pictures of dead children is not biased - sure, if the article was peppered with them, then yes. But one image is not. I think you are confusing WP:NPOV with some sort of 50:50 balance. This is clearly not the case in a conflict which is primarily (for good or bad) on one side. This applies to the demonstration - only one image is needed, and thus the image that shows the most is chosen. As for your other points;

  • Hezbollah is not just a military organisation. Australia, for instance, only lists the militant wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah practically runs the south of the country, providing essential services like education, rubbish pickup, etc. It also has seats in parliament in Lebanon.
  • No where does it say that Israel is deliberately targetting civilians. And by no means is there equality on both sides - Lebanon kills more military than civilians, while Israel kills many more civilians than military. (Yes, I know, they don't mean to)
  • The continued shelling of towns is mentioned in the history section, but the international consensus seems to be the conflict was started by the kidnap. --Iorek85 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There was a picture which shows Haifa's train station. We can add it again. Also we can add this picture.--Sa.vakilian 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't need two photos in the protest section - that image is already in the sub article. AdamKesher has added two great before/after pics of Lebanon, so I removed the one of the bomb damage in Beirut to balance it out, and then re-added the mourning Israeli soldiers that someone removed for no reason. Is it O.K with you now? --Iorek85 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the tag for now. If the comprimise doesn't suit, you can always add it back. --Iorek85 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The POV template should remain at the top of the page at the very least till the end of the conflict and removing it should be considered to be Vandalism--ComradeWolf 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. The template should only stay there when someone is raising a specific issue about the POV of the article. Once those POV concerns have been dismissed or addressed, it gets removed. --Iorek85 22:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is getting imbalanced so often it's best to keep it until things settle. And after a short reading, again I have an issue. See "Initial shelling & more" subsection here. ehudshapira 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to pipe in here at the bottom with something that I'm sure will be controversial, but I just want to take issue with the idea that Israel is not deliberately/knowingly targeting civilians. At some point, the disregard for whether or not you're killing civilians is so high that it can only be called deliberate. For example, the IDF has just declared that they will bomb any moving vehicle in southern Lebanon. Most moving vehicles (like most apartment buildings) contain civilians, only a small fraction in any area are military. This seems to have no more regard for civilian life than the acts that Hezbollah is commiting. Bombing dense urban areas and entire apartment buildings is another example. I can only conclude that it is reasonable to make the statement that Israel is knowingly targeting civilians. --spiralhighway 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR

It's about time to call it a war!who are we kidding!

THE ARTICLE IS ONE SIDED I tried many times to balance this article, but it was always reverted (vandalism my ass)! For my comments on the anti-air gun! it was due the fact that it stated that it was "a rcoket launcher used from civilians buildings!" isn't that vandalism! I appreciate that you corrected that! And about the 400 dead from hezbollah! this is pure propaganda! I know for a fact that till now its only 43! and I think we should use the terms war crimes toward the acts of israel! israel due to its military incompetence has killed over 900 civilians!!! Israel is unable to do anything to hezbollah (i'm only stating waht i'm seeing till now) all the news that israeli are getting is full of propaganda! hezbollah has minor minor casualties (till now)!

The LEAFLETS that were dropped on southern Lebanon: I don't think we should keep these unless we state alongside that the leaflets were dropped after all exit roads were cutoff by israeli airraids! I know that because I have nmany friends from there and plus the ones that find a way out on foot get targeted (children!!!that were getting out as these leaflets stated were targeted! this was the case for a village that still had exit roads)! So tell me what's the purpose of these leaflets! they are only an excuse to show to the international community! this is pure hypocratie!

CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN... maybe if we say the word "children" enough, the arabs will win this war.. because obviously their stupid child-killing rocket attacks surely aren't helping them! CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN... cmon everybody! all together now..! CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN, CHILDREN.. hmm... guess it's not working...! oh well... back to the child-killing suicide attacks then.. the only thing arabs are good for... in the future, when aliens attack, we can send muslim (if there are any left) suicide bombers to kill the alien children Shakespeare Monkey 06:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
And this contributes to achieving an NPOV, sourced, encyclopedic entry how? You a non-funny clown Hellznrg, even the hardest-core zionist editors agree. --Cerejota 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
i wasn't even trying to contribute anything, i was just randomly flaming on the TALK/POV page...! anyways, i know more things than you ever will, because i read a lot... this is why i know that the world will be a better place when all moslems are exterminated.. they contribute nothing, they just take up space and their women are baby-making machines... why do you think they turn their kids into suicide bombers? because their kids are disposable that's why Shakespeare Monkey 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article called the "Israel-Lebanon conflict"? Isn't "Israel-Hezbullah conflict" more accurate, as Israel isn't really fighting the Lebanese (or their Syrian masters)? --Micahbrwn 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
it's lebanon's fault for not implementing the UN resolutions calling for the disarmament of militias.. in addition, sineora himself said during this present conflict that hezbolla was "protecting" lebanon, thus giving his full approval to hezbolla to carry out attacks on israel. "if you sleep with dogs, you will wake up with fleas. if you sleep with missiles, you will wake up dead." Shakespeare Monkey 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ISRAEL-HIZBULLA WAR

Even the title is POV here. Lebanon and Israel weren't at war. Neither declared war against the other. Israel was at war with Hizbullah only. The name should be changed. What happened to the "Move" button? --12.74.187.195 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaflet

Editor Avi posted this message in my talk page and I replied that I only reply article related stuff in this talk page.--Cerejota 07:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, you removed the IDF image from the 2006 conflict article with an edit summary of POV propaganda. Can you please elaborate? It was a picture of the leaflet that is described in the text at that point, I don't understand your edit. Thanks. -- Avi 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(This is copied from the main talk, and I've brought it here. Iorek85) I've browsed the archives and I cannot come up with a valid reason to remove the image. It is an image of what is referred to in the text. It is also WP:RS. Is there a WP:RS for Hezbollah dropping leaflets in Haifa? If there is, bring it. If only one side warns and only one side has leaflets, it is not a POV issue to show that. Even if both sides were to have, the proper methodology is to bring both, not delete one. -- Avi 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have consistently opposed the use of propaganda from either side unless we make a page for it. The reason is simple: it doesn't provide any additional relevant information that furthers article quality, but instead serves to needlessly inflame the passions of those who do not share a pro-Israeli POV. It is just flame bait, and those who continue to push for its inclusion should probably re-consider if the inclussion of such infalamtory speech is productive and positive to acheieving a good article, or is it rather just a needless provocation.--Cerejota 07:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is an illustration of the leaflets that the Israelis are dropping on Southern Lebanon. It's entirely relevant to the article, and especially to the section it illustrates. Having it on the page doesn't support Israel; it merely shows the leaflets they drop. I can't see the problem with it, especially when it is shown in context with the criticisms of it. I can't at all see that it is inflammatory, and I hardly think we shouldn't include it because pro lebanese people don't like it. I'm sure there are plenty of Israelis who hate the sections on attacking civilians, but we leave it in because we're objective. --Iorek85 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with you in the abstract, but not the concrete: we are dealing with human beings here not robots, and people are bound to be insenced by the appearance of an Israeli propaganda image. Next we know along comes a Hezbofan and wants to put some crude cartoon on blood oaths or whatever, and then we have to put it in because its NPOV. Slippery slope, my friend, slippery slope. Thats simply an incorrect reading of NPOV: NPOV is about being coungruent in giving information in a neutral manner. If we had a section or page on propaganda form both sides, then the image is definetely to be included. But thats not the case: the section is on allegations of Hizbollah using civilians as human shields. This image does nothing to further neutral information on this debate that cannot be gained by other, less inflaming and more neutral means.
How does an Israeli propaganda image illustrate any fact in this regards? How does it extend or further the sources we already have on the debate?
Your analogy on attacks of civilians is incorrect: its equivalent here would be a verifiable image of Hezbollah using people as human shields, which would serve to illustrate the fact. Such images are not forthcoming, this doesn't mean we must use an Israeli propganda image as a substitute. It makes no sense.
We don't have to illustrate every section and every piece of content, but those we do illustrate must have an overwhelming rerason on why they should be pictured.
Pictures of civilians dead in Haifa and Beirut serve to illustrate central facts of the conflict, whereas an Israeli propaganda image ultimately is only an Israeli propaganda image with no relevancy to what is being presented.--Cerejota 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but that image is what that section is discussing; it'd be like having the article on the Magna Carta not having a picture of it. The absence of a counter image from the other side does not mean we can't use this one, otherwise the article would be twice as long as it needs to be. NPOV is not a 50:50 balance. Besides, there is no image of Hezbollah leaflets, since Hezbollah isn't dropping leaflets on Northern Israel (nor does that section discuss any). Hezbofan, as you put it, can propose any image he likes; if he has one of leaflets dropped by Hezbollah on Israel, I'd welcome it. Each image should be taken on it's own merits, not censored to suit Hezbofans tastes. --Iorek85 07:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Again, my problem is not one of Bias (ie having a counter-image) but of relevancy. The section is about allegations of Hezbollah using people as human shields, and mentions that israel throws leaflets. Since these is supported by verifiable and relaiable sources, I fail to see what additional information is garnered from seeing the flyer itself, but I can clearly see in my crystal ball that it will be the site of much needless debate.
If you carefully read why NPOV is a policy, you will notice it is precisely to mitigate the possibility of edit wars by satisfying all sides of a debate, with due weight as criteria. FOr example, by putting a one line mention of the Flat Earth Society on an article on Earth, one can both have an article with the commonly held view that the earth is round and take care of any potential edit wars from flat earthers. Personally, I have no problem with the image, but be warned that I will be forced to support, in the interest of balance, a similar propaganda image from Hezbollah if it should come about. As I said, slippery slope... the Law of unintended consequences is brutal and immanent.--Cerejota 08:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's in the section "Advance warnings of attacks by Israel". I think the image is neatly counterbalanced by the in text criticisms of it, so there's no POV problem - both sides are presented. And warned? I'm with you on supporting a similar propaganda image by Hezbollah! --Iorek85 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

News sources

As we all knew US and UK are against Hizbollah.(for more information, refer to the US actions in UN against the ceasefire), and Israel is itself in war with Hizbollah. US has listed Hizbollah az a terrorist organization. But, as someone can count, most of the news sources are from Haartez(Israel), US(Yahoo, CNN), UK(BBC). Is it fair? As far as I see, some news sources like Yahoo, is obviously against Hizbollah, for example between all Nasrollah's words in his last speaking, Yahoo has selected "We didn't expect such reaction from Israel", but he always said that "Israel was preparing itself for a real war, and they only started the war sooner". These are totally different. --Hossein.ir 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hossein, as a german (and thus westerner) I see it the same way as you do. The article is heavily POV, because the vast majority of sources that have been taken into account, used as reference and quoted from, are western media stations. There is no balance of sources at all. The most important sources should come from the Middle East, where the conflict takes place, and not from media that origins in countries such as the UK and the United States of America. If Wikipedia cannot stick to its values of global understanding I fear it loses its face because of heavily relying on western media information, which is not guaranteed to be unbiased. Its spirit of Western societies feeling superior comes to the point here, which originates in the period of colonialism. In the 21st century we should have learned from faults and respect the world as it is, focusing on equality and justice and to me there is no justice in only taking western media information and leaving Libanese/Israeli/Arab sources out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.58.59.225 (talk • contribs).

My guess is that most of the cited sources will satisfy WP:RS - they have the fact checking and related functions that the policy requires. (Also, most people in the BBC, CNN, Yahoo, and the British and US governments would dispute that the news agencies are influenced by their governments' diplomatic positions, but YMMV). IMHO, the solution is to include more reliable, verifiable info, rather than less. Hossein, if you have access to the Middle Eastern media, can you add some of it? Thanks, TheronJ 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The BBC is considered one of the best news agencies in the world; you may also be interested to know it was recently audited for antiIsraeli bias after people complained. (They didn't find any). You'll also note Al Jazeera has been used as a source, as well as many other sources. Its not wikipedia's fault the biggest, most prolific and respected news sources are from the west. --Iorek85 10:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Any news company that is financially big should be seen with critical eyes, especially because it is usually showing what the masses want to know and see about. But, as we all know, the masses are not the ones to count on, oftentimes they don't question information coming from BBC, or any other big news station. Wikipedia much more needs to focus on reliable, well-researched, logically-proven content because we don't want to serve europeans, americans or whoever: We want to serve information for everybody on Earth, which means to know about asian cultures, old indian and chinese philosophy etc. It needs a great amount of knowledge that bigger media corporations mostly just don't have; those that have it are intellectual papers that are not read by the masses. Some of them are freely available online, for example the german [www.freitag.de|Freitag] weekly paper. They can be distinguished by their way of coverage from multiple viewpoints, not just from one.
We have a policy here called WP:RS, you can read over it and get a better understanding of what is considered a reliable source. While you may not believe that some sourcse are eligible for inclusion, that is something you should argue on the WP:RS page if it is normally widely accepted such as CNN or BBC. Also you have to understand that news agencies do research on topics they write about, especially those the size of some you are complaining about. Its not just John Smith up late at his cubicle putting something together the night before to rush out. So if you have a problem with a particular source that is widely accepted please use the talk page at WP:RS, or if you want to add a source feel free to do so, or if its not one you are sure passes WP:RS ask here or on the policies talk page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Initial shelling & more

The description of the beginning is constantly getting undone. There wasn't only a capture of two soldiers, but also shelling into Israel, killing of 3, and wounding others. See UN report S/2006/560. This is a base detail. I believe also civilians were hurt at this stage, but I'll have to look for these articles again. ehudshapira 23:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request setting the article to POV

2 things that make this article POV:

1) pictures do not show the war as it is, but instead try to make it "clean" by not showing any injured/dead bodys in close shots. If people say it would be POV to include pictures of children being harmed, then I can only say: Children are humans as well, no matter how much they provoke. Making a war nice by showing no emotional pictures causes the perception of wars in general to be "not soo bad", which I think is dangerous.

2) Western media sources are heavily referenced and there is no fair enough balance of western media and Arab/Middle East media. Please note that quality does not come along with popularity that often, thus major news media stations cannot be trusted on without clarifying and testing all of their statements on truth; examples are CNN, CBS, Reuters, AP. These are heavily overrated in their reliability along with other big media corporations from the western world. Wikipedia is aiming at people of the whole world, not just those that live in Europe, Canada or the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

There is a lack of frontline photos because there is a lack of photographers releasing the photos under the GDFL. They're risking their lives to make money, not help us. (Damn them!) Western media sources are heavily referenced because there are more western media sources, at least among English speakers. Al Jazeera is being used, but thats the only Arab news source I've heard of compared with CNN, BBC, AFP, and AP. These are the big guns in media. --Iorek85 11:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia include sources just because the corporations behind them are "big guns". I don't care whether those are the big ones, I don't care whether there are more media stations in the United States than in Syria (for example). All I care about is the quality and reliability (which is part of the quality) they have, and those that you refered to as the "big guns" are not reliable enough in my point of view, especially because they tend to report things in the manner of western thinking, not in the manner of neutral global thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
Generally, the bigger they are, the more respected they are, the more reliable they are. How do we verify the reliablility of smaller news agencies no one has heard of? Do they publish in english? Are you honestly trying to say Syrian news would be more neutral than the BBC? Or an Iranian newspaper more reliable than say the ABC? Sure, we need different sources for viewpoints, definitely, but they are likely to be just as biased, if not more, than western ones. (Serious question: Does Iran even have a free media?) And you're welcome, at any time, to add your own references from news sources. It'd be a great help, actually. --Iorek85 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
>"Western media sources are heavily referenced and there is no fair enough balance of western media and Arab/Middle East media." Indeed that is a problem at Wikipedia, and if we could get some legitimate news sources from other regions of the world (Middle or Far East, Africa, etc.) I'm sure everyone would appreciate it. The difficulty is in finding those sources, since Western media is in general better-funded, which means more accessible websites. Also, since Wikipedia is largely composed of American and British editors, there's probably something of a language gap also. (Do we even accept foreign-language sources?) Icewolf34 20:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nauseabundal article

The article is starting to get a mess. the battlebox and the beggining of the article is a holy crap. Someone is using the semi protection in the aricle to fix the article as his/her POV. Sad, very sad. Try to look only at the battlebox is a real mess.

NPOV Warning

"alleged" in front of cross border raid keeps on getting reverted even though it is clearly disputed. It's hard to tell who is doing the deleting because the reverter is not documenting it. It looks like editor Tewfik. If I'm wrong, then my apologies. under the circumstances an NPOV warning is in order. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN doesn't think it is disputed... 89.0.219.66 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As the UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media (including Al Jazeera) have all characterised the Hezbollah raid as "cross-border," and as the sources of initial reports of the raid being in Lebanon have not been followed by current reports from those agencies, there is no reason to qualify the WP:Verifiable claims with words like "alleged," or to give undue weight to unverifiable claims of an alternate version. That the claims were initially made is discussed in the article. If current reports from WP:Reliable sources are printed with these claims, then we should reopen discussion. You can see the citations at Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident, as they may have been removed here due to space considerations. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the NPOV tag, as this seems to be the only justification. TewfikTalk 06:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Unless I see AFP, AP and other sources who first reported that the raid happens in Lebanon repudiated their original report, I think the event is still disputed. --Stephenzhu 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

References (sources of information)

Reference [37] in main article (Michael Béhé) The New Republic appears not to be impartial when it comes to the war, as evidenced by their other [[2][articles]] --User:thewatercarrier 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see too many references based on the information given to us by western mainstream media, which I think is POV because there is no balance of western media and media stations that root in Israel/Libanon. This is not to say that western media is not objective enough or not detailled enough, it's just what I primarily noticed about the references. Even if media in Libanon and Israel are less funded and don't have the resources big media corporations from industry nations have, they should be heard for the sake of equality and justice. (That western media can fake things has been shown in the Kosovo war, which was heavily bloated by poor western media that claimed to know much more than they really knew about)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.58.59.225 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You could make similiar objections to media outlets in the Middle East.
Personally, I think a lot of Western media outlets have produced misleading, inaccurate, or simply overly credulous reports, witness the Hezbollah embeds from CNN, the fatuous propaganda trumpeted with respect to the Qana "massacre," and the lack of information about the suffering of Israeli citizens-including most Israeli Arabs-living in the North of that country.
For what it's worth, I think Israeli media outlets, regardless of their editorial slant, have had the most objective, balanced coverage of this conflict.
They've reported every verifiable Israeli casualty-both military and civilian-have published articles exploring the utility of this offensive, have questioned the military credentials of Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Peretz, and-to the extent possible-attempted to accurately cover the offensive within Lebanon, including reportage of civilian casualties, Hezbollah attacks, etc...

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We've talked about the Canadian article, and if you review your comments, you see that even yourself had agreed that it's useless for reasoning. And if you think, US, Israel, Canada, and Australia, and I add UK, are the supporters of great Israel. They're western anglo sacson countries. Someone may think the world is confined into this countries, but I would not agree with him. :-) Btw, some of them are rare news sources that seems to be weblog, that can be found only by googling for a long time. I can qutoe from Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Syria, so many countries from Latin America, including Cuba.

As you're an administrator, I do not revert the edit, but everybody with a NPOV can see what's happening here.

And about Iran, It's my country, and I consider your comment a "Personal Attack". For sure I will add some links from Iran and Al-jazeera.

--Hossein.ir 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you took offense at my mention of Iran, my point was that it will be very difficult to find criticism of Hezbollah's use of human shields in Arab media. Much, much more difficult, I believe, than finding criticism of Israel in Israeli, American, or any Western media. Fascinating, actually. -- Avi 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Good luck.
The last time I tried to add weblogs to the links section of an article it lasted for less than a week.
I'm not saying that there aren't credible Arab newspapers, such as The Arab News, Al-Hayat, The Daily Star, to a lesser extent, as well as some Kuwaiti dailies.
I just believe that the most comprehensive, accurate, English-language coverage, within the theater of war, is occurring in Israel, which is logical, since it has had the most experience with independent journalism in the Middle East.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As a "westerner" - as much as I hate it, because I am just a human being as everbody else on Earth - I feel ashamed seeing all these quotations from so called experts. I hope to have made myself clear in the comment under the heading and that Wikipedia does not lose its balance and neutrality because this is in danger here when quoting only from western media information. If we all want to get near to the truth, we need to inform ourselves from many different media sources, and as everybody know: Mainstream media is often sticking to the philosophy of serving the masses and what they want to read and see, not to the truth. Wikipedia needs to set a sign here for a neutral report on this conflict. And this can, in my opinion, only be done by first of all taking a look at all those quotations that are scattered the whole article and all those references that seem to go into the hundreds. Let's get all heads free of western media, let's take all a look at alternative media (which is in fact the other objection I have against the neutrality of the article, not only the regional fact of majorly western media coverage but also the fact of mostly including sources from big media corporations and no alternative smaller ones, that often do much more research and truth-proven coverage) and the media coming from Arabia and the Middle East and see if we can include it in a way that we have a balance of information source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.58.59.225 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And it's not that we cannot count on western media, what I wanted to say, we can of course take a lot of their information and use it in the article, but please not 90% of western media and 10 only from media out of the Middle East and Arabia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.58.59.225 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
With respect, (1) if you want to alter the established standards of WP:V and WP:RS, you are free to initiate a discussion on the talk pages for the policy and guideline, but this page probably isn't the most efficient place to argue that WP:RS is a stupid policy; and (2) if you have access to reliable, verifiable, Middle Eastern media, by all means add them! Wikipedia does benefit from adding more information, if reliable and verifiable, and that's probably preferable to removing existing info, even if you think that it's too western or too mass media. Thanks, TheronJ 21:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Theron. If we have a reliable, verifiable source for the alternative POV, by all means add it. -- Avi 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of errors in the comments posted upthread by Hossein.
First of all, I'm not an administrator here, nor do I care to be.
Secondly, I didn't even mention Iran-let alone, insult Iran-so I don't know where you got that inference.
Yes, I detest the current, illegitimate Iranian regime, which is supplying Hezbollah with its entire arsenal, and has IRGC troops stationed in Lebanon at this very moment, directing missile fire at innocent Israeli citizens.
Still, this has nothing to do with the discussion of what constitutes a legitimate news source.
I did not say that there were no worthwhile news sources from other Middle Eastern countries, only that there are far fewer, mostly because of the pluralistic, democratic environment found in Israel, which is conducive to a free, introspective press.
As for Cuba, I don't know why on earth you would think that country is a good source of news with respect to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruth, I think he meant me. -- Avi 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake.
I suppose these conversations can get a bit muddled after a while.

Ruthfulbarbarity


Al Jazeera also claimed that it was "cross-border raid". 89.0.219.66 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you specify?
Are you referring to the abduction of IDF soldiers, or the allegation that Israeli troops were in Lebanese territory, making a military incursion, when the hostage-taking occurred?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CEC68E6-3CEF-4E1B-907B-EF4B8F4D5585.htm 89.1.254.24 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

About administration, I was not talking about you. It was Avraham. As this discussion is lasting too long, I've encountered many editing conflicts, and I'm writing my opinions not exactly below the last talk. I'm sorry for this. But I do not agree with you when saying "directing missile fire at innocent Israeli citizens". Nasrallah obviously said that this is reaction to Israel's actions that caused killing of about 1000 innocent people, including UN members. They're defending inside their conuntry, and their defence is considered legal by Lebanon. I ask you. Do you want Israel to consider it legal? What about Israel's main supporter, US, that gives about 3 billion dollar a a year to it? I think it's obvious. And about Iran's governemnt, they state that their support is diplomatic, and political, not more that this. And most of people in muslim world are against Israel, it's an obvious decision.

I'm sorry if my discussions disturbed you, because

  1. I wasn't talking about you
  2. I didn't want to disturb someone. I wanted to be reasonable, and as it seems you're reasonable too, it seems that we can understand eachother.

See this [[3], and you'll have fun! I tried to fix a section, but what I can see, is the removal of this paragraph only. The interesting part is that someone who removes most of my edits, and previous edits that are somehow a little against Israel actions, was so in a hurry that he was fixing his grammatical and spelling mistakes for a long time!(I don't claim that I don't have typos, but I'm not a native English speaker. Look at the removed paragraph:

But according to Senior Emergencies Researcher for Human Rights Watch,Peter Bouckaert "In Lebanon, Time after time, Israel has hit civilian homes and cars in the southern border zone, killing dozens of people with no evidence of any military objective." [4]

File:QanaLeaflet.jpg
A leaflet (authored by the IDF's psychological warfare unit) dropped by the IAF on Southern Lebanon. It reads: “To all citizens south of the Litani River: Due to the terror activities being carried out against the State of Israel from within your villages and homes, the IDF was forced to respond immediately against these activities, even within your villages. For your safety! We call upon you to evacuate your villages immediately and move north of the Litani River. The State of Israel”

Btw, this picture is obviously propaganda, and the funny thing is that IT WAS used to defend Israel's attacks. And at last, international laws say that even if there are civillians mixed with soldiers, it is against the rules to kill both of them. I can not understand why some people want to talk about so called "Human shield"?

--Hossein.ir 22:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may wish to look at the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Articles 28 and 29 [5]
--Avi 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I should look at the whole article, and the attached part. But Nothing is concluded from this. By adding this to the "Hezbollah uses people as human-shield", you can conclude little things, but
I don't believe they're using people as human shield, because "those people are their families". As you may know, Hezbollah is a created local resistance groups, and is not a classic army.
Killing people is against humanity, and "Israel reasoning for attaking non-military targets" won't satisfy me, because I don't think Ghana village was a place for attack on Israel. Who wanted to attack Israel? Children? Women? With what rocket? Why no one have found anything there?

--Hossein.ir 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see propaganda article's pictures, and compare it with the above picture, and talk about what you think. Thanks. --Hossein.ir 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, your chronology of this conflict is inaccurate, to say the least.
Hezbollah was not "responding" to any Israeli "attacks" on Lebanon, since none had occurred when they initiated this war.
Israel certainly had not attacked any members of the United Nations before Hezbollah abducted its soldiers. In fact, the bombing of the UN outpost-and it should be noted that even Canadian United Nations peacekeepers and the Canadian military hierarchy have ascribed blame to Hezbollah for this horrific incident-came weeks into the conflict.
And yes, Hezbollah is firing missiles at Israeli citizens.
To the best of my knowledge, the most recent shelling of an open-air camp is the first and only time during this entire conflict that Hezbollah has aimed its Iranian-constructed and supplied missiles at military, rather than civilian, targets stationed within Israeli territory.
And considering the poor quality of these rockets, and the inability to precisely aim them at specific targets, it's very likely that those soldiers were killed by accident, rather than through premeditation on the part of Hezbollah.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. At least you're hearing me, that is considered a good step :-) Everyone thinks he/she is right. Me and you are just one of them. And I say let's talk to find out more.

  1. Hizbollah captured two Isrealese for freeing whom? Please tell me. I think to free Lebanonese citizens, that were captured. Basically, Israel raids happens everyday. Yesterday head of Palestine's parliment was captured by Israel. This happens every day, and this has occured for years. Israel made this way.
  1. As I know, and you can read on the top of article, there were small number of Israel citizens killed by Hezbollah rockets, and most of the killed person were IDF soldiers. As I know, there were even two Israeli-arabs between the killed people, that their father told that they were killed in the way of freeing Palestine. But the problem is: "killing people by previus decison, and with high precision missles is basically different from accidental kills that occurs rarely. If you look at the statistics, the number of fired missles(300 per day), it's obvious.

I would like to hear comments from you. :-) At least we can exchange ideas hear while THEY're editing the article in their own way, hearing no comments. :-( Googling+Pasting text+pasting URLs. Is it article making? --Hossein.ir 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the best, but we are not allowed to post our own opinions because of WP:OR. -- Avi 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, But it seems you didn't understand my idea. What you google is "Hizbollah Human shield" and you get so many results. You make flood from the links, and make article bloated. But you're not aware of the whole thing, and opposite opinions. --Hossein.ir 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could describe them as Lebanese "citizens."
You could also, more accurately, in my opinion, describe them as terrorists, militiamen, and gun-men who have waged war against the Jewish State, either as members of standing paramilitary/terrorist groups, e.g. Hezbollah, Amal, etc., or who committed individual acts of violence against Israelis, or made incursions into Israeli territory.
Their primary objective-ever since Sharon concluded the last disastrous prisoner-swap with Lebanon-has been to "liberate" Samir Kuntar, who is a coldblooded, homocidal maniac.
Yes, I suppose if you were an apologist for Hezbollah you could make the argument that he deserves to be freed from prison, and allowed to sow terror in the future, but most people in Israel would vehemently disagree with that opinion.
However, this is not simply a question of whether the Lebanese incarcerated in Israeli prisons deserve to be freed.
That question is immaterial to this discussion, since even if Israel was imprisoning them illegally-which they are not-that would still not give Hezbollah legal or ethical justification for launching premeditated incursions into Israeli territory, and abducting Israeli citizens, regardless of whether or not they are active-duty members of the military.
These are all violations of international law. But more importantly, they are provocations intended to foment political turmoil in Israel, destabilize Lebanon, and empower hostile, foreign entities. Namely, the IRI and illegitimate, Ba'athist, Alawite dictatorship that presently controls Syria.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is a word used mainly in propaganda for showing enemy apart from humanity, and ready for brutal killing? This is the truth. Please read your words again, by the word terror, you take away a lot of their rights from them. They're ordinary people, that after Lebanon's occupation tried to free their land. I can't understand why do you call them terrorist?

And one more thing, tell me is Israel itself legal? How do you find a reason for that? Isn't it made by terror, displacing and assasination? Tell me it's not made this way, and I believe all your words. --Hossein.ir 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I described them as terrorists because they have engaged in premeditated acts of terror.
You can describe them as "heroes," or, if you want to be really misleading, and linguistically deceptive, "freedom fighters."
Here-unlike Iran-you're allowed to voice dissenting opinions, regardless of how obnoxious they are, and in spite of the fact that most of the public disagrees vehemently with them.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as "rights" go, they have no "right" to terrorize innocent civilians, invade sovereign territory, or abduct members of the Israeli military, and no one-with the exception perhaps of the dictators in charge of Syria and Iran-has ever claimed that they do.
I can not "deny" them any rights that they never enjoyed in the first place.
You might feel that people have a "right" to go blow up a cafe, simply because Jews happen to be present, but that doesn't mean such a right exists, or has ever existed.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I should tell you that in this GREAT world, only US and 2 or 3 countries consider them terrorist. Haven't you heard that Bush said: "Every nation should defend herself"? What do you say about this? Why are they trying to change people's opinon, if they're right? From the article Megaphone_desktop_tool

Screenshot of Megaphone Desktop Tool

The Megaphone desktop tool is a toolbar for Microsoft Windows, usable with Internet Explorer or Firefox. The program is distributed by the World Union of Jewish Students and other pro-Israel organizations.

Released on July 19, 2006, little is yet known about the details of what this toolbar actually does.

Also read this [Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiersIsrael backed by army of cyber-soldiers]. What's happening? I can't conclude anything. Could you please help me understand this?

And the last thing about "freedom". Say a word about "Holocaus" and I'll see your freedom. :-) Here we have freedom+morality, and we love it. 98% of this country's people vowted for this Islamic republic.

I belive this is wrong: "terrorize innocent civilians, invade sovereign". See the statistic of the war and you'll find out what's happening.

I'm not defending suicide bombers, but as far as I know, the same methods were used against Nazi germans who had occupied France. If you torture someone's family to death, you can expect anything from him/her. So, don't occupy his land, don't torture him, don't kill his family, little children and people, and everything goes well. --Hossein.ir 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinion-no matter how noxious it might be-but not to your own facts.
Hezbollah and/or component parts of Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by many countries outside of the United States, and as a result has been sanctioned.
Furthermore, its very existence is illegal, by virtue of UN Resolution 1559 and the terms of the Taif Accord.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And no, 98% of the people did not vote for the "Islamic Republic," as it's currently constituted.
In fact, the reason that there are not free and fair elections in your country is precisely because the vast majority of Iranians detest the mullahs that dominate the political landscape.
You can enjoy your revisionist, counter-factual history all you want, but I suggest that you not try to pass it off as truth, because other people who aren't as thoroughly indoctrinated as you seem to be will view it as risible.
I don't see what your objection with respect to Israeli opinion-shapers is either.
Are you implying that you are not attempting to push this Wikipedia article in a clearly pro-Hezbollah, pro-IRI, anti-Israeli direction?
That strikes me as being demonstrably absurd, considering some of the opinions you've offered on this thread, and your attempt to insert material that has no bearing on this discussion into the body of the article.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're depending on the mainstream media too much. Anyone knows that United States of America, you're country, have always voted against UN resolutions that are against Israel. I don't know the exact number of them, but I think it's more than 50s. In 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, it voted against one resolution that wanted ceasefire in Lebanon. What do you call this? Why do US use its right for supporting Israel, no matter what it does? huh? We should talk about this in the main article, people who want the article pro-Israel one let. I want a NPOV article, although I think that this is not the exact truth. I want the article to conform to wikipedia rules, and I think right now it does not.

And about my country, please tell me how could you know that it was not 98%? I havent' heard even once that it was not 98%. Some people say that it's not 98% now.... Btw, you make me think of dogma. No matter what I say, you give me your words. For sure wikipedia is hosted in US, but it should contain other people's views, and I say to you that your opinions are only acceptable in US, UK and Israel.

If you don't consider this material related to the article, why do you start talking about them? You're talking my country, freedom, status of freedom in US and Iran. Why? Look above, and talk about the article.

--Hossein.ir 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and justify my support for a country that shares our cultural, political, and economic values, and which is also a pluralistic, democratic, civilized nation, especially not to someone who is an unapologetic defender of a regime that has violated every international treaty, protocol, and covenant known to man.
A rogue regime that is the chief international sponsor of terrorism, including the terrorism currently being directed at the entire state of Israel.
This is not Firing Line, and the fact that you detest Israel and the United States is not material to the discussion at hand.
It has no bearing on what should or should not be included in this article.
The fact that Hezbollah-or constitutent parts of Hezbollah-is considered a terrorist organization by large swaths of the world, or that Al-Manar transmissions are prohibited in many countries because they are considered hate speech, is not under dispute.
At least not by anyone with an ounce of credibility or intellectual honesty.
Most international observers-including the governments of most Middle Eastern nations-stated in unequivocal terms that Hezbollah was responsible for starting this conflict.
If you don't believe me, then I suggest you go back and read some of the statements made at the first Arab League conference that dealt with this issue.
Hezbollah made an incursion into Israeli territory, abducted Israeli soldiers, and has rained thousands of Iranian-made and supplied rockets on Northern Israel.
These are inexorable facts, not subjective opinions.
If you have a problem dealing with facts that contradict your opinion, then you're free to peruse the latest news releases from IRNA.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've seen your page, and it was nice. Btw, although I care about foreigner's opinions about my country(I'm talking about one of your user boxes), I'm really against US support for terrorist organizations that kill people in Iran. Have you heared of Munafeghs? They've a long history of killing innocent people in Iran, and they've been funded from US and UK, and they still live and organize their work there. This year, their budget seems to be about 11 million dollars(publicly announced). Rice said this budget will be spent on making Iran a democrat country. Anything that will be done in this country, should be done with its people's vote, not by US bombs, the way they do in Iraq.

Also, we're not talking about opposing US or Israel, what I'm talking about is "Hezbollah doesn't use its familis as human shield", and I can see that a none-sense report from canada.com is there to justify the fact. These are OBVIOUS facts that is ingnored with "terrorists" vs "civilized nations" arguments is "about 1000 civilians killed in Lebanon, and 3500 were injured, with US made rockets, in the hands of Israeles that with preknowlege use them against people". And in Israel, "39 people were killed, and 93 were injured(if we ignore the funny statement, lightly injured or treated for shock). It's too obvious, and doesn't need a human right expert to conclude. I am not labling a nation with "terrorism", as you do. Many people and nations call Israel the "main source for organized govermental terrorism", but I don't care about this NOW. What I say is "Please see what happend in Qana, see the statistics, and conclude". That's enought for me right now. I'm going to sleep... Last words for you: capturing soldiers is not terrorism, but killing people is. For now, bye. :-)

--Hossein.ir 01:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I think.
Yes, I'm well aware of the history of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (NCRI)-not that it has any bearing on this discussion, or justifies in any way, shape, or form the terrorist actions sponsored by the Iranian regime-which has finally been disarmed.
Not by Iran, mind you, but by United States Armed Forces.
For that, you should be grateful, but I'm sure that you won't be extending any gratitude to either the U.S. or British military, which are now being subjected to ceaseless attacks by Iranian-bankrolled insurgents within Iraq.
And no, it was not funded by the United States, contrary to your fictive history.
In fact, the MEK remains on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations, just like Hezbollah.
With another irrelevant tangent out of the way, I'll conclude by thanking you for at least visiting-and refraining from vandalizing-my user page.
I'm sure that other people with antagonistic viewpoints won't be as kind, so I appreciate the consideration.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that they've recently added to the list of terrorist organizations; and this mean they can not have funds that are publicly announced. I never make a user page, because there are some vandals out there. and I don't care about reverting my page. I'm sorry, you could even have a chance to do vandalism on my page(I'm not claiming you wanted to do this, it's only a reasonable conclusion). --Hossein.ir 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've forgotten one thing; as I'm going to sleep, continue to your personal attacks on me, becuase in that way I will be sure that I didn't make you sick, by giving you the facts you want to avoid.

--Hossein.ir 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote for Israel in CNN's survey. Bye...! :-)) --Hossein.ir 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your snarky comments aside, I have no intention of taking your advice.
By the way, I thought you were going to sleep.
What happened to that?

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious. I would like to see a list of countries, comprising at least 20% of the world's population, that classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Better yet, 30%. 130.94.161.238 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not 20% but the information you are looking for is Hezbollah#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization. It should also be noted their existence is against UN res 1559 I believe. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Their existence isn't per se dissallowed, only their being an armed entity in Lebanon. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah Position

"He further outlined his organization's strategy of terrorizing Israeli civilians into leaving their country: "We will expand attacks," he said: "The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave." [85]"

This is AT MOST as terrorist as IDF dropping leaflets telling people to leave their homes or else risk being killed. I think that the part about "terrorizing" should be omitted if we want to keep it NPOV Epsilonsa 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_20&oldid=1142749020"