Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 30

General Discussion
Propaganda, Amesty's accusations, Why was this changed to war?, WP:3RR, External links again, Background section, Media Controversy, Pie chart, Edit Wars, Failed GA, Special:Mostrevisions, Debatus.com External Link or Not?, Background, Catholics and Maronites, Cluster Bombs
 * Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive29
 * Earlier discussions

IDF control to the Litani
I think it should be clarified that just prior to the cease fire the IDF did not advance to the Litani but were airlifted to just south of it. This left the IDF forces in isolated pockets serving no tactical purpose and certainly not controling much. The only purpose served by this airlift on the eve of cease fire was PR, to make it appear that the IDF had made some inroads into southern lebanon. 24.69.71.229 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating Israel's actions is not POV
Isarig, please explain why that is POV Carbonate 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The two paragraphs of the "start of the conflict" as I changed are below. The first does a very good job of enphasizing that Hezbollah started the conflict with a cross boarder raid.  The second now does a good job of emphasizing that Israel escalated the conflict to civilians.  This is balance, the second brings neutrality to the first.


 * At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the village of Zar'it, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three. Five others were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during a mission to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers. The UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies, including Al Jazeera, have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border".


 * The next day 13 July Israel escalated the conflict with air strikes on various targets thoughout Lebanon that killed 40 civilians and began what would become a fullscale blockade. In response to the attacks on civilian targets, Hezbollah began launching as many as 60 rockets in to cities in northern Israel which killed one woman in the city of Nahariya. As the conflict was drawn from military to civilian targets by Israel, the cycle of violence escalated and the civilian casualties on both sides began to mount.


 * Carbonate 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure you were well intentioned, the basic premise of your changes is not true - the initial Hezbollah action included the shelling of Israeli villages (non-military positions). Also, the additional details of the timeline, while relevant there, are not so helpful in the Lead, which is supposed to convey the basic ideas. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And what are those basic ideas? As it reads now, the basic idea seems to be "Israel was justified in killing 1600 civilians". Carbonate 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even assuming that somehow that was was even partially true, which I very much dispute, do you believe that including nonfactual information to make them look worse is then justified?  Tewfik Talk 13:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No Tewfik, the facts make them look bad enough. That is why you and Isarig want to keep the facts obscure and contained to biased sources like the IDF and Ohmert. Carbonate 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around baseless accusations. You added a nonfactual passage. I removed it.  Tewfik Talk 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about whether Hezbollah shot rockets into Israel while they were abducting the soldiers. Here is what WP's article now states:


 * At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near the village of Zar'it, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three.

But this authoritative article published in Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's site gives a different account:


 * On July 12, 2006, Hizballah crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border in an ambush, killing three Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two wounded soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed after the army entered Lebanon in pursuit. The following morning (July 13), Hizballah fired a Katyusha rocket from Lebanon that landed on the main street in the Israeli resort city of Nahariya, killing one woman and injuring at least ten people.

If the JCPA report is correct then there are several errors in the current version of the article. Dianelos 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article never says that was the first incidence of rockets being fired, but it seems to merely point to the first fatality. In any event, the initial Hezbollah barrage was sourced before it was decided to remove sources from the introduction. The claim is sourced on the Military operations page, though it is now a deadlink. Perhaps the Talk archives contain the old references.  Tewfik Talk 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Browsing WP I found the following references about what happened the 12th and 13th of july: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, and Haaretz. Only BBC and Haaretz mention Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel on Wednesday July 12, the day they captured the two Israeli soldiers. Wahington Post and the Jerusalem Center mention Hezbollah firing rockets until Thursday July 13. The Washington Post article is quite detailed and states that Israel started bombing Lebanon the early hours of July 13 before Hezbollah started its rocket campaign that same morning. The New York Times article is not as explicit but mentions Israel’s bombing of Lebanon first. (You need to have an account to read this article, so here is the relevant passage: “The Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah surprised Israel with a bold daylight assault across the border on Wednesday, leading to fighting in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and at least eight killed, and elevating recent tensions into a serious two-front battle.[…] Early on Thursday morning, Israeli warplanes fired missiles at the runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, shutting the airport and potentially stranding thousands of visitors at the peak of tourist season. Israeli warplanes also hit numerous locations in southern Lebanon, adding to the civilian death toll. The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying that the airport was a target because Hezbollah receives weapons shipments there. The Israeli government also confirmed that Hezbollah fired several Katyusha rockets into northern Israel, injuring three people.”)
 * So, at best it is not clear that Hezbollah did fire rockets on July 12. Until the fog of war settles we should either remove this item from the WP article or else mention that according to some sources Israel started bombing before Hezbollah did. Dianelos 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy of the New York Times article. It does state that according to the Israeli military Hezbollah did fire rockets as a diversion on july 12. I don't know how unbiased the Israeli military should be considered. I wonder if there is any other independent confirmation of these alleged rocket attacks - I could not find any. Dianelos 08:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this article which states: "There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion." So there's the independent source I suppose. Dianelos 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose this report by Unifil settles the issue: "New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more." Dianelos 11:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV editing
The following are examples of Tewfik's "contributions" over the period of three days: Censorship: False, inaccurate or unsourced information: Selective quoting and disguising own findings as quotes: Questionable behaviour: Repeated introduction of weasel words: Double standards: These are largely edits from just three days, and Tewfik has an alarming 1,000+ edits on this article. Many of these issues also concerned my edits. I am not a saint, I make errors and welcome correction and directed critique, and I am by no means calling on you to "safeguard" my edits (and will not edit in the coming weeks, anyway), but I'd like to hear your opinion on these issues and what can be done about it, since I deem most parts of the article (and related ones) distorted, inaccurate and of sub-standard quality. Thanks. Kosmopolis 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Relevant diffs:  
 * He deleted all references to Operation Accountability, which is basically the 1996 version of the current conflict (air strikes, Katyusha rockets, destruction of infrastructure, civilian casualties [1st Qana incident], 300,000 displaced). Is this relevant background information? Yes, I think so.
 * He replaced "711,000 Palestinians [who] fled, emigrated or were forced out of Israel" (as reported by the UN) with simply "Palestinians who fled the newly formed state". Why?
 * He deleted references to the casus belli of Operation Litani - the Coastal Road massacre - and instead wrote that it was "in response to numerous attacks launched from southern Lebanon". The massacre had been three days earlier.
 * He deleted the mentioning of 14,000 Lebanese and Palestinians civilian casualties of 1982, deleted the fact that Israel occupied Beirut, and instead claimed that it occupied southern Lebanon. Of course he deleted references to Sabra and Shatila. Is this relevant background information? The man who signs Hezbollah's paychecks has called Israel's former PM the "criminal of Sabra and Shatila", so yes, I think so.
 * He deleted conclusions that Israel implemented the 425/426 resolutions 22 years after they had been approved. I think this is important, since it puts Israel blaming Lebanon regarding 1559 into perspective (argument has been used by Siniora, too).
 * He deleted an Amnesty quote on "clear evidence of disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks" (on the part of IDF).
 * He deleted an Amnesty quote on "findings that indicate that such destruction was deliberate and part of a military strategy, rather than 'collateral damage" (on the part of IDF). Gabi.S's irrational arguments only add to the damage here.
 * He deleted a transcripted CNN quote about "a street where bombs had smashed nearly a quarter mile of area" and a quote indicating "virtually nothing left" by Anderson Cooper's entourage, and replaced it with allegations of Hezbollah's "misrepresentation of the nature of the destroyed areas".
 * He deleted Nic Robertson's transcripted quote that "Hezbollah has a very, very sophisticated and slick media operations". According to WP, Robertson has been to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Northern Ireland, and both the Gulf War and the Iraq War.
 * He deleted Nic Robertson's transcripted quote that "Hezbollah has very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut".
 * He deleted Nic Robertson's quote that his guide "felt a great deal of anxiety about the situation" and that he was "very, very anxious" about his security officials telling him to leave the area. This totally spins Robertson saying that they "certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath".
 * He deleted a transcripted CNN quote which said that IDF claims Hezbollah is "not trying to hit military positions" (emphasis on *claims*).
 * He deleted the UNIFIL quote saying there have "also been several air violations by Israeli military aircraft". Is UNIFIL supposed to be Nasrallah's press office?
 * He wrote about AP reporting that Hezbollah breached the ceasefire, quoting a source. In the source however, there is nothing of that sort mentioned.
 * He repeatedly reintroduced Germany as a self-defense supporter (even after it was removed, because it was unsourced and it is wrong), but he just kept on reintroducing it, and did not bother to provide a source on my request. He told me to look it up in a Whitehouse transcript, where there was nothing of that sort.
 * He added that Robertson (again the media controversy) "reiterated that he couldn't verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings", which is false.
 * He added this gibberish to the article: "Several media commentators and journalists have alleged an intentional distortion of media reporting in favor of Hezbollah, mostly by misrepresenting the death and destruction in Lebanon caused by Israeli airstrikes". This is an accusation against the media, not Hezbollah. Tell me, is Adnan Hajj "the media"?
 * He quoted the headline "IDF: Israeli soldiers kill 3 Hezbollah fighters" as "Israeli soldiers kill 3 Hezbollah fighters" without indicating who had provided the statement.
 * He wrote that Hezbollah "has put considerable effort into fortifying the former security zone and establishing new firing positions", which he doesn't source and which is a suggestive platitude.
 * He deleted citation needed tags without providing sources.
 * He wrote this about Hezbollah: '[...] with ball bearings, which "suggests a desire to maximize harm to civilians"'. The double quotes are his and suggest a citation, but the quote is not found in any of his sources.
 * He wrote that Hezbollah's behaviour "may constitute a war crime" (which is in his article), but failed to mention that his source also mentions Israel's "failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians that may constitute war crimes".
 * He failed to mention that the article said that Israel "may violate the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law".
 * He instigates others to help him reverting disagreeable changes and is apparently keen to report editors for 3RR vio (in my case in a seemingly concerted effort with User:SlimVirgin).
 * He marked edits as "shorten" or "organise", when in fact he was introducing original research, spinning citations by removing their context or deleting relevant information (see also here).
 * He replaced "is seen by the Israeli government" by "is seen by many", failing to give a source.
 * He wrote "several reports have alleged", when he cites exactly one.
 * He ignored requests to stop weaseling and deleted efforts to introduce specific information, reverting passages to their weasely state.
 * He deleted passages dealing with US aid to Israel in the military aid sub-article 12 times, arguing that the article should only deal with current aid in the current conflict. He does not object to listing every screw that Hezbollah has received from Teheran in 25 years.
 * He characterized the presentation of simple statistics as "one-sided" and POV, when there were simply no numbers to be reported for "the other side". (Tewfik, it may surprise you that neither Lebanese civilians nor the Lebanese army were combatants in this conflict, so how can this be "one-sided"?)
 * That's a long list of some very serious allegations. I think you should put those on Tewfik's talk page, not here. --Planetary 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been editing this article almost as long as Tewfik has, and I've always found him to be unbiased, careful, and a massive help with this page. He has tirelessly toiled here, making, as you point out, over 1,000 edits on this page. Not to hide anti Israeli information, but to keep the article as balanced, NPOV, factually accurate as possible. As such, has come under a lot of criticism from random editors desperate to input their own POV about how bad Israel is or how bad Hezbollah is. He's been claimed to have pro Israeli bias, anti Israeli bias, and (in the case) both.


 * As for your specific claims - the first part just seems like he was shortening the article because the history section was enormous. Most of the relevent diffs you list (and thank you for not just making allegations with no evidence) are him shortening the pages, smething which dearly needs to be done. The removal of fact tags is fine - he explains that the reference is provided in the subarticle. This is a decision that was made some time ago to prevent the article getting too long. Much of these edits your claiming are his are just him defending information that has been added by other people (the germany thing and the Hezbollah ball bearings are ones that come to mind). The seen by many is because, IIRC, more than just Israel agreed (we're talking about something to do with the breaking of the ceasefire, right?) Then you accuse him of upholding the rules, because you were on the wrong side of them? Don't violate 3RR then. As for the rest, you may have a point, but they all seem to be small, separate issues that because of his high visibility, he was the one to contradict you on. Iorek85 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the "shortening", Tewfik did not just "shorten" the history section, he reverted any of my edits. Don't you think it would have been reasonable to include at least some of the information I mentioned as a background? As for the media controversy, you call removal of context "shortening"? As for the "Hezbollah ball bearings", if it isn't sourced, why does he defend it? If more than just Israel agreed on any matter, why isn't it said who agrees? On one occasion in the article, Tewfik enumerates "UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies", but then suddenly he's getting sloppy? Why is that? I did violate 3RR. User:SlimVirgin sprung out of nowhere to revert just exactly the section Tewfik and I were over at that exact moment. I removed my changes to another section and brought down the lead to its earlier size, and after that, Tewfik was happy to report me. And as for the rest, I have not heard anything convincing yet that would justify Tewfik's edits. These issues are neither small nor separate. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a very prolific contributor, but I too was surprised to see how in various occasions some relevant and well-referenced addition of mine was simply deleted by another editor. I think Tewfik is trying to keep the article manageable in size; on the other hand Tewfik does sometimes simply delete information that is clearly appropriate. Here is an example where he deleted a reference on Israel attacking civilian cars, even though the reference I chose came from a well-respected Israeli organization. I thought this information was highly relevant because Israel made much of the fact that it warned the civilian population about impending strikes, and the article even includes the (I think dubious) IDF sourced information that Hezbollah was preventing people from leaving their villages in order to maximize civilian deaths. I think that maybe wikipedia should have a policy against simply deleting well-referenced and clearly relevant pieces of information.


 * Now, this must be one of the most contentious articles in wikipedia. Considering all it's amazing it's coming out so well. The dynamics of give and take are rather interesting. For example after re-including the info about Israel attacking civilian cars, it stuck. Now there is even an entire side-article about this issue. So the process seems to be working - let's all keep a cool head and contribute with good measure.


 * I think that the idea of having a main article of manageable size, with pointers to many side-articles is sound and necessary. For example I think there should a short section in the main article with background information about this war, with a pointer to some other article with more in-depth information (I think Tewfik agrees with that too). The point is to have sufficient information in the main article so that the reader understands that this war is a flare-up of an older and complex conflict that actually precedes Hezbollah - without having to leave the main article. (Right now unfortunately such a section is entirely missing - with only a pointer to the Israel-Lebanon conflict article.) I also still think a section about the human and material costs of the war should be useful; as the article now stands the information is there but distributed all over the place. In think the typical reader would like to find this information in one place; after all the destruction caused by a war is one of the main facts about it. I find this is a general omission. I was reading the (I think excellent) article about the Six-Days war and there is no mention of civilian casualties. Dianelos 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't deal with the specifics of Kosmopolis' edit, mostly for practical reasons of size, though also because Iorek, which is certainly a neutral user, has dealt with the main issues. What I will say is that it is hard to see such a massive amount of research directed at uncovering my (perceived) misdoings from a user thrice blocked in the last week (all on this article), the most recent for evading the second block by editing as an IP, as a good faith act. Despite this, I recognise that Kosmopolis, in all his permutations, is still a new user, and may naturally be unfamiliar with certain aspects of Wikipedia, and so I welcome him to edit here or anywhere within the boundaries of policy. In general, if anyone takes issue with something which I've done, they should feel welcome to engage me in civil conversation.


 * As for the specific edit which Dianelos has mentioned, I did not delete either the claim or its source, but rather rephrased it in a more neutral manner (ie, we can't know that the campaign against infrastructure is the primary reason that civilians didn't evacuate). And yes, I'm not opposed to including a short background section, preferably something based on the previous consensus version (and thus bypassing much of the controversy of the last week, including that made reference to above). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, User:Tewfik quickly goes about proposing a merge of Israel-Lebanon conflict into Arab-Israeli conflict. If that happens, I'd be surprised if he didn't declare the Arab-Israeli conflict article too long and started deleting information from it. For all I know User:Kosmopolis is a complete wingnut, but I've certainly had a vague feeling of being Mutt and Jeffed by Tewfik and User:Iorek85 while working on this article. Just a gut reaction; I continue to WP:Assume good faith. -- Kendrick7 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I the good cop or the bad cop? :) Iorek85 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously, there's no subsection of the talk page railing against you. I fancy you are a Mossad agent, but perhaps just a lazy one? lol -- Kendrick7 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, my being blocked was exactly over the issues above and *nothing else*, so plase do not try to depict me as a bad-faithed user. Regardless, these are hard facts, so don't beat about the bush. Be specific instead and tell me how you legitimate your edits. And what you call "consensus version" is what I call a heavily streamlined fairy tale right out of a toddler's textbook, in no way suitable to give any reader the background necessary to understand this conflict. Which of the background sections I mentioned above (and which you deleted) do you deem unnecessary? Since you deleted all of them, I guess "all of them". Is this reasonable? No. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Kendrick7, thanks for the wingnut compliment. That's a first-timer. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way Kendrick7, but I explained exactly why I wanted to merge, which had nothing to do with space. And for the record, I did not advocate a total removal of background information from this article.  Tewfik Talk 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually don't see your reasons for the merge on the Arab-Israeli conflict discussion page, which is where the merge link points to. It's pointless for me to argue against a merge if you don't a least make an argument. -- Kendrick7 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot that the tag points there, but my reasons were the only text on the Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict.  Tewfik Talk 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I shoulda looked there. Someone already blew away your tag. But if you want a do-over, we can go about doing it right. I'll just say from the get-go that Category:Israel-Lebanon conflict has nearly 150 articles, and I see no reason there shouldn't be a main overview, even if it needs work -- Kendrick7 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you put the tag back, but still aren't making an argument in the right place, so I removed it. -- Kendrick7 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually never replaced the tag (nor did I touch the page since my sole placement of the tag). All I did was reply to the reply to my original comment. I'm not sure where you would like to hold the discussion, but let me know and I'll meet you there.  Tewfik Talk 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I restored your tag, and moved the extant convo to the bottom of Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict -- Kendrick7 03:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a fairly easy way to put this issue to rest. Can anyone provide editorial errors made by Tewfik that favor Hezbollah or Lebanon? If these are in fact just a few errors within a quantity of content, one would expect to see them on both sides of the issue. If however errors are only occuring on one side, then there is likely a serious problem. Carbonate 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe that I've made a problematic edit, you are welcome to supply the diff and engage me in discussion, but I otherwise stand by every edit that I've made.  Tewfik Talk 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, diffs have already been presented to you and comments made about them. I would like to hear your responses to those please. You have many to address before asking more of me. Carbonate 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely if this information is verifiable and NPOV, then it should be included in the article. There is no need to exclude useful information from the article on the basis of 'shortening it' - after all, WP:NOT paper. Cynical 09:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still awaiting specific answers concerning the points I made. All I heard was a justification of the deletion of (what I think is relevant) information for size matters. What about the UNIFIL quote, what about the alleged AP report, what about the cherry-picking, what about "several reports", what about US aid to Israel, what about the IDF headline, what about Hezbollah having "put considerable effort into fortifying the former security zone and establishing new firing positions" etc. etc.? The argumentation so far has been astonishingly sloppy. Thanks. Kosmopolis 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just look at his edit history, and you'll see a lot of these shortenings. As I don't want to conclude anything, I think this situation deserves attention from administrators. He ignores above diffs and discussions and says: "If you believe that I've made a problematic edit, you are welcome to supply the diff and engage me in discussion, but I otherwise stand by every edit that I've made".--Hossein.ir 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside; Those claiming articles can be as long as they want obviously haven't read WP:SIZE. Iorek85 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Size may matter, but if content is to be trimmed it should be done so even handedly. As a specific allegation states He (Tewfik) replaced "is seen by the Israeli government" by "is seen by many", failing to give a source. Is this how the size is being cut down? To change the specific to the general is bad enough but to also use weasle words and fail to provide sources to justify generalisation is most certianly unacceptable. Please explain this Tewfik. Carbonate 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The content is absolutely trimmed even handedly. I did revert almost all the additions to that section that Kosmopolis/80.135.***.*** made, as they often required even more additions in order to be totally neutral, and were mostly more detail than was necessary for the article anyways. The version that existed beforehand was not authored by me, but emerged and stabilised after intensive editing from all sides at the peak of this article's popularity. And when I did so, I noted that if there was a specific point that was lacking, then that should be noted and added. To Kosmopolis' request that I answer for 23 edits, I say that with all due respect, that is unreasonable. I have limited resources of time and energy, and I don't see any compelling reason for expending them on explaining edits that another, neutral user has largely defended. Especially in this case, in which while I was careful to specifically not depict them as a bad-faith user, they did violate 3rr, use their IP to bypass their block, and then use their user name to bypass the 2nd block on their IP, resulting in a 3rd block, and a total of 49 blocked hours in less than a week, something that is extremely pertinent to this continuing discussion. In terms of Carbonate's last point, I already noted several times that the source was already included in the article (ie the US and UK if I recall - those that coauthored the resolution and made their position quite clear). Good day,  Tewfik Talk 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC) I am not the only editor who requests clarification, so please be cooperative and do not ignore these requests. You have not clarified a single one of the above points, yet. Please realize that the more unspecific and evasive answers you give, the more unbelievable your behaviour gets. Hiding behind Iorek85's indiscriminative and generalizing defense is totally inadequate. Regarding the background section, the edits were a description of events that led to the conflict, as seen by Switzerland's most reputable newspaper, so which part do you regard as "more detail than necessary"? Since you keep track of the hours I was blocked last week, let me remind you (again) that this is irrelevant given the specificity and factual nature of the issues that were brought up. Thanks. Kosmopolis 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While I certainly will assume good faith about your intentions, your blocks and block-bypasses in just the last few days will colour your actions and interactions until it becomes apparent that those were anomalies, and not your normal behaviour, especially since they revolve around this specific issue. That said, I have no problem explaining a specific edit I made, but writing a detailed response to every one of the 23 edits you listed, especially when established, impartial users do not take issues with them, is both unproductive, unreasonable, and something to which I cannot dedicate my limited time. However, I harbour no animosity towards you, and I look forward to when we can edit together as colleagues. Please consider my words,  Tewfik Talk 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may opine about this edit war (or is it edit conflict?) I would agree with Tewfik that multiple reverts in one day is not helpful editing - we should all respect the WP:3RR rule. I understand that a recent war is an emotionally charged subject, and precisely for this reason it's best to keep a cool head. We know that the Wikipedia process of editing articles works; with time this article too will be cleaned of its biases and propaganda bits, and it will be enriched with all relevant information it now misses. On the other hand I would agree with Kosmopolis that simply deleting another editor's contribution when it is relevant and well referenced (and especially when it is short) is not helpful editing either - in fact it can be quite annoying when it is perceived as being systematic behavior. I think it would show good manners if an editor before deleting relevant and well referenced information would announce their intention to do so in the article's talk page giving the original contributor and other editors a few days time to argue the point.


 * Now, I lament the amount of energy editors spend in this article’s talk page. Why not invest this energy on the article itself? For example I feel we all agree that a background section should exist in this article, after all to understand the reasons why a war started is necessary for understanding the war itself. I think we also agree that this section shouldn't be too long (how about less than 250 words?). As this issue is both important and complex I think it's a good idea to prepare a new article about it (with much of Kosmolopis’ work) and link it from the short section.Dianelos 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing the background section. I reverted Kosmopolis' edits to the consensus version as he added details that were not directly relevant to this event (as noted by myself and other users who also reverted him during that time), and which compromised the neutrality of the section. I would be happy to restore that consensus version, and at the time of my reversion, I invited Kosmopolis (and anyone else) to specify if there was a specific lacking with the section. That said, avoiding edit wars and building consensus are extremely important, but they are a two way street. It would not make sense to allow any and every edit to stand until proven guilty, which would merely paralyse any attempts to maintain neutrality. If someone makes a controversial addition, they can expect increased scrutiny. And while this obviously shouldn't be used as a weapon to bring the article to a standstill, the burden of justification mostly lies with them. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Dianelos, I was the one who cut out Kosmolopis's work in its entirety, and I have turned it into the Israel-Lebanon conflict article, and I told him as much on his talk page. His version was entirely too long, but at the same time I decided after Tewfik's edits too much was getting thrown in the bit bucket. With that article as a basis, and with the wayback machine's pre-Kosmolopis version (?) as a guide, I imagine I, or any willing volunteer, could now distill a fairly good background section for this article. Consider it a strategic retreat, if you will. -- Kendrick7 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The section was too long even before Kosmo got there (even well before), I realize, now that I'm going through the history to link-out the above post. Part of the problem was there were many facts in there which people, myself included, thought belonged somewhere, but there wasn't an article for them, especially for events between the end of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 2000, and the Zar'it-Shtula incident. (I felt especially strongly that Lebanon arresting an Israeli spy ring, the head of which confessed to assassinating various Hezbollah leaders, just a few week before this conflict began explained a lot about the timing of this conflict; I also felt that the fact that the last cease-fire only lasted six weeks put this part of the conflict in scope.) But, in the words of Lt. Colonel Kilgore, "Some day... this war's gonna end" -- Kendrick7 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checking from time to time. Still don't have neither the time nor drive to edit. But I see that it gets even worse! Now, look at this wonderful new passage, spun around by an anonymous editor from Haifa, Israel [or surrounding area] (User:132.68.1.29):


 * Israel has given UNIFIL maps specifying the areas in southern lebanon on which cluster bombs were used in order to minimize future casualties. [source]

This contains pretty much everything that is wrong with the article as a whole. The source says that Amnesty "on Aug. 31 demanded that Israel provide maps", also that Annan and Egeland are outraged, and that the maps dealt only with UNIFIL sites. It also mentions "grave violation of international humanitarian law" (which had been deleted earlier by our oh-so-well-meaning friend Tewfik). Yet, everything we see is that Israel has given out maps. 132.68.1.29 has added "in order to minimize future casualties". Yeah, right. Sweet selfless angels of mercy. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is a bunch of inhumane crackheads, but of course it has been taken care of that this is documented to the fullest in the article.

So, the article continues to be a pile of dishonest crap. It might be worth considering that the Israeli Army doesn't give a s**t about non-Israeli civilians, and neither do worthless racists who are editing this article to conceal the disgusting crimes against humanity that are committed in their name by their own evil government. Until next time. Kosmopolis 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You loose all credibility when you start spouting off the way you do with this post. If you are trying to remove POV from the article then you won't accomplish it by spouting such vitriolic POV in posts such as this. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to remove POV, I am merely trying to reinforce the proper citation of reliable sources. You may also note that it is not *my* POV that the IDF is ignoring loss of civilian life. Rather, this is the POV of multiple human rights organisations and the UN. Kosmopolis 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..Tewfik is too Israel-sided. Stop the POVs! Nielswik 10:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with a specific edit I made, I would be glad to hear about it, but I hope that any criticism is founded on more than just the above text, which at least appears to be far from a dispassionate or fair discussion. Additionally, I've suffered this uncivil section title long enough, and I am changing the section heading per Talk page guidelines from Tewfik's Ministry of Truth; these types of edits do not lead to productive discussion.  Tewfik Talk 07:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Tewfik failed to cooperate and still refuses to explain his edits, I cleared up most of the issues myself. Kosmopolis 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag under the "Background" section because I feel like it weak and stupid at best, but evil at worst. The background makes no reference to Hezbollah's violent history since its inception in 1985 nor does it mention the failed Syrian peace talks that, in part, led to Israel's unilateral withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000. As it is written now, it looks like Hezbollah "forced ... an Israeli withdrawal in 2000" reveals a very superficial, simplistic understanding of a multifaceted process and decision. --GHcool 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing comments
Diff 1

Your edit comment says "the reference is right there", can you please show me the passage where Germany "asserts Israel's right to self-defense"?


 * The reference's citation of Angela Merkel's stress on the fact that Hezbollah started everything is certainly clear enough, but to remove any ambiguity, I have supplied a Foreign Ministry statement which spells out the phrase. Anyways, there were other statements in the sub articles.  Tewfik Talk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. After weeks of dodging the question, you finally came up with a solid reference. This is the first time in weeks I fully support one of your edits. Btw, the Merkel quote does not imply self-defense *at all*, as there are other ways to achieve goals than "an eye for an eye". Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff 2 

Why do you keep deleting Nic Robertson saying that Hezbollah had "very, very good control" over its areas in the south of Beirut and a "sophisticated and slick media operations" and that his guide was "very, very anxious" about a presumably life-threatening situation? (italicised text added after Tewfik's response)


 * They were substituting the part where he stresses his doubts about the nature of the site for numerous quotations which are already paraphrased.  Tewfik Talk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Substituting? What does the nature of the sites have to do with "good control over the areas", "sophisticated media operations" and anxiety about a situtation? Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff 3 

Please show me your "several reports" that suggest that. All that you come up with is an article by the National Post, which is a *single* report, not *several*.

Diff 4

Please show me your "several media commentators and journalists". And they better be reliable and reputable. Again, your accusations are against "the media". Is Adnan Hajj "the media"?


 * Isarig has answered these two in part - I requested that you look at the sourcing which is quite clearly present in the sub articles.  Tewfik Talk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Referring to the National Post issue: I am not talking about Human shield tactics. Human shield tactics is one thing, deliberately maximizing civilian casualties is an entirely different issue. While there are several reports that elaborate on the Human shield tactics (including, obviously the UN itself), not one (not even the National Post) claims that Hezbollah "drew Israeli fire on residential areas in an attempt to maximize civilian casualties and garner more sympathy". Did you fabricate that sentence? I will correct that. Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am awaiting your comments on these diffs. Thanks. Kosmopolis 09:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With regards to Diff 4, take a look at the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies article, refernced in that section. It has multiple sources, from the Jerusalem post through Fox News to The Australian. Isarig 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments are above.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Kosmopolis 03:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that you keep this communication civil, and not refer to my editing as one of my 'usual revert orgies', for example. For that matter, I don't appreciate your claiming that I've been dodging any questions - I invited you to question any specific edit of mine, but I refused to be put on trial. This will be far more productive if we keep open minds, cool heads, and assume good faith on the other side. I should also point out that if you edit a previous statement, you should somehow make note so that all comments can be understood in the proper context (which I took the liberty of clarifying, though you can use a different method if you like).

In terms of your questions, I'm not sure what you feel noting how nervous Nic Robertson's minder was adds, and why it cannot be paraphrased, but I'm completely puzzled as to why its addition should come with a deletion of his suspicions about whether what he was seeing was real (ie civilian vs Hezbollah targets), which is the reason that the passage is significant to begin with. I also don't understand what issue you are taking with the "human shields" summary, as 'deliberately maximizing civilian casualties' is exactly what is implied by the allegation.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your excuse for not having clarified the edits I brought up constantly changes. Your latest claim is that I've put you "on trial", but you tell me to assume good faith? Think about the following passage in WP:AAGF and consider reducing your excessive referral to WP policies in the future: "The more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." Thanks. Regarding the article, Robertson's assurance that Hezbollah facilities were hit *is* and *was* included in the article, but you deleted and "paraphrased" far more than just that. And you equal "human shield tactics" to "deliberately maximizing civilian casualties"? Please see Human shield and note that the implication of a "desire to maximize casualties" or "garner sympathy" is your own POV. Keep it out of the article. Btw, these tactics lead to higher civilian casualties only if the enemy will open fire anyway. Exactly this accusation has been brought forward by the UN and several human rights organizations against the IDF, but you repeatedly streamlined these passages to your personal liking. Kosmopolis 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I too feel that the "human shield" expression is inappropriate even though it's often used by Israeli propaganda. To hide between the civilian population is a time-honored practice in asymmetrical warfare and was used by the Minutemen in the American Revolution, by the French Resistance in WWII, and by the Vietcong. I guess Jewish underground groups used the same tactic pre-1948. I also agree that "desire to maximize casualties" doesn't sound right as it is well documented that Hezbollah, as all successful guerrilla movements, is very good at gaining the civilian population's support. BTW, there is also a bit in the article that mentions Hezbollah preventing civilians from leaving the war zone that does not sound factual either and neither is a major POV. This article certainly needs some cleaning up. Dianelos 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosmopolis, when you refer to my edits as 'usual revert orgies', then at minimum I should remind you to assume good faith so that we can progress on the article. If you keep your comments civil and don't say things that suggest you think others are acting out of some sort of malicious intent, then no one will accuse you of thinking that. I've explained my rationale for not answering your original post of 23 diffs, and when you presented individual edits, I've been glad to discuss them. Unfortunately, you seem to have reverted several of the points without even acknowledging my responses:


 * Comment: You ignored multiple requests by several editors to explain your edits. A lot of these could have been treated en bloc. In the meantime, you made well over 23 other edits, but still refused to cooperate, varying your excuse from time to time. While I accused you of your usual revert orgies, you accused me of putting you on trial. Now, we can either continue throwing mud at each other or comment on edits. Like I tried to show you, I prefer to stay on topic. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not continuing with this part of the discussion: Iorek85, an extremely neutral editor, had given a very good response to your request, and I have also replied to you numerous times explaining why I needn't "cooperate" with that request (I have no 'excuses' as I made clear that I don't believe the request to be legitimate), even though I have responded to your later questions. I'm glad that you are committed to staying on topic, but if you make a statement suggesting an assumption of bad faith, there is no reason for you to cite WP:AAGF in response to a request for WP:AGF.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: As I said, hiding behind Iorek85's indiscriminative and generalizing defense is inadequate. But at least we have a definite (and hopefully final) statement from you now (besides missing time, reasons of size, being put on trial etc.): You deemed the requests not to be legitimate. If you ignore my requests for clarification based on that premise, fine. But if you ignore that other people also demanded clarification following my initial post, then there is definitely something wrong with your attitude. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to manipulate my words. As I explained from the very beginning, your request was unreasonable. I am not having this discussion again.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat myself: if you ignore that other people also demanded clarification following my initial post, then there is definitely something wrong with your attitude. And you're pretty good at contradicting yourself, so I don't even need to try manipulating your words. I also see that you prefer to take the easy way, now, and just use MPerel's batch revert instead of going through each passage one by one. What a wonderful coincidence that yours and MPerel's POVs are so perfectly in unison, maybe you would like to help him out?  Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my above statement,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You insist on adding the lines 'had "very, very good control" over its areas in the south of Beirut and a "sophisticated and slick media operations" and that it' and 'He stressed that his guide was "very, very anxious" about the situation,' while removing the line 'he reiterated that he couldn't verify the civilian nature of the destroyed buildings.' While I don't see a problem from a content perspective in adding those quotes, I'm not sure what they add, since instead of perhaps contradicting some position, they merely repeat in unnecessary detail what the passage and the section are already stressing - that Hezbollah was good at PR. This is why I don't understand your deleting the reporter's reservations about Hezbollah's story at the same time as adding all those unnecessary quotes.


 * Comment: Those "unnecessary quotes" are important in understanding the nature of the tour. The Hebzollah guide was not the only factor that prevented Robertson from going through the rubble. I added your paraphrasing in an effort to end the edit-war. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You did not 'add my paraphrasing,' but instead removed his qualification of the "civilian properties" line. And it is still not clear why the "good control" and the "slick" quotes need be stated separately, when such a noncontroversial point can be simply paraphrased.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:I *did* add your paraphrasing in an effort to end the edit-war. Take a look at the latest revision. And if the quotes were so "noncontroversial", why did you so eagerly remove them over and over again instead of even trying to paraphrase them? Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments clearly state my objections: they repeat unnecessary detail - aside from being bad stylistically and lengthwise, they also reduce the clarity. At most, the line about anxiety should be there, but only that.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat myself: Those "unnecessary quotes" are important in understanding the nature of the tour. The Hebzollah guide was not the only factor that prevented Robertson from going through the rubble. Your "length" excuse is pretty weak. As for style, perhaps you're right, but that's why it's called collaborative *editing*. What is it about the editing part that you don't get? FYI, I rephrased disputed passages and introduced your phrases to try to bring disputes to an end, but I still see nothing else than indistinctive batch reversal on your part. Shall I dig out some diffs, again? Maybe the background section, to begin with? Or some of the 23+ other edits? Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The anxiety due to imminent airstrikes is legitimate, as I said above. Just rephrasing out of a quote to maintain the reiterations of how in control Hezbollah is, while again removing the reporter's own reiteration of his discomfort with accepting the Hezbollah line, and minimising the general point that Hezbollah's control might have influenced the reporting (which is the point of the section), is not fair though. Giving more room to one position than another influences the passage's POV.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You continue to limit attribution of this claim to National Post. I again (for the third time) refer you to the subarticle - particularly relevant is Jan Egeland's comment.


 * Comment: And I told you countless times to keep your POV out of the article. Egeland's comment does *not* say that Hezbollah was trying to "maximize civilian casualties". Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll concede that the motivation (an attempt to maximize civilian casualties) is only implied and not explicitly stated in those sources (and this NYT too), but this Times article says it outright. Anyways, that wouldn't justify removing the mention of the allegations themselves (several reports have alleged that Hezbollah fired rockets from residential areas to draw Israeli fire on those areas).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:So you "concede" that this is your own POV claim, but you still keep inserting it? Very truthful indeed. Neither the NYT nor the Times article contain the claims you attribute to them. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are reading extremely selectively - I conceded that the original sourcing that I pointed you to only implied, and then I supplied a sourcing that said it explicitly. You then say that my sourcing doesn't say what I claim - so then how can you claim to even mistakenly think that I 'conceded and still inserted POV.' You really must cool down. The passage I was referring to is: Using the civilian population as cover is an integral aspect of asymmetrical warfare, and it follows that innocent civilians will die in large numbers in air attacks. The attacker, in this case Israel, subsequently loses the all-important international public relations battle.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad that you still haven't brought up a quote saying that Hezbollah is "deliberately trying to maximize civilian casualties". FYI, I am not the only one who thinks your interpretation is fishy. Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps other editors could share their understanding of this passage?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You again reverted the background section. While there is a debate about whether to include the Palestinian Exodus in which I would be happy to engage you, the reference to those calling for Israel's destruction as also calling for the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contradictory, in addition to being anachronistic and unsourced (including in the relevant sub-articles).


 * Comment: I reverted it because you try to use Gabi S. irrational edit (which was marked as "Remove nonsense") as the new starting point for this section, while we had a consensus version. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not use GabiS's comments as a starting point, but rather my discussion with Kendrick. Again, the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" part is totally out of place here (which you didn't even attempt to discuss), and the Palestinian Exodus can be discussed - however it is far from consensus.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:No. Before Gabi S.'s comment, the exodus was well in place. The rewrite of the whole background section (which has now become the widely accepted Israel-Lebanon conflict article) was largely my work and was deleted by you (why do I waste my time discussing with you, after all?). So the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "out of place"? What was the PLO doing, in your opinion? Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whose work it was, it was not consensus - I had a long and productive discussion with Kendrick on it in which we limited the points of contention to only how important the Exodus' role was. I have invited you to this discussion numerous times. Yes, the fighters "coordinating attacks against Israel, [and] calling for its destruction" were not calling for "the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I have requested sourcing in the past. Please stop making this change until you have some.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Which conclusion did you reach with Kendrick7 in your "long and productive discussion"? I am happy to share your consensus. Btw, you forgot to answer my question: what was the PLO doing? Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Both questions are answered in my previous reply. Please, if you cool down, you'll see that we're both just trying to make the article better.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the point of excessive quoting the Amnesty report. It could be equally possible to extensively quote from sources with other POVs, but rather than a clearer and stronger worded article, we would end up with a lengthy list of quotations. Doing it for only one position undermines the article's neutrality.


 * Comment: Your argumentation suggests that you have a deeply flawed understanding of "neutrality". Neutrality does not mean deleting passages only because you can find no reliable sources that support "the other" position. I reduced the "excessive" quoting and made the passage more descriptive. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that - I am saying that if we choose to expand one point of view while keeping the others as succinct summaries, we have the effect of promoting the POV with more coverage. That is why adding every detail and quote undermines neutrality. My summary did not miss any of the major contentions as far as I can tell, though feel free to let me know if you disagree. In any event, you didn't reduce anything, but just removed the words "according to the report" and the citation. Please be accurate about what you actually did...  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Your summary surprisingly missed all of the major points that are brought forward against the behaviour of the IDF, and Amnesty is not the only party bringing these up. As I said, I reduced the quoting and made the passage more descriptive. This last sentence sounds like a joke coming from you, given your documented history of misleading edit summaries. And I see, you already reverted again, now even introducing factual inaccuracies. According to your latest edit, Israel now "attacked [...] the government of Lebanon"? Are you kidding? Oh well, but your accurate edit summaries say "shorten", "add context", and "summarising". If you think that this style of editing has a future around here, you're *terribly* mistaken. Kosmopolis 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My 'documented history of misleading edit summaries' - indeed, you are not interested in slinging mud. This whole comment is a misleading twisting of facts. You first of all did not do what you said, but rather merely reverted and removed the three words and citation as I said above. The summary "shorten, add context" goes with this edit, and that is exactly what I did. The line which you ellipsed actually reads "A recent report presented facts suggesting that Israel deliberately attacked the civilian population and government of Lebanon in a conscious effort to turn them against Hezbollah..." If you think that this style of editing has a future around here, you're *terribly* mistaken.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusing someone of putting him on trial is throwing mud, and so is throwing the AGF bomb one thousand times in a row, but let me remind you that your documented history of misleading edit summaries over the past months is spread over three or four talk pages (yours and other articles'). And yes, the line which I ellipsed actually reads "A recent report presented facts suggesting that Israel deliberately attacked the civilian population and government of Lebanon in a conscious effort to turn them against Hezbollah..." Again, I can only copy-paste myself by saying: Israel now "attacked [...] the government of Lebanon"? Are you kidding?! Kosmopolis 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if your claims were true, which they aren't, they have no bearing here. Your accusation above of misleading edit summaries is a cumulative diff for several edits, the last of which had that edit summary, and is thus totally misrepresented. I suggest you review the history if you really believe that I did what you say - I also provided the specific edit to which that summary was attached ("shorten, add context" goes with this edit). The same goes for the ellipsed sentence - perhaps you can explain what the problem with it is. I should note that it isn't my original work, but I was reverting back to the short summary from your quote-laden version, which I discussed above. I pray that we can all take deep breaths and just focus on the edits.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 20:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, before any more reversions, address these concerns. I also stress that the key to improving this article is for all of us to maintain cool attitudes. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I did. It strikes me that you accuse me of "reverting", while I was usually the one who *added* information to the article in the first place. Kosmopolis 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of Conflict
As we now have a pretty conclusive reference that the july 12 Hezbollah attack took place in Israel proper I propose we delete the redundant:
 * The UN, the European Union, the G8, the United States, and prominent news agencies,[22] including Al Jazeera,[23] have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border".[24]

Dianelos 12:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree in theory, but the last two times that we removed it we ended up with users suggesting alterate versions of what happened. I generally regret not having protested the more removal of sourcing from contentious claims, as often, much energy has been spent on simply affirming that those claims were indeed sourced. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's try again. I think by now everybody will agree it was cross-border. Dianelos 02:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I find the member Tewfic very pro Israeli in all his edits, can there be some sort of review to question his neutrality? # R e a p e r 7
 * If you have content disputes regarding this article, please deal with those specific issues, rather than focussing on other editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reaper, when you see edits pushing a certain POV go in there and fix them. That is the cure. Normally in a free play situation where anyone can edit things balance out but there are scarcely any Lebanese, Arab, or Palestinian editors in Wikipedia. And frankly there are those that take advantage of the situation to push a POV and delete and revert unmercifully for no reason and any reason. Whoever said life was fair. Go out and recruit fair minded counter-balancing editors. That is the solution. Best Wishes. Will314159 17:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do these kinds of reviews happen often on Wikipedia? It reminds me of McCarthyism...  Valtam  19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just seems instead of trawling through the article and wasting so much time, those who are seen to have soley one agenda only be allowed so many edits a week or something like that. It is well documented how the Israeli mandate on the internet influences articles, but this one is even ridiculous by those standards. R e a p e r 7

Instead of cursing the darkness, it is far better to light a candle folks. The cure is to go out there and recruit disinterested editors that won't push a POV. Or failing that counter-balancing edirors to the POV that is being pushed. I used to think that what mattered was the quality and not the quantity of the argument. Wrong. You can have have a debate here for months and fashion a compromise position and some zealot will come in and revert it out of the blue. Misinterpreting some rule and setting you back months. You just stick the truth back in. It's not going to be in there all the time, but it"ll be there some of the time. Somebody has played a trick with my IP address. Had to log out to post. Best Wishes. Will. 65.184.213.36 04:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is all fine, but please stop the ad hominems (like the edit summary fate of Israelis very relevant to most people heartless Tewfik; ironically, this was in response to someone else's edits). All other considerations aside, it is still practically more effective if you address specific edits, rather than general, unsubstantiated complaints. In terms of the compromises that have stood for months, this new flurry of editing has generally been contrary to the consensus, rather than upholding it.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My bust Tewfik and apology. I misread the history line (the shaitan interceded) and there was no way to back and correct it. However, you are known as the man of the thousand edits on this article and many of them IMHO just pure POV pushing. I remember when I put a Moshe Arens opinion in and you took it out, saying why is he notable? I see he's back in now. Best Wishes Will314159 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that it was a mistake, and that's ok; my problem isn't with the name, but with the comment. I might very well have made that edit (and made a similar one in the past) - regardless of what you think, you should strive to stick to the arguments and not the people - that way we have an environment where we can eventually agree to disagree, and thus make the most improvement to the project. In terms of the Arens comment, I am still not totally in favour, but as the article has generally become less strict in certain aspects of size, its inclusion is slightly less of an issue. If I do at some point challenge its inclusion, it will be with a calm and civil argument. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"War" or "Conflict"?
I think it's obvious that the voting above will not lead to any kind of consensus. I think that when the rest of the world calls something "a spade", this encyclopedia's article should call it "a spade" too. This is not a matter of what is the more correct expression for some reason or other. You might find it interesting to read this article in Haaretz to see how overwhelmingly this event is called a "war" in Israel. Dianelos 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia's relevant policy here: Naming conventions (common names). What counts is how something is commonly called, and really everybody is calling the events that happened in Israel and Lebanon between July 12 and August 14 a "war". By keeping "war" out of the title we only make it more difficult for WP's users to find the information they are looking for. For example the searches "Israel Lebanon war" "2006 Israel Lebanon war" "Second Lebanon war" in Wikipedia's seach engine will all fail to find the relevant article. I think that's unconscionable and I suggest we put "war" in the title as soon as possible. Dianelos 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Let wikipedians decide. You're welcome to make those pages redirects, by the way. Iorek85 11:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most people who voted above appear not to know about the relevant Wikipedia policy that applies here (see their comments). I think that policy should have been mentioned at the beginning of the voting section. Dianelos 10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Israeli tanks hit/destroyed?
Currently the article says that 14 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks were destroyed by Hezbollah (what does destroyed mean?). But in the Merkava article it says "50 Merkavas were hit and damaged", so which one is accurate? Geedubber 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an educated guess or SWAG. Destroyed means beyond repair. Hit and damaged means you can tow it back with a tank tow vehicle and do repairs. With a modular vehicle like the Merkava, it was engineered for repairability. When I served in Vietnam a long, long, time ago on the DMZ. When the tanks hit mines, there was a behemoth of a tracked vehicle that towed them back. Best Wishes. Will314159 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone care if I changed the article to match the Merkava entry ? -- switch "14 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks were destroyed" to "50 Merkavas were hit and damaged" Geedubber 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the source for "14 destroyed" requires a subscriber login to access, and the source at Merkava is a direct link, I think your change is preferable. -- M P er el ( talk 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can try to verify Will's claim first? I don't think that there is good reason to include damaged vehicles in this article (it is a big enough stretch to include destroyed materiel), though perhaps the Merkava entry should note the two different numbers, again, contingent on verification of Will's hunch.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume Will is right. Nevertheless, 'destroyed' is a vague, narrow descriptor . Hit and damaged is a more inclusive and informative term. (also, I have a suspicion the number 14 actually refers to the # of tanks hit during the last 2 days of war. From the article cited in the Merkava entry "In the last two days of the war, in the battles in Wadi Sluki and Marjayoun, 14 tanks were hit") Geedubber

The best way to think of it is this. You give the total number of casaulties and then break it down into 1)dead and 2)seriously wounded. Destroyed means killed. Hit and damaged means no simple field repair like fixing the track shoe but had to use a tank recovery vehicle to do serious repair. Best Wishes Will314159 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think the term 'hit and damaged' would include tanks destroyed. Destroyed=severe damage. Geedubber 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Debatus.com
This has a number of structured wiki debates going on the conflict. I just thought you might find this a good outlet for the argumentation presented here that's not supposed to be in the main article and that is difficult to organize on the talk page. Plus, you can't refine eachother's work on the talk page. Isreal-Hezbollah Conflict Debates

Katyusha?
Is there a source beyond the Israeli paper Haaretz that claims Hezbollah used this particular type of rocket? This would have been a violation of the Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, and therefore is Israel's justification for war; thus it should be better sourced. I'm asking the same question on the sub-article. -- Kendrick7 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. For starters, Israel's justification for the war does not rely on  having Katyushas fired on civilian targets - when you conduct a cross border raid, kill and kidnap soldiers, you've initiated an armed attack, and Israel can respond with force according to article 51 of the UN charter.  Second, it is far from clear that the Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding were still in effect, after Israel's 2000 withdrawl from Lebanon. Third, nothing in those agreements said anything specific about Katyushas. Fourth, Haaretz is a relaible source, and is used to source many other claims in the article, as it should be. And finally, to your question, yes, multiple sources other than Haaretz reported that Hezbollah fired katyushas on Israeli civilian targets that day, including this one


 * 1st: OK, I shouldn't have said justification for war; as Israel and Lebanon have been in a state of war since 1948, I should have said, merely, as a breach of the standing ceasefire.
 * 2nd: There's nothing in the ceasefire regarding the occupation.
 * 3rd: According to the text, which is in full at Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, it certainly mentioned Katyushas, in the very first article:
 * 1. Armed groups in Lebanon will not carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel.
 * 4th: While Haaretz is a reliable source, I would certaintly take what they have to say in this matter cum grano salis, and I think editors would be fools not to. -- Kendrick7 04:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5th: (sorry) I meant comtempory sources, not sources a week after the fact which could have been just quoting Haaretz -- Kendrick7 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st: A breach of the standing ceasfire would have been a cross border raid.
 * 2nd: The Understandings were an informal framework while Israel occupied Lebanon. As I wrote, it is not clear that they were in effect post July 2000. You're welocme to your POV that they were, but it is not a fact, by any means.
 * 3rd: Do read the the very first article until its end: "or by any kind of weapon".
 * 4th: That's a unique take on WP:RS, not used anywhere else in WP. You're welcome to your personal POV about Ha'aretz, but as far as WP is concerned, it is a reliable source, and we can source things to it, even if it is an exclusive source.
 * 5th, as I said yes. Go and search them out using Google. It was universally described by nearly all media sources at the time. Isarig 05:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st: that's an opinion
 * 2nd: ditto
 * 3rd: what's your point?
 * 4th: Taking a grain of salt when trusting a country's media after that country has been invaded is unique? Well, if that is that case, I'll have to take it up with the higher authorities. Thinking a source is automatically reliable under all circumstances would be a severe deficiency in this site's policy.
 * 5th: no, i won't. name one. -- Kendrick7 07:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1- No, that's internatioanl law.
 * 2 - yes, that's an opinion. you have a differnt one, and you're welcome to it. but stating your POV as fact and requesting evidence to support something based on that POV is not going to get you far.
 * 3 - my point it that when you asked "Is there a source beyond the Israeli paper Haaretz that claims Hezbollah used this particular type of rocket?" you were asking a pointless question, as it does not matter which rocket, or even which weapon was used.
 * 4 - By all means do. Please think it through before you do so. Are you suggesting no Amercian media can be used to source claims about 9/11? No Amercian, British or Australian ones be used for the Iraq war? That's going to leave pretty slim pickins for the English WP.
 * 5 - Don't expect others to do your homework. If you won't look it up, it'll be just Haa'retz Isarig 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"strongly suggested" etc
A briefing presented facts "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" and "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage, which, according to the report, indicated a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

Kosmopolis, in reply to your request for further explanation, what I object to is stringing parts of quotes together out of several paragraphs into a combined sentence that misconstrues what was actually stated. The above implies that "facts" "strongly suggested" "a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah." The article quoted did not say that. Also on another of your recent edits, regarding the email about "tactical necessity". Either that should be expanded to include "Retired major general Lewis MacKenzie explained, "What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces).'"  Or better yet the whole thing should be summarized since there's already a whole article on the event, yes? -- M P er el ( talk 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding your second issue, I rephrased the passage to include the jargon interpretation.

Regarding the first issue, this is the actual quote:


 * The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" – incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.


 * Statements by Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign. [...long list of statements...]


 * The widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah. Israeli attacks did not diminish, nor did their pattern appear to change, even when it became clear that the victims of the bombardment were predominantly civilians, which was the case from the first days of the conflict.

I had paraphrased this passage to this:


 * A briefing presented facts "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" and "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage, which, according to the report, indicated a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

Now it reads like this:


 * A briefing presented evidence "strongly suggesting" that Israel's "extensive destruction" of public civilian infrastructure" was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than collateral damage. According to the report, statements by Israeli military officials suggested a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to turn them against Hezbollah.

The later parts of the article largely deal with the proportionality issues. While I welcome your comments, it would be reassuring to know that you maintain the same exactitude on other people's edits, as well. Kosmopolis 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the way to do it, point by point, not by ungxdly wholesale reversions. Best Wishes Will314159 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Edit The person that wholesale reverted was "she" so it was her wholesale reversions. Best Wishes Will314159 13:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all Will, thank you for noticing I am a she and not a he. I don't hold it against anyone or even bother correcting people when they assume I'm a "he" but it's nice when someone has bothered to look at my user page.  On the reversions, first of all let me say it's not my normal mode to revert people, I usually focus my effort on the talk page.  The reason I reverted Kosmopolis is that I observed there was too much (quantity) of edits that hadn't gained consensus that was getting rammed into the article.  I see he's blocked for a bit now for 3RR, and I won't be reverting because I don't want to violate 3RR myself, but when he gets back I would like to gain his support to work together with all editors on this page to move a little more slowly in bite size pieces through these changes.  If we could hammer them out piece by piece I'm sure we'll have more success.  He'd probably be surprised at how much we can all agree to if we hammer it out together.  Otherwise,  I find it too overwhelming to even discuss when the edits come at such a rapid pace without consensus first.  Anyway, that's what I propose, I'll return in a bit to try again, and hopefully things will be cooled down here so we can make better progress. -- M P er el ( talk 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)