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 Naughtius Maximus (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 17 July 2006 (Bias in the historical background section). 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

Discussion about the name of the article

Earlier discussions

Article name not relevant anymore?

"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]

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


  • Opppose "War" (State your reasons for opposing the renaming of this article as a war. Sign your entry.)


I know we had this discussion already but as the "crisis" enters its first week soon, I think we should reconsider the article name. This is no longer a crisis, but not really a war on the classic sense.

So perhaps "conflict"?

Also it is becoming clear that this is not a conflict with just two sides, but three, and the title should reflect this.

So I think we should rename the article "2006 Hizbollah-Israel-Lebanon Conflict" or something similar.

--Cerejota 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this call for a name change. I agree that is a conflict, not a crisis. While it is of course a hugely caotic, just calling it a crisis doesn't imply violence. I feel conflict is more accurate in that it allows for the violence that is occuring. It was the "Cuban Missle Crisis" but if Cuba had lauched a missle in to an American city, I don't think that is how we would refer to it today.Criptofcorbin 13:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis can mean violence, even war. See for instance Suez crisis Sijo Ripa 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well is there a way to put it to a vote?Criptofcorbin 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm perfectly fine with lebanon being involved in the infoboxes et al, Israel-Lebanon Conflict sounds like its Israel and Lebanon fighting it out. Israel-Lebanon Crisis is probably the best fudge for now. Lebanon is involved and is the 'host nation' for this years International Middle East Toys-Out-Of-Pram Fest but is certainly not in any real 'active' conflict (that is, to imply they are fighting back). Having said that...perfectly open minded about other possible ways of presenting the name if anyone has any? --Narson 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "crisis," or more accurately, war, is between Israel and Hezbollah--Lebanon happens to be the staging area for attacks by Hezbollah. Lebanon doesn't have the wherewithall to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is like a tumor to the Lebanese. Since Iran and Syria are pulling the strings here, perhaps we should consider adding them to the infoboxes. Proposed article rename: "2006 Israel-Hezbollah War." Kyleberk 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for several reasons: most victims are Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah moreover has buildings and networks in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere - Iran? Jordan?), but Israel does not wage war against these Hezbollahs. Therefore if we prefer "conflict", the conflict should be called "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Israel and Lebanon" or simply "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon" (as most action happens in Lebanon). Sijo Ripa 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict in Lebanon", as you can't simply ignore the part Lebanon has in this, whether they actually want it or not.Frinkahedr0n 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of that. Kyleberk 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". Wars/conflicts are generally named by the countries involved, not the parties involved. It's the U.S.-Iraq War, not the Republican-Insurgent War, for instance. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah holds two dozen seats in Lebanon's government and all of the fighting is taking place between forces in Israel and forces in Lebanon. If you want to distinguish that it's Hezbollah in particular and not just Lebanon, you might as well distinguish it as the ruling party in Israel rather than just Israel, as I'm sure not all Israelis are for this. --Cyde↔Weys 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Lebanese government has been begging for a cease fire since the beginning. They want nothing to do with this. Israel is a sovern nation using it's military. Hezbollah is a militaristic political party, and terrorist group in the eyes of many. Adding Lebanon's name to the article's title is unfair to a government that is doing everything it can to stop this conflict. As for the example of the insurgency in Iraq. I have heard it most often referred to as "the war in Iraq" or "the war for Iraq" not the "Iraq war." I think that term fell out of use after the mission complete-air craft carrier thing. I still vote "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" Criptofcorbin 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

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]

  • Oppose (please add your name and your arguments against "2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict" and your arguments for the current or another article name.)

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]

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]

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]

  • 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]

Discussion about the Combatants

Strength?

The infobox lists the IDF strength as 6,000. What does that number refer to? Where did it come from? Unless there is some citeation of a source with that number, I belive the strength field should be removed, as neither Hizbulla nor the IDF publish their strength. --darkskyz 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the most accurate description would probably be "variable". — ceejayoz talk 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be removed if it doesn't have verified source. --TheYmode 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current estimation of IDF's strength as 400000-500000 is unverifiable, and besides, it is greatly exaggerated. It might refer to the strength of IDF including all of its reserves should a total draft be declared - which is not the case.

Is there any source for that? We can't just list our estimated strength of the combatants' strength without proper citation. reverting the strength section to "unknown" until someone brings up real numbers with proper citations. And please sign your comments. --darkskyz 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strenght section in the infobox is misleading. It implies that the 68000-75000 soldiers of the Lebanese army are all deployed and fighting against Israel, same as for Hezbollah and Israeli numbers. Could you fix it or mark as Unknown. CG 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran?

It has been stated that Hezbollah is trying to transport them to Iran. [1] Or should we wait till it is confirmed that Iran is harboring them?

Harbouring fighters does not indicate combatant status for a nation. That's at most a support role until the combat involves that nation's armed forces or their territory. MLA 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont ad them yet. Like MLA said harbo(u)ring soldiers duz not mean yur on ther side.Cameron Nedland 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add Iran as an combantant? Based on their involvement in the Haifa missile launch. [2] Hello32020 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not definitive yet. As I mentioned above, it's still possible the missile came from Hezbollah. --Pifactorial 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, only Fox News has reported this and even they aren't really sure I think (they say: Israelian radio says so - but what radio was it? a reliable one?). Most news services say it is likely that Iran or Syria provided the missile type to Hezbolah. That however is not enough to be listed as combattant, as for instance the USA and USSR together supplied many conflicts in the world with arms. Sijo Ripa 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its way to early, israel uses british tanks but britain is not a combatant and we have no solid evidence yet. Also it is in effect an accusation of warmongering by Iran and i would want Very notable people saying that before we put it in.Hypnosadist 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read online that CNN also reported it. However, its too early to say this. Its not held up by any news agency as truth, its just a "report" at this phase which isnt validated. Israel is not claiming Iran fired the missile at this time. Rangeley 00:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is not a combatant. Neither was Lebanon proper until the attack on Beirut. Even then it is still not clear the relationship between Lebanese forces and Hizbollah forces in this conflcit. Yet another POV point: we accept ISRAELS view on the conflict, while the Lebanese government has condemned Hizbollah.

Now we itchy to add Iran into the fray. Following this logic, Saddam Hussein is behind it all. :D --Cerejota 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be equally valid to add the USA as the major supporter/supplier of Israeli Military. USA provides Israel will helicopters and weapons—Dananimal 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN reported it during their morning TV segment today, as well as online, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, I agree that it's early to add them. While it may be valid that Iran supplied the missiles, it's too early to know if they were supplied specifically for Hezbullah's actions this week. Meanwhile, given the fact that there are Iranian revolutionary guards in Lebanon, if any of them come under attack, that might quickly change things. Acarvin 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Iranian revolutionary guards stationed in Lebanon today, beside those guarding the Iranian Embassy? Who says? Thomas Blomberg 13:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not yet. Ahmadinejad has just been posturing so far. UltraNurd 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've added Iran - I have no doubt. Here's the source [3] Hello32020 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I readd? Someone just qualified my source and article (from New York Post) as a "fake article." Hello32020 15:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is making things seem bigger then they are. The only source it has about Irani involvement is a statement made by Israeli military, with no external confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)
New York Post can hardly be considered a reliable source, see for example [4].--213.65.178.172 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's critisism with other news organizations see 1 and 2, that does not make them unreliable. Hello32020 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and Fox News which you refer to is indeed criticized, and quite unreliable, though not as unreliable as "New York Post". It think would be best if Fox News and CNN were avoided as sources for Wikipedia though. --Battra 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't just not believe any source that has any controversy 3 4 5. I mean if we did that we wouldn't have an article. Also that is just an opinion and others could have completly different views. Hello32020 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe your argument is void per WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth Hello32020 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should readd if we get more sources confirming though. Hello32020 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we confirming? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Iran is a combatant. And I'm thinking I should readd them as one (someone removed regarding NY Post ariticle as "fake) per Wikipedia policyWP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. [5] Hello32020 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, many sources are saying that Israeli intelligence says 100 iranian troops are in Lebanon, and that they have helped fire missiles. I think its reasonable to add the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a combattant as these are the specific Iranian troops involved, rather than just saying Iran. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i can't find in the article any real source that iran is taken an active role in this conflict. --Japan01 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRGC removal. i removed it because it is not a active/ directly involved the the war.if you want to add IRGC then CIA's flag should equal it on opposite side.Yousaf465 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon?

In the infobox, under combatants, it lists Hezbollah & Lebanon vs. Isreal. I don't see this as true. The Lebanese government has not attacted Isreal, and have condemed the actions of Hezbollah. The govenment is stuck in the middle of this war, and have not yet officialy chosen a side. For that, i believe that Lebanon should be removed as a combatant, because they have not yet attacted anyone. I would like to here your opinions --Dimigw 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Israel has attacked Lebanese instalations and Israel blames Lebanon for not reigning in Hezbollah. Lebanon has also fired anti-aircraft weapons at Israeli planes. Xtra 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source for the AA fire by lebanese armed forces ? dott.Piergiorgio 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported on Fox News. Xtra 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Ynet 89.138.32.183 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but lebanon is not on the side of hezbollah, they are firing AA guns (didnt know that prior), but they do not have forces with hezbollah. Maybe they should be listed as a third party. Just an idea.--Dimigw 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be listed as a third party, they are under direct attack and are defending themselves. Obviously they are part of the war, who is reponsible for that is another issue. Ryanuk 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon should be listed as a third party. They cannot be listed on the same side as Hezbollah. Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. MJZ, 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah??? The civilian arm of Hezbollah is an official political party with members in the Lebanese Parliament! While other parties within the Lebanese government may not be allied with Hezbollah, the government, as an entity, is responsible for controlling Hezbollah and therefore responsible for its actions.--WilliamThweatt 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon is not allied with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has approx. 400,000 members in Lebanon. That means the other 3.1M Christians, Druze, Muslims and others are NOT Hezbollah! Furthermore, the UN and EU urged Hezbollah to put down their arms and become political party. That is why they now have elected members of Parlimant. It is common knowldege that the Lebanese Government has no control over Hezbollah. The Hezbollah militia is better funded and better equiped than the Lebanese Military. Any attempt to disarm them would have erupted into civil war. Since Lebanon still bears the scars from a twenty year civil war, you can understand why no one there wanted to rush into another civil war.

I don't see an alliance with hezbollah either, i don't agree with listing Lebanon the palestines or (even) hezbollah as combatants. its an insult since most only resistance is of the gandhi kind. There hasnt been a lot of fighting. in gaza and untill recently none in libanon. just bombardments, raids, terrorising people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

So...guilt by association? What a very simplistic, narrow view you have...And does putting three questions marks after your "question" make it more pertinent? MJZ, 14 July 2006, 22:03 (UTC)

And does putting "question" in quotes make it not a question???????? Obviously, you weren't reading my comments but just distracted by the pretty punctuation. I didn't say "guilt by association"...it's just "guilt" and "responsibility". Hezbollah is a political party of Lebanon, participating in it's current government. Furthermore, it launched its attacks from Lebanese soil (for which the government is responsible). In not controlling what happens within its own borders, the government is at least culpable and at most passively supporting it. (I hope there wasn't too much punctuation here for you.)--WilliamThweatt 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to draw a parallel with Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin acted as the civilian branch of the IRA for many years, yet no-one is silly enough to attach guilt to the government of Northern Ireland for the actions of the IRA. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, GeeJo...definately worth considering further. However, it's not an exact parallel as the government of Northern Ireland (which, before Home Rule, was simply and extension of the government in London) not only publicly, and loudly, disavowed the actions of the IRA, but actively sought to reign in the IRA, through political, financial, and very public police/para-military actions. Had they not, then it would not have been "silly" to attach guilt. The government of Lebanon has never mounted any serious attempts to control Hezbollah...on the contrary, Hezbollah (and their foreign backers) are gaining more control over the government and therein lies the difference and the justification for attaching guilt.--WilliamThweatt 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the government does not speak against them, is that the next day their car explodes and they die. The lebanese government has absolutly no control over hezbollah. The majority of the egovernment is against them though, just not outspoken. The majority of people also despise hezbollah, its only the small minority of shite muslims and palistinianes. --70.39.205.84 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.125.1.187HOW CAN LEBANON BE A COMBATANT???? What does it mean to be a combatant because the Lebanese military has not done anything to "combat" Israel thus far, why is Lebanon listed as a combatant in the infobox? How can one be a combatant if the military has not done anything to the agressor. Are victims considered combatants? Just because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, I would have to say that they are acting independantly of the Lebanese government. I think the combatants as of now, are Hezbollah, and Israel. --El Presidente 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon should be removed as a combatant.I don't agree that Lebanon is a combatant. They are a bystander more than anything. By calling Lebanon a compbatant you give an inaccurate view of the actual conflict.

I do not know how Lebanon can be called a bystander in this conflict. Thier government has allowed Hezbolla to exist in the southern part of the country(mostly).Jrltex 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under international law, a government is responsible for cross-border violence emanating from within its borders. If the Lebanese government can't control Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is staging attacks from within Lebanon, then effectively the Lebanese government ceases to be a player at all. It's just a figurehead in Beirut, or another faction. Accordingly, it may not be accurate to say Lebanon is a combatant, but that assumes that Lebanon doesn't exist as an actor in this conflict. You've got a war going on in territory you claim sovereignty over, but with which you are not involved. How do you square that? Epstein's Mother 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I square it this way, you have nearly 300,000 Palestinian refugees, which has grown from the original 120,000, displaced from the 1948 war, that were left to rot in camps in southern Lebanon. They are not citizens of Lebanon or Israel and Israel will never allow them to return homes. They live in camps stealing elctricity,they are not allowed to hold most jobs and many homes have no running water. Groups like Hezbollah offer them jobs, schools, medical centers and are seen as charities by most Shia's and Palestinians. Moreover, Hezbollah is well funded and better armed than the Lebanese Government. The Lebanese Government spends 560 million a year on defense, in contrast the Israeli Government spends 9 Billion. Regardless of the fact that the arab countries started the war against Israel in 1948, Israel had a responsibility to do something about the 600,000 Palestinian refugee's from that war. Israel took the stance that the arab countries were responsible for the Palestinians. This arrogance and lack of compassion is the primary reason groups like Hamas and Hezbollah exist. Lastly, the Hezbollah represent its 400,000 members, the Lebanese Government represents the other 3.1 million Christians, Jews, Druze, Muslims and others in Lebanon. It would be the equivilant of the US bombing Toronto because of terrorists in Quebec. Israel's bombing of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon is shameful.
If there were anti-American militants in Quebec, and they started shelling America, and Canada chose not to go after them despite being asked, labeling these militants as legitimate anti-American resistance, America would indeed consider Canada as harboring terrorists and thus in the same boat as the terrorists. Governments unwilling to go after terrorists in their land tend to be viewed as responsible in cases such as this, and Israel does indeed see Lebanon as responsible, hence they have bombed Lebanese bases etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unwillingly to go after Terrorists?!? The Lebanese Government was instrumental in twarting a terrorist attack on New York's transit tunnels under the Hudson River, by arresting and handing over the suspected Al Queda member on April 27th of this year. Is this how we thank them for preventing a terrorist attack in this country? They are trying to avoid another twenty year civil war by trying to deal with Hezbollah diplomatically.
I wasnt aware the United States was involved. Israel is being shelled by militants in Lebanon. Lebanon has refused to go after Hezbollah. It is due to this Israel considers Lebanon responsible. Lebanon sees Hezbollah as legitimate resistance, not terrorists - otherwise they would not be negotiating with them at all. I dont want this to be a political debate, because this isnt the place for it, but instead I am just trying to explain the Israeli viewpoint as to why Lebanon is being targetted - its because they have not sent their army into southern lebanon to break up Hezbollah. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I was simply answering Epstein's Mothers question which I believe was directed to me. One last point, the US is involved.
Well sure, same as Iran and Syria. They just arent being fought or fighting at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand that the lebanese government is extremely weak; they haven't got the strenght to deal with hezbollah.PerDaniel 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that is my point. Lebanon, as such, is now a failed state. It doesn't have control over what happens within its own borders. It doesn't seem that the Israelis are targeting the Lebanese government itself. Indeed, it doesn't even seem to be directing any demands towards the Lebanese government, precisely because it recognizes that Beirut doesn't control what goes on in the country. Instead, it has made demands of Syria--which, at this point, also probably doesn't have much control over southern Lebanon. The problem we have here is symantic. There is a country called Lebanon, which is now a battleground. And while there is a legal government of Lebanon, at this point there is no "state" of Lebanon, its representative to the U.N. notwithstanding. So, to say "Lebanon" is a combatant is probably incorrect. At the moment, there is no single state actor called Lebanon that could be a combatant--even if it wanted to be. Epstein's Mother 04:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is "punishing" the Lebanese Government and 3.1 Million people that had nothing to do with this. This has admitted by Israeli leaders and widely reported by the media. Israel has destroyed over fifty major bridges, bombed the civilian airport four times and numerous residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, no one can say with a straight face, that Hezbollah has rocket batteries in Beirut. The blanket destruction of Southern Beirut involves Druze and Christian neighborhoods, too. There are no Druze or Christian members of Hezbollah.

The problem goes back to 1948. Israel never dealt with the "Palestinian Problem", leaving up to "arabs to take care of arabs", which is why you have Hamas and Hezbollah today. Further, the Lebanese Government was not given the support it needed by western Countries to deal with Hezbollah. There is a Lebanese State that wasn't supported by the West. Israel is also taking advantage of the fact the Syria had been forced out of Lebanon by the Lebanese State and was left defenseless. We have to learn by our mistakes so that they are not repeated. Unfortunately, we seem destined to make the same mistakes over and over, when it comes to dealing with the middle east. Israel and the US just turned millions of moderate arabs against them for allowing the decimation and indicriminate destruction in Lebanon to take place. History teaches us that this will be a quagmire for Israel like Iraq is for the US. This action will truly breed the next generation of terrorist's against Israel and the US.

Lebanon has not declared war, and war has not been declared on Lebanon. Lebanon is simply the country that Hezbollah calls home. This conflict is between Hezbollah and Isreal. Lebanon Is pleading for a cease-fire. They are not a combatant.--67.82.149.158 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)JC[reply]

That argument really isn't enough. By that logic, the United States hasn't been in a single war since World War II, since no official declaration of war has ever been issued by the U.S. Congress since 1941. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're arguing over the directionality of "combatant". Lebanon and Israel are definitely the location of the conflict, I'm pretty sure that's NPOV because that is simply where the attacks and raids and rockets have happened. Hezbollah is definitely a combatant because of their raid, and their rocket attacks against Israel. Israel is definitely a combatant, because of their raids and bombing runs against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Lebanese infrastructure. Lebanon is a graph node with only incoming edges, because as far as we know, the Lebanese military has not acted in any official capacity against either Hezbollah or Israel. How can we indicate that Lebanon is experiencing the receiving end of combat, without implying that they are actively fighting by calling them a combatant? UltraNurd 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Question. The Lebanese military is still not taking any military action against Israel. Does anyone know what the Lebanese army is doing? I doubt they are just drinking tea and following non-crisis procedures. Sijo Ripa 13:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are on state of high alert and would act if Israel tried to push North of Sidon. They man various checkpoints and anti-aircraft batteries but we're talking about leftover US equipment from the 1970's and 80's. The Lebanese army is no match for anyone. They are more like a big police force. The Hezbollah has more modern anti-aircraft equipment from the Russians and Chinese.


The template 'Infobox Military Conflict' indicates that the combatents shout be ordered cronologically by order of attack or involvement. and I do think that that is (1)Hezbollah, (2)Israël, (3)Lebanon and that the collums are not ment for indicating sides

I will change the combatents in that sequence--213.118.73.79 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motivation for making the chronological change, but the current layout is very confusing because it makes it look like (Hezbollah and Israel) vs. (Lebanon). While Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian population is bearing the brunt of this violence, this conflict seem to me to be very nearly triangular (Hezbollah vs. Israel vs. Hezbollah vs. Lebanon or something equally confusing). Is there a way we can reorganize the combatants? I initially thought someone had made a small vandal change by moving Hezbollah over to Israel's column, to make some political point. UltraNurd 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a vandal :) , I simply disagree that somebody can say that Hezbollah and Lebanon are on the same side, so I looked to te template if it was possible to make 3-sides, but found there that the left and right column were not meant to indicated sides, and that combatents shout be ordered by sequence of involvement. And that if Israël and Hezbollah are in the same column people woudn't still assume that the collumns indicates sides. But they still do ... And that does implicates that Lebanon and Hezbollah cannot stay in the same collumn! The best thing to do, is changing the template to 1 or 3 columns. I do think its more confusing for people to see that Hezbollah and Lebannon are in the same column because they will think they are one side.--213.118.73.79 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently :o). I looked over the template after you first mentioned it, and I think it's ambiguous what the template's designer meant. The bigger problem is that, if you don't know there's a template, you see two columns, you think two sides - and I think having Israel and Hezbollah together on one side or Israel and Lebanon on one side is going to make a lot more people go "Whaaa???" than putting Hezbollah and Lebanon together, even though they are not explicitly allied, makes the most sense to me. Oh, and if you do switch the combatant columns, make sure to switch the leader columns as well. UltraNurd 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant - noun - One who engages in a combat or struggle. That is the definition of combatant. As such, Lebanon cannot be defined as a combatant. Iran and Syria are more suitable to list with Hezbollah as they have governments that openly support and fund it. Source for definition, Answers.com - MJZ, 15 July 2006, 18:07 (UTC)

According to CNN TV, Lebanon anti-aircraft guns are now firing on Israeli planes, right after the prime minister of Lebanon said it had the right to self defence. So does this now making it a partisipant?--Rayc 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show us the article...69.125.1.187 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of their corspondants in Lebanon mentioned it, but didn't follow up with any information. I don't see it anywhere on the web. Sort of like the Iran missles thing, lots of talk, but no one can confirm.--Rayc 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Lebanon as a combatant is factually incorrect and highly prejudicial. Are we simply waiting for the "inevitable" to justify this misinformation? Shouldn't this be corrected? MJZ, 15 July 2006, 21:52 (UTC)

It is highly prejudicial, yes, but can anyone think of an instance when this much damamge has been done to a countries infrastructure and the country's military didn't get involved? I think they have a lot of restrain in not retailating up to this point. Though, why retailiate when you can just let someone else do it?--Rayc 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we do end up listing Iran as a combatant then if the Lebanense army get involved (as opposed to just having their soldeirs killed by the Israelis as is the case so far) we defintiely have to add the USA as a combatant as 85% of armaments in the Lebanese army come from America. Andrew Riddles 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of the energy spent here could be used to add some information to the article itself about the position of Lebanon/the Lebanese government in this conflict. So far there seems to be nothing on that subject. --84.193.50.72 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if we start listig countries that are somehow involved (eg Iran because they supplied a missile, USA because they supply most of the military hardware to the Israeli AND Lebanese army (according to Wikipedia articles) then who knows where the list of combatants will end. Andrew Riddles 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon is a combatant. They are in this war/crisis, whether they wanted to be or not. Hello32020 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese Army is not participating in any form of combat action, therefore it cannot be called a combatant.

We should at least keep it until we get more consensus though Hello32020 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon is also combating Israel alongside Hezbollah. So either put Lebanon vs Israel or Lebanon and Hezbollah vs Israel . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.76.18 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can Lebanon be called a combatant? It has yet to take any active part other than emergency response. I just don't understand how the only party to this conflict that has yet to take an active role can be called a combatant. --MJZ, 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


just one note - Lebaneses radar was used to target INS Hanit. This *was* an active military action. 62.0.125.178 08:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? Ryanuk 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the IDF claims; see for example [[6]]. It also makes sense: It was a radar-guided missile, some radar had to guide it, and Hiz' has no radar stations of its own. 62.0.125.178 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y don't u put Lebanon and Hezbollah under the same column? Hezbollawh is Lebanese and part of Lebanon. Robin Hood 1212 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The goverment of Lebanon, while not engaged in military operations against Hezbollah, has not done joint operations with them either, and has called for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, whereas Hezbollah has declared open war.
To any person pursuing NPOV in good faith this indicates that the conflict has three characters:
1) Israel vs Hezbollah
2) Israel vs Lebanon
3) A potential Lebanon vs Hezbollah
This might change in the future, and if it does, we will obviously make a note of it.
Yet the POV that lumps Lebanon and Hezbollah together is not supported by verifiable sources at this time.
--Cerejota 13:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification Cerejota, it looks like I am not alone as a neutral who needs further information about the relationship between the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah, which is implied as known in the opening three paragraph of the article at present. --mgaved 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah and Lebanon are the same side, Hezbollah is Lebanese and supported by the Lebanese people, he liberated Ledbanon. He's not a foreign force like the Israelis say. Robin Hood 1212 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon is not a part in this! It's between Israel and Hezbolla! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If lebanon tried to reign in Hezbollah they would start another civil war. And if a country has Israel invading its airspace then they should be allowed to fire at the aircraft. Lebanon is not a combatant, they are standing idle while their country is being pounded by shells and F-16s. Yahuddi 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about POV

Earlier discussions

Capture vs Abduct

(I am reposting part of an archived discussion which has not yet been resolved)

I suggest using word "abducted". It does not imply helplessness or child’s qualities of a victim as “kidnapping” and has no military accent as "capture". I would like to point out that the target was any Israeli citizen and not a specific person, who was intended to be arrested. Michagal

Abducted seems to be a good compromise. I'll begin making changes soon if no one objects. Cheers, TewfikTalk 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abducted is cool by me!Hypnosadist 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abducted is more weasel words. The only NPOV term is captured, as it describes the action without any judgement. Abduction has moral weight.

--Cerejota 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far the consensus is abducted as an NPOV description. Please weigh in...

Captured or abducted. Both seem sufficiently neutral to me. Perhaps both could be used? (more rich vocabulary) Sijo Ripa 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Captured" seems to be the neutral way to describe it, as it can be both legal and illegal, right and wrong, good and bad. It does have military connotations, but it was a military attack that met with a military response, so that shouldn't be a real problem. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abducted is more NPOV as captured implies that this was done during an ongoing active conflict, that it was done on disputed land or land under conflice (this was done during a cross-border incursion into another state), that it was done to forces active in a conflict (the soldiers abducted were on patrol in their own territory and not in active combat) and that it was done by a government's army (and Hisbullah is not a government but a private organization). This is either abduction or kidnapping but it was not anywhere near as neutral as capture.

Wow, and unsigned comment ignoring a whole lot of discussion. And POV to boot. I guess some dont get it.

First, NPOV requires we be neutral. The views expressing that Hezbollah is not a legitimate combatant engaged in legitimate combat are POV.

"Capture" does no such thing, because "capture" is not qualified in dictionaries.

In other words "capture" means "to take by force". Period. No reasons, no context, just dry fact.

"Kidnapping" and "Abduction", on the other hand, do imply illegality and give extra context, and support the POV that Hezbollah commited a crime. THis might be the case, I might even say that evidence seems to support this IS the case, but it is POV until a court of international law judges it. Since it is near impossible for this to happen in the near term, we must, in honor of NPOV, choose a word that doesnt imply that a crime was commited.

Is that so hard to understand, in good faith?

If it is, then I suggest we use "Taken by force". It is an NPOV description of the fact with no context. "Hezbollah took by force two Israeli soldiers", "taking by force two Israeli soldiers" etc.

"Abduction" is in essence a complete synonym of "kidnapping" and I thought we had agreed, in good faith, that "kidnapping" was POV. That leaves us with "capture" or "taken by force". I would be happy to hear other suggestions that describe the incidents, but retain NPOV.

--Cerejota 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we able to source our feelings that "captured" has military connotations? No dictionary I've consulted seems to discuss it in this way. If I recall all of the discussion so far, most of the objection to "capture" was made by users who insisted on "kidnap." That said I like the above user's idea of variety: take/taken, sieze/seized, abduct/abducted, capture/captured. Of these, abduct carries the most moral weight and leads the user to negative judgement (IMO). Failing the wiki community's developing Stockholm-syndrome-by-proxy, "abductors" will always be "bad guys," but captors/capturers could be either "good" or "bad" depending on the reader and the nabbers and nabbies. If we use language that casts one side of a conflict as "bad guys," we have obviously failed at NPOV. "Abduct" is a marked improvement over "kidnap," but I think if falls short of NPOV.--Smallwhitelight 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "capture" would be the most suitable word. Although there was no open conflict when the event took place, it was a military action. Besides, "abduct" - in my opinion - may relate to capturing someone without harming anyone, while in this event, two vehicles were attacked and 8 soldiers were killed (during the action and during the attempts to stop the Hezbollah soldiers from retreating to Lebanon). By the way, for the record - I am Israeli, but I stick to the NPOV policy. Tamuz 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More egrerious POV

I am begining to think some editors here have no good faith.

This is an example of blatant POV:

"Hezbollah's political rhetoric has historically revolved around calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.[1]"

First of all, "rhetoric" is not a NPOV term. "Discourse", or "position" or some such is.

Second, the source provided is itself POV, as it states as fact something without providing any sources or quoting directly from documents or interviews.

Hezbollah's page here has pretty well documented sources as to what Hezbollah's stands for, and furthermore, by not mentioning what Israel stands for, we violate NPOV principles of balance.

Beyond this example, as a general principle it is not NPOV to state as fact something that is someone's POV even if this source is the BBC. --Cerejota 18:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a problem in the article just fix it. --JWSchmidt 19:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we need air to breathe. I have done dozens of edits to this page. Most of them I have explained here, which people are not doing.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, please assume good faith. Everyone is coming into this with their own point-of-view. Writing a truly neutral article is very, very, very hard. Especially when dealing with such a controversial and emotional topic. Sure, there are people coming in with a malicious intent to slant the article one way or another, but most are really trying to present facts as they understand them. It's up to all of us to keep an eye out for bias and correct it when we see it. When you see something that you consider biased, change it. Make it better. Now I'll hop off my high horse.... --Elliskev 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and continue to assume good faith. It just that so much editing happens with out it being explained in the talk page, most of it on contravention to what we are talking about one gets frustated.--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, if you had read the article on rhetoric which you linked, you would see that it is defined as persuasive discourse. As someone whose minor concentration in doctoral studies was Rhetoric, I can confidently assert its neutrality. As artists of persuasive speech, Aristotle and others can be non-pejoratively defined as rhetors. I can't attest to Hezbollah's skills in this regard, however. Fishhead64 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As we write not for experts but the general public, we must be aware of common usage too. "Rhetoric" is used in contemporary political speech This is the same as with "militant", which in classic, formal language has no negative connotations, but in the media and popular mind is codeword for terrorist. We cannot be disingenious.
(As to you appeal to authority, you studies of Rhetoric might tell you that this is a fallacy.)
Lastly, the page in wiki to which I link unequivocally states:
"Both the terms "rhetoric" and "sophistry" are also used today in a pejorative or dismissive sense, when someone wants to distinguish between "empty" words and action, or between true or accurate information and misinformation, propaganda, or "spin," or to denigrate specific forms of verbal reasoning as spurious."
Perhaps in you haste you missed it. Its this contemporary and widespread usage I refer to.
--Cerejota 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not in haste - I did note that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning. As to my appeal to authority, insofar as the dictionary is an authority, I plead guilty. The fact is that rhetoric has a multiplicity of meaning in common usage, and I'm sure the average reader is able to figure it out. Public political discourse is almost entirely rhetorical in the classical sense of the word, so it seems fairly accurate. The point of comment was mainly to assert that we can sometimes be a little too apt to see POV gremlins behind every bush. Fishhead64 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the gremlins, yet one cannot be with out context here. This is a very controversial topic, it is about a war in which people are killing and dying, and in which most of the editors are firmly in either side of the conflict. If this article were less controversial I would let my guard down. It isn't, so it is up.
And please, don't be disingeneous. While we must assume good fait, we don't see, for example, Israel described as having an "anti-Hezbollah political rhetoric". If we are to use "rhetoric" in the classical sense, we must, in order to respect NPOV use it accross the board. You argument is both teleological and tautological in this sense.
Nevertheless, we cannot assume that readers of the entry will have the understanding of the word "rhetoric" that is positive, but rather the contrary. In particular considering the obvious at Hezbollah bias of the major western press outlets (a good example being the BBC's "What is Hezbollah?" article which basically says things as if they were true without sources or interviews, and which is the source of the formulation we are disucssing) there is an obvious enviroment in which any reasonable, logical person, attempting to understand things from a NPOV perspective might see "rhetoric" as used to refer to Hezbollah as being a negative usage. Might even reasonably assume that this was the editor's intention when quoting the BBC by citation instead of directly. Its context, stupid.
--Cerejota 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be disingenuous were I arguing that the term be applied to one side and not the other — I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how what I have said can be construed as making such a claim. "Teleological"? "Tautological"? I fail to see in what way our difference of opinion over how the word might be read by the average reader can be interpreted as encompassing either of those concepts. I agree, it is the context, stupid, and the context of rhetoric in publicly advancing competing claims is one of persuasion, regardless of opaque allusions to this or that broadcaster. Beaten this dead horse enough? Fishhead64 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV CHECK tag

Please refrain from removing the POV CHECK tag from the page. This tag means that the article might not be NPOV, and that a discussion is on going. We havent reached a consensus, so this remains true. This tag is more tentative than POV tag, and hence if doesnt mean the page is not NPOV, just that a discussion is ongoing, which it is. --Cerejota 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not over-use the tag, though. There's going to be some POV in such an emotionally charged article. Most of it can be dealt with rather quickly, without that ugly-ass POV tag. --Elliskev 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas Elliskev, the POV CHECK is intended to be a more permanent tag. Your POV might say it is ugly, but I think it is better looking and more relevant than the other POV tags.
My attempt by having it there for a while is aimed at preventing a POV tag war (the national wikipedia sport it seems) by not arguing that the article is not NPOV, but by saying there is a disucssion in this regards (which there is). I am tempted to remove the tag, as it seems there is a group of responsible, good faith editors from both sides of the POV, but I resist the temptation because there is still ongoing vandalism and non-consensus edits, some of them massive and by obvious wikignorants. I think we will come to remove the tag when this crisis is over, but will unfortuntelly still need it for a while.
Makes me whish there was a main article equivalent for the talk page "controversial" tag, if you get my point.
--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I respect your feelings on this and withdraw my objection, for now. --Elliskev 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Erpals 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this previous comment should go in the main POV discussion section?
--Cerejota 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I notice the POV check is being vandalised by being removed. There is a discussion thread about removing it here, and I see no discussion about that here. So I assume all removes are vandalism. Please discuss before taking any action, specially considering how controversial the topic is.--Cerejota 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are contributing to this article's bias

WHile it is highly unusual to mention websites or sources directlly instead of as citations, I can live with this as long as the presentation of this sources is NPOV. DebkaFile is a website with a clear pro-Israeli POV, supported by ads of Jewish only dating services, and with connections to the Israeli intelligent services, which they use as sources for their often exclusive stories. Hence, displaying them without qualification gives the wrong impression that they are a neutral, or NPOV adherent source, which they most surely arent.

Claiming "let the reader decide" assumes that they have all the facts at hand, and this is not the case. The simple description of DebkaFile as "pro-israeli" is not NPOV. It is as NPOV as describing Hezbollah as a Shia Mulsim organization. --Cerejota 22:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problems I see are Lebanon being listed as a combatant and the figure of 500 israelis being wounded. I mean, what are they counting paper cuts and stubbed toes?????????? Who is citing Ynet as a legitamate source? There is nothing more biased than that. Of course there are NPOV problems when you only get Israeli news and Fox. Why don't I go get some Al-Jazeera and cite that? Erpals 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be preferable if we could use well respected sources. Ynet is just a webpage, which probably isn't independent, and surely not neutral in this conflict. And what I have heard about "Fox" isn't very reassuring, see Fox News Channel controversies.--Battra 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet is not 'just a Webpage'. It belongs to the biggest newspaper in Israel, Yediot Aharonot. quoting it is just as accurate as quoting any reputable Arab source.
As for the number of Israelis injured, I think you have some point. Ynet has already reported that 45 of the injured are still in hospital. The big difference here means that yes, Israeli sources are counting minor injuries (such as "shock injuries") which may not be 'counted' in Lebanon. If you want, you can report both numbers, letting the readers decide. 85.250.179.33 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, then ynet should be a good source for the official Israeli standpoint, for example when it comes to the number of killed soldiers. But I still think it would be preferable to avoid references to webpages such as these as much as possible, and use for example news from BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, etc. --Battra 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though the number "500" for the Israeli civilians injured could hardly be an exact number, it seems more likely that it is some kind if rough guess. --Battra 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've found the sentence in that article "The hospitals have treated more than 500 people since Wednesday, most of whom were released to their homes." It doesn't say explicitly that they were injured in this conflict, though that might be what is meant. It would be good if we had a more exact number though.--Battra 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this is that this figure is based off of the number of people treated at a hospital during the crisis, which will be anything from life threatening injuries to bad nerves, and that considering this, 500 seems low; consider the number of people "treated at hospitals" in New York City after 9/11 or any similar event. It can be argued that not all those people should be considered injured, but currently it is one of the few sources available. Also consider that one might not think twice about a figure of 500 injured if the actual numbers of Lebanese injured, by the same standard of anyone treated at a hospital, but unfortunately we will likely never have that figure or not for a long time.--Paraphelion 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely go with the figure quoted in CNN, i. e. over 100 Israelis injured, in the infobox. It should be OK to also give the 500 figure in the article itself, with the descrition "treated in hospitals". btw, Ynet attributes this number to the Israeli Health Ministry. 85.250.179.33 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC's "What is Hizbollah?" article

Some editors are trying to use this a source, in particular regarding Hezbollah's ideology and activities. If you read the article, it is extremely POV, provides no sources, and in general is more an op-ed than reporting. Use of POV sources to support NPOV is not NPOV.

Hence this article is not a good source unless we specify it is an opinion piece and quote directly from it. --Cerejota 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC piece is a news article, and as such, is considered a reliable source. It is thus a good citation, even if it, like all news sources, has some POV. TewfikTalk 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tewfik. The BBC article is biased, but not completely towards one side. Several sources say, without any evidence, that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly, and they state this as fact; this BBC article is one of those. Other sources only say that the US/Israel or others say that Iran and Syria support Hezbollah directly - and sometimes also that Syria or Iran deny this. However, if someone has a better source than news - something like a US government document citing direct evidence of Syria or Iran supplying Hezbollah, then that could be cited as well.--Paraphelion 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to point out that the BBC has recently been criticised for its pro-palestinian stance (refusal to call bus bombers terrorists and the constant mention of occupied palestinian land despite that being a huge grey area). Not so much an objection of any kind but a 'do not assume that all western media is pro-israeli' note as its been tossed around a fair bit over the discussions. --Narson 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Narson, but the only people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are psychopaths and Israelis. --Phabi0 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)phabi0[reply]

Excuse me, phapi0, but the some people that consider the occupation of Palestine a "gray area" are also some valid scholars. However those equating Israelis and psychopaths perhaps have lost all objectivity, themselves.
Scientific studies like "Bad News From Israel" by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow University Media Group have proven many times that british television news media in general and the BBC in particular, are very pro-israeli in their reporting --Toshotosho 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And media research organization like "CAMERA" have documented decades of anti-Israeli bias by the BBC which can be read on their site before relying entirely on secondary research done to demonstrate a particular government's media as neutral.
"A particular government's media" - Which government would that be? The BBC has nothing to do with the British government and the two institutions are often bickering. The only possible link the BBC has to the British government is it's royal charter which has to be renewed by the government to allow the BBC to be funded. Even that renewal is a very indirect process. The BBC being a tool of the British government is a very common misconception. The BBC is a public broadcaster in the sense that it is a public serrvice funded by the public. It does not get its funding from the government in the same way other public service braodcasters do. The policy and editorial line of the BBC is defined by the reporters and editors, not by any government. --Abc30 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me phapi0 but no personal attacks please, hrm? (And for the record I am neither Israeli nor under any kind of action under the mental health act). I merely thought, considering Cerejota's demands for less israeli favouring news outlets I should mention that the BBC was found to be anti-Israeli in the recent review (I will go and find the report at some point if someone really wants? I just don't fancy searching through 2 or 3 months of news story archives for something that probably can be taken on good faith and is not important to anything but the talk page)--Narson 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I had never heard of CAMERA before, I just had a look at their website. They claim to be a "non-partisan" organisation only interested in a more fair reporting about the Middle East in the media. Then then list virtually every English-language newspaper, radio channel and TV channel as being "anti-Israeli", including ABC, CBS, NBC, History Channel, Discovery Channel and Fox News (!). I think we better stay away from them as a source of reliable information. Thomas Blomberg 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that is published in the news media is a reliable source. Sometimes news media have opinion pieces, not news reporting. There is a difference. A reliable source is one that reports something. An op-ed piece is just that. Hence all I argue for is people to be concious that using opinion pieces compromises NPOV. If we want to do a good faith effor to remove the tag, I think we must be aware of this.--Cerejota 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there are often opinion pieces published by news agencies, but this is not one of them. While this is within the news section of the article, it is an analysis piece and not reporting on a specific event. That said, it is written from the same dispassionate and objective view as any other news section piece. To be clear, this is certainly not an op-ed. I'll deal with the rest below. TewfikTalk 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I'm removing the POV tag unless someone presents specific area of the article that is disputed. TewfikTalk 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a balance of images. I also think that pictures of the weapontry used should be replaced by buildings, damage on both sides. That's whats actually going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.253.208 (talk • contribs)

That is not a POV issue; there simply are no properly licenced pictures. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting below my correspondance with the Wikipedian who posted the POV tag in the hope of resolving any POV issues and removing the tags TewfikTalk 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please discuss on Talk what passages are disputed and merit the tag? ThanksTewfikTalk 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the discussion, you will see the specifics raised by me and others. The concerns have not been addressed.--Cerejota 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What specific issues do you have with the article? (please respond on either my talk or the page's talk - thanks) TewfikTalk 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik, perhaps since you have arrived late at editing you are not aware of the concerns and reasons for the POV Check tag. As I did in my talk page, I suggest you read up on the specifics in the whole discussion including comments by me and other. Specifically we can discuss in the section I created for this purpose, "Removal of POV Tag".

To summarize, as specific examples can be revisisted in other places here, the objections are various. I cannot say I agree with all of them (ie the pictures issue seems a limitation not of good faith on NPOV but a lack of open sources), but they are legitimate concerns that merit the POV Check tag.

1) A lack of pictures showing the Lebanese or Hizbollah perspective.

2) A lack of citations for controversial assertions, in particular, but not only, centered on Hezbollah's relationship with Syria and Iran.

3) A heavy discussion as to the political and military motivations of Hezbollah, but not such discussion on Israel.

4) A dependency on Israeli and pro-Israeli media for sources. For example the DebkaFile.

5) A general pro-Israeli bias, whereas Hezbollah's actions are scrutinize for signs of illegitimacy but Israeli concerns are seen as prima facie legitimate.

Please do not continue to edit and revert without discussion, or disregarding views not your own, as you have done several times in the last day. Also, please realize that for the last 5 days many editors, from both sides of the POV, have attempted in good faith to achieve a consensus to reach great level of NPOV, which at times we have been able to achive until others (like you) arrive disregard the previous discussions and start editing from perspective we had already thought achieved.

Our objective is to reach a better quality article. Please join us, rather than abitrarily edit.

Lastly, I prefer to have discussion about specific issues in the talk page of the specific article, where all can see it. Please refrain from using my talk page, if possible. --Cerejota 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cerejota,
I saw your comments above which is what lead to my initial query; I'll deal with your points as you have:
  1. The pictures, as you have noted, are not a POV issue, but rather one of availiability, and do not warrant a tag
  2. The Hezbollah verse cited with the BBC was slightly discussed above, but the citation is not, as you seem to have inferred, an Op-Ed piece, but rather a news/analysis piece written from an objective, dispassionate POV. If you have concerns about other citations, please list them so that we may clarufy and resolve. I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. What specific discussion of the Israeli side do you believe is lacking? The only inequity that I noticed is that the background has asubsection detailing the history and makeup of Hezbollah - do you believe that we should discuss the history and motivations of Israel? Would that resolve any POV issue?
  4. I haven't seen any dependency on Israeli sources. Many of the Israeli press citations merely quote AP or AFP reports, or report on events specific to Israel not covered by other sources. Are there any Lebanese papers that haven't been included? The Daily Star, which is a right-leaning paper, is quoted on casualties, and even Emile Lahoud's (singly sourced) assertion of Israeli war-crimes is included. On the other hand, Debkafile is only cited once, and is even singled out within the article as an Israel-based source.
  5. Again, if you have specific concerns, please cite them so that we can discuss. There is qualifying language used on both sides as far as I saw, though I welcome you to note any necessary corrections.

Until this point, I believe that every (potentially controversial) edit I have made was in line with discussion on talk. I would like to note that I have been active from the first day (before you for that matter, not that its at all important;-]). And lastly, I would like to note that I indeed moved the talk from your page to here (see above). Thank you, and I await your (or anyone else who wills) response. TewfikTalk 04:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to my support of the "POV Check" tag, I refer you (again) to the "Removal of POV tag" section in this talk page. Except for the "casualties" issue, and any that might emerge, those are *my* NPOV concerns. Others, in other discussions, have raised the points I have summarized. Perhaps if you dont agree with them you should discuss them there. But by assuming that the neutrality is not being disputed simply because it is spread around is disingeneous. No one has to sumarize anything for anyone, as the entire talk page is the collaborative display of the discussion. You are doing a Reductio ad absurdum: since no one is able to sumarize things to you, then the article mustbe NPOV. This is not a logical argument.

Lastly, your edits have not followed consensus, as example your continued, near (but not quite) vandalic change on "captured" into "abducted" after a heavily discussed consensus was reached. And your removal of the "POV Check" tag even in the middle of heated discussion. --Cerejota 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such assumption about summarising, rather this is a continuation of the POV discussion, within the same section heading. I had participated in them when they took place, and believe that your concerns were resolved there in various manners.

  1. Capture --> abduct with discussion, which at the time was a consensus. If a different consensus develops at a future time, we can deal with it.
  2. You rhetoric concern was rejected by several users
  3. The NPOV tag war doesn't exist if there is consensus. Discussion has not yielded any serious issues. IP vandals are not a reason for an NPOV tag, if that was your concern.
  4. The BBC has been discussed three times at this point

Despite the lack of clear reason to maintain an NPOV tag from the discussion above to which you continually refer, you have had another opportunity to cite your concerns again here. I have responded to them in the hopes of reaching resolution, and so if you think we require the tag, please respond. As for other users' concerns, I haven't seen any concerns above that were not dealt with, and it would simply be illogical to state that any number of future NPOV concerns should require the tag now. If and when any new problems arise, we can deal with them. I await your (or any other party who believes there to be NPOV issues) response. TewfikTalk 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ad vitam aeternam is peppering this article with POV. --Pifactorial 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he's been blocked. --Pifactorial 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I, too, think that the article conforms to NPOV. However, the Attacks on Lebanon part describes the attacks as being almost-purely against military targets, while the Attacks on Israel part describes mainly attacks against civilians. This may be due to several possible reasons:
  1. The article's writers aren't aware of the Lebanese civilian casualties or have no confirmed information about the scope of the civilian damage,
  2. It is possible that Hezbollah in fact makes more attacks on civilians that the IDF, and\or
  3. Hezbollah's military compounds are located near civilized areas, thus ensuring that any attack against them would also cause civilan casualties (which would, of course, worsen the IDF's image).
Whichever of the three is the reason, I do believe that this part of the article is NPOV, because a lack of sources is not a POV issue, neither are Hezbollah's tactics. I would welcome any comments on this, if anyone disagrees (or does agree). Tamuz 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Events/Supposed Events

Earlier discussions

LINK? on Fox News Alert

Fox News just had an alert that said (something along the lines): Israe: Missle targeted at naval fleet, hits civilian boat. Sorry I can't remember the exact words, but essentially the alert said Israel said that a missle was aimed at their ship and it hit a civilian ship. Is there any links or other sites, tv, etc reporting and confirming this. I also question the merits of course, because Israel is reporting this....and there is nothing to confirm it...sorry I couldn't offer more--Jerluvsthecubs 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too add on Fox has said they have confirmed that 4 Israeli Soilders are missing and they say they have confirmed a civilian vessel was hit. I'll search to confirm.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I confirmed it through Rueters [7]. There isn't enough info though, but should there be any mention of this or should we wait until additional information comes out on this?

  • I would wait. As an additional source, this AP story hosted on Yahoo News. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, for the link. I've found only one article from a local news source in Bangore, Maine on the 4 missing sailors: [8]. Fox says they confirm the missing soilders, but again...you are right we should probably wait for more stories and stories that are objective.

Israel says Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Infiltration attempt reference?

IDF supposedly foiled a Hezbollah infiltration attempt. The reference given is

Title: IDF forces foil infiltration attempt on northern border. Jerusalem Post: (2006-07-14). Link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The link does not mention anything about this, nor did a search on the website for "infiltration" yield anything.

Anyone know about this?

--srostami 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.

--srostami 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. Apparently the page was reused for a more recent article, but I found a copy of it on some kind of a news board (as well as having read it at the time ;-]), and reposted with the new link. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm new to this so maybe you can explain something to me. Now the link goes to the site you put down, which in turn references the same irrelevant article as before. I don't understand how this is different than the way it was to begin with. I could have a "story" on my personal homepage that says "UN members unanimously agree to blow up the Moon" and then link to a CNN article about breast cancer. This Lucianne thing doesn't strike me as a "reliable, verifiable" anything. At the very least, doesn't the original article exist somewhere at Jerusalem Post? It seems pretty shady to me that a news site doesn't store day-old articles.

--srostami 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; I reposted it without the URL until it appears in the archives according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affects on oil price

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

72h Ultimatum

We need a better source than [9] for that statement, especially when it's mentioned in the lead paragraph. The current source is (1) Ynet that reports about a news message of the (2) Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat that in turn has unreleased information of the (3) Pentagon that in turn gained information from (4) Israel. Quite some interpretations, translations and uncertainities accumulated. Sijo Ripa 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its very important news. Yes, the source could be better, but its definately worth mentioning in the lead. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a source for the fact that Syria has been issued an ultimatum??

[10] ~Rangeley (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of a source for that information - it's second hand. But, with help from users in our Arabic IRC channel, I found the report Al-Hayat story that Ynet is qouting. Here's a Google translation. In short, the relevant part says "the source refused to confirm or deny rumors of an ultimatum". Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was also kindly provided with a better translation of the first two paragraphs:
An authorized source in the US Defence Ministery warned yesterday that if Arab and international efforts failed to persuade Syria to put pressure on Hizbollah to release the two israeli soldiers and end the current escalation, that it would push Israel to strike vital goals in the Syrian territories.
The source refused to deny or confirm rumours in Washington yesterday saying that Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to accept what Israel requied to stop the activity of Hezbollah on the Israeli borders and to obtian release of the two israeli soldiers , or it will face serious consequences.
Hope that helps. Zocky | picture popups 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of an ultimatum has been removed from the lead, but it's now in a lower section, referencing the second-hand Ynet story, which makes the claim soumd much more credible than the original Al-Hayat story. We can change the reference to go directly to the Al-Hayat story, but since that is in Arabic, we should probably provide a more accurate citation than we have now. Zocky | picture popups 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this. Zocky | picture popups 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation of Expatriates and Tourists

With the ongoing operations by countries to get their citizens out of Lebanon, I feel we should either put in this article or write a seperate one about each countries efforts. I don't know if this is happening or has happened as I'm new to the talk pages on wikipedia. Njjones 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should perhaps be mentioned somewhere, since the UK are sending warships to the area for a possible evacuation (source for this = BBC News 24), as to where it should be mentioned I have no idea... Cryomaniac 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the US is considering an airborne operation out of Larnaca,Cyrpus using helos or planes. The closest carrier with helos (USS Iwo Jima) is in the Red Sea and days away due to Marines off shore in Jordan. I know some governments are moving their citizens from Beirut to Damascus and will fly them out from there, such as Spain. I doubt this would be allowed for the US due to harsh rhetoric being tossed around by both countries. Njjones 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that could be written in a section where something is written about refugees in general? I read that about 60,000 refugees from southern Lebanon hs came to Beirut. And at the same time the evacuation of foreigners is proceeding of course, for example yesterday 800 swedes arrived in Aleppo with a convoy of buses carrying citizens of various EU countries. --Battra 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran attempting to distract?

People in the media keep saying that Iran is directly responsible for starting this recent mess in order to create a distraction from its nuclear ambitions. Is this true? Or is it pure speculation? Where are they getting this from? Is there anything about it in the article? If so, please point me to it. If not, somebody put it in there. -Amit 67.22.216.150 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like Israel is interested in conflict. Jews populace wants militaristic pose leaders like Sharon was, so the current Olmert-duo, who have almost nil military background (and consequently considered second class authority in Israel), want to show muscle power to gain domestic support. To meet the initial militants' demands and prisoner swap free the 300 women and 100 children younger than 15 years old, long held in israeli prisons without charge or trial, would have been easy and so the current conflict wouldn't even start. It has been done before several times to prisoner swap just a few jewish soldiers and spies for hundreds of imprisoned arabs. Why this way was not implemented now by Israel?
Foreigners cannot understand how much hatred the arabs and muslims have for the jews because of the palestinian prisoner problem. Besides the above mentioned females and youngsters, there are circa 8500 arab and muslim males long held in Israel without any charge or trial. Some of them have been held for 15 to 20 (twenty!) years now without any rights. The arabs want their many many prisoners back just as bad as jews want their 3 captured soldiers back.
Considering this, you need no Syria or Iran to explain why palestinians and other arabs are fighting. However, Israel has declared intention to make unilateral border drawing, so they hope to benefit from this war due to their huge us-funded military might. But they should know the only way to remove popular support for Hezbollah is to return to the pre-1967 borders and let the refugees come back. Current bombing only recruits more people to hezbollah. Even the moderate Lebanese PM Seinora is now calling on TV for ordinary arab people to become suicide bombers and never surrender!
It would be worth noting a great many people think that Iran is using this as a distraction. The fact that this began on the very same day that the deadline on Iran occured that the UNSC gave them does lend credence to the idea, and the fact that Iranian weaponry is being used, and 100 Iranian troops are said to be in South Lebanon only helps that out. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat on Central Israel

Israeli Home Front Command says that cities southern then Haifa (for example Tel Aviv) should be ready for an attack. [11] Máfiàg 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to AP, Rockets are landing farther south of Haifa, in the town of Atlit, which is 35 miles inland. Frinkahedr0n 13:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First abduction by Israel?

I was reading the interview with Noam Chomsky, and he said the following: "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." Is there any validity to Chomsky's claim? I haven't read anything at all about this doctor and his brother. Erik 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I haven't heard of this and Noam Chomsky's credibility has been questioned many times, but in any event, it would belong on Operation Summer Rains, and not here. Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas I agree this is not the place. Yet while Noam Chomsky's credibility has been called into question, so has that of his critics. You see, one person's freedom fighter is the other's terrorist.--Cerejota 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true, and it is in Operation Summer Rains. The source is http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1805354,00.html --Jobrahms 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah responsibility for Haifa attacks

The article currently says that Hezbollah denied responsibility for the attacks on Haifa. However several sources are now reporting (e.g. [12]) that Hezbollah broadcast statements on their station, Al-Manar, claiming responsibility for rocket attacks on Haifa and threatening more. What's unclear is whether these are the same attacks they denied responsibility for initially, or if they still deny responsibility for those but now claim resonsibility for new ones. --Delirium 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo News is not a source

Pleas enotice that Yahoo just publishes news from other sources, but is not a source itself. So please when using an article from Yahoo News, look who is the source first, usually AP or Reuters. --Cerejota 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did.--Jerluvsthecubs 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about casualties

Use Citations + Disclaimer

  1. If you update the number of casualties, please add citations, as diffrent sources report different numbers, and the number changes as the time passes. Also, can anyone confirm the 10 children noted on the page? Even arab Al-Jazeera isn't reporting that. --darkskyz 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. also should point out that in the infobox, (lebanese government account) appears at the bottom of the list of lebanese and hezbollah casaulties, but no such disclaimer is placed under the israeli list of casualties. this is actually a significant trend in both corporate and 'independent' media when using official sourcing. 'our' official sources, or those friendly to us ('us' being western, 'democratic', global north industrialized capitalist nation states or their client states e.g. israel) are assumed to tell the truth in casualty reporting, while 'their' official sources ('them' being 'non-democratic', global south developing/thirdworld nation states) are assumed to have motive to lie or be otherwise unable to give an accurate casualty report. the reason for this seems to hearken back in a cultural sense to the identity of the 'other' as suspicious and untrustworthy, and in a socio-economic sense to the need to see those nations as 'rogue states', while in reality many are only classified as such because their rebellion against their subjugation to the hegemony of Euro-American Empire is seen as unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

Children Killed?

There seems to be an edit war going on about noting that "several tens of children" were killed. Should this be noted? Are the sources even reliable enough? --darkskyz 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is reuters/bbc reliable enough? I'd say so.--Jadelith 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "children" should be cited separately at all as I don't think there is a reasonable line on what "children" should mean. For example, what age separates "children" from "civilian"? Is "children", who is a member of Hezbollah, a "militant", "civilian", or "children"? Is unborn baby a "children", "civilian" or something else entirely? You can artificially inflate number of "children" by setting age high (like 20) and even including young enough militants. Claiming a large number of "Children" killed will be a great propaganda tool but an unverifiable POV.--Revth 09:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is, its possible to get the # of children killed in many other war articles, which shows the extent of damage done by the aggressor. I think it is fit to add that here as well, the major problem in this assault being Israel's bombs killing people who probably didn't even support hezbollah. we always hear the number of children killed in other wars, why not here? but I do understand that its hard to specify what is meant by children. I still think its safe to add them if we have sources.--Jadelith 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the phrase that said "...and killed 110 people, many of them civilians who were women and children" to just "many of whom were civilians. tacking on "women and children" makes it seem that much worse. They were civilians and not military, so I think we should keep it out. --Crucible Guardian 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS nr's of dead children should not ever be hidden or restricted. However more are to come. Civilian casualties implies: civilians staying at military locations, that is wrong. I dont care about a dead children count, but not wanting to show the nr is not NPOV and is pro-israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

I think its clear on what the aggresors and apologetics are driving to achieve by down-playing civilian deaths particularly women and children by grouping them under a vague, unclear heading of mere civilians. We must all reflect on what the "Current" israeli barbaric, disproportionate, and genocidal response is doing to lebanon. The massacres from this government is well documented. No matter how direct or Indirect, God's chosen people are displaying what exactly they were chosen to do in this world. Even Jesus did not survive their terror.! Lets' face it, no matter how secular you approach this, it matters how the warring parties see this destruction deep down from their own religious perspective!!.

deaths in conflict

If there is, as one person stated, no way to tell the difference between a militant and a soldier, then they should definately not be combined under one category entitled "militants and civilians". This clearly distorts that level of civilians who may have been civilians. Since no such categorisation is added to the Israeli side (nor should there be), it should not be on the Lebanese section. I am removing this categorisation and reverting back to "1 militant" and 55 civilians killed. I assume someone found a reference when they put the original claim of one militant killed. There is no justification to label 55 civilians as possible militants. Do we label civilians in israel who may be a member of the IDF (due conscription and reserves) a soldier? No, of course not.

Israel separately counts casualties of civilians and military personnel. Since Hezbollah hides its deathtoll, it is clear that it's included in the Lebanese deathtoll. In simple words, if you write that 55 civilians were killed, you have to source it. Otherwise, it's 55 Lebanese killed. --Lior 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civilian casualties: Lebanese govt numbers??

about the infobox: sorry guys, but I really don't see the point of doubting their numbers if reuters believes it here. and this is yesterday's numbers, not counting last night's two deaths. obviously, israeli casualties are israeli govt numbers, and lebanese casualties are lebanese govt nmbers. there is no need to be belligerent here. if reuters believes lebanese numbers enough to mention in their reports, I really don't see the point of doubting them here. So I'm deleting that comment.

if you don't believe the lebanese govt numbers because they're terrorists, than maybe we should delete the word "civilian"? you know, since they're born with ak47's attached to their bodies.. --Jadelith 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I doubt the Lebanese government's account is simple, because they have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties. The 52 number has seperately been reported as coming from the Lebanese government, not as a result of some sort of independent count. Given that there is both means and motive to mislead about the number of casualties, I think it is wise to note that in the infobox. This is the established precedent in other articles where death totals are coming from sources which are not perfect Wikipedia reliable source. I am going to put the note about the source of the numbers back in for the time being. It can be removed in the future once their is an independent count available. Bibigon 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as having to do with whether we "believe" Lebanon or not; as encyclopedia editors that's not our job. It's pretty standard in our articles to label official numbers as such if the sole source is an involved party and there's no independent confirmation. See, for example, Operation Dewey Canyon, part of the Vietnam War, where we label the official US Marine Corps numbers as such. I don't see why official Lebanese-government numbers should be treated differently. --Delirium 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, simple logic seems to be escaping most of our writers here. Lebanon is getting attacking by a Callous government, so folks carrying a Ak's should be carrying it regardless of whether they are Hezbollah adherents or not. They rather carry that to protect their families against what is seemingly an irrational, over-amplified response from a belicouse israeli government. Israeli as usual, is shamelessly justifying killing civilians by scapegoating Hezbollahs. What's next-- attack Pakistan or Iran because dissents have safe haven there.
I'm new to wiki so I don't know whether wiki has a set of reliable sources and a set of unreliable sources, but I read most of the tutorials etc and I believe I understand the philosophy behind wiki. AFAIK, the Israeli casualties are also counted by the Israeli officials, and they also have a "good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties". I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here, but you saying that Israel govt is trustable and Lebanese not is definetely not helping here :/ --Jadelith 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your neutrality and your nice response. I was sorry to read Bibigon's comments. CG 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are doubting the lebanese, we must also doubt the Israeli. I believe it looks a LOT better when both comments are gone, but if some people don't believe the lebanese, we should also do the same for the israeli numbers. I believe you will understand this. --Jadelith 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one thinks that the Lebanese "have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties", then one could certainly make the arguement that the Israelis have an equally good reason to do the same. While I don't think the comment is needed under either nation, if we include it for one, it needs to be included for both.
I never denied that the Israelis might also mislead regarding the number of casualties. Please read WP:RS. There's simply no reason for the Lebanese government to be considered a reliable source simply by virtue of being a government. We doubt what governments say with regularity. Bibigon 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are using a classic case of diversion, intentionally, by judging a source while remaining silent on the flip side of the case. Again logic should tell you, 3 sides are at war here, scrutinizing one side, will first wholly discredit them, and remaining silent over the other parties perspective will implicitly create this false impression of their reliabitiy and accuracy.


In the casualties section some information was manipulated from prior updates. As well as removing the number of Injured civilians in Lebanon and more. Why is that? Please who ever is responsible for this should change it back to the correct information. Hiding facts isn't going to be in the good of anybody. Otherwise, can anybody clarify please. -- Omernos 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is both of them would have reasons to either up or downgrade the nr of victims. My estimate is the lebanese undercount, iafap because they don't want to be cause to an arab outcry.( Since we don't like israel that much anyhow as a souvereign entity) Israel has the typical agressionist reason to hide their real casualty nr's, they don't want to distract or disencourage their population and armed forces.If i wanted to guess the more objective nr's i would stick to the ones given in gaza. onix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs)

I am trying to update the casulaties list for Lebanese civilians, I have a source from Al-Jazeera, which the last time I checked, was a credible news agency. Someone keeps reverting the figure from the updated 130, to the previous 90. This childish data manipulation only undermines Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.72.251 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006

"Damaged warship" in infobox (at least as long as it isn't considered a war)

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]

"Civilians"

Important : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

While on the Israeli side the distinction is clear: 8 soldiers dies, 2 soldiers kidnapped, 4 missing and several were wounded. The numbers on Civilians casulaties are: 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

On the labneese side all casulaties are described as"civilians" . - How is that possible ? 60 civilians death and not one Hizbulla militia person injured or killed ? - Is Israel so bad at targeting ? Zeq 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hizbollah does not release casuality figures. The Lebanese goverment makes a distinction between civilians and military. Since they are not involved with any fighting, is it hard for them, or anyone other than Hizbollah to estimate how many Hizbollah militants have died in the fighting. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that amongst the civilians counted, there were not many active militans. 83.161.4.134 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are aiming at cities, yes chances are huge that you are hitting 99.99999% civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me, really.
Actually, no casualties on Lebanese side are described as civilians or militants, presumably because the breakdown is not available. Zocky | picture popups 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our article talks of civilian casualties. Undoubtedly some are. In fact, if militia are counted as being civilian because they are not members of the regular forces, even armed combatants would be listed as civilians. We should be careful about listing casualties as civilian. --Jumbo 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three Lebanese Soldiers have been killed in airstrikes. The majority of Lebanese casualties have been civilian. Israel is shelling residential areas and densely populated areas indiscriminately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This is a good example of propaganda in action. Israeli attacks seem to be targeted precisely. The attacks on beirut International are the minimum require to put the airport out of action by cratering the runway intersection and setting the fuel storage areas ablaze. Nearby assets such as the air terminal and passenger jets were untouched. It is in the interests of those opposing Israel to portray all or a vast majority of casualties as civilian, especially women and children. We should not kid ourselves that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from being twisted one way or another. Please - reliable sources for all statements. --Jumbo 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like Heathrow to be bombed "to force Blair to deal with Al Quaida in the UK". Which is just what is happening in Lebanon.
Please, London does not have big building which have big "Al Quaida" signs on them. Nor are hundreds of Al Quaida missiles being fired from England at a neighbouring country. Nor will such actions be tolerated by the English government. Please don't compare things in that sort of way just to promote your own propaganda. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
London never bombed dublin airport to deal with the IRA. In 1982 Ireland elected to power a man believed to have helped supply the IRA, and it was well know that the IRA had safe areas in places such as Drogheda and elsewhere in Louth, but the UK never bombed Tallaght, or similar civilian areas. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the airport could have been stopped from operating simply by the air blockade, without doing any damage to the infrastructure. But this is not the place to discuss our personal opinions on propaganda or intentions of various sides. There are websites for that sort of thing, and Wikipedia is not one of them. Zocky | picture popups 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence from the 1978 and 1982 might seem to suggest that yes, the Israelis are that bad at targetting. However further investigation by the International Committee of Jurists showed that they were targetting civilians. SO no, they are not that bad at targetting - they know exactly what they are doing. Andrew Riddles 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Actually, Israel first drop leaflets telling civilians to leave the Hizbula controlled areas before they are being bombed - this is why the casulties numbers are so low. Hizbulla also ran away in such cases. But surly, when israel target a rocket launcher this is a not a "civilian" who operates it.... Zeq 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse, how reasonable and effective it is, to tell people to "leave" while in the middle of a military campain, and after crippling all of the infrastructure, is debatable 83.161.4.134 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If some country dropped leaflets in my country, telling me to leave because they were gonna bomb it, I would _join_ the militant organisation, as would any person who loves his relatives, friends and surroundings. Israel is _breeding_ militants.

Can anyone confirm the information on this blog post from a news site? She says that local TV reported that Lebanese civilians were allegedly stocking missiles in their homes. 68.239.119.190 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate ones. Ever wondered why Israel has an advanced army? Massive donations by the US. That's all there is to it. The US is handing out weapons to Israel to slaughter Arab civilians who's only defence is indeed some pathetic bottle rockets. That is how sick our western civilisation has become...
They have an advanced army because if they didn't, they would have been wiped off the map long ago. Israel is surrounded by enemies (except Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel). I don't think Israel is sick for wanting to live. I do think the Hezbollah and Palestinian leaderships are sick for not wanting to live in peace. 68.239.119.190 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number 5 link [13] I provided makes it clear. 103 Lebanese dead, all but 4 were civilians. 99 civilians dead and the other 4 are militants or soilders. To be fair though they are going after infostructure that the Israeli's believe Hizbullah uses or can use and the are warning the people. But, there is evidence to show 99/103 deaths are civilian deaths.--Jerluvsthecubs 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html Zeq 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, similar to the Battle of Jenin, when it comes to the Middle East, there is simply no reason, no reason at all, to trust "official" casualty counts counts. There is means, motive, and oppertunity for them to totally inflate the numbers of civilian dead, or to classify dead militia as civilians. There is a pretty well established history with drastically inflated body counts when it comes to Israel. However, right now, there are no independent sources giving these numbers. Reuters and all are just quoting the Lebanese governent, because there isn't any UN or IDF report to cite instead.
This is why I've suggested many times that we remove the casualty counts from the info box at least, and replace them with "Unknown" until some independent organizations can do these counts themselves. Right now, in the info box, we don't have room for debate, and we give the numbers an air of legitimacy by presenting them like that. In time, there will be more reliable numbers available. While having up to date information is important, having accurate information would seem to be even more paramount. Just my take however... Bibigon 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states that the Lebanese casualty numbers are according to the Lebanese government... There is no source for the claim that some of them may have been members of Hesbollah. Until the truth of this is established, it is at the least unencyclopedic to make this brazen claim. 12.148.42.44 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There ZERO Hebulla casulties reported so far. mmmmm.... Zeq 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we make any specific claim. Merely that we refrain from giving casaulty counts until such time that reliable figures are known. Bibigon 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon his a democracy with an active free press currently freely scurrying around the country. Do any of these sources, and most, by far, are non-lebanese, give you any reason to draw doubt on the figure of civilians Israel has killed? Has Hezbollah ever denied that one of its members had died, or become a Shahid? The civilian deaths happen mostly in bulk, if I can be so crass about human life. A house of 12, all dead. A van is destoryed killing 15. Another house bombing kills nine. Et Cetera. Most of this is reported by the free press, and then confirmed by the government, and if you tune to Al Jazeera (If you have sky) though charred remains are the dead civilians. Hezbollah has no use of those infants. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

In response to Jumbo up there, how do you explain Israel targeting an airport? and a bridge? and highway? Civilians are the ones who will be fleeing. And what a better way to slow them down, then trap them in the middle of the crisis. Also, Israel is just rooting to the downfall of Lebanon. Every tourist who goes to Lebanon will NOT go to Israel. I agree with Irishpunktom, Lebanese are being killed.Israelis have trapped them in the city, but bombing a bridge, highway, and airport. This is going to become a massacre. Also, Lebanon is one of the only remaining uncorrupt democraties in the middle east. Israel want to dispose of it.

Sources for the number of casualties

The number of casualties in the fact box is being changed constantly, both because of some people thinking it is funny to change them, and because different sources are used. What sources should be used? In my opinion, the best would be newsagencies like Reuters, AP, AFP, or official sites of Israel and Lebanon in english if that exists.

At the moment the reference used for the number of killed lebanese civialians has disappered. Some hour ago the fact box said 147 i think, now it says 99. AFP says 129. [14] --Battra 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

141 dead is stated on the Daily Star's website, a right wing Lebanese newspaper delivered with the International Herald Tribune throughout the Middle East. As of 2200 GMT. 16 July 2006.

500 Israelis injured with 10 dead, compared to 268 Lebanese residents injured and 148 killed? I really doubt the veracity of that injury figure. How are Hizbollah approximately 30 times better at causing injuries than the IDF?— Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

We need to find something better or remove it... 130.195.86.38 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah somebody needs to confront the 500 Israeli injuries, with more credibility other than an Israeli newspaper. Should we revert it back to what it originall was. In the following BBC Article written on Friday it says "dozens injured" referring to Israelis.[[15]]W123 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me how can you say that Hezbollah 30 times better at causing injuries than the IDF? If you do the math, it doesn't equal 30 times. While Israel may have 500 injuries(most have been confirmed to be merely shock) and Lebanon only 268 injuries, there were 148 Lebanese killed compared to the 10 Israelis. Do Lebanese count for half of an Israeli life? Please make sure of what you are posting.

THough it is mathematically illogical to have 12 killed with 500 injured. PLUS if you check ynetnews, it's OBVIOUSLY biased, and makes the stories rather sentimentally hollywood to the Israeli side, but when VILLAGES ARE RAZED TO THE GROUND in lebanon, it's attacking hizbullah militants. I am starting to doubt wikipedia's credibility in staying neutral and showing the truth as it is, and not as CNN and BBC fabricate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

Perhaps we could omit the number of injured in the infobox, and just keep the number of killed persons? It doesn't make much sense to keep a number of injured people if "injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.

Somebody removed the number of casualties given by AFP, which I had inserted in the "Casualties" section, without giving any reason. I'll reinsert it again, and suggest we remove the figures given by BBC and CNN, and just keep what the news agencies says. --213.65.178.172 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. the sentence that disappeared had not been removed, it just doesn't appear because of some bug. I'll see if I can fix it. --213.65.178.172 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lebanese" killed

Do you know all of them are Lebanese? Eight Canadians were killed, although they were supposed to have dual citizenship. It should be "civilians" so that all deaths can be reported without having to note nationality. Also, those arguing that Hezbollah are civilians, I beg to differ. If they are an armed militia, you can clearly consider them soldiers, militants, fighters, whatever--but not civilians. OzLawyer 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you consider them to be combatants? or terrorists-unlawful combatants?— Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

The casualties given in the infobox has been refered to as "Lebenese civilians". That might be wrong, since there has been at least 17 civilians of other nationalities killed, so I agree with OzLawyer that it might be best not to give the nationality.
Whether the official toll includes some Hezbollah members, it is hard to know, though it does seem unlikely that many Hezbollah members are registered there. To know the number of Hezbollahs that have died, I guess we can only wait until Hizbollah releases some "martyr list".--Battra 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah members killed

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]

Van Incident

Just a heads-up: The reuters link for van incident, where fleeing villagers were hit and 12 were killed, is broken. Since the other two sources for this are an Arab site and a site in German, we should make the effort to fix that link62.0.125.178 07:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about whether it is a war

Earlier discussions

On Larry King Live Newt Gingrich called this World War III, with Senator McCain agreeing to a certain extent. Perhaps a mention of media coverage and terminology somewhere? Media is going to play a huge part in this. Frinkahedr0n 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[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]

Discussion about weapon types

Earlier discussions

Fajr-7 missile

This is the missile Israel claims was used in the attack on Haifa. There is no article on it at the moment, so I set out to create one. However, I am having trouble finding information on any missile by that name, beyond the reports of it being used against Haifa. Theres plenty of information about a Fajr 3 rocket around. Is it possible the designation is wrong? Damburger 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Designation is probably wrong, as we're only familiar with Fajr 3 and Fajr 5, probably both capable of hitting Haifa. In fact, I have found no Israeli sources for a Fajr 7. Some Israeli news sources claim it's no Fajr, but the same kind of rocket hitting other Israeli towns (Raad or Katyusha or something). Personally, I think it's another exaggeration of Fox news. --Lior 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't paid to think though. I'm creating a page on the Fajr 7 anyway, hopefully if the issue clears up the relevant information can be added there. I'd appreciate any help with this page that people can offer. We can only add to the wikipedia what the news organisations are reporting, even if it is nonsensical. Damburger 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to create a wiki article for every weapon system mentioned in American blogosphere, wikimedia would have to raise my salary by 30% once more. We're into citing *reliable* sources. The Hotair post doesn't mention Fajrs, and the PeaceWatch post [16] only says Hezbollah has these Fajr-7 rockets. If a non-Israeli news source claims that Fajr-7 is "the missile Israel claims was used", I expect some Israeli source to say the same. This is not to say, of course, that Israeli sources are more reliable than others. --Lior 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The weapon system was apparantly mentioned on Fox News, and also by a thinktank cited in the Fajr 7 article I created. I agree its likely they got the name of the weapon wrong given that the Fajr 3 was only tested in March, but as I said until better information comes along we should just present what is being given out by the media, albeit with qualification. I'll have a look at changing the wording to reflect this. Damburger 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. Do note that the NTI source you provided [17] talks of a series of military exercises titled Fajr-#, not of rockets bearing those names. There is no reason to believe that a guided missile have hit Haifa, rather than a ballistic rocket. On top of all that, the impact crater seems too mild to result from a 333 mm rocket. Then again, if they said so in the news, it's wiki worthy. Cheers. --Lior 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the links on the page Fajr 7 is to the military exercise, the other references missiles by that name possibly being moved into Southern Lebanon (which ties in quite strongly with whats been reported about this incident). If you want to discuss this further can we move it to the talk page for Fajr 7? Damburger 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is done. --Lior 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz in hebrew [18] is now listing the rockets that hit Haifa yesterday as Fajr-3. Also talks about other rockets Hezbollah have, Fajr-5 and Zilal-2 as well as an unnamed Russian 220mm rocket. --darkskyz 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew article you mentioned currently asserts Hezbollah made no use of its Fajr rockets. Google News found only one Israeli news source speaking of Fajr 7. This source says the following: "...Hezbollah spokesperson denied that his organization has fired missiles towards Haifa. Nevertheless they report that the missile fired towards Haifa is a Fajr 7 with a diameter of 336 mm, capable of carrying a 100 kg warhhead." Please have a look at the photos provided in this link. My untrained eyes assert this is no 336 mm rocket. Just compare it to the shoes near it. I can't tell whether it's 107, 122 or 152 mm, but 336 mm it certainly ain't. I think we can close the argument and remove the Fajr-7 speculation, but it's really up to you. --Lior 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have the funding source of the Israeli rockets and equipment. Where does Hezbollah get thier funds for weapons. I have read that their source of funding for military equipment and other non-military articles comes from the country of Iran.

The missiles used by Hezbollah are Fagr (Dawn) type and Raad-2 and -3 (Thunderous Roar-2 and -3) type. Cionist army says the actualy Haifa missiles were of the Fagr type, but Hezbollah said in press release that only Raad-2 and -3 was used. Raad is very new type, the first ones were made in 2004 in Iran. One unguided missile hit a big oil drum in the oil refinery of Haia and one other missile hit the railway waggons depot, which is very nearby. The depot missile hit killed eight or nine people. Photo of the aftermath is here: http://index.hu/cikkepek/0607/kulfold/lebanon0716//.gdata/gp_11.jpg

What rocket type has hit the Israeli navy vessel?

Does anyone have any information regarding the type of weapon used? Apparently its a missile.... but guided....? Ryanuk 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz is reporting it was hit by an explosives-laden drone. [19] --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship [20] 89.138.118.113 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is sourced from the IDF, if it was a missile, surely it was guided somehow? At least when we thought it was a drone, that explained how it was so accurate. This is alittle strange, does anyone have any information on this? Ryanuk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has added to the main article that a Silkworm_missile was used in the attack. However i see no citations for this..... That is one hell of a missile to ship to Lebanon Ryanuk 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet says it was an Iranian missile called C802."A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile". Máfiàg 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is reporting that the Israeli ambassador to the US says that the C-802 missile used is Chinese-made. [21]--Paraphelion 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that the missile is Iranian made. 4 links are given as citations. The first is in Hebrew which I cannot read. The second is techincal data about the rocket which indicates they have been used by Iran and only says China and Russia produced them. The third is about Iran testing a silkworm missile. The fouth is a report about IDF claiming it was a explosive-laden drone, which has been redacted. --Paraphelion 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the article to reflect the above - if someone can read the Hebrew article and see what it says that'd be great. I'm leaving the other cites/links for awhile so people can check them out. The last cite about the drone no longer seems relevant.--Paraphelion 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is referred to as "an Iranian missile," it is unclear whether that means supplied or produced. The C802 designation is included though, so perhaps that can be looked up. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it give a source for that and is it before or after the CNN? Not sure what to do.. combine both sources some how? Note that the CNN source also covers the Haifa missiles and says that Israeli military says that the Haifa missiles are Iranian-made. One of the other links [22], is about that type of missile in general and implies that the C802 is Chinese-made. --Paraphelion 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
China designed the missile, Iran produces them under license. 167.24.104.150 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is odd - the CNN article I linked above citing the Israeli ambassasdor to the US saying that the missile is chinese-made has been edited. If you search CNN for "israeli ambassador" or "c-802", the article does appear in the search results, despite that neither of these terms appear in the article any longer! Another source reports : [23]- a KLYV article which cites CNN.--Paraphelion 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to edit this paragraph to reflect the various sometimes contradictory reports. I looked for sources about Iran producing C801 or C802 missiles, but did not find anything concrete. I did find one link from 1996 saying Asian intellgience says that China was helping Iran develop a similar missile system and that they may have even tested it.--Paraphelion 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyusha or 9K51 Grad?

Most major news articles mention Katyusha rockets, but this articles consistently says 9K51 Grad rockets are being fired by Hezbollah. These look like distinctly different systems. Were is the citation for the 9K51 Grad rockets? --MarsRover 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katyusha is not just a specific weapon system anymore, it has also come to mean smaller rocket artillery in general. Same way that not all hoovers in the UK are Hoovers :) --Narson 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Casus belli and Hezbollah raid

Most of the articles say 8 killed and two captured in the raid. This page says 3 kills.

In the initial raid, three soldiers were killed. When Israeli troops entered Lebanon on the tracks of the abducted/captured soldiers, a tank hit a land mine. The four crew memebers are currently defined as MIA, but I think that it is safe to say that they are dead. In the attempt to extricate the bodies from the tank and bring them back to Israel for burial, a further soldier was killed. This makes a total of eight.
The reason that there was such a fast attempt to bring the bodies of the tank crew back was two-fold. Firstly, Judaism (and also Islam) requires a speedy burial. Secondly, Israel was worried that Hezbollah would take the bodies and use them as bargaining counters. Cymruisrael 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that adding "military wing, whose civilian wing has a minister in the Lebanese government" does not belong to casus belli clause. Whoever interested in the group structure can click on Hezbollah link and study it. Can we shorten it to "Border attack by Hezbollah, killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers"? What do you think?

I emitted the "trying to free Palestinian prisoners" from the Casus belli cause. Palestinian prisoners were nowhere near the scene where the raid took place. Hizbullah captured two soldiers to use them as a ransom, this is discussed later in the article. 87.69.70.61 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was on my vandalism watchlist and I reverted b/c it was unexplained in the edit summary (sorry about reverting so quick). In any case, on the merits, it seems like the alleged ransom was integral to Hezbollah's purpose, so it should remain. Still, I'll probably defer to regular editors of this page on this point.--Kchase T 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do rephrase it then yourself if you won't let others do it. From the current phrasing it can be understood that the 'prisoners' were transported in the attacked humvees, which is not the case.87.69.70.61 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The casus belli here, as well as in the opening article, addresses IMEMC News as a source. IMEMC web site quote: Being a joint Palestinian-International effort, IMEMC combines Palestinian journalists' deep understanding of the context, history, and the socio-political environment with International journalists' skills in non-partisan reporting. The use of such a source for the casus belli definition is questionable. 87.69.70.61 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will now add more on past prisoners exchange and the prisoners cause to the "historical bckgr" clause.87.69.70.61 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the operation

The opening paragraph says that the purpose of the Israeli operation is "to free the captured soldiers". Is that accurate? Or is the purpose to punish Lebanon and/or Hezbollah for capturing them in the first place?

William Jockusch 07:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to prevent the supply of weapons to Hezbollah, who are using missiles to deliberately target civilians. Yes. But primarily for (and would not have happened but for) the kidnappings. Xtra 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what the Israeli officials said, so yes. But we can add something like "but person a suspects that they have wider goals there", if we have that person a of course. --Jadelith 08:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bias here :

"In an operation to free the captured soldiers, Israeli forces launched an offensive into Lebanon in which five more Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops were killed." - given with no source, taken as fact

"Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of the group, claims it is part of an ongoing plan to free Lebanese citizens and/or members of Hezbollah in Israeli prisons." - given with a source, not taken as fact but instead phrased a only a 'claim'.

Most of the news I have seen (US news sources) about Israel's goals focus on how Israel's response will be "severe and harsh" rather than on recovering the soliders. An israeli General is reported as saying, "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."[24]. Given the extremely high civilian to military casualty ratio it seems reasonable to assume the kidnapped soldiers are not the main target, but instead civilians are, or at least reduce the phrasing to a claim, as Nasrallah's is, rather than implicit fact.--69.60.118.148 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes but we don't assume. we report what has happened and who said what. --Jadelith 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, the claim that the purpose of the operation is to free the captured soldiers should have attribution. William Jockusch 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With no response to my latest, I have gone ahead and changed the purpose in the opening paragraph to "in response". I'm not 100% clear on the etiquette here, so if I'm out of line feel free to revert me. William Jockusch 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1150886009750&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "Jerusalem Post - 'Lebanon can be shut down for years'" details several purposes of the air strikes and blockade according to senior Israeli military officials including A) Destroying Hizbullah infrastructure; B) Preventing future rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon and C) Preventing prisoners from leaving, and help from entering. The wikipedia entry seems to imply that the whole response from Israel is simply punishment for taking a soldier, this should be changed to reflect what Israel has now said is its purpose. Mathan 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WashPost:Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

"U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants. Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials. For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him. For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say...." From today's Washington Post. This should be mentioned in the article appropriately. --Ben Houston 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Casus Belli

How is the Israeli retaliation part of the Casus Belli? For the past few days it's been good enough for the Hezbollah raid to cause this conflict. I'm afraid trying to be super NPOV has caused us to to miss the meaning of Casus Belli. It should be changed back. Also why was the decision made to split up the actors of Lebanon and Hezbollah. I know the Lebanese government would love to rout out the militants but I've yet to hear reports to the contrary that the Lebanese military is fighting Hezbollah. The new layout makes it seem like each party is fighting each other, when there have been no reports to back this up. This should also be changed back. Njjones 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. After the response of Israel in Gaza to a nearly identical provocation just a week or so earlier, it is disingenuous to suggest that Hezbollah was expecting anything less than a military response when they did the same thing. The casus belli is the incursion and capture of Israeli military personnel, period. Fishhead64 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. TewfikTalk 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Convert to timeline-based article

As this crisis turns into a multi-day event, wiht numerous attacks and counter attacks, parhaps the "current conflict" section should be restructured in chronologial order rather than by sides, as this would make the timeline of the events more understandable, rather than a list of events on each side with no correlation between them? --darkskyz 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think this is the most important thing to do right now for this article:

Seeing as the conflict does not look like it is going to end quickly Restructure Article to be timeline based over the current format mcwiggin 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Having an "Attacks on Israel" vs. "Attacks on Lebanon" seems to be unwieldy and vague. Almost none of the attacks and casualties have dates or times recorded. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Once the crisis ends (or evolves into something else) a more content-based division of the article could be used. Sijo Ripa 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article is significantly worse than the Operation Summer Rains article, which I think is a rather good read due to its structure. No offense to anyone, but this article has not come together well so far with the constant allegations of bias of POV, along with the constant removal of facts from the Infobox. But I think this would be a good way to work give the article some flow - a chronological order like that of Operation Summer Rains. Than perhaps this can be brought into a higher order of articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about staring to put it together at 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Timeline? -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big debates about this crisis is the proportionality of the responses on behalf of Israel. Need to know the each time of each major event. Did Israel attack Beirut before Hezbollah attacked Haifa? Having the exact time that Hezbollah first attacked is useful, but can we put a time in front of other major events? --MarsRover 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions Isn't one of the biggest stories of all in this area the elephant in the room that most feel is ... Iran? Many feel that this is a proxy war being fought by Iran in order to assert itself as a rising power which is alarming to many governments, not the least of which being the traditionally influential Sunni arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Their statement the other day condemning Hezbollah, a group that was fighting Israel, was practically unprecedented and I think it should be included. Not to mention that it underscores the frightening Sunni-Shiite front that is lining up across the Middle East as we speak. I can't think of a more relevant story under the heading of "Interneational Reactions". Anyone else think that this story should be featured--and prominently--in that section?

Hezbollah or Hizbollah - Need of being consistent

I've noticed that down there in the article, there are some "Hezbollahs" and some "Hizbullahs". I think that we should be consistent in naming those terrorists. So, which should it be? Personally, I'm inclined to "Hezbollah". --Terrancommander 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency one way or the other is essential. 172.200.205.217 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding footnotes

Is it possible to have a button to hide the footnotes? There's nearly a hundred, and they take up about a quarter of the page. I've seen some pages with sections that can be clicked on to hide/show. --Iorek85 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Its good to have citations and references but this is sort of getting out of hand. sikander 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikipedia have a set way to hide footnotes? Frinkahedr0n 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many footnotes to begin with. it is kind of a slippery slope when people disagree with a point, back and forth, and they just list the "prove-it!"/ "sources" comment to the sentence. and this kind of bickering keeps happening back and forth, even though many of these sources can be found together in a single article. it seems kind of repetitive and annoying/excessive. i put one of the footnotes in as an answer to a "needs sources" request, although i dont think it was needed in actuality, with all of the sources already listed at the bottom, i think it was about 100 at the time i did it, now it's 30% or 40% more than that. sorry about the rant, it just seems like there needs to be some kind of checks and balances about that issue... --72.20.207.29 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical mistakes

I found four grammatical mistakes in the first major paragraph of this article before I gave up and stopped reading. My hunch is that these glaring grammatical mistakes are a result of the number of non-native English speakers editing this article. I suppose it's rather blunt to say so, but if you're not entirely confident of your ability to write in near-flawless English, then why not edit the Wikipedia article about this crisis that's written in your native language? This is an important and serious article, and Wikipedia is not served well by an article written in obviously incorrect and choppy English. 70.92.166.154 05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, why didn't you fix the four grammatical mistakes, and improve the article? We don't have any policy around here saying editors need to be entirely confident of their ability to write in near-flawless English. The editors contributing to the article with flawed English are doing far more to improve the article than you just did. Tempshill 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I even think there is a Wikipedia policy called "the joy of editing": no one has to be a perfect writer or needs to have the best expertise. As long as someone can add something valuable, his/her contribution is appreciated. (Note also that almost every article has its importance - you could very well argue that only native speakers have the right to contribute on this Wikipedia). If this article would be written by native speakers only, I think the systemic bias (POV) would be much more pervasive. I also think that this page would never have reached the same size. Don't forget that most Wikipedia language communities often translate (parts of) the English page, which wrongly gives the impression that each language community can reach an equally large page on its own. Just contribute and fix those errors. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the time that it took to tell us you found four mistakes, you could have fixed them and probably more. Stop bragging about spotting mistakes and start fixing mistakes.--Smallwhitelight 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Maps

Earlier discussions

New Suggestion

File:Lebmap.jpg
New suggestion

I thought the previous one was pretty good, but I used it as a reference using lower number of colors. Vector Illustration -- Full view for details. Please give feedback and discuss whether you like to use it or not. Hope it's useful. -- Omernos 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best map so far in my mind. I recommend using it. In fact, in the name of being bold, I'm going to sub it in. --Falcorian (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That's fine. I don't prefer either one. If we do use it, would it be possible to move the city names slightly offshore so as not to obscure the details of the map, which (I think) add to its visual appeal? Also, I still believe that "Safed" may be an appropriate notation, but I'll leave that up to you and others to decide. Good job, TewfikTalk 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That new one is excellent, good job. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're all very good. I impressed with everyone who made those maps. --Elliskev 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the one up right now. Do we know where the Israili warship that got hit was located? That would be a good addition to the map. Also, a spot showing where the two israeli soldiers were originally captured would be good too.--Crucible Guardian 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change map ASAP. The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape on the top of the picture! Fix this immediately. Ad vitam aeternam 09:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15th of July version - Beirut's location fixed
>>I have changed and uploaded a new version, but I need to discuss the matter before uploading a newer version to the same file with you guys. So if you'd like please take a look at Image:Lebmap02.jpg -- Unfortunately, I had used a previous map as a reference and I fell into this geographical mistake. Please consider using the second (if somebody has the permission to upload a newer version to the first one) as I followed up to people who noted the right position of Beirut. Any modification is possible to the original illustration. Anything for Wikipedia ;) -- Omernos 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map put is totally wrong. Beirut is not where it is shown, that's Sidon (Saida) instead. Beirut is more to the north, right on the cape! Fix this immediately

This user's right. Junes 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I have changed the location, and I checked with the map it's not in Sidon's position any more. Why this hostility? As said I fixed it. Check the new smaller thumb under the image. Image:Lebmap02.jpg. Just check the NEW one and I'll fix it. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave at the moment so I need an instant reply. -- Omernos 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new map is accurate. All the previous maps were wrong, so this was understandable. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The area of conflict map that is shown on the main wikipedia page should now include Tiberias. I know the map isn't perfectly accurate and is meant to give a general idea. But I believe Tiberias is farther south on Lake Kineret and the shaded region should be changed accordingly. I know there is a map of Israeli cities affected but it is not featured on the main page. Njjones 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an SVG version (using CIA's maps). I'll probably swap this in after not too long, any suggestions? I would like to add the road.. but would really like to have an idea of where the road goes first (as opposed to drawing a straight line).— Mobius 21:04, 16 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."

Please POST a picture of the damages caused by a Hezbollah strike

Someone please post a picture of the damage caused by a Hezbollah strike such as the fires and damages in Haifa. --68.1.182.215 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link added to Getty photo. --Lior 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good if u can publish any pictures but that under GNU. In the german Wikipedia we haven't any photos bout the situation. And here the ones we can't use cause the License isn't clear. --Japan01 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza1111 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)The transmitter and photographers of the Ter Hafra war crime WANT the photo to be published. Why was it removed?[reply]

Pictures of bombings of Lebanon

I was surprised not to find any pictures of lebanon being bombed. Seeing those pictures will create some kind of understanding to what happens, and will change the point of view and make it more neutral. Eshcorp 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone doesn't want to add such a picture. In fact, I even think that such pictures were added, but had to be removed due to copyright violations. Freely available pictures are scarce. Therefore this is not caused by POV (and that's one of the reasons why I moved this comment down to the pictures section). Sijo Ripa 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, several images have been placed up depicting it, but they were deleted shortly thereafter for not qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could u try 2 use GNU license? Would be great so we canuse the pictures in the german wikipedia 2. --Japan01 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, we don't have any say in the matter on whether the images are released as GFDL. That choice lies with the person taking the photographs, and none of the news agencies release their images under free licenses. Maybe if there was a Wikipedian in Lebanon with a digital camera then we could get something good we can use, but until then, we can't just take a news organization's photo and try to pass it off as GFDL when it clearly isn't. --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Phabi0: While I appreciate your effort for a picture of the Israeli bombings, (1) could you prove it's a picture of such a bombing during this crisis? I visited the source site of this photo, but couldn't find any confirmation. (2) Could you also make the copyright status clear? Thanks! Sijo Ripa 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon

what about the Placard IDF distributed in Lebanon? I think it should be added.

File:Kruz lebanon.jpg

placard explanation: To the Lebanese nation! know! from the front - friend, back - a snake! (the meaning is to hezzbollah and nasrala) (my english is not very good so you are invited to fix my mistakes)

Eli5050 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Sijo Ripa 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think that that poster should be added to the articke, this is what IDF distributed in Lebanon before it started to bomb targets.

I wrote the explanation of the words that written in Arabic. look at the hebrew article about the crisis, scroll down, and you will understand what I meant. Eli5050 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak or read Hebrew. But if I understand you correctly, the IDF distributed these to tell the Lebanese people that Israeli's are their friends (the front - friend) and Hezbollah is their enemy (by causing this crisis - the back)? Sijo Ripa 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that Nasralla if presenting himself (the face) as a friend of the lebanese but he is not(realy a snake). --TheYmode 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the leaflet propaganda dropped by Israel is worth including in the article unless we have a section regarding propaganda that is balanced. --MarsRover 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a propoganda, just a part of the war describe, and I think it should be included in the article. Eli5050 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is not propaganda, then I don't know on what planet you live. Goes to show the quality and NPOV adherence of the hebrew article if it is displayed... I agree fully it should only be included if we create a section or sub-page on propaganda from all sides. Come on people stop being disingeneous!--Cerejota 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is propaganda, but it extremely relevant propaganda. Definitely include. --Jobrahms 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so extremely relevant? I dont find it particulary newsworthy that propaganda is being made, I mean, it is part of war since war was invented... again, I think we could make a page or section on Israeli propaganda, and IF propaganda for all sides, maybe a small section. Since this is a total POV image, with no real news value, it would seemingly compromise NPOV.--Cerejota 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no question that it is propaganda, even if you are an extreme Israel supporter, you'd have to not know the definition of propaganda to say that this isn't propaganda. That being said, I think it might make sense to link this image in the article (if we can get source information), but on the whole, it's not important enough to really get an inline image display. --Cyde↔Weys 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath Photo

I have replaced the aftermath photo with the Howitzer once again because the aftermath photo does not qualify for fair use [25]. Its a press image. I noticed that it had been removed several times before by people for this reason, upon which the original uploader reverted it and said he was "rightfully accusing you of bias" and said they were "covering up warcrimes." It seems he has since been blocked from editing, but in any case, it has been removed by me due to its lack of qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also replaced the battleship image with the original fair use qualifying one. The new one provided a better view of its side, however no link was provided to its source so we cannot determine if it qualifies. The one currently up does, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the Sa'ar 5-class Missile Corvette

FOR GOD-SAKE DO REMOVE THE PHOTO OF THE SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV). THAT AIN'T BATTLE DAMAGE, BUT RATHER SMOKE RESIDUES AND STAINS FROM ONE OF IT'S EXHAUST. ALL SA'AR 5-CLASS MISSLE CORVETTE (MCV)HAVE THIS SO CALLED "PARTICULAR FEATURE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

What's your point? The picture is, as descibred, the INS Hanit near Ashdod. And stop writing in all caps. Admiral Rupert 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The true victims are erased Spinoza1111 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to appeal the deletion of the picture of the Ter Hafra victim.

This is what happened. The posting of the innocuous picture of Israeli naval reservists is NPOV since it participates in the ongoing Israeli public relations campaign to present Israel as the "good", uniformed side, versus the "terrorists".

This is an opinion, a global opinion which creates a global bias.

The massacre happened and is documented thoroughly by Western reporters outside the US.

Your image is an AP Photo, which is not free and does not qualify for fair use. That is the likely reason that someone removed it. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the status of the article

Some Troll

Some troll destroyed all the links to the external websites!! - Little Spike 12:00pm EST, July 17th, 2006

Yes, the references were broken because someone used the {{cite news}} template incorrectly. I've fixed the problem though. sikander 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might have been me; I couldn't get the goddamn reference to render correctly, even though it was formatted exactly like the previous ref. What was the problem? ==ILike2BeAnonymous

vandalism by 83.70.199.1

User 83.70.199.1 has expanded his/her vandalism efforts, previously limited to uncited increase of Lebanese civ deaths, now removing paragraphs without any explanation.--Paraphelion 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about these internet trolls. One user even changed the death toll and increased it by 40 and I had to fix it! - Little Spike 1:25pm EST July 17th, 2006

The troll struck again! - Little Spike 1:50pm EST July 17th, 2006

Article is now being heavily vandalized by 83.70.199.1

I'm checking and then submitting IP ban request Hello32020 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect for an hour or so? Frinkahedr0n 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Hello32020 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted Palestinian Prisoners

All Palestinian prisoners have been convicted in court, or currently undergo legal proceedings. They are not held as prisoners of war and never have been. This is a matter of fact, not of point of view. There's no place to write they're "allegedly prisoners of war" because they simply aren't. Israel used to hold several Lebanese figures as POW, in order to exchange them with Israeli POW held by Hezbollah, but these actions were banned by Israeli supreme court. It is not been done for ten years or so, and has never been done with Palestinian prisoners. There is certainly no place to say that there are thousands of Palestinian POW in Israeli prisons, even if one objects Israeli policies. There should be some minimal sense behind the continuous edit war over the POV of this article. --Lior 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several articles mention that the Palestinians are held without any charge. Also, you're attributing to that statement to a source (see the end of the sentence) which says nothing about them being convicted. BhaiSaab talk 05:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please name one reliable source reporting that a single Palestinian is currently being held by Israel without charge. The fact that Hezbollah radio uses the POW terminology still does not imply it is reliable. Hezbollah radio was also the first to "report" the Mossad was behind the September 11 attacks, and no wikipedia article cites this as a fact. --Lior 05:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The prison service says that of its 2,700 security prisoners, about 1,250 are being held on remand and 1,450 have been convicted. The IDF holds 2,900 prisoners, including 970 who have been convicted and 1,400 on remand or arrested on judges' orders. There are also at least 530 "administrative detainees" in IDF custody, who are held without charge or trial for renewable six-month terms." [26] So I really don't see how you can classify all of them as "convicted prisoners." BhaiSaab talk 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we're making progress. We're left with 530 detainees held under 'administrative detention'. Their detention is approved by a judge every six months in the face of evidence linking them with terrorist activity. You are right about them been unconvicted, and I stand corrected for that. They're not held as prisoners of war, do not serve as baragain chips for future negotiations, and never have been released in any prisoner swap. Administrative detention has been argued against by civil rights groups and the procedures for applying it have been stiffenned. It exists in other Western countries (as mentioned by BBC, it is derived from British law). Anyways, there are no prisoners of war in Israeli prisons, neither Palestenian nor other. Hezbollah demands the release of thousands of Palestenian prisoners, and one Lebanese prisoner, the killer of two small girls and their father. --Lior 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In remand" doesn't sound like they were convicted. Also, Israel has in the past engaged in prisoner exchanges with Palestinians, including the one mentioned at [27]. Zocky | picture popups 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those held "in remand" face legal proceedings, as noted above. They have to be brought in front of a judge and face charges within 24-48 hours (soon about to be 96 hours in extreme cases). Hezbollah has never released its Israeli hostages (or bodies) in exchange for fresh detainees, only in exchange of prisoners. The prisoner swap you cited followed a war and included prisoners of war. The fact that convicted prisoners were also released in the 1980s has been gravely criticised, leading to the current change in Israeli policy. I accept your current edit (i.e. "Palestinian prisoners" instead of "convicted Palestinian prisoners"), yet Hezbollah (or Hamas) won't accept week-long detainees and Israel won't release administrative detainees, leaving convicted Palestinian prisoners as the only source for potential agreements.--Lior 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that the 2650 people held on remand back in 2003 were arrested in 48 hours before the data was obtained, but that's a question for another article. "Prisoners" is good enough here. Zocky | picture popups 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I said that within 48 hours they were faced with charges, hence not held without charge. This is dangerous ice I'm walking on as possibly some of the 2650 have not seen a judge on time, but that's a mishap, not a policy. As long as legal proceedings go on, they're on remand, not convicted. Some are later released and some aren't. Have a nice day.--Lior 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to B'tselem IDF held 3,111 Palestinians in January 2006 and IPS held another 5,127, whereof more than 1,000 were not yet serving a sentence [28]. If you add up all those not yet serving a sentence (they have not been able to get figures for the number of sentenced IDF prisoners, but previous years' figures indicate that slightly more than half of the IDF prisoners are not serving a sentence), you get a total of some 3,000 held without a sentence and 8,238 held in total, whereof the overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons [29]. Unfortunately B'tselem doesn't have any more recent figures, as the Israeli Prison Services have stopped providing them with the monthly figures they had before. Also, B'tselem points out that they have no statistics on Palestinians held by the Israeli Police. Thomas Blomberg 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't see how the fascinating B'tselem data you provided argue against what I wrote. Let's Look at January 2006, beginning with IPS figures: There were 4,019 prisoners serving sentence. There were 105 detainees (I assume this refers to those not faced with charges yet), 950 detainees faced with charges and awaiting for their legal proceedings to end, and 53 administrative detainees. Now let's look at IDF figures: a worrisome number of 741 administrative detainees, and 2370 other prisoners and detainees. Please note, that from January 2005 and on, the vast majority of individuals in these three categories were prisoners serving sentence. But let's follow your suggestion, that only about 1200 of the uncategorized 2370 individuals are prisoners serving sentence. The number of detainees held by IDF and not faced with charges is still supposed to be about a 100. This sums up to about 200 individuals being held by Israel without charge on January 2006. 200 out of 5,127 is no overwhelming majority, it's about 4%. I don't see how you infer that the "overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons", unless you take all non-criminal prisoners to be political prisoners. B'tselem does not report that there are thousands of political prisoners, not as far as I could figure out from the link you provided. Needless to say this has nothing to do with my original assertion, that Israel currently holds no prisoners of war of any nationality.--Lior 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of fact that some arab and muslim people are now spending 15th to 20th year in israeli capticity and have never been charged or tried officially, they are in total limbo forever. That amounts to 1/3rd capital punishment, considering the average life expectancy of arab males is about 60 years, so jews took away 1/3rd of their livetimes.
Even the israeli politicians are recently admitting there are 20-year-long held palestinians and in press they said some those, exactly the ones deemed permanently phyisically unfit, might be released if arabs behave and bend. It should also not be forgotten that Guantanamo Camp X-ray idea was conceived by a US military comitte, whose lead advisor was the jewish army officer who designed the administrative detention scheme against the palestinians. 195.70.32.136 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Hezbollah?

Excuse my ignorance - but I don't think that the article is very clear... but what is Hezbollah? What is its exact status within Lebanon? Does it have official rights to represent / fight for the Lebanese people, represent the Lebanese government, etc? The reporting of the crisis talks about Israel vs. Hezbollah and it's not clear how Lebanon as a nation fits into this. The opening paragraph of the article is on the lines of "Hezbollah did this... so Israel did this". I am confused as the two actors appear to be Hezbollah and Israel, not Lebanon and Israel.

I would have expected there to be talk of the Israeli armed forces and government, and the Lebanese armed forces and government... is Hezbollah the Lebanese army? Is it a militia movement within Lebanon supported formally or informally by the Lebanese government? is it a rogue organisation distinct from the Lebanese government? Why is the Israeli army attacking "Hezbollah" and not "Lebanon"? (but clearly attacks are being made on civilians in both countries). Why isn't the Lebanese Army responding to attacks on sovereign Lebanese soil? Has Israel officially declared war on Lebanon (or vice-versa) or is this a very public guerilla war? I was under the impression that Israel and Lebanon are two sovereign nations and this all seems quite confused. Help appreciated with any of these questions... cheers! --mgaved 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
In a nutshell, Hezbollah is a guerilla organisation that has recently won seats in the Lebanese parliament and has joined the ruling coalition (two cabinet seats). Thus the Lebanese government is viewed by Israel as technically responsible for the immediate attack, as well as being responsible for not implementing the SC resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah. As far as I know, Lebanese gov't institutions haven't been directly attacked excepting AA facilities that fired on attacking IAF planes and a radar site that Israel has implicated in the missile attack on their ship (INS Hanit). There have been no declarations of war, though there is no lack of rhetoric. Hope I was helpful. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of political neutrality, the political wing of Hezbollah was admitted into the government as an overture to try to convince Hezbollah to disarm and become a strictly political movement (the government of Lebanon held a large majority without Hezbollah). Clearly, it has backfired. —Cuiviénen 20:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is wikipedia entry on Hezbollah. It is also linked on the main article here, so I don't think we should discuss that here.--Cerejota 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help everybody. I'd like to ask again that *somebody clarifies the opening section of this article*. It is written in a way that suggests that Hezbollah=Lebanon, and Lebanese official policy and military forces, while you all have helpfully pointed out that while Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese authority and government it is acting in a semi-autonomous manner. I think the article will be greatly improved by clarifying this briefly in the introductory section. Thanks Tewfik and Cuivienen. Cerejota, I agree there is material elsewhere in wikipedia and its really useful but I think brief clarification will be useful. I'll try to make an edit now, feel free to improve one and all. --mgaved 08:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few words to frame what Hezbollah is and how it relates to the Lebanese government inline in the article for neutral readers ("Hezbollah, a minority member of the Lebanese government that operates an autonomous military wing" and later "(It is not clear what the official Lebanese government response is or whether the Israeli Government first approached the Lebanese government in order to resolve the crisis by non-military means).") but these have been deleted without comments so I'll leave the article to others to improve. Cheers for your help in explaining on this talk page though folks. --mgaved 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah's arguments for raid and Lebanese government political reactions

I took this from someones redundant and badly placed edit, cleaned it up removed redundacy and included as sub sub section. I would delete but I think the info can be used... may its just in the wrong place? Dunno, it is a combination of background and post-raid stuff... comments? --Cerejota 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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 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 of nice picture of Israeli aggression?

  1. ^ "Who are Hezbollah?". BBC News Online. 2002-04-04. Retrieved 2006-07-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=64368150"