Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 15

Including Hezbollah in the name
I would include the name of Hezbollah in the title for four reasons: 1) They instigated the conflict 2) They are one of the primary military force currently engaged 3) This is not a war between two soverign countries as the title suggests 4) While they are part of the Lebanon government, thier military arm has seperate command and control

--user:mnw2000 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be Israel-Hizbollah_conflict, Lebanon has little to do with it. --Doom777 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, Lebanon army is not a participant, though casualties are mostly Libanese. 'Libanon' in the name is false. Dreg743 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah is acting independantly of Lebanon, so Hezbollah should be in the name instead of Lebanon. Insane99 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Technically, it is not the Israel-Lebanon conflict but the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Lebanon's troops are not involved. Israel is not targeting Lebonan but Hezbollah. Unfortunately, Hezbollah has established itself in the middle of Lebanon.


 * No. Use the example of the existing name in 1982 Lebanon War--TheFEARgod 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this compromise The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006) any thoughts.Hypnosadist 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with TheFEARgod. Conflict or TheFEARgod's use of War is Neutral. The examples used to cite use of the term "war" are of concern. Should Hezbollah sources which refer to fighting as "Sixth-Arab-Israeli war" make it sensible to use that? Each side aims for certain propaganda/morale advantages when using term "war". Why are editors so eager to have this article renamed to a war? I can understand the reasoning behind the arguments but what is the rush? 82.29.227.171 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the rush is legitimate, because readers may think calling it a "conflict" is trying to downplay the event. It would be like someone writing an article about the "September Conflict in New York" referring to 9/11. In Lebanon, to the people dying, I'm sure they'd rather it be called a "massacre", so "conflict" would certainly be an understatement.
 * I don't think the precendent of the 1982 Lebanon War means anything. It was a different event in a different century and the Lebanese government was much more involved in the war, even agreeing to sign a peace treaty with Israel at one point (see the article). Besides, I feel the article should reflect the time period in which it's written and it's clear from all the discussion on this page that the "Israel-Lebanon War" would be hotly contested by the community. --mhsia 20:37, 2 August 2006 (EST)


 * Hezbollah is bombing Israel, so the conflict isn't only taking place in Lebanon, you'd need to include both places or use a broader term like "The Middle East" Omishark 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the title again: "Israel-Lebanon conflict." It does contain Israel.


 * Also, this morning, NPR referred to this as "the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict." I'm not sure how other media outlets are referring to it, but if they're also using "Hezbollah," then that's what we should do. ---DrLeebot 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds balanced to me. With your suggestion the word war is used in a way both parts should be able to agree on. Israel claims to be at war with Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and I'm pretty sure the Lebanese sees this as a war. Also, fighting is (mostly) taking place in Lebanon with a large number of civilian Lebanese casualties. If "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" is used, like it is right now, the word conflict should be changed to armed conflict to clarify that it's not just a dispute (ie. political).

Cvik 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like Hypnosadist's idea of The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006). Does anyone have objection to this? My only concern is that it's too wordy and sounds like we're trying too hard to be politically correct, but I think it's still the best we've got. It just doesn't seem like we're having a linear conversation about this. Isn't it clear that there are sources that use "war" and some that use "conflict", some that refer to Hezbollah and some that refer to Lebanon, so there's no use in bringing up yet another quote to illustrate these ad nauseum? Unless someone has a legitimate objection to The Israel-Hezbollah War in Lebanon (2006), why don't we use it, since it seems like there's plenty of objection to the current title. -mhsia 20:10, 02 August 2006 (EST)

Israel-Hezbollah
I'm afraid I have to revive the proposal to rename this article the "Israel-Hezbollah" conflict. The Lebanese armed forces are not substantially involved in this conflict, and Israel holds relatively little animosity toward the Lebanese government or people. Yes, there are battles taking place in Lebanon, but geography does not dictate that the name of a conflict should be made less accurate. Novel compound 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3; Summary:
 * Discussion about manpower of each actor.
 * Earlier discussion about Iran.
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive4; Summary:
 * Discussion about Lebanon.
 * Discussion about Hezbollah.
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8: Summary;
 * Is Iran a combatant?
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11: Summary;
 * Missing an important point
 * Fourth Combatant
 * United Nations combatant?
 * Straw poll on United Nations as combatant
 * Discussion on strawpoll
 * straw poll compromise?
 * troop numbers
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12: Summary;
 * Unsourced claims about Iran
 * Volunteers are Basijis

Earlier discussions
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive14
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Summary: Effects on Oil Price, First Shots.
 * Israel Massing troops

Previous prisoner exchanges
Modified statement about Israel providing maps to mines in southern Lebanon. Previously said that Israel provided such maps but reference states only that Hezbollah requested such maps (as part of the prisoner exchange) and gives no indication as to whether the request was honored (the possibility that they were not is very conceivable). --srostami 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Casualty Figures
As of 2/3 August:
 * Guardian attributes Lebanese government with "828 of its civilians"
 * BBC cites the Health Minister's 750
 * CNN attributes to Lebanese government "603 civilians and soldiers" & "2,145 others" wounded
 * CBS "At least 548 Lebanese have been killed since the fighting began three weeks ago, including 477 civilians and 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas."

I am reverting to the 577 figure from the 828. I again stress that we either list the best (objective) numbers that distinguish civilians, or remove the civilian qualification and attribute the Lebanese gov't (a solution which has been opposed by several).  Tewfik Talk 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But none of those links support that figure. Itarr-tass also has the 828, so that makes two for it. --Iorek85 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The first three numbers are attributed to the Lebanese government, and do not distinguish between civilians and others. The CBS/AP number (548 Lebanese, 477 civilians) is the only one that does that, but Paraphelion's previous calculation's came out with a higher number for civilians (577). Like I said before, we cannot list the 828 number as either a civilian count or an objective number. Could you suggest a different way to approach this? Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the only possible way at the moment would be a "between" number, ie, 477 - 828, which covers the range. That, or we see how many news articles (in the last two/three days) with numbers we can find and go for the most popular. --Iorek85 07:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we need a source that distinguishes between civilians, rather than just subtracting the number of combatants from the total dead ourselves? Are the number of dead combatants unreliable? If so, why are we using them? There are numbers available from Reuters for total Lebanese dead that are less than 3 hours old (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5242732.stm). Why should we be using 5 day old data? - 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now reported as 828 ->


 * "Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far, around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children."


 * "The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." 82.29.227.171 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

lebanese civilian casualties
Can someone explain whyt the lebonese civilian causualties keep changing, at one point it said 600+, then 425, then 425+, then 325. It seems a little politically motivated, the lowest figure usually goes up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.57.202 (talk • contribs).


 * This edit I made might explain: "On 28 July Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh announced that hospitals in Lebanon had received 401 dead Lebanese people since 12 July. He also reportedly said: "On top of those victims, there are 150 to 200 bodies still under the rubble. We have not been able to pull them out because the areas they died in are still under fire".


 * So figure is estimated beyond the 401 announced - could be higher/lower/static- but 600+ death are expected at that point but only 401 are known for sure. Also note that edit says "people"- there is dispute over if all casualties reported are civilians as opposed to civilians and some of those fighting. Also notice in the article that it says "At least 445 people, most of them civilians, have been confirmed killed in Lebanon, according to a Reuters tally." so other figures do exist. However, I believe the consensus would be to stick to official announcements of that kind unless each death can be cited and added to the total given by Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh. 82.29.227.171 07:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A few editors have been deleting sources and also it's a result of people not wanting to break down the figure, for the main purpose ot denying any civilians at all have died in Lebanon. Have a look at the lebanese casualty section up above on this talk page. I have been trying to break down exactly what is known about the casualties.--Paraphelion 07:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The current number of Lebanese casualties is today stated to be 523, citing Reuters saying that todays strikes killed 40. The NYTimes areticle, Israeli Strike Is Deadliest in Fighting So Far, says "At least 54 people were killed", which would make the total number 537. Madd4 Max 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now the listed number is 750+, so I will change it back to the 523 number due to a lack of any discussion about that number.  Tewfik Talk 16:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lebanese Health Minister Mohammed Khalifeh told DPA that he feared the death toll would reach 750 as a result of the Qana bombing.

'The death toll may increase because we believe a lot of casualties are still buried under the rubble and our volunteers are unable to retrieve their bodies due to intensity of the shelling in their areas,' he said.

The figure of dead is being widely reported as 750, and that figure is being attributed to him as an official figure of dead civilians so far. I'm not asking that it be changed, just clarifying the previous editors mistake. Probably some journos capitalising on headlines after the 2nd Qana massacre. 82.29.227.171 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I read in a BBC News article that the health minister said there were over 750 deaths... someone keeps changing that when I source and change the casualty figure... thats why this article has POV issues, because the truth cant be told without some people getting offended.... Yahuddi 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you notice it is mostly israeli or jewish members who keep changing the figure to the lowest old figure and then very ironicly some other Israeli members sometimes who put it up again. I agree with the poster above. I would like to suggest that with this important box that shows the disproportionate violence and casualties, we let non israeli or non palestinian members edit it so it is fair, or lock it somehow and just follow the BBC on it. BBC says 750+ that is what it should read, unfortunately this place has been over run by political motivated members who are trying to lower the death toll artificially, I am really at a loss what to do - even the sourse they quote and reference says 750+ yet they still go on the old reuters figure, very naughty. R e a p e r 7 ]]


 * The BBC article does not say 750+ civilians, it merely quotes the Lebanese Health Minister's statement. If they believed there were 750 civilians killed, they would say so outright. I suggest you take a look at the discussions above, especially the calculations begun by Paraphelion. Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we just let reuters make the 'calculations' instead of you lot?  Reaper7 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason for the 'calculations,' as distasteful as they may be, is that while we have many numbers of people killed in Lebanon, we do not have numbers of civilians. The previous method of dealing with this (not qualifying the number with "civilians") was traded for the current practice, though if you feel that it is more neutral, you can address that.  Tewfik Talk 00:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The official labenese statement is more reliable than the reuters site. When they themselves give you the number of casualties then why do you have to look into other sources? this is not something to be sided with, be honest and dont make lame execuses like referring to here and there for arguments. Labenese official statement stands right above any other claim. [Infinite]


 * The casualty figures given by Lebanese government are now, [2 August], reported as 828 ->


 * "Yesterday the Lebanese government said that of the 828 of its civilians killed in the conflict so far, around 35% have been children - that's around 290. Unicef also estimates that about a third of the dead have been children, although it bases that figure on the fact that an estimated 30% of Lebanon's population are children, rather than any actual count of the dead. There are no official figures yet for the number of wounded children, but they will certainly exceed the number killed; as for those displaced, Unicef says that 45% of the estimated 900,000 Lebanese to have fled their homes are children."


 * "The death toll in Lebanon stands at 828, with some 200 bodies yet to be recovered, according to the country's government." 82.29.227.171 13:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone changed it to 828 killed in the infobox- this is why i avoid the infobox- I believe, as he did last time, the Lebanese Minister gave the figure of 828 killed meaning 628 confirmed corpses and 200 year to be recovered- been looking for the actual statement to confirm that. 82.29.227.171 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reuters puts the total deaths at 683; subtracting the 27 military casualties (I believe Reuters wouldn't include Hezbollah casualties in that figure), that makes a total of 656, if my math is correct. I imagine a unilateral edit to this effect would get reverted immediately, but if someone else wants to make it... ugen64 17:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"treated for shock"
I removed the figures for Israelis treated for shock from the infobox as this seemed like an asymmetric statistic to have in the table; there wasn't a figure for Lebanese or Hezbollah participants in this category. I'm not aware of other conflicts where this statistic is included. If people feel this is an important statistic perhaps it could be put back in when we have comparative figures for the other two 'groups'. --mgaved 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, i think it was being used as a camparison to show the affect on Israeli's. Basically saying just because Hezbollah fails to kill, doesnt mean they dont cause other problems. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed previously in Talk, but essentially the reason for inclusion was that there is no indication that the Lebanese figures don't include it, as "shock" (similar to Post-traumatic stress disorder) is generally a treateable condition. It is only noted because the Israeli numbers do distinguish between types of injury. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My preference is the "shock" figure is removed as it doesn't appear anywhere else in the article (e.g. in the Casualties section at the bottom, or the separate article on Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. If "shock" (indicated in the neswpaper source) is a lower category than "lightly injured" I think we should either decided not to include it, or wrap it up into casualties generally -add the "shock" casualties to the general categories as there are no other divisions noted. I can't find any other conflict in Wikipedia that includes "shock" as a casualty figure. In the Talk article on Casualties (Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict ) this discussion has gone into greater depth and the decision there seems to be not to include shock because 1. This figure apparently comes from a single source which some of the authors in this article question and 2. "Shock" is not clearly (medically) defined in the source; you seem to suggest that you feel it is separate from post traumatic stress disorder. As I've said my preference would be to leave it out as a. it's novel for a casualties figure in a conflict article to have it and b. we don't have it for the other groups so it gives an asymmetric table. However if you feel it's important then I'd say my second preference would then be to roll it into the other casualty figures for 'injured': change the Israeli figure from "418 injured, 875 treated for shock" to "1293 injured". Cheers, --mgaved 09:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The second option you suggested is what we used originally since Israel consistently includes it in their count, until someone came across an article with a breakdown of Israeli casualties. I'm not super-familiar with international convention, but it seems that if Israeli medical agencies list it, then there is a good chance that others like the Lebanse do as well. At the very least, we don't know what their number means right now (we don't know a lot about the Lebanese numbers in general). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties and Lebanese casualties:
First off, I find any information released by Hezbollah about casualties on their side to be highly suspect, since they're not what one would call reliable sources. On a recent day they claimed to have killed 35 Israeli soldiers during one village incursion and obviously that was blatently false. I would strongly suggest presenting the IDF estimates before the Hezbollah estimates. After three weeks of bombings and incursions, much more than 40 Hezbollah fighters are dead. They're releasing low numbers for their own fighters in the interest of psychological warfare, just as the civilian casualties in places like Qana are inflated.

'''Yo Moron, Hizbullah said they had conflicted 35 casualties and not dead on the terror IDF in Bint Jbeil. This was correct because in that battle 8 IDf soldiers were killed and 24 IDF soldiers were wounded. So 8+24= 32 casualties, wich was very accurate.

So stop this Israeli bullshit.'''


 * The only one full of bullshit is you, oh unsigned one. Wikipedia can do without your ignorance. I realize you're probably a Hezbollah supporter, but this site is supposed to be unbiased. IDF's estimates are a lot more on the mark, than Hezbollah's usually outrageously exaggerated claims.--65.96.202.142 15:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, where was this 850+ figure for Lebanese casualties found? Every news source I've seen has placed the number between 600 and 650 as of this writing on 8/03/06. Can someone please treat this numbers responsibly and use an average from a litany of sources, instead of cherry picking the reports of casualties from the one or two sources that place it the highest? --65.96.202.142 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

American casualty
I have been trying to update the casualty page to correctly show that there is 1 confirmed american casualty in the conflict. This is properly sourced and accurately added, but someone keeps deleting it. - JB 8/2/06

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14
 * Air strike on Qana
 * Civilian attacks


 * Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Summary of previous discussions: [...] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: we cannot engage in original research and must back all claims with reliable sources. Until such time that "war" becomes widely accepted as a description of this specific event, we cannot call it that. Happy editing,  Tewfik Talk 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12 Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13 Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2 (most notable the discussion whether to call the two soldiers "captured" or "kidnapped". Almost general consensus that "captured" is a better term. Reasons: (1) more widely used in the media coverage of the event, (2) is considered a more neutral term (i.e. less POV)) - See also Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3 for a similar discussion. Note that there is also a discussion about whether to use "captured" or "abducted". See above.
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7
 * Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive8
 * Captured soldiers weren't on Israel territory?
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11
 * Cross Border Raids
 * Excuse me but Israel was the one that crossed the border
 * Captured?
 * Captured vs abducted vs ???
 * Which side of border original Hezbollah raid happened on?
 * Claims that IDF soldiers were kidnapped inside Lebanon


 * Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7
 * Terminology between rocket and missile
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11
 * Claims of incendiary bomb use on civilians by Israeli forces
 * US bombs
 * Equiment and forces
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12
 * Chemical weapons
 * WTF?!
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13
 * IDF/IAF Depleted Uranium Munitions


 * Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah military capability
According to an Associated Press article, Hezbollah's anti-tank missiles are capable of damaging the Merkava tanks. Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah had six uninterrupted years to fortify its positions with anti-personnel mines, fortified bunkers able to withstand bunker busters, and weapon caches.

Cutting a pasting into here, because it can be recovered, but it's in the wrong section atm. --Iorek85 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11
 * Motivations
 * Beginning of conflict
 * Casus Belli and start of conflict
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive12
 * Please Visit [www.Uruknet.com]; the real reasons why Israel has attacked Lebanon
 * How was the beginning of the conflict?
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13
 * Begining of conflict
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive14
 * Cause of the conflict

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive7
 * Requests / Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict / list of locations hit?
 * Requests of a map of Israeli incursions. We have a map of targets hit by Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya/Hezbollah and it would be nice to see a map of incursions made by the IDF. --Klepas 11:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not change these archived discussions. Instead restart discussion on this talk page. Sijo Ripa 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The maps are more representative now. However they still dont represent the scale of the imposition of a war on libanon a lot. Contrary to earlier maps, where parts of irael had been shaded as affected, one could, and i am curious as too, shade the lebanese area that has been affected by ground operations, the area that is permanently controlled/affected by idf air-force operations, and the areas where major destruction of lebanese property took place. such in combination with a clear! comparison of the explosives forces utilised would lend some credibility to the concept of objectivity in establishing damage and harm done by party's in the conflict.80.57.243.72 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussions

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive1
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive2
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Archive3
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive6
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive11
 * Vandalism
 * technical issues
 * Semi-protection: Restore

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Earlier discussions

 * Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive5
 * Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive13
 * The discussion refractoring on this page is a total mess

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

Casualties table
Why do you move the statistics at the begining of the article? I think we shouldn't move this part. Because this is very important.--Accessible 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's so important than clicking link or just scrolling will not be a problem. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can move anything and put a link instead of it. But I think this article should be an abstract report of whole issue not only a page with several link.--Accessible 12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do. This table is in this article. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Casualties are one of the most important and changable pieces of information about this conflict. The have been in the opening template since the start of this conflict and should stay there until concensus says otherwise, this is not a unilateral decision on an issue this big.Hypnosadist 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As you may notice there was a consensus. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured that we didn't need two tables - before, it was summary of a few paragraphs of detail, wheras now, the information is as easily found in the new table. Still, I don't mind terribly either way, though make sure the references don't double up. --Iorek85 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems i was wrong there was a concensus TO NOT TOUCH THE CASUALTY SECTION which you decided to go against. I will continue to revert vandalism that goes against this concensus.Hypnosadist 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * what on earth are talking about? -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go back in the infobox where it belong. Perhaps listing every countries deaths is overboard and its why the infobox was getting crowded. If this did turn into a massive war do you really still plan to list deaths by nationality? -- zero faults   ' '' 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, keep the casualties listed in the infobox. Many people will skim this page, to get the information they want. The number of casualties are one of the things they will want to see quickly. Also, some people want to compare the casualties between the warring nations, and it's difficult to glean that information quickly from reading the several paragraphs in the lower casualties section. Unless there is a compelling reason why we would want to make it harder to compare the numbers (such as maybe because it's not really a football game), I believe we should add the fifty or so characters of text necessary to convey that info. - Aaronwinborn 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want someone to blame try this guy Iroek or whatever above. Things are moved before there is even a debate. The casualty box should not be moved again, don't care how 'bold you are feeling Ieork - do you understand? Reaper7 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is all it took for one individual to alter a key part of a world article. One member's support, LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#moving_casualties Reaper7 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

just check Iorek85's page, it is full of complaints. I think people should get warnings on this article, certain members are very dangerous. Reaper7 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rofl. Yes, I am so very dangerous. A horrible wikipedian, lock me up immediately. You'll note, Reaper, this conversation is not about the casualties section, but about the infobox summary at the top of the page. I've said I don't mind if people want the summary in there also. As for the support, I think you'll find WP:BB covers that - and the fact I waited until someone else thought it was a good idea before trying it to make sure I wasn't the only one. It's very easy to change back, but you seem to be the only one against it. And yes, it is all it took. Thats the beauty of Wikipedia. Your personal vendetta is getting a little annoying, to be honest, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Iorek85 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone familiar with wikitable formatting align the casualties' nationality & flag to the left? Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked the person who added the "class wikitable" tag, which broke the original alignment to change it, but they haven't replied. Removing said tag would restore it, but change the background colour back to white. --Iorek85 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Length (again)
It's going to be more difficult this time, because we've already subbed out almost all of the sections, but length is getting a problem. 70kb is at least 10kb too much - WP:SIZE argues for no more than 50kb unless the scope of the topic justifies the reading time (which we'll count in this case). We managed to get it under 60kb before, and it'd be nice if we could keep it at about 60kb. Some ideas for shrinking; --Iorek85 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove multiple references to one statement. One is enough, especially if the multiple references are in the sub article.
 * Make sure the use of the "ref name" in the references is used as much as possible, which will cut down the references. (The only problem with this is when people cut and paste a delete sections, the following references break, so it's hard to keep track)
 * Make sure we summarise events - we have a timeline, so we don't need to list events by date. However, listing some of the most recent events would be good.
 * Make sure we're not repeating ourselves - we only need to say things once.

Attacks on civilians
I've just had to revert a bunch of changes made to this section. Please, three points;


 * 1) We have to keep it balanced.
 * 2) We need some, but not too many, pics. The overall impression given by the pictures must be balanced.
 * 3) It's a summary. We're trying to keep the article as short as possible.

Thanks. --Iorek85 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

POV terms used for Israel campaign
There were lots of POV terms such as "massive" to describe Israel's military actions. I removed them. I didn't see any such terms used for Hezbollah actions. I think the adjectives need to be numerical and sourced where there is relative descriptors for both sides. I removed all the ones I saw but htere may be more. --Tbeatty 05:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right - since this is an encyclopaedia, the language should be as neutral and free of excessive adjectives as possible. However, sometimes the adjective used is a good descriptor. For example, 'extensive bombing campaign' would be fine, but 'horrific civilian deaths' would not be. --Iorek85 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the Israel-Lebanon war?
Who came up with that title? For future reference people will be confused since there has been a previous war between Lebanon and Israel.

Should it not be called the Levantine war?

Levantine? Isn't the adjective form of Lebanon Lebanese? Regardless, this is the reason we tend to use the noun form of words versus the adjective form; it's much less ambiguous and we don't expect people to know the demonyms of hundreds of countries, regions, and cities. -- Cyde Weys 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Levant is an accepted and well known noun for the area that encompasses Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Instead of an adjective form it could be called the War in the Levant. Or for simplification the Levant War (compare to the Iraq War)


 * Well, we are a tertiary source, so we can only base our articles on secondary sources (mainly news articles, in this case). If Syria get involved and news sources start calling it a different name, then we can change the article title accordingly. ugen64 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Herald Sun's "smuggled pictures"
I have just removed a text from the "Targeting of civilian areas" section, as it manages to misrepresent an article in the Australian Herald Sun, which in itself is unbelievably bias and faulty.
 * This is the text I removed: Images smuggled out of Lebanon and published in Herald Sun (Australia) purports to show that Hezbollah fighters dress in civilian clothes, and launch attacks from suburbs in southern Lebanon; an eyewitness from Melbourne in one of the civilian areas that was attacked said "Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived [and launched their rockets from the area], it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated."
 * Here's the link to the Herald Sun article: |.
 * Although the article claims that the pictures show that Hezbollah hides "heavy weapons in the residential areas of southern Lebanon", what you actually see are six pictures, whereof three show fighters posing on and around a small-calibre truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun close to some apartment blocks, one show a bomb crater in a road with a wrecked semi-trailer in the background, and the remaining two show fighters armed with rifles standing on a hilltop overlooking a village where a big fire is raging. Anti-aircraft guns are defensive weapons which are normally positioned near the objective they are supposed to protect, so there's noting sinister about that. The article also states that the pictures were taken "clandestinely" and then "smuggled" out of Lebanon, as "images and footage of Hezbollah activities taken by local newspapers and TV crews are routinely seized by the group’s fighters at road blocks." However, these pictures show Hezbollah fighters posing for the camera, so they were hardly taken "clandestinely" and against their will. Considering that the newspaper in question belongs to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox News, The Sun, News of the World, The New York Post etc.), the inaccuracies are hardly surprising. Thomas Blomberg 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your removal is completely based on original research and completly propelled by your bias of the reporting agency. WP:OR alone should have prevented you from attempting to remove the paragraph in question. We are not investigative reporters. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had actually read WP:OR, you would realize the definition is: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source." A decision to remove certain pictures or text is just that - a decision. ugen64 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing them because I dont like the source, even though its a WP:V source, and basing it all on your conspiracy theory of why its not true is not a legit reason. Also the pictures do not show anyone posing, better yet, them posing doesnt mean the pictures werent smuggled out. It just means the people being photographed arent the ones you have to smuggle pictures by. It specifically states that the border/check point guards take the pictures away from journalists. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement about that picture so don't remove it until the conversation is over. Just because you don't like the picture and you made up a story, doen't mean it's true. the Herald Sun is a known newspaper and there is no reason not to use it pictures. OrangeTree 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Hello! I never removed the picture, because it wasn't any picture to remove. If you read what I wrote above, I removed a piece of text talking about the pictures. However, I now see that OrangeTree (welcome to Wikipedia) has just inserted one of those pictures. But as the caption was totally wrong, I've changed it. The picture shows a small-calibre anti-aircraft gun on a truck, no rocket launcher. How I know? Well I used to operate an anti-aircraft gun many moons ago. Thomas Blomberg 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article that is being used as a source mentions rocket launchers, so perhaps there is more pictures not shown. So while the caption of said photograph should not state that there is rocket launchers in the picture, a paragraph relating to the picture can mention it when using the Herald as its source. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The War between the Straits
The name "The War between the Straits - Bein Hametzarim War" (from Seventeenth of Tammuz till Tisha B'Av) was a kind of bad joke of Amir Peretz. Tisha B'Av is today, and the war doesn't seem to be over tonight. We should think of removing this unofficial name. It would be better called "Returning of Sons War - Shivat Banim War". 89.0.243.231 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was just a joke, it should be deleted altogether. --Iorek85 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if he thought that it is not a joke, it sounds like calling the WW2 "A war of 1939"... 89.0.243.231 09:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this may have been an off the cuff thing, even though the article says it was 'announced' see debate on calling conflict war. Dire Straits war/Re-engagement war is another term I heard. Dont believe any will stick until it takes some shape that IDF are happy to claim. Nasrallah may get to name this one 82.29.227.171 16:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

War or Conflict
If you look at the result of google search you find that war is used much more than conflict. and --Sa.vakilian 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Who are the 8,000 Lebanese civilians in prison and why is it npov to name murderers like Samir Kuntar Lebanese citizens as opposed to for why they were imprisoned?


 * How is Hezbollah's raid into Israeli territory a feint? Nasrallah has stated numerous times that its purpose was to kidnape Israeli soldiers and trade them for the Lebanese and Palestinians in prison.

Guy Montag 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
Do we report incidents based on the number of civilians killed? In fact, new articles are being created for almost every incident where more than 10 civilians are killed. We have new articles for the new Qana incident, the old Qana incident, etc. Will the same be done if Hizbollah gets lucky and one of its rockets manages to kill more than 10 civilians? Recently a Hizbollah missle hit a hospital, a war crime by definition, but there was no new article. --user:mnw2000 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's evident that Hizbollah's rockets are far less accurate than Israeli airstrikes, as one would imagine. I highly doubt Hizbollah have spotters in Israeli cities broadcasting GPS coordinates to well-trained artillerymen... on the other hand, Israeli air force pilots are very well-trained, using very accurate U.S.-made weapons. It's a bit unfair to classify Hizbollah hitting a hospital identically to Israel hitting a hospital. So regarding your actual question - I think those articles are being created because news media (justifiably) focus on Israeli attacks that kill many civilians, because Israel's weaponry are much more accurate and therefore, we can reasonably conclude that Israel could minimize civilian casualties, but for whatever reason aren't doing so.


 * Now if Hizbollah did kill 10 or more civilians with one attack, I have no doubt a new article would be created, because the Western news media would undoubtedly give it a great deal of coverage. ugen64 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yesha Rabbinical Council: all Lebanese may be killed
The Israeli Yesha Rabbinical Council released a religious decree that all Lebanese civilians may be killed, because according to Jewish law there is no such thing as an innocent person in times of war. Someone should add that. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html ArmanJan 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check yourself. --216.75.93.104 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really an accurate description of what they said. It's also a minority opinion that doesn't reflect the opinion of the army, or of most Israelis. In addition, if the article is going to quote that, then they should certainly also quote the numerolus Hizbollah sources about how they'd like to get rid of all of Israel, etc.

The section as it stands mischaracterises them as being more influential than they are; they are not even part of the government. Additionally, to be NPOV there would then have to be statements from Hezbollah et al which have not been included as tangential. I recommend taking the whole thing out, and if any mention is due, it should be minor and in the Position of Israel sub-article. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tewfik. Tazmaniacs 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Tewfik. While it might be true that they said it, and there's no obligation to mention similar Hezbollah things as ArmanJan says below, I'm not wholly convinced of its relevence if the council is not particularly influential. Nuite 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong, and you are obviously biased. NPOV does not state any obligational condiction for providing the view of both sides of an occurance, for it to be permitted to be mentioned. In other words, whether you do or do not find Hezbollah's stance on the same issue, it does not delegalize that which the other party already said. ArmanJan 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ArmanJan, this section is very relevant and it certainly is not a POV. The Rabbi counsel has stated this, and it is very widespread news, so it should be mentioned. 203.149.62.66 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not being clear. I was not questioning Ynet (though your assertion that it was big news in Israel doesn't seem to be accurate anymore, as I couldn't find any headlines), but rather the Council's importance. If we gave a subsection to every statement by every small group on either side, we would not have an article. Do you disagree with this?  Tewfik Talk 19:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not even about what they said, it is how arman quoted the newspapers that quoted the council completely out of context. The statement was not made after the kana airstrike, it was made after eight Israeli soldiers were killed during operation in Bint Jbail. It was in response to their belief that Israel was putting Israeli soldiers in danger to protect Lebanese civilians, even though Prof. Asha Kasser, who wrote the IDF Code of Ethics told The Jerusalem Post this week that it may be morally justified to obliterate areas with a high concentration of terrorists, even if civilian casualties result. How the paragraph is characterized now is incorrect Stating that the Council decrees that all Lebanese may be killed to reach the IDF's objective's is preposterous libel.

Guy Montag 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But of course they may be killed, they are occupiers of Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah. Genesis 15:18-21. Do you contradict God's word? --216.211.45.74 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, it is not small news. You keep mentioning all these weird claims on my talk page in order to get the section removed. However the decree of the Rabbis has caused quite a stir in the middle-east. Anyhow, here are some more sources. IsraelNN JPost Saudi-Embassy ArmanJan 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "weird claims" you are referring to, but this is not big news, but rather the mini-articles were published on July 12, nearly a month ago. As Guy points out, these have nothing to do with the Qana airstrike. In any event, while we can't use a minority group's (old) statement to somehow portray one side in a bad light for NPOV reasons, this declaration is simply not notable to warrant its own subsection of the main article. I'm absolutely in favour of removing the whole passage, and only making minor mention on the subpage, like I said above.  Tewfik Talk 19:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, everything might be small to you, but it is all over newspapers here. There furthermore is no rule not to mention "too small news". ArmanJan 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The notability of news sources/events is a much bigger factor than you're implying, especially for articles which are already over-long. As you say, it's not a rule, but common sense dictates that less notable events(or "too small news" [sic]) should be cut before more notable ones. Icewolf34 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article that ArmanJan references -- http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html -- is dated 2006 Jul 30, and it clearly says the YRC's statement was "in response to the IDF attack in Kfar Qanna". mdf 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but that is very interesting considering the other two links were from the 12th of the month, weeks before Qana.  Tewfik Talk 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's possible that ynetnews has simply screwed up. Someone needs to hunt down the original statement. mdf 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, is this going in or not? An anonymous user just edited in a large chunk of text about it, and I didn't want to revert / remove without some more discussion. (I'd think it'd be better manners to discuss it on the talk page before adding material that's contested, though I guess it's possible Anonymous User simply didn't check it first). Icewolf34 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction, the text was removed by AscendedAnathema after addition by anonymous source. Is the discussion closed already about the Council staying out of the article? Icewolf34 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it out until the sources are verified. mdf 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While there's probably no need for me to say anymore, I agree that it should be removed.  Tewfik Talk 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be removed. No context, mistakes in sourcing and misquoting are not wikipedia standards. Guy Montag 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The subsection should not be removed. ArmanJan 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs it's own subsection. I don't even think it that notable - Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel for ages, and thats a government. If it is mentioned, a small sentence is all that is necessary, and a bigger mention in whatever subarticle it belongs (which would it be?). --Iorek85 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah offered a cease-fire?
I couldn't find a reference to this, could whoever added it to the article please either reference it if it is true, or remove it if it is not?
 * It's all over the news up here, and appears to be true, but on the condition that Israel will do the same (which they will not.) At the same it is also reported that Nasrallah will attack Tel-Aviv if Israel extends their attacks to central Beirut. The Israeli response to this, is to wipe out all of Lebanon which in turn is somewhat worrisome to Syria ... Soo, I think we can conclude that a cease-fire is not imminent. MX44 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Phosphorus & sub-articles
The alleged use of white phosphorus is not a "detail". In accordance with Manual of style, a summary must be kept in the main article. This certainly justified a specific subsection, since it is neither only "civilian" business, nor "environmental" (I wonder why the depleted uranium was in the last section: isn't it first used for killing people?) Tazmaniacs 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Their effect on the environment is that they cover it in microscopic radioactive dust- polluting it for the next 4.3 billion years, I will add it in again as the pollution is a well known result of the weapons. 82.29.227.171 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is currently a short paragraph dealing with the allegations on both sides, including the phosphorus passage. A longer exposition can be found in the sub-article. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The short paragraph is in Civilian casualties. Charging the IDF of civilian casualties is not the same as charging it of use of illegal chemical weapons. There was a section dedicated to this in mid-July, and now it's been reduced to a single, not even wikified, word, "phosphorus". This is called euphemization, and is definitely POV-forking. Beside, the article you're sending me towards contain a section dedicated to chemical weapons, made up of only one sentence: "Allegations have been made of use of chemical weapons". Furthermore, I noticed that a source from an Arabic newspaper was there in July and since disappeared; I restored it &mdash; isn't it strange that in all this article, the one and only Arabic source is deleted? I'm sorry, but if these allegations are true, then it is very serious matter, and certainly deserves its own section in the main article. To do otherwise is WP:POVFORK. Tazmaniacs 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of information has been taken out from both sides because of size constraints, including this one. If you think that it is minimised in the sub-article, expand it there, but there are plenty of serious claims on both sides, and if we include them all this page would be 100s of KB oversized. I'm not sure about the source you mention, though if it is indeed Arabic language there is a good chance that it was replaced with an English language source per citation policy.  Tewfik Talk 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was an Arabic source in English. Anyway, although WP:RS prefers English sources, for the sake of Countering systemic bias, Arabic sources are welcome! Furthermore, if you decide to remove this content from this page, it is your responsibility to put it in the sub-page, not mine to watch over the page be sure it's not removed. Finally, see Special long pages. Whatever the case, size constraints do not justify removing a section on White phosphorus, which, if the use is proved, is a war crime, according to the UN. This should be noted. Lots of other stuff are lot less important and remain here. Only some kind of censorship might want to remove that from here. I don't understand you, sorry. Tazmaniacs 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be a misunderstanding, as the white-phosphorus was included before you added the larger section. In any event, what is your objection to a paragraph that summarises all the claims? It was the status quo for the last week or two, and it seems NPOV... Let me know,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was, I did overpass something. I do agree that a summarized paragraph is necessary, but that doesn't impedes a sub-section on the WP and things that were removed. Tazmaniacs 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the previous consensus summary. If you feel that something is missing, add it .  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, White Phosphorous is not considered a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary round and is commonly used against structures. Like any other incendiary round, it is not to be deployed directly against people but it's use is not prohibited.--Tbeatty 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tbeatty is right, none of the weapons are illegal- the use of DU could be considered illegal in humanitarian law but the other claims are only illegal when used in civilian areas/against civilians. The section I added DU weapons to was about environmental pollution. 82.29.227.171 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

40 IDF casualties up to date (not 41)
I've seen here a mistake...

===total: 40 Flayer 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8 in day-1 near Zar'it
 * 4 sailors on INS Hanit
 * 1 pilot in helicopters crash
 * 2 (MAGLAN unit) in Maroun-a-Ras
 * 5 (EGOZ unit) in Maroun-a-Ras
 * 2 pilots when MRLS rocket hit a helicopter
 * 2 during the night before the battle of Bint-Jbeil in the area
 * 8 in the battle of Bint-Jbeil
 * 1 in the same day but in Maroun-a-Ras
 * 3 on tuesday in Ayat-a-Shaab
 * 1 thursday morning
 * 3 thursday evening

You're missing the 2nd Apache crash which killed another pilot. Anyways, we should ideally rely on published numbers.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at line 3 and line 6. Here are published numbers and names (israeli source in russian) Flayer 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

news.com.au has 41.--Iorek85 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a mistake. Israeli news sites published today about a casualty at early morning in At-Taybe, then about 6 civilian and 2 IDF casualties much later, that became 8 civilians and 3 soldiers. Then a summary was given "12 casualties today - 4 of them soldiers", so news.com.au surely counted the early-morning casualty twice. Flayer 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical support
What evidence is there that the Lebanese govt. has rhetorically supported Hezbollah's actions? Please (whomever claims this) be specific. El_C 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/cnna.lahoud/index.html


 * Who am I speaking to? The President far from = [the entire] govt., I argue. El_C 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The President is the commander in Chief of the armed forces. Who should speak for the government in your opinion?

Guy Montag 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who else? Certainly not the President of Israel. Say the head of the govt. and top official in the executive, the Prime Minister of Lebanon. El_C 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Equating Hezbollah and IDF operations in this article
I would like to know on what basis are we equating Hezbollah indiscriminatly firing rockets against civilians, to the IDF firing at Hezbollah positions in civilian areas? According to the laws of war, Hezbollah tactics such as not wearing uniforms, blending in with the local population, setting up road blocks to keep the local population inside a battlezone, firing from civilian infrastructure while using civilians inside as human shields, constitute a gross violation of the laws of war. Should we not distinguish between Hezbollah indiscrimate attacks against civilian areas, and IDF offensives solely against Hezbollah who stategically place themselves within civilian areas for protection?

Guy Montag 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're equating them at all. That isn't our job. The readers can decide who to support. --Iorek85 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But we haven't actually distinguished between their tactics in the article.

For example,

I have tried to distinguish between the equation between IDF tactics and Hezbollah tactics in this opening paragraph.

"The conflict has killed hundreds of civilians, caused widespread infrastructure damage, displaced hundreds of thousands and disrupted normal life across most of Lebanon and northern Israel. Israeli attacks on Hezbollah positions in civilian areas and civilian infrastructure, and Hezbollah attacks on civilian population centers and infrastructure have both drawn sharp criticism internationally."

As opposed to

"The conflict has killed hundreds of civilians, caused widespread infrastructure damage, displaced nearly a million people, and disrupted normal life across most of Lebanon and northern Israel. Attacks from both sides on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally."

Reads as though Israel is targetting civilians like Hezbollah. If that is not trying to equate the two forces, what is?

Then there is the dubiously monikered "Targeting of civilian areas" subarticle, of the majority of the article it is about the international community condemning Israel attacking Hezbollah positions in civilian areas and one paragraph about Hezbollah. First, why is it not qualified that Israel is not targetting civilian areas but the Hezbollah in these areas? Why is nothing mentioned about Hezbollah violating the rules of war? Does setting up armed roadblocks to stop Lebanese civilians at gunpoint from leaving an area about to be hit by the IDf not consitute mention? Does the fact that Hezbollah does not use uniforms and can melt into the population constitute a breach? Does indiscriminate firing into cities in northern Israel with no strategic value not constitute a breach of the rules of war?

One paragraph on Hezbollah, 4 paragraphs on Israel.

Guy Montag 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This goes back to the name of this article. The war or conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon, by almost all accounts, are victims of both sides. The use of the world conflict implies that the conflict is between the two parties in the title. While it is true that Israel has disagreements with Lebanon over the presense of Hezbollah, the armed conflict is between Israel and Hezbollah. Maybe it is time to look into the name of this article. --user:mnw2000 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The passage simply speaks of attacks, per se. The damage to Lebanon has been far more severe, so the focus seems proportional.El_C 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Attacks from both sides on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally." Just states the fact, as succinctly as possible, that both sides are attacking civilian population centres, which they are, and that both of them have attracted criticism. I don't think it makes it look like Israel is deliberately attacking civilians. They are, however, deliberately (they aren't accidentally dropping bombs in Lebanon) targetting civilian areas, trying to kill Hezbollah fighters hiding in those areas. (which is what is attracting the criticism.) And as for the 1 para Hezbollah, 4 for Israel, thats because the vast majority of the attacks are in Lebanon. If i recall correctly, it is mentioned that the reason why they are attacking civilian areas is because Hezbollah are using them as human shields. --Iorek85 05:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

please don't add POV pictures
Pictures like

and result in editorial war. Please look at history of the article. I propose to remove both of these pictures.--Accessible 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While this may not be what you were hoping for, I don't see a problem with either picture. The propaganda picture merely illustrates something that many S. Lebanese have come to know intimately, while the kids shows the Israeli civilian populace's attitude to being shelled, as well as the IDF shelling. What part of them do you think is POV? Let me know,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The second pic I have no problem with and can't understand why anyone would have a problem with it. It's just a leaflet dropped by Israel. Putting a pic of it on the page doesn't condone Israel's actions or accuse them of propaganda. The people removing this pic (person, most likely) are from Iran, I guess trying to hide the fact Israel warned the civilians in southern Lebanon to leave. The first pic is slightly more problematic. The image itself is fine, but no Israeli supporter will allow it to stay without the 'context' disclaimers. I don't think it should have any, but since it will, I don't think it should be in the article. --Iorek85 07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As previously stated by me- Hezbollah have also been issuing mass warnings via text message to israeli, an image of their warnings to Israeli to vacate areas going to be attacked would be needed to counterbalance it. Regardless of the leaflet being dropped there are reports that south lebanon is a free fire zone- backed up by statements from Halutz & Israeli justice minister, so the leaflet is moot when convoys fleeing are also being attacked. The 2nd picture makes it look like all israeli kids are bloodthirsty little monsters, (they are drawing flags on the shells not writing to Hezbollah their parents did that apparently), it would just be as POV to include pictures of rabbis blessing & signing artillery shells- which also exist. 82.29.227.171 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of a picture on one 'side' doesn't claim the lack of same on the other 'side'. Just because we don't have a picture of those text messages doesn't mean we shouldn't include the Israeli warnings. --Iorek85 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pictures do exist, but arent referred to- misleading. Also, issue of leaflets doesnt even belong in this article- its dealt with in the "attacks on civilian areas" article along with details on the policy of South Lebanon being 'free fire zone' for IDF. If details on attacks on civlian areas with the surrounding circumstance/reaction arent included in this article, but a picture of a leaflet appearing to justify them is then its rather meaningless except as a POV push. 82.29.227.171 08:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two of everything is not balance, it's an article twice as big as it needs to be. As long as the overall impression given by all the pictures is a balanced one, then the article is NPOV. However, I take your point that the leaflet, without context (ie, text mentioning that Israel has been warning civilians) is meaningless, so I'll add some. That section lacks any Israeli defence bar the line "Israel said it was near Hezbollah rocket launching sites and raised questions about a nearly eight hour gap between the bombing and the building's collapse".. --Iorek85 08:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasnt my point. The use of these pre-warnings isnt considered a blank check for IDF to do what they want, Red Cross & HRW have already criticised IDF for treating them as such. It is IDF policy to destroy homes of "terrorists" in west bank/gaza- that policy is now being extended to South Lebanon. The leaflets are all mixed up in that policy because IDF obviously dont want people to be in structures that they intend to destroy. However, regardless of what IDF want civilians (for whatever reason) are unable to evacuate the area- none remarked on in the article. Placing an image of a leaflet (there appear to be a few types of leaflet texts used) that IDF claim they are dropping supports a POV that doesnt exist in fact ie. that "everyone [remaining] in south lebanon is a terrorist". So to balance it context on documented IDF destruction of roads/bridges, IDF attacks on fleeing convoys, and IDF policy of destroying buildings in civilian areas is needed- repetition of information in the 'targeting' of civilian areas article. Put the leaflet picture in that article where it can be balanced out with reaction, and use of the pre-warnings by both sides can be criticised. Its just a question of context. 82.29.227.171 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you there seems to be a tangent growing, the leaflet is a piece of paper that Israel dropped showing they warned people to leave. It does not show nor state that everyone left is a terrorist. I dont see that text on their nor the distinction you are making, nor anyone drawing even a remotely similar conclusion in any media, that anyone left South of the Litani is a terrorist or fighter. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbullah."" Israeli Justice Minister
 * "Over here, everybody is the army... Everybody is Hezbollah. There's no kids, women, nothing" & "We're going to shoot anything we see" IDF awaiting deployment
 * When asked on Israeli Army radio whether villages in Southern Lebanon should be "wiped out", Israeli Justice Minister replied: "These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating" 82.29.227.171 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again your issue isnt with the leaflet picture then, its with quotes you are reading and drawing your own connection and conclusions with the leaflets. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Israeli cabinet minister & IDF personnel drew the conclusions, I just brought them to you attention. Their connection & conclusion from cabinet level to grunt appears to be that following leaflet drops "everybody is hezbollah" / South Lebanon is a free fire zone. That is significant for the people who cannot leave due to IDF attacks on infrastructure and convoys. 82.29.227.171 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am done discussing this with you since you seem to have a personal interest in it. You are again not specifying a problem with the picture but drawing conclusions that are not realistic. You could not possibly know what an Israeli soldier is thinking to even draw such conclusions. Until it is you actually make a point about the picture itself your arguements are going to be ignored by me and probably others. Stating what you think people are thinking because of the leaflets or stating what people have said and stating its because the leaflets is your personal ideas. -- zero faults   ' '' 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have the conclusions of the justice minister, we have the conclusions of the grunts- is there a connection between them? It is fairly clear whats on their minds. The leaflet image is being touted along the lines of the civilians, having received "fair warning" are free to move around and escape bombardment. That is untrue, check the targeting civilians article. It is a complete distortion of the facts on the ground as testified to by the civilians who received the leaflets. Without some kind of balance to the image to make it clear that the leaflets are in fact entirely for western consumption and that its policy from the cabinet to the grunt on the ground that south lebanon is a free fire zone then using the image alone isnt what any right thinking person would call 'balanced'. 82.29.227.171 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the pictures. My concern is that they need context to be understood and that context is lacking in the description. I think a far more valuable piece of information is the outrage the pictures produced, rather than the pictures themselves. When the Jylland-Post mohammed cartoons were published, the story wasn't necessarily what the pictures portrayed but rather the outrage generated. From that perspective, the outrage should be the story and the pictures are shown to illustrate what the outrage is about. The story is certainly not that Israeli children are sending death messages through artillery rounds.

Also, as I see it, the girls writing on the missiles/bombs (it says missiles but they look like artillery shells) were probably told that those shells are going to stop the the rockets from coming down on their heads. I suspect that they are merely expressing thanks and gratitude for stopping the attacks on their village that makes them stay in bomb shelters. I don't think it's an expression of hatred or a desire for the death of anyone. Contrast it with Hezbollah murals in Beirut that show a mother and baby that says "Motherhood is sweet but martyrdom is sweeter" and others that depict children blowing themselves up. --Tbeatty 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The kids picture is disgusting but they can be excused following instructions from journalists and parents. Likewise the cartoon of Olmert as SS Camp Commandant Amon Goeth. Its a POV and dont think it should be in article. If any bomb signing picture has to be used to show public support for war in israel use the ones of adults signing the artillery shells. 82.29.227.171 09:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree this picture should be removed, though I will probably keep it for myself. A good comparison would be to see if there is pictures of soldiers paining warheads anywhere on Wikipedia being used. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These photographs are factual, and could be used in a NPOV way to illustrate (a) Israeli support for its military actions (the girls), (b) warnings to the citizens in south Lebanon by the IDF to flee (the leaflet). Likewise, an image representing civilians killed while fleeing would also be fair game. Just because facts generate strong emotions on one side or the other, it doesn't mean the facts are POV. AdamKesher 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes ok but they can also be cited as propaganda. That bomb signing photo is almost a 'J'accuse' used countless times alongside pictures of mutilated civilians in anti-war/anti-israeli media output when in fact the bombs are addressed to Hezbollah. Same goes for the leaflet- it contains propaganda and has been used on pro-war media as a "we told you so" when in fact the use of the leaflets doesnt mean a lot when people either cant evacuate or feel they cant evacuate in safety. Really im just thinking that images used to make points by either side shouldnt be here because they can be considered propaganda- ie. non neutral but I suppose if they are cited as having been used as propaganda or are balanced out with something from other side then thats ok. 82.29.227.171 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we add this photo?
center|thumb|350px|Israeli wounded civilian is being evacuated from the area that got hit by [[Hizballah rocket in Haifa on 22 July.]]

Flayer 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a great photo, we've been looking for something to balance the damage in Lebanon. It got removed when I reverted, but it should be in there. We just have to be careful of putting too many photos in. --Iorek85 09:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we better put it instead of Israeli soldiers mourning photo. Can you do it? I don't have much experience with wikipedia... Flayer 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah.. OK! Flayer 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very good photograph summarizing a lot of things that are happening to affect Israel. It is also positive showing efforts to help. The IDF mourning photo only shows soldiers affected. 82.29.227.171 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking for such photos... Flayer 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer this photo. I added a date to the caption. AdamKesher 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Flayer 12:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image use in this article
I realise that there are a lot of things to keep track of for the editors of this article. That said, please be more careful with the use of unlicensed images. Images sourced from blogs without authorship or copyright-holder status do not meet Image use policy. Images taken from news agencies do not meet Fair use criteria. They are subject to deletion and should not be placed into articles. Thanks. Jkelly 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of conflict is June 9th Gaza explosion?
Is this right? Nuite 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be vandalism but while im not one for conspiracy theories I dont believe the events leading to this are documented as well as they may be. Whether the view is that the bombing on the beach was the cause, the refusal to negotiate over POW or whatever.


 * Today there is an article in the new statesman that says Israeli Government had warned Bush admin that a war was about to take place- this could be at the Olmert/Bush April meeting. Article says that British PM Tony Blair was then warned of this by USA.


 * There is also comment in Israeli press today that a decision was taken to get Hezbollah at the first excuse rather than wait. 82.29.227.171 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The "main article" linked to in the section, Zar'it-Ayta al-Sha`b incident makes no mention of the Gaza explosion, and cites the Hezbollah capture of IDF soldiers as sparking the incident instead of the Gaza explosion. I think the "Beginning of conflict" section should reflect that. However, I don't really know enough about the situation as a whole, and I'm not familiar enough with editing on Wikipedia, to make the change myself. Nuite 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been fixed already. Thanks to whoever did that. :-) Nuite 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli response have been called "disproportionate violence" and that "Indiscriminate Bombing in Lebanon [is] a War Crime" 

This should NOT be in the introduction. Flayer 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I removed it once myself, as well. Nuite 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that this was supposed to have started over some captured soldiers, then it became stopping rocket attacks. Which is it? If the cause, as is claimed now, was to route out Hezbollah from South Lebanon- why isnt this mentioned in the 'cause of conflict'?? 82.29.227.171 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved the POW stuff to its article
Left in the brief description of the history over the years. 82.29.227.171 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Got moved back in for some reason.82.29.227.171 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Sentences
The last paragraph of the "Israeli Response" section repeats several sentences from the paragraph above it. The "damn right we are" quote isn't a repeat, but the sentence just before it is, the quote by Ramon begins the previous paragraph. Also, the sentences after "damn right" are repeated, which causes confusion as to whether Ramon or Gillerman made those statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.173.6.51 (talk • contribs).

Good artile
There is a good article regarding myth's and the cronology of the events: --Striver 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

With passages like: "For the first day and a half, [Nasrallah] limited his strikes to the northern borders areas, which have faced Hizbullah attacks in the past and are well protected. He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel's third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation." this seems like apologia that should be taken with several grains of salt.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * true, but valuable anyway.--Striver 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While biased against Israeli actions, it is not apoligia. Unless, of course, you consider anything not endosed by Haaretz apologia. Then it is indeed apologia. I think we must be vigiliant against our tendency to demonize does who do not agree with out POVs with terms like "apologia", they are not helpfull. Counterpunch is a WP:V and when reporting (no op-ed) it is [{WP:RS]]. That its view stand different from Haaretz or Ynet doesnt diminish this fact. Please, don't try to (again) discredit sources based upon POV. In a controversial article like this, were bias abounds even in sources who were previously paramounts of neutrality, I think we should not use terms like "apologia" lightly.


 * For example, it is a fact that the bombing of Haifa started after one day and half of the conflict's started, and stating this fact is not apologia, it is stating known verifiable facts not denied by anyone, not doing "apologia".--Cerejota 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabbinical Question
I am not jewish so forgive my ignorance. Is this really saying that all lebanese civilians may be killed or is it an interpretation of the Torah and the laws of Moses (i.e. Ten Commandments) that deaths of civilians during the course of the war are not against the laws of God? That seems to be more likely given that it is a Rabbincal council. --Tbeatty 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on religion, but based on the cited quotes, it seems to be leaning towards the latter, specifically minimising the concern needed to be shown civilians in wartime when their safety impinges on those of your own civilians/military.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems more like an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of Torah... When politics (q.v. Yesha) and religion (q.v. rabbi) mix up, it may provide some dubious results. Flayer 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Rabbi's released a religious verdict saying that according to Jewish law during times of war the enemy of Jews have no innocent targets, and therefore everyone is a ligitimate target. It falls well within all the killing of civilians we have seen during the past few weeks. Also read the following quotes:
 * “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as ‘innocents’ of the enemy.”
 * “All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians.”
 * the Yesha Rabbis “called on the IDF to ignore Christian morals in the fight to end the terror from the north,”
 * the Yesha Rabbinical Council demanded the IOF “exterminate the enemy in the north and the south,”
 * http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=494
 * ArmanJan 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This rabbi is a kind of ulra-right politician. Flayer 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayta a Shaab Claim
Sorry to add more stuff to the page, but the qualification of the raid as happening in Israel is continually removed. I added the UN, EU, G8, etc. sources. Perhaps we can find a better way to express this without all the citations.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. El_C 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead keeps changing, but I'm still trying. El_C 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah KIA, other figures
3rd August 4th August
 * Israeli death toll in the conflict stood at 68, with 41 soldiers killed in fighting and 27 civilians in rocket attacks. Leabanese PM Saniora said more than 900 people had been killed and 3,000 wounded, but he did not say whether the new figure, a rise of 380 from 520 confirmed dead also included those missing presumed dead.
 * It was estimated in a Haaretz analysis piece that the total number of rocket launchers that had been destroyed by IDF forces in Lebanon was "ten" and an estimate of Hezbollah killed given by IDF was "380". (it does say ground forces though- does that imply airforce has others? hard to say) 82.29.227.171 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Lebanese death toll stated at over 900 in the main article when the AP is reporting it at only 567 confirmed deaths (489 civilians, 28 Lebanese soldiers and 50 Hezbollah guerrilas)?

Hadera instaed of Beit-Shean
Hadera is southernmost point hit by Hezbollah. We better add this. Flayer 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525808035&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Some statistics you might find interesting
If you go to Wikipedia page history statistics you can find out some interesting info on the page history. As of now;


 * There have been 9,981 edits, which puts this article in the top 10 most edited pages on wikipedia.
 * 1 edit every 3.25 minutes.
 * Over 2000 unique editors.
 * Tewfik is the top editor, with 640 edits!

--Iorek85 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of advanced warnings
The current section reads like a hezbollah press release; it starts, saying Hezbollah have warned civilians of attacks (for which there is no reference), not stating that Israel warns Lebanese of attacks, then jumping into a massive criticism of Israel's warnings, then into a big quote with the criticism bolded for emphasis. I don't see how this is fair on Israel. I definitely think the leaflet needs some context, and that the criticism of it can stay, but we need to work on a wording that is fair.


 * I think we should mention, referenced, of course, that while Israel has been telling people to leave, they have destroyed most of the highways and bombed people evacuating.
 * Remove the emphasis from the quote, since that is added by editors, not them, and is POV pushing (keep the quote, though)
 * Make sure it clearly states that both sides have been warning civilians of attacks.
 * Find references to support the claims that Hezbollah has been warning Israeli civilians
 * Maybe (could be too pov) that both of these exercises are nothing more than propaganda, since everyone living in northern Israle knows that Hezbollah are firing rockets, and everyone in southern Lebanon knows that Israel are dropping bombs.

What do we think? --Iorek85 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the article concerned with pushing a POV that anyone left in south Lebanon is a terrorist and that Hezbollah 'hide' among civilians?


 * The leaflet makes the case that the IDF warn civilians (in case of that leaflet it was said to have been used before the Qana bombing). It isnt meant to be "fair on Israel" its meant to be fair on the civilians being attacked by Israel who really do not have a voice in this article. The IDF propaganda leaflet is "fair on Israel"- moreso because no facts are set beside it. Details on Hezbollah activities are probably not well placed in there in retrospect because as we know the IDF dont appear to be targeting them (see Qaa event yesterday).


 * As a counterbalance to the IDF propaganda leaflet, the one with a cartoon of Nasrallah hiding behind civilians, a condemnation of the leaflet and details on its effect/worth as a warning should exist. Some details would include at the minimum:
 * the IDF bombing of fleeing civilian & aid convoys/vehicles/ambulances etc. (lots of references),
 * civilians incapable of fleeing due to fear/poverty/frailty/sickness (lots of references),
 * IDF bombing of bridges/roads/gas stations/trucks/truck drivers/cars which make fleeing impossible (lots of references),
 * details stating that people of Qana that were bombed were waiting on evac.


 * To push the POV- "well we warned them, what do they expect" is misleading and not backed up with the facts (that are known) on the ground. That is the only use the leaflet is being put to in this article. I already argued against that but the propaganda was included with no further discussion.


 * Some facts regarding the total uselessness of the warnings and their criticism is needed or fit the leaflet into the 'targeting of civilian areas' article- this is the primary use of the leaflet right? To warn civilians of impending attacks? Alongside details of attacks made on civilians the leaflet was said to warn, readers can judge for themselves how useful it is as a warning. Statements made by Israeli officials declaring everyone in south lebanon to be "terrorists", and the IDF policy of house demolition of "terrorist suspects" might also aid that estimation. These are policies the leaflets dont indicate and the reason the building at Qana (where that particular leaflet was dropped) were targeted. It really doesnt belong unchallenged in this article. Challenging it however really would take up too much space. 82.29.227.171 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wounded soldiers and civilians
I think we should agree to take off the number of wounded/injured soldiers and civilians. We're completely unable to present up-to-date numbers. For example, I no longer have an idea how many israeli soldiers and civilians are wounded - I can only track how many died. We may only right "about x hundred / thousand". Flayer 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What's that? Where did it come from?? Flayer 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah ground rocket campaign



Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce "Israel's" most advanced tanks. Experts say this is further evidence that "Israel" is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia. Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made MILAN missiles, the army confirmed on Friday 4-8-2006. In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks - mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of "Israel's" military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles. ``They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world, said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer. ``This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units, Kuperwasser said. "Israel" contends that Hezbollah gets almost all of its weaponry from Syria and by extension Iran, including its anti-tank missiles. That's why cutting off the supply chain is essential - and why fighting Hezbollah after it has spent six years building up its arsenal is proving so painful to "Israel", officials claim. "Israel's" Merkava tanks boast massive amounts of armor and lumber and resemble fortresses on tracks. They are built for crew survival, according to Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank. Hezbollah celebrates when it destroys one. ``A Israeli armored force tried to advance toward the village of Chihine. The hezboolah confronted it and destroyed two Merkava tanks, the group proclaimed on television Thursday. The Israeli army confirmed two attacks on Merkava tanks that day - one that killed three soldiers and the other killing one. The three soldiers who were killed on Friday were also killed by antitank missiles, the army said. It would not say whether the missiles disabled the tanks. ``They (Hezbollah) are as well-equipped as any standing unit in the Syrian or Iranian armies, said Eran Lerman, a retired army colonel and now director of the "Israel"/Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee. ``This is not a rat-pack guerrilla, this is an organized militia. Besides the anti-tank missiles, Hezbollah is also known to have a powerful rocket-propelled grenade known as the RPG29. These weapons are also smuggled through Syria, an Israeli security official said, and were previously used by Palestinian militants in Gaza to damage tanks. On Friday 4-8-2006, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Hezbollah asked Iran for ``a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against "Israel". The report cited Western diplomatic sources as saying that Iranian authorities promised Hezbollah a steady supply of weapons ``for the next stage of the confrontation.

Agreed. It's going. Some referenced mention of the ground rockets can be made, but this is a summary, not a Hezbollah admiration site. --Iorek85 12:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some can be mentioned, but not even as a "campaign" paragraph. Flayer 12:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Love letter material. Some detail on their rockets is needed- what they look like and how theyre operated- that might go some way to dispel the "blending with civilians" myth. 82.29.227.171 13:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * STOP adding this. It is completly unreferenced, full of POV, has loads of adjectives, not important information, e.t.c Flayer 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hezbollah admiration"? Heh heh, this text actually came over the AP wire on Friday under the headline "Missiles neutralizing Israeli tanks." I knew I recognized it from somewhere. :-P —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I googled the text, didn't do a news search. Damn that biased AP! --Iorek85 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Added TV image of Hezbollah forces setting up rocket launchers and link to their rocket campaign. 82.29.227.171 14:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)