Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 37

Results of the previous Straw Poll on naming of the article
Naming Poll Results

The results were:


 * 2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict] - 10 support (1 oppose)
 * [description of combatants] [description of conflict] of 2006 - 0 support
 * [description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006) - 2 support


 * Israel-Lebanon [description of conflict] - 19 Support
 * Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah [description of conflict] - 0 Support
 * Israel-Hezbollah [description of conflict] - 19 Support


 * [description of combatants] conflict - 15 Suppport
 * [description of combatants] war - 19 Support

Result - 2006 [description of combatants] [description of conlfict] - Supported, the others no consensus. Title to remain. If you want to raise the naming issue again, please take this into consideration first. Iorek85 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" option won, I'm changing the title of the article. Why hasn't this been done already? --The monkeyhate 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't I move the article? --The monkeyhate 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the naming of the title, I think the Israel-Hezbollah Skirmish seems more plausible. The article itself declares that the government (which has publicly stated) did not have any initiative in igniting the war; And so, inserting Lebanon into the title would imply to a neophyte on this subject to deduce the governments' involvement, hence the word Lebanon. Another argument would be more concrete, that Hezbollah have ministers in the government, the attack was chosen deliberately, and a secretly kept Hezbollah initiative until right after some of its militants seized two Israeli soldiers. (think that one over and see if Lebanon which would be an interchangable word for 'offical government representatives by democratic means'), to be inserted in the title?

As for the word Skirmish, I feel that the incident was more of a signal, and a message that a potential shocks of retributions are possible from the Hezbollah side and not a full blown war. Most of Israels incidents in the past don't endure. Though, calling the Israel-Hezbollah conflict would do fine as well.--Yozef 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)--


 * This isn't an active poll. I think it's just left around as a record of the last vote, as the issue comes up fairly often. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't 'win' - consensus is required to change the name of an article, not a simple majority, and 19:15 is not consensus. You can't move it because the page is protected from moves to prevent people making hasty changes. See reqested moves for more information on moving protected pages. Please don't ask them to move it - you're not going to get a consensus for a while. Iorek85 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And how many per cent is required to reach consensus? 90? 99? 100? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The monkeyhate (talk • contribs).
 * The reviewing administrator is supposed to consider the arguments as well as the counts. The last time I looked at the counts there was a weak majority (not a consensus by any standard) for "war" and a weak consensus for Hezbollah vs. Lebanon.  Now it's changed (if those counts are correct) to a very weak consensus for "war" and a slight majority for "Lebanon".  No reason to move, as long as all the plausible article titles redirect here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs).

If we cannot name it 2006 Israel-Lebanon War b/c it's only supported by 19 votes, why can we name it 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which get less votes?


 * Monkeyhate - Technically, 100% (but thats not how it works here) from WP:CON - While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. In activities such as Requests for Adminship, Articles for Deletion or Requested Moves, consensus-building becomes unwieldy due to the sheer number of contributors/discussions involved.... The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. - WP:RM uses over 60%, and 19/15 = 55:45. Iorek85 22:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Summer war
The media is calling this the 'Summer war'.

Moving it is probably a huge can of worms (BTW I have no position either way, I'm just reporting the news), but should be considered.

Also the page is protected, or I would mention 'Summer war' amongst the list of names at the top, with consideration to making Summer war the primary name. It's certainly very neutral as far as names go (well except for war vs conflict I suppose).

If the page is not to be moved, a redirect is probably in order. Ariel. 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer 34-day war, as I've heard it used quite a bit in the media. Though Summer war may not be bad either. It would be nice if we can get a neutral name like one of these, so we can end the whole Hezbollah vs. Lebanon vs. Israel debate. However, per Wikipedia policy, we should use the most common name for the event I believe. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem with 'Summer War' is that it isn't terribly descriptive (as compared, say, to second Lebanon War, or Israel - Hezbollah War). Not many non Lebanese/Israelis would use that name. Iorek85 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true. Second Lebanon war isn't bad either, and I've seen that used in the news also. I was thinking 34-day war more along the lines of the Six-day war, though you're right that it's not terribly descriptive. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 34 Day would be better than summer, but no doubt there would be people complaining that the blockade didn't end until Sept 8th, and thus was biased. :) Iorek85 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, do remember that per policy event titles can be based on the most common name, even if people think it is biased:"1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Honestly I haven't done any research at which of these names is the most common (mostly I've been looking into the use of the term conflict versus war), but it wouldn't surprise me if any number of these was more common than the current title. Variations on the current title are actually quite rare from my experience (Israel-Lebanon war, Israel-Lebanon conflict, Israel-Hezbollah war, Israel-Hezbollah conflict). However, in this policy, common seems to indicate > 50% usage among English speakers, so it's hard to say. However, we could probably use one of these more neutral names (the ones suggested so far in this discussion) under conventions #2 or #3 of the policy, and probably avoid the recurring debates on the article's title. — George Saliba[ talk ] 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any ideas of a fair way to find the "most common" phrase used when referring to this event? I was thinking, if we could find some sample set of data which didn't suffer from recentism, we could do a fair evaluation without any POV bias. For instance, if we collect all articles mentioning the event in a random week or month sufficiently far after the end of fighting, that could do it. Maybe like "collect all the articles you can in the last week of February" and see what the sample shows? Just thinking. — George Saliba[ talk ] 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard it called "last summer's war" or the such, or "the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas". When the war is called "the war between X and Y" that is where it is called the X-Y war, as above I noted some sources.

Lol, George, I was joking. :) As for a way to find out, I don't know. A google news search would be better than a google search, I suppose. But really, it's going to be hard. Google trends will show you what is more popular in different areas, but google isn't going to be a perfect measure. Iorek85 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Curse your text-based joviality!! :) The biggest problem I've found with Google searches (of all kinds) is that to be meaninful you almost need to do exact text searches, which are fairly inaccurate (since people word the same thing slightly differently). All of the articles contain the words Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon, most contain war, and some contain summer or 34-day. However, distinguishing between the articles containing the words when ascribing a name to the conflict, and those who use the words in some other way, is very hard to do without manually go through them. And since it's so difficult to go through all the articles manually, I was thinking some defined subset would be best, statistically speaking. Google searches may prove to be good general indicators, but I'm a bit too busy at the moment to go through and try them all out myself. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I think that in the absence of a clear favourite (like, for example, WWII or Gulf War or Six Day War), that we should go with the most descriptive title. Maybe in the future a common name will emerge, and we can change it then. Iorek85 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still for 2006 Lebanon War, like 1982 Lebanon War -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What I see most is it may say "the 34-day war", "the 34-day conflict", or "last summer's war" but will almost always say "between Israel and Hezbollah" or "between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon..." Calling it the war between Israel and Hezbollah would make it the Israel-Hezbollah War, since the heifen denotes "between". --Shamir1 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

War not Between Israel and Lebanon
The "Beginning of the Conflict" section makes it appear as though the Summer War was between Israel and the Lebanese government.

Statements such as the following should serve to prove this was not the case:

"'Israel did not attack the government of Lebanon, but rather, Hizbullah military assets within Lebanon. Israel avoided striking at Lebanese military installations, unless these were used to assist the Hizbullah, as were a number of radar facilities which Israel destroyed after they helped the terrorists fire a shore-to-ship missile at an Israeli ship.' Έ~The Israeli Foreign Ministry Website"

"'Israel stated that the campaign is directed not against Lebanon, but rather against Hizbullah, and that Lebanon is not a party to the dispute.' ~The Israeli Foreign Ministry"

"'Prime Minister Olmert emphasized that Israel has no interest in harming the Lebanese population and added that Israel's war is against the Hizbullah terrorist organization and not against either the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people.' ~The Prime Minister's Office"

"'We do not pursue innocent civilians, we do not fight against the Lebanese people and we do not seek to topple their government.' ~PM Ehud Olmert"

"'Israeli and Lebanese soldiers traded fire for the first time in decades.' ~The Middle East Times (months after the conflict)."

"'Israel did not declare war on Lebanon.' ~The Australian Broadcasting Corporation"

Allow me to clarify: I understand that Israel made a number of very hostile comments regarding Lebanon (and that Lebanon returned the favor), but neither nation declared war upon the other, and I think that should be clarified.

Moreover, the CNN article sited in this section, which implies that Israel intentionally targetted the Lebanese government, has lost its credibility in my eyes. It says that Hezbollah demanded "direct negotiations" as the only way to free the captive soldiers. However, it is clear (even from reading the Wikipedia article) that Hezbollah demanded indirect negotiations. If CNN can mistake the word direct for a word that means the exact opposite, surely they can accidentally invert the idea of war in Lebanon and war on Lebanon.

I think the next to last paragraph in this section ought to be editted to clarify that Israeli actions which resulted in Lebanese civilian and military deaths were intended to target Hezbollah, and not as an act of war against Lebanon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I m dude2002 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm pretty sure my view on this matter is clear already (per our discussions on the Lebanon talk pages), but I disagree with this assertion. For every article and source we have stating that the Israeli government claims to have only targetted Hezbollah, we have just as many articles and sources stating that their actions didn't always match their words. If the strikes on Lebanese civilians and infrastructure were issolated incidence, fine, but given the widespread reports of continued attacks on (what many considered to be) civilian targets, I don't think we can make the claim. Also, just to add some of the quotes from our original discussion on the other side:"'I said from day one, and all the way through, that the purpose was not to destroy Hizbullah. The purpose was not to destroy every launcher. The ambition was not to catch every Hizbullah fighter. The purpose was to impose a new order on Lebanon that would remove to a large degree... the threat to the state of Israel that was built up over the last 6 or 7 years to an intolerable degree.' – PM Olmert""'Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, charged during a press conference that Lebanon has no less than declared war on Israel.'"In addition, we obviously have the quotes talking about "act of war" by Lebanon and what not, though I don't think those are as direct. — George Saliba[ talk ] 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I think that you misunderstood the Olmert quote. He seems merely referring to his tactical observation that he wouldn't beat Hezbollah by getting every last one of them, and not saying that the aim was something other than beating the "threat to the state of Israel that was built up over the last 6 or 7 years to an intolerable degree" of Hezbollah. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be content in this matter if the following were accomplished:
 * (a) The statement regarding severe and harsh retaliation on Lebanon were removed (for reasons previously explained), perhaps replaced with a statement regarding retaliation against Hezbollah, or in Lebanon, whichever seems more appropriate in this particular case.
 * (b) Quotations from Israel as to the fact that it never intended war against Lebanon be put in. I don't seek for the article to say "there was no war between Lebanon and Israel during the summer of 2006." Although I believe that statement is correct, I do not believe it to be necessary within this cotext at this time. Instead, I would like to show that, while Israel bombed targets within Lebanon, it was the position of the Israeli government that Israel was not at war against the Lebanese people or the Lebanese government.
 * If I have the blessing of other editors to do that, I would be most obliged to do it. I m dude2002 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of neutrality, I fully support your adding more information to the "Beginning of the Conflict" section of the article – the "other side", if you will. I strongly disagree with removing the heavily-quoted, heavily-referenced information that is there already, however. We gain much more by explaining both sides than by trying to determine which is "truth" and only listing that. Think of it as more of point and counter-point. Remember, however, that this is the beginning of the conflict, so try to keep quotations and citations you add relevant. The view of the war and who it was on very well may have changed over the course of the conflict, but this is section is about the beginning of the conflict. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not want to remove all quotations in which Israel expresses anger at Lebanon which are present in this section, simply the CNN article which said Israel promised heavy retaliation on Lebanon, for reasons mentioned above.
 * Your comment is well noted, and I will be careful to keep my quotations germane to the initial phases of the war. 129.15.127.254 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review Wikipedia policy regarding attributability:"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."As I stated before, I support your addition of information, however I strongly disagree with your removal of well sourced statements that are attributed to reliable sources.— George Saliba[ talk ] 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for my objection to the CNN article previously sited in the article, which I have articulated many times, is that that particular article does not seem to pay much attention to crucial details. For example, it states that Nasrallah demanded direct negotiations with Israel, when in fact he demanded indirect negotiations. If the article can mix up these two antonyms, surely it is possible that its author wrote "retaliation on Lebanon" when the more correct terminology would have been "retaliation in Lebanon." For this reason, I think that that CNN article has lost its credibility, and is not a reliable source for such nuanced matters. As you'll notice, it's the only source I removed.I m dude2002 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, getting one fact wrong does not necessarily denote getting all facts wrong. Many articles make factual errors – some they recant, some they don't. Second, even if the CNN article is wrong on that point (which may or may not be true, as I haven't looked into the issue at from other reliable sources), it's an extreme leap of your personal faith to therefore declare the entire article not credible. I think you'll have a very hard time convincing others that an article publish by CNN (widely regarded as a reliable source with editorial oversight), which cites the AP at least in part (which is also regarded as a reliable source with editorial oversight), is some how no longer reliable in whole as it makes a one-word error. Furthmore, I don't view the statement as an exceptional claim based on other quotations the article cites in the same paragraph, such as "if the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" and "this affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." I would highly suggest a review of WP:A. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose part of the problem I have with this source is that I have found no other credible source on the internet which supports its claim that the Israeli Cabinet had authorized retaliation on Lebanon. All other sources I found were either (a) blogs, (b) mirros of Wikipedia, or (c) semi-credible sources which quoted the CNN article. So there's little corroberation for this claim. What's more, I have been searching for weeks for a record of said authorization of retaliation on Lebanon, but could only find recommendation for retaliation against Hezbollah. Olmert refered to the Cabinet's consideration of action within Lebanon, but not retaliation on it.
 * Since Israel publishes its legal actions online, I would think that you could find such an authorization. However, I was unable to do so. If you can find an explicit authorization of retaliation on Lebanon which Israel has placed in its online archives, then perhaps we can put this issue to rest. If not, I don't think that a single CNN article, which through its own mistakes has shown that it is not highly reliable, and which is moreover unconfirmed by another source, is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof. I m dude2002 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if we knocked out any citation backed up by only one source, about half the article would disappear. I did find some decently reliable sources that cite the CNN article however, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Also, the first link you cite doesn't actually state retaliation against Hezbollah. In fact, it may be the basis of the CNN article. From the link you provided:"'Israel views the sovereign Lebanese Government as responsible for the action that originated on its soil... However, there is no doubt that Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action... Israel will respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action.'"To me this is best paraphrased as "Israel will respond aggressively and harshly to Hezbollah and Lebanon," since they state immediately before it that the Lebanese Government is responsible, and Hezbollah carried out the action. Regardless however, it doesn't change the fact that we're simply repeating what was reported. If you have some other articles critical of CNN's citation, or some articles that have a different wording of the Cabinet meeting those might be worth adding. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against statements which are backed up by only one source. I have something against a statement which can only be backed by one source. If the source were fullproof, or if it were the original source (such as a statement on the Israeli government's website), that would be one thing. But something seems terribly out of place when there is only a single source which is even halfway credible describing something so historically significant as an authorization of retaliation. What's more, this source is known to contain a significant error, and the authorization to which it refers cannot be found in the online archives of the government which supposedly issued it. I m dude2002 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm breaking up your reply, to try to make sure I go through it all. I hope you don't mind. First off, I can't stress enough how important it is to review the core principle of Attribution. This policy has recently changed, and it supercedes Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not saying you're not familiar with it by any means, but it's critical that we start on the same page. Okay, according to WP:A, we need a reliable source. We don't need multiple reliable sources, and we don't necessarily need corroboration. The old version of the policy (courtesy of Google cache) used to list corroboration as something which helped, but wasn't necessary; the newer policy doesn't list it at all (something which I disagree with by the way – I personally wish corroboration was required). So, what is not a reliable source, according to policy. A relevant example is a questionable source, which policy describes as:"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."Now, I'm pretty sure we can agree that CNN isn't a fringe or extremist website, so my guess is you're saying that CNN has a poor reputation for fact-checking. I think this is an extremely weak argument, given that CNN is widely known to use editorial oversight, and is often trusted as a reliable source in Wikipedia (and elsewhere), and based on the fact that the only thing you've cited thus far to support such an assertion is their mistaken use of the word "direct" instead of "indirect".
 * I'd also like to point out that this isn't the only statement in the article that can only be backed up by a single source. For instance, the Stratfor report that lists 700 Hezbollah militants dead. Also, the recently added figure citing 800 Lebanese citizens killed in the conflict by the L.A. Times. I have not removed, and will not remove, either of these, as they are attributable. I believe both sources are very weak (without a doubt weaker than something published by CNN), but they likely meet policy requirements (I haven't extensively researched their reliability, but they seem okay prima facia). Those are just sources that have been added in just the last few days that I can't corroborate – nowhere near an extensive list of such sources cited throughout the article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you'll notice, moreover, the source which the UN sites for this particular quotation is not the CNN article, but the Cabinet communique, which at no point so much as contains the word "retaliation." This fails to corroberate the CNN article, and furthermore quotes the Cabinet Communique with words that do not appear in it. This seems to me to depreciate the worth of the UN report. I m dude2002 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this in fact makes the CNN article more reliable. Why? First, the UN report cites it as a source for other statements, indicating a certain amount of trust of CNN and the article by the UN. This is no longer as important, but this was one of the points for reliability in the old version of Wikipedia policy. Second, the UN report cites the communique, interpetting it in a very similar way to the CNN article. This is independent verification (again, not necessary to have, but helpful), as the UN report effectively backs up the wording the CNN article chose. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would again like to emphasize that no source which sites the CNN article is truly an additional source, even if it is from a credible organization. It's just a reference to the same information. I m dude2002 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you just disagreed with yourself here. The UN report uses a similar wording to the CNN article, while citing a different source. That to mean hints of independent verification, making it an additional source from a credible organization. In fact, I would be completely okay with the adding of the UN report as a second source for this statement being in the article, given that it isn't citing the CNN article as it's source for the statement. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that your line of logic regarding the reference to Lebanon as responsible, and the action against responsible parties is the only semicredible link saying that the Israeli Cabinet authorized retaliation on Lebanon. However, this is far from explicite authorization of "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon, and I would argue that it does not in itself so much as constitute an authorization of attacks against Lebanon. After all, the authors of the communique began the paragraph in which Israeli response is mentioned by specifically pointing out Hizbullah as the party which attacked Israel. Your paraphrase of the communique, while clever, is exactly that: a paraphrase. The communique used the words it used for a reason. It said what it said, not a paraphrase of that statement. To extrapolate that statement into something far from what it is is original research. I m dude2002 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct – paraphrasing is entirely original research, which is why I would never insert a paraphrased statement into an article, only a sourced one. I was merely trying to illustrate one possible interpretation of the communique as it related to Lebanon for the purpose of this discussion, to illustrate why I don't consider the statement to be an exceptional claim. — George Saliba[ talk ] 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I returned to lefthand allignment. I hope you don't mind.

I understand why you argue that the UN's use of the same terminology as the CNN article makes this quotation more reliable. However, the UN report quotes a statement from the Israeli MFA's website which at no point appears on the website. On the other hand, the exact same wording aappears in the CNN article, which is quoted in the previous line. To me that says two things: The former undermines its credibility, while the latter makes it indistinct from the CNN article. I think it is somewhat pointless to site the UN report as a source, since it sites the MFA webpage as a source, and the MFA webpage at no point contains the word retaliation. To add to this, the UN report directly quotes the MFA webpage as using the phrase "severe and harsh," which does not appear in the Cabinet communique. I do not think that a report which incorrectly quotes a webpage is a reliable source as to what that webpage says.
 * 1) The UN report improperly sites a source.
 * 2) The UN report's true source is the CNN article.

This is why I do not think that the UN report adds credibility to the CNN article; since it intends to quote it, but actually quotes a primary source in which the quotation does not appear.

A quotation from the Israeli governement regarding the authorization of "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon would be the best source. However, in the abscense of such a statement, it would take a good deal of credible sources to persuade me that the Israeli government in fact made that decision. Right now there is one source, which is not highly credible.

If this were some obscure event, like the discovery of a new kind of flower, I would not be surprised to find it only in a handful of articles. But, in light of the fact that this is such a major news item, I would expect to find it published in scores of reliable sources all over the internet. This leads me to ask you the following questions: If I had only one or perhaps two concerns regarding this statement, I might be able to accept its incorporation into the article. But these four concerns cause the CNN article to seem to me a very fishy source. I m dude2002 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it not seem odd to you that of all the major news-reporting organizations and corporations in the world, only CNN published an article saying that the Israeli Cabinet authorized severe and harsh retaliation in Lebanon? After all, I could probably find at least 1000 credible sources referring to the USA's authorization of the use of military force to assist its allies in the Southeast Asia. Because this is a major news item, it has more than one source.
 * 2) Does it not seem odd to you that this is the only CNN article we know of which makes reference to this phrase allegedly used within the Cabinet decision?
 * 3) Does the style of the article not seem hasty to you? After all, the article already makes a major mistake (confusing the words "direct" and "indirect"). Is it not reasonable to say that CNN may have rushed to be the first to report this story, and in the process lost the nuances of translation and detail?
 * 4) Why is that neither you nor I can find any record of this authorization on the website of the Israeli government? This is a government which keeps records of its noteworthy actions, and even kept a record of the Cabinet's vote that day. Why is there no evidence that the Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon? Sticking to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution example, one can read the resolution on the US government's website.


 * Having read some comments on the later discussions of this article, one comment which you wrote regarding where Israeli soldiers where when the war began stood out in my eyes:

Early on, when information was harder to come by, a few reports may have said they were captured in Lebanon. However, you'll find almost nobody reports that later on.
 * That is exactly what I talk about in point #3. An early report quotes an alleged Cabinet authorization of "severe and harsh" retaliation. But that is nowhere to be found in later reports. We might be dealing with confusion, passion and haste which are often the product of a rapidly changing situation on the ground.I m dude2002 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see your point to some extent regarding the UN article, which makes me believe it's possible they mis-cited their source. However, I think it's equally possible that the communique site at one point was worded differently. We really can't tell either way. While I understand your wanting additional sources (and I totally agree that I wish there were more), that's not necessarily grounds for removal.
 * I don't view this as very odd, given that fighting started up immediately, in response to an attack. I'm not sure which event you're talking about in Southeast Asia, but there are a few possible differences in your scenario: (1) the United States is a superpower, and its actions are more widely reported on, (2) the United States makes declarations of war in Congress, which is open and televised, while (at least from my understanding) Israel makes the determination in a closed Cabinet meeting, and then forwards their decision via comminque, and (3) as I mentioned before, this wasn't a pre-meditated act by Israel (in my opinion), but a knee-jerk reaction, which may not have provided for the same time for discussion on the military course of action as would going to war without being specifically attacked.
 * This is somewhat odd, though not impossible to believe. I haven't seen many articles report on the Cabinet meeting or communique period, let alone in a different matter. If we find a whole bunch of articles that report on the meeting differently, that would help the discussion greatly I think.
 * It's speculation, but sure, it's possible. However, a lot of things are possible, and I wouldn't say that it's likely. If this was Fox News, maybe... ;) (sorry, little joke there)
 * To be honest, I don't really consider the Israeli governments site very useful for finding certain information. If you want to find out how many Israeli civilians and army personnel were killed, it's great. If you want to find things such a declaration of war, a list of the Hezbollah militants they claim to have identified, or statements made by officials regarding the conflict, those are much harder to find. I don't think they release anything like a transcript of Cabinet meetings or the like, which would also be quite helpful; only some communiques.
 * Regarding the later reports not using the term "severe and harsh" retaliation, were you actually able to find other reports of the Cabinet meeting? I have a hard time finding any sources of the meeting period, let alone ones that disagree with the CNN article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point regarding the possibility that the communique originally read differently from what it reads now. The unlikeliness that the MFA would change its content without comment notwithstanding, I think that the fact that the UN article was published on November 10th, four months after the fact, serves to show that that is probably not the case.
 * A Baltimore Sun article from July 13 directly quotes the part in question from Cabinet Communique as it now appears on the MFA website.
 * A Jerusalem Post article also quotes the communique, though it gives what I think is a slightly different translation.
 * Those are by far not all the articles on the internet. It's just that I'm getting tired and my dog needs walking. I'll get around to finding some more (the trouble is finding credible sources that haven't cleared their archives). Hope this helps.I m dude2002 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A BBC article of July 12 alludes to the Cabinet's decision to endorse a strong response against Hezbollah.
 * A CNN article does not directly allude to any cabinet action whatsoever... but it's from CNN.
 * An Al-Ahram article discusses the declaration briefly.I m dude2002 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An Irish Times article quotes the cabinet communique, not referring to the part in question.
 * A Washington Post article also discusses similar events.
 * A CNN article states: "Israel's cabinet has authorized the military to proceed against Hezbollah targets."
 * These are just a few of the articles on the internet which discuss this issue. The reason I chose them is because they make some sort of relevant reference to the section in question in the Cabinet Communique. Does it not seem odd that all of these articles discuss the conflict, most discuss the communique, and a few discuss the authorization of hostilities, yet none discuss authorization of response against Lebanon? Of course, this doesn't prove that Israel's cabinet didn't approve "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon. But it's a lot harder to prove something didn't happen than that it did.
 * For example, you won't find a single article on the internet saying Israel didn't declare war on Saudi Arabia on June 20th, 1982. But that's still true. If that had happened, I would be very surprised if an article that discussed Israel and Saudi Arabia on June 21st did not mention that Israel declared war on Saudi Arabia. I would be especially surprised if there were only a single article on the internet which stated this. So if I could only find one article from a reliable source which stated that such a declaration of war existed, and I could find many which made no reference to it, I would assume that the contrary would be the case. I m dude2002 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that most of these are relevant, it also strikes me that none of them make me believe that the CNN article's wording is exceptional, or way out in left field. Regarding your example of having one article from a reliable source citing an attack on Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't draw the same conclusion, at least not from the perspective of Wikipedia's policy of inclusion. Regardless, however, do you have any suggestions for alternative wordings, or additions that could be made, either to this sentence itself or before/after it, that would be attributable and more to your liking? — George Saliba[ talk ] 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to seek common ground. That is truly a good quality in an individual. I, personally, would altogether like to remove the sentence in question. But I, too, am willing to look for common ground. How would you feel about a sentence which read:

I m dude2002 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than selecting one of their preambulatory statements (the other being how they held the Lebanese government responsible for the acts of Hezbollah), how about using the broader (and decidely more vague) statement made in the same source?


 * Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be better than what the article has now. My favorite option would be to altogether delete the sentence in the article. However, that option notwithstanding, I think the quotation regarding "agressively and harshly" responding to action was intentionally made immediately following the statement regarding the culpability of Hezbollah, not the culpability of the Lebanese government. In the Wikipedia article, however, that distinction would be nonexistent, since it discusses only the latter.
 * The following is a quotation that I would rather not put in the article, but I'm not quite objected to, since there are no holes in its context:

I m dude2002 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this statement itself, but the original sentence you're intending to replace was about both the nature of the response and who it was aimed at; this statement only deals with the "who is gonna get slapped", not the "how hard". I can see your point that there could have been some unwritten intention in the original communique based on the order that they worded the statements. However, I think just as much can be said for the inclusion of the words "and are responsible for" in their declaration for the "aggresive and harsh" response, after they declared the Lebanese government responsible in earlier paragraphs (that was explicitly stated, not implied). So what if we merge these proposals, and expand this quotation into:


 * That's a bit lengthy, but I think it covers the basic points of the communique pretty well, while still maintaining neutrality by being as vague as the original communique was. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is better than before, and much better than the article's current wording. The problem I have with this is that the evident distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon which is present in the communique cannot be condensed into any shorter a text than the actual communique's statements. The statement regarding the promise to "respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried it out..." serves no purpose if there is not ample context. Unfortunately, ample context would take up far too much of the article.
 * On the other hand, the text in the first box contains enough context within a relatively short statement to explain what the Cabinet decided. "It" in the second part of that sentence clearly refers to the subject of the first. On the other hand, a reader would only know that "those who carried it out" refers to Hezbollah if he/she is familiar with the rest of the Communique. I m dude2002 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm interpretting your reply as saying that you're supporting for your initial version and don't like this version (sorry if this is incorrect, I was a bit confused by the wording). The problem with your initial statement is that it only cites the half of the communique dealing with Hezbollah, and completely leaves out the part of the communique holding Lebanon responsible. This second half, which your suggestion leaves out, is the part of the communique the current, sourced statement in the article is talking about. This can be interpretted (and has been interpreted) to indicate that Israel is promising Lebanon and Hezbollah both an "aggressive and harsh" response. I know you don't like this statement, but the communique is decidely vague on this point, leaving it open to interpretation, and obviously some have interpretted in this manner. That's the primary reason that I prefer a longer, more neutral, vague statement to the more concise statement you've suggested. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct in understanding that I support my original suggestion for rewording. That doesn't mean I don't like your last suggestion; I just don't think it is neutral enough. I m dude2002 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me breaking this up somewhat, so we can discuss each point without me having to keep quoting you every time. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article as it stands already says "Israel blamed the Lebanese government for the raid," and so--in addition to the POV involved in the matter--I don't see the point in stating the same thing again. I m dude2002 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference I see here is that the CNN article's statement you're intending to replace is talking about retaliation on Lebanon in addition to Hezbollah. Blame and retaliation are two very different things, and this statement makes no statement of retaliation, which the communique does. My statement was intended to leave the point as vague as the communique was, to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that I "don't like this statement." In fact, I don't like anything about the Summer War. I think that Israel was brutal in its pursuance of the war, and was excessively careless in its attacks within Lebanon, and that Hezbullah was sadistic and power-hungry, using the anti-Israeli sentiment to further its own political agenda. But what I "like" or "don't like" has nothing to do with what the communique said. The communique spells out Hezbollah as the perpetrator of the raid, and promises it retaliation. It explicitly makes this statement. But it doesn't explicitly make any statement to the effect that Israel will attack Lebanon. That's why I believe neutrality and NPOV demand that if this communique is quoted at all, it be quoted for what it actually promises: a response against Hezbollah. Breaking it into four different quotations with segues in between, which pervert its meaning makes it appear as though the communique is promising a response against Lebanon. This is far from explicit. I m dude2002 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At least we agree in our distaste for warfare and those who engage in it (at least in this instance). Yes, the communique explicitly identifies Hezbollah as the perpetrator. However, the exact wording out of the communique regarding the retaliation is "Israel will respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action" – this is the part that is decidely vague. I totally agree that the communique indicates a promised response to Hezbollah, however, it would appear that some view this wording to also indicate retaliation against Lebanon. Such is evidenced by the CNN article and the UN report. My support for replacing the CNN article is not because I view it as an unreliable source, but purely to try to come up with a wording as neutrally vague as the communique. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that the communique is "decidedly vague." Tell me, how is the following statement vague: "Hizbullah, a terrorist organization operating inside Lebanon, initiated and perpetrated today’s action; Israel will act against it in a manner required by its actions." The cabinet promises Israel will act against "it" (and there is no doubt it is referring to Hezbollah). The cabinet is not vague about whom it intends to target. It just made the unfortunate mistake of using wording that those who truly wanted to could construe as a promise to attack Lebanon. I m dude2002 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say the communique is vague, that doesn't mean that it is entirely vague, or that it cannot be precise in some places. I completely agree with you on this statement, and your interpretation of "it". However, the fact still exists that there are other, vaguer statements in the communique, such as the one dealing with retaliation: "Israel will respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today’s action." Just because we agree that one statement in the communique isn't vague, doesn't mean we should completely ignore another statement that is more vague but broader in its scope. As an example (sorry, I can't help myself), if I say: Larry is responsible for what Harry did. Harry hit me, and I'm going to hit him back. I'm going to respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, me being hit. Just choosing the one part of the statement I made that "Harry hit me, and I'm going to hit him back" may only be half of the story in this case, and wouldn't be how I would summarize these statements. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote you, just because you don't like the fact that the article doesn't say what you want it to say doesn't mean that you should rearrange the cabinet's communique. There is no such declaration with regard to Lebanon. By what measure a promise of retaliation against Hezbollah under-represents the entire communique, by that measure many times over does the argument that the Cabinet promised an attack against Lebanon under-represent the truth. I m dude2002 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that I had rearranged the communique. In fact, I purposely tried to keep the quotations in order, since I thought you had indicated that there was some meaning inferred in the order. Also, I completely agree that identifying the communique as indicationg an attack on Lebanon, and only Lebanon, would under-represent the truth, but this was absolutely not the intention of my proposed wording. My proposal was to leave the wording as vague as the communique itself, not to imply that they would retaliate on one group or the other specifically. Regardless, I'm extremely concerned that you wrote "[The cabinet] just made the unfortunate mistake of using wording that those who truly wanted to could construe as a promise to attack Lebanon." At that point, you're completely in the territory of original research: (1) you're drawing your own conclusions about what the Israeli cabinet intended or didn't intend to say in its communique, (2) implying what you think it should have said when you use the words "unfortunate mistake", and (3) implying that those who reported this as a promise to attack Lebanon were wrong, with ulterior motives. You may want to file an RfC so we can get some more input on this topic beyond just the two of us. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that my comment gave you the impression that I was conducting original research. To answer your points in order, (1) there is no comparison between the wording regarding Hezbollah and the wording regarding Lebanon. The cabinet clearly promised a response against Hezbollah. There is nowhere near that level of clarity regarding any alleged promise of a response against Lebanon. (2) I think that the authors of the communique would have regarded that statement as an "unfortunate mistake" because it ended up allowing people to take them way out of context. That doesn't mean I necessarily think that's a bad thing. For example, if I said "Hitler made the unfortunate mistake of declaring war on Russia," that wouldn't mean that I supported Hitler and wanted him to win WWII. And, of course, I am in no way saying that the Israeli government and Nazi Germany are similar. I am merely suggesting that the sentence structure is the same. (3) I know not what the motives of those who seek to interpret this communique as a promise to attack Lebanon are. I do know that people who wish to misconstrue the communique can portray that statement as a promise to attack Lebanon. But that isn't to say that everyone who misinterprets that statement is doing so with ulterior motives.
 * That's why I favor the more neutral wording in which the intent of the cabinet is clear.
 * It didn't occur to me (though this would have been a good idea to do a long time ago) to look up the cabinet's decision in Hebrew. I found it on the Cabinet's website. The decision itself is the communique, almost verbatim with a few noteworthy exceptions: (1) an authorization to the Defense Minister, the PM, the Vice PMs, a few other leaders and armed forces to pursue the military plan presented before the Cabinet (although it doesn't specify what this plan is... I'll try to find it). (2) an instruction from PM Olmert to the IDF to avoid hurting civilians as much as possible. I will try to find an English translation for this decision.
 * As for your request for an RfC, I have no objections. If you could please let me know which of your statements you would like posted on there (since it seemed I did not choose the ones you found to best represent your case last time), that would be great. I m dude2002 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think we just differ slightly on English semantics. For isntance, I would never say "Hitler made the unfortunate mistake of declaring war on Russia," as to me this would indicate that I personally felt that the outcome (Hitler's eventual loss) was unfortunate, which I don't believe. However, I can see what you meant to say. I agree that there is no where near the same level of clarity regarding retaliation against Hezbollah and retaliation against Lebanon, however that doesn't mean there is no mention of the latter at all, which I think is important (and the former should obviously be mentioned).
 * It's great that you found the Hebrew version. The differences in translation between the CNN article and the English version of the communique may have been caused by two different translations of the original Hebrew. Maybe CNN had their own translators, who interpretted the implied retaliation differently than the Israeli government's translators did. No way to be sure, but it could be possible.
 * Regarding an RfC, I just noticed that the first sentence of my last proposal was based on your second proposal, not your first (as I had just assumed you preferred your latter version). If you start an RfC I think I would prefer a new statement combining these two:


 * It's effectively your original proposal, plus the quotation about holding the Lebanese government responsible, and the one about the nature of the response. — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said in the beginning of this long debate, I think this entire point of contention is best avoided by altogether deleting the sentence in question, without replacing it with anything else
 * However, if you are determined to include a reference to the communique (and I can understand why... it is an important part of the Summer War), it's difficult to find suitable wording. The following less than pleases me, but I'd be willing to accept it. Be warned, though, that I find it so out-of-place that I may at some point in the future change my mind and again argue for its removal from the article. Here goes nothing:

I m dude2002 15:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I just had another idea... I m dude2002 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer this suggestion to your previous one. What do you think about taking a different approach? Generally when there are only a few sources that support a statement, I prefer to identify the sources directly (in this case, CNN), so as to not make the statement sound like absolute fact. Then we could add a counterpoint regarding the communique itself. Something like:


 * We could reference the CNN article after the first comma, then the MFA's copy of the commmunique at the end. It would be pretty short, and would still allow the reader to draw their own conclusions I think. Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I appreciate your desire to find common ground. However, I think the CNN article ought to be altogether thrown out the window (for reasons previously explained). If what you're looking for is letting the reader draw their own conclusions, I think that could best be accomplished by leaving it at "On July 12, 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would 'respond aggressively and harshly' to the attack on its northern border." It is also the vaguest of the wordings suggested so far. I personally don't think that the goal of an encyclopedia should be to let people reach their own conclusions, or to be vague; I favor this particular wording for a different reason: it is NPOV. It is not as NPOV as the original wording I suggested, but it's NPOV enough. But at your request to find vague wording, this is the best I could settle on.
 * And it does site its source: the Israeli Cabinet. So that concern can be set aside. I m dude2002 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about:


 * Seems equally short and NPOV, while citing more of the original communique. Be aware, however, that myself or other editors would likely consider following this up with a cited statement about the Israeli Cabinet holding the Lebanese government responsible. — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a statement which will allow readers to make their own conclusions, and if you're looking for a statement which preserves what you consider the "vagueness" of the communique, I think the last statement I suggested best accomplishes that. This statement does not imply that Israel intends or doesn't intend to attack Lebanon. It leaves it up to the reader's imagination, which I thought is what you wanted.
 * It's also just about as neutral as they come, since the Cabinet certainly promised to "respond aggressively and harshly," even though you and I may be unable to agree as to the subject of this response.
 * I believe it was a Lebanese sage who once said: "I favor a neutral vague argument over a more specific, less neutral wording any day." I m dude2002 13:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We just disagree which statement is more neutral and vague I think. :) You think that the statement "to the attack on its northern border" is more neutrally vague, while I think the "to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action" is more neutrally vague. Granted, your suggestion is somewhat vague, though I think an unidentified "responsible" party is more vague than "someone who lives to the north". Also, I disagree that the "northern border" preserves the vagueness of the communique better, since all I've done is used the exact words the communique itself used. Really though, I'm not sure that we'll be able to resolve this with just the two of us, so I'd really suggest filing an RfC to get more eyes and more input. That's what RfC's are for after all. I think these two options are fine alternatives to start the discussion, as they're both quite short and to the point. Nonetheless, despite our disagreement on which statement is more neutrally vague, I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss the issue in a civil matter. If there's one thing I'm sure of it's that you're dedicated to trying to making this article better, and I appreciate that. — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I've changed the current sentence to start with "CNN reported." This isn't in any way meant to be construed as a solution or a conclusion of our discussion. It's just the more accurate way I would prefer the sentence worded even without this discussion, or if this discussion were to result in no change whatsoever. As I stated earlier, this is just how I prefer to word statements corroborated by one or two sources (same as a sentence I added to the Lebanese civilians: "The L.A. Times wrote that 'at least 800 Lebanese' had died during fighting." since it was uncorroborated). If anyone is strongly opposed to this feel free to revert, though I don't think it's a big deal. — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should probably file a third opinion request before an RfC, since there's only two of us. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but if you don't get around to it I'll try to file a WP:3O later today when I have time. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how to file a third opinion request. So I will file an RfC. If you find the time to correct this, please do so. I will not take offense to it. I m dude2002 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. RfC is fine with me. Normally I guess you're supposed to file WP:3O first if only two people are involved (I've actually never heard about it before, I just read it on WP:RfC, but I don't think it's a big deal given the length and depth of the discussion that we've had thus far. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sources in Lebanon" are not necessarily Lebanese.
Concerning the ambiguous 700+ killed reference in the infobox. It should be identified as "sources in Lebanon" if it is to be used at all. Who are these sources, by the way? Italiavivi 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The number comes from a Stratfor piece. The "sources" are unknown and unlisted – it could be a government figure, it could be a journalist, it could be a political enemy of Hezbollah, or it could just be some random person from Lebanon. We also don't know when these "sources" made this claim. Personally, I question it's verifiability, as nobody else makes this claim or quotation that I've found. You're definately correct that it should be "source in Lebanon" rather than "Lebanese sources" though, from both a grammatical and accuracy standpoint. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like it much either. The stratfor article itself is not publicly available. I don't think keegan's should be there either (especially, since if this is removed, it's almost double anyone elses claims.) Iorek85 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, though, if we consider STRATFOR a reliable source, then the number should stay. I just want to be able to read the STRATFOR report to confirm they said it, and that the Kuwaiti times didn't add anything. Iorek85 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My biggest concern is whether the STRATFOR piece even constitutes a reliable source. From the list of criteria for evaluating reliable sources, about half of them concern me with the STRATFOR piece – especially Corroboration (does anyone else make the same claim?) and Declaration of sources (what sources do they get this information from?). — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Others certainly make that claim - IDF estimates give a similar number, as well as reserch by Israeli groups. And if you're concerned about "what sources" they get the info from - the same could be said of every other number on this page. What sources do the 'Hezbollah" claims name? Isarig 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we exclude the doubtable Keegan claim, it is the highest. While you're right, George, many of the news articles we've cited for civilian casualties don't give sources (indeed, that is an important part of your argument that not all news articles use the Lebanese government). If they are good enough to use as sources (and they are), then Stratfor not listing where it got it's info from should be too. If Stratfor could be considered unreliable for other reasons, then it's fine to remove it. Iorek85 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isarig – the problem isn't that no other sources give similar figures, it's that no other news agencies cite similar figures (700) to "sources in Lebanon", "Lebanese sources", or any similar combination of words.


 * Iorek85 – you are exactly correct, all the sources which I've cited in the past that do no cite their sources have the same problem, but this is just one of a dozen points of reliability, many of which I'm questionable about for Stratfor, most of which I'm not questionable about for the others. For instance, the "Corroboration" I mentioned earlier. Does anyone else attribute a number similar to 700 to anyone inside Lebanon? What about "Editorial oversight"? Remember, Stratfor is not a news agency, it's a corporate intelligence service. Do they have any editors vetting the information they publish for accuracy? What about "Recognition by other reliable sources"? I think it's fairly obvious that the AP, AFP, and Reuters are recognized by other publications as reliable, but has anyone other than the Kuwait Times reprinted this piece by Stratfor? Do reliable sources (AFP, AP, Reuters) quote Stratfor strategy pieces in their articles in general? I can't remember having ever seen it, though I could be wrong. These are just the general questions I have, as this quotation seems to be a distinct outlier. The Keegan figure has its own problems obviously too, though at least his claim is verifiable (we can verify that he made the claim, not that it's true that is). — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi George. As far as editorial oversight, it seems intuitive to me that an agency which caters to corporate and government interests would actually be more reliable than the popular news-media, since they have a very direct responsibility. Either way, there seems to be some use in the popular media, at least as far as their publicity page is concerned. If this were the only source of information I might be inclined to vet it more than we have, but as it is one of a range of numbers, it seems acceptable as is.  Tewfik Talk 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right, Tewfik. One concern for me is that these groups tend to make forward-looking strategic assessments, rather than backward-looking historical accounts; they're more interested in what happens next, or the "big picture", than what happened in the past. Also, the 700 figure seems more as an aside mentioned in passing than something meant to be stated as fact, at least the way the article reads to me. Really, I'm more concerned with who the number is referenced to than the number itself. The figure isn't absurdly far outside the range of values coming out of Israel, but it seems quite far outside of figures that I've seen come out of Lebanon. My concern lies with the "what if" scenarios that arise - i.e., What if this figure is from one of Hezbollah's political enemies, rather than someone who actual did a death toll count? What if it's an Israeli army commander commanding troops in Lebanon (the piece only says in Lebanon mind you)? Would Stratfor care who gave them this figure? I tend to doubt that it would matter for their forward-looking strategic outlook too much one way or another. I think changing the wording from "Lebanese sources" to "sources in Lebanon" is definitely a step in the right direction though, at least until someone can find an official Lebanese estimate (or at least a more attributable one). — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Isarig is already reverting any attempts at clarifying this barely-verifiable source. Is there someone with a STRAFOR premium account who has verified this report's content, by the way?  I am unable to view it due to subscription requirements.  I also agree with the above editors that this figure probably fails with regard to reliability (not to mention verifiability).  I've not seen this claim appear elsewhere, and those claiming it are attributed in no identifiable way whatsoever. Italiavivi 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many, many times. The Kuwait Times is as reliable a source as teh Los Angeles Times. Startfor, a well-known, decades old research firm is a relaible source. You, OTOH, are removing well sourced information becuase you don't like it. Isarig 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is well-sourced is the question at hand, here. I am removing the claim because it does not attribute where its information comes from, not because I "don't like it."
 * If I cared about the head count, I would be trying to remove Keegan, not this. You, Isarig, need to cease impugning fellow editors' motives.  Cut the suggestive language/personal attacks, and address the material at hand. Italiavivi 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source (The Kuwait Times) quoting another reliable source (Stratfor) which cites anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are used all over WP, including this article - the Hezbollah claim is sourced to an anonymous "Hezbollah official". Moreover, that figure is sourced to an article no longer available, yet you find nothing wrong with it, despite the anonymity of the source and the broken link. I repeat: there's nothing wrong with quoting KT who quotes startfor, who quotes an unnamed source in Lebanon. Isarig 02:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The bigger questions for me are:
 * Is Stratfor a reliable source? The article lists no author. Do they undergo any editorial oversite? It isn't a news article, it's an analysis piece (yes, the heading in the original Statfor article used the word "Analysis").
 * Is this attribution verifiable? That is, does anyone else quote "Sources in Lebanon", by name or otherwise, with a remotely similar figure?
 * Naming an anonymous "Hezbollah official", of which I would guess there are dozens, or possibly hundreds, is very different than citing some unknown individual(s) in a country of 4 million people. What is the nationality of this person (they could be Lebanese, Israeli, American, Nigerian - who knows?)? What is their political affiliation? Were they political enemies of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Were they Israeli troops stationed in Lebanon? Unfortunately we have no way of knowing, since we can't verify or attribute the citation.
 * If we could nail down those three points, I'd be more comfortable with the inclusion of the reference personally. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

May I submit that this is not worth edit-warring over. For one, the article isn't available publicly, so most of us can't see it. Secondly, it's just not that important. We already have three other sources on Hezbollah casualty figures that have roughly the same ballpark figure. -- Cyde Weys 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect. The article is available publicly, on the Kuwait Times web site, a reliable source. Isarig 02:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of reliability is on Stratfor, not the Kuwait Times. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What about replacing the broken link source and figure with this source? It's an actual news site, lists "Lebanese officials" as its source, and gives a figure of "up to 500 fighters". — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added this reference to the article. It seems like a much stronger reference (in terms of reliability, verifiability, and attributability), and is the closest I can find to the old one. Plus it gives a much more precise citation for it's figure. — George Saliba[ talk ] 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? We already have several other citations on the number of Hezbollah deaths. Not that there's anything wrong with adding one more, but I just don't see why it was such a big deal that there was an edit war over it. We all need to back off a bit and turn to discussion more and ask ourselves, "Is this really such a big deal that I'm going to edit war over it?" The answer, my friends, is no. -- Cyde Weys  04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello all, I've not been too active here recently, so forgive me if I am missing something, but I'm not sure I understand why the issues surrounding Stratfor's source should demand it be entirely removed. I thought that the discussion was only surrounding to whom the information should be attributed [as well as its phrasing]. Shouldn't we otherwise treat it just as all published data? Also, when you (George) replaced the secondary source with the primary source, you probably didn't notice that the latter was four months older (from the day of the ceasefire I believe), so I restored the newer source. On that topic, it seems that this number was removed based on that mistake, with you thinking that it was an older number, when it is probably the newest number. It seems to me that it should either be replaced alongside the IDF number, or perhaps in its stead if you feel that it is a direct enough citation of the IDF. Let me know what you think. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 08:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Tewfik, welcome back. :) So, on the first issue, I guess it's a matter of preference between older, primary sources, and newer, secondary sources. I'm okay with using the newer sources, but I feel strongly that we must be consistent. As such, I've updated the figures for Israeli military & civilian deaths from the same, newer article (which puts them at 120 and 39, respectively). I really hope that people don't start an edit war over those figures, as I'm sure everyone feels strongly about each life lost (and I completely agree), but we need to be consistent and neutral.


 * On the second issue, you're right about me being mistaken, thinking it was an even older figure. I thought that the 530 from the primary source was an "identified" figure, which would place it after the 450 "identified" figure, but it's an estimate. However, that report that was cited at 650 is older than the newer, secondary source you added, so in lieu of using the newer, secondary source, it just doesn't seem relevant. It is worded something like (paraphrasing) "the IDF estimates that 650 Hezbollah fighters were killed, and has identified 450 so far". It's definitely a direct citation, but you're also correct that it's older than the newer, secondary source (AP article) that you added back. Cheers. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello George, the civilian dead are listed by name and picture on this MFA page, so it seems unlikely that they became "undead" :-) four months later. Rather, the newer AP article probably decided to not include the four deaths due to heart-attacks during rocket-attacks, which the Israelis explicitly include in their count (including on the same page you just entered for the total wounded number). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tewfik. Yeah, I didn't think they became "undead", anymore than the 200 Hezbollah fighters became "undead" when Israel revised its estimate downward, but were likely reclassified, or classified differently at a later point – possibly by the AP, possibly by whatever source the AP cites. As I stated earlier, I don't care which way we go, whether it be older, primary sources, or newer, secondary sources, but we must be consistent. The neutrality of the article depends on it. — George Saliba[ talk ] 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Initiation of Hostilities: Israeli Soldiers were abducted inside -Lebanese- territory
I read the introduction to this article and found it lacking. Whoever wrote it is citing the falsely reported incident using the discredited New York Times citation. The two Israeli soldiers were not kidnapped in Israeli territory. Here are some counter citations proving that the Israeli soldiers were on raiding missions in violation of Lebanese territory, they were trespassing and were abducted as a consequence. And unlike the claims made by the introduction, Hezbollah did not start firing the rockets until after the Israeli campaign had started. The Israeli Army were the initiators of this great debacle.

In view of such discrepancies, the introduction of the article should at the very least point out that the location and cause of the start of this conflict is in question.

"It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel. Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory. "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html

TRANSLATION: According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory. [fr.news.yahoo 7/12/06]

The Lebanese Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday the arrest of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. Israeli aircraft were active in the air over southern Lebanon, police said, with jets bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut. [Bahrain News Agency 7/12/06]

The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon," a statement by Hezbollah said. "The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place," it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. [Hindustan Times 7/12/06]

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity. [Forbes 7/12/06]

The militant group Hezbollah said it captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes across the border in southern Lebanon on Wednesday. http://english.cri.cn/2947/2006/07/12/191@113428.htm [chinabroadcast 7/12/06]

The plot thickens:

"The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July." Excerpt from: Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon' Dan Glaister Monday August 14, 2006 The Guardian

PsyTrip 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Mohsin E.PsyTrip 11:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, Lebanese sources claim that the abduction or "arrest" happened within their territory, yet everybody else, including Al Jazeera claim otherwise. I guess we should trust them and discredit any other source. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The vast majority of reliable sources state they were in Israel. Just because you have two articles that state otherwise does not 'discredit' the NYT. Iorek85 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, please note the dates on these articles. Early on, when information was harder to come by, a few reports may have said they were captured in Lebanon. However, you'll find almost nobody reports that later on. It's most likely some bad information went out over the wires on the first day of the conflict, but was later corrected. Maybe they were just stating that Hezbollah captured them, and was currently holding them in southern Lebanon (they captured them in Israel but didn't stay in Israel obviously). Also, be aware that your sources which state "across the border" are likely to be interpretted as meaning "across the border in Israel". — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

PsyTrip, please note that Al Jazeera reported that they were on Israeli territory. Also, be aware that one man's (who has really nothing to do with the conflict) op-ed in The Guardian does not cut it. --Shamir1 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)