Talk:2006 Lebanon War

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

A radical proposal[edit]

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

Sorry for being late in answering. I totally agree with your proposal. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What's the point? "Keeping it simple" means removing information, which is counterproductive. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No point in keeping irrelevant or misleading information. Did PFLP-GC really participate in the war and can its leader Ahmad Jibril realy be described as a leader on the Lebanese side? I have read extensively on the war, and as far as I can remember, I have found no indication that PFLP-GC took part in the war. True, two of its bases was bombed by Israel, killing one fighter. But Israel also bombed and totally destroyed LibanLait, the largest dairy producer in Lebanon. Maybe we should include LibanLait as a participant and its CEO as a leader?
I have only rarely come across information of anybody but Hizbullah fighters takig part in the ground war. AMAL took part in the fighting in Maroun al-Ras and lost one of its commander. A few SSNP fighters fought in Marj'ayoun. Some communists apparently took part in the defence of Ayta ash-Sha'b.
I don't think that anybody but Hizbullah carried out rocket attacks on Israel.
So, the participation of Lebanese factions, apart from Hizbullah, was minimal and does not merit special treatment in the box. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
If specific groups didn't take part, simply remove those. That has nothing to do with removing all "supporters". FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This. Removing information is counterproductive. If dozens of identifiable groups participated, list them. If the layout of the page suffers, still list them: just have "Other Lebanese militas" in the infobox with a footnote. In the footnote, list them. — LlywelynII 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook source[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Heavy POV edits by Biased user.[edit]

There is a dangerours POV in the Infobox data regarding Israeli Losses, I am Citing all the sources and enumerating details. I dont like the Heavily BIASED edits made by a User i dont remember his name. Whatever. This entry is just to record what i have found.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

All reliable sources say 5 tanks were destroyed, including the source you are trying to cite from. You are trying to cite from Cordesman's book, which itself explains in detail that 5 (he says 5-6) tanks were destroyed in its detailed section on page 110 (while you are trying to argue from an appendix in the same book that presumably put together unclearly by the editors to summarize page 110, which uses the wrong words by counting every tank that suffered any damage at all as 'destroyed', even ones which continued working on the battlefield afterwards). Again read the actual book that you are trying to source from, and the text on page 110, where it clearly explains that 5 tanks were destroyed. We also have the Globes article which reports the figures that Cordesman's figures that five tanks were destroyed comes from.
Secondly you are adding complete nonsense stories to the box, such as this edit about a plane crash in the Negev desert that occurred in 2010.
Thirdly, you are calling other editors biased - please read WP:NPA. You write on your page that the most powerful group on wikipedia is 'an IDF group', "whose main objective its to downplay right abuses commited by the IDF as a organization or IDF members in active duty. Also downplays Israeli Military Losses and overrate violence against Israeli Civilians."
From your quote, it is apparent you have some kind of strange interest in adding imaginary losses to the infobox, including plane crashes that occurred 4 years after the war in question ended, such as that F-16 crash in the Negev. Avaya1 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"All reliable sources" its not a justification of erasing all my edits. Second all the sources are cited in the appendix of Page .157 of the Book. Also the F16I lost edit is not regarding the Negev desert episode, in that article its also inform the failed take off of a F16 in witch both pilots ejected from the aircraft. The plane was lost due to an accident. I dont know why you are so afraid of my references and edits. All is sourced and could be corroborated. I have noticed that you try in every revert to downplay the fact that one Israeli helicopter WAS shoot down by a Hezbolah missiles. And you claim a "posible shoot down", do you think people reading the article are idiots, were all the dead "possible shoots by bullets". The helicopter loss war corroborated by the IDF and the media. Stop your nonsense PRO IDF propaganda, the IDF suffered materiel losses. You simply want to donwplay this and white wash their failures.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Read and stop vandalising. . Mr.User200 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The Cordesman book clearly says that 5-6 tanks were lost, again on page 110. All other sourcessay 5. The source you are using explicitly says 5-6 tanks. The appendix is just added by editors for quick reference - and uses the wrong word to describe every tank that was damaged including ones which continued working on the battlefield - that is not an equipment loss, less alone destruction. Read the book you are citing. Avaya1 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have shown you the proper reference. Now you know the background.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You wrote 'Other sources say' - the source -Cordeman, does not say this. He says clearly - 5-6 lasting tank kills on page 110.
Read by yourself, stop spouting propaganda and read your own Sources.
Mr.User200 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not accuse editors of "spouting propaganda" etc. It seems that the Cordesman source gives different number in different places. It says 5+ tanks destroyed (estimate) on pg 110, and gives 20 tanks destroyed estimate on pg 157. Perhaps one could write 5-12 or something like that. Kingsindian  15:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The number 20 destroyed tanks is also based on IDF sources and is reproduced in several secondary sources, not only by Cordesman. The number 5 seems to be based on a much more narrow definition of "destruction". I can't say which of the two definitions are more correct, although my feeling is that the narrow definition mainly serves propaganda purposes. IDF could not operate its tanks in broad daylight without being targeted. When they did, they were often hit and when hit they were often penetrated. Hence former chief of staff Yaalon's scathing criticism of the IDF use of tanks in the war. 1.
The narrow definitions seems to indicate that this Merkava tank was only "damaged". It was hit Aug. 9 at Ayta ash-Sha'b by a missile, blowing off the turret, and the tank catching fire. The crew of 4 were killed instantly. Most people would agree that this tank was destroyed. But I don't know: maybe the hull of the tank can be recycled and used to build a new tank.
I see no reason not to include both estimates. But we should keep in mind that they are both IDF figures. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


The ideal edit we had - which was reverted - clearly explained what all the sources, in English and Hebrew - state. 5 tanks were damaged beyond repair. 22 tanks had armor penetrations. And 52 tanks were damaged. Equipment loss was 5 tanks. The only ambiguity in the citation is Cordesmann who explains clearly that 5-6 tanks suffered vehicle kills (rather than 5).
Finally the photograph you cite. It is not indicated as 'damaged' but as 'destroyed'. That is a destroyed tank. 5 tanks were destroyed, such as that one - which is a 'lasting vehicle kill'. The other tanks were assessed as being able to be returned to service. We can stick to our sources - which are reported directly by Globes from the IDF. The source of 20 tanks was from newspaper articles immediately during the war - which has a fog of war. The figure isn't even accurate if you are talking armor penetrations - since the number of those was 22. Avaya1 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jokkmokks-Goran: Could you give some other secondary sources for the "20" figure? @Avaya1: I do not see anywhere in the Cordesman source where he says it is reliant on newspaper report and fog of war etc. Why is the 5 figure more credible than the 20 one, if they are both given by the same source? Kingsindian  14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
A simple google yields:
Israel-Hezbollah Conflict Part-4 : Weapons Employment Profile, by Maj Gen GD Bakshi, Indian Defence Review, Issue Vol 22.1 Jan - Mar 2007 | Date : 26 Apr , 2007
“Out of some 20 Israeli MBTs destroyed in this war, 14 were lost to ATGMs (mostly Russian third generation ATGMs) However, the crew loss rate has now been brought down to approximately one per penetration.”
All Glory Is Fleeting - Insights from the Second Lebanon War, by Russell W. Glenn, Prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 2012, p.7
“It was these missiles that would prove the insurgents’ most effective killers during ground combat. They would, in the end, destroy 14 Israeli tanks; mines would ravage another six.14 Even the IDF’s most advanced model, the Merkava 4, proved vulnerable.” Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jokkmokk-Goran, those are repeating what is written in reports from August 2006 (as written in the Hebrew news sources during the month). We have the official data from the end of the month, with a full breakdown, so in my opinion it is obfuscation not to give the full breakdown - "52 damaged; 22 armor penetrations; 5 damaged beyond repair." We can also bring up statements from the head of armored corps. If the figure for 'destroyed', is listing all armor penetrations - then the number should be 22, not 20 anyway. In total, 44 tanks were actually knocked out of combat during the war (so we could write that 44 tanks were destroyed). But 5 of the tanks were pulled out of service (destroyed beyond repair), the other 47 tanks are operating now after repairs. Avaya1 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to use the word 'destroyed' (if this is ambiguous) - when we can accurately and directly write "5 tanks damaged beyond repair, 22 suffered armor penetrations and 52 were damaged". Cordesman says "Only 5-6 represented lasting vehicle kills". And "another source provides a more detailed account". I can see the 20 figure is written in the August 2006 Israeli newspapers in Hebrew (which were reported by Cordesmann immediately in the same month). It was a close-to-accurate figure if we are talking about tanks penetrated (which was 22 tanks). But the official figures were released at the end of the month- provide the full breakdown, and that comes directly from the Ordnance Corps at the end of the month - "which is 52 damaged; 22 armor penetrations; 5 damaged beyond repair." If we want the accurate information - that is what should be written here. Avaya1 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid I cannot understand the nuances of the terms used here. I will leave this to people who are more knowledgeable and more interested in this than I am. Kingsindian  11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Radical changes to the box[edit]

I've made some radical changes to the info box. I removed a lot of crap and simplified it. For example, there is no reason to include initial official Israeli estimates of Hizbullah casualties of 800 if Israel subsequently revised it to 600. Maybe it shouldn't be in the article even? Also I threw out all the "supporters" of Hizbullah. (I would prefer to throw out Iran and USA as well.) They are simply not important enough to be mentioned in the box. And I condensed the information generally. Please let me know what you think of my changes. And please don't just revert the whole thing, without discussing it. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cordesmann states that the IDF estimates 600-800, without any revision, so that is the estimate given in the most reliable source we have in the infobox (WP:RS). There are also other sources giving that estimate. If I recall there was one article that you cite which says that the IDF revised it to 600, but then other later sources often cite 600-800, including in Israel. So there are multiple different estimates given, but there was one estimate in which they gave 600 as their estimate. That's presumably why Cordesmann gives 600-800 as their estimate, since the IDF was not consistent.
The other part which I am sure we should not remove is the source of the estimates - and the different estimates. The sources - Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. There is no reason to remove that information, since it is extremely informative. So I can't understand the rationale for removing the source of the data here? How does it make the infobox more informative, when we can no longer see who is providing the estimates?
Also adding the HWR estimate to the top makes no sense - the estimates should be from the main figures (otherwise we may as well add other NGO - some the Stratfor one was considered to be not notable enough). Moreoever, HRW estimate is already included on the lower part. HRW source is an indepth investigative report focusing on civilian deaths (so it is noteworthy for the lower half of the infobox on civilian deaths), but they themselves use different definitions to the ones on the top part of the infobox, since they do not count civilian Hezbollah members as combatants, whereas the other estimates are including non-combatants who are affiliated with the organization. (Their estimate is (from the particular airstrikes they investigated) is of 510 civilian lives and 51 combatant deaths) Their total estimate is "An examination by Human Rights Watch of the circumstances in which more than 150 Hezbollah fighters died—'probably approximately more than half of the total number of Hezbollah fighters killed in the conflict—shows that the vast majority died in ground-based firefights with Israeli forces." They extrapolate that the final death toll may tally with Hezbollah claim that only 250 members were lost, but the basis of the 250 number is the Hezbollah statement which we already have on the top.
I also don't understand the rationale for removing the 'supported by' section, since it is sourced and the box itself opens and closes, so it doesn't use up any extra text. Those supporting groups play an important role in Lebanese politics and it is important historical information. Avaya1 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, yes, removing information is a bad thing and it is opposed. "Streamlining" is never an excuse. If you don't like how it looks, shunt things into footnotes or {{refn}} endnotes with sources. — LlywelynII 22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Result in info box.[edit]

Please state any objections to "Proclaimed Strategic victory by Hezbollah" here.

Sourced by: <ref name=CNN_800/><ref name="theguardian20k"/><ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Hizbullah declares 'strategic' victory over Israel|date=14 August 2006|work=The Irish Times}}</ref>sourced by Discussions most welcome.. Lr0^^k's signature was not added due to misformed closing tag

This is not how WP:BRD works. The side proposing a change from the consensus (which did not include Hizbollah's claim of victory) has to gain consensus for the new version.
The objection is rather obvious - the fact that Hizbollah claimed strategic victory is irrelevant to description of the result of the conflict. There are sources saying that Israel claimed victory as well, so the existing description of stalemate is sufficient, there is no reason to prefer claims of one side over the other. WarKosign 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, please avoid edit warring. You've reverted the same edit 3 time in the last 24 hours, while the limit on these pages is WP:1RR. WarKosign 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Claimed victory is very important, please see Operation Pillar of Defense, Battle of Toro, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, and versions of page (2006 Lebanon War) in other languages (e.g. hebrew, polski, ....). All contain claimed victory. 495656778774 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Working on a version that includes Victory claim by Israel and Strategic victory claims by Hezbollah. Victory claims post conflict integral part of conflict result. 495656778774 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Deployed vs introduced - the word introduced means that it wasn't present there before, this is more informative than plain "deployed".
Ceasefire vs military stalemate - military stalemate is more informative since it says that neither side was able to win, while ceasefire only means that the sides agreed to stop the hostilities for whatever reason. WarKosign 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I will make my pitch again for simply removing the result from the infobox. It contains no useful detail, and is often a magnet for POV-pushers, vandals and trolls. There are no simple "victories" or "defeats" in this part of the world. It might have been true in the times of 6-day war, but not now. The matter can be discussed more fully in a section, but cramming it in the infobox will just make it worse. Kingsindian  11:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the detailed description belongs in the body. I do believe however that we need a short description in the infobox, and stalemate sounds right: "In popular usage, the word stalemate refers to a conflict that has reached an impasse, and in which resolution or further action seems highly difficult or unlikely." WarKosign 12:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much all recent wars have resulted in "stalemates". It is superfluous to keep this in the infobox. However, this affects more than just this article, it would be better to remove it from all such articles. I don't have the energy for now to consider all such articles. Perhaps in the future. Kingsindian  13:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not superfluous in the least to include "stalemate" in the infobox. ("Military stalemate" is superfluous: we're talking about a minor war, so of course the stalemate is a military one; further, there's no "political success" it's being distinguished from.) Any removal from other articles would also be wrongheaded. Anyone who isn't a partisan or scholar isn't wading through the jungle of claims and footnotes: they're going to the infobox to see "who won?" The information that "no one, really", did is essential.
I support including claimed victories, as that is also important for each side. However, it would be WP:UNDUE to the point of WP:POViness to include Hezbollah's claim without Israel's. It doesn't have to be verbose, though. "Victory claimed by both sides.<Hezbollah source><Israeli source>" is fine.
Personally, I think mention of the ultimate return of the bodies of the 2 seized Israelis is important, given the original casus belli, as well as mention of the Lebanese who were freed from jail in the exchange. It's what Hezbollah "got" in exchange for its original action. — LlywelynII 22:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Update to victory claim by both sides. No sources on stalemate. Gizmocorot (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This was discussed extensively years ago. Most observers concluded no one won, and the opinions of either side is not really a "result". (Who's claiming victory? The Olmert government? The Winograd Commission?) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, victory proclamation 'integral' part of battle/war result, specially important for military history. Some more example battles and wars where both sides claim victory:

As such, it is pretty consistent to include victory claim, part of military history. Perhaps a WP:RFC should be created by those who support removing victory claims from result info box for this page and site-wide battles and wars.. Gizmocorot (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a rigid principle. For instance, Syria claimed victory in the Six-Day War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)