Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 34

Background rewrite
I've rewritten the background again. -- Kendrick7 04:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have as well. Aside from removing the focus on the 1948 refugees (which I detail below, which is probably where we should continue discussion for this page on that issue), I also clarified the nature of combat between PLO and IDF (which came across as awkward to me), noted that the PLO was only one of the causes of the Civil War, and clarified the causes of the Israeli withdrawal. The Hezbollah didn't force anyone's surrender outright, but as the Israeli political echelon began to publicly discuss leaving Lebanon, SLA got very antsy due to being kept largely in the dark, and when some Shia units started flipping the whole enterprise became a house of cards, which is part of the reason the Israeli forces left so hastily. I also rephrased the last part to imply that Israel's presence in Shebaa was not in conflict with its obligations vis-a-vis Lebanon (ie the UN required withdrawal to the Blue Line, which Shebaa isn't included in).  Tewfik Talk 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I rewrote several of the sentences to flow smoother, and to keep the focus on the background, and not any specific phase of the history, including adding a mention of the Syrian presence. If you still feel the refugees deserve mention, then lets continue our discussion below (where I give a brief summary to the previous discussion). I took out the reference to the PLO revolution in Jordan, as the interested reader can follow the Black September link. I reinstated your earlier passage about the National Pact, and changed Hezbollah from a "resistance movement" to a more NPOV "militia," as well as changing the double 'calling' phrasing. I tried to implicitly clarify that the Shebaa Farms weren't in dispute at the time so much as they were part of Hezbollah's post withdrawal raison d'être. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to allow the explanation of why the PLO was operating out of Lebanon, then the PLO should be left out entirely. I'll remove the pre 1982 background. -- Kendrick7 06:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the reasons they were operating out of Lebanon were somehow unclear (though I don't understand how not saying they recruited in part from the 48-9 refugees does that), that would still not be a reason to remove all the parts of their involvement that were clearly relevant (and which we agree on). I invited you above to continue discussing the specific point of the refugees below, as well as on your Talk. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(I moved this from below for convenience,  Tewfik Talk 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I've removed discussion of the Palestinians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization from the background. I believe a brief historical background which included the history of Palestinian militancy would need to include some mention of what they were fighting for, so as not to introduce an anti-Palestinian POV. However, any mention of the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon is consistantly deleted from the article, with the claim that it is not relevant to this conflict. So I will wear a black hat and ensure a more restrictive view of relevancy to the background, and edit appropriately. -- Kendrick7 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If your edit-summary saying that you were told the PLO is irrelevant is based on your understanding of my statements, then you have very much misunderstood me, as I have never said anything remotely like that. In any event, cutting out the first half of the background makes no sense as it leaves the reader with no understanding of the second half, and is totally unjustified in light of your disagreement on one line. I've asked several times this week that you continue the discussion about why you feel the line should be added, but all I've gotten are two arguments that you never mentioned before, one of them in your reversion edit-summary. You now say that mentioning that the PLO recruited in part from 1948 refugees (in 1968-70) should be included because that 1) somehow explains what the PLO was fighting for, and 2) that not including that establishes anti-PLO POV. You alternatively said in your edit-summary, as I mentioned before, that 3) the PLO is not relevant to the conflict. In the past discussions you said that we need to mention them because 4) they were a source of recruits, and before that, because 5) they provided provisions to the PLO. My responses are as follows: 5) and other groups supplied arms, should we include them? Other militias may have been supplied by their ethnic groups, should we also include all of them? 4) Similarly, we don't mention the source of recruits for other militias, I think it is clear that the PLO is Palestinian oriented, as its name declares. 3) I totally don't understand why you now would suddenly think that the PLO is not relevant, especially as both Israeli invasions into Lebanon were aimed at them. 1) Could you also explain how mentioning that the PLO recruited in part from the Palestinian refugees that arrived in Lebanon in '48-9 explains what they are fighting for? Assuming it did, since when do we have to explain the PLO's ideological platform - we don't explain anyone else's; this brief summary is supposed to explain who did what (PLO attacks Israel, Israel invades Lebanon), unless you are trying to tie this conflict to Israel's founding (which you hinted at in the initial formulations), which is out of its scope. As for the 2) contention that not saying all this establishes anti-PLO POV, that would only be so if you believed that mentioning the refugees serves as a justification for the PLO attacks on Israel, which you in any event don't claim. The total of what you believe should go in which I don't is: Militants were recruited in Lebanon by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the descendants of Palestinian refugees who had left Israel in 1948, and by 1968 PLO militants were conducting attacks into Israel from Lebanon VS Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been carrying out attacks from Lebanon into Israel since 1968 - I reiterate my invitation to Talk. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)   --  Postscript: The replies you left on my Talk were exteremly unclear, please try to answer in a detailed manner so that we can once and for all resolve this.

I see this as very simple. A refugee picks up a gun, and thus becomes a militant. A militant puts down his gun, and he becomes a refugee again. This is not some magic trick. This is not the transfiguration, or an irreversible circumcision of the heart. You keep claiming that the militant is relevant while the refugee is not. It is of little importance, furthermore, where the gun came from. What is important, rather, is that refugee is there and willing to pick it up. If his reason for picking up the gun is because he is a refugee, and his ire is directed towards those, whom he perceives, made him a refugee, a passing mention of what his unarmed status is in the world shouldn't be beyond the pale, nor would it be to date the appromiate year he or his forbears became refugees. I reject the contention that only a man with a gun can have relevancy in history. -- Kendrick7 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Palestinian case and its rationale are amply discussed on pages like PLO, which is a wikilink in this article's background. There is still no reason to have a line discuss who the PLO recruited from, much less to include that point in the hope that it somehow implies the rationale for the PLO actions. As an aside, I don't see how it is 'suppressing information' to not state explicitly that the "Palestine Liberation Organization" recruited from Palestinians, as not saying that Amal or Hezbollah (Shi'a groups) recruited from Shi'a, Maronite from Maronite, or Druze from Druze in their brief mention is also not 'suppressing.'  Tewfik Talk 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Palestians aren't Lebanonese, that's why. Sorry, one of us will get tired sooner or later. -- Kendrick7 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of us needs to get tired - we need to engage in discussion. So far you have presented several different reasons, and I believe I responded fully to each of them. While I still disagree that the basic reader won't understand from the context that the "Palestine Liberation Organisation" has something to do with Palestinians, the point that you were responding to was an aside (as I said clearly). You have not shown why we must say explicitly from whom the PLO recruited (as opposed to everyone else), though you have hinted that it is some implicit representation of the Palestinian case. As I said above, there is no reason to make that case here, but there is less reason to just present some facts in the hopes that it implicitly presents a case that we wouldn't present explicitly.  Tewfik Talk 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why you are so against presenting any background on the PLO? Why can't this be presented fairly as not an indigineous Lebanese group? -- Kendrick7 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly because I've answered each of your differing argument as you presented them, and you haven't really addressed my points. Additionally, this seems to be more about somehow tying everything back to Israel's founding, which was alluded to in some of your earlier statements/versions of the page. If you'd like to pick a specific argument, and take into account my replies, then I would be glad to clarify my position, and hopefully make clear why this does not belong. The ball has been in your court for some while now...and the constant reversions are not the proper way to play (in any event, if your concern is that people might think the PLO is indigenous, then aside from "who cares, that isn't important," I not that they can understand from its name it is from outside, they can click on its wikilink, or they can read the line that says they came from Jordan).  Tewfik Talk 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree that you have answered my arguments. Honestly, I've tried to be as diplomatic with you as I could be regarding the background, and I've tried to present various versions of the background via our negotiations which I had each hoped would have met your approval. But ultimately, whether you like it or not, I'd even be willing to stand be my first version, aside from the demographic implications we've already resolved. The creation of Israel did create the Palestinian exodus which did create the PLO which did create the cross border strife between the PLO and Israel which involved Lebanese civilians, which did create the 18 year Israel occupation of Lebanese territory, which did create Hezbollah, which did create the 2006 conflict. I even was willing to leave the whole of the Palestinian issue out of it, and start this background from 1982-85, and I'm sorry that wasn't good enough. I invite any other editor to look at the threads on our talk pages and at Talk:Israel-Lebanon conflict and here to make up their own minds. And I wasn't even going to argue the point any further, but if you honestly think this is all resolved just because you bothered to make the last edit, that's completely incorrect. -- Kendrick7 06:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The basis of your claim is simple and self-evident. Israel badly destabilised Jordan and Lebanon by flooding them with brutalised refugees (the 1967 refugees much worse than the 1948, perhaps because the UN barely provided them anything? - didn't even count them). Lebanon was fairly fragile anyway, but it was actually doing rather well ("Paris of the East") before the Civil War and the invasion by Israel.
 * What you may not have realised is that Israel (or Ben-Gurion anyway, and I think others) always wanted to seize southern Lebanon, drive out the local Muslims and link to the Christians in the north. This is from 1937 .... so it's nothing to do with the Holocaust, it is simply what the robber Zionists had planned. PalestineRemembered 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I simply believe that I have fully dealt with each of the reasons that you have argued. Once you are willing to include indirectly related details, then where shall we draw the line? Your wish to include the 1948 refugees could be paralleled with a need to explain the circumstances leading to Israel's founding, or a discussion of how/why/under what circumstances the 1948 refugees left. The point being that all of these may be relevant in the articles that deal with them directly, but not here. And while you have made some efforts to compromise, I don't see your cutting off the first half of the background as constructive, nor is your original version a good idea, as you even initially pointed out that it could be taken to cast blame in only one direction. From my point of view, part of the reason we're at this point is a kind of 'talking past each other.' If you believe that you still have a strong argument as for why the 1948 Palestinians need be mentioned, please do so, and I'll try to reply as concisely as possible (as I said several times, I believe that I've dealt amply with all your arguments, but perhaps I have actually missed them if we are still having this discussion). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Size of Israeli ground troops
The infobox currently states 30,000. Shouldn't it reflect the fact it changed during the month? Initially there were none, then up to about 10,000. 30K was only in the last few days. How about "(Up to?) 10,000. 30,000 in few final days" or something or the sort? ehudshapira 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we maintain a neutral presentation for both sides. I'm not sure what the best way to clarify this point while still being encylopaedic would be - maybe a footnote within the infobox describing the extreme changes in deployment? Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is a short sentence too long to fit in there? If yes, is a range (10,000-30,000) too cryptic/non-representative? If a single number, then maybe I'd go for 10K + footnote, which was more or less true for most of the time with ground activity. ehudshapira 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on UN personnel...
IMHO as an IP in the Englisch language WP, the Article Attacks on United Nations personnel during the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict should be moved/modified/enhanced.

1st) The name is wrong, since the main article is named 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The name is too long, no living man ever will enter this name to get this article.

2nd) The article makes a mosquito an elephant. No misunderstandigs here, please, I don't question the relevancy of this article. I question the sense of the subject of the article, since in this conflict 7 died and 12 were injured, but in the 28 years of the existence of UNIFIL before, about 250 UN soldiers have died and a lot more than 12 were injured. Therefore I pledge to modify this article to include events happened after the installment of this UN mission in 1978 and change the name into UNIFIL casualities. Focus on the entire history of this mission, but not only on Ten Days in July. (Sorry, couldn't resist, Mr. Woodward!)

3rd) Of course, WP is about encyclopedia, not counting apples. Therefore, the information that Maj. Lang from Austria is survived by an 11-years-old boy and his mother is really a tragedy (WTF, they send soldiers there who are an only parent of a young child?), but the 249+ casualities before also had family members. What I want to express is, for instance, that this article tells through 3 pages about the Khiyam incidence, but the other three deads and the 12 wounded are handled within half a page. Of course, the incident earned widespread media echo, but a statement of Ehud Olmert, who phoned Kofi Annan and expressed his deep regret over the death pf the four UN observers including the rest of this paragraph is simply not important at all and should be discarded. (Since hundreds of years leaders excuse for having done bad things while they didn't give a shit about what happened at all!)

Please undertake the measures needed and appropriate for the article. User de:Benutzer:Matthiasb in the German WP. (here only an IP) --213.155.224.232 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline(s) of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
It's not exactly the right place to do so but I feel the necessarity to point out on the latest modification of the Timeline articles to this conflict.

Especially in Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (late August) and Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (since September) extremely POV can be found, e.g. from the latter: In the former article (late August) we find for example the August 30th entry for Lebanon (!): The war costed the lives of nearly 1200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis (sic!), mostly soldiers. Though this statement is correct, but why the 157 dead Israelis are mentioned within Lebanon, pointing out civilians vs. soldiers?
 * Kofi Annan travelled to Iran and all is fine about Lebanon, the contents of the article is suggesting.
 * Once Iran supported Hezbollah, but during the conflict only politically. Anway its over, Iran considers a Lebanese solution of the problem is needed.
 * Hezbollah is not a headache for Israel alone. That's POV pure (though I agree, but choosing words ... feh!)
 * On Spetember 4th Jesse Jackson -- what this guy, presidential candidate decades ago, has to do here? Irrelevant. This is no American WP, but an English language WP which is to be used by many smaller language versions as a source for translation.
 * Women in southern Lebanon wept at the graves of loved ones killed in the Israel-Hezbollah war, at the start of a major holiday marking the end of Ramadan. In the bombed-out villages of southern Lebanon, the mood was morbid and the festivities subdued. There is only sadness and desperation and fear for the future.  (October 23 entry) -- Whre this comes from? Live from Hezbollah War-Propaganda agency?
 * October 24th: Some Shiites will begin the Eid al-Fitr-holiday. Fine. Czech people will have a holiday on this Saturday, too. May I include this information here?
 * References 4 to 9 are citing sources, but only titles, without any link. Therefore useless.

Please undertake the measures needed and appropriate for the article. User de:Benutzer:Matthiasb in the German WP. (here only an IP) --213.155.224.232 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points across the board; I shall be getting to fixing the problems shortly. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a little reminder: nothing much done of it so far. --213.155.224.232 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not had so much free time as of late, but I will try to get to it eventually.  Tewfik Talk 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Background
The background people keep reverting to, in spite of all discussion, is still absolute Israeli bias. Firstly the version you keep reverting to does not mention the fundamental background to the Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, the existence of Palestinian refugees. Secondly the "failed to control" phrase in the first sentence has connotations far too negative towards Lebanon, and ignores the fact that Lebanon has suffered far more greatly than Israel from militancy within its borders. Thirdly the background mentions that Hizbollah continued to make attacks on Israel after Israeli withdrawal from most of Lebanon (attacks whose frequency have incidentally been greatly exaggerated), yet it doesn't mention that Israel also carried out incursions into Lebanon during this period. Once again I re-iterate, it is those who keep reverting who are not respecting the neutrality of this article, and no-one has has yet explained to me how I in any way am breaching WP:NPOV in this article

By the way, are the people who keep insisting on this version American? I only ask because a lot of Americans are ignorant of the Arab position in middle-east conflict and instictively pro-Israeli,even when Israel commits the most horrific war crimes, they therefore often misconstrue otherwise lucid neutrality for pro-Muslim bias.Nwe 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Americans are not ignorant of the Arab position. Many are quite aware that the Arab League declared a war of destruction against Israel in 1948 and is still officially in that State of War today. That includes Lebanon, an original member f the AL, a country that invaded Israel in '48, a country still at war, and who's leaders say they'll "be the last" Arab country to make peace with Israel. Admittedly, not as many are aware that Fatah was founded in 1958 and the PLO in 1965 with the same goal, but they're learning. Fewer people know that at Arab demands, the 1949 Armistice Agreements specify that the Green Line is not a border, but just where combat ceased, so that the territory is disputed and not occupied. Ithinktfiam 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Time for a move?
"July War" seems to be by a considerable margin the most commonly used name for this conflict by now (cf google results ). Should we consider moving it there? Palmiro | Talk 12:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A Google test is not a good method of establishing the proper term past a certain scale. I found minimal/no reference to the "July War" on CNN or The Guardian compared to other more popular terms. In any event, a Google search for "july war" 2006 yielded 41,600, while "lebanon conflict" 2006 yielded 682,000. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs commonly refer to 2006 israel-lebanon conflict as 'Sixth war'

Flimsy sources.
Sources like this one are why Wikipedia doesn't allow weasel wording in its articles. "Sources in Lebanon claim," say this Kuwait.net site, then it doesn't provide who the sources in question are? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Yeah we couldn't cite that source. It doesn't even tell us what Lebanese sources that says so. Probably Israeli agents in Lebanon? who knows. Anyway I've found better source Nielswik(talk) 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And also see Talk:Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Nielswik(talk) 15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This source is a mainstream Kuwait newspaper - a WP:RS. Please do not remove sourced material. It is vandalism. Isarig 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And so is Sydney Morning Herald that you removed Nielswik(talk) 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "At least 60" is consistent with 700+. The lower figure is already in the article. Isarig 16:41, 29 October 2006
 * But your kuwait news doesnt tell what kind of Lebanese source it is. We don't know if it is reliable or not (UTC)
 * Neither does the [Sydney Morning Herald]], but for some reason you don't mind that...Anyway, you don't understand WP:RS. The primary source does not have to be identified, The KT is a reliable source, the material it published can be easily verified on line - so there's no porblem in using it. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth. Isarig 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is this Kuwaiti news site's source? It does not even state if it is a government source. 66.211.32.50 22:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kuwait Times's source is Stratfor, a well respected, decades-old private intelligence and research comapny. (not that it matters, as the KT is itself a RS). Who, OTOH, is the source for the Sydney Herald's claim of "at least 60"?


 * "Strategic Forecasting, Inc.About Stratfor. Stratfor provides strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs. Unlike news organizations that " thieir web site came up a jumble of HTML.[Stratfor. By their own say-so, not a news organization. We need to stay from that one. Regards. [[User:OldRoy|OldRoy]] 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Statfor is a very well respected forecasting and analysis group. They are certainly a reliable source. Deleuze 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

October violation of ceasefire by Israel
Apparently Israel has violated the UN resolution today and flown jet fighters over Beirut and the Bekaa valley... Can someone include this in the article? --Burgas00 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be quite a feat, as it is not yet November in Israel or Lebanon. Have the Israelis mastered time travel accorrding to your source? Isarig

Any constructive response?--Burgas00 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * yes - if you have a reliable source that adds anything to what's already in the article, go ahead and include it. Isarig 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Voila: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6101448.stm --Burgas00 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig, I am willing to help you, so I give you more sources,  and  I think we need to create a new section, or new article about Israeli violations, since they have done it very often and it makes the 'Post ceasefire-events' section too long Nielswik(talk) 10:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your disruptive behaviour on this page - the constant removal of well sourced claims, the insistence (even in the preceeding paragraph) on the use of a banned, hate-mongering TV station as a source over the objections of multiple editors, the use of sockpuppets to evade blocks - does not inspire much hope that you are "willing to help". If you want to create a new section on Israeli violations, go ahead. Please don't forget to create one for Lebanese violations, as well, since you're so keen on making this article better and NPOV. Isarig 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about what happened in July, not about the subsequent anti-terrorist operations carried out by Israel after Fizballah surrendered. Cerebral Warrior 10:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why we need a new artice about these Israeli violation on Lebanese souvereignity and on UN resolution 1701. Nielswik(talk) 10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you create an article about Fizballah terrorist activities following the Israeli victory. Cerebral Warrior 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no such thing, hezbollah obeyed UN resolution unlike Israel. And nobody say Israel won. pro-Israeli people say either it's a draw or Israeli defeat, neutral sources say it's Israeli defeat. Note:don't mispell Hezbollah(Hizbullah is fine but Fiz isn't),as it alters the meaning--Nielswik(talk) 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hissbollah is a terrorist organisation which cannot be compared to the State of Israel. If Israel was defeated, how come the Army of Allah has been disarmed and disbanded all along the Lebanese border? Cerebral Warrior 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: What Lebanese violations?--Burgas00 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Continued smuggling of Arms from Syria to Hexbollah ; Refusal to disarm Hezbollah ; Refusla to return Israeli POWs. Surely you've heard of all therse? Isarig 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You cited from Jerusalem Post. Does any non pro-Israeli source report it? Hezb is willing to return the POW, but Israel keeps refusing prisoner swap as Lebanon demands. And please stop accusing me of using sockpuppet. --Nielswik(talk) 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The JP was reporting a UN report, Go read it on teh UN web site, And see below from a Russsion source that says the same thing. Israel erfuses to swap POWs for convicted murderers - as is its right. Lebanon's refusal to return captured POWs is a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions - a war crime. Isarig 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you not mistaking Lebanon with Hizbollah?--Burgas00 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. Lebanese governemnt officials have publicly declared they have no intention of complyign with UNSCR 1701 as far as disarming Hezbollah, and the Lebanese army has not deployed to the Syrian border to stop the smuggling. Isarig 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig: And if you do not believe the Al-Manar report (which is confirmed by AP and Reuters as I listed), i'll give you a pro-Israeli one --Nielswik(talk) 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, haaretz cannot really be called pro-Israeli government but I suppose in your mind anything even remotely connected to Israel must be the "mouthpiece of the evil occupation". Second of all, you are citing an editorial, editorials generally present viewpoints very different from the norm.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor article, stupid Wikipedia
This was not a conflict but a war and a war ends with ceasefire or a treaty not with a end of the blockade. --Thepresident1 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi man calm down --Nielswik(talk) 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He's right people here still opt for 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War or 2006 Lebanon War-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But he said we all are stupid(not only wikipedia) --Nielswik(talk) 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the end date of the war and the blockade. This was not a conflict but indeed a war. --Stevenak 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Kuwait sources"
The attempt to remove or otherwise discredit the report that Hezbollah dead number more than 700+ has now taken a new twist, in claiming that this a claim made by "Kuwait Sources", apparently because the cited source is the Kuwait Times. This is bogus, as seen by the fact that none of the other sources in the article are treated that way. e.g: we say 'UN sources claim 500' - not "British sources say 500", even though the claim appeared in the British paper "The Telegraph", and we don't say "american sources say 700 killed" - we say the IDF claims that, even though the claim was made by UPI. Isarig 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tell us who claims the 700+ number in Lebanon, then? This article should not be used as a source.


 * What are you talking about? The source is right next to the passage you are deleting, in fact you are deleting the source as well!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you guys could really use some suggestions in WP:DR (e.g. meditation for now)... this revert war is getting more tedious than I could possibly imagine. --Vic226 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kuwait Times
Please describe why you believe this source is any less credible than, let's say yahoo india, for example. Thank you. -- Avi 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any other 'more reliable' sources that make the same claims? That would be a quick way to end the debate. Iorek85 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The KT figures contradicts with this AFP count that clearly say 1287 Lebanese killed and at least 1140 of them are confirmed to be civilians. If we substract this number, and also 43 Lebanese army and police, 2 PFLP-GC and 17 Amal militia, then we have at most 85 hezbollah. --Nielswik(talk) 11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So? Maybe the AFP article is wrong? The AFP figures also conradict the Daily Telegraph report, and is based on Lebanese claims, which are perhaps less that truthfull. The soluiton, when dealing with contradictory claims from multiple reliable sources is to list them all. Isarig 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What daily telegraph? The AFP figures are based on lebanese official count and high relief committee (see the article). I think AFP is more reliable than KT --Nielswik(talk) 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph report which quotes a UN representative saying there are 500 hezbollah dead. It's in the article. Surely you've read it. As you say, the AFP report is based on the Lebanese count - there's no reason to take this at face value as the truth, other than to note that this is what Lebanon officially claims. You're welcome to your personal POV that "AFP is more relaible than KT", but i doubt you have anything factual to back up that personal opinion. Isarig 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course lebanese count is reliable, you couldnot expect Stratfor knows about what happened in Lebanon more than Lebanon itself. Moreover, Lebanese goverment isn't involved in repelling Israel invasion, then it is neutral --Nielswik(talk) 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly not put it beyond the Lebanese goverment, or any governeemt for that matter, to lie or spin figures in a way that serves their political purposes. The Lebanese gov't claim shoudl be notes as such - claims, alongside claims of different figures provided by reliable sources, of which STratfor and KT are some. Isarig 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the Kuwait Times piece is reliable or not, but I wanted to note that it's a reprint of this article by Stratfor. A couple quick questions:
 * Is Stratfor a reliable source in its own right? If so, maybe the article should cite to the original? --TheronJ 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't. OldRoy said it already "Strategic Forecasting, Inc.About Stratfor. Stratfor provides strategic intelligence on global business, economic, security and geopolitical affairs. Unlike news organizations that " thieir web site came up a jumble of HTML.[Stratfor. By their own say-so, not a news organization. We need to stay from that one. Regards. [[User:OldRoy|OldRoy]] 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) --Nielswik(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, OldRoy said it? Well it's a done deal then. I mean. OldRoy is such a well known and respected expert in this field, and has been editing WP for what, almost a full 10 days now? Isarig 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor (retrieved from WP:NPA) --Nielswik(talk) 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did comment on the content, both below, where I note the speciousness of the claim that because Stratfor is not a news organization, it is not a WP:RS, as well as above, to note the speciousness of the claim that because a certain editor said something, we shoudl atke that as a conclusion of the argument. Isarig 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Startfor is not a news organization, but that does not mean it is not a WP:RS. It web site comes up just fine, and thee's no reason whatsoever to "saty away " from it, other than to do so in order to push a certain POV. Isarig 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Stratfor is not a reliable source, does reprinting the article on the Kuwait Times website make it more reliable? (In particular, did the KT perform independent fact-checking or make a reliability judgment before republishing the piece?)
 * Thanks, TheronJ 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to suspect the KT is not a WP:RS. It is a newspaper of Kuwait, and unless we have some bias against Arab media, there's no reason to think it is less of a reliable source than the New York Times. None of the editors who object to this source have made any attempt to justify the claim that the KT is not a WP:RS. Isarig 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But if KT reprinted Stratfor without fact checking, it can make KT less reliable --Nielswik(talk) 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SO, where's your proof that KT did not do any fact checking? Isarig 19:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * there is always a possibility they made a mistake. Maybe they thought 70 instead of 700. One source against others.-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, the KT is considered to be a reputable newspaper with over 40 years of circulation as well as being a representative of the Arab world. I think we should accept it as a Reliable Source and accept its figure of 700 Hezbullah killed. Valley2city 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
While this revert war seems unlikely to reach to an agreement anytime soon, I have requested a mediation for this article. Vic226 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I accidentially wrote the following where the mediators are supposed to write:
 * I have been involved in this dispute, taking the side of keeping the source in the article. I would count the Kuwait Times as a reputable and reliable source. It has a longstanding history of accuracy in reporting. If it reports that 700 Hizbullah have been killed, then we should include this in the numbers. The numbers from all sides are just as speculative and propaganda from all sides would adjust their numbers accordingly (Hizbullah gives the number as ridiculously low). However, this number of 700 goes beyond any other Arab source and I think it is important, not only as matter of record, but because this is a WP:RS. There has thusfar been no proof given that the Kuwait Times is not an RS and the burden of proof rests on those who wish to have this information removed. That being said people are taking political sides on this issue and it is unfortunate that bias is driving the arguments over this article. We shouldn't delete information just because people don't "like" it. Valley2city 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Valley2city 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm your friendly neighborhood cabal member, which I may or may not be apart of it if exists, or doesn't. I've taken Vic226's suggestion of using his user talk page for the resolution of this. I've read through the article and the talk page, as well as a couple of the Wikipedia guidelines. I've said on Vic226's talk page what I think is a fair resolution. I have not closed the case yet, as I'd want to hear from the interested parties before then. Thanks everyone, and please remember to keep their calm. --Mechcozmo 06:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Casualties in the infobox
The section has grown and grown since it was first put there - I think the time has come to pick a few numbers and stick with them (and summarise), and link to the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. Iorek85 08:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave the numbers provided by respected parties in the infobox, and remove the rest--Nielswik(talk) 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And what would we base our "pick" on, other than a certain POV as to which is correct? It is too early to remove the contradicting claims. It may take several years until there are academic studies that show the actual results. Isarig 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't only mean choose between sources, I also mean choose between what totals to display. Do we need numbers for Hezbollah, Amal, LCP, PFLP-GC, IDF, Lebanese Civilians, Israeli Civilians, Lebanese Military, and U.N personnel? Can't we just have Israel Military/Civilian, Hezbollah/Lebanon Civilian, and then link to the others as "more"? As for which numbers to pick, just go with the lowest and the highest, and put (diputed) next to it? Iorek85 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that, and one of the reasons the chart reached the state it is currently in, is that a middle-ground source gives a better idea of where the truth really lies (ie, 80-700 is quite different when punctuated by a UN statement of 500). In general, we need an overall policy on how to maintain sourcing, since the previous policy of simply removing it resulted in much wasted time as the same issues subsequently were argued over. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah statement
Actually, on the interview with the jazeera channel Hassan Nasrallah didn't only say: "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it." he actually said: "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it, But, and I insist on the 'but', july's war was preapared long before operation truthful promise, as a part of the israeli-american project on the middle east, we had clear and undoubtful evidences so we decided to take a preventif move." My translation is not accurate because my english is poor, but please edit the article because I am new here and I have no clue about using editing features. THX. 193.95.111.88 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

repair infobox
can someone repair the infobox without reverting? --Wiafejwiaaf 10:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks--Wiafejwiaaf 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent revert war
Does anyone, especially Isarig and Nielswik, want to explain what the issue is about the recent ping-pong reverting? Thanks, Vic226 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems Nielswik added total numbers of IDF forces because he felt that putting total Hezbollah forces was somehow imbalanced. I explained to him that the reason that the total Hezbollah numbers are included (as well as intermediate numbers: active, available, and reservist) is because there is no official number published, while the numbers for the IDF are published and noncontroversial. However, I do not understand at all why he removed part of the casus belli and reference to Hezbollah attacks on civilian locations, or why he removed the context from the background section (diff). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Obscure referent
This sentence suffers from an obscure referent for the pronoun "them": "Around 1,100 civilians, including 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the conflict making them the vast majority of the casualties.[87][88]"

IMHO, the following rewording is less prone to misinterpretation: "The vast majority of casualties were civilians, of which 1,056 were Lebanese and 44 were Israeli.[87][88]"

name issue
See BBC, a major service calls it a war See "Israeli onslaught" part" -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And? News services exaggerate. Iorek85 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Economist calls it a war too, as portrayed on the covers of the July 22nd, August 5th and August 19th editions.  "News services exaggerate" implies that all of their informations is an exaggeration, and that is unsustainable. Both BBC and The Economist are regarded as prestigious, important and credible sources.Chimba 22:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Outcomes
We can add the outcomes of this conflict by using Implications of the Israel-Hezbollah War and .--Sa.vakilian 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Media controversy section
About the alleged media distortion issue, under the "media controversy" sub-title:

There are 3 testimonies by CNN reporters: Nic Robertson's, Charlie Moore's and John Roberts', and the Hajj affair. The AP/Reuters is not conclusive, so it's a speculation. Three out of four are CNN versions, so my contention is that the "several journalists" is misleading, and the appropriate thing is "some journalists, mainly from CNN". · people is not "several", and what's worse is that all of them come from the same source. That could be biased.

That's why I quoted "several" sources that did report about the effects on the war on civilians, thus giving credibility to the testimonies about the war, and giving balance to the "media distortion" issue. If these different sources were not included, the section would appear to conclude that is already been accepted that the news information was distorted. You can check my older edits (twice) to check out the issue. My sources include: The Economist, BBC News, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Hereby, I'm asking for an administrator opinion or an arbitration.Chimba 16:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is the Reuters issue not conclusive? The photographer himself admitted to digitally altering the photograph. Isarig 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: that's the Hajj affair, which I didn't retort to. The non conclusive one is about the same woman on different photographs. The sources are: 3 by CNN, the Hajj's affair (which was one person, so it hardly represents the wide undisputed media coverage) and the non-conclusive issue about the same woman. The later seems more like an opinion. Either way, those are not "several" sources. And the section still needs balance for achieving NPOV.Chimba 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim that the Hajj affair is an "isolated incident" is OR. The use of a list of reports of forcefull attacks as an indication that the "the theory about systematic and meaningful information manipulation favouring Hezbollah seems unlikely" is OR. The claim that 'CNN is the only major news organisation arguing on intentional distortion of information' is OR. Please do not add this to the article again. Isarig 17:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get how counting sources is OR. You're being too uptight about it. CNN is the only source reported, besides the Hajj affair. That's a fact, not an opinion. And the Hajj affair is one case -again, counting, a fact, not an opinion-, and that's why, so far, it's isolated. A theory is constructed with various sources and arguments, but one news network and one incident are hardly a theory, under any hypothesis for knowledge. This is important because if the article affirms that there was distortion it reduces the strength of the arguments about the injuries against civilians. Any other opinions? I don't want to start a revert war, so I'd like to know what other people think before editing.Chimba 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I'm trying to avoid: bias. Telling who thought there was manipulation but not who agreed with the allegations of violence -with correspondents, such as The Economist's or BBC News', and observers, such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International- is, actually, manipulating facts.Chimba 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CNN is not the only source cited. AP is also cited, as well as Reuters. You discount Reteurs because you allege it is an isolated incident- which is OR, and discount AP because you personally did not find the allegation convincing - that, again is OR. To then pretend that CNN is the only source cited is not only OR, but disinegeneous. There is not dispute as to whether or not the war was violent - of course it was, as all wars are. Thus, there is not point in compiling list of sources who accurately reported on violent incidents in the war. Using that list to support yet another OR claim - is a synthethis of published material to introduce a new theory - which is again not permitted undr WP:NOR. Isarig 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In the article, as today: "Photographs submitted to Reuters and Associated Press showed one Lebanese woman mourning on two different pictures taken by two photographers, allegedly taken two weeks apart. [163] While it is "common practice to send more than one photographer to an incident", [164] questions remained as to whether the images were wrongly captioned or deliberately staged." Both "sources" refer to the Hajj affair, and are blogs affiliated with BBC and US Today commenting on it. AP is talking about the same incident. Bottomline: we have CNN thrice, and the Hajj affair (as reported by Reuters, BBC, US Today and AP). Forget the Hajj affair for a minute: does it mean there was a "media controversy"? Or does it mean that "some" (not several) journalists (all of them, CNN's) think so? If you feel there was a "Hajj affair controversy", then quote it like that. Either way there is an article about it. I'll add the bit apart "some journalists, mainly CNN's", and will wait for other opinions about including the other independent sources who report the facts that the so-called media controversy tries to discredit. NOR does not imply only repeating sources. A non-distorting analysis is not banned, and the talk pages are where they shall be judged. Thus, let's discuss it.Chimba 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Isarig: granted, I stand corrected. Now there are "several" sources. I won't push it any more.

There are other instances of alleged media bias/distortion including an investigative piece involving an alleged attack on an ambulance. The story reported was that Israel hit an ambulance with rockets and harmed those inside. Careful examination of the photos showed that there was no fire or rocket damage and that they appeared to be rusted out long abandoned ambulances: http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

see also:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207676,00.html

Media Controversy
Does this count aswell for the section to balance it, their was much made of the pro Israeli BBC during the conflict:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1766215,00.html

Signal interception
Hezbollah cracked the code

I haven't seen anything like this discussed here or in the article (although I admit it was a quick search), so I just thought I'd mention it and let the editors who have been editing this article on a regular basis take a look. Markovich292 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article fails to name the Israeli operation
The Israeli's initially named their response as "Operation Just Reward". I think it is biased to leave that out of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.15.46 (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Reverts to my changes
I'd like to discuss recent revisions of my reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I'll try to go point by point. I'm reverting the latest revert of my changes. If people still have questions, let's please discuss it. Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The flag of Lebanon was removed. The title of the article is 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, so it seems fully justified to me to retain it. I did not add it, I simply reverted the removal of it. - I misinterpretted the change as only removing the flag.
 * 2) Three points in the article where I clarified that the New York Times was reporting on an Israeli research group report that was released were reverted. Please refer to the article itself, which was already references in the article, which states "In a new report, an Israeli research group says Hezbollah stored weapons in mosques, battled Israelis from inside empty schools, flew white flags while transporting missiles and launched rockets near United Nations monitoring posts. The detailed report on the war was produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a private research group headed by Reuven Erlich, a retired colonel in military intelligence, who worked closely with the Israeli military."
 * 3) The inaccurate figures of 20,000 to 30,000 tons of oil was reverted, where if you look at the article already cited, these numbers are effectively made up. The article lists 12,000 tons, and the other article I added lists 15,000.
 * 4) I added that 25,000 tons of oil had burned at the facility, in the attempt to explain why the numbers may have been skewed (together these are the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was inaccurate prior to and after your revert).

you wrote to me: I'd like to discuss your recent revision of my reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I'll try to go point by point.

1. You removed the flag of Lebanon. The title of the article is 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, so it seems fully justified to me to retain it. I did not add it, I simply reverted the removal of it.
 * The conflict was IN Lebanon but not AGAINST Lebanon. There's a difference. The title simply reflects common name used for the conflict but the conflict was between Israel and Hizballah, not between Israel and Lebanon.. and in fact was "confirmed" by Hizballah themselves just yesterday when Nasrallah claimed that Siniora collaborated with Israel, so they don't believe it was against Lebanon either. Amoruso 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. You reverted three points in the article where I clarified that the New York Times was reporting on an Israeli research group report that was released. Please refer to the article itself[1], which was already references in the article, which states "In a new report, an Israeli research group says Hezbollah stored weapons in mosques, battled Israelis from inside empty schools, flew white flags while transporting missiles and launched rockets near United Nations monitoring posts. The detailed report on the war was produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a private research group headed by Reuven Erlich, a retired colonel in military intelligence, who worked closely with the Israeli military."
 * Writing Israeli research group basically damages the article as it implies that there's something wrong with that info. What you're saying possibly if true all belongs in the reference itself. Amoruso 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. I feel we should report the data as accurately as possible. If Al-Jazaeera were to report that a Palestinian researcher believes something, we should list that, in the exact same way. This information is simply being misquoted as from the New York Times. My intention isn't to strenghten or weaken the reference, simply to report it as accurately as possible.
 * Also, I've realized that the change to the combatants probably makes sense. I misread the change as only removing the flag. I've re-applied this change. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does the fact that Israel had been planning this military operation since the year 2000 fit in?
I am mainly referring to the statement by Bar-Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg in San Franscisco Chronicle on Friday, July 21, 2006. I find his statements present the entire conflict in a totally new light. And I briefly quote the article quoting Mr. Steinberg: "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board." Find the original here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP -- read and please comment --EndurinFreedom 03:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that here is an Israeli Professor Of Political Sciences using the word WAR about this "conflict".--EndurinFreedom 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess the Background section. You may want to call it "preparing for" rather than "planning", as that would be more neutral I think. — George Saliba[ talk ] 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I am not an expert on Political Sciences, but does it seem like Israelis were just looking for an excuse to start a full scale campaign in Lebanon, according to Professore Steinberg and the military sources quoted, what is your opinion? --EndurinFreedom 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article quoted supports that - it just says the Israelis have been planning for such an eventuality for a could of years. They expected this to happen, and prepared accordingly. They didn't do a terribly good job, either... Iorek85 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess thats one way to interpret it. --EndurinFreedom 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact all the professor said that it was on the level of burning words on wall - it was clear that the conflict with Hizballah is inevitable. So there were war games, operation plans and staff like this to prepare to this pending conflict. May be You are unaware of it but - it's what military in HQ do, their job actually. If they don't have plans for possible wars - they are not working.Arusinov 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation that "all the professor said" is in complete conflict with statements of Professor Steinberg and the military spokesmen. Read again the 5th paragraph of the article. It clearly describes a detailed plan. It is one thing to prepare for generic defensive and offensive scenarios, and another thing to prepare for a specific offensive scenario. Also, Your reply is condescending, which probably speaks a lot about your character and motivations. --EndurinFreedom 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Hi all, I'd like to discuss the name of this article. It is presently titled "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict". I think there was some discussion during the fighting about the appropriate name, but I'd like to submit the follow chart from Google showing the relative popularity of different terms that I've heard proposed for naming this article (please note that the year is set to 2006). I think that it shows that the most commonly used term for referring to the conflict is war (rather than conflict), and the most commonly used term for referring to the combatants is Israel and Lebanon (rather than Israel and Hezbollah). It also shows that these are the most commonly used terms in Lebanon and Israel themselves (click the Regions tab below the chart). Moreover, the terms war, Israel, and Lebanon are still the most commonly used well after the end of fighting. Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you realise, but this is a graph of searches conducted by users of Google, and not necessarily a reflection of academic or encyclopaedic usage. In any event, I commend you on the good work that you've done with copy-editing and such, and hope to continue seeing you around. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Twefik, thanks for your kind words. I'm trying to stay as NPOV as I can with my edits. I totally agree regarding what Google search results mean and what they don't mean. Does anyone have an idea how we can more accurately determine the most commonly used term from an academic or encyclopaedic view? I'm not even sure if other Encyclopedias have entries regarding the conflict yet, so it still may be too early to determine. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue was discussed ad-nauseam. Please see relevant discussions in the archives or above. The name of the article should not be changed was the conclusion and rightfully so. IT mostly has to do with how a war is declared or not and its definition. It doesn't fit. Cheers. Amoruso 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Amoruso, I admittedly only skimmed over all the discussions in the history, however my interpretation was that the conclusion reached was to wait until a common name was chosen by the media, and until then to use the term "conflict". There was also a straw poll showing preference for the term war to conflict, and what seemed to me to be pretty good explanations and examples of why a declaration of war wasn't necessary, under Wikipedia naming guidelines, to use the term "war". If there was something I missed please let me know. Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to collect all the prior discussion regarding naming into Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/name, so that we can move forward to a conclusion, rather than re-discussing the same points "ad nauseam". Martin 11:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Lebanon not listed as part of the conflict in the infobox?
Lebanese soldiers were killed by Israel, Lebanese public infrastructure was destroyed by Israeli munitions, and Lebanon's ports were blockaded by the Israeli navy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.211.32.50 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Unreliable tag
I thought I would start the discussion regarding the unreliable tag being added to the article or not, as a lot of reverts lately have been about this issue. Can people discuss their reasons to include it or not here so we can avoid a revert war please? Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can gather, User:66.211.32.50 has a problem with the kuwaiti times reference |here. He claims that it isn't a reliable source. After some digging, I've found;


 * 1) The article references STRATFOR as it's source, and they can be considered a reliable source, even if the Kuwati times isn't.
 * 2) However, no other articles I could find use this STRATFOR article in full.
 * 3) STRATFOR is subscription only, and thus it wouldn't be easy to verify whether the article is geniune, though there's no reason to doubt it isn't.


 * I don't see any reason to call the article an unreliable source. A simpler solution would be to find another article or WP:RS that makes the same claim. Iorek85 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Another source would be very helpful. The closest I've found thus far is a report about a new conference held by a retired Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, in which he said the figure could be as high as 700. This source has it's own issues, however – it's an Israeli military member, I think he was retired, so there may be a question of if he had access to accurate data during or after the war, etc. — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No reason has been supplied as to why the Kuwait Times would not be a reliable source. As multiple editors have commented, there is no reason to call either the KT or Stratfor unreliable. This is a case of an anon user trying to push a personal POV. The solution is to block him for edit warring, or to semi-protect the article form edits by anon users. Isarig 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't have any particular reason to believe that it was unreliable, but a little research makes it seem possible. Not because it was in the Kuwait Times, or a reprint of a STRATFOR piece (which, admittedly isn't a news source, but may be reliable nonetheless), but because it's hard to pin down or find any confirmation that "Lebanese sources" made this claim. Are "Lebanese sources" official, government sources? Are they political opponents of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Are they just random people in Lebanon? The term sounds like a reference to government officials speaking anonymously, but I can't find corroboration of this yet, and if it's not a government source, using the term may be misleading. Such corroboration would go a long way in making the reference more reliable I think. The closest I've come is citations of official Lebanese estimates between 480 and 500 Hezbollah fighters dead, but these were mostly days before the end of fighting, so the final estimate may be higher or lower. I think if someone can find a final Lebanese government estimate that would be good too. — George Saliba[ talk ] 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Attn some administrator who runs this site...
http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=7780 UN Blasts Israel over killing of Abdel Saghir, UN Employee, 5th UN Casualty TIME SOMEBODY INCLUDES THIS, IT WAS HERE BEFORE AND NO WORD ON ABDEL, ALSO CREATE PAGE ON ABDEL WHO WAS KILLED BY CRIMINAL BOMBINGS. this is good article to include and link: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=486841720