Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 26

Title again
I am motivated by The Economist's cover article to yet again raise the point that this conflict should be a war. The 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is a conflict. This is a war under ceasefire. Can we finally join the large number of media outlets who describe this as a war and finally call it by its name?--Cerejota 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support "2006 Israel-Lebanon war". A Google News search finds considerably more stories referring to the "Lebanon war" than the "Lebanon conflict". Also, I think we need to distinguish it from the "background noise" of the ongoing cross-border clashes that preceded the 12 July casus belli. Some in the Israeli media seem to be referring to it as the "Second Lebanon War", but we'll have to see if this usage catches on. -- ChrisO 19:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of year in article title
I find the format "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" as used in the page names of many current events articles to be absolutely appalling in terms of readability. It would be far more encyclopaedic to use a format such as Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006. The existing title is fairly meaningless in the English language, while my suggestion is at least a proper English language construction.

zoney ♣ talk 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is consistent with the Military History Project's naming convention, which would suggest something like "Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006)". TheronJ 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested solution to the problem
We desperately need to cut the article down. It's more than twice the recommended size of 32Kb, and as events evolve more stuff will be added. As we have numerous sub-articles which expand the various issues further, I therefore think the content of this article should consist of a very brief three-paragraph lead followed by summaries of the content of the sub-articles. That way we get an article of decent size, where readers who are marginally interested can get a very good and lengthy summary of all aspects of the conflict, while those more interested can use it as a good starting point for diving into the sub-articles. It would also have the advantage of getting editors to concentrate on improving the often very poor sub-articles, instead of constantly trying to expand this article. In addition, we could cut down the references to a minimum, by simply stating in the header that this article is just an overview of the conflict and that all references can be found in the sub-articles.

The difficult thing would be to 1) inform all the editors, including the anon users, about this plan of action and 2) get them to accept it. One possible way to inform them would be to have a short "Notice to editors" at the top, informing them briefly about such a decision and referring them to the talk page for more information - and on the talk page we could expand the explanation why this is necessary and then hope that it is respected. Such an explanation would, of course, have to state what is "allowed" to add to the main article (very important new developments, for instance). If we can get consensus for all this through a vote, we can then quickly revert everything that doesn't conform to it.

The main reason for the current size is the rather new practice of using template:cite web and template:cite news to create the list of footnotes at the bottom, instead of much more space-conserving direct inline linked references (i.e.  etc.). I just dumped the article into Word and removed the current 146 references, in order to see the difference. With the references, the current article contains 76,606 characters and spaces. When the references are removed, it drops to 40,787 characters and spaces, i.e. almost half. Obviously we can't do without sources, but as direct links are on average one third as long as these footnotes, the article's current 75Kb would probably drop to 45-47Kb just by switching to inline linked references. The footnote system is great for traditional articles that aren't current events and have a limited number of references, but for these kind of articles, where a huge group of editors are engaged in edit wars and are sourcing every other word in order to defend what they write, the references actually double than the article. Also, the amount of references make the editing very difficult, as you can't see the forest for all of the trees. In addition, they easily get broken, as some editors employ the repeat functionality of the command, which only works as long as nobody removes the original reference. Again, a great tool for editors who write an article almost on their own, but not for these kind of articles where the references are only temporary, as the text is constantly being revised and almost the whole article therefore is totally re-written every week.

However, although switching from footnotes to inline linked references would cut down the size in Kb and make the editing easier, it wouldn't make this article shorter and easier to read. But by turning it into a condensed overview without references (except for very recent developments that aren't included in a sub-article yet), we may be able to get an easy-to-read article which isn't littered with hundreds of small blue [1] [2] [3] [4] and which covers the main points of the conflict and can serve as a good start point for reaching the sub-articles. What do you think? Thomas Blomberg 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "beggining of conflict" has had all the sources from the Zar'it incident included. Is it possible to trim it down while keeping the door closed to conspiracy theorists?  Tewfik Talk 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be possible. Those who are bent on pushing another view will do it irrespectively of the number of sources quoted. Currently we have 10 references for half a sentence, trying to prove that it happened on the Israeli side, while the second half of the sentence states that the police and later Hezbollah said it happened in Lebanon. If we keep that text and remove all the references, the text will still say the same thing it does now. If people don't accept what's stated in the text, they will not change their mind because of a lot of small blue numbers in brackets after it. I've just written a piece on the Ayta ash-Shab/Zar'it incident talk page, in an attempt to engage those who question the established version of the event. Thomas Blomberg 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Article size makes clear the 32kb recommendation is a techical restriction for outdated browsers, and a Readability suggestion otherwise. As to Readability, it says:
 * The readable prose refers to the main textual prose of the article. Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:
 * Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
 * Diagrams and images
 * Tables and lists
 * Wikilinks and external URLs
 * Formatting and mark-up.
 * So I don't think we need too worry much. The article is well below the recommendation. -- Kendrick7 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also read what article size says in the paragraph above the one you have quoted:"Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles. .... Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span—20 minutes."
 * We are currently at around 35 Kb readable text (based on my calculations above minus external links etc), which means that we are at the upper limit, according to this. More will come, as this conflict is far from over (and the problem of finding those 15,000 UNIFIL troops may well cause it to start up again). The idea is to find a solution to the problem. I have proposed a solution and would like to hear reasons for or against, not arguments that it isn't necessary. If you don't like the proposal, you must have reasons, so let's hear them. Regards Thomas Blomberg 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeated your experiment. I selected all the text from "The 2006..." to "...part of the exchange" and pasted into emacs, and saved to file. The size I got was 30kb. So there's no problem. -- 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I used OpenOffice to do a word count, too. It's about 4,750. So by that measure, it's 25% below the lower limit of the 6,000 word maximum recommendation. -- 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:SIZE also states that larger than 50kb is too large. And we're well over that. While the technical limitation of 32kb is now irrelivent, 70kb is a large page for even broadband users. The vast majority of pages larger than this one are Lists, which can't really be shortened. We should be aiming for 50-60kb. I agree about the references - there are far too many. Iorek85 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are talking about? I just told you - the text of the article is 30kb. -- Kendrick7 05:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, not according to the 'edit' button. The text might be 30kb, but that 50kb I am referring to is for the whole page (I assume not including images). Iorek85 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd volunteer to improve the script that generates this value so it also attempts to figure how much of that is readable text, but I have no idea who to talk to. We've basically got forty kb worth of markup code, links, see alsos, external links, and references. And unless you are trying to read this article with a web-capable cell phone, there not much technically wrong with that.


 * Interestingly, by the computer score, this article is current the 916th longest article in the wikipedia, behind such important topics as #913, Leicestershire County Cricket Club in 2005. Gee, I wonder if they were invaded by Hezbollah? -- Kendrick7 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
The intro is broken again. Kids: the intro is an intro is an intro. In other words, it should not have all the info in one place. Please have this in mind. I have no time now, but please edit this to be reasonable. WP:LEAD has good pointers even if we can be flexible...--Cerejota 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm taking this (below) out (the numbers of casualties appear in the table) Flayer 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Israeli bombings killed about 1,300 Lebanese, and wounded thousands more, mostly civilians. Infrastructure across Lebanon was destroyed or damaged. More than a million Lebanese were displaced, and normal life was disrupted across most of Lebanon. Hezbollah's rockets killed about forty Israeli civilians, wounded hundreds, and caused a half million civilians in the northern part of Israel to live in bomb shelters or move south. Attacks by both sides on civilian population centers and infrastructure drew sharp criticism internationally. At least 117 Israeli soldiers were killed during the conflict; no casualty figures have been released by Hezbollah regarding its losses.
 * We can't totally remove the consequences of the conflict from the lead, as the consequences are the only reason for writing the article at all. I have therefore tried to shorten the lead again, so it only contains what's absolutely necessary. I have also removed all references from it, as we don't need references in the lead for things covered in the sections further down, which are littered with references. Thomas Blomberg 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more. -- Kendrick7 16:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current lead fulfils all those points, including the sourcing, as the all the sources can be found in the article. There is no Wikipedia policy stating that you must directly link references to each sentence or paragraph. The only requirement in Verifiability is that the content of the article must be verifiable. Lots of Wikipedia articles have only one or two books listed at the end as references, and that is considered perfectly okay, even though it requires readers to go to a library to check the source (just as references in a book). So the thing reference to sourcing in the WP:LEAD style guide doesn't mean that you must have footnote numbers in it, just that the content of it must be just as verifiable as the rest of the article, i.e. that there is some sort of reference to it. Thomas Blomberg 21:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I could something more detailed, but here is what I don't like about [this lead] versus [this lead]:
 * It provides a poorer historical overview
 * It makes it sound like this conflict is something new, but there have been ongoing clashes for years
 * It makes it sound like this conflict was the start of a new war. It wasn't -- the last ceasefire was in May.
 * It doesn't explain why it started
 * It doesn't explain, even in summary, the motivation of the initial raid
 * It provides a poorer diplomacy overview
 * It makes it sound like the UN suddenly woke up on August 11th and decided to do something about it, when in fact international diplomacy began from the beginning.
 * (I should mention the civilian casualties paragraph should probably be in my prefered version, but got excised somewhere)
 * I believe all these parts are needed to provide for a lead which can "stand alone" according to WP:LEAD. -- Kendrick7 22:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia lead is not a summary of a thesis, but a newspaper-style lead. What you are asking for is a summary covering all aspects of the article. But, considering the enormous length of the combined sub-articles, the whole article is in fact such a summary - and in order to make it more digestible I want to make it even more so (see "Suggested solution to the problem" above). However, a lead should be short and to the point, containing only the most important parts of the article. It should not be compared to a thesis summary, which people read to determine if the 200 page thesis is worth reading. Anyone reading a lead of a newspaper or Wiki article will also read at least part of the remaining text.
 * Of course, we can always argue about what's most important, but if you're forced to describe this conflict from start to finish in, let's say, 30 words, what would you pick: Hisbollah's plan to swap the captured soldiers for prisoners, or the fact that 1.5 million people were displaced because of the conflict? A description of the lengthy diplomatic wrangling leading up to the UN resolution, or mentioning the devastation of civilian areas? That Israel called Hezbollah's kidnapping an "act of war", or Hizbollah's rocket attacks? The obvious fact that both sides claim victory, or the Israeli airstrikes across Lebanon? These are the kind of choices newspaper editors have to make when creating a lead that mustn't be longer than four-five sentences. It's sometimes difficult, especially if the article covers very much, but it forces you to identify the most important aspects and then write the lead in a very "economical" way, not wasting a single word - and often the end result is better than if you had been allowed to spread out (I used to do it for 20 years). In this case, the lead you want to expand already consists of 240 words and is pushing the recommended size for a lead in WP:LEAD, which is 3-4 paragraphs for articles containing 30,000 characters or more. Thomas Blomberg 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you make some good points, however, leaving out the context in the lead, is, no pun intented, misleading. Going through the article and deleting references hardly seem appropriate to me under any circumstance (for example, you complete blanked reference #102, by deleting the earlier named reference). I'll try to make some compromise edits. -- Kendrick7 05:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference mania
Almost half of the size of this article consists of references, and there are often several references in a paragraph that cover the same thing. Please remove any such double references you see. And when changing the text because of additional information in a new reference, replace anny old references with the new one, if the new one equally well covers what the old ones were reference for. Thomas Blomberg 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid pay-site references
Many newspapers covering this conflict, among them New York Times and Daily Star in Beirut, very quickly move their web news articles to their pay server, thus making it impossible to for anyone to read them unless you're willing to pay money. Please have this in mind when selecting references. Thomas Blomberg 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident
Something should be done with this article, because somebody is trying to plant there some "information" he would not be able to plant here. Flayer 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What infromation? ehudshapira 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions
I cleaned up the passage about the conclusions of who won what, but I feel as if it doesn't belong where it is. Input appreciated...  Tewfik Talk 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You also were lying or misleading in your edit summaries
 * "move section, fix refs"
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=70347089&oldid=70336772
 * You in fact did more than this - you changed the section heading and edited the content.--Paraphelion 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik just can't stand it that his side lost the war, so he has to censor it out. That is hardly NPOV editing. The more honorable course would be to throw in some counterbalancing comment. Best Wishes. Will314159 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd better learn the case you are so ardently aguing on, before posting anything. You seem to even not recognize Arab names. Tewfik or Tawfik (توفيق) is an Arab name, my friend. So your observation regarding Tewfik's "side" in the conflict has pretty shaky foundations, I would say. --Aleverde 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you will for your commentary Will. Instead of decrying my "censorship," you may want to note that the section you restored is redundant to AdamKesher's section, which I made clear in my edit-summary. Furthermore, as I detailed below, before the new section was added, I spent the time to bring your addition up to par.

Paraphelion, I really don't understand why you would assume that I acted in bad faith. I did nothing controversial - I encyclopedised the entry by changing the title, expanded the different statements so as to present a neutral POV, as well as removing the reference to an opinion piece, as well as getting the full reference information. If there is a specific part of the edit that you think I should have stressed please let me know, because misleading is certainly not my intent. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know a new section was added? Your edit summary is as clear as mud. Before deleting a whole new section, I sure as Hades would have opened a discussion about it, but I tend to be respectuful of other's people work product. You are not driving an armored bulldozer in the occupied territories. Best Wishes. Will314159 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your work, despite the effort you surely expended, was duplicated in greater depth and quality (as well as balance, IMHO) elsewhere in the article. If you feel a point of yours is lacking, you know what to do. Restoring your original post is not the solution, and my removal is hardly censorship. Assuming I really was one to 'disrespectfully drive an armoured bulldozer etc.,' do you really think that that would be the best method of achieving a civil debate? Best wishes,  Tewfik Talk 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik. You took out Moshe Arens comment. Do you know who Moshe Arens is? Three times defense minister. How is your substituion of greater depth and quality? I guess an opinion is like a butthole, everybody has one. Won't you at least have the decency to acknowledge that olbiterating a whole section and removing work-product without first discussing it is wrong? Best Wishes.Will314159 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik you talk the talk of civility but you don't walk it. You are till doing one man deletions and editing. I have restored balance to the Section that I started. Please rescpectfully keep your paws off it as far as deletions unless you do the courtesy of discussing it here first. Will314159 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OWN as you seem to be new to editing. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(EC)I explained that I removed the opinion piece above. If the problem is that I didn't explicitly say I was removing the opinion piece, then I sincerely apologise for not being clear. However I still don't believe that it is appropriate to include in the section, because aside from the less than faithful characterisation of "stunning defeat," in a concise discussion of both sides' positions and external perceptions, Arens' relevance as internal dissent, while potentially important, cannot be analysed directly from his OpEd. And I believe my substitution of many sides instead of three opinions from one was the right choice for neutrality, though the point is moot now. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been extremely civil to you, but regardless, your restored text is still redundant in part (US criticism), inaccurate in part (characterisation of Arens' statement), and in my opinion, part of it is not objectively relevant in this context, but is just reducing neutrality (Arens as an equalizer of Olmert's statement). If you want to talk about internal dissent, find a news piece that discusses it. If I wanted to "censor" as you claimed before, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of rewriting and actually sourcing the US government critique. As it is now, the section is extremely sloppy. Please look past whatever you may believe about my intentions, and read through the passage.  Tewfik Talk 05:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik It is sloppy b/c Arens is repeated twice and so is the CBS News report. I have to go in and prune it. Did you read it before you edited it? Best Wishes Will314159 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(EC)Well aside from Arens, what do you think I kept removing?  Tewfik Talk 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole thing of the erstwhile "conclusion" section should be reworded and include massive inputs on the politico-strategic angle since it doesn't portray the true outcome of the war. It wasn't a victory for either side but merely a claim that it is. There are serious doubts even in the arab community that hezbollah has damaged Lebanon (3 billion dollars directly and more indirectly) apart from having suffered casualties and so on. The Israelis too have suffered casualties and an equal economic beating, although given their larger economy it is a lesser pinch. An arabic voice here suggests that all these claims of "honor" and "martyr" victories are meaningless in the face of present day reality. It was an asymmetric war and the results have to be judged accordingly giving due weightage to claims, then the opinions. --Idleguy 05:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Col. Pat Lang explain it best in his blog. HA clearly won. Don't delude yourself. "Israel is leaving the battlefield in Lebanon. It has already begun to withdraw troops from north of the border, and plans to withdraw all of its forces when relieved by UNIFIL+ and the Lebanese Army.  When that relief might take place is unclear.

What is clear is that Hizbullah's forces remain in place all over the disputed zone and that its command and control of its forces remains effective. How can you know that? Easy. The day before the cease fire Hizbullah fired 250 rockets into Israel and since the cease fire has fired none. This represents unmistakable evidence of effective command.

The IDF believes that Hizbullah is using the southward flow of returning refugees to infiltrate reinforcements and re-supply into the area near the border only partially occupied by the IDF. Between and among the scattered positions of the IDF there are many areas empty of Israeli troops. There are Hizbullah forces in these areas waiting for re-supply. The IDF must know that. Why are they vacating the battlefield in these circumstances?

A basic lesson of history is that one must win on the battlefield to dictate the peace. A proof of winning on the battlefield has always been possession of that battlefield when the shooting stops. Those who remain on the field are just about always believed to have been victorious. Those who leave the field are believed to be the defeated.

Lee remained on the field a day after both Antietam and Gettysburg waiting to resume the fight. McClellan and Meade did not respond and Lee then moved away withdrawing to the south. He is thought to have been defeated in both battles although both could be argued to have been a "draw."

Look at the man on the stretcher. If this situation continues to develop along present lines, he will be considered the victor of the 2006 Israeli/Hizbullah War. " leaving_the_batBest Wishes! Will314159 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am surprised anyone in Lebanon would claim victory after the economic damage done to their country, basically reversing over 20 years of financing that went into building up the tourism in that country, especially after the damage done to the infrastructure and high number of casualties. I dont see how Israel can either however since they will be invading Lebanon again in less then 5 years if Hezbollah doesnt disarm, kind of funny how Hezbollah kidnaps soldier sparking this whole thing then claims victory after their actions got a large portion of their country leveled. The losers are the civilians it seems that caught in the middle, the ones in Lebanon that were trapped in a war zone and the ones in Israel that Hezbollah choose to target instead of targetting military personnel. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tewfik here, there is no reason to include the CBS report in the article since everything that is stated in it is better said elsewhere in the article. The only valid reason to leave it in the article would be if the report itself is notable enough to merit entry into an encyclopedia, but this is obviously not the case, there is nothing that distinguishes it from any other news report.


 * On another note, Will314159 really needs to be reminded of WP:Civility and WP:AGF. This accusation- "Tewfik just can't stand it that his side lost the war, so he has to censor it out" is totally inappropriate and not to mention unjustified. Furthermore the basis of your arguments are either irrelevant or unclear, because Moshe Arens was the three time defense minister we should include a quote that was taken out of context in an encyclopedia article? Instead of creating strange amalgamations of unwarranted incivility, cliches, oddly constructed metaphors, and of course the always ironic "Best wishes", why don't you try include concise and proper arguments in your posts from now on.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:01, 18 August 2006

(UTC)
 * I agree with this statement, while general discussions are not permitted, incivility will just not be tolerated. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Comes Silverburg and deletes to his hearts content. Just being defense minister three times carries no weight. Just get the garbage collector's opinion then. I think anybody with brains can figure out it was a counterbalancing opinion to Olmerts. that's enough for tonite. You guys this round. You censored out Arens. Cheers. Will314159 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just keep bringing up the defense minister thing and maybe eventually we'll say "Hey this guy Arens was defense minister three times, that means we must include the out of context quote". Is that the only thing you can bring up? The quote doesn't show anything, like most similar quotes that present a fraction of a sentence from a speech or essay that was hundreds of times longer, it presents a pov that was miles away from what the speaker or writer was actually attempting to convey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I remind all of you guys that a war page should specify the victor only when the conflict factually, eventually, ends. This is not the case here. It's only a ceasefire. Anyway, the majority in Israel think that Israel has not won this round - and not because Hizballah are so good, but because of lousy handling of the war by the leaders and UN's handcuffing. --Aleverde 14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Victory, as is well known, has many fathers, and failure in war is an orphan. From the deluge of accusations and gripes, one slogan stands out, a slogan that must send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone with a good memory: "the politicians did not let the army win."
 * I understand that I'm outnumbered and that will be no balance in this section and that's not unusual for any WP article involving Israel. Here's a little balance in the Discussion anyway.

Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our very eyes the resurrection of the old cry "they stabbed the army in the back!"

This is how it goes: At long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory, the cease-fire came into effect.

There is not a single word of truth in this. This operation, which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them.

The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons.

If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation after all – well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical – not to say vile – exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory," as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.

The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani.

For comparison: in the first Lebanon war, that of Sharon in 1982, the army crossed the Litani in the first few hours. (The Litani, by the way, is not a real river anymore, but just a shallow creek. Most of its waters are drawn off far from there, in the north. Its last stretch is about 25 km distant from the border, near Metulla the distance is only 4 km.)

This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place.

If a commission of inquiry is set up – as it must be – and investigates all the moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation. The death of 33 soldiers (including the son of the writer David Grossman, who had supported the war) and the pain this caused their families demand that!

But these facts are not yet clear to the general public. The brain-washing by the military commentators and the ex-generals, who dominated the media at the time, has turned the foolish – I would almost say "criminal" – operation into a rousing victory parade. The decision of the political leadership to stop it is now being seen by many as an act of defeatist, spineless, corrupt and even treasonous politicians.

And that is exactly the new slogan of the fascist Right that is now raising its ugly head. After World War I, in similar circumstances, the legend of the "knife in the back of the victorious army" grew up. Adolf Hitler used it to carry him to power – and on to World War II.

Now, even before the last fallen soldier has been buried, the incompetent generals are starting to talk shamelessly about "another round," the next war that will surely come "in a month or in a year," God willing. After all, we cannot end the matter like this, in failure. Where is our pride? The Israeli public is now in a state of shock and disorientation. Accusations – justified and unjustified – are flung around in all directions, and it cannot be foreseen how things will develop.

Perhaps, in the end, it is logic that will win. Logic says: what has thoroughly been demonstrated is that there is no military solution. That is true in the North. That is also true in the South, where we are confronting a whole people that has nothing to lose anymore. The success of the Lebanese guerilla will encourage the Palestinian guerilla. For logic to win, we must be honest with ourselves: pinpoint the failures, investigate their deeper causes, draw the proper conclusions. Some people want to prevent that at any price. President Bush declares vociferously that we have won the war. A glorious victory over the Evil Ones. Like his own victory in Iraq.

When a football team is able to choose the referee, it is no surprise if it is declared the winner." Uri Avnery " Best Wishes Will314159 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep another "mainstream" speech of a loony far-left Uri Avneri. Keep it coming. Your "knowledge" of Israel and Israeli Jewish society, based on cherry-picked far-left reports is indeed indicative. The Israeli right also thinks Israel has not won this round, but strangely enough, only the lefties' speeches are brought here to speak of it. Your discourse gives a deep smell of rejoicing at Israel's lack of success in answering the aggression. Given your shaky "knowledge" of us, it makes you just another "remote hater". But that's not new though. We've been there before, and long before. The entire fact we are here is because of people like you. We have a long memory, unlike you and you likes. But wait, you'll get your portion of Theo Van Gogh cases soon as well. Then we'll see who'll really rejoice. --Aleverde 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Environmental consequences
I question the relevance of including Amnesty International's concerns about the health detriment caused by depleted uranium. They seem poorly founded. The lead of normal bullets is just as toxic as uranium, and any residual radiation will be low enough to be insignificant, due to the fact that the uranium is depleted. Removal of this part would also help the length problem. TBSchemer 23:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read up on depleted uranium, starting with a short piece in Jane's: Depleted uranium: the health debate, and from there move on to The Guardian: Scientists urge shell clear-up to protect civilians. The health hazards surrounding DU-tipped shells are controversial. Politicians, the military and the manufacturers originally assured everybody that they were totally harmless to anyone except those hit by them (although US Army at the same time produced information videos warning its soldiers about the hazards when handling DU material, see ). However, slowly but surely there are more and more scientific reports that question this statement, linking the usage of DU weapons to Gulf War syndrome and the enormous increase in cancer cases among children in Iraq after the first Gulf War to DU weapons. This in turn has caused some of the initial supporters of DU-tipped shells to have second thoughts. Considering that DU-tipped shells have only been in use for 15 years, and that use has been rather limited compared to the use of conventional shells during the period, we should be careful to dismiss concerns about their possible environmental effects. Thomas Blomberg 01:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Airstirke in Eastern Lebanon: Hezbollah Stronghold
Reuters is reporting this; I've added it after ceasefire in result Hello32020 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Israeli media confirm, according to IDF. 2 special-operations humvees were landed in the are of Baalbek, IAF supported with fire. One officer was killed, two injured. Both IDF and Hezbollah claim success. Flayer 10:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3292974,00.html
 * http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752185.html
 * http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525902304&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

News
"Kidman condemns Hamas, Hezbollah":, not news, but still: Israel set war plan more than a year ago Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began increasing its military strength --Striver 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: --Striver 04:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This one is good: Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon. Note the source, the csmonitor. --Striver 04:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't know what your talking about (do you ever?). Any reasonable country has a plan of action in case of war with a possible enemy, it doesn't mean anything. The United States probably has a plan in case they go to War with Russia, it doesn't mean that they are planing to or they want to fight them, it just means they don't want to be caught off guard if relations go sour really fast. Israel had an enemy pointing thousands of missiles at its northern border that was launching raids every few months into its territory, it would have been both irresponsible and simply stupid if they didn't have an action plan for a possible wider conflict.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is enough to take a look at his user page to see what motivates him. Allek "Illuminati" with Magen David. I'd rather say that he eagerly awaits Mahdi to come, though not necessarily wants to stir up world chaos manually with dropping nukes on everyone who is not in a dhimmi state in the Middle East in order to hasten his return (like Ahmadinejad wants), but note that his user name is just an English translation of "Mujahid" مجاهد --Aleverde 12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stick to the topic, or exchange MSN if you want to bad mouth me. --Striver 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "topic" is just another conspiracy theory of a far-left, Islam-ignorant, cherry-picking journalist, on how the evil Israel was "anyway" planning some super duper attack, even before Hizballah's provocations. It is not even an frontpage article - it's an opinion section. And it is well known that Muslim mind is addicted to conspiracies - from Jews to the West and back to Jews (and I am not generalizing, just read the Arab/Iranian press). I could say in the same manner "Israeli incursions stem from Hizballah raids" and go back all the way to 2005 and 2000 kidnapping raids, to 1982 and from there to PLO shellings and so on. On your user page you are clearly alluding to the Jews as some worldwide conspiracy order, by the essence of your statements and declarations - your "Illuminati" with Magen David says it all. And how about "sons of pigs and apes" in some ancient book whose name I've just forgotten (oops)? Or "do not take Jews and Christians as awliya, they are only awliya to one another"? Talk about racism... So don't cry if you are get paid by the same coin. --Aleverde 09:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any admin reading this? --Striver 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any admin reading your saying that Israel is an "illegitimate" state (and that you support the stance of Iran, i.e. open threats to physically annihilate it), and your readiness to desecrate the memory of the Israeli dead by cursing them, is more than balancing here. See the apes thingy and the awliya thingy, and another one, and another one. And here's some juicy sahih hadith regarding Allah's policy with Jews. --Aleverde 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Aleverde, if you follow the link from the quarter with the Magen Dovid, you'll see that it is a freemasonary reference. Now while links between freemasons and Jews also go back to antiquity (as well as masons and about any group you care to disparage), the actual link is not directly directed against Jews. Striver is a self-announced Shia Muslim, so his political veiws are as obvious as your own, but we must try to interact civilly with one another. I know how you feel, I think I understand how he does. As a member of this community, however, all of us need to somehow quiet our own partisan feelings, no matter how right we believe we are, and agree to edit within the bounds of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether Striver is awaiting the last imam or not does not matter until he violates wiki guidelines, and the fact that it appears that you and I both are fervent belivers in the yud-gimel ikarim including #12, should be treated the same way. There will always be conspiracy theories, especially against Jews. That will not change in the near future. Articles must follow WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, user/ user talk pages may not be attack pages, and there are no allowances for personal attacks. In the future, it would be best to restrict arguments to article content and if you wish political debate, by all means, take it to e-mail or a political blog, not wikipedia. -- Avi 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know about freemasonry, and believe me, any freemasonry reference in the Muslim world is just an euphemism for Jews (much rarely for the West itself). I come from Eastern Europe where the same tendency prevails (aka "zhido-masonian conspiracy"). And that's why there is a thick allusion on that pic. Now Shi'a Islam is particularly hostile to the Jews (not Israelis or other stupid euphemism), so yes it is obvious. The main difference between me and Striver is that I am an atheist and do not believe in imposing my views on others (though I do retain my right to live in a nation-state, like any other nation), and he is a "mumin" that would like to see Islam dominating the whole world - a doubtful concept, I'd say. I personally would like to see the two-state solution, but for muminin like Striver that's unacceptable. You may read the Quran and the Hadith and see in clearly. Remember Khaibar? --Aleverde 18:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also understand why my sentiments are not good-looking here and look unencyclopedic. But, you see, I came to this page only for one matter: to debate about the politically-correct "capture" euphemism for Hizballah's abduction (and I think I have clearly proven that it is not a regular military capture). And what I see? A talk page flooded by politically-correct (and not factually-correct), and sometimes openly hostile comments with good portion of conspiracism, no consensus achieved on "captured" and still this stupid euphemism keeps on appearing; so yes, it is natural for me to react this way. Especially when there is more than one attempt to portrait Israel as an agressor in this clash, which is clearly not the case. I have been living under sirens over a month, and now I see people making up fantasies about how the Joos were planning some attack anyway! Now that's something that is pretty pissing off, isn't it? --Aleverde 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver, the same goes for you as well. You do realize that publicly making statements that are bound to infuriate large groups of wikipedians removes the ability for many to assume good faith. I understand how someone, reading that you believe Israel is an illegitante state, is bound to distrust most things you say. Your personal political beliefs (to which you are entitled) need to be kept in check when editing wikipedia, just as Alleverde's, MCHAS's, or my own need to be. We have policies and guidelines that need to be followed, of which WP:civility is a most important one. By all means, continue your political debate with whomever you cjoose, off wikipedia. Discussions here are for article content and not general debates. Thank you. -- Avi 18:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran is listed as an Arab country
Under Results of the War, somebody has listed Iran as an Arab country!! This kind of silliness lends little credibility to the article. Within the population of Iran, 3% of the people are Arab. In other words, it would be similar to stating that the USA is, first and foremost, a Chinese country. Andrew Riddles 10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As of 2005, overall Chinese investment in the US was close to $650 billion. 再见. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... thanks for that. I was talking about the population proportions within a country and how the article looks when wiki expertise lists Iran as an Arab country. Andrew Riddles 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Iran is not an Arab country. 80 percent of population are Iranian-speaking peoples (Persians, Kurds, Balochis). --Aleverde 12:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Iran is not an Arab country. Whenever simple errors such as these are spotted, it's best to rectify them on sight. MLA 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh allegation
Returning to Tewfik's post - archived after only 8 hours (Mr lorek85 sir, how is that helpful to the discussion? Some of us have lives and contribute less often than every hour!) :


 * How does the story change the timeline - do you/does he contend that it the conflict didn't start due to Hezbollah action? In any event, we don't include speculation, however famous its collector, as part of "what really happened," but just uncontroversial, widely reported facts. My repeated resistance stems from my concerns about the article's quality and size. Assuming that the passage still deserves a mention, it wouldn't be in the main article, but rather in the subarticles. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hersh article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact) is now fairly widely reported in western media, and warants inclusion. Tewfik, which subarticle would you not object to it being put in? Fig 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hersh article is an anti-Israeli conspiracy theory with no solid proofs whatsoever. But well, we already heard that Joos were behind 9/11 on Al-Manar, so why bother. --Aleverde 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aleverde the Neyyorker is not Al Manar. Please try to remain NPOV.--Burgas00 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say this, I said that this article is nothing more than another conspiracy theory. And such it is. Also there are clear examples of Western press that are not so different from al-Manar when it comes to Israel/Joos. Al-Guardian for example. --Aleverde 18:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Be it a consp theory or not is not the question. The stuff is widely reported as per Fig. -- Szvest 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course but as far as I understand he wants to change the timeline of the conflict according to it (i. e. the evil Israel was planning some super duper attack even before), not just report it - and that is wrong. --Aleverde 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aleverde, it is relevent to the timeline since it could represent preparations. Exactly where it goes, I'm not sure, which is why I asked Tewfik (who seems to object strongly) where he wouldnt object to it going. Keep your own hysteria ("Evil Israel", etc) to yourself, it isnt required here. Fig 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and I thought that hysteria is a trait of those who compose conspiracy theories. Anyway, it does not belong to the timeline bacause first, it is not proven in ANY way, and second, Hizballah officials themselves stated that they were planning the attack for 5 months. To remind you, consp theories are also not required here. --Aleverde 09:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aleverde, you obviously have a POV problem with this. There is a difference between investigative journalism and conspiracy theories; It seems that your problem is that anything that you dont like is labeled as "conspiracy theories". Strangely enough, that's what a lot of people said about the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib prison when Seymour Hersh exposed them aswell. Problem is, he is one of the best investigators in the world, and he turned out to be right in both cases - that is why he is a Pulitzer Prize winner, and why the story warrants inclusion. As I suggested to Tewfik, perhaps you should read those links and understand this. It's becoming perfectly obvious that both sides had been preparing for this confrontation for some time, waiting for a cue to trigger it. If that conflicts with your desired story for the course of events, then perhaps you should take a break from editing it until you come to terms with it. PS Hersh is Jewish and has no anti-Israeli agenda. Fig 10:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know who Seymour Hersh is. Winning a Pulitzer for exposing My Lai does not mean that the present article is an "investigative journalism", and not another lefty anti-Israeli hysteria with a clear flavor of conspiracy theory. Nothing is "perfectly obvious". Israel had more than enough "pretexts" to invade Lebanon since 2000, including the killing and kidnapping of 3 soldiers plus Tannenbaum, then foiled kidnapping attempt at Ghajar not a long ago. "Strangely enough", it preferred to sit behind the border for 6 years and let Hizballah arm itself with new long-range weapons. Also, you saying that Hersh is Jewish and has no anti-Israeli agenda is not correct at all. Homsky is Jewish too, but he is clearly a lefty self-hater exactly as Seymour Hersh is. Second, when Hersh brings us some valid (and not speculative) reference for his allegations, then we might deal with it and call it "exposure". Till now, NOTHING has been proved and NOTHING has been "exposed". It remains just that - an allegation, nothing more. On the other side, Hizballah openly said themselves that they have been planning that raid for a long time. You say: If that conflicts with your desired story for the course of events.... You see, I think that the true situation conflicts with YOUR desired story for the course of events, and that's why you want to push this unproven allegation into the timeline so desperately. You know nothing about what Israel establishment is and how it behaves; all you get from your lefty media is nothing more than a overblown pre-1967 image that has faded away long time ago. If you lived in Israel you'd know how lousy its political establishment is (that does not include army though), how irresponsible it is and how truly "Levantine" it is. It is so laughable when anti-Israeli guys try to present every conflict that Israel participates in as Israel's fault, even if the aggression was clearly done by another side! You are so desperate to "prove" it that you will push here anything that might support your point of view, be it Hersh's allegations or any other allegation. As long as it remains "allegation" it has no place in the timeline. Had Israel "prepared" properly for this war, the situation wouldn't look like it is now. --Aleverde 11:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aleverde, you've painted your opinions in primary colours there. Ranting about "lefty anti-Israeli hysteria" and "lefty self-hating" Jews shows us all where you are coming from. I see from your Talk-page you have a history of that kind of stuff, and much worse too, so you'll have to forgive me if I dont take you too seriously. Fig 14:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apart of you being unable to prove absolutely nothing about this allegation, there is nothing new here. Where do I come from? Well not from Southern US as you might think. I come from Northern Israel, my "serious" friend, and I know many things that you don't, first-hand. I was expieriencing fierce anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe since age of 3, when I even did not know what a "Jew" is, and then came here; so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your pathetic, lefty, conspiracist rants too seriously. Especially given the fact that you come from a country that has contributed greatly to Israel's creation - no, not by Balfour's declaration, but by refusing to bomb death camps and by closing its doors before Jewish refugees in WWII (the only refugees that the world has never carried about). Yes I have a chip on my shoulder against Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular, but then who are you to judge me from your comfortable ivory tower? --Aleverde 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Don't even pretend you know something on Jewish self-hatred. This topic is too complicated for someone who hasn't been there. Continue to feed on al-Guardian and al-Independent with regurgitated blood libels till you learn something real. --Aleverde 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Aleverde, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please keep cool, respect your fellow editors, and be civil.

Since you have arrived you have done nothing but help on the creation of a useless page which was deleted under snowball clause (and with overwhelming consensus to delete in the vote before it was snowballed) and insult and accuse other editors about a whole range of things, we have no reason to respect what you say, even people who agree with you.

So far, inspite of your racist attack against me, I have refrained, due to your self-admission at being new here, of raising any issues at the admin level. But if you continue with wholly unuseful personal attacks here, such tolerance will be tested. Please apologize and tone down your rhetoric. We are all smart people here, and all you are doing is coming across as a troll and diminishing the possibility of consensus. Please understand we can disagree without attacking each other. And of course, be bold and edit if you disagree with how the article. Just remember that in being bold we must also have in mind the five pillars of wikipedia.

Perhaps wikipedia is not the place for you, as your attitude and style proves very unpopular with editors regardless of POV.--Cerejota 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the only opposition now seems to be a rather irrational rant from Alverde, I have added the reference to the Hersh article at the end of the "Israel-Lebanon conflict" section of "Historical background". Fig 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporal Scope of Article
Now that the latest ceaserfire has been broken, we should consider moving the July-August portion of the conflict to a new article. Then we can have an article here summarizing the full scope of the 2006 portion of the conflict, from the April Tel Aviv bombing, to the May assassination, to the July raid and subsequent month long conflict, to the current late-August attacks, and whatever comes next. Otherwise, this article is confusing, is going to get too long, and the scope doesn't make a lot of sense. -- Kendrick7 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite the violations it appears to still be holding. And what April-May? ehudshapira 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the point -- shouldn't this article cover all of 2006? -- Kendrick7 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no. There were clashes since 2000, but nothing as big as this. This is definitely a matter that should stand separately. And I don't think there should be any mention of "previous six week ceasefire" -- any temporary calmness before was just one in a long series of ups and downs, i.e., nothing notable. How's the TA suicide bombing related? Also, I think the history section should be much more minimal, or even perhaps just a link to another article. ehudshapira 01:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, when you say "as big as this" you are talking about the July-August conflict right"? I agree it should be a separate article. Either way, the previous cease-fire should be in the lead to provide context for a reader who might not be aware that the July-August conflict is, like you say, just "one in a long series of ups and downs". -- Kendrick7 01:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that the Lebanese Daily Star newspaper is calling it the "July War". Have any other names emerged for it so far in the media? -- ChrisO 02:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article should be "Conflicts between Lebanon and Israel during 2006", but the specific conflict (which took place in 2006) between the Cross border raid in July and the ceasefire (if it holds) and the cessation of hostilities (if it doesn't). Smaller skirmishes can either have their own article, not be mentioned, or go somewhere else. The may ceasefire isn't really that notable, IMO, and it's mention in the history section is more than enough. Iorek85 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * so by what definition do we date the conflict to 12 July? Just by the Israeli response? -- Kendrick7 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the cross border raid by Hezbollah. It is what sparked the current conflict, and, as you say, the Israeli response. The may ceasfire isn't directly related, nor is the capture of that person in Gaza as some others have claimed. Iorek85 08:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * well, that's lame. -- Kendrick7 10:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The history of this conflict could be traced back at least a hundred years, but the scope of this article is just from the last initiation of hostilities. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

10 rockets fired in Southern Lebanon
The sources make it clear who the rockets were directed at when it says Israel did not respond to the attacks, it is possible they weren't intended to kill Israelis but it is obvious they were aimed at Israel's positions to send a signal to the world that they were still armed and capable of fighting Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never seen any source claim these were launched at Israeli troops. You are infering too much. -- Kendrick7 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support Kendrick7. Here's the relevant text verbatum:


 * About 10 rockets were fired inside southern Lebanon Tuesday, one day after the cease-fire went into effect between Israel and Hezbollah, the Israeli military reported. The rockets landed inside Lebanese territory, and Israeli forces will not respond to their firing, a military spokesman told CNN's Chris Lawrence.


 * The statement from Israel that they will not respond to their firing doesn't imply that the firing was aimed at IDF forces. It is NOT obvious from the text that they were aimed at Israel's position, this is speculation on your part unless you can provide verifiable sources or a different chain of reasoning.


 * 70.119.232.2 01:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replaced this with a source that is explict about who fired on whom, for ye of little faith. Isarig 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to the following FOX news story: []


 * Again, under the policy of fair use, here's the snippet of the relevant text: Highlighting the fragility of the peace, Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets that landed in southern Lebanon early Tuesday, the Israeli army said, adding that nobody was injured. The army said that none of the rockets, which were fired over a two-hour period, had crossed the border and so it had not responded.


 * This does not imply that rockets were fired at Israelis. You mentioned faith, perhaps if you clarified your faith (aka assumption), we'd have a more constructive dialog.


 * 70.119.232.2 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. Perhaps it was Hezbollah firing at themselves. Or at Martians recently disembarked from a UFO. Mustn't rule out that possibility. Isarig 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be absurd, the issue is whether or not Israelis were targeted or not and although we know from sources that Israelis weren't hurt by the firings, the issue still stands. Hezbollah may have been firing to intimidate IDF or to provoke IDF or they may have been firing for practice. However, I believe there should be a separation between what we can document from sources vs what we bring in as editorial content.70.119.232.2 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to be taken seriously as an editor, please don't insult our intelligence with the suggestion that, having just fired over 3,000 rockets into Israel, they needed to fire 10 more "for practice". That should be taken as seriously as my suggestion that they were firing at themselves. If they were firing "to intimidate IDF" it is a given they were firing at them. Not everythin gcan be documented from sources, for exmaple, the sources don't actually say these rockets had explosive warheads, but that does not mean we can pretend this event is anything other that what it quite simply was. Isarig 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, I realize you may have been there in northern Israel, forced to hide in a bunker at a sound of a siren and I know I can't never fully relate to that. However, I think my job here on Wikipedia is to capture the verifiable |verifiable information and not to editorialize. Let the broader community be a judge of whether or not this approach should be taken seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.232.2 (talk • contribs).


 * Its not as black and white as you make it, the sources give a clear indication of who Hezbollah was firing at and that Israel felt threatened by the action. Your argument is similar to saying we can't say event x occured in Germany because the source said that it happened in Munich.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What clear indication? You mean like actually saying that? That would be a good starting point for your argument, no? -- 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets just stick to verifiable information. Hezbollah launched rockets into S. Lebanon, and Israel did not respond (statement of rationale if necessary). What everybody's intentions are needn't be explicitly stated if they aren't reported, but that goes both ways. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel breaks cease fire

 * ''Hezbollah said its guerrillas foiled an Israeli commando raid early Saturday west of their stronghold of Baalbek deep inside Lebanon. Lebanese security officials could not confirm a report on Hezbollah TV that Israel launched airstrikes and commandos had been dropped off at a field west of Baalbek.
 * ''Hezbollah battles commandos as ceasefire violated

--Striver 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the first skirmish. There were several shootout incidents before. Also, Hizballah is breaking the ceasefire itself by continuing to smuggle Iranian weapons through Syria. Anyway, that incident will be inserted in the article by other editors. --Aleverde 11:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable source saying that H is smuggling weapons? // Liftarn
 * I had them falling on our head till recently. With ball bearings. I have no reasons to suggest that Hizballah is not trying to replenish its stockpiles, given their clear statements that they won't disarm. My sources are Israeli reports that rely on the intelligence, but anyway that's obvious that Hizballah won't report their smuggling to the Western media. You know, smuggling is supposed to be a secret operation. --Aleverde 11:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What would be original research and that's a no-no. // Liftarn


 * Well I do not research nothing, this narrative is present in all major Israeli newspapers (and by reports I mean the newspapers, not myself relying on some unnamed sourced in the intelligence bureaus). --Aleverde 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With reliable sources there would be another issue. You may ofcourse ask how reliable and neutral a source is in a country involved in the conflict, but with some caution it could be used. // Liftarn


 * That's why I am cautious - these are Israeli newspapers so this may be considered partisan. I am only warning that we must a wait a little bit till evidence mounts. I can give this opinion article and this editorial article from YNet (Yedioth Ahronoth English website). But again, let's just wait a little bit. --Aleverde 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It might sound unfair, and even be unfair, but our policies and practices suggest thay you recuse yourself from actively editing the article, if you have a strong interest in the conflict. Living in one of the warring countries generally warrants a particularly strong interest, so it would be extremely hard to stay neutral. If you really can write for the enemy and take a NPOV position, you're welcome, but in general it would be better to stay away from direct editing. Just leave it to people looking from aside, and, if they forget something, remind here, on the talk page. I hope you can implement this approach, so thanks in advance! --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I know it. My point was almost exclusively about the "capture" euphemism issue, and I also think I have proven it. I haven't been involved in any major edit here apart of this, only arguing. Also given the fact that most of the ouside world (excluding USA) is openly or covertly hostile to Israel, this policy becomes somewhat doubtful. --Aleverde 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly. About the "capture", it isn't an euphemism, but rather a military term; neutral "abduct" could be a compromise. But, about the policy, it's too fundamental, and it is considered to be non-negotiable - while NPOV policy can do some harm, it prevents much more. Easements to NPOV may be applied for low-conflict articles, like about details of a computer game setting, but major conflicts are exactly what that policy was designed for. Just imagine what would happen if people directly expressed their opinions. So, for article's sake, it's better that everyone keeps along with NPOV. --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to cover-up facts. It needs to be factually, not politically, correct. "Abduction" got removed more than one time, as well as "seizure"; moreover, it is not clear at all that "capture" was the choice of the consensus. Mustafa Dirani was indeed kidnapped by our commandos, though for a justified aim of retrieving info about Ron Arad, but it still was an abduction. This abduction is even more explicit - it is not for retrieving info and not for releasing POWs. Kuntar is not a POW, he is a convicted child murderer. Moreover, he hasn't been freed within the frames of the previous deal because Hizballah didn't fulfill its promise to provide info on Arad; so the raid was clearly set to create "new terms" for his release, and that is an explicit abduction. Also, it's hardly "major" conflict. It's "major" only because of outside interest and media coverage. There are much more major and much more tragic conflicts that are happening right as we speak, and no one is giving a sh!t about it - Darfur for example, or incessant Islamist assault in Algeria. --Aleverde 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mustafa is described as captured. So we should stay with one term for both. Remember, Wikipedia is not supposed to judge who's right and who's wrong, especially in such controversial situations. Both sides should be described as being possibly right or wrong, without assertion of either. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New yorker
What was aid in the new yorker? --Zonerocks 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean?  Tewfik Talk 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad spelling on my part. It says on the talk page that is article, was on the new yorker. So what did the new yorker say. --Zonerocks 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the New Yorker actually cited us, they just provided a link to this article on a online piece about the conflict.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * actually, i believe it was an article about wikipedia, which mentioned something about how much this article was being edited http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact -- Kendrick7 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the relevant quote: Because there are no physical limits on its size, Wikipedia can aspire to be all-inclusive. It is also perfectly configured to be current: there are detailed entries for each of the twelve finalists on this season’s “American Idol,” and the article on the “2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict” has been edited more than four thousand times since it was created, on July 12th, six hours after Hezbollah militants ignited the hostilities by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers.
 * I note the language, "kidnapping". Valtam  19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What they don't mention is that 90% of those 4,000 edits are edit wars. Number of edits is definitely no measure of quality. Thomas Blomberg 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the article discusses that later on. I learned that a guy got banned for using a sockpuppet to vandalize articles and then using his "main" login to fix them, thus driving up his edit totals!  The article's author is trying to tell New Yorker readers that people care enough about the article to edit it thousands of times in a few weeks...  Valtam  21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thomas you don't get it. Edit wars are what drive quality up, because they make bias unsustainable.--Cerejota 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and replace the header, if no one objects, to the media mention one, since this was not, in fact, linked by the New Yorker (as far as I could see) Iorek85 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S - anyone know the template I'm talking about? I can't find it! Iorek85 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed casualty figures?
I see that Tewfik has rather tiresomely deleted the updated casualty figures that I added to the article earlier today (I've restored them now). The figures appear to be the latest that are available. Furthermore, they come from an official Lebanese source, the state High Relief Committee. That may not be the only source but considering what the HRC is and does, it's certainly the most authoritative source. Deprecating that in favour of newspaper reports that are four or five days old is frankly bizarre. -- ChrisO 11:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect ChrisO, this has been discussed numerous times on this page. As long as the international media is publishing a wide range of numbers, there is no reason to take one (especially a partisan one, which also happens to be the highest by around a third). The Lebanese number of civilian casualties is acceptable, but alongside a lower press estimate. And while the number I inserted was 4 days old (which is not very old at all), it was the last number to specify "civilians," as opposed to general casualties. I hope you understand. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, pu-leze! An official government statement is *not* a partisan source. It is an official goverment source. Wikipedia has always erred on the side of State's figures, however questionable those figures are, and accepts State's judgement as reliable and verifiable.


 * For example, it accepts guilty veridicts from courts of law even when the innocence of the accused is widely held as being true. Now, one might agree or disagree, one might question. SO what we have to do is include the Lebanese goverment source, and if we get any reliable and verifiable sources questioning the official government figure, then we include that. It might be fishy that the figures are a third higher, but it might also mean that the press hasn't kept tally. This is precisely why OR is not allowed: there usually atre more than one plausible explanation for dispcrepancies in figures, and instead of going for consensus for one, we report the chatter of sources.--Cerejota 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, pu-leze; you seem to misunderstand me. I didn't say we should throw out the Lebanese Government number. I said that due to the wide range presented in the media, it should not be the definitive number, but merely the upper limit of the range. This has been our practice for much of the article's life. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just silly. Let's take a look at the sources that you use to justify having a "range". The Guardian citation is for an article of 4 August - ten full days before the ceasefire began . The AP story is from 14 August, the day of the ceasefire . The Daily Star citation is from 19 August, by which time relief and recovery operations had been underway for several days. If your citations were all from the same day, fair enough, but they're not. Your choice of sources seems quite arbitrary - if a source from 10 days before the ceasefire is viable, why not one from 20 days before, or 30 days? We should be using the latest official figures, not presenting a range of different figures given at different stages of the conflict. I have to say I'm also puzzled as to why you've taken this approach only with regard to Lebanese civilian casualties and not any of the other casualties... -- ChrisO 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to do the research right now, but the media has consistently published numbers significantly lower than the official Lebanese numbers. The media has not published a wide range (or any range as far as I've seen) on the Israeli numbers. I'm puzzled why suddenly the highest number is the most credible.  Tewfik Talk 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Should I point out that the highest number is the most recent, and that casualty figures tend to go up during wars? Also, it's not our job to determine which is the most "credible." The figure is the most recent, and it's from a government source; all we need to do is report it, not assess it. -- ChrisO 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated my point better than I have - it simply isn't our job to report credibility, which is why when the meanstream media publishes such a broad range of numbers, we cannot simply pick one of them as the most credible, even (or especially) if it comes from the Lebanese government. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

United Nations force, Israel, Malaysia and Indonesia
Malaysia and Indonesia has pledged a batallion each for the UN mission but Israel object. Should we add the fact here? __earth (Talk) 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Israeli editors would let it last long. Interesting fact, though. Got a reference? Iorek85 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that Malaysia and Indonesia have a lot of fighting going on between religions in their countries. Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf Group etc, Muslim militant groups that basically take over half the island. I would like to see a source though to see the reason given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zer0faults (talk • contribs).

If this is sourced it should be included somewhere (I'm not sure such a factoid should be in main article though - maybe ceasefire sub?).  Tewfik Talk 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Results of the conflict"
I think we need to change the section head "Results of the conflict", as this conflict is far from over yet. I agree that having the section is valid, but its head needs to be changed, as we're talking about initial reviews of the conflict after the ceasefire - so I'll change it to that. Thomas Blomberg 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This conflict as a whole is not over yet. --Aleverde 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New beginning: Lebanon Raid
Israel insists Lebanon Raid is justified. --KMCO 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * from Dagens Nyheter:
 * ''FN ser den attack som Israel genomförde mot ett Hizbollahfäste inne i Libanon på lördagen som ett brott mot den veckolånga vapenvilan, men Israel slår ifrån sig kritiken.
 * Translation: FN sees the Israeli attack on the Hizbolla forstress inside Libanon as a violation agianst the week long truce, but Israel rejects the critic. --Striver 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This piece of news was added to the article already on 19 August 2006 at 15:03 UTC. see the section head "Violations of current ceasefire". Thomas Blomberg 21:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just adding this to: Daily Show: Hezbollah is Rebuilding Lebanon..and New Orleans--Striver 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)