Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 28

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict → Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006) – Conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Naming_conventions and does not begin with a number … Please share your opinion at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Avi 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "# Support", "# Oppose", or "# Neutral" in the proper section followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~

Support

 * 1) Support Although I think I would prefer Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006, I think that there is what to be said for conforming to a standard, and one that is better than this date-first option. -- Avi 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Makes sense. Iorek85 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as it is better than the current title. I'd prefer Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006 as an encyclopaedic entry. zoney &#09827; talk 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I would also prefer Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006.  TheronJ 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006)--Paraphelion 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support it makes sense to do so. Hello32020 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose not good enough Doom777
 * 2) Strong Oppose. Google search for Israel-Lebanon Conflict 2006: http://www.google.com/search?q=Israel-Lebanon%20Conflict%202006 - about 3,720,000 results. Israel-Lebanon War 2006: http://www.google.com/search?q=Israel-Lebanon%20War%202006 - about 8,270,000 results. Clear enough? --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Everything in the Arab-Israeli conflict infobox is prefaced by the year. Hbdragon88 07:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The title 2006 Isreal-Lebanon conflict is perfectly acceptable. There is just no reason for the confusion of changing the title.Matt. P 08:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Suggested new name would suggest we're doing just a 2006's yearly update on coverage of an ongoing military conflict, which would not be precise. Current title is better in illustrating that the current 2006 conflict stands out of the ongoing skirmishes of past two, three years.--Oneliner 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - Doesn't really matter what way you name it, but if the Military WikiProject wants to do a War of YYYY format, then they should really get someone to fix all the Jewish/Arab Wars.  It's not confusing to alter it, but it is pretty amateurish to have it several different ways.  Retropunk 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments

I think it should be Israel-Hezbollah War (2006) or Israel-Lebanon War (2006) --Doom777 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that it should be Israel-Hezbollah War (2006) or Israel-Lebanon War (2006) because this conflict cannot be considered a war when the word war is used in its narrowest sense. A war is a "state of open and declared armed hostile conflict between states and nations." A nation cannot be at war with a group or non-state entity nor can a nation be at war with another nation that has not declared war. It is generally accepted that Lebanon was not a party to this conflict. The title in my view should be Israel-Hezbollah Conflict (2006). Edward Lalone 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename
Should this be renamed to Israel+Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict? This isn't a conflict with the Lebanese Government. It is with Hezbollah and both the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government are teamed up on this one. 203.158.32.23 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can provide some sources of more then just words being spouted, meaning action taken by Lebanon against Hezbollah, I think it would support your point better. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is so named because the fighting occured in Israel and Lebanon. Just like the 2001 war in Afghanistan is named after the place it occured rather than the faction it was against (the Taliban were seen as rebels and not the legitimate government,) this article is named for where it occured. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not teaming up with the lebanese government. That's BS. Article name is good as it is. --Zonerocks 16:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They have!!! Israel even took in some refugees for them. 203.217.83.31 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

New survey proposal regarding rename
The survey above is getting tricky because there are so many different choices, it's not clear what anyone is voting for. I propose the following survey.

Note that per WP:STRAW, we need to agree on the survey before we vote, so this survey proposal is for discussion purposes only and not for voting. Once we have consensus on a survey form, I'll post it and we can vote.

Survey proposal:

This survey is to assess community opinion about possible renames of this article. There are three separate issues about which to vote.


 * Issue 1 - Date placement Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:
 * 1) 2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict]
 * 2) [description of combatants] [description of conflict] of 2006
 * or
 * 3) [description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006)


 * Issue 2 - Description of Combatants Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:
 * 1) Israel-Lebanon [description of conflict]
 * 2) Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah [description of conflict]
 * or
 * 3) Israel-Hezbollah [description of conflict]


 * Issue 3 - Description of Conflict Please express support for only one of the following three options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:


 * 1) [description of combatants] conflict or
 * 2) [description of combatants] war

I know it's complex. Alternately, we could try running each one of those straw polls separately, one per week. Thoughts? TheronJ 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, let's run them simultaneously, but sectioned. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as per CP/M. Perhaps put it on a subpage, as I can see the discussion getting long! -- ChrisO 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Issue 1 really as important as Issues 2 and 3? I think the resolution of the latter two is a more difficult task...  Valtam  02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(This section appears to have been deleted by accident - I have added it back in. TheronJ 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

 Name it Most talked about war of 2006  ;) 203.217.83.31 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "war"
I see now that the Hebrew Wikipedia has renamed their article (belatedly, I think) to "the Second Lebanon War" and now with this as an encyclopedic (as opposed to journalistic, of which there are plenty) reference, I'm inclined to rename the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (i.e. beyond a conflict). So unless there are objections, I'll be implementing the move in the near future. Thanks. El_C 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/POV
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive22
 * Making Sense of the Bias, Bias in article
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive24
 * Damage inflicted on Lebanon
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive25
 * The map with the legend "Israeli Assault on Lebanon", Image for "Results of the conflict" section

Intro: Blaming Lebanon
The intro currently says "Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the attack..." which would suggest Israel went after Lebanon and not Hizballah. I think this is incorrect, and that the distinction is important. Are there any references to support that?

And perhaps the next paragraph should be phrased differently -- the attacks weren't arbitrarily on Lebanon but were aiming to achieve some goals. E.g., sea blockade to prevent Hizballah rearmament and transportation of the abducted soldiers, etc. ehudshapira 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the bomb targets. That should be plenty evidence in support MX44 14:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at Hezbollah's use of civilians as human shields. That is plenty of evidence to support Israeli Airstrikes against hezbollah, the fact that they dont really care who they put in harms way...Why would they care anyways, they're just giving these "civilians" the chance to bang 72 virgins in heaven right? unsigned user
 * The unsigned post indicates more than a mere bias. It indicates bigotry on the part of the poster. The fact that Hezbollah lives in southern Lebanon, works in southern Lebanon and have family and friends in southern Lebanon means that they will naturally be near and in population centers. This is true of IDF as well. The IDF has as much right to attack Lebanese cities to capture or kill members of Hezbollah as Hezbollah has to attack Israeli cities to capture or kill IDF soldiers. The POV that when Israeli soldiers go home to their cities they aren't using civilians as human shields but when Hezbollah goes home that they are using civilians as human shields should not be reflected on Wikipedia. Whether this is true or not is a POV and I am sure that Israeli's agree that it is but I am also sure that the family and friends of Hezbollah do not think it is true. Edward Lalone 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not reference. For e.g., I find the fact that the damage in Beirut is localized to a few blocks suggestive of focus. ehudshapira 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look here then: Jiyeh_power_station_oil_spill. That incident was very revealing of the Israeli mindset regarding their neighbours and who to bomb. MX44 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ehudshapira: The statement "Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for the attack..." is indisputable. Oh July 12, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions." Yes, the plain words of the Israeli Prime Minister do suggest that Israel went after Lebanon and not just Hezbollah. Sanguinalis 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Violation: Casus Belli
I have updated the casus belli to include the Lebanese version with appropriate citation to counteract the POV being expresed by those who are pro-Israel that Hezbollah started the conflict by crossing into Israel, kiling 8 soldiers and kidnapping two. Here is my addition: "Lebanon: IDF soldiers crossed into Lebanon and were captured by local Lebanese police, subsequently resulting in Israel attacking Lebanon." My current reference is a Forbes article by Joseph Panossian since one editor decided that a Bahrain news source isn't reliable enough and decided to revert my edit. I trust that anything other than an American or Israeli news source would not be considered reliable so I have chosen to go with the reliable because not once has this edit been changed without discussing it with me but several times. It's clear what the person's POV is and that they do not want anything posted that contradicts that view but it's important that Wikipedia does not reflect the narrow POV of a few editors. There is a world that is larger than the United States and while many editors may be Americans it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to promote our POV. Edward Lalone 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article you link to says this: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon..." Across the border. IronDuke  21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, "across the border", but it don't say in what direction. and it does say "in southern Lebanon", not "in northern Israel". // Liftarn


 * It really doesn't matter what it says, because it is from 07-12, and neither the AP, nor any other RS, have repeated this basic claim in the month+ since then. This is the original AP report to which we devoted so much discussion many weeks ago, and there is no reason to do it again. If you can find reference to this version in a current RS report, then we can discuss, but so far the "UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media, including Al Jazeera, have characterised the Hezbollah action as cross-border." Maybe we should make a list at the top of the Talk page listing the basic points that the consensus holds here. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that this article is not following the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

The facts as to the cause of the conflict are in dispute and I believe that the standard that applies here is Information Suppression, which states "In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability." I believe that this is taking place in this article specifically in respect to the cause of the conflict. If a reliable source disputes these reports and has provided evidence that refutes the claim it should be linked to but we should assume that the claim is based on factual evidence until it has been demonstrated to be false. I've decided to focus on this issue as a part of the Neutrality Project because I feel it is important enough to warrant attention. Edward Lalone 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Get back to reality mister Lalone. Even The statemets of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah contradict your claims. He admited exactly in what the Casus belli states. So, are you going to argue with your god? 18:19, 2 September 2006 (CET)


 * I am stating that there is information that is being suppressed which contradicts the claim that Hezbollah entered Israel and kidnapped the soldiers and that this is in violation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and does not allow people to draw their own conclusions based on all available information. Also, greater weight is being given to the current information even though it is an accepted historical methodology to rely on the proximity of the source to the event (that is the closer it is to the event the more valid the source) when determining the weight that should be given the source. There are many other criteria people use for forming their own judgments but they cannot form their own judgment if they do not have all available information because it has been suppressed. Secondary sources such as Wikipedia must maintain objectivity and not suppress information which contradicts othe proximate sources. I believe that your statement to the effect "So, are you are going to argue with your god" and telling me to "get back to reality" was totally unwarranted and inappropriate and also a violation of Wikipedia policy and isn't helping this discussion. However, this is not about your comment instead I disagree with your approach to this issue not because I agree with or disagree with the July 12th reports but instead believe that this information should be available on Wikipedia. The fact that current reports contradict previous reports can be given appropriate consideration by knowledgable and informed users (including yourself). There is nothing to be afraid of in listing as a contradiction these sources. Edward Lalone 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't understand a very simple thing. Both of the sides agreed on that point. We should put different sources if there is no agreement, but there is. Both Hezbollah and the rest of the sane world(you are more than invited to join it) agrees on that point. I am going to found a newspaper and write that USA was conquered by el-Quaeda. There are many people like you that want that to happen and will surely believe it, are you going to publish that in Wikipedia? This is ridiculous. Your source is so ridiculous that even the statements of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,the best representative of the other side, contradicts it. Wish me luch with the newspaper. 12:15, 3 September 2006 (CET)

The Issues
First, on July 12 Michael Hirsch writing for MSNBC wrote "After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the Mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war." Joseph Pannossian writing for AP states "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon..." . Both of these articles were written on July 12th. Both would later change their reports.

Second, according to Reuters the Israeli army "confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier". This reinforces the previous two reports and adds an additional issue that should be discussed. If the Israeli army did in fact confirm the report that the capture of the soldiers took place inside of Lebanon than the report by AP, and the other wire services which I will mention below is reinforced. Reuters actually reports that the Israeli's confirmed the report that the capture took place inside of Lebanon and not in Israel. In addition to AP and Reuters the Agence France Presse and the Deutsche Presse Agentur wire services confirm in their reports that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. That these wire services would have compiled their reports independent of each other re-inforces the validity of all four reports. That Reuters sought comment from and received confirmation of their story from the Israeli army does much to validate the original reports.

Tewfik has written "This is the original AP report to which we devoted so much discussion many weeks ago, and there is no reason to do it again." So if you do not wish to discuss the AP report we can discuss the Reuters, Agence France Presse or the Deutsche Presse Agentur reports. Yet my objection remains that this information is being suppressed in violation of the NPOV policy by "selectively citing some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it." He also attempts to make the point out that a consensus has been reached and has even suggested that we "should make a list at the top of the Talk page listing the basic points that the consensus holds here." It is not a consensus that we are attempting to reach as to fact. We are not discussing opinion or the point of views but actual important information that would help people understand this conflict and how those here with a POV (regardless if they make up a consensus) are suppressing that information so as to advance their POV. We all have point of views and therefore it is even more important that information that deals with something as important as the cause of the conflict is not suppressed. Edward Lalone 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, we can by all means include the claim if you can find a current source that makes them. All of the reports that you've cited are from the first week. No one is now making these claims. I understand your concern Edward, but I assure you that this is not an issue of POV. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is where we disagree. A historian 150 years from now will rely more on the reports of July 12th than on the reports of September 1st because it is an accepted historical methodology to rely on sources in proximity (in time and place) to the event than on sources that are removed from the event (in time and place). It may well be that other sources contradict the information reported by the wire services on the 12th of July but it is information that does exist and should be available. Even if the current reports are correct and the reports of July 12th are incorrect it is essential that the reports of July 12th are available to Wikipedia users (until proven irrefutably to be false) so that they can form their own judgment as to the validity and accuracy of all the sources.


 * How do we know that the current report is any more accurate than the reports of July 12th? We do not and that is why it is our duty to present these sources objectively. If someone were to read this article without any past knowledge they would automatically assume that the cause of the Israel Lebanon conflict was Hezbollah crossing into Israel and they will go away with that opinion never knowing that the reports of Reuters on September 1st are contradicted by the reports of Reuters on July 12th. They cannot ask themselves, "was Reuters report of July 12th inaccurate or are the current reports of Reuters inaccurate." They will be unwilling to research primary sources which either confirm or disprove the current reports or the previous reports.


 * We disagree because I do not accept secondary sources written days, months and years after the event as being more reliable than sources that are proximate to the event. So in short here is how I would judge the reports:


 * 1) a primary source (i.e., newspaper report) that was written the day of the event is more reliable than a primarcy source (i.e., newspaper report) the day after the event, or in subsequent days, months, years, decades or centuries,


 * 2) a primary source (i.e., tape, transcript, government document, etc) of the event made on the day of the event by the primary actors is more reliable than a primary source (i.e., newspaper report) of the event made by non-actors,


 * 3) a primary source (i.e., document, transcript, newspaper report, etc) is more reliable than a secondary account (i.e., Wikipedia) of the event,


 * In summary, the reports of September 1, 2006 are less reliable than the reports of July 12, 2006 and it would take another primary source that is of the same proximity (i.e., made on July 12, 2006) to the event to disprove the reports of July 12, 2006. The source would have to be a more reliable source than the primary source that they refute and of greater quality and quantity. A secondary source such as a newspaper report of these more reliable sources would be sufficient evidence to disprove the reliablity of previous reports. I would gladly accept your thesis that the current news reports are more correct than previous news reports if you could provide a report that proves or at least attempts to prove the claim that the original sources are inaccurate. In my opinion your view that the current reports of Reuters, AP and others are more reliable than reports by these same wire services on the 12th is irrational because it claims that these same wire services that were inaccurate and incorrect in your view in reporting the events are now reliable sources even though they are now further removed from the event. For me to trust these sources it would require that they have proven their previous reports to be false based on other primary sources. They cannot simply change their reports and ignore their previous reports. As I've already noted. I am not really interested in this issue except that I believe that it undermines Wikipedia's NPOV policy by suppressing information which contradicts information that you feel is reliable. I don't think it is appropriate that you and other editors get to decide what is and isn't reliable information and sources. That is best left to the reader. Now if the reports of July 12th are proven to be unreliable than I think it is totally appropriate to ignore them except as they relate to claims made. Edward Lalone 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are overlooking here is that the overwhelming majority of journalists, commentators, and diplomats who have written or spoken on this conflict agree that Hezbollah crossed the Israel-Lebanon border to capture the soldiers. The official UNIFIL report, dated 21 July 2006, also says this. Surely future historians will consider this a significant document! Keep in mind the WP:No original research policy: we are not allowed to present sources that we (in our research) think are important to advance a position that is not widely accepted. If it was the case that the government of Lebanon or Hezbollah was maintaining this version of events you would be justified, but that is not the case. Use some common sense: Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora has repeatedly denounced Israel's retaliation for the kidnappings, calling it "agression" and begging the UN to stop it. The claim that the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were not in Israel at all, but actually participating on a raid inside Lebanese territory, would, if accepted, strengthen Siniora's case considerably. Yet Prime Minister Siniora has never made that claim. Why? Consider also Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's widely publicized statement of regret for the capture of the soldiers. If Hezbollah was simply taking prisoner soldiers who were invading Lebanon what is there to "regret"? Sanguinalis 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to base your assumptions on "the overwhelming majority of journalists, commentators, and diplomats who have written or spoken on this conflict" and their agreement that Hezbollah crossed the Israel-Lebanon border to capture the soldiers. Yet, the majority of journalists and commentators on July 12th said the exact opposite so your decision to rely heavily on their agreement is undermined. This isn't original research and if it were original research than this entire article would be based on original research and therefore the entire article would be a violation of Wikipedia policy but since it is not original research to cite sources that provide information important to this article and to adhere to what those sources say this article and these sources are not in violation of the no original research.


 * The violation is in the NPOV policy, and specifically in the Information Suppression policy. You commented, "The claim that the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were not in Israel at all, but actually participating on a raid inside Lebanese territory, would, if accepted, strengthen Siniora's case considerably. Yet Prime Minister Siniora has never made that claim. Why?" As I am not Siniora and cannot read minds I will set aside your attempt to imply that a lack of someone saying something somehow supports your position that important information should be suppressed. I have no idea why Siniora's government temporarily supported the claim that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon and when that no longer served their purpose reverse course and settle for appeasement. It's entirely possible the information was inaccurate or false and the Lebanese government knew that and that is why they decided not to pursue that route but whatever their reason the information that was available on July 12th conflicts with the information used in this article and Wikipedia users have a right to have that information made available to them. Even when writing an article like this one it is important to keep in mind that incorrect, or false that played an instrumental part in the early part of this conflict should be noted and referenced. On July 12th a lot of what took place was based on this information and not on the information that the soldiers were captured in Israel and would have affected the decisions made by all interested parties. That alone warrants attention. I see no legitimate reason to suppress this information. I do agree that conclusions should not be drawn in this article from this information because I believe that is best left to the Wikipedia user. Edward Lalone 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * An important point: The initial reports that the soldiers were "captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border", according to the July 12 wire service reports you love to quote, came from Lebanese police, not the national government of Lebanon. So, Siniora's government never made the claim. My point about Siniora is that it is wrong to represent the claim that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon as the "Lebanese version of the cause of the conflict" (as you did in this edit). The fact that multiple wire service stories from July 12 say the soldiers were captured in Lebanon indicates nothing more than that they all used the same (faulty) source of information, the Lebanese police. The (marginally important) fact that initial news reports of the capture placed it in Lebanon is available in Wikipedia (in the Zar'it-Shtula incident article). I don't have a problem with the July 12 reports being made available somewhere, what I disagree with is the way you are going about this, putting the claim about the Israeli soldiers being in Lebanon right in the lead of this article, implying that there is a serious dispute on this point, when in fact there isn't. Sanguinalis 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't understand a very simple thing. Both of the sides agreed on that point. We should put different sources if there is no agreement, but there is. Both Hezbollah and the rest of the sane world(you are more than invited to join it) agrees on that point. I am going to found a newspaper and write that USA was conquered by el-Quaeda. There are many people like you that want that to happen and will surely believe it, are you going to publish that in Wikipedia? This is ridiculous. Your source is so ridiculous that even the statements of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,the best representative of the other side, contradicts it. Wish me luch with the newspaper. 12:15, 3 September 2006 (CET)


 * Your comments are both offensive and inappropriate. Based on such comments I can only conclude that the real motivation behind suppressing this information has to do with an un-willingness to dis-associate from the issue long enough to consider all available information and Wikipedia policy. This information is clearly being suppressed and it is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy. This information is as reliable as the information this article uses to conclude that the soldiers were captured in Israel and not in Lebanon.


 * If there is information from a reliable source that disagrees with the information you choose to use it is in my view unethical to suppress that information no matter how ridiculous it may seem. This information is not from a un-reliable source but is taken from primary source documents and therefore every Wikipedia user deserves to have the information available to them. So at minimum a link should be given to one of these articles that contradicts the information that is commonly being referenced here. This could be in the bibliography but as I consider whether a source is reliable (including Wikipedia) I ask myself whether it suppresses information that contradicts or counters the information that is used by that source.


 * Let's use another example. Let's assume you are reading a book and as you are reading the book you come across information that supports the position that the book is taking but as you read on you cannot find any citation to information or books which contradict the information being used but you know that such information exists as you have read enough books on the subject to know that there is information that does contradict the information the author is using. What would you think of the reliability of that book? I personally would pick it up and throw it in the trash and that is about where I am at with this article. I am about to pick it up and throw it in the trash because in my eyes the suppression of information that contradicts the information in this article that forms the basis of the article is not being fairly presented.


 * Your comment about starting a newspaper and writing that al-Qaeda defeated the United States goes to show just how unreasonable you are being. Either you accept Reuters, AP, and the other wire services as reliable sources or you must conclude that the majority of what we read in newspapers is unreliable and the basis of this article which comes from such sources is unreliable. Either way it is important that Wikipedia users have this information available to them to make their own conclusions based on all available information. I am not arguing that any source that contradicts other sources should be included here but that when the source that is being used contradicts itself that the information should be included.


 * I want to thank you all for your comments and clarify that I cannot see any real reason to not include this information in this article (either in the body or the bibliography). Edward Lalone 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response has nothing to do with my message. Read it again, Take some logics lessons because I can notice some connection problems and stop drinking(Oops, that's forbidden).


 * Let's be clear that my comments here are not responses to your messages because this is not a message board. If you wish to debate the pros and cons of the issues you can find a forum more suitable for doing so. My comments are based on the nature of this forum which is to discuss the article and Wikipedia policy as it relates to this article and that is why I have chosen to ignore the points made by you and others which are not relevent to the core issue here which is that suppressing information because it is regarded as inaccurate is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I will continue to focus on this core issue in all the comments (not responses) I make here. I am not debating nor do I intend to debate the accuracy of this information as that is irrelevent to the policies in question. The policy clearly states that we are to report information from reliable primary and secondary sources without consideration to accuracy (as opposed to verifiability which is the standard). You may want to put me on the defensive where I only post responses to your comments because that would allow you to divert the flow of the discussion away from policy to the factual accuracy of the information when Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to determine accuracy of information. We let the readers make that decision. Edward Lalone 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edward Lalone, you are welcome to add the position that the raid took place in Lebanon just as soon as you can source it. As of now, there is not a single reliable source that makes this claim, nor do any of the parties involved make this claim. No one (except for on this Talk) makes this claim. Mistakes are always made in reporting news, especially in initial reports that lack clarity. The position that the initial reports from this conflict should be presented as an alternative claim as to what happened is original research, since again, no one claims that these sources were subsequently covered up or any such idea. Again, if an RS actually put forward this argument, then we might include it with the proper weight, but no one does so. I hope I was able to clarify this for you. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, Wikipedia’s policy governing No Original Research does not apply here as the policy states that “research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.” The Reuters, AP and other reports of July 12th are primary sources and it is appropriate to collect and organize this information and to provide it to Wikipedia’s users in its raw form. If you disagree with the form that is used to disseminate the information you should provide suggestions as to how you would adequately include this information while ensuring that the information remains POV neutral.


 * I have sought to do this on several occasions and my edits are reverted notwithstanding their POV neutrality. I am cognizant of the fact that this information can be used to develop a point of view yet Wikipedia policy clearly states that we are to “report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.” This is consistent with the information suppression policy.


 * We can all agree that both Reuters and AP fall within Wikipedia’s scope of reliable sources and therefore we are to report what they have published. I have chosen not to include any “generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this information” as the secondary sources available to me do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia’s reliable source policy and my own opinions, analyses, and interpretations would constitute original research.


 * That my opinion is that this information is not accurate constitutes original research and until I am able to include a secondary source to that effect I am required as much as you to refrain from including my opinion and analysis in the article and from suppressing the information. If you have a reliable secondary source that directly refutes the information reported by Reuters and AP on July 12th you should feel free to add it to the article because it would greatly benefit Wikipedia’s users to have current secondary sources that analyze the July 12th reports.


 * We would all benefit from not having to have this debate every few weeks simply by acknowledging the existence of the reports and to make it clear that we do not look favorably upon inserting POV into the article. I will continue to maintain my stand on this issue because Wikipedia policy is being violated as far as I am concerned in suppressing this information because it is regarded as inaccurate or not current even though Wikipedia does not allow for suppression of information that is published by reliable sources based on our belief that it is inaccurate. Edward Lalone 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with his response. Can you please do us all a favor and go to pray?


 * I'm talking about Wikipedia policy and that is what I will continue to talk about. That he attempts to make a point about no original research when that standard does not apply is what I chose to focus on because the issue is that the Information Suppression policy has consistently been violated in respect to this information. As for my prayer habits they are my concern and not yours. I will not discuss or respond to issues that are not relevent to the core issue being discussed including prayer. Such comments are both inappropriate and irrelevent and a violation of Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously whoever made the prayer comment was out of line, but that doesn't change the issue. You are trying to insert the obviously mistaken initial reports, and which all subsequent reports from the same organisations have contradicted, and not even acknowledged. No one claims that these reports are accurate. Not Hezbollah, not the government of Lebanon, not the UN, and most importantly in this regard - not the media, including the organisations that originally reported them. The only context in which they are relevant would be to illustrate the media's confusion in the very beginning, however that is hardly something unique to this event, and while mention was made in the past, it was removed due to space constraints and a lack of relevance. The reason that most editors who have tried to insert it to this point has been to to imply the argument that it is not clear where the raid happened - this is totally contradicted by all verifiable sources, and thus constitutes a degree of original research. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there have been no peace between Israel and Lebanon so there has been a low intensity warfare going on for may years. // Liftarn

Why you can't pinpoint when the conflict started
Is the logic that Hisbollah started it because they "hit back first"? Does wikipedia have some sort of goodlike ability to see that there were absolutely no other preseding event?

Why is kidnapping of the two Palestininans been disqualified as a starting event? Or any other atrocity that has been committed since 5 decades back?

Maby you can use your "special powers" to finally answer the question, which was first the hen or the egg. I will look forward to the results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.250.213.2 (talk • contribs).

Because we aren't discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather a specific event, which was immediately prompted by Hezbollah's raid. Others can feel free to expand if it becomes necessary... (my mouth is dry).  Tewfik Talk 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV ceasefire
This is not written in a NPOV way. It should be rewritten. Thank you. 203.217.83.31 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with it? Iorek85 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Iorek85, the article looks fine to me. I might suggest, however, that the tile is pro-Israel. I cite the recent title change to "Post-ceasefire conflict." This title implies that there was a conflict, (of an undefined nature), following the cease-fire. It fails to imform that the primary conflict was caused by Israel breaching the cease-fire. Again, my complaint refers to the title, not the article. Bridarshy 07:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstand you, but how was the pre-ceasefire conflict caused by Israel's breach of the ceasefire?  Tewfik Talk 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, you are right, you were not misunderstood. I am wrong for using the word "precede". I should have said "folllowing". (I have edited my old entry.) Precede, of course, has the opposite meaning of following. I apologize for the confusion. Bridarshy 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I should probably have seen that

. In any event, there were actions on both sides, and at least the US's stated intention in the resolution's drafting wouldn't support the contention that the Israeli action was a violation, hence the neutral heading. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Anti-Israel biasness. Problems: The real criteria for military victory: 1. "Possession" of the field of battle 2. casualties as a percentage of troops of each army. 3. Damage to military and economic assets as a percentage of total assets. In these 3 areas, Israel was clearly more successful. User: Jaywhite 06 Sept 3,2006
 * Picking Israel's color blue for the template.
 * Picking a photo of Israel attacking Hezbollah. Clear NPOV voilation. How about something more peaceful like this photo
 * This article pays no attention to Hezbollah's propaganda war. It should also be in the template.
 * This article is a regurgitation of the NY Times/Reuters/CNN biased reporting. I have multiple references of expert military analysts who ,correctly IMHO, believe Hezbollah was no more successful than previous Arab combatants against Israel.Olmert's ridiculous goal of gaining the freedom of 2 kidnapped soldiers was just a political statement by a craven politician.

Please feel free to add some more points. Thank you. 203.217.83.31 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if 1 and 2 are even serious. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Israel biasness. Problems: Please feel free to add some more points. Thank you. (But seriously, there are no major issues with this article as far as I can tell.) // Liftarn 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Initial reviews of the conflict after the ceasefire" mentions nothing of the boost of pro-Hezbollah opinions.
 * "Targets in civilian areas" says that Israel only targeted "mostly empty residential buildings".
 * under "Hezbollah action" it says "Hezbollah has fired rockets indiscriminately", but under "Targets in civilian areas" is says (quoted) "we focused on Israel[i] military bases and we didn’t attack any settlement". Ok, you might say it was indiscriminately since there is no guidance system on their rockets.

--- I just added a sentence in the "initial reviews" section pointing out that israel did not accomplish the goals stated by Olmert at the beginning of the conflict. I hope this is not seen as POV... it has been widely acknowledged in both the international and israeli press, and I think it may be more reasonable to assess "who lost" rather than "who won" in this conflict.

Please try to note that an article can have statements in it that show bias towards either side. One section may state as face items contradicted in another section for instance. Having it 50% statements biased to Isreal, and 50% of statements biased against, does not make a 'Balanced and Neutral Article'. Each item that may be biased should be adressed on a unique basis, ignorant of any 'balencing' bias also in the article.

There may be confusion that giving 'equal time' to the different points of view is the same as presenting a ballenced view. This is not correct, and we should report POV with due weight, not represent POV. --Barberio 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a real problem, but some editors remove every edit that tries to fix this. If you don't agree with me, try fixing the problems you've mentioned. Good luck. :-) --Hossein.ir 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article lacks some events which were all over the news media, events which surely stay in history as part of this war - for instance the Qana bombing and the bombing of 4 UN observers. NPOV does not mean everyone has to like the article. The article should cover all events as they were, and do so in a neutral language. That gives rise to true NPOV. Then, if someone has a problem with the article, it is because of the article violating their own bias or expectations of (non-objective) truth. --Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.195.92 (talk • contribs).


 * If you read carefully, you will see that these events have been dealt with in their appropriate levels of detail, and/or expanded in the subarticles.  Tewfik Talk 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of Hezbollah operation
I found the Hebrew name of "Operation Just Reward" in Archive 1: - שכר הולם. Is there a name in Arabic for the Hezbollah operation, "Operation Truthful Promise"?Vints 15:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * عملية الوعد الصادق, as you can see from this al-Jazeera article and this article on the Arabic wikipedia. Palmiro | Talk 11:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
I think that in order to keep this article neutral it is necessary to remove the opinions of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which are clearly anti-Israel organizations - Check out their wikipedia articles. It is fine to keep their statements but to change them as statements that were made by Hizballah speakers-They made very close statements.
 * Agreed. AI and HRW have been quite quick to judge democracies when they do something wrong, or reported to be wrong while giving non-democracies the benefit of the doubt.
 * My biggest concern is that organizations like AI and HRW will be defining a new policy that will allow countries to use proxies to commit war crimes, but escape responsiblity. Countries that use uniformed troops that are clearly identified will be espected to follow the rules to the letter (and be condemmed if they don't) while organizations controlled by countries that are not identified and hide behind civilians will be allowed to use whatever methods it deems necessary. user:mnw2000 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral does not mean "without criticism". You'll note that both HRW and Amnesty, two very large, very important, Human Rights NGOs, criticise both Hezbollah AND Israel. They are considerably notable. Just because YOU don't like their criticism, is no reason to remove it. Iorek85 23:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Their criticism is only supported by Hizballah speakers. The criticism can stay but it should be written as criticism by Hizballah or at least as critism by Lebanon. Check the "neutrality" of those organizations in their wikipedia articles. They are nothing but supporters of terror under cover of peaceful human rights organizations. 09:29, 27 August 2006 (CET)
 * This is hard to take seriously. What is the evidence that Amnesty International and HRW reports are written by Hezbollah or the Lebanese goverenment? Sanguinalis 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is ridiculous - while these groups have many critics from many POVs, we have no reason to discredit them, and certainly not here of all places.  Tewfik Talk 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. You are right, they still have some credit, but don't worry, someday, in the near future, it will be over for them.

10:13, 28 August 2006 (CET)
 * Maybe you want to read this article by Alan Dershowitz - before you take everything that HRW says at face value. Cymruisrael 09:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If AI and HRW do not treat a conflict in a neutral way, their opinons cannot be included in the article unless the organizations' non-neutrality is highlighted. If there is significant doubt about the opinions of an organization regarding a conflict, if the opinions are included in an article, they should be labeled as 'non-neutral' until the doubt is cleared up. Valtam  17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any honest brokers out there anymore? You have to admit that democratic governmeents are being held to a higher standard than non-democratic instituations by these so-called non-political organizations? This, by itself, is unfair and shows the bias One example is the way AI and HRW treats executions. An execution in the US is protested regularly and loudly as a vile abuse of human rights while an execution committed on the streets of Gaza bearly gets a complaint. Is a life in the US worth more than a life in the Gaza Strip? In the US, executions only take place after years or appeals while an execution in other parts of the world are done without even a trial. The same thing is true of the way AI and HRW treats prisons and prisioners in the US and Israel compared to the numerous prision camps in the rest of the world. I really wish AI and HRW were non-political so we could take their reports and comments as facts, but whatever is said by these organizations should be taken as opinions, no more or no less of value than an opposing opinion. (P.S. Remember the reports of the humane treatment of prisioners reported by the Red Cross during World War II?) user:mnw2000 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

re: United Nations forces, Indonesia, Malaysia and Israel
I refer to the archived United Nations forces, Indonesia, Malaysia and Israel, sources are AP at Yahoo!, Malaysian national news agency, AP at MSNBC and WaPo. We definitely should include the planned UN forces here which would include the French sending only 200 troops and Israeli objection to initial composition of the forces. __earth (Talk) 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That article says Israel wants Muslim peackeeping forces, not doesn't want them. The makeup of the peacekeeping force should be in a separate article with the title of the force. Iorek85 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It says Israel wants Muslim states that recognize Israel, not just Muslim states. Malaysian and Indonesia do not recognize Israel. Hence, the Israeli objection to Malaysian and Indonesian peacekeeping force. You should really read all of the four articles. __earth (Talk) 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but thats not anti muslim, thats anti-people-who-think-Israel-shouldn't-exist. Do you really expect them to want a peacekeeping force made up of countries that want them wiped off the map? Iorek85 05:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who says its anti-Muslim? And really, this is about collecting facts, not political discussion, whether it's pro-Israel or pro-Lebanon. Just like what's written in WP:NOT, Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Chill out dude. Perhaps, the next time you reply, you should read what I've written down properly twice. This is the second time in a row that you misunderstood what was written. __earth (Talk) 06:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you - I wasn't. And no, you didn't say it was anti Muslim (I assumed that and shouldn't have). As for the political discussion, you're right, its irrelevant, but I never said it was. (though it's inclusion would likely result in removal from pro Israeli editors claiming anti Israeli bias). I've already stated what I think we should do with the information. Iorek85 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How can Israel work with troops from a country that it does not have relations with? The resolution requires the forces to coordinate with Lebanon and Isreal. Maybe the countries that want to be part of the peacekeeping force should be required to recognized Israel (short of full diplomatic recognition). After all, if these countries don't even recognize Israel's right to exist, how can they be expected to protect a country (and its people) that they don't even recognize exist? user:mnw2000 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you believe that the UN forces are primarily put in place to protect Israel? MX44 15:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they were put in order to supervise Hizballah that was constantly attacking Israel without reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.228.116.72 (talk • contribs).

Infobox
Why is Lebanon now in the same category of combatants as Hizbollah? Nwe 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh, again (yes, YOU, Tewfik)
I go away on holiday for a few days and find that this item, much discussed on the talk page, has been removed by - surprise-surprise - Tewfik. Tewfik suggested it should go in a sub-article, I asked him where he thought would be a good place and at that point he bailed out of the debate. 2 days later, after no substantiated objections (except some offensive ranting from a poster called aleverde), I put in 2 lines in the "Historical background" section. This has been deleted for apparently overburdening an "overcrowded" article. This is a joke of a reason. Tewfik, come up with something better or I will edit it back in, because it is clearly a relevent piece of information. Fig 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is no 'joke of a reason.' That Hersh said what he said is fine, but looking at all the more notable pieces of information not included in this article, there is no reason that this denied accusation, which is hardly widely discussed, and which doesn't actually change the timeline, should be included. I said that if it even warrants inclusion, it should be elsewhere. 'Where' I'm not sure of, though if you believe it belongs in the timeline, we can discuss its merits for inclusion there. It is not 'clearly relevant,' though.  Tewfik Talk 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a joke: the large size of wiki pages is a reason for their re-structuring, but should never be a reason for the non-inclusion of relevant information. Your purported concern for the remaining disk-space of wikimedia is noted, but is ultimately irrelevant. To actually delete relevant information because of article size is totally contrary to the principle of wiki. I find it astonishing that you can say that advance preparations for an event are not relevant to the background of that event. You seem like a smart editor, so I can only assume that such an illogical position is deliberate; i.e. you are being disingenuous, presumably because you don't want the many wiki readers to see that information for some odd reason.


 * You say that it is "hardly widely discussed", which is clearly rubbish. In fact it has been carried by much of the major broadsheet media in the UK, which I use as example of major western nations: e.g. the BBC, Independent, Guardian, Financial Times


 * You have in the past said that the information shouldn't be included because it has been denied; this is one of the more stupid things I have ever seen posted as a reason. If everything that was denied by someone was removed from wiki it would be a quiet place!


 * You have in the past said that the information shouldn't be included because the reliability or stature of the source is irrelevant. But that just shows that you have no clue about Investigative Intelligence, Journalism, or indeed Science, all of which are built on the reputations of the protagonists. It is as if Joe the butcher's opinion on Quantum Physics counted as much as Einstein's!


 * And finally - and perhaps more tellingly - you have objected because you think that the information seeks to shift the casus-belli to Israel from Hizbollah. This too is nonsense: it is perfectly obvious that the current conflict was initiated by Hizbollah. Advance preparations by either side (which is obvious they did) is irrelevant in that. The UK prepared for war with Hitler for 5 years in the 30's...does that change the fact that Hitler "started" WWII? Of course not.


 * Now why don't you be constructive with where the information should go instead of being obstructive? The problem with the numerous Timeline articles (apart from the fact that they are illogically broken up and not intuitive, IMO) is that they all start, deliberately, in July and are day-based. This is not conducive to background information. One better option would be to put it in say here perhaps as a new section, but better IMO is to put it at the end of here. Fig 23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that theory is supported not by all those news outlets you list, but one man, and only one man. However, he does have significant statuture in the journalism community. I'm confused though; if you argue what he is saying only said that Israel was preparing for war "Advance preparations by either side (which is obvious they did) is irrelevant in that" then why is it notable? Overall, I'm for a short couple of sentences staying somewhere. Iorek85 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Iorek, that sentance you quote is regarding the accusation that I am seeking to "shift the blame for starting the war" to Israel, which I am not. The information is notable because it indicates that there was always the likelihood that the conflict would escalate rapidly, and that neither side was simply "reacting to events", but rather, actively driving them. I'm glad you agree that it should be included, somewhere.Fig 08:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are pretty much my basic objections in far more concise and efficient phrasing (

). Just to reiterate, I think there may be a place for a few short lines, though I'm not sure that a claim with the issues listed above should really even be afforded that much, despite its author's notability.  Tewfik Talk 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear here, the original edit was a few short lines - 2 sentances and 71 words in an article of 8947 words! I'm glad you also agree it can be included. But please be helpful determining where; dont say it should be included and then reject every position suggested - such obstructionism would be obvious and clearly POV.Fig 08:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear above: I was saying that space-wise there is room for a few short lines (though I don't think that that room is in the main article), though content-wise, a claim that is only made by one person, and which is not in and of itself notable except if it suggests the Timeline isn't as it appears, might not warrant inclusion. What do I mean? You seem to tie its notability to "it indicates that there was always the likelihood that the conflict would escalate rapidly, and that neither side was simply "reacting to events", but rather, actively driving them." You see, if that only means that there was advance preparation for a conflict, then it isn't notable and shouldn't be included (at least on the main article), if it is challenging the timeline, then it is a lone claim that also shouldn't be included.  Tewfik Talk 15:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, will you just stop wriggling for a while and suggest somewhere that you wouldnt object to it going... Fig 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm 'wriggling,' as I'm trying to be as clear as possible. I don't think it should go in the main article due to the issues discussed above. If you think it should go into the Timeline or some other subarticle I would be willing to discuss that, but I don't think it would deserve very much space even there.  Tewfik Talk 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, the logical place would be in one of the timeline articles, but they way they are structured only allows daily entries, which wouldnt be appropriate. Since you object to it going in the main article, I think the best compromise is that I put the same text as before (71 whole words!) under the sub-heading "Alleged Preparations" in the "Israel" section of Military_operations_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. Your opinion of that, and the opinion of other editors is welcome. Fig 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections in 2 days, I have inserted the edits as indicated above. Fig 08:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kidnap Capture debate (outside WP)
The Parry source does not engage in this debate, but merely puts kidnaping in quotation marks once. The Chomsky source does discuss this point, but that is hardly evidence of a widespread debate, which is what the section you keep adding claims exists. While I appreciate that you provided sources, the passage is still unsourced OR that reads more like a summary of the Talk on this page than any external debate (which was noted by Rangeley), and this single source is no reason to keep it. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just saw what you removed; completely agree. It's not really relevent to the conflict anyway. Iorek85 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I just want to make sure that the IP adding this passage is aware of the Three-revert rule.  Tewfik Talk 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Four way infobox?!
How on earth was the U.N a combatant? Should was add the nationalities of all the international people killed as combatants, too? If you didn't fight back, you aren't a combatant. The current box makes it look like the U.N was involved in the fighting, which it plainly wasn't. Iorek85 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, we talked about this already. It has to be a two way. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * two way is a good idea, but Lebanon should be with Hezbollah in the infobox. They're part of Lebanon's governments.
 * Hossein.ir


 * Hezbollah are not the Lebanese government - they have a couple of seats in parliament. The provide services independent of the government, and are a separate organisation. I don't think they should be included as Lebanon. Iorek85 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "they have a couple of seats in parliament" and more. You answered yourself. --Hossein.ir 09:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make them the Lebanese government - it makes them a small part of it. They are the minority in the house. Iorek85 10:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. They were minority some day, but now they're are somhow majority, in population, and politics also. See this picture. They have some ministers.--Hossein.ir 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

At what point do we move past these contradictory "estimates"?
It's been a week, now. At what point do we stop using these varying "estimates" from the tourism minister, etc., and start using Israel's confirmed Hezbollah headcount? At what point should these "estimates" be disregarded for statistical purposes, given the IDF is also releasing confirmed kill counts? Thanks, Italiavivi 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The IDF has one list of confirmed kill - actual names of combatants killed, obtained when they have the actual body. In addition, there is an estimate of Hezbollah fighters killed, whose identity is unknown - such as thoe killed when in air attacks on areas not in IDF hands. These lists are not contradictory nor are they mutaully exclusive. they are not "estimates from the tourism minister", but IDF estimates published by WP:RS. There is no reason not to use them in the article. I remind you that WP policy is verifiability, not truth. If you are the anon editor 206.255.1.73 - sign in before editing. Isarig 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet the IDF is not the only government entity releasing "estimates." So long as Israel's government allows both its ministers and its military to make "estimates," all such estimates should be included (if they are to be included at all). Using only the highest of such estimates is irresponsible, in addition to looking quite POV. Italiavivi 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it up. First of all, you were the one who insisted we use IDF esimates only, not gov't official's estimates (when you thought those IDF estimates were lower, that is). You are using an old report issued while the war was still raging. The current article is both post-war, and more current than your article. Using low estimates from a week before the war ended can only be described a POV pushing. What would your reaction be if I added an estimate of Lebanese civilian casualties of "300", from two weeks before the war ended? I have several of these on hand, just say the word...Isarig 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I have said that we should use IDF confirmed kills only, and leave the varying "estimates" out of the infobox altogether. I will not "give it up" in the face of blatant POV-pushing and wikilawyering on your part. Italiavivi 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't lie. In your edit summary you said "estimates from the tourism minister have no place" - but now, when IDF estimates are higher, you are suddenly in favor of including these estimates, which earlier you contended "had no place". Are you in favor of using only confirmed numbers for Lebanese civilian casualties as well? Why the double standard? I repeat: the article you are using is from August 10 - nearly two weeks before the war ended. Of course it is going to have lower estimates than an article published after the ceasefire. Why on earth would we wnat to use a figure 2 weeks out of date? It is blatant POV pushing of the worst kind. Isarig 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New image for box...
Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png What do you think, I think it would be proper to show the several aspects of the war.--TheFEARgod 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Nice work. Iorek85 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not crazy about it (sorry =D) - something about the coloration just doesn't appeal to me. Also, it might be slightly more interesting if we include one of the Hezbollah rocket force pictures. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The bottom left picture is Haifa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.228.121.147 (talk • contribs).


 * I realise that - but that's not my complaint.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Map of lebanon Info Box
Just a remark that the INFO box on the lebanees map depicting Israely bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg) is rather biased against Israel. The remark that "Factories,warehouse..... CHURCHES AND MOSQUES ... were bombed" is false. The remark that "Reported Israel use of internationaly banned bombs" is False.
 * Agree. I've created a derivitive map that retains the useful info in the map, but blanks the POV "fact box" Isarig 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The rest of the info is accurate, why do you think that that particular claim isn't? Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate, no, but isn't far from the truth. Israel has been criticised for using cluster munitions on civilians, as well as phosphorus weapons. And what is the rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" in the comments? Just becuase it says something an Israeli doesn't like, it's got to be from Hezbollah? The orginal was fine, but the edited version is good, too. I just fear we'll end up stripping the article of any claims because someone will find them POV.Iorek85 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate, but it is at least not POV. You agree that 'Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate' - so what are you complaining about? Surely we don't want information that we both agree is not accurate in an encyclopedia. The "rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" " appeared in the comments of the original file, and I merely copied them into my summary. Feel free to edit it out if you like. Isarig 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the info is accurate, then it isn't POV, is it? I've said why I don't mind the the change, but also why the removal of anything that offends anyone as POV worries me. Iorek85 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * reread what I wrote - "I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate". In simple english: The map says: "Israel attacked location X". I don't know if that is true, but it is not blatantly POV, so it stays, for now. The map used to say "Israel used internationally banned weapons". That I know to be false (and you agree) PLUS it is blatantly POV, so out it goes. And BTW, if removing POV statements worries you, you should not be editing WP. Isarig 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've no problem with removing that statement. But you removed all of the statements, including the one that the first poster here had a problem with. And be careful not to mistake NPOV with No Points of View. I've no problem with removing POV - but I do have a problem with removing information because people with no evidence claim it is POV when it isn't. If both 'sides' had their way, there would be no information in the article, because it's all "POV". Listing civilian deaths makes Israel look bad, listing Hezbollah as the initators of the conflict is POV, etc etc etc. You end up with not a balanced article, but something which says "There was some sort of a conflict that could also be called a war in which people of various types may or may not have died. Generally, it was considered bad, but some people think killing people is justified. There were combatants, but how many and at what level they were involved is disputed. The conflict might have ended with a ceasefire, but It might not have because there was still fighting after the ceasefire, but that might or might not have been a breach of the ceasefire." Just so we're not getting off on a tangent (my fault) here; I don't mind removing that one claim. I do mind removing all of the claims without proof they aren't accurate, for "POV" reasons. I don't mind removing them overall becuase the map is just one of "areas struck in Lebanon" - the rest of the details are already in the article. Iorek85 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is not in the public domain and can not be used in an altered condition without obtaining permission. Regardless of any factual errors in the sidebar, the main focus of the image is to show the distribution of attacks on Lebanon by Israel and it seems to do that accurately. If you want to modify the image and post a new one, you must obtain permission. I nominated the altered image for deletion and it seems to have already happened. Carbonate 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The original image was uploaded with a CC license, which clearly reads "You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work * to make derivative works * to make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions: by Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. sa Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. I have created a derivative work, which is allowed, since I have properly attributed the work and disributed it under an identical license. I can't find your nomination for deletion - could you pint me to it? Isarig 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Displaced is blatantly inaccurate
This term is used incorrectly throughout the article and extremely skews the degree of damage to civilian infrastructure.

1,000,000 is the widely cited number of Lebanese civilians that were fleeing their homes for the time of the Israeli attacks. Der Spiegel writes about Uno estimating that 200,000 Lebanese were not able to return to their homes. 130,000 homes are said to be damaged or destroyed (50,000 of which in southern Beirut suburbs). The GOL Higher Relief Council (HRC) reports that nearly 975,000 Lebanese fled their homes at the height of emergency. It estimates that 718,000 displaced persons have returned to their home areas since August 14, leaving 257,000 internally displaced persons (I guess the rounding is safe).

However, I don't see the number of 500,000 Israeli civilians anywhere. NYT speaks of 300,000, and I don't know where they got their numbers from. People that stayed temporarily at friends' or relatives' homes to avoid getting hurt by rockets are hardly displaced. In any case, I guess the number of Israeli civilians that are not back in their homes by now is more like...uhm...10. I am waiting for someone to source reliable numbers.

I am going to edit the article according to these data points and will remove the action item from the top of this page. Kosmopolis 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally removing the reference to one side's displaced is hardly fair, even if the other side was more severely damaged - we must let the facts speak for themselves. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show me a single source other than nyt (which btw states 300k, not 500k) that mentions Israeli civilians being "displaced". "Displaced" means either "home is gone" or "not allowed to return". Even if every single one of Hezbollah's rockets had destroyed the home of a family of 4 (which was not the case), you had roughly 4 * 4000 = 16,000 people displaced. The number of 500,000 is misleading, unjustified, unsourced and totally nonsensical (btw, same goes for "1,000,000" Lebanese). We must let the facts speak for themselves. Kosmopolis 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to research now, but do you actually dispute the NYT claim? What is gained by erasing reference to the other sides' displaced? And who said that displaced is limited to "home is gone"?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Displaced" is surely a standard term, as in "internally displaced people" (IDPs), the standard term used for war refugees within a country. -- ChrisO 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, we need some way to distinguish people who just moved away for a while from people who no longer have a home, and will never have. --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you know who "will never have" a home? Displaced doesn't mean that one's home has been destroyed - I don't think anyone is arguing that the homes of 1,000,000 Lebanese were destroyed. I'm sure that you're only acting out of the best intention, but totally removing reference to one side's displaced doesn't serve to increase neutrality in this article, so I'm restoring the passage. We must recognise that suffering can be experienced by both sides in a conflict like this. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, your editwar is getting ridiculous and you are wasting everybody's time (yours included). I see that you don't have time for research, but you do have time to continue deleting sourced information. First of all, where does your number of 500k come from? You realize that you keep reverting to unsourced information, don't you? Secondly, yes, I dispute the NYT claim in that it is technically incorrect. These people were not displaced, neither the NYT-reported 300k Israelis nor the elsewhere-reported 1,000k Lebanese. Displaced are exactly those who were forced to flee and CANNOT RETURN now. Please show me one source that mentions Israeli civilians who were not able to return to their homes. Yes, Israelis did suffer in this conflict, but your way of artificially trying to "balance the suffering-account" makes me sick. This is not about "neutrality", it is about facts, and I hope you are honest enough to acknowledge the fact that 3,970 ragged amateur rockets cannot possibly make 500,000 people homeless. Kosmopolis 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 2Tefwik: I didn't say anything about the number. The only thing is that we must use some way to separate people who moved out just in case to return a month later and people who can't return (and, with Lebanese infrastructure removed, won't probably be able to). This is related to both sides. However, I agree that a few thousands of light improvised rockets, most of which missed completely, are far less effective than massive air raids, so numbers might differ significantly. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea that these were "light improvised rockets". Perhaps you are confused with the Gaza conflict. The rockets that Hezbollah fired in this conflict were state-of-the art military grade heavy artillery rockets, some with warheads as large as 100Kg of explosives. Take a look at Fajr 5] and [[Khaibar-1. Isarig 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From article you linked to: "...The Khaibar-1 rocket reportedly has four times the destructive power (about 100 kilograms of explosives) and range of Katyusha rockets, Hezbollah's until-now standard rocket launcher". Fajr-5 is other name for the same thing. Hezbollah tech level and weaponry are, according to available info, over 60 years old, only replicating a WWII weapon. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of these are "improvised rockets". The standard Katyusha has a warhead weighing 22KG, and according to the WP article "are able to deliver a devastating amount of explosives to an area target in a short period of time" - compared to other military-grade artillery systems. The fact that the original Katyusha was developed in WWII is irrelevant. And contrary to what you claim the tech level of Hezbollah rivals that of most modern armies - including state of the art surface-sea missiles, SAMs, advanced AT misiles etc.. Isarig 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are currently trying to redefine what displaced means. We are not talking about displaced at, but rather the total displaced throughout the entire conflict. The USAID report that you are citing says:
 * Nearly 975,000 Lebanese fled their homes at the height of emergency, but the HRC estimates that 718,198 displaced persons have returned to their home areas since August 14. Most of the remaining 255,986 internally displaced persons (IDPs) are staying with host families.

There are lots of possible reasons for why people haven't returned home (no electricity, water, medical facilities), but it is original research to try and tie the 255k number to 'cannot return now because homes were destroyed'. As for sources, it seems the 500k number for Israeli displaced comes from the HRW reports here and here, though I recall seeing them elsewhere if you seriously dispute this number. I'm sorry that you 'feel sick', but I would hope that you assume good faith and respond to these arguments.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As for definitions, of course there is no exclusive causality between number of homes destroyed vs. number of people not returning. Furthermore, "home destroyed" is not per se part of my understanding of IDP—sorry if you had the impression. I think of IDPs in terms of "not being able to return", thus reflecting the involuntariness. Contrary to "refugee", the term "IDP" lacks a definition beyond basic terms (see Who is an IDP), but as there is no aspect of time weaved into the concept (see this UNHCR/Brookings Refugee Survey Quarterly paper), I will restate my earlier assumptions and say: yes, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs. As for sources, HRW were the first to report 500k, saying "authorities believe that up to half the population has left the area" ("authority" presumably being the Israeli gov). The Norwegian Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates the number at 300k-500k. They cite the Israeli gov as well and Brookings' Khalid Koser, who himself speaks of "more than 300,000 northern Israelis". Notice that Koser also refers to HRW press releases, so we may end up where we started: at HRW's 500k (which may or may not derive from Israeli gov). Now, I have profound distrust for a human rights org that resides on the most expensive street in the world, but nevertheless, I do not oppose including these refs, and I support the current revision. As for feeling sick: the numbers of casualties (not reports thereof) among involved parties represent absolute truths and—to a certain extent—absolute measures of human suffering. In my opinion, this should manifest accordingly in the description of the event. Kosmopolis 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I received this impression from your edit summary: tewfik, how about US gov relief effort as a source? "displaced" means "home is gone" or "not allowed to return" (see talk). however, i stand corrected, it's 256k, not 257k. now go do your homework. Since you seem to agree that a million Lebanese and 500k Israelis were at one point IDPs, then I cannot understand why you resist saying that, and instead choose to only document who is still an IDP. Do you propose we remove all mention of IDPs in a few weeks, or however long it takes for the remaining 255k to be settled, when there will no longer be any?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I told you, I do not resist saying that. According to the definition, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs, and I support the current revision as it is concerning this. What I oppose is that you seemingly intended to make no distinction whatsoever between people who returned to their homes and people who couldn't. Is this your understanding of "neutrality"? Kosmopolis 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The operative word here is concise. Everyone is a temporary IDP - they are only IDPs until they aren't. The distinction about who can return home and who can't is totally unsupported by the sources. All we know is who has returned so far, and who has yet to.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the definition, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs, unlike the 256,000 Lebanese, who are IDPs as of now. The distinction about who can return home and who can't is totally unsupported by the sources, indeed. Are you saying that those 256,000 Lebanese could return if they wanted to? Kosmopolis 15:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is extremely bad form to claim that a content-reversion is a reversion of vandalism. Please don't do this again.


 * The 256k (assuming that is still the number) are only IDPs until they return home - there no source that says they can never return home. And there is no reason to say that because people did return home, we should not say they were once displaced. Do you think that when the 256K return home, we should no longer mention that they were displaced?


 * In any event, the majority of your RVV [sic] was just a restoration of detail that is already included in the article, and does not belong in the Lead.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're trying to make the article worse by preventing it from being improved, that's vandalism. When did I say that the 256k could never return home? The passage now says: Over 900,000 Lebanese [...] were displaced, as were about 300,000 Israelis [...]. Even after the ceasefire, 256,000 Lebanese have remained internally displaced. What's wrong with that? Again, what you call "detail" is a summarization of the scale of destruction that took place. It is included in other articles that this one points to, and it is summarized in the lead. Kosmopolis 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Treated for shock???
Are we now going to add this important information for every other conflict or will it be reserved for Middle East exclusively? Seriously, this kind of (laughable) statistics side by side with thousands of dead and mass graves makes this article hardly encyclopedic. What was the point in addinig it? To show that Lebanese do not treat their people for shock? I suggest removing this "treated for shock" altogether. --Magabund 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's really funny. --Hossein.ir 11:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem inconsistent to single out a particular kind of injury - we don't list "treated for blast injuries", "treated for burns" etc. I suggest either removing this or merging it into the "injured" figures (assuming that "injured" doesn't already include "treated for shock"). -- ChrisO 11:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shock was originally included because the Israeli casualties listed shock, while the Lebanese made no mention of it. To list only the non shock casualties for Israel, and all for Lebanon would be "unfair" to Israel (as Lebanon might be mostly shock), while counting shock as an injury would be "unfair" to Lebanon (as Lebanon might not include shock). Hence, listing shock separately. Iorek85 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not simply omit shock altogether? As I said, it's very inconsistent to single out one particular type of injury, no matter which side the figure represents. -- ChrisO 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly support leaving it in, everything else is misleading. Just look at this quote from Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: [...] Hezbollah has fired about 3,900 rockets into Israel [...] killing 44 civilians and 106 soldiers including 12 reserve soldiers, and wounding some 1400 civilians. Someone has taken this 1,400 number and just declared 875 shocked people as 875 wounded civilians. Big difference and a lot of irresponsibilty on the editor's side. The Hezbollah rocket campaign was not a military success, and you are making one out of it. Kosmopolis 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I would welcome if someone had numbers about wounded Lebanese civilians, but a dead:wounded ratio of 3:10 seems reasonable given the tactics that were implemented.


 * Shock is a temporary emotional/mental state, not an injury or physical condition. Each person who returns to where their homes were to find rubble could be treated for shock too. I think including this 'shock' thing is totally unreasonable and doesn't not serve to do anything more than make the list of casualties on both sides appear less skewed than they are. -Killa4luv

The human and material costs of the war / what else belongs in the lead
When the subject matter is a war one of the most important pieces of information that interests people and helps them understand what really happened is to learn about the destruction caused by this war. I understand it’s difficult to maintain neutrality in a subject as emotionally charged as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Precisely for this reason I find it particularly useful to include facts about this conflict’s human and material costs on both sides, so that the readers can build their concept about the war based on objective data. I think that to deny the readers such information is unconscionable. Tewfik claims that such lists don’t belong here. Why? Is there any piece of information in this list that is redundant or insignificant in an encyclopedia? Tewfik also claims that this information should not be put in the lead. Why not? I think that the consequences of a war are one of the most basic facts about it and should be in the lead. So before deleting this well-referenced and relevant information for the third time Tewfik please state your reasons here.

Incidentally, the other important information I would like to have in the lead is about the reasons that led to this war. The article’s lead as it now stands leaves the reader with the impression that Israel bombed and invaded Lebanon because of the killing of three and the capture of two of its soldiers on July 12. I personally find this ludicrous and actually unfair for Israel. I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to correct this, but isn’t it fair to state that the reason for Israel’s actions was the increasing strength of Hezbollah military presence north of Israel’s border and the menace this represented for Israel - and that Hezbollah’s raid was only the spark that started the conflagration? And wouldn’t it be fair to state that the reason of Hezbollah’s actions on July 12 was to achieve a prisoner exchange of Israel, which holds thousands of Palestinians as well as a few Lebanese? Dianelos 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your stance on the intro. Numbers don't lie and are apolitical, and the more we have, the better. The striking aspect of this conflict (and the one most widely reported on) is the degree to which civilian life and civilian infrastructure was involved. It is not so much its political implications (local, national, regional or world-wide), the role of the Lebanese government, the involvement of Syria, Iran or Israel's long-term strategy, but the sheer scale of destruction on the part of IDF. However, I would also like to see more numbers from the Israeli side. Regarding the reasons that led to this war, we will have to wait until senior Israeli military officials join the ranks of WP editors (i.e. forever). All I know is that disarming paramilitary units usually does not involve massive air raids and conventional tactics. Kosmopolis 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This information is already included in the appropriate parts of the article. The WP:Lead is not the place to list all the destruction caused in the conflict, especially not to only one side. And whatever underlying tensions and reasons may have been present, the casus belli is not disputed, and it should not be replaced with analysis.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't want all the destruction listed there, why do you delete all the other valid parts, too? For example:
 * - The conflict killed over 1000 Lebanese, mainly civilians, and over 150 Israelis, mainly soldiers.
 * vs.
 * - 211 members of Hezbollah militia and allied factions, 119 Israeli soldiers, 1,187 Lebanese civilians and 44 Israeli civilians were killed.
 * Which one is more objective?


 * - Israel's estimated 4,500 bombing raids
 * Who needs estimates when we have official information? The Air Force has confirmed 12,000+ combat missions. Why do you delete information about the Navy's part in this? Why do you delete information concerning the strategic targets? Don't you think it's an essential part of the conflict to know what the targets were? WP:Lead states that the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. At least it is beginning to move in that direction. Kosmopolis 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the operative word is concise. The specifics are for the most part already included in the article. If they aren't, feel free to include them in a neutral manner, but they do not belong in the Lead.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Concise" meaning exactly what? Hiding information that is essential in understanding the conflict? What is non-NPOV about the description as it is, now? I am not alone in thinking that those numbers belong in the lead, and the passage has already been copy-edited by other editors, so please stop vandalising. Kosmopolis 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, please review the definition of vandalism. There is nothing "hidden," as the relevant numbers are already included in the appropriate parts of the article body - if you feel something is missing, include it in a neutral manner. However the WP:Lead is not the place for a detailed fleshing out of the article or a listing of all the damage, especially when it is one sided.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're trying to make the article worse, that's vandalism. People who come here expect a concise overview of the article, and that's what the lead currently is. You still haven't answered what's non-NPOV about the passage. What you call "fleshing-out" is a summary of human and material cost. The section you keep deleting deals with casualties, Israeli efforts, Hezbollah efforts, Israeli IDPs, Lebanese IDPs and environmental damage, everything backed up by reputable sources. I still would like to hear your explanation on why this is one-sided. Kosmopolis 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

chart of casualties
Does anyone know of a chart (or could make one) that shows the percentages of casualties suffered by each side? Carbonate 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too hard to whip up in excel, I'd imagine. Wouldn't it be better in Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, though? Iorek85 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bombing Chart
The bombing chart provided by samidoun.org should be removed or changed to something coming from an NPOV source. Samidoun.org, while primarily a relief organization, is not the Red Cross or even Amnesty International. Their website contains materials demonizing Israel as racist and they definitely are non neutral. Claymoney 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is factually correct, I see no reason why it should be changed... if you can prove that its not factually correct, than fine, but as long as it is factually correct it should remain; Amnesty International and the Lebanese Red Cross are not the only two organisations out there, and the chart is very informative. What the organisations claims Israel is or isn't does not in any way make the chart inaccurate. Amjra 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been concerns raised about the text in the box. The most valid of those being the bombing of churches and mosques and the use of illeagl munitions statments are false. BUT, the US is investigating the illeagle use of cluster bombs and it is very difficult to prove that not a single bomblet fell on a church or mosque. Even if these individual items are inaccurate, the bulk of the material presented in the map is the locations and numbers of bombs being dropped and no one has yes shown that to be innaccurate in any way. Carbonate 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting reversal of the onus of proof - since we can't prove something is false - it stays, even if the ones making the claim can't support it. I've already addressed your issue - and created a derivative work of that map, that has all the locations and # of attacks intact, but removed the POV text. You removed this map. Why? Isarig 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead
Kosmopolis, please don't keep on adding those details to the lead. It's making it far too long and overly detailed. See WP:LEAD for how to write a lead section and for advice about length. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of remerging your edits and shortening the lead while you indiscriminately reverted my edits for the 2nd time, now. Please limit your rvs to the lead if you have objections thereto. Thanks. Kosmopolis 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing?
I know there was some violence after the ceasefire, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the conflict is still on. The last recorded violence was (according to the page) was on August 19, over two weeks ago. Iorek85 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)