Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 40

Who won the war?
Israel obliterated southern Leb but couldn't stop the rocket attacks(much to their chagrin)so who won. What's the general conseses internationaly and within Leb and Israel?
 * I think the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict was a perfect demonstration of the saying "in war there are no victors, only victims." Big brother is always watching 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well in war "winning" is determined by whether the side acheives their objective in going into the war. Hezbollah's goal was more or less to humiliate Israel on a worldwide stage, which they did. Israel's goal seemed to be to bomb the heck out of Southern Lebanon and make it uninhabitable for years, which they also did. Of course Bush made some ridiculous comment about Hezbollah not being able to win because they were terrorists or something like that, but that might not be the best reference. Erik the Red 2 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

I am really bothered by the title "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" First of all Israel did not fight Lebanon at all, it was all about Hezbola. The titel is just wrong and misleading. It should be changed!
 * Oh I'm sorry, it's just that because Israel killed over 700 Lebanese civilians while barely damaging Hezbollah, destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, again while doing no harm to Hezbollah, and making souther n Lebanon uninhabitable while doing no harm to Hezbollah, it looks like Hezbollah was just a small subpoint in what the war was really about. Oh wait that's right, it was part of a war against Hezbollah because Isreal needed to destroy Hezbollah's sheild made up of thousands of innocent civilians, the Lebanese economy, and their entire way of life. Erik the Red 2 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Isn't there a rule about keeping a cool head? You should probably think about doing that, Erik. Also: "Israel's goal seemed to be to bomb the heck out of Southern Lebanon and make it uninhabitable for years." Don't say foolish things like that. It gets us nowhere. Read the article before you comment. Jeztah 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing Erik the Red 2. Please refrain from using personal attacks, whether or not you are talking to that person or just about them. Saying that Bush made some ridiculous comment and that he isn't a reliable resource was unneeded and failed to keep this project moving. Insults will not fix the problem. Ephant 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more accurate title of this conflict be "Israel-Hezbollah Conflict 2006"? Since Lebanese military forces were not engaged nor was a declaration of war made by Israel to Lebanon, this isn't technically a war between Lebanon and Israel. Yes, Lebanonese civilians were killed but that does not in of itself define it as a war involving Lebanon. Yes, I realize this is a fine line but I thought I would offer these thoughts. Jtpaladin 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We've had a lot of discussion on this matter. See here for some of the reasoning. Iorek85 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: How to Define the Israeli Cabinet's Decision of July 12, 2006
This is a dispute over precisely how to word the mention of the Israeli Cabinet's decision of July 12, 2006, which now appears in the "Background" section as referenced from a CNN article. I m dude2002
 * Some quick notes for reference:
 * The original wording of the statement was: "The Israeli Cabinet authorized 'severe and harsh' retaliation on Lebanon."
 * The current wording of the statement is: "CNN reported that the Israeli Cabinet authorized 'severe and harsh' retaliation on Lebanon."
 * The CNN article in question is located here.
 * An English translation of the Israeli Cabinet communique is located here.
 * The full discussion thus far can be viewed here.
 * — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggested Wordings


 * Statements by Editors Previously Involved in the Dispute
 * 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. ... The communique is decidedly vague on this point, leaving it open to interpretation, and obviously some have interpreted 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)
 * 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)
 * If you're looking for a statement which will allow readers to make their own conclusions, and which preserves "vagueness", I think the second to last statement best accomplishes that. 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 [the wording in the second to last box] for a different reason: it is NPOV.I m dude2002 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)]
 * 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). — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with [the text in the second box] 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. Unfortunately, ample context would take up far too much of the article. I m dude2002 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [In objection to the inclusion of the CNN article as a source]
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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").
 * Why is that neither you nor I can find any record of this authorization on the website of the Israeli government? [It] 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? I m dude2002 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

Just from a fresh point of view, I like the second option the best. It does differentiate between Hezbollah (those who "carried out" the action) and Lebanon, (those who "are responsible for"). It presents what the cabinet said, and such, isn't POV. It's better than what stands, as it explains in more detail what was said, giving greater context. I don't like the second to last source as it is too vague. The last option is slightly better, but it still doesn't identify those responsible. As for using the CNN source, I don't think we need to. Not that it is unreliable, but that the communique itself is the ultimate source.Iorek85 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a question of which statement is the vaguest and most neutral, the next to last one wins hands down. Big brother is always watching 13:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This statement makes it clear that Israel definitely planned a heavy-handed response from the start, but it doesn't explicitely say precisely at whom that attack was directed. If I'm not mistaken it's that second part which is the main part of this debate. LimerickLimerickson 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the goal is to choose which statement is the most accurate and neutral, not which is the most vague, and to decide which to replace the line in the current article with. With regards to vagueness, I still believe the statement we choose should be as vague as the communique itself – no more, no less. — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Not having read the entire communique, I can't render my opinion as to whether this is as vague as the communique or not (or maybe vaguer). But I still think that the next to last option is the most neutral, since it contains no mention whatsoever of whether Israel is promising to attack Lebanon or Hezbollah. I think it's much more neutral to stick to this middle-of-the road interpretation. Where can I find the communique? Big brother is always watching 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The communique can be viewed in English here. There's also a Hebrew version somewhere, but I don't have it handy (as I don't speak Hebrew). — George Saliba[ talk ] 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Neither do I. Thank you very much for linking me to the communique. Now that I've read it, I don't think any of the possible wordings are particularly bad. Of course, the fourth deals with something other than the communique, which I can't speak for or against very much. But the next to last option still seems the most neutral to me, and it seems to be on par with the communique as far as vagueness goes. Big brother is always watching 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've read the communique, I still think the last two options are the best. Of those two, I think the next-to-last is better. LimerickLimerickson 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not very experienced with the process of RfC. I know this is not a vote. But since the RfC has been up for about a week, and there hasn't been much argument, does this mean that we ought to consider this as a concensus? The one major hinderance here is that, although there is a concensus that the CNN article should not be used as a source, there is disagreement as to which wording ought to be in the article. Of course, lorek85 seems to have left the dispute, and he was the only editor who disagreed with what would otherwise be a concensus. I m dude2002 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hold off a bit longer. Maybe Iorek85 can add to the discussion further, or other editors can weigh in. I also want to look into possible sock puppetry before we continue (this can take up to 10 days). — George Saliba[ talk ] 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't left the discussion, I've given my opinion, and since no one commented on it, felt no need to reply. I don't understand your position, I m dude/big brother/limerickson - why is vagueness good? If we're not going to say anything, why put it in the article at all? We're trying to be as accurate as possible. Iorek85 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * George, it's always nice to hear that someone thinks I'm a sock puppet. Big Brother, I m dude2002 and I do, in fact, know one another. I'm not yet entirely familiar with Wikipedia, but I don't think there's a law against knowing another editor, or calling a friend's attention to an important matter on Wikipedia, especially when the reason you know this person is because you are both Experts on a matter that's very important to you. Am I wrong? To say that we are sock puppets does not assume good faith on the part of all editors and is, in fact, incorrect. If someone disagrees with you, that doesn't automatically make them a sock puppet.
 * To return to the article itself, I don't think the fifth option is excessively vague. I think it is shows Israel is promising to respond harshly and aggressively to the attack of July 12. Isn't that what the quote from CNN is saying as the article now stands? The fifth option explains that Israel promised to respond in this manner. Anything further is just fishing for trouble. Why? Because it is impossible to give the context of the communique in shorter terms.
 * If I sound mad, I'm sorry. It's just that I don't appreciate how difficult it is to get facts straight in this world. Maybe I should stay away from Wikipedia for a couple of days... before I really do get upset. LimerickLimerickson 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking a look at the policy on meat puppets, which is what it sounds like you are claiming to be. — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Limerick now refuses to touch wikipedia, so allow me to speak in his name. I did not put him up to this. I did not tell him where to go or what to do. Within the context of our work I vented to him how difficult it was to straighten out facts on Wikipedia. I told him what I was working on, but didn't ask him to make any edits. He checked it out all on his own, and decided that those edits & comments were worth making. I didn't tell him how or where to write things... just that I was spending a lot of time editing the Lebanon (subsequently 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict) articles, and that you and I essentially wrote a 10- or 20-page book between the two of us. He got curious. He checked it out. He told me that he had participated, but he certainly didn't ask my permission or my blessing, and I didn't give them to him. Not a meat puppet. I m dude2002 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My intention wasn't to upset you or your friends. You have to understand that we have no way of knowing who you are – whether you're one person with multiple accounts, three people, or just a schizophrenic – and when the three of you pile into a discussion, supporting each other in succession, it raises questions. I fully understand that the three of you may in fact be three different people, who happen to share the same opinions and the same computer and connection. However, these unknowns are the reason these policies exist. If you really are three different people, with differing viewpoints, I would highly suggest using different computers, and not always joining the same discussions as each other, and editing more actively (i.e., performing edits beyond joining in on RfCs every month or two). These are the same actions that meat puppets perform, and we just have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. This really has nothing to do with this discussion, but with Wikipedia policy, as I've noticed LimerickLimerickson supporting your views in RfC's before (which is what tipped me off). — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting really tired of how long it takes to get anything done on wikipedia. This is an organization which claims to want NPOV. But when you try to bring in NPOV and loosen the anti-Israeli hold on this channel of communication, you are bombarded with objections unfounded in reality, and loosely holding by a thread. And after the weakness of the argument is exposed, the individuals behind it try to stall as much as possible, in hopes of filibustering the debate forever. If just plain being stubborn isn't enough, they'll accuse you of meat puppeting. What would be so terrible if we just made the wording in this article more neutral? I m dude2002 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment, but Wikipedia policies exist for a reason. We've spent a long time discussing these alternatives specifically so that we can make this article both as neutral and accurate as possible. However, just as filibustering isn't a valid tactic, neither is piling on the meat. I have no intention to filibuster; there is a very specific process for resolving disputes. Ours is delayed by 10 days only due to the suspected sock puppetry, but I view this as absolutely necessary to maintain the neutrality and integrity of the article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I'm taken aback by your allusions to me somehow committing inproprieties in my discussions here, verging on personal attacks. I've been nothing but civil, trying to find common ground. I'm not the one who is suspected of having friends and colleagues who just happen to agree with my opinions weigh in on RfCs. I wouldn't have even noticed if not for the fact that this wasn't the first time I've seen LimerickLimerickson appear out of nowhere to support your opinion in votes. There too he was the only one supporting your opinion. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." — George Saliba[ talk ] 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To open this discussion back up, LimerickLimerickson and Big brother is always watching have been deemed to be sock puppets, and subsequently banned. As such, we should consider their contributions above to be those of I m dude2002. Unfortunately, this leaves Iorek85 as the only party not involved in the previous discussion to weigh in on this RfC so far. If any other editors have a chance, please review the suggestions above and voice your opionions. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm so tired of all of the hypocricy going around wikipedia. What's more, I'm tired of people pulling a thousand terms that don't apply just to stall neutral wording. And when that doesn't work, they begin personal attacks and accuse me of doing the same. To say that I am fooling you is ridiculous. I told you exactly what was going on. I know Limerick and big brother. So say that that's criminal... fine. But don't tell me their opinions don't count just because I know them.
 * This RfC is the last battle I'm fighting here. One day I may come back and continue to try to make wikipedia more NPOV, but for now I'll just consider this a failed experament. I m dude2002 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Back to the matter at hand, what do you think about going with the compromise Iorek85 suggested? He was the only fully neutral party to reply to our inquiry. Furthermore, while it isn't the favorite wording either of us would choose, I think we can both agree that it is better than what is currently in the article. Thoughts? — George Saliba[ talk ] 10:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and implemented the compromise Iorek85 picked. It's been over two weeks since this RfC started, and over three days since I last requested more feedback, so I just figure at this point I'll be bold. — George Saliba[ talk ] 11:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to be bold. But what you're proposing isn't a compromise: it is exactly what you originally proposed.
 * If you're itching for a compromise, I would suggest the wording you proffered in the last text box. I would be willing to accept it (although it would be a stretch to say that I like it), Iorek85 rated it better than my proposal and better than mentioning CNN. And of course you proposed it. So I guess it's closest thing we have to a compromise. I m dude2002 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Terrific. :-) I m dude2002 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm going to also start a new discussion on the inclusion of some additional phrasing after this statement, such as "They declared their view that the 'Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil.'" Please join in. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding me. What was the entire discussion and RfC for? That was part of various wording options that you suggested, but we agreed on an option which did not contain that reference. I m dude2002 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We built a consensus. I'm trying to build a new consensus, per consensus policy, and looking for a wording of the quotation that is neutral enough to include in the article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Israeli injured
How is it POV pushing to report what the source actually says -- 1,489 physically injured; 2,920 mentally injured. I don't think injury numbers for military conflicts traditionally take into account people who have anxiety attacks, and it seem odd to want to gloss over the distinction when we have better data. -- Kendrick7talk 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, I completely agree. I don't see why we shouldn't provide a breakdown of the injuries on the Israeli side if those data are available. On the other hand, I would like to have data for the breakdown on the Lebanese side before that edit is made, so that both can be made at the same time. It seems odd to me to lump Lebanese injuries together, while at the same time breaking down Israeli injuries. I m dude2002 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those numbers would be nice to have, I agree. But there's no reason not to present the numbers we do have accurately for lack of some entirely unrelated data. The plain implication of what the article says now is that there were 4,262 physically injured whem we know quite well that's false. -- Kendrick7talk 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clearly POV-pushing, becuase you are not reporting what the source said, but rather selectively cherry-picking certain aspects of it. The source said, (as I quoted in my edit summary which reverted your change made with a misleading edit summary) "4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries". You omit that, and in an apparent attempt to minimize or downplay the Israeli civilian casualties, reduce the number to those "physically injured". This topic has been discussed extensively previously, and the consensus was to include the nummber of shock/anxiety/PTSD victims in the "injured" figures. Please don't renew this edit war to push a POV. If you must, you can provide the breakdown in the "casualties" subsection, but don't change the infobox. Isarig 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have any information regarding the nature of the Lebanese injuries, I don't see any reason to break them down for the Israeli side. If you find some source that makes such a distinction, or states that the currently cited Lebanese injured figure is only physical injuries, then it may be appropriate. My guess is the Lebanese figures are all physical injuries, but we have no way of knowing without sources. Also, the details of the Israeli injuries are already broken down in the casualties section of the article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not our job as encyclopedia writers to take sides, it is our job to present facts. -- Kendrick7talk 06:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kendrick and Im dude2002. We have better, more specific data?  Use it.  That similar data is not available from Lebanon does not change that Israel's should be included.  It's regrettable that Lebanon doesn't have the capacity to provide the same specificity, but that has no bearing on whether or not Israel's information should be included.  Italiavivi 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, given that we already have the exact break down listed in the Casualties section, and I like to avoid too much detail in summaries, and we're not breaking down the summary of Lebanese injuries in the same way, but I don't view it as a major issue, and won't revert it if someone changes this. — George Saliba[ talk ] 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because breaking down the Lebanese injuries is impossible; they have not, or are unable to, provide the same specificity as Israel. Lebanon's inability to provide this data doesn't change whether or not Israel's data should be used.  I would advocate this same stance were the roles reversed, were Lebanon reporting specific figures and Israel not.  One party's lack of data does not mean that another party's data should be "dumbed down" to the same level. Italiavivi 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should provide the most specific data available. If there are breakdowns for Israelis but not Lebanese, then we should present all the data we have. Also, lumping all the Israeli injuries into on category makes the number of Israeli injured much higher than the number of Lebanese injured. I don't think this is accurate. The Lebanese numbers mostly likely contain few, if any, "mental injuries." Presenting Israeli numbers which include mental injuries with Lebanese numbers which do not is not misleading.--Bkwillwm 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are doing here is worse that original research - it is original speculation. You believe "The Lebanese numbers mostly likely contain few, if any, "mental injuries." ; you believe the number of Lebanese injured is higher - and you readily admit that the reason you want the breakdown in the infobox is so that this POV - that the number of Lebanese injured was higher, be made there. This is POV-pushing at its worst. Please stop it. Isarig 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 'if we have the info, we should use it' sentiment, but also with George Saliba stylistically. I think the breakdown should be left for the specific section, just because we're trying to keep the summary just that. Iorek85 08:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Isarig 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This distinction is notable enough for inclusion in the infobox, and has been provided by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  It is regrettable that Lebanon either has not or cannot provide the same data, but we should present the information available. Italiavivi 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We also have the ability to provide context in the body of the article (the fact that we have no breakdown of Lebanese casualty figures) thus negating accusations of POV. As it stands, people could argue one was put there and not the other on purpose. And Italiavivi- be careful with your edit summary accusations. You need a consensus to add the information, not remove it. The text wasn't there before. You also don't have a consensus (in fact, I count about 2 for and 4 against). So please, how about leaving it out until we can come to a decision? Iorek85 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From where do you get this unusual idea that consensus is not required to remove information from an article, Iorek? That's an interesting view on Wikipedia editing.  I will not leave it out; it is pertinent, reliably sourced (from Israel's government), and a distinction notable enough for inclusion in the infobox's summary.  Also, your tally of "2 for and 4 against" here is very poor counting, Wikipedia WP:NOT aside. Italiavivi 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess people could argue this is purposeful POV, but of course they'd be dead wrong. The issue of there not being corresponding Lebanese figures is irrevalant, like saying you can't have pictures of fruit in an article on fruit unless you include pictures of every fruit, because it would somehow be POV to leave out the pomegranates. As to whether this material is being added or restored at this point is simply a matter of when we decide to start the clock.... -- Kendrick7talk 01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would not be dead wrong, I'd be 100% correct, and I have the edits of the POV-pushers to prove it. Just read above, the contribution of Bkwillwm, who clearly gives his rationale for adding it - his personal belief that the Lebanese casualties are higher. Isarig 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his conclusion is perfectly reasonable -- when people talk about someone being injured in a military conflict, they are not typically including mental injuries. And readers of the article are going to make a false assumption here. Geez, why do you even think this is such a POV issue? Isn't the fact the the Israeli Defencse Forces were able to prevent more injuries to the civilian population a good thing? I would think this would be something to be proud of, rather that to want to take the victimization route -- much like the kidnapped/captured debate. I'm not much of a nationalist, but by Jove, American soldiers are captured like men not kidnapped like children, and when our civilians hyperventilate we don't consider them victims. -- Kendrick7talk 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) ok, so maybe I had too much Shiraz....
 * You are welcome to your personal assessment of his conclusion - but surely you realize that this is inadmissible original research. More to the point, it is an illustration of why that statement is POV - the editor pushing for it is explicitly admitting he is doing so in order to push a certain POV - that Lebanese civilian casualties were higher than Israeli civilian casualties. Your claim that "when people talk about someone being injured in a military conflict, they are not typically including mental injuries" is shown to be false by th every source you are using for the non-consensus edit. It is a statement by the Israeli MFA which clearly describes those treated for shock as being injured in the conflict, and treated in a hospital for those injuries.  as to your callous dismissal of shock/PTSD victims as "hyperventilating" - I suggest you get educated about the topic, which is a well known  and sometime serious medical condition. Otherwise, you come off looking like an ignorant philistine.Isarig 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (and as a side note, you might want to get off that high horse of "by Jove, American soldiers are captured like men not kidnapped like children" and have a little read: Kidnapped American soldiers are 'slaughtered' by al-Qaeda, US soldier kidnapped in Baghdad, Al-Qaida says new leader killed kidnapped GIs )Isarig 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion is proof that leaving it there will cause accusations of POV. I don't agree with them, but I think it is a valid compromise to have the text in the body. And on top of that, even if we did have the breakdowns for both sides, I'd still want them both in the body of the article (though I would remove the 'shock' figures from both). I'd start the clock here when you changed it, as far as I can tell. Iorek85 03:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the very specific wording used by both Israel and Lebanon in reporting their casualties, there may be a different solution. Before everyone start tossing around accusations of POV-pushing, please hear me out. Israel uses the term "injured" when referring to the 4,262 civilians, but uses the term "wounded" when referring to the subset of those who were physically injured. They specifically do not use the term wounded when referring to those who were mentally injured. Furthermore, from the article on wounds and the definition of wounded, it seems quite evident that wounded has a distinct physical connotation, while the article on injury and the definition of injured specifically includes both physical and mental injuries. Okay, this gives us some English definitions we can work with: "wounded" means physical, "injured" means physical or mental. Now, the Lebanon High Relief Council (the government group in charge of tallying these figures) also uses the term wounded when referring to the 4,409 civilians who were injured. This indicates that this figure does not include mental injuries, as the term "wounded" would be inappropriate (since the use of wounded indicates physical injury). Therefore, my suggestion is that we change the Lebanon figure to 4,409 wounded and change the Israel figure to 1,489 wounded. I favor this for two reasons. First, it seems more neutral, as we would be listing physical injuries for both sides (in lieu of not having mental injury information on the Lebanese civilians). Second, it is still summarized, as an infobox should be, with the breakdown laid out later in the document. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fine solution. Isarig 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to see how long Saliba's idea here lasts before someone tries going back to the old "injuries" format, sure. Italiavivi 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could see, there is no obvious reason to think that this IP edit 16 hours after Isarig stopped editing here is him socking. Lets all take a deep breath. On a side note, its great that we are vetting the article, but going through it I noticed a lot of new citation requests. Pretty much every bit of information in here underwent scrutiny by a dozen discriminating editors, so there is a good chances that the sources are in the history. Another possibility is that the sources exist in the subarticles, in which case we probably shouldn't repeat them here, but rather focus our energy on maintaining the subs. In general, we should probably stay away from adding new information to this entry, and direct them to the subarticles as well. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Kendrick7's edit summary, I believe he wasn't accusing Isarig of editting as an IP address, but instead thanking him for agreeing to the compromise I suggested above (which Isarig subsequently added to the article). As an aside, I didn't want to muck up the infobox with citation requests, but can we can citations for the combatants (beyond Hezbollah) on the Lebanese side? I think I've read pieces mentioning some of them (possibly all), but it will obviously be a question that comes up. If we can get death toll figures for them, we should add those to the Casualties section as well (the one in the body of the article, not the infobox preferably). — George Saliba[ talk ] 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure that the Lebanese government uses the same working definition for "wounded" as the Israeli government, and as Wikipedia. But, since there seems to be a consensus that the working definition of "injured" in wikipedia includes mentally injured, perhaps the best way to keep the section a summary while including all available information would be to write "4,262 injured." A breakdown in the casualties section further clarifies this. I m dude2002 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one has commented, should I take it then that there are no objections? I m dude2002 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Your solution is to go back to the wording that was used prior to the discussion and subsequent consensus, or to list the Israeli figure as "injured" and the Lebanese figure as "wounded"? The former doesn't seem to make much sense, and the second has neutrality issues on both sides. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that "injured" means "wouned + mentally injured," right? Now, I'm not 100% sure that the Lebanese government uses the same terminology. But we know the breakdown of the Israeli injured, so that we can use that terminology there. So I would like to see one of two options: (1) 1,489 physically injrued, 2,773 mentally injured, or (2) 4,262 injured. Since some editos believe the first one is too long, the second one may be better. The casualties section can provide a breakdown for those interested. But if we have the information on how many were mentally injured in Israel, and we don't so much as know whether the 4,409 figure from Lebanon includes mental injury or not, I don't think it's POV to write "4,409 wounded" for Lebanon and "4,262 injured" for Israel. If we have the information, why shouldn't we provide it? I m dude2002 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first it's a bit OR to question the Lebanese government's use of terminology. They've used the term wounded, and in English the word wounded means physically injured. We could list the Israeli figure as "1,489 wounded, 2,773 mentally injured," but inlcuding the breakdown in this maner led to a heated dispute earlier in this discussion between various editors. We could also list the Lebanese figure as "4,409 wounded" and the Israeli figure as "4,262 injured," though this has potential neutrality problems. I have no doubt that the question would come up, repeatedly, why we should label them differently. Out of curiosity, what issue do you have with using the number of wounded figures in the infobox and leaving the details about the breakdown and mentally injured in the body of the article? Aside from the OR on what Lebanon means when it says wounded. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The question may indeed come up as to why we labeled the two nations' casualties differently. However, that question can be answered by your own explanation, in that we know for a fact that Israel's figure is constituted of all those individuals wounded and mentally injured during the war, whereas Lebanon's figure is constituted of those the Lebanese government considers wounded. Whether their definition is the same as the one in the dictionary is something we simply won't know without finding a more detailed reference in Lebanese sources. But I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to their figure as "wounded," since that is the word the source uses.
 * As for your accusation that I am conducting Original Research by saying that Lebanon might not be using the same working definition of "wounded" as the dictionary, it would be OR if I said that they were definitely not using the same definition, just as it OR to say that they are. But there are many nations and people which include mental injuries in their casualty count. And what makes the situation particularly complicated is that Lebanon is not an English-speaking nation. So the nuanced difference between someone who was injured and someone who was wounded may have been lost in translation. I am not saying that your definition of "wounded" is wrong. But not everyone uses the correct definition. I certainly had always thought that "wounded" figures included mental injuries until you enlightened me to the contrary. And so I would naturally assume that wounded figures include mental injuries. I am certainly not alone in this. I am a fairly well-educated person, but I was never aware of this difference. I m dude2002 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can start an RfC on it, or try to put it up for a vote if you want, but honestly I don't think editors will favor using different words in the infobox. I'm not sure obviously, but they generally seem to favor balance, especially in the infobox, and leaving details in the body of the article (in this case, I generally consider mental injuries to be a detail, if it wasn't considered significant enough for both sides to report). I understand your confusion on the difference between "wounded" and "injured" to some extent, though there is a distinct difference. In fact, the inverse of your assumption is the more general case. The average person would likely only associate physical harm with the term "injury," as it's quite rare to use the word "injured" in colloquial English when referring to a mental injury (in fact, the MFA site is the only time I can recall seeing it used this way). The bottom line, however, is that I don't think questioning the translation does any good until and unless you find a source that indicates that the Lebanese figure includes mental injuries (which would obviously prove that the term "wounded" was in error). We can't just assume that they mistranslate words because English isn't their official language; short of some sources that indicate such, or sources that indicate that they use the term incorrectly, that is pure OR. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely, positively not saying that the Lebanese made an error in translation. I am saying that it's possible they may have made an error in translation. Just as there is no evidence to show that they did make this mistake, there is no evidence to show their definition of "wounded" is the same as yours. At any rate, I am not against saying that Lebanon had "4,409 wounded," since that is the best information that the Lebanese government provides us. However, I do think that we should note that there are "4,262 injured" in Israel, because that is the best information that the Israeli government provides us. My argument is this: Lebanon identifies 4,409 people as wounded. Israel identifies 4,262 people as injured. That is the best information that these governments provide us which is short enough to include in a summary box. Let's use it, just as it appears in the sources.
 * I am so tired of RfCs that it isn't even funny. So I'm not up to putting it to an RfC. They don't actually work. And when they do work, people say they don't, perhaps because they disagree with the result. I m dude2002 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but possibility and fact are two very different things. Literally anything is possible, which is why we look to reliable sources for everything. Asking for "evidence" that they know and understand the meaning of English words when they use them is like asking for proof that there is no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it's inherently unprovable.
 * I understand that you don't like RfCs, but discussion really is necessary. If two people can't agree, then our only hope is to get more eyes and voices involved. Aside from the sock puppetry, and the subsequent delay, I felt our last RfC was fairly successful. — George Saliba[ talk ] 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity the page is getting so incestuous - there's only 4 or so regular, and 3 more occasional editors, so it's hard to get anything going. While I think you might be right, George, I have to say the wounded/injured rationale isn't watertight. It's an assumption. I tried to find more recent figures with a breakdown of Lebanese casualties (as that would solve the problem) but no luck. I couldn't find the Lebanese government page which listed casualties, which could help. But without this, I'm still at my original position - leave the total in the summary, and break it down in the body. I certainly think that if we have the information we should use it - but that doesn't mean we have to use it in the infobox. My second preference would be to leave the breakdown in the infobox. Iorek85 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarification, when you say you would like to leave the total in the infobox, do you mean listing 4,262 as Israel's casualty totals or 1,489? I m dude2002 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since none of the three authors involved in the original dispute (Kendrick7, Isarig, and Italiavivi) have commented on this in several days, I'm going to implement this change and see if "silence denotes conensus" allows it to stick. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is even more neutral than I expected. Good job, George.Saliba. I m dude2002 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

According to wiki CLUSTER BOMBS ARE NOT ILLEGAL
"cluster munitions are not currently covered by any specific international legal instrument." From wikipedia's article on cluster bombs.

Yet on this article they are under "use of illegal weapons"

I really hope someone corrects this mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I may reorganize this a bit when I get a chance. Essentially, the anon editor appears to be correct. I don't think they are explicitly illegal, but they are sometimes considered illegal or prohibited under various laws (they are often viewed as prohibited by the Geneva Conventions dealing with indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks). The cluster bombs probably belong in a section titled "Use of disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks", but before I move them or change the title I'm trying to do a bit more research to determine if the same applies to white phosphorus. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I've changed the wording to refer to "prohibited" rather than "illegal" weapons for now, while I try to read up on this topic further. — George Saliba[ talk ] 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of cluster bombs in towns and other inhabited areas is prohibited by the agreeement underwhich Israel bought them from the US. The use of cluster bombs might be covered under the Ottawa Landmine Protocol, but I don't think Israel is a signatory. 70.51.11.38 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits.
Other editors apparently disagreed with my revert of a series of anon edits to the 2006 Lebanon War, which I'd like to discuss: I'm reverting these changes yet again. If people feel that certain of these changes belong, I'm entirely open to discussing them. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The first edit was to add the word civilian before villages in "The conflict began after Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages..." I disagree with this change because the term "civilian village" is redundant. There is no such thing as a military village, and we never refer to Lebanese villages in the article as "civilian" villages. Purely POV.
 * 2) The second was to change "Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel..." by inserting "the civilian areas of" before northern Israel. It is OR to say that they were either (a) only targetting civilian areas, or (b) only hitting civilians areas – the two things this change implies. The original wording was more neutrally vague.
 * 3) The third change was to add the sentence "After the war Lebanon has received millions in aid for rebuilding it's infrastructure, and Israel has received nothing for it's thousands of rocket attacks in civilian areas." This is a completely unsourced edit. If you can find sources to support the statement, I will support its inclusion, but not only is this unsourced, it's also wrong, so I doubt you'll find many sources to support it...
 * 4) The fourth is again to use the term "civilian village," which is redundant, and to remove "military outposts". This removal contradicts with the source cited.
 * 5) The fifth is to state as fact the Israeli assertion that the international airport was being used to smuggle weapons into the country. This is entirely POV.
 * 6) The sixth is again redundant - unguided rockets are inherently indiscriminate, and towns are inherently civilian.
 * 7) The seventh is factually inaccurate. It states that a UNDP report is accusing Hezbollah of using human shields. I know of no such report by the UNDP. Furthermore, any mention of such reports does not belong in this section, but in the "Use of human shields" section later in the article.
 * 8) The eighth is again stating as fact the Israeli position that Hezbollah used roads and bridges to smuggle weapons. The entire addition was unsourced, and tends to ramble into other categories. This section deals with civilian objects, while the addition also talks about human shields and civilian casualties, which have their own sections.
 * 9) The ninth is an unsourced edit about Israeli civilian casualties being lower because they are required to build bomb shelters, then an entirely POV OR statement about Lebanese civilians not expecting attacks from Israel.
 * 10) The tenth is the same as the third, an unsourced addition of OR.

You are wkilayerying with simple facts. Please don't. The article was much clearer and more accurate before your last revert. I suggest somweone would revert your changes. I don't want to get into an edit war over such nonsense such as removing of the word civilian (which is one word but critical enough) Zeq 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are aware that these additions were all just made to the article by an anonymous editor in the last 12 hours I assume. Also, the burden falls on their inclusion rather than their removal, especially given that not a single source was provided for any of them, and in many cases statements were changed to quote sources inaccurately. Furthermore, I have absolutely nothing against the term civilian, but I do have issues with degrading the quality of the English used in the article by using redundant phrases like "civilian villages," when there is no such thing as a "military village," especially when they are laced with POV bias, such as only describing Israeli villages as "civilian" villages. — George Saliba[ talk ] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see these IP edits as constructive or factual, and don't want to see them in this entry.  Tewfik Talk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am new to this discussion. I see several valid references were removed with the POV during reverts of anon editors.  This is not appropriate.  Rewriting the statements to conform to NPOV, and keeping the references, is the correct way to edit this article.  Abe Froman 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What was removed?  Tewfik Talk 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing futher, I believe that one of the references may have been appropriate, and may be useful to include in the article (though not where it was added). However, I still stand by removing what was added, as the manner in which it was added was completely inaccurate (mis-citing the reference), in the wrong section of the article, and still laced with POV and OR, violating all three core Wikipedia principles. — George Saliba[ talk ] 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked at this in more detail, and the sentence that was added matches an existing sentence from the appropriate section almost word-for-word. No need to move it, since it already exists where it belongs. — George Saliba[ talk ] 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support your handling of the anon edits, Saliba. Italiavivi 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese government responsibility
We finally achieved consensus on adding the statement "On July 12 2006, the Israeli Cabinet promised that Israel would 'respond aggressively and harshly to those who carried out, and are responsible for, today's action'" to the article. I would like to follow this up with an additional statement, citing the same source, stating "They declared their view that the 'Lebanese Government [was] responsible for the action that originated on its soil.'" I suspect, given the heated dispute over the first statement, that this may be controversial, so I'd like to discuss it here first. Do any editors feel that this statement is inaccurate, badly worded, or not neutral? Are there other suggestions on how to word this statement? — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the statements were said in two different speeches it should be clarified. It would be POV for us to make the connection. --Shamir1 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any constructive ideas on how to include this quotation in an NPOV manner? — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These were said in the same document, so I'm guessing the point is moot. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted a version with a different wording, in part to test if there is consensus for it. — George Saliba[ talk ] 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already had a discussion over this issue which spanned a month and two weeks (and about 10 pages), and an RfC which was by far not a flash. The inclusion of this wording was proposed as part of that discussion. The compromise plan which included the current wording was adopted. This suggestion was part of various propositions which were thoroughly discussed. This addition was rejected as part of the terms for accepting the current wording. We had established consensus. I m dude2002 18:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and now I'm looking to build a new consensus on a neutral wording to add the quotation. Please see the figure on the consensus page. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of a compromise if you go back and say "this compromise is only a stepping stone for me to get what I wanted in the first place." The reason I agreed your previous suggestion was precisely because it didn't cut apart and repaste the communique. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that you are doing this with the intention of making wikipedia better. But there is no reason to come to an agreement if you plan on working around it. I m dude2002 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this has nothing to do with me "getting what I wanted"; it has everything to do with making the article "better", where better means different things to different people. To me, better means making it as neutral and accurate as possible, containing readable information from reliable sources. This has nothing to do with "working around" anything. The consensus we achieved was to replace the old sentence about the CNN report with the new one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we both believe the compromise version was better than what was there before. That's a step. It isn't a wording written in stone that can never be re-evaluated, expanded or contracted, or removed altogether; just a step. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the first place, I don't believe that the edit you are suggesting will make the article better. Cutting a primary source up and rearranging it can be a dangerous thing. Sometimes it works out alright, but here it takes away some of the essential context and is designed to imply a conclusion.
 * At any rate, I think part of making an article better is coming out with your full suggestion for improvement and agreeing or disagreeing on that version. Making the article better should not entail agreeing to a version which you know full well you will challenge. It is true that I think this version was better than the last. But I also think that the next-to-last version on the RfC would have been better than this current one. I also think that the first option on the RfC would have been better than this one. If we had both gotten exactly what we wanted, it wouldn't be a compromise. But I believe that if you conduct negotiations, you should honor the results to which you agree. I m dude2002 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox indicates that the PFLP and LCP participated in the war, while there's no reference to this in the article. The PFLP-GC, on the other hand, did participate in the war, so I assume PFLP-GC was substituted with PFLP by mistake. If I'm correct and there's no objections, I'll drop the LCP and replace the PFLP with PFLP-GC.--Doron 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have the patience to search the page history now, but there was originally a source for the LCP participation, though I don't recall if it was PFLP or PFLP-GC. I think we also discussed it on Talk at some point, so you could also check the archives here. Maybe Iorek85 remembers?  Tewfik Talk 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PFLP-GC is correct (article here). — George Saliba [ talk  ] 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I raised this issue in the past, and got no reference back then either. I'm removing the LCP flag and correcting PFLP to PFLP-GC. The infobox should reflect what's written in the article, so if information about LCP's participation is added to the article or a link is added, we can restore the infovox flag.--Doron 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a source for the LCP. It indicates that they fought "alongside [Hezbollah] in the frontlines in the south", and lost 12 fighters (according to their Secretary General). — George Saliba [ talk  ] 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Doron 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Capture vs. Kidnap vs. Abduct
This topic recently came up over at the Hezbollah article talk page, where consensus was formed around the term "capture" as being preferrable to the other two. I'd just like to paraphrase my reasoning here regarding why I favor the term "capture":

"The word kidnap has a connotation of 'child-stealing' literally, while abduct is often used when referring to the kidnapping of women (per Black's Law Dictionary), or alien abduction. Hezbollah is a large organization, and kidnap is more commonly used when the kidnapping party is an individual or small group (versus a government or political organization). They crossed an international border to do take the soldiers, in an open assault that included diversionary rocket attacks – that is to say, it was an apparent military maneuver. Most importantly, those who were taken were soldiers, not civilians. They would likely have been armed, and at some point they had to have been surrounded, or thrown down their weapons, or been caught offguard, which definitely sounds more like being captured than kidnapped to me."

The discussion there revolved more around which was more appropriate between capture and kidnap, though abduct was also mentioned. I know it's been discussed here before as well, with little resolution, but just thought I'd kick off the discussion with the last discussion on the subject I'm aware of. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that I was not acting 'out of nowhere', but was reacting to the change of all kidnap and abducts to capture in the last few days. As far as the consensus on Hezbollah, I think it might be a bit premature to declare as there doesn't appear to be the most diverse mix of opinions, and as one of the editors said, "Yea your edits stay because AIPAC is away" (which illustrates this from two angles). That said, if another discussion is in order, then so be it, but my rationale is similar to the one you laid out in a previous discussion here (which I finally located in the archive =D), though you are of course entitled to change your mind. I'm including it below. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk  22:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

''I actually initially introduced the term "abducted" in the hopes of coming up with a less POV word than either "captured" or "kidnapped". I'm still not sure that captured alone is POV (without any POV adverbs, etc.), and I'm worried that we might run into other POV discusssions with taken/took prisoner - were they prisoners, were they POWs, were they hostages, etc. I do agree that it would be great if we could find a single, very neutral statement. Out of curiosity, why do people find capture to be POV? Arguments about whether they are POWs or not aside, captured seems relatively NPOV to me as long as it isn't associated with weasel words - swiftly captured, valiantly captured, slyly captured, etc. See below for my more in depth thoughts on the matter. — George Saliba [talk] 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * I think that the one thing that changed my mind from my original favoring of "abducted" was reading the kidnap article here on Wikipedia, which explicitly outlines the difference between kidnapping and abducting, and mentions that, legally speaking, abducting often refers to women. I wasn't aware of this distinction before reading that, which is what changed my mind. I also think that "took hostage" may be a neutral, accurate alternative too, though using two words will lengthen the article, and may become redundant quickly. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The word kidnap was decided on because Hezbollah used the term. Al Jazeera uses the term for what Hezbollah did in 2000: "In October 2000 Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers." There seems to be no difference whether they are soldiers or not, as BBC uses a few terms, including kidnap. Hezbollah is also apparently not afraid to use the word "kidnap" in regards to what they did to the Israeli soldiers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs).
 * I wasn't aware of the legal differentiation until now either. However, I'm not convinced that such a legal definition should be as much a deciding factor as the conversational use of the word, which I think is clear from both of our perceptions, is somewhat different. I wouldn't object to the "hostage" term either (with the caveat of awkwardness you mentioned). If Hezbollah indeed employs kidnap, then that would be very decisive in my view. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Do we have any original sources from Hezbollah that use the term kidnap (as opposed to English translations by other organizations)? Also, do any native Arabic speakers know if there is a difference between "capture" and "kidnap" in Arabic? Out of curiosity, why do people object to the term capture? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the Arabic root for capture (A S R) is differentiated from kidnap (Kh T F) in a similar manner as in English (or in the Hebrew cognates, for that matter). A cursory search of al Manar brought me this current article which clearly uses the kidnap language in reference to the soldiers (خطف الجنديين). My objection is out of a desire to distinguish between being taken 'incidental' to some military action and being taken as the goal of the action, with perhaps the further nuance (this is more speculative) of being taken as the goal when not even engaged. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm probably just really tired, but can you clarify that last part for me? Are you saying that the term "capture" implies "incidental", or that the term "kidnap" implies "incidental"? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was saying capture implies "incidental", as opposed to being the aim (kidnap). Since Hezbollah use kidnap, I see no problem with abduct, and I would even be inclined to support kidnap. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. What if we put something like "the goal of the cross border incursion was to capture Israeli soldiers, in order to exchange them for Lebanese prisoners held in Israel," or something similar. I think such a statement in the introduction or appropriate section would eliminate any confusion over whether it was incidental or not. My biggest concern with kidnap and abduct is the connotation they might imply. These two words could be interpretted as comparing the captured soldiers to children or women. Additionally, they may imply that the soldiers surrendered, or just gave up, rather than fighting back (which I don't think is the case). On the other hand, they might also imply that Hezbollah snuck into their homes at night and dragged them away, when it seemed like a pretty frontal militant assault that surrounded the soldiers. I prefer "capture" simply because it cannot imply these things, so if we remove the "incidental" aspect of it you mention, which I didn't really think of, I think it would be preferrable. Just my opinion though. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 07:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'With the intent to capture' or something like that works for me. It was a military operation, not a midnight abduction, or a civilian kidnap, but it wasn't incidental to a battle. Can the change be defended with citations, though? Iorek85 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for sources using the term capture, there are a lot. There are also a lot stating that Hezbollah wanted to (or still wants to) exchange the soldiers for prisoners. If you're looking for sources that state that their original intention was to capture the soldiers, that is a bit harder to find, but they definitely exist. For instance, this is from a BBC article:"'Hezbollah said it captured the two Israeli soldiers... The group says it has captured the soldiers to secure the release of detainees held in Israeli prisons. 'Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine,' the Hezbollah statement said.'"I haven't found the original Hezbollah statement, though I'm not sure if it's necessary. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'd support the 'intent to capture' to make it clear it wasn't incidental, and then capture in the article. Iorek85 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't mind saying 'intent to capture', using capture across the board seems less than ideal for me, even while noting your concerns. As I mentioned above, abduct seems to convey a relatively neutral connotation, and Hezbollah's embrace of kidnap only strengthens my feeling that we move in that direction. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One interesting thing, albeit minor perhaps, is that it sounds like the official Hezbollah statements used capture (at least the one I quoted above), while the usage of kidnapped was a quote attributed to Nasrallah, not Hezbollah per se. Are there any "official" statements by Hezbollah that use kidnap? I wonder if they have a website that would host their press releases. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that al-Manar fits that bill, though a statement from Hassan Nasrallah should work equally well. I'd also be curious to see the original statement that the BBC worked with there.  Tewfik Talk 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any of the original statements yet. An interesting bit from Human Rights Watch, however:


 * The article tewfik pointed to on Manar website is an article reporting something from Maarif Israeli newspaper. In the introduction of the article that the Manar reporter writes they use the word أسر which means capture in a military term, later on in the article while quoting and IDf army general by the name of Hareel, he uses the word خطف,which means kidnap, we can not use Manar's reporting of Israeli newspaper as a supporting article for the use of the word Kidnap.  Hezbollah repeatedly uses the  term capture when refering to the operation it carried out in July 2006. I also refer you to the following article from the BBC regarding the use of the word capture when reporting the Gaza incident of Shalit http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_wells/2006/06/cpl_shalit_kidnapped_or_captur.html I think the word kidnap is quiet misleading and must be changed to capture. I also refer you to the press conference of Sayed Nasrallah after the capture of the soldiers, 2 minutes and 40 seconds into the video Nasrallah clearly says that Hezbollah declared that they were able to capture( أسر ) IDF personnel, here is the link: http://www.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=sounds&action=play&id=307 based on this the word kidnapped and abducted should be changed to captured. Abufijli 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful? The targeting and capture of enemy soldiers is allowed under international humanitarian law. However, captured combatants must in all circumstances be treated humanely. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah has stated that the captured soldiers will be used to negotiate the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and other Arab prisoners from Israel. The use of captives who are no longer involved in the conflict for this purpose constitutes hostage-taking. Hostage-taking as part of an armed conflict is strictly forbidden under international law, by both Common Article 3 and customary international law, and is a war crime." Interesting that they use the term "capture," they associate the term with Nasrallah, they identify the reason for the "capture" (the prison exchange – hence, the act wasn't incidental), and they state that the capture may have been illegal since it constitutes hostage taking (seeking to exchange prisoners). They also use the phrase "hostage-taking," which I prefer to "kidnapping" as it is accurate without implying the same "child-stealing" meaning. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "hostage-taking", I just don't think it could practically function for more than a few locations in the entry. I'll try to dig deeper in al Manar for some older stuff, but it does seem that they consistently [and currently] use kidnap.  Tewfik Talk 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about going back to the mix of different terms? I didn't have a problem with that, since the media itself mixed terms. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would accept that in the case of some severe edit-warring or such (as in the past), however I think that Hezbollah's usage removes the major problems with kidnap/abduct, and constitutes a strong case for their usage. Why do you feel uncomfortable with them?  Tewfik Talk  03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, their posibly implied connotations. Even if Hezbollah or Al-Manar use them, I would still prefer to avoid words that have negative connotations when similar words without the same implications exist, and are used equally often (or more often in this case). I think the possible negative connotations come in two flavors – one against those who were taken (as in, comparing them to women or children), and the other against those who did the taking (comparing them to child-stealers). That's it, really. Given that all the terms are used quite often, why use words that can be interpretted the wrong way, rather than use a more neutral word that means the same thing? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In a news broadcast today about the Israeli report on the war, the BBC said that Hezbollah had "captured" Israeli soldiers. Joeldl 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that similar connotation problems could exist about capture, principally the implication that something other than "hostage-taking" took place. At least in terms of abduct, I'm not sure that the negative connotations exist, and kidnap has lost its specific relation to children (Child abduction), and fits quite well (any illegal capture or detention of a person or people against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.), even mentioning the context of warfare. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we just disagree qualitatively. To me capture only has one possible meaning – to take by force, usually in a way that benefits the person doing the taking. Kidnap and abduct can (and still are, in some case) have different meanings, which are almost implied by when capture isn't used. For instance, you would never say that "a child was captured," you would say kidnapped, and you would never say that "a woman was captured and raped," you would say she was kidnapped or abducted. Likewise, I've never heard of a soldier being kidnapped or abducted unless it was the type of "taken at night while sleeping" scenario. I'm trying to think of examples of things that could be captured "incidentally", per your point earlier, and I've just never heard captured used in that way, or the two words used together. However, I'm an American English speaker, so other dialects may be different. Don't get me wrong – I think all three have definitions that can fit – I just find the term capture to be the most neutral based on my dialect (again, it's entirely possible British English differs). Do you have any examples where the term capture can imply incidentally? I've been trying to come up with examples, but I'm at a loss. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry if I was unclear, but I meant "incidental [to combat]", as opposed to "hostage-taking" (which I won't burden you with again being as I mentioned it in my last post) since we were discussing connotation. I agree that children and women are not usually captured, though I would argue that only has to do with their association [or lack-thereof] with an engagement of combat. My point being that the absence of capture in civil society doesn't demand the absence of kidnap, or the less loaded abduct, just because the context is military. It just seems natural to me that if both sides (Hezbollah & Israel) agree on the nature of the act, that we reflect that... I think I have a better feel on the cause of your unease, but I'm not sure that my unease is any closer to being mollified than yours :-) Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To me "capture" is neutral. "Kidnap" and "abduct" definitely imply illegitimacy of some form. "Capture" does not imply legitimacy or illegitimacy, and merely names the action. Joeldl 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

800 in the infobox
Please, the 800 is perfectly fine in the body of the article, but is misleading in the info box. Nowhere does the LA times estimate the death toll at 800; it clearly states 'at least 800 were killed', not that they estimate 800 were killed. Putting it in the info box gives this impression. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that impression at all. The infobox suggests that estimates range from 800 to 1,191, and indeed they do. That reasoning does not ring well. I also added an Encarta article that says that estimates start from 850, not too far off. --Shamir1 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. The estimates range from at least 800, not that they range from 800. If I were to say I had at least $100 in my bank account, that would be very different from having $200 in my bank account. I can't see the encarta reference, but if you can find the reliable sources who estimate the death toll at 800, then I'd be happy to put that in. Otherwise, the LA Times and IHT are just ranges, just like ours is. Iorek85 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is wrong. They are stating that the possibility is as low as 800, which means 800 is a possible number, meaning LOWER than 1,035. Please stop. The AP estimates it to be at least 850. I brought in an Encarta encyclopedia source that also gives that range. Please stop. --Shamir1 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this article explicitly state that "the Lebanese and AP counts of Lebanon's war dead range from 1,035 to 1,191," and that "adding the additional 180 deaths now conceded by Hezbollah raises the AP tally to 1,035"? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The majority of articles I've seen show estimates in line with George's Associated Press citation. Majoreditor 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, they aren't. "At least" is a weasel word for when you don't have the accurate figure. As George showed, the AP tally is 1,035, but it doesn't matter anyway. I left the encarta reference and figure (850) in because it explicitly states that estimates start at 850, which is all I was asking for. I'd still prefer if we had the source of this estimate, but it'll do for now. Iorek85 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We still need a real source to support this figure. This is Encarta saying that someone else gave this figure – not Encarta claimed this figure themself. In other articles, such as the one on Lebanon, Encarta uses a very different wording when discussing the death toll, stating "by the time the fighting ended more than 1,200 Lebanese and about 160 Israelis had been killed." From the attributability FAQ: "Traditionally published encyclopedias are reliable sources if published by a reliable publisher, but bear in mind that they may be out-of-date or insufficiently comprehensive. More focused and in-depth sources are preferable." Until we can find a "more focused and in-depth source," and given that different Encarta articles contradict each other on it, I suggest we not use this figure – at least not in the infobox, as I don't believe it warrants inclusion in a summary of the conflict. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, George. It certainly is odd encarta is so inconsistent. I agree with putting it in the body of the article (all of the claims, ie. that encarta has reported the toll to be between 850 and 1,200, but then mentions the toll as over 1,200 in this article).Iorek85 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved these figures to the body of the article, due to the inconsistency. If we can find an actual source of the estimate, we should consider using it. It's a bit odd citing figures from another Encyclopedia, as they may constitute tertiary sources (and I'm quite sure it does in this case), but I doubt other editors will agree to not include it until we can find the actual source. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Newsflash, This is an encyclopedia. --Shamir1 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and per Wikipedia policy, we should be very careful when citing other Encyclopedias, as they can be "out-of-date or insufficiently comprehensive," and may constitute tertiary sources. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, George. Primary over secondary sources. I'd feel much more comfortable reporting the person who said 850 (I've a sneaking suspicion it might be the early AP estimate) but I don't feel terribly strongly about this, so I'll leave 850 to give Shamir time to find the reliable source that states it. Iorek85 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how Encarta is out-of-date with this new war? Also, explain why you insist on removing 800 from the list? It says at least 800--meaning 800 AND anything above is possible. That is what it means. Get serious, there is no point in making up Wiki rules that do not exist. --Shamir1 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for one thing, Encarta says "850 to 1,200" in one article, and "more than 1,200" is another article. Also, the war is now almost a year old, and estimates have variety widely during that period. As for the 800 figure itself, it was not an estimate. Let me illustrate. I have a paper bag. I'm going to tell you that there are at least six apples in it. Did I estimate how many apples were in my bag? No, I told you that there were at least six – this is a limitation on the range, stating that there are not less than 6 apples in my bag. This is not an estimate. An estimate is defined as "an approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth," not a limitation on the range of such values. Now, what if I tell you that I think there are about 12 apples in my bag? Did I give you an estimate? Yes, in this case the number 12 is an estimate. Does that make it any clearer? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Displaced number
I ran a search to find the missing article, and found that the 700,000 was sourced to UNHCR. While the further BBC chart only uses the government number (900,000), it seems that UNHCR still uses the 700,000 number, and as a total, not as the 'after 200,000 returned'. I'm not 100% sure, so you may want to dig deeper, but it seems that the number had basis. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dig deeper I shall. ;) From your UNHCR source: "more than 700,000 Lebanese were displaced inside their country and some 180,000 were sheltered in Syria." The current article says displaced, not internally displaced. The UN source that was cited in the article before stated: "An estimated 200,000 Lebanese have returned to their home areas... leaving the estimated number of internally displaced persons in Lebanon currently at just over 700,000," and cited the HRC, which has since updated their figure to 974,184. Additionally, the BBC's "facts and figures" site, which the BBC article you found links to (immediately after stating its figure), lists the displaced at 915,762, citing the Lebanese government (which, again, favors the updated HRC figure). — George Saliba [ talk  ] 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I didn't see the "180,000" number. I suppose that means that BBC misread UNHCR in the the number they listed as sourced to it... (Lebanon displaced: 700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt))  Tewfik Talk 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite possible. I'd guess they either misread/misinterpretted, or there was some confusion between the 700,000 internally displaced and the 900,000 total displaced (well, 880,000 between Lebanon and Syria according to UNHCR, plus whatever else from other countries), or the UNHCR could have changed their figures. Most likely it was just a confusion between internally displaced and all displaced people, but who knows. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Length
It's getting rather long, 122kb at last count, and roughly 8,600 words. Any ideas for shortening it? The post conflict events section seems to be a little long. Iorek85 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SIZE it needs to be split into smaller articles. -- Lara Love Talk / Contribs  03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I summarized the Allegations of war crimes section, and moved much of its content to a new article. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the last thing that we need now is yet another subarticle. It seems as if much of the information is already included in Targeting of civilian areas, and whatever isn't could easily be. Thoughts?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, but if you check the Targeting of civilian areas talk page, you'll notice I already suggested a merge when I created the Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War article. :) That was my intention all along, I just figured it would be cleaner to create the new article and then merge the existing, more specific one in. If nobody disagrees with the merge proposal, I'll probably begin the merge myself, though I'm not very familiar with merging articles, so if anyone is experienced with them, feel free to have at it. Cheers. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Opps, I had started the discussion, but apparently I forgot to add the template to the top of the page itself. Added it now. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit indirect for my taste, but whatever works ;-)  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the 'wounded' consensus wording?
I see we're back to "injury" speculation in the infobox again, despite a strong consensus on using "wounded" figures from several of this page's editors. Italiavivi 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I m dude2002 didn't like this version, so I changed it back to the older version to test if there was consensus to change it back. It was changed to the breakdown version fairly quickly by Kendrick7, and now it's back to the wounded version. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would favour either George's last version, or Kendrick's, since the current version (if I recall correctly) is based on George's shaky semantic analysis (no offence =D), and is thus the least attributable to our current sourcing.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tewfik. Sorry, George, but yours (while quite possibly right) is the hardest to support against POV accusations. I say we just go with the split, using the information we have, POV complaints be damned, since they are irrational. If they want to make the Lebanese casualties look equal, they can find the breakdown themselves. Iorek85 06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it, I don't really have a particular favorite. To be quite honest, I was more defending the compromise version I had suggested, as it had seemed to pick up pretty smooth consensus initially. My primary concern was more avoiding a revert war than defending the change itself – not that it wass my personal favorite. Right or wrong, that was probably my primary motivation. I think the breakdown in the body of the article is sufficient to give more information on any of these alternative versions, so I'm cool with whichever of these options people agree to not revert war over. :) — George Saliba [ talk  ] 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Looks pretty good to me, but some issues that should be looked at. In the interim, I'll put the article on hold.
 * 1) The lead is skimming up to be longer than it should be and I suspect it can be trimmed a bit. See WP:LEAD.
 * 2) You should deal with citations needed in "Intentional attacks on civilians" and "Israeli civilians". Your article otherwise appears quite well cited.
 * 3) There are some citation problems that you should address, though:
 * 4) Reference #5 is a broken link. Consider adding more retrieval dates so that broken links are more acceptable.
 * I'll try to locate this original. Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) References #7, #8, #122, #127, #128 have bad wiki syntax
 * I assume you meant "125 and 126" for "127 and 128", though I couldn't fix 127
 * 1) References #21, #22 are empty,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk  07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 21 can function as a print reference (if it wasn't already),
 * 1) References #71, #74, #80, #86, #92, #109, #119, #126, #130, #132, #167, #171, #179, #180, #182, #187, #188, #189, #193, #201, #206, #207, #208, #209, #210, #218, #229, #230, #232 (all three), #234, #236, #237, #238, #240, #241, #251, #255 should be standardized
 * I got through many, but not all of these.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Lowercase the author's name in #76
 * 2) Looking at the history and the requested move, I'm not sure how "stable" this article is. That deserves a look again after the hold.
 * 3) Is there a more neutral image you could use for the lead?
 * 4) Can the "Post-ceasefire events" either be cut, trimmed, or turned into prose? As it is, it's just a long list.

Good luck! JRP 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Cheers. Lol @ 'quite well cited' - there's 255 references - how many would be 'very well cited?' :). I'd like to address the image problem, though. We did have a neutral image of three separate (IIRC) pictures, a mix of free and fair use. Then Angr deleted it (he seems to be one of those people who goes around deleting fair use images) citing that it was replaceable, without taking into account the neutrality of the image. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the previous image. We'll either need to make a new one, or if someone has the old one, we can re-upload it. I agree with the post ceasefire sentiments, too. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Iorek85 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make a new image from commons pictures. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I summarised the post-ceasefire section and moved the detailed version to Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War. I left in the references (I might have removed one set for information not included), but for the sake of clarity (and yes, so that I have less to format) I would like to remove all of the superfluous citations, since they are all preserved on the "Timeline" page anyway. Let me know about that or any other corrections that need to be made. Cheers,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, new news regarding the war
Google News link

Hopefully, these brand new articles will give us some up to date information, and maybe help solve the problems regarding the naming, death tolls, injuries and the capture/kidnap/abduct debate. When I've finished my university essay, I'll take a more detailed look.

For example, the first article by the guardian calls it "war in Lebanon" (no caps), uses the word "capture" in relation to the hezbollah action, and says "more than 1,000 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed." Hooray for fresh sources!

In addition, where should the main topic of the articles go? Reviews of the conflict seems the obvious place, but Israeli response and post conflict events warrant a chance. Iorek85 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This reports one of Olmert's ministers has stepped down. (Also that 900 civilians, 1200 Lebanese in total, were killed.) Iorek85 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is cool. News sources have not shown a single decided figure, and the Australian article (which is notable) seems to be subtracting the amount that Hezbollah has acknowledged. What do you guys think about uploading the cover of the Winograd?

A side note: You guys have been pretty good about this, but I know there is still going to be some talkback anyway; try to concentrate more on the information you can gather from organization sources (i.e. AI, HRW), rather than what they have to say about it. This is not their discussion of the conflict. Once again, we have been pretty good about it anyway, but I wanted to make sure we dont run into much. --Shamir1 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)