Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 17

Syncing the two tables
I don't mind what figures people want to use for the infobox and main casualties table, but at the moment, they are two different figures. They need to match. Also, we can save some space by either not referencing the infobox casualties because they are already referenced in the main table, or using the "ref name" reference tags to reduce the number of references. However, we can only do that once we've decided what figures we're using. --Iorek85 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Displaced persons
Why are they in a casualty box? As someone shot these displaced persons? Are they dead or injured? If so they are likely included in the other count, if not, they are not casualties. --Narson 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
List of Israeli casualties during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict:


 * Up-to date (according to and reliable media sources):


 * 103 casualties
 * 39 civilians
 * 66 soldiers

89.1.254.24 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Should not be included. Wikipedia is not a memorial; besides which, we can't list all the Lebanese dead, and having a list of only one side's dead would be seriously unbalanced. -- ChrisO 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Thus the table above should be removed.


 * I'm not asking you to include this. It is a reference for anyone who may say "if the official site claims 63, so it be 63". 89.1.254.24 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It does help to clarify things.


 * Although, those aren't "casualties" so much as fatalities.


 * There are tens of thousands of casualties, excluding those who have actually been killed, both on the Israeli and Lebanese side of the border.


 * Also, unacknowledged casualties of undeclared participants in this conflict, e.g. Iran's Pasderan (IRGC), as well as those who belong to neutral nations but who have experienced deaths during the course of this war, e.g. Canadians, Italians, etc...

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I meant fatalities. My English is far from being perfect. 89.1.254.24 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't resist this comment: The "terrorist" Hezbollah have killed fewer civilians than soldiers? Not for lack of trying, I'm sure, but I'm surprised nonetheless -- especially considering the ratio of Lebanese casualties. Icewolf34 20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, but not so surprising when you think about it.


 * Yes, it's targeted millions of Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets.


 * However, their rockets are horribly inaccurate in aim, have no internal guidance system, and aren't very likely to kill people, unless they score a direct hit.


 * The Israeli soldiers being killed by anti-tank weapons and Kalashnikovs, on the other hand, are fighting at close range, and therefore have a greater likelihood of dying as a result of combat.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties
There has been a huge edit war with the lowest possible figures usually winning through to help a range figure that appears meaningless. I suggest we believe the Lebanese Health Minister's figures, like for example a week ago when he said the figure is a around 750+ instead of certain members making their own little calculations which is what we have now and ending up then with 577 - 832. Support or Oppose the Lebanese Health Minister's figures over wiki member's own calculations:


 * 1) Support Reaper7 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This isn't even up for debate. Not doing this is OR. Bibigon 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. And if this were clearly sourced in the article, at least we, as readers, would know where the infobox numbers were coming from without having to dig around in the page history. —Banzai! (talk) @ 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. A vote will not make the minister any more reliable (especially in light of this), and it won't change that the media has reported an extremely wide range of numbers.  Tewfik Talk 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian Casualties as of 6 August UTC
(New discussion so I can archive the old stuff)

I've been doing a news roundup of as many recent sources as I can find.


 * Reuters - more than 800 total.
 * CNN - more than 750 in Lebanon and Israel.
 * CNN - "On Sunday, Lebanese Security Forces said the violence has killed 693 Lebanese, mostly civilians." Just a note  Tewfik Talk 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * AP - 497 civilians though the Lebanese government said 933 total.
 * news.com.au - more than 1000 on both sides though using simple math from figures given in the article it would be close to 922 lebanese total.
 * CBS - at least 660 on both sides. (using their figures, 582 lebanese, total)
 * AFP - close to 1000 in both total. (using their figures, nearly 922 total in lebanon)
 * Lebanese govt - 828 civilians
 * AL Jazeera - at least 734 people in Lebanon total.

Which gives us a range of 497-828 in specifically civilian terms, 582-933 total in Lebanon. I think we should just use 497-828 in the infobox. --Iorek85 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it doesn't fit the 'civilian' qualifier for upper limit, we should use this so as not to minimise the count.  Tewfik Talk 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought we voted on trusting the Lebanese Health Minister, or is it Iorek calculations as usual for the article? Reaper7 00:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure we didn't. Actually, I was in favour of trusting him, but as Tewfik rightly points out, there is a large range of figures, so we should note that in the casualty tables. But if you can show me this 'vote' with consensus, sure. --Iorek85 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AP says that 509 civilians have been killed until August 6 2006,they also reported 29 soldier (not including 6 killed today,confirmed by russian news) and 53 Hezbollah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Top Gun (talk • contribs).

O.K good, so we can now change the lower total to 509 in the scale, and source that article as the lower figure. Thanks. --Iorek85 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/Archive14#Lebanese_Civilian_Casualties

I belive it took you one person to support you idea of removing the original casualty box. here are 2 proper votes to trust the Health Minister and stop with the dumb calcultaions. Reaper7 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article claims "thousands" of dead civilians? I only see the 38 Israeli and the approx. 500-900 Libanese. Isn't this "only" about ONE thousand dead or maybe "just" hundreds? Sorry to sound cynical ;-) - Mark, wikigeek @ gmail


 * CNN cites the security forces in Lebanon as puting "the death toll at 716, most of them civilians" in an August 6 report. Therefore, I'm changing the number of civilian casualties in the infobox to reflect that.  For the sake of NPOV, I'll give add and subtract 5% to that figure.  --GHcool 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the well-sourced range. The reason we don't just use the latest news story is because there is a large discrepency among the media, and numbers like this one do not differentiate between civilians and others. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is normal for news outlets to adjust their casulty figures one way or another as more information comes in. For example yesterday, the BBC reported that 40 lebanese were killed in a single attack on an apartment complex, yet a few hours later they were forced to concede that the airstrike killed only one individual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please this please that, lol. Lets try democracy again, huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reaper7 (talk • contribs).

It is disputed the IDF soldiers were captured in Israel, War Planned a Year Ago
I understand it is a blog No cross border raid but it points to several news articles of July 12 and a contemporaneous Lebanese Police Report that the soldiers were arrested or captured while on a commando raid into Lebanon at Ayta as Shab which is close to Zarit, Israel but in Lebanon. See Map.

Additionaly it has been reported by Matthew Kalman in the San Franscisco Chronicle that the three week Israeli operation had been planned for over a year and and Israeli had been in the Pentagon a year ago with a powerpoint presentation lecturing about it. Kalman Article Will314159 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the contemporaneus report of the Lebanese Police report (French). Newspaper article of Lebanese Police Report Will314159 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the matter has been addressed before, but It should still read "alleged" cross border xxxx. Will314159 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. I see in the edit history that references to reputable publications such as Asia Times that report that the Israeli soldiers were captured on Lebanese territory have been removed repeatedly. This is not a neutral article. Accounts that are disputed should be reported as such -- when one side is simply reported as fact, it destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. --207.200.116.73 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Without rehashing the whole discussion, the only citations are from old articles. Asia Times has not published the claim since, because they probably accept the UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media's (including Al Jazeera) characterisation of Hezbollah's raid as "cross-border." If you can find a current article from a WP:Reliable source that makes the claim, then we could reopen discussion. Déjà vu anyone,  Tewfik Talk 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless I see the lebanon police repudiated the original report, I see little reason to believe the dispute is not alive. The news org are just rehashing whatever everybody else is saying, not digging the root cause. --Stephenzhu 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not just Al Jazeera, but Lebanese papers too. For example, the July 30 Daily Star says (emphasis mine) "He cited Lebanese health ministry figures saying that more than 600 people had been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah targets on July 12 in response to the capture of two soldiers in a deadly cross-border raid." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.33.142 (talk • contribs).


 * I did as much as I can to put the cross-border issue in a neutral gear. Please see the current version. --Stephenzhu 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As neither AP nor AFP, nor any other WP:Reliable sources have repeated this claim, it is not disputed. If you can find a current article that makes the claim, then we can discuss. Until then, please don't try to increase the appearance of its legitimacy. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I searched everywhere. The AP and AFP articles I saw have consistently omitted the origin of the

conflict. Even the CNN timeline describes it as "Along the the Lebanese border between the Israeli towns of Zar'it and Shtula.", which didn't put the accurate location as inside Israel Proper (inside the blue line). I guess the fact they used these terminology is some evidence that the cause is still in dispute. Before the dispute is resolved, let's keep it neutral so both sides can be heard. BTW: some partisan health ministry figure doesn't necessarily represent official lebanese position on this issue. --129.10.61.221 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets
I think this is interesting, and should be added somewhere... but where ? Observer: Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets

--imi2 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. Very interesting - I think it should go on the 'targeting of civilians' section.--Iorek85 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I always have a soft spot for refuseniks... Goes into my earlier comment that the IAF either was inept at targeting or doing it on purpose. Might turn out just jet that military intelligence is still an oxymoron...--Cerejota 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey, will any of you two place in that suggested section ? --imi2 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just curious how many others here saw that article on the indispensible Antiwar.com, as I did. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did +imi2 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cerejota: "Military Intelligence" exists, although is often filtered, even twisted, to fit a political purpose. MX44 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size
People the article is huge once again... some subsections are back to the size they where when they were turned into subpages, etc etc etc, where can we cut and move?--Cerejota 08:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting worse. We actually managed to have it under 60kb at one point, then it all went to hell. 80kb is far too big. The targetting of civilians section is getting huge, and I don't think we need so many subheadings. All of these sections are summaries of their subarticles, not the whole thing. The history section is also growing, same with international reactions. --Iorek85 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at it now, that Hezbollah actions section is huge! --Iorek85 08:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. there are not one, but two subpages the info could go into, military operations and timeline. I also think Position of Lebanon, Negotiations for ceasefire, and International reaction, each with subpages, can be shortened to briefer intros.--Cerejota 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We should do it sooner or later, most of our current events eventuallly have sub-pages when the main article gets too long. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Making summaries is the normal way to proceed. But summaries mustn't exclude valuable information. See Summary style. Tazmaniacs 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, we must summarise with the most important information in the main article. ;) --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Page reverted to out of date version.
Hi, User:Tazmaniacs in attempting to correct an issue they have with the external links section, has reverted the page back a couple of hours, losing some updates to the main article. Can someone go through and correct this, since I don't want to be accused of 3RR. --Barberio 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium munitions
Looking on the article:
 * The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International because some studies suggest that they may pose a significant health risk.

Looking on the reference:
 * 8.3 Depleted Uranium Weapons
 * Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal used particularly in armour-piercing ammunition. DU weapons are denser than conventional arms, meaning they can penetrate heavy armour more easily. They burn up on impact, creating a radioactive dust, the effect of which remains the subject of safety debates. Like other heavy metals, DU is toxic and constitutes a health risk independent of any residual radioactivity.
 * AI is calling on governments to consider refraining from the transfer and use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. There is much controversy over their long-term effects. Some studies suggest that DU dust, which remains in the vicinity of targets struck by DU weapons, poses a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested. AI calls for a moratorium on their use pending authoritative conclusions on their long-term effects on human health and the environment.
 * According to media reports, the USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon.

Unless we have a reference for:
 * that USA is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs (I know, it is easy to find)
 * that GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads (Are they?)
 * that Israel uses GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs against targets in Lebanon (Who knows?)

We mustn't say that:
 * The use of armor-piercing depleted uranium munitions by the Israeli Defense Forces has been criticised by Amnesty International.

There is no proof. 89.0.219.66

UK protests at bomb flights' stop in PrestwickDepleted Uranium in Bunker Busters Quit being such an apologist 89.0.219.66. for death and destruction. Best Wishes Will314159 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It 's better to move this part to "Amnesty International reports"--Sa.vakilian 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually belongs in the environmental damage subsection. The pollution of the munitions is what makes them remarkable in the context of the conflict, not their use. 82.29.227.171 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah using civilians as human shields
Have you read the source calimed for "Hezbollah using civilians as human shields"? The author in wikipedia claimed "numerous reports of Hezbollah using civilians as human shields". But as we look in the article, we find a talk with some Lebanonese people, especially with a Christian woman(It's not know that she's real or not, but this is not the problem).
 * 1) Most of the attacks are on Shiat's villages, and if there's a
 * 2) Most of the fighters of Hizbollah live in the villages with their family. It's obvious because there have been no military forces/equipment movement from Hizbollah.

"Hezbollah are using [us] as human shields," said Rima Khouri, gesturing overhead as Israeli warplanes sliced through the sky.

The Lebanese Christian woman fled from her village of Ain Abel to one of the swelling refugee shelters in the city of Tyre.

Also this claim "Hezbollah using civilians as human shields" was heared from Israelese when bombing Qana, and there were no rocket luncher there. I'm going to fix this part. --Hossein.ir 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have some sources in other articles. Give me a couple of minutes to bring them here. -- Avi 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's there. I've replaced it with a better source from Ghana article. --Hossein.ir 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just brought seven sources for Hezbollah using human shields. that should be sufficient. -- Avi 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are numerous sources documenting Hezbollah's use of human shields.


 * For starters,


 * http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b


 * http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/archiv/30.07.2006/2660279.asp


 * http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Hizbollah-using-civilians-as-shields/2006/08/02/1154198177544.html


 * http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hunting-enemies-who-brazenly-use-human-shields/2006/08/04/1154198329236.html


 * Ruthfulbarbarity 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think at least oneof those is in the article already, but feel free to add the rest. -- Avi 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, who has been critical of the US and Israel lately, has come out and told Hizbollah that the use of human shields is a war crime. I am very concern that much of the news coming out of Southern Lebanon is being staged by Hizbollah. I have heard reports that reporters and photographers have been threatened with death if they transmit news or pictures of Hizbollah fighters located in civilian areas. We already know that there has been at least two photographs from Reuters that have been edited to make Israel look like they are doing more damange than they are. Can we have a section on the manipulation of the media? --user:mnw2000 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. If you try to post that you'll have some IP users calling your edits NPOV and reverting them.

Israel is the one that uses human shields... literallyYahuddi 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note that those links are not relevant to this conflict. Let's have a long-winded debate about who is at fault in the Middle-East, because none of us will live long enough to see it through.  Tewfik Talk 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Global
We have quotes from the US, Israel, Canada, and Australia. That is not too narrow of a viewpoint. -- Avi 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Germany for good measure. -- Avi 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may add a few comments to Ruthfulbarbarity's list of websites "proving" the human shields thing:


 * The first one, from www.canada.com, is just the same old Canadian story about the ex Sarajevo, pro-Israeli major general Lewis MacKenzie "interperting" the email from Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedner.
 * The second one, www.tagesspiegel.de, is just a list of reader comments, whereof one reader claims that Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, while the rest are attacking Israel for what is going on.
 * The third, www.theage.com.au (the Fairfax-owned newspaper The Age), contains a statement from Israel's ambassador to Australia on ABC radio, where he repeats what his boss Olmert has been saying.
 * The fourth, www.smh.com.au (the Fairfax-owned sister newspaper to the Age, Sydney Morning Herald), is an article from Jerusalem by their reporter Jonathan Pearlman (who happened to be on a three month assignment to the Jerusalem Report magazine when the conflict started). He is just reporting what an Israeli "Colonel A, 42, who cannot be named" is claiming. That colonel, by the way, seems to think that you can fire a Katyusha rocket from within a living room and survive the experience...


 * Consequently, the value of these "proofs" is rather questionable. Thomas Blomberg 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont see anything questionable about the The Age nor SMH. Since they are both acceptable under WP:RS I think those two should be added if they are not already included. The Canada.com one can be added as long as its specified what the source is stating and who is stating it based on what. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed template.
 This article has too many pastel-shaded boxes. Please try your best to eliminate some of them as per the instructions given inside, but please do not remove this notice until the number of boxes has dropped to at most two.

--AceMyth 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL.


 * It's funny, because it's true.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But when some now-with-administrator-rights users don't let us include even a word, what can be done with the POV? Yes, Hezbollah is considered as a terrorist organization by US, UK, Canada, maybe Australia, but when no one let anybody include opinions from the rest of the world, what can be done? Other parts of the world consider them "Last standing men". Some users try removing the boxes. Does that make the article NPOV? --Hossein.ir 21:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That Arab-Muslims view Hezbollah favorably is not the issue.


 * Hezbollah, and by extension, Al-Manar, has been designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries in Western Europe and North America.


 * They are on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations.


 * These are ineluctable facts, not opinions.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that the State Department considers Hezbollah a terrorist organisation is both a fact AND an opinion . Dublin Rich

Casualties infobox, again
Is there any particular reason we're taking the Lebanese government's casualty counts at face value while noting Israel claims that 450+ Hezbollah members have been killed? There is good reason to doubt both figures honestly, and I don't see why the Lebanese government is being given more credence than the IDF. Bibigon 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't see why Hezbollah's figures-and Hezbollah is the main source of the low Hezbollah death count-should be taken at face value.


 * I'm not saying that the 400+ figure published by the Israeli government-which also can't be completely verified-should be stated as fact, but their numbers do strike me as a more reasonable estimate, considering the extensive three+ week bombing campaign against Southern Lebanon and Beirut.


 * I don't think either should be presented as unalloyed fact.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

omg
To quote a comment on the page: Daaaaaam, That "Bitch got Owned"! --Striver 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Typo in Reference
Could someone with a login please correct spelling on reference number 2 - it should say "says" not "syas" 67.55.199.6 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran Supplying Surface-To-Air Missiles To Hezbollah

 * I don't know how many of you noticed it, but there's been a report in Jane's Defense Weekly about Iran supplying Hezbollah with more military equipment, should a potential cease-fire develop.


 * http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060807_1_n.shtml

Ruthfulbarbarity 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read it more closely, you'll notice that it their source is "Western diplomatic sources", and that Jane's further down state that the SAMs mentioned have been used by Hezbolla all along, according to the Israeli Air Force. Consequently, it isn't anything new. And there is nothing about "should a potential cease-fire develop" in the article, so that's obviously your POV. Regards Thomas Blomberg 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualty Country Error
"Palestine" as a country does not exist and has never existed. Therefore, it is innacurate and dangerously misleading to list "Palestine" as one of the countries on the casualty list. A more accurate terminology would be "Palestinian Authority" as the area is under Palestinian Authority rule. However, it is not yet a country. Please make the change accordingly. --160.81.239.98 18:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Agree. 89.1.254.24 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
I see that the article is under a neutrality dispute, as it should be. I think it should also be under factual accuracy dispute, because it presents the Israeli version of the story -- that the soldiers were taken on the Israeli side of the border -- as undisputed. A factually accurate article would say that both sides make different claims. I find the argument of Tewfik, that the big dogs of the Anglo press support the Israeli version so there is really no dispute, to be unconvincing. --172.191.149.54 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a quote from Al-Jazeerah calling it “cross border”. They are not the Anglo press, last I checked. 8-) -- Avi 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to do anything to make us think that burnt IDF Humvees could jump over the border back to Israel, and that some reservists went to Lebanon like it was their backyard? 89.1.254.24 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what your point is? -- Avi 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying to 172.191.149.54, that those captured reservist had nothing to do on the Lebanese side of th border, and that burnt Humvees were on the Israeli side of the border. So it was clearly a cross border attack... 89.1.254.24 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it has been a long day 8-) -- Avi 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This belongs in my userspace page Bombing Lebanon to the crunchy, Hezbollah nougat center... althought seriously, has any other verifiable or reliable source said that the initial capture happened in Lebanon. I really defended the inclusion of this because it was verifiable minority view, but since the initial mention has this happened? Is Hizbollah claiming it was? If not it should slowly fade as fog of war rumor...


 * I know a former section editor in the Asia Times, so ill speak with him...--Cerejota 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There were some other details whose factual accuracy could be debated as well as some claims made that either aren't cited or don't correspond to the facts presented in their citations. I don't think it really needs a factual accuracy template, but people should go through and double check some details against their sources. If there turn out to be a significant number of dubious citations, we can put a citation tag on the page or section in question. --Epsilonsa 06:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the deleted Asia Times citation demonstrates factual accuracy dispute. It looks like it was deleted twice. This is indefensible. --NathanDW 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating schema - vote
The article is comprised of both European and American schemes. We should pick one and stick with it. As an initial impromptu poll of preference, please sign under which option you prefer. Thank you. -- Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day-Month-Year

Month-Day-Year
 * 1) --Avi 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Click on your "my preferences" (top of page, right side), and pick your own style. Enter dates into articles in accordance to WP:DATE. mdf 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day Month Year --user:mnw2000 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for voting. See WP:MoS for guidelines on date format. Neither Israel nor Lebanon uses American Dating. This article uses International Dating overwhelmingly. --Jumbo 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FOr some reason that is not working, but you have a good point in that since there was no predominant method used originally, the fact that both Israel and Lebanon use the international schema is a reasonable method for resolution. Thanks. -- Avi 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Frivolity
I object to all vandalism, of course, but I thought this was pretty amusing. It made it onto Wonkette, too. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha.


 * Yes, that is quite amusing.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Update needed
2006 Shiyyah airstrike 2006 al-Qaa airstrike 82.29.227.171 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating the picture on the title
What about this one? 

The image is provided by the iDF, and was released by the IDF spokesperon, as well as the picture we use now. 89.1.205.36 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah using civilians as human shields
Challenged not only by commentators on Hezbollah and their activities but also by HRW who said they found no evidence of this "shielding" in incidents of attacks on civilians they looked into. Just another example of the unbalanced slant this article has adopted. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its better to make a point with sources then just comments. So you may want to provide sources to counter the existing ones and open a conversation about the idea and validity of the sources. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have any independant (non-Israeli/Lebanese) sources that can confirm that Hezbollah is currently using human shields in Lebanon during this conflict? All of the above links seem to indicate that Israeli intelligence is the source for all of the current laims, and that's just horrifyingly biased given the casualty situation.  --Keyne 14:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a source on the ground who has looked into the claims is probably enough. Eyewitness testimony supporting the IDF claim is great but without the balance of people who have been in the area and found no evidence of the 'shielding' claim (which exists in spades) its appear as some kind of Hasbara POV. 82.29.227.171 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should post your sources here that claim no use of human shields has been going on then people can look at them and weigh them against the sources stating there is human shielding going on and we can have a discussion and a result. However just stating its not happening and saying eyewitnesses support you does not help elicit a meaningful conversation on the topic. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Brought them up already on the talkpage for civilian areas. Hard to see why the detail on 'human shields' appearing there is duplicated in this article in a pretty unbalanced hasbara POV way. 82.29.227.171 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your tone conveys much about your intentions, however feel free to add what you feel is important, other people will judge it and discuss it. Also you may want to post the sources here since you are attempting to have the conversation here. Telling people my sources are somewhere else ... well not many people care to dig for them. I think just to point out some of opposition you will face, most people consider storing weapons in a civilian structure, where civilians still are, as using them as shields. Much like the whole UN outpost thing. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My aim is balance in the article and bringing the slant in the article to the attention of others. I already gave a link to the source of the HRW report which dismisses the 'human shield' myth. Problems with the "the whole UN outpost thing" arose after 6 hours of shelling, despite being told to ceasefire numerous times, the IDF dropped a bomb on the patrol base destroying it. The human shield issue, addressed in the article on targeting civilian areas and duplicated here, is without balance from witnesses & investigators attesting to its falsehood. Dont blame me, I just noticed the imbalance, I didnt edit it like that. 82.29.227.171 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who is blaming you for anything. However as I said and you seem to not want to, I would in my last reply to you here reccomend bringing your sources here for other to see. HRW may have said there is no human shields but other sources may say otherwise, hence the need for collaboration on topics. Have a good day. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is HRW not reliable enough to be a counter-mention, that Human Shields may not be under the employ of Hezbollah? --Keyne 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is depending on the date of the reports. If HRW says no, but they said it before any report said yes, then it may not be. -- zero faults   ' '' 10:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TAKE A LOOK! 

"Targeting of Civilian Areas" section is completely POV
I find this absolutely ridiculous. Every subsection in the "Targeting of Civilian Areas" section makes little to no mention of Hezbollah and instead focuses exclusively on Israel's actions.

Amnesty international and HRW have BOTH released statements critical of Israel AND Hezbollah, and yet only the criticism of Israel is quoted? This is blatant POV.

Why is it that all mention of Hezbollah's use of shrapnel-filled warheads, including the two references to this fact, have been removed (one of them being the HRW report on Hezbollah)? I asume this is POV vandalism, because this was a key point backed up by references, and there was no reason to remove it.

Also, qualifying statements about Nasrallah's assertion that Hezbollah previously only attacked military targets have also been removed. Instead, it appears as though Nasrallah's quote is taken as truth. And yet similar assertions quoted from Israeli sources are surrounded by equivocal wording obviously meant to cast doubt on their veracity.

I do not have much time to fix these problems now, but they should nonetheless be fixed.

Last week this article actually had some semblance of NPOV, but has quickly degenrated back into volleys of POV vandalism from either side. --Uncanny Marbles 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be true. You are invited to contribute and discuss any sources you have. -- Szvest 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too many editors just doing what they want when they want. No discussion, just deletion/rearranging to suit their POV. Article is a mess quite frankly. 82.29.227.171 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for the lead
We need a lead (introduction) which is short and to the point, containing only a very brief description that is no longer than three paragraphs, as everything is expanded further down. It has to try to be NPOV and should not contain names of operations or names of the different arms of the IDF, as those things are relatively unimportant and can be found further down in the article. Nor is it necessary to include any references in the lead, as everything is repeated and expanded further down in the article, with hundreds of citations. In the lead we should also limit the linking to other Wikipedia articles to only such things that are absolutely essential, i.e. things that readers may not understand.

First of all, the lead should only mention the two main fighting parties. The fact that the Israelis have bombed some Lebanese army positions, and that units of the Lebanese army has shot at Israeli helicopters violating Lebanes airspace, does not make Lebanon a major fighting party.

The main sticking point seems to be if the lead should contain a phrase stating that Hezbollah went over the Blue Line when they captured the two soldiers or not. As no side in the conflict seems to contest this (Hezbollah or the Lebanese government have never stated that the soldiers were captured on the Lebanese side - and they definitely would state that, over and over again, if they felt that this was the case), and as the only references to the trespassing story are a few newspaper sources claiming that the Lebanese police initially said so, I don't think it would be wrong to have a writing that says that Hezbollah went across the Blue Line. However, in order to avoid further discussion, it could be phrased in such a way that both sides are satisfied. If the second paragraph starts "The conflict started on 12 July 2006, with Hezbollah shelling into Israel and the capture of two Israeli soldiers" this should satisfy both parties and would definitely be a NPOV. Nobody contests that the shelling happened or that the shells went into Israel. Some people like to add "diversionary" to the shelling, but that's both POV (only Hezbollah knows if it was a planned diversion) and rather unimportant in the lead. The issue of the border-crossing is covered in detail in "Beginning of the conflict", which should be sufficient, and the fact that three Israeli soldiers also died during the capture is not vital for the lead, as Olmert's two arguments for justifying Israel's reaction have always been the 12 July shelling and capture of the two soldiers. If some editors feel that the death of the three must be included in the lead, they are not trying to remain neutral but are busy pushing an agenda (i.e. trying to strengthen the arguments justifying Israel's actions).

It's also important that the lead tries to, as much as possible, follow the chronological development of the initial events without becoming lengthy and hard to read. Consequently, the order should be 1) the Hezbollah initial action, 2) Israel's response, and 3) Hezbollah's counter-response. The fact that the the two latter parts actually took turns (with Israel first doing this, then Hezbollah responding with that, followed by Israel doing something more) is to complicated to cover in the lead.

Based on this, I have put together a proposal for a lead which I think satisfies all these requirements: The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of ongoing military actions and clashes in northern Israel and Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The conflict came two weeks after the start of the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. The conflict started on 12 July 2006, with Hezbollah shelling into Israel and the capture of two Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated with an air and naval blockade of Lebanon, large-scale airstrikes across the whole country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon. Hezbollah in turn immediately responded with large-scale rocket attacks into northern Israel. The conflict has caused the death of probably more than a thousand persons, has displaced more than a million people, has caused widespread infrastructure damage in Lebanon, and has disrupted normal life across most of Lebanon and the northern part of Israel. Attacks on civilian population centers and infrastructure have drawn sharp criticism internationally, and most countries are calling for an immediate ceasefire.

We have enough edit wars as it is, in this and related articles, so if we can agree on a proper lead we will have reached consensus for at least the first three paragraphs - which would be a major achievement. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree generally with your proposal, but differ on the point of the three soldiers killed. As that happened as part of the initial raid, it is part of the casus. Whether Israel chose to stress it or not doesn't make it's inclusion POV. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Soldiers die in war, nothing special. Unless you want to push a POV that justify this as a "vengance war", I think any figures on non-civilian casualties should be out of the lead. The job of soldiers includes the dubious honor of dying for their country, and are a given in war. Now, civilains, thats relevant. Of course if you want to insist on this I see no problem if you want to provide as justification for killing hundred of civilians the deaths of three soldiers. Your choice. :D--Cerejota 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When their being killed is part of the casus belli, their inclusion in the lead is as relevant as the abduction, shelling, and of course the cross-border nature of the raid.  Tewfik Talk 07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally agree witht he proposal but disagree on this "The conflict has caused the death of probably more than a thousand persons, has displaced more than a million". This is editorializing that will change with time, and I think more general language like "Many have been killed, injured or displaced" that way we don't have to update for a while until major developments happen (BTW major developments I could consider are the entering of other combatants, the use of nuclear weapons, or a cease fire... not yet another bombing of civilians or some relevant but non-lead fact).


 * I would also add an editorial line like "This page is an introduction and pointer to other sub-pages with in depth information." Seems obvious, but since people have actually argued that readers don't visit subpages, a short one line exhortation could help them disabuse of the notion.--Cerejota 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a war. It is pointless to deny it. No weasel words. See Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the following section which gives numerous sources, including Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert & Minister of War Amir Peretz, who call it a war. Tazmaniacs 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Tazmaniacs, I think you put your comment in the wrong place. There are several discussions about the name of the article going on elsewhere, but this has nothing to do with that. If there is consensus that changing the name of the article is essential and that it has to be done right now, then the bold text in the lead will of course reflect whatever that name is. In all friendliness, Thomas Blomberg 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on WP:EL-Links and Images
Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Requests_for_arbitration. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Cluster bombs allegations' section
Hi Fayssal,

The HRW report about Israeli cluster bombs and Hezbollah ball-bearings was removed due to space constraints to Targeting of civilian areas in the [[2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. While I don't think there is any reason to restore it to the main page (we really are tight on room, and there are basic HRW, Amnesty Int'l, etc statements), if it is, it should be in the vetted, NPOV form included there (which includes both issues. Let me know what you think. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tewfik. I am sorry to express my disagreement. The reason is simple. Please tell me if i am wrong. If we accept that, we'd be accepting bias. There's a big photoghraph out there alleging of Hezbollah launching rockets from Qana inside a section related to using human shileds. We need a balance Tewfik. I understand your concern about the size of the article, no doubt but that is really important and relevant info as much as other allegations are. -- Szvest 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol! I understand what happened now Tewfik. You are refering to what Avraham did. Well, logical and i totally agree as i told him. Cheers -- Szvest 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If balance is the concern, then we should use a neutral description of the HRW report - one that mentions both problems. I only suggest using the one above because it was in the main article for a time (until space demanded it be removed), and is consensus/NPOV. I'm not sure what these two claims would add to balance of the article specifically. Human-sheilds is its own issue; balance would be including claims of Israeli use of human shields, not just reporting something else critical of Israel. If we took this path, we would end up restoring all of the numerous reports and supposed violations on both sides. (What did Avraham do? =D) Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Tewfik. I've just answered Avi. There's a balance there Tewfik. Every party in this stupid conflict got its part of allegations and accusations. HRW accuses everybody according to their observations on the ground. We've heard enough comments in the talk page from editors supporting both sides (everyone is taking one anyway ;)) and that must be dealt w/. That's why we are admins. By the way, where are you from? Israel? Don't tell me Haifa or any targeted area there please. We want to see here alive as we want to see this conflict resolved so that every party gets what it needs w/o attrocities. -- Szvest 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, and sorry for unilatterally removing before getting your response, however I'm still not sure why anything other than the version at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict should be inserted, or why the set of claims should be inserted at all. It doesn't balance the human shield section, but adds a new section. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. That wasn't unilateral to me as you stated that you are waiting for a reply. I don't see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Anyway, my point is that the section i added is very relevant to the conflict. Both sides using humans and shields and using cluster bombs are war criminals. We cover the use of human shields and we do not cover the rest? Also, see the sub-sections!
 * Advance warnings of attacks by Israel
 * Allegations of Hezbollah's human shield usage
 * Reports of Israeli pilots refusing to bomb civilian areas
 * What does that mean to the reader? If we have to remove that than we have to remove everything Tewfik which is against WP principles, policies and guidelines. If you're still doubting, Let's keep it here and discuss it in the article's talk page. -- Szvest 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Feel free to paste this all to the Talk; I just have few words right now) It may well need to be removed and replaced with a short but detailed summary of all the claims, but I think with the amount of claims and counter-claims, that may get unwieldy. In the meantime, if you feel that the wide pattern weapon claims are important enough to merit their own inclusion, then it should be the NPOV and vetted (its a great word) version that I linked to. As an entirely separate note, I'm not sure how you see this as providing balance, as if the pair of claims are added, then any percieved imbalance in the shields section will still exist. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. Hi again. It makes sense of course. But if i follow your reasoning Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon_conflict should be removed as well as it is on the other fork article. Please let's get it back and discuss it at the talk page if you wish.
 * Tewfik. Why is that considered POV? HRW is accusing someone and that encyclopaedic as much as everthing there is encyclopaedic. The size of the article is not a big issue and it is only a guideline. If that section is the only one creating a havoc re the size than so do the rest of sections. We've been working on articles longer than that. Many featured articles were as twice as long as that. Hizbollah is accused and there is a section but accusations re Israel are to have refuge to a fork article? That is not logical Tewfik. It's a real accusation and it's more important than 2 pilots refusing to shoot. It is as important as using human shields. If i were a judge i'd have given life sentence to both of them and not only to Hezbollah. Sincerely Tewfik. -- Szvest 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My main issue is that the NPOV version of the HRW statement, that dealt with both Israeli and Hezbollah actions, should be used. I say NPOV, because it was up on the main page for a long time and went through many revisions to reach its current state. I'm getting the feeling we may be talking about different things.

My secondary point isn't one of content (at least I don't percieve it as such =D). It is that while the human shields claim may be given undue prominence in the main, I'm not sure what distinguishes the wide-dispersal weapon critiques from the other half-dozen critiques. I think that a detailed but short summary may be in order. To that effect, general accusations of mutual war-crimes are already mentioned under UN and HRW sections. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First point... Yes, it is removed by Avi and i agree w/ that as a new sub-section was inserted by me. It should be inside the "targeting civilians" section and not outside of it. If you agree that one line os sufficient than so it be for all the rest. Human shiled (1 line), refusnik (1 line), dropping leaflets (1 line)... I don't agree as it is a very important issue as much as the other issues. NPOV! yes it was NPOV and the new sub-section is still NPOV, no, Tewfik?
 * Second point. I'd suggest that we remove the above sub-sections about the reports as some already talk about the same. So we can keep the rest and putting the Israeli and Hezbollah positions sub-section down. -- Szvest 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't totally understand what you meant here - could you clarify? In terms of NPOV, I meant that the mention on the subpage dealt with both Israel and Hezbollah, and I replaced the section with that one. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk


 * As you know I oppose the deleting of reliably and verifiably sourced information in all but extreme NPOV reasons, but one of the very few things we are unequivocally and demostrably in fvaor is a reduction in article side.


 * So perhaps a subpage? Or move to existing? Whatever, I agree this critique-countercritique circus has to stop. This isn't a blog, nor a soapbox and if weneed daits, subpage the damn thing.


 * I really are begining to get mad at all this grusome, uninformative display of minutae on attacks as it hides the big picture which is what the main article should be about (ie Beginning, Background pointers, Pointers to issue and information pages, ELs etc, no indepth discussion).


 * That said, be careful you don't end up, as has happened with other edits (not necessarily by you, and even some of mine!) destroying NPOV. I think we need to discuss things more widely and give a day or two before doing major edits. If not we end up with ugly POV forks (like "Role of Iran and Syria") or hiding relevant information in the name of space (like has happened with mention of what hezbollah is section and with the International reactions)--Cerejota 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)