Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 48

Location
It currently says in the lead and infobox that the war took place in Lebanon, Israel and Israeli-occupied territories. But the only part of the IOT that the war took place is in the Golan heights. So there is no need to say "Israeli-occupied territories" which also includes West Bank and Gaza Strip where the war didn't take place, so we should be more specific and only say GH. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Images
Funny how all images of destruction in Lebanon suddenly disappeared! Seems I'll have to add them back, current article looks extremely biased. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do images keep disappearing? I need to access this site to cover this for a Political Science class at a high school ever semester and because the firewall blocks most sites I rely on Wiki for my students if they want to refer to what we spoke about in class or view "safe" image content. How can images be disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Victory Claim Objectivity?
What about victory estimates by objective analysts? The victory claim makes it appear that if a person thinks Hezbollah won they are on the side of Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. If a person thinks Israel won they are on the side of the United States and Israel. And the United States is being included with Israel when there are differing opinions in the United States. There are even differing opinions in Israel.

I call it a draw. With a slight edge to Hezbollah given that they performed better than expected, and the impact that their tactical skills and rocket force now has on the psychology of their opponents. In terms of casualties and damage Hezbollah lost, but that is more tactical rather than a long term strategic effect.Azeh (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how you call it. Both sides claim victory. Flayer (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is flawed. The article lists multiple IDF officials that thought the war was a loss (some of them very prominent). Why are their opinions not listed in the "results" section?

Qogir (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Israel's intentions were, they failed to take over any part of Lebanon let alone kill a enough soldiers to be awarded a victory.Besides, who knows what the actual figures are?--84.13.173.159 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Israel's official intention was above all to establish a bufferzone in Southern Lebanon in which Hezbollah would not be allowed to operate. As stated by Olmert himself, capturing land was not necessarily the main instrument of achieving this. Causing severe casualties is not a necessity in order to claim victory either. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to offer my own opinion on victory, but the phrasing is absolutely awful. It sets up a dichotomy that leaves out so many important opinions. It is rather ludicrous to suggest that only supporters of Hezbollah saw them as the victors (as the wording suggests). Is the Economist pro-Hezbollah? No, clearly not. It is also inaccurate to claim that "Israel" viewed their performance as a victory, when the Winograd Commission said otherwise. At the very least, the "victory" section should be expanded to include all those who felt the war was indecisive (Winograd) or an Israeli failure (several Israeli failures). I would like to discuss it here before taking any action.

Qogir (talk) 8:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is WP:OR you should find a source that say what was really result of the war and according to whom.--Shrike (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with original research. These results are listed in other parts of the article.

Qogir (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The outcome of the Second Lebanon war will remain contentous for years ahead. Its still too early to conclude either way, and we should therefore stick to "Both sides claim victory" until future historians look at the events in an un-politicized way.

--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the "results" section should reflect that there is a debate taking place outside of the respective governments/organizations. It's not appropriate to judge the results of a war simply by government statements. And, still, this doesn't explain how Israel (as a whole) could have claimed victory when the Winograd Commission stated pretty clearly that the war was indecisive.

Qogir (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find WP:RS that there is debate you are welcome to add it.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

prisoner swap
are you kidding me in accordance with un resolution?! no. it was in accordance of israel freeing hundreds of murderers, and thats a fact because i dont really know what else to call people who stabbed others to death. this is so bias, and so anti-israel. this has to be revised, and i propose mentioning how israel had to give up convicted felons to bring those two soldiers home, along with the mention that what hezzbollah did was against international law. than if you want you can state their was also a un resolution condemning the act, but it is incorrect to state that hezbollah, a terrorist organization, listened ly good children to the un.--129.98.209.203 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't refer to Hezbollah as good children whatsoever and if you read the wiki on the exchange many think it is biased "pro-israel". At any rate your proposal for edit seems very biased and not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.111.163 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Israeli military victory according to European Union ??
Can anyone cite any reference or source for the claim made in the infobox that "Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States, European Union, and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah." Now I everyone knows Israel declared victory and US decalred it was an Israeli victory, and that anti-Hezbollah parties say Hezbollah lost the war. But has the European Union ever declared Israel won this war? I don't think this true at all.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources given for this claim  or  mentions anything about the European Union claiming Israeli military victory. So where does this claim come from? Kermanshahi (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was added by an IP here. I've reverted it. Thanks for spotting that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

15 Merkava tanks destroyed near Litani River
I found this source, that claims that "about 15 Merkava tanks" were destroyed (mission kill) in a battle in al-Hujeir valley near Litani River in late July. I cannot find any reference to these events in any of the related articles (Military operations, Timeline). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The battle of Wadi al-Hujeir tool place on July 11-13 and is known in Israel as the Battle of Wadi Saluki. As-Sulouqi is a wadi that runs south-north parallel to the Israeli border. Al-Hujeir branches off from as-Sulouqi and runs north to the Litani river between the villages of al-Ghandouriya /Froun and Qantara/al-Qusayr. Either the Israeli maps were not that accurate or else the Israelis have their own place names in Lebanon. See map:
 * http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/lebanon_southern_border_1986.jpg
 * Anyway the article contains very little news, apart from the claim that a single fighter was firing all the missiles on the tanks. Which I’m a bit sceptical about. Part of the Hezbollah tactics was “swarming” missiles on tanks, letting the first trigger the reactive armour and the second one penetrate the tank.
 * In general I believe that al-Akhbar is reliable but with news like this it is really Hezbollah who decides what it want to reveal. There is no room for investigative journalism when it comes to Hezbollah.


 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * sorry, the battle took place 11-13 August, not July .Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have redirected Battle of Wadi al-Hujeir to the article. As it stands, the article looks terribly one sided for Israeli victory. Manipulating history (and Wikipedia) starts from naming battles after the places you conquered, not the places you failed to conquer. Article says Israeli troops captured their objective. Hezbollah says the target was the Litani river. Control the sources and you control history :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. – Funny that Military operations of the 2006 Lebanon War does not even mention the Litani Offensive / Operation Changing Direction 11. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kidnapping?
Kidnapping is a criminal offense and here we are discussing an armed conflict. Clearly using this term in this context is violating neutral language. The argument that Hezbollah forces are not part of the Lebanese army is arguable and beside the point.

Anyway Olmert said at the time: "The murderous attack that took place this morning,...is not a terrorist act. It is a military act by a country, Lebanon, against the State of Israel, on its sovereign territory. The Lebanese government, of which Hezbollah is a part, is trying to undermine regional stability. Lebanon is responsible, and Lebanon will bear the results of its actions."

Lebanese President Emil Lahoud: "Hezbollah is the national resistance force, which complements the power of the Lebanese Army"

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora: "The Lebanese resistance is a faithful and natural expression of the right of the Lebanese people to defend its land and its honor in light of Israeli belligerence, threats and aspirations"

Former Lebanese defense minister Abdul Rahim Mourad: "Considering Lebanon's meager resources, reinforcing the resistance is the desirable method for reinforcing the country's military strength"

Lebanese Chief of Staff Michel Suleiman: "Reinforcing the resistance is one of the central principles of the Lebanese military doctrine"

All quotations from: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/pows-or-illegal-combatants-1.216710

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted that edit. The IP is a sockpuppet of a topic banned user Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive, so they can't make that edit regardless of its merit.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly "kidnapping" is not a neutral term, and either way it is an incorrect term as and such terms are not used in military conflicts where both parties are active duty armed members of opposing forces. Dictionary says Capture = to take by force or stratagem; take prisoner; seize. Kidnapping on the other hand is a criminal act which overwhelmingly involves non combatants and demands of ransomGangamstyle (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The captive soldiers
The article should not state that the two soldiers were dead or mortally wounded in the initial attack. The national-religious and settler-affiliated Arutz 7 is not a reliable source. If its claim is true this info must be found in more reliable mainstream media. The fate of the two soldiers was not known at the time. Quite the contrary if was generally assumed in Israel that they were alive. The claim is still questionable. Lebanese sources claim that they were killed much later by an Israeli air strike. Anyway Israel's bombardment of the air port cannot be justified if the soldiers were already dead. Shimon Peres assurances to the families that both were "alive and well" also appear cynical. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim was already sourced also to ABC. I removed the Artuz 7 ref and restored the info. While it's possible they were killed in an airstrike by a bullet to the head and an RPG to the chest, that's kinda unlikely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

False POV pushing
I am not aware of any serious source supporting the claim that the 2006 war was an “Israeli military victory according to Israel, the United States and Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah.”

People making this claim consist of little more than a lunatic fringe in the real world. Unfortunately it still seems to be a dominant trend inside Wikipedia. No serious source would describe the war as a “military victory” for Israel and in fact none of the supplied sources does make this claim. At most they claim that in spite of the IDF military failures, the war also produced some positive outcome for Israel, such as the reinforcement of UNIFIL, which Israel initially opposed. It changed position only after being unable to defeat Hizbullah in the battle field.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-backs-down-unifil-stays-1.194495

IDF was decisively defeated in Battle of Bint Jbeil and Battle of Ayta ash-Shab as well as in the final Operation Change of Direction 11. Apparently all those responsible for the war agree that the IDF failure to win the early ground battles were the root cause of Israel’s failure in the war:


 * “all three top figures [Prime Minister Olmert, Defence Minister Peretz and Chief of Staff Halutz] agree that the war would have ended with a clear achievement for Israel had the initial limited ground operations in Maroun al-Ras and Bint Jbeil been successful."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3398316,00.html


 * The majority of the Israeli people did not view the war as a success for the IDF and only a tiny minority felt that Israel achieved most of its war objectives.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3291214,00.html


 * “A survey conducted with 24 high-ranking Israeli officers and published in the IDF journal Ma’arahot showed that they considered Hezbollah a superior military force to the IDF. Hezbollah had better intelligence, military doctrine and strategy, tactical command, training and organization and above all motivation. Only in terms of technology did Israel score better than Hezbollah.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=156140


 * The official Winograd commission concluded that the war was a "serious missed opportunity," which ended without an Israeli victory.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/worse-than-the-partial-report-1.238380

The Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee findings from its investigation into the conduct of the 2006 Second Lebanon War:
 * "The IDF failed in reaching its main operative goal in the war - combating the firing of Katushya rockets."
 * "In conclusion, Israel did not succeed in defeating the enemy, which is made up of only a couple of thousands."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/excerpts-from-knesset-panel-findings-on-second-lebanon-war-1.236261


 * According to the heads of Israel’s intelligence and security agencies the war results was "a national catastrophe."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3383151,00.html

Similarly “the United States” did not consider the war as an “Israeli military victory”.


 * According to George Bush Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon "the result for Israel was mixed". "Its military campaign weakened Hezbollah and helped secure its border. At the same time, the Israelis' shaky military performance cost them international credibility. "Unfortunately they mishandled their opportunity," he says, pointing to Israel bombing campaigns "of questionable military value".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375


 * In the US army “the result [of the war] was widely seen as a disaster for the Israeli military”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502235.html


 * “Lebanese political parties opposed to Hezbollah” never claimed that the war was an “Israeli military victory” and the supplied source (an Israeli rewrite of an unlinked Arabic original) does in fact not make this claim. Political observer Fares Khashan only said that Hizbullah’s claim of victory has hollow in face of the large Lebanese civilian losses and widespread destruction, adding that “Israel did not admit that its army's failure was a result of Hizbullah's force, but that it was a result of Israeli mistakes."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3354734,00.html

Special:Contributions/EzA+lSeb Nnakari has also violated the 1RR rule. Unless he self-revert I will report him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525919062&oldid=525915106

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Lebanon_War&diff=525934217&oldid=525929046

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Bush and Olmert were very clear in their view on the outcome of the war. I see no reason to remove this from the article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are being very dishonest. None of the sources make such a claim. And as I told you before this is not an ideological question but an historical one. It has nothing to do with whether you sympathize with Hizballah or the Israeli settler movement.


 * Apart from a very small lunatic fringe everybody almost anybody else agree that the Israeli army failed disastrously in this war in spite of having complete air supremacy and an overwhelming superiority of men and firing power in a almost every encounter. Two hidden Hizballah fighters could stop an entire IDF armored division from advancing.
 * Your claim that Bush and Olmert could speak on behalf of "Israel" or "USA" and even on behalf of "". They are clearly not representative of neither (see above). Worse, even Olmert later conceded that IDF failures in the war were substantial.
 * Bush himself in his memoirs spoke of Israeli "shaky military performance" and never ever mentioned your claim of an "Israeli military victory";


 * "The Israelis had a chance to deliver a major blow against Hezbollah and their sponsors in Iran and Syria. Unfortunately, they mishandled their opportunity. The Israeli bombing campaign struck targets of questionable military value, including sites in northern Lebanon far from Hezbollah’s base. […] Unfortunately, Israel made matters worse. [After the Qaua raid]]I started to worry that Israel’s offensive might topple Prime Minister Siniora’s democratic government.[…] /The result for Israel was mixed. Its military campaign weakened Hezbollah and helped secure its border. At the same time, the Israelis’ shaky military performance cost them international credibility."


 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we then make a case for a decisive Hizbollah victory? What would that look like? In every classic article where claims of victory are made on both sides, the factbox merely states 'inconclusive' and does not engage in this war of opinions. I am also open to stating fact about tangible outcomes - what did Israel gain? What did Hizbollah gain? I don't see the factbox reflecting this 'hollow victory' statement you're making here. In case I haven't been clear, standards for appearing in the factbox and appearing in the article are different. WP:IBX ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree we need good military history book to make such claims--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this one? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference
Italic text===Intended use from Template:Infobox military conflict===

Therefore, parameter should read "Inconclusive" or should read "See: Reviews of the conflict" ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this. We shouldn't go into details in the infobox. If "inconclusive" isn't deemed sufficient, we can always restore the original and indisputable "Ceasefire, provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701".  Rami  R  10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's allow future historians settle this debate, and let's stick to plain facts rather than opinions and claims. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute. Everyone agrees that Israel failed in this war including the Israelis themselves (according to the Official Winograd Commission of Inquiry, Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee investigation as well as the estimates of the heads of Israeli Security and Intelligence agencies). Investigative teams from the US Army and Defense department came to the same conclusions.


 * Furthermore, Israel did not achieve the ambitious goals its Prime minister had set for it (especially the return of the captives or the disarmament of Hizbullah), while Hizbullah realized its target (the freedom of all Lebanese prisoners).


 * Those who claim that the war was an "Israeli military victory" (as was stated in the box until recently) belong to a tiny lunatic fringe in the real world.


 * If the results of this war was "inconclusive", what about these wars: Yom Kippur War (Israeli tactical victory and... Political and strategic gains for Egypt and Israel), 1982 Lebanon War (Israeli military victory according to some sources; PLO unilateral withdrawal according to others) and Gaza War (Israeli tactical military victory). Do we have to change them to "inconclusive" as well just because somebody disagree with these stated results?
 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Each of those examples clearly lies outside of the explicit guideline given in the template. This is why the guideline offers linking to the section of the article which discusses the result. It's not that these opinions should not be discussed in the article, in fact, the infobox is intended to link directly to those discussions. Furthermore, if you'd really like to show that the result-in-opinion is supported by strong consensus, that can be reflected in the section title.
 * And before I lose you in proceduralities, I want you to know that I read a reliable third-party source. Winograd represents an internal evaluation. Claims of victory by Hizbollah are clearly a primary source. I think what you're seeing is IDF at its most introspective and Hizbollah at its most ebullent and failing to see other moments for contrast. Using third-party military sourcing allows us to step back. Do you dispute the findings published in "Back to Basics"? It does incorporate the findings of Winograd and the claims of victory by Hizbollah in coming to the conclusion that 1) There was militarily no clear winner or loser 2) It was a massive propaganda victory for Hizbollah. If one looks closely at the stated Hizbollah objective, prisoner release, that was also not accomplished. Hizbollah's victory was in taking on a technologically superior opponent and surviving. Bragging rights, nothing more. But you're welcome to try to change our minds with better sourcing. Perhaps Russian or European military intelligence, maybe less inclined to bias towards Israel, offers a contrasting view. Think on it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jokkmokks-Goran - Despite the stated objective, the Olmert government was already from the beginning aware that retrieving the captive soldiers was hopeless: "one objective which we did not achieve, and knew in advance that we couldn't achieve, and it was said in cabinet meetings." --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

David Hirst
David Hirst's book Beware of small states is attributed as the source for this paragraph: "According to Israel, the strikes focused on Hezbollah bases, command centers, rocket launching positions, long-range rocket stockpiles, arms storages, vehicles, and Lebanese military bases, which were often hidden inside civilian areas. The strikes caused significant casualties among Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, and destroyed most of Hezbollah's long-range missiles on the ground, along with a portion of its unguided short-range rockets. The Israelis launched several successful commando operations throughout the war, which inflicted significant losses on Hezbollah, and resulted in the capture of military equipment. The IDF's main ground attacks focused on Hezbollah-occupied areas in South Lebanon, and engagements often took place in urban areas. During clashes, Hezbollah losses were greater than those of the Israelis."

I can't find any of these numerous claims in Hirst's book. Those who insist on keeping the paragraph should supply the page number. Or, preferable, supply more adequate sources. I don't see why we need David Hirst as a witness on what "Israel" claims. Israel is not a monolith that can make claims like those above. Attribution to such claims should be more specific, such as Olmert, the IDF, the Winograd commission, etc.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Casualties
I recently added the civilian casualty figures for the conflict citing Daniel Rothbart 2011. Rothbart is a professor of conflict analysis at George Mason University, the cited work was published by University of Michigan Press. I regard this to be a "gold standard" source for the information in question. The reasons for my edit, as explained in the summary, were twofold: First the previous sources were largely journalism, which may be appropriate for current events, but as time passes and the event is discussed by academics scholars published by academic presses we should update the article (for source guidelines for history articles see WP:HISTRS). Secondly combatant casualties are already covered in the table, so a source that specifies civilians (such as Rothbart) is more suitable for use here.

Editor Stumink deleted the academic source and replaced it with four lower quality sources:-


 * HRW report - should not be used without attribution
 * Amnesty International report - Should not be used without attribution
 * Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-2/1 - Generally we do not use this kind of reprort to verify facts without attribution
 * NYT report from 2006 - see comments above: journalism from the time of the events should be replaced with academic scholarship as it becomes available

Sturmik also makes a claim in his edit summary "The source you added takes it's casualty estimate directly from amnesty international", which is not true. The source cites (Amnesty 2007) for the Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure, not the casualty figures. Dlv999 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources I added are reliable and should stay. Lebanon - Amnesty International Report 2007 states 1,191 people were killed in total and nearly all figures for this war seem to originate or just cite the Lebanese government. The vast majority of sources give similar figure for all Lebanese dead too. Your source is not higher quality regarding civilian casualties considering it cites amnesty international for it's casualties which says the figure is for all Lebanese and AI cite the government as well. Regarding attribution all the sources I added and the one you added originate from the Lebanese authorities and your source's figure is not even different from mine considering they source amnesty and they are either being dishonest or it is an over site by not mentioning that the figure includes all Lebanese deaths. Stumink (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My source is higher quality because it is a professor in a relevant field published by an academic press. You have given no explanation for deleting an appropriate academic source. Your sources don't reach that standard. The academic source does not cite AI for the casualty figure as I have already pointed out to you - the AI citation is for the sentence prior to the discussion of casualty figures. Your comments display an ignorance of how to interpret academic citations. Your further comments are unsupported by evidence so are best ignored. Dlv999 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On page 13 of your source it states "1,183 fatalities, one third of them children, and 4,054 injuries (Amnesty International 2007)." and it also says on page 76, "Amnesty International (2007) confirmed 1,183 fatalities". They are citing amnesty international. You are referring to page 92, where it does not clearly give a reference for fatalities. The vast majority of sources say around 1,200 total deaths including the four I added and the four you deleted. These figures are all in line with the Lebanese government figure and some including AI cite the Lebanese government as there source. Stumink (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your AI source quoted above states "Israeli attacks had killed 1,191 people in Lebanon and injured more than 4,400, the overwhelming majority of them civilians". Your HRW source states: "the conflict resulted in at least 1,109 Lebanese deaths, the vast majority of whom were civilians". As a compromise, would you settle for replacing the current "combatants included" with "overwhelming majority civilian" to give a more precise reflection of the cited sources. Also I will insist on a consistent approach across the article. If AI, HRW and the UN report are being used for verification of facts in the table I will use them for verifying facts throughout the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

They may say the overwhelming majority of them civilians' that but they do not give a specific number and they use Lebanese government statistics who themselves say that about 500 of the 1,200 killed were Hezbollah, so maybe AI and HRW are being biased or over the top when they say vast majority. AI and HRW claims should still not be treated as fact. These casualty figures are not fact, just the most reliable estimates. AI's figures are straight from the Lebanese government and HRW's might be. Regarding your proposal to say "overwhelming majority civilian". This would be incorrect because reliable estimates for combatant deaths range from 500-800 so even with the with low estimate it would be pushing to say vast majority. I added a note stating that it was widely reported that most of the dead were civilians. Stumink (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what the two cited sources say that you added to the article at the same time as you deleted the academic source. I'm afraid your augmentation is becoming incoherent. In the my first post in this thread I said AI and HRW are not reliable for verification of facts without attribution. Then, when I offer a compromise of actually accurately reflecting what your sources say, you turn round and say that they are not reliable. I'm going to revert your edits (which added the sources you now say are unreliable) and restore the academic source. Dlv999 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You can re add your academic source even though it wrongly cites AI but you have no justification to remove my sources. They are more reliable on the Lebanon war for casualties considering your source cites them. What is wrong with the note I added. There is no need to say the vast majority are civilians because we have a total figure and numerous combatant figures which contradict. Let the reader decide whose combatant figure they beleive. You full well know your sources figure should include combatants because they cite AI. Why would you only have your source even when you just previously agreed to have my sources which claim well under your source. The problem with saying the vast majority, is that this term is ill defined considering at least 500 of the 1,200 were combatants. I never said my sources were unreliable, all I said is that they were not fact and considering they all have slightly different figures, this is a given. They can't all be fact. That is why you have a range of estimates. Not one definitive figure. If AI is unreliable for casualty figures then so is your source becuase your source's figure is AI. I have compromised by adding a note which clarifies that most say the majority were civilians. A range of sources for casualty estimates is better. Stumink (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Dlv999: I've reverted your addition of Kaldon (2007). Checking the footnote (#29) within the book for the numbers shows this: "29. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causualties_of_the_2006_Israel_Lebanon_conflict". In other words it's a circular reference.  Rami  R  09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for checking - I should have checked the footnotes. She seemed like a serious academic. Dlv999 (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good as it is and if the quotes are removed, you could add a note at the bottom of the info box instaed. Anyway AI, HRW and the Lebanese gov figures should stay and they don't differentiate, so having there total estimates is fine. If AI and HRW really believe 1,000 civilians were killed, they would also believe that under 200 Hezbollah fighters were killed which is far below the UN and the Lebanon government's estimates and even below Hezbollah's own claim. The 1,000-1,200 figure is not really compatible with AI and HRW figures. Who knows exactly what they mean by overwhelming and the 1,200 civilian figure is even higher than there total figure. There are also plenty of reliable estimates which use the 1,200 figure as a total figure as well. Stumink (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started to compile a list of RS that give an estimate for Lebanese civilian casualties for the war. Personally I would settle for the current compramise as I don't see a significant difference between an estimate of 1,191 "overwhelming majority of them civilians" and civilian casualty estimates of 1,000-1,200. Essentially they are saying the same thing. However if the quotes indicating that the figure is "overwhelming majority" civilian is removed, I will argue for introduction of a civilian casualty estimate to be added to the table. There are plenty of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES that provide such an estimate. Dlv999 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese civilians
That material is the only info on Lebanese civilians killed in the infobox. The Israeli dead is broken out, but for some reason an editor insists on not including in the counts provided the estimates on civilian deaths. Can somebody explain to me why we should explicitly give counts for Israeli civilian casualties but not any estimates for Lebanese civilians?  nableezy  - 04:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to know what is behind the edits, because the editor has not come here to discuss the changes. In any case I've added Lebanese civilian casualty estimates as described by a wide variety of high quality sources. Dlv999 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was arguing against replacing the total estimate with just a civilian count, but having both is fine. Stumink (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PikiWiki Israel 4484 Birya Forest.jpg


This image was removed because it is supposedly "Propaganda with founded source not linked with image". The source proves that the events that the image depicts took place, and is sufficient for the inclusion of the image. Furthermore, calling an image contributed to our encyclopedia "propaganda" is a gross assumption of bad faith and is utterly unacceptable. The image must be restored to the article.  Rami  R  07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Initially I did not recognize it refered to Israeli forest, rather than to Lebanese. Yet, we cannot verify the location, nor the date (data from the camera are easily to manipulate). To claim Hezbollah rockets to be the cause of the fire is plain propaganda. Anyway, the picture does not add anything to the article but propaganda, blacking Hezbollah. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Young Turks?
I do not consider American talk shows, however entertaining, as Reliable Sources for a Wikipedia article on the Lebanon war. Not even if such a talk show had been factually correct in its premises, which it wasn't in this case.

The IDF certainly did not succeed in creating a 29 kilometre buffer zone in south Lebanon in 2006, as claimed by the Young Turks. Apart from the 4,5 hour night time raid on Baalbek no IDF force ever reached 29 km into Lebanon during the entire war. But Hizbullah managed to beat back repeated Israeli attempts to conquer the towns of Ayta ash-Shab and Bint Jbeil, only 1 km and 3 km from the Israeli border.


 * The fact that this paragraph has survived years in this article (repeatedly reintroduced when removed) is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The paragraph in question should be removed. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Killed Hizbullah combatants
I have rewritten the section. The previous version gave undue emphasis to less reliable sources (such as anonymous sources talking to the Telegraph, never confirmed by any other source). It also had a highly misleading time-line. Such as starting with the Hizbullah estimate of 250 dead (made in December), then quoting sources from August, questioning Hizbullah numbers (which were then understood to be 70). Also I don't think we should give much weight to sources that didn't carry out own investigations and only relied on inflated Israeli numbers released during the war, which Israel later backed down from.

I think we can safely assume that the true number was somewhere between the estimate of Hizbullah (250) and IDF (600). HRW carried out a proper investigation (completely ignored by the previous version) and concluded the number to have been 250 combatants. I also added some other neglected sources, such as Yedioth Ahronoth pointing out that the main reason why Lebanese and Israeli sources differed was because Israel included civilian members of HA while Lebanon only included combatants.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I am reverting recent disruptive edits made by Avaya1 (talk) on this and several other Wikipedia articles.

Avaya1 made 5 massive changes in 7 minutes to 2006 Lebanon War, then spent 2 minutes making changes on Operation Change of Direction 11, 1 minute on Battle of Bint Jbeil and a further 2 minutes on Battle of Ayta ash-Shab.

The changes were whole-sale deletions of all the additions made after a particular date, selected for unclear reasons. Some of the changes he deleted had been agreed upon by other editors in talk page discussions. A lot of well-sourced material has been deleted. In the case of Battle of Bint Jbeil meticulously added references has been deleted and replaced with. None of the changes were explained in summaries or in talkpages. Avaya1 has previously made intermittent contributions to 2006 Lebanon War but has not previously been involved in the editing of the other articles.

Any well-sourced addition to this article is welcome as are deletions if they are clearly explained in the talkpage. I return the page to where it was before Avaya1's deletions.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your editing removed huge amounts of reliably sourced sentences, from famous figures like John Keegan (there is no more famous historian who has commented), Con Coughlin - for no apparent reason except that they don't suit your agenda (explain what you are trying to do?). You also deliberately falsify sourced material (such as the 600-800, which is sourced by a reliable history book on the war, which states 600-800 - it's also not a claim, but their official estimate). And then you write 'vandalism' on the edit summary, when I reverted your mass deletion of sourced and notable material, and your falsification of citations. Other elements of your editing are also clearly unhelpful, such as removing the titled sections. You also add a number of unsourced original research sentences ("Neither list, however, were [sic] ever published.") and a lot of examples of WP:Synth, and a lot of examples of weasel wording. Overall the standard of the edits is very low, regardless of your POV. Your sourcing is also impossible to follow (e.g. you footnote to 'Matthews', but there is no 'Matthews' in the bibliography - only in one of the other footnotes). Avaya1 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Avaya, you deleted without any explanation the well sourced section of the text box covering Lebanese civilians. There has been extensive discussion on this talk page about these figures and there is consensus to include. In light of this your deletion without any explanation can best be described as disruptive. Dlv999 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't 'delete' anything. I restored the last version of the article at the time that it included a lot of the sourced content that was deleted. I then restored a couple of changes that misrepresented sources that were being cited (which I know since I have read the citations). I have no objection to those sections - what I object to is the content that was deleted, and replacement with plenty of WP:OR and Synth. If you want to re-add those sections, then it has to be done after the deleted parts of the article are restored. Avaya1 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, but that is not what happened. What is the exact time/date of the version you are claiming to have "restored"? Dlv999 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Avaya1 deleted the total number of IDF wounded (1,244), as supplied by Winograd commission, and only a partial list (628) from Northern Command medical census was retained. In addition, all nine references in the box to the number of killed Lebanese civilians were deleted, as was both references to the wounded Lebanese civilians. This, is spite of this subject having been discussed at length in the talk page.

Israel’s official estimate (by Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin) of 600 HA war dead (from an AP article) was deleted and replaced by Cordesman’s reference to 600-800. I do consider Cordesman a reliable source, but I fail see what he can add to this subject. The only source he gives for his numbers (600-800) is the very same AP article that Avaya1 had deleted in the first place (see Cordesman’s footnote 9). And the original source is very clear: “Israel initially said 800 Hezbollah fighters died but later lowered that estimate to 600.” I see no reason use the higher figure. But Cordesman was not only concerned with the determination of the actual number of killed but also with a discussion of reliability of Israeli wartime pronouncements.

Avaya1 also deleted the paragraph of US Military analyst Mathews and Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel (Haaretz) expressing doubts wrt Israel official number of HA dead. He also deleted the paragraph on the Yedioth Achronoth’s claim that Israel casualty numbers included civilian HA members and not only combatants, and that this explains most of the discrepancy between Israeli and Lebanese numbers.

Avaya1 completely deleted all references to the only attempt made by an independent body to investigate the number and status of Lebanese war dead that I am aware of: The Human Rights Watch, which estimated that 250 HA were killed in the war.

Avaya1 also reintroduced the false timeline discussed above in this talkpage: Talk:2006_Lebanon_War

I had myself tried to make the section more balanced. More than 2/3 of the section consisted of conservative pro-Israeli sources that put too much credence on exaggerated early Israeli claims, claims that Israel itself later backed away from. I did not delete these sources but I reduced the - in my mind undue - emphasis on the two Telegraph’s articles giving numbers of HA dead (both 500) since they were both unconfirmed and had anonymous sources (unnamed “Lebanese officials” and a ”UN official”). The Telegraph in general and Con Coughlin are certainly not famous (as Avaya1 seems to think) for their trustworthyness on these issues. On the contrary. Check the Wikipedia article on Couglin for details or this article from the [British Journalism Review]. He seems to have specialized in providing messenger services for Intelligence leaks.

I had deleted the reference to Professor Keegan, who wrote that “perhaps as many as 1,000 killed”. Yes, perhaps so. But Keegan didn’t carry out any independent investigations and did not supply any sources fort his speculation. (I did however keep the quote from Keegan in the Review section.)

Avaya1 also reintroduced as a key source one to me completely unknown person called Ben Moores, who is or was writing for what appears to be a rather anonymous blog called defense-aerospace.com. Neither of them is found on Wikipedia. When I google “Defense analyst Ben Moores" I come up with 28 hits, all of them spin-offs from this very Wikipedia article.

I reduced the coverage of supposedly Dead Iranians since I doubted the reliability of the sources, NY Sun and WND. The character of WorldNetDaily can be contemplated in its Wikipedia-article. Not what I would consider Reliable Source. The fact that Israeli daily Yedioth decided to republish this article as an op-ed does not change this fact.

I checked more reliable sources on the Lebanon war for confirmation that the IDF had killed members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the war: Cordesman, Exum, Farquhar, Harel & Issacharoff, Kober, Mathews, Rapaport, Arkin, Biddle & Friedman and Eiland, and a few others. They all discuss Iranian support for HA (political, financial, training, equipment, weapons, etc.) in some detail. But none of them mentions that Iranians fighting and dying in the war.

I don't deny that I may have made some mistakes in my edits. I do believe there is plenty room for improvements. Avaya1:s edits, however, has been an giant step in the wrong way.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will discuss in more detail later. However, your description of my edits is particularly strange, since I simply restored the version from two months ago, before you greatly changed the article. I didn't add these sources - but simply blanket restored the previous version. I didn't delete any sections of the article, I restored the old version. There are many problems with your new edits. The issue is not with the previous version (which I'm sure had many problems to be improved), but with your deletion of content in your edits, and the misattribution to sources, and original research in the form of Synth, and POV.  Of course, there is no problem with adding new parts to the article to make it more balanced. However,  there are a lot of problems in deleting the parts that you disagree with and adding numerous WP:OP and Synth sentences, as your edits have done. Thus the need for a blanket restore before you add the new parts of the article again. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the concept of editing the article in a neutral way. For example, you talk about how sources such as John Keegan haven't conducted an investigation, or another source (Con Coughlin) is not trustworthy. That is entirely irrelevant. That's your particular POV (which may or may not be correct). You can publish an essay about that if you want.  But that has nothing to do with wikipedia, the purpose of which is to present a neutral summary of the content that contained in the sources. If you think that the article is unbalanced, then you can add additional sources with accurate descriptions of what they say, but you can't delete the content that you think is 'untrustworthy', or SYNTH together sources into an argument, or add your own sentences commenting on those sources. Avaya1 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you. Wikipedia is all about evaluation of sources. Your claim of not having deleted anything is ridiculous. You deleted months of work, hundreds of edits, from dozens of editors in at least four different articles, without explanation or discussion in talk page. You have to accept responsibility for your own edits and cannot blame previous editors shortcomings. This article has serious problems as evident from Good article reassessment/2006 Lebanon War/1. If you ever repeat this behaviour I will take appropriate action. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Avaya1, you cannot simply restore an old version of two months ago. You should address all later edits. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and losses
The section Casualties and losses in the infobox is excessive. I propose to leave the details in the related section of the article and only mention lowest and highest estimates in the infobox. The infobox can have a reference-link to the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete the Time Line section
I suggest that we cut out the entire section 2006_Lebanon_War and dump it in the talk page of one of the many remaining timeline articles of this war. Any interested editor could then scavenge these data for any useful bits of information. My rough estimate is that a quarter of the “facts” presented in these articles is totally faked and have never had any credible source in the real world. Another quarter of the links are dead and are not retrievable. A further quarter do have actual or retrievable links but the facts they present are disproved or at least not confirmed by subsequently published more reliable information. Thus only a quarter of the material is usable. At the same time most of the most important events are not covered at all or only in a very partial way. Apart from the timeline in the mother article: 2006_Lebanon_War We also have these timeline articles:

Then we have this one: Finally we have this one (which is little more than a timeline):
 * Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (July)
 * Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (early August)
 * Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (mid August)
 * Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (late August)
 * Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (since September)
 * Timeline of military operations in the 2006 Lebanon War
 * Military operations of the 2006 Lebanon War

I believe that a timeline was mostly useful as the events unfolded in the summer of 2006. In the end we could merge and improve these articles but this takes a lot of work even if we assume that the work will not be systematically sabotaged by user:AndresHerutJaim and his likeminded friends. Sooner or later I think we should consider deleting them all. In the meantime I don’t think that the mother article on the war should have links to any of these clearly substandard articles.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that one limited timeline on a separate page will do. Wikipedia is not for covering every detail of history. This main article should only have a short overview in outlines of the course of the war (first attack, subsequent attacks and counter-attacks; mention periods, without too many details). --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should split section 5 "Hizbullah action" into two sections, "Hizbullah rocket attacks" and "The ground war". The latter section could be quite brief as the ground battles are well-covered in separate articles. And the Timeline section should be deleted.Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we finally throw out the Somalis?
There is a paragraph about 720 Somalis travelling to Lebanon to fight alongside Hizbullah. 2006_Lebanon_War The organizer is said to have been Aden Hashi Farah, the future founder of the al-Shabaab movement. Why would an Sunni Salafist al-Qaeda militant from Somalia fight side by side with Hizbullah? As if he didn't have more pressing problems at home. And why would Shiite Hizbullah agree to such support? And how was it possible for 720 Somalis to sneak out of Somalia, travel the seas and sneak into Lebanon without anybody seeing or suspecting anything. Not the Israelis and not the Lebanese. Or anybody else.

The story is so silly. Nobody believes it. It is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

Will anybody object if I just delete it?

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A leaked, not published(?) report. Rumours should not be mentioned. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah Claim is only 38 causalities
Hezbollah Claim is only 38 causalities There is the Source from Official Hezbollah News Agency http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.237.102 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The list you refer to is not comprehensive and not even unique to the 2006 war. It includes bomber Ahmad Qassir who destroyed the IDF Tyre HQ in 1982. It is just a sample of especially noteworthy heroes.
 * A more comprehensive list can be found in the HA affiliated Bint Jbeil website: [Martyrs of Truthful Promise (4 pages)] and: [Martyrs of Bint Jbeil] There are some individuals with multiple entries and some entries with multiple individuals. It is also unclear whether we should include the six martyrs from the HA-affiliated Islamic Health Society (الهيئة الصحية الاسلامية). Hence I can give no precise number but I would estimate that there are at least 140 unique named and pictured Hizbullah combatants who died in the 2006 war. Note however that neither this list make any claim to be comprehensive. HA deputy Qomati repeatedly declared that around 250 HA fighters were killed in the war.
 * I will remove your mistaken edits and add sources. You have already violated the 1RR rule once. Don’t repeat it.


 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the only official claim from Hezbollah http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/catpage.php?frid=46 Come from only official No exist place when said Hezbollah said they lost 250, so you talk about "Hezbollah Claim" who no exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.218.162 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what the Associated Press source cited says:
 * "The latest Lebanese and AP counts include 250 Hezbollah fighters that the group's leaders now say died during Israel's intense air, ground and sea bombardments in Lebanon -- more than triple the 70 they acknowledged during the war."
 * That is enough for this article to say that Hezbollah claimed that 250 fighters died per the WP:V policy.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should note that claims from the fighting parties have less weight than those from independent sources, as they are usually propaganda. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Two Israel Soldiers captured were Released
Here is a Interview with one from the Soldiers who was captured by HA and was released http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That interview was with a "survivor of the attack" i.e. not either of the two who were kidnapped (Eldad Regev and Udi Goldwasser).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the video from the captured of these IDF soldiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo and this news agency from Israel is a interview by one of two soldiers who were captured alive by HA inside the Military vehicle http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the youtube video is just a video of the combat, not proof of life. Secondly, the interview is not "by one of the two soldiers who were captured", the article says the interview is with a "survivor of the attack". The interview also speaks of "the widow" of one of the two kidnapped soldiers which implies the soldier has been killed (hence, widow).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The interview from this Soldier in 2012 http://www.jerusalemonline.com/israel-news/archive/28.07.2012-news-from-israel is the same person who got the attack by HA in the video attack from 2006 on border, I think the confusion is from 4 guys inside the military vehicle - 2 soldiers got killed but 2 were captured and at least one was released HA Just take the bodies from others two.

The Report from Israel TV News Said "One of the soldiers who survived the attack and Wash The video" He mean this video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ2d0IiwNo )

It's not enough evidence at least one from the two was released ?

I'm not 100% sure anyway I just provide you the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah Strength
The infobox currently reads "Several hundreds" for Hezbollah Strength. Seems dubious, also considering previously the article mentioned thousands. The references are a random unnotable news article that doesn't say much anyway, and a book that's inaccessible online. Anyone has better references or info? 217.132.221.42 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook source
Again, you repeat this behaviour. I have asked you before to discuss first instead of multiple rapid-fire edits without regard to 1RR. Please revert your edit and discuss here first to find an acceptable solution. This disregard for process is very annoying. Your dislike of some source does not make it automatically not WP:RS. It always depends on context. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * CounterPunch is an anti-Israel website just like Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, blogs in general, etc. We can't use unreliable sources like those. With your criteria we could also cite HonestReporting, NGO Monitor, the Anti-Defamation League, UN Watch and many other pro-Israel organizations to state facts (without even proper citation). I changed the content of the paragraph to reflect what The Guardian says. What is your problem with the present version? There's no need to cite Mr Cook, the Winograd Commission already recognized what Olmert said.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My main problem is with your disregard for 1RR and WP:BRD. The 1RR rule exists for a good reason, to help discussions. Yet you continue to make edits disregarding it. Coming to your point, you not only removed the reference, but changed the wording to make it more "NPOV". The earlier reference by Cook said exactly what is present now regarding the facts, so there is no dispute at all about the reliability. You removed the reference to "casus belli" and the "mitigating factor". This is removing context from the paragraph, and not making it "NPOV". These are precisely the issues which are supposed to be addressed by 1RR. Please revert it and thrash out a consensual version here. Kingsindian (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He did not break 1RR there are long time consensus that first edit even if removing material that was not recently added is not a revert.--Shrike (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)--Shrike (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that is simple wikilawyering. He removed content, I restored it, he removed it again. Whatever be the niceties of 1RR, this is edit-warring. Things should be discussed, not imposed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more careful with 1RR, although I'm not the only one breaking it. We should state what The Guardian (not CounterPunch) says. The source is very clear: Israel's preparations for the war were drawn up at least four months before the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers (no mention of "mitigating factor" in The Guardian... whatever that is). This is what Olmert himself told the Winograd Commission. Why do you keep seeking to split hairs?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but edit warring doesn't happen in vacuum there is always at least two editor who edit warring.Anyhow counterpounch is really unacceptable source.--Shrike (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone breaks 1RR in this area occasionally, I have broken it twice myself, even accidentally, and I revert when someone asks. This is very simple way to avoid disputes and improve discussion. You are welcome to try to improve the sentence: the aim is to get to a consensual version without people imposing their will. As to your edit, does anyone doubt that the capture of the two soldiers was the casus belli for the 2006 war? If not, why did you remove it? I am not sure where you got the idea that 2 editors are required for edit-warring. If you are suggesting that I edit-warred, I would be happy to see the evidence, and stop it in the future. Kingsindian (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian doesn't mention any "casus belli", although we could write "[...]suggesting that Israel's preparations for the war were drawn up at least four months before the two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hizbullah, the casus belli for the war". Are you happy? You can see that CounterPunch is unacceptable as source just by reading the language it uses: "the main mitigating factor for Israel's show of aggression" (apparently this POV-pushing is what you want to add in the article... UNBELIEVABLE! this is not even the language used by Cook). Take a look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am indeed aware of both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I will quote two sentences from here. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Jonathan Cook is WP:RS, which trumps the venue in this case, and as an opinionated source, he is given in-text attribution. None of the facts reported are inaccurate, opinions of course are a matter of ... opinion. I am happy with removal of the latter (Israel's show of aggression), which is needlessly POV language, but the former part about casus belli is proper and accurate. I suggest this:
 * "According to Jonathan Cook, the Winograd Committee leaked a testimony from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggesting that Olmert 'had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbullah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006.'"
 * Actually The Guardian talks about kidnapping, not "capture", but I agree with the paragraph you proposed. Could you please change it accordingly and remove the POV-language?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
I'd prefer to avoid an edit war, so I suggest any changes in the infobox should pass the discussion page before being made. For example, IP's keep adding "Israeli invasion repulsed" although the article explicitly states otherwise (the IDF withdrew following the ceasefire). I suggest we stick to the pre-edit war version: Is this something we can agree upon? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ceasefire through UNSC Resolution 1701
 * The Lebanese Army is introduced into South Lebanon and UNIFIL reinforced
 * End of the Shebaa Farms conflict

Heavy POV edits by Biased user.
There is a dangerours POV in the Infobox data regarding Israeli Losses, I am Citing all the sources and enumerating details. I dont like the Heavily BIASED edits made by a User i dont remember his name. Whatever. This entry is just to record what i have found.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All reliable sources say 5 tanks were destroyed, including the source you are trying to cite from. You are trying to cite from Cordesman's book, which itself explains in detail that 5 (he says 5-6) tanks were destroyed in its detailed section on page 110 (while you are trying to argue from an appendix in the same book that presumably put together unclearly by the editors to summarize page 110, which uses the wrong words by counting every tank that suffered any damage at all as 'destroyed', even ones which continued working on the battlefield afterwards). Again read the actual book that you are trying to source from, and the text on page 110, where it clearly explains that 5 tanks were destroyed. We also have the Globes article which reports the figures that Cordesman's figures that five tanks were destroyed comes from.


 * Secondly you are adding complete nonsense stories to the box, such as this edit about a plane crash in the Negev desert that occurred in 2010.


 * Thirdly, you are calling other editors biased - please read WP:NPA. You write on your page that the most powerful group on wikipedia is 'an IDF group', "whose main objective its to downplay right abuses commited by the IDF as a organization or IDF members in active duty. Also downplays Israeli Military Losses and overrate violence against Israeli Civilians."


 * From your quote, it is apparent you have some kind of strange interest in adding imaginary losses to the infobox, including plane crashes that occurred 4 years after the war in question ended, such as that F-16 crash in the Negev. Avaya1 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "All reliable sources" its not a justification of erasing all my edits. Second all the sources are cited in the appendix of Page .157 of the Book. Also the F16I lost edit is not regarding the Negev desert episode, in that article its also inform the failed take off of a F16 in witch both pilots ejected from the aircraft. The plane was lost due to an accident. I dont know why you are so afraid of my references and edits. All is sourced and could be corroborated. I have noticed that you try in every revert to downplay the fact that one Israeli helicopter WAS shoot down by a Hezbolah missiles. And you claim a "posible shoot down", do you think people reading the article are idiots, were all the dead "possible shoots by bullets". The helicopter loss war corroborated by the IDF and the media. Stop your nonsense PRO IDF propaganda, the IDF suffered materiel losses. You simply want to donwplay this and white wash their failures.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read and stop vandalising. https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=Ela6DjyEBQwC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=israeli+helicopters+lost+in+2006+war&source=bl&ots=hA-9y0HIqr&sig=JDxP_hJcMkRtNf5lLAhJcS0x9Z0&hl=es&sa=X&ei=Tb2jVeLjIcG9eYCfsMAF&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=israeli%20helicopters%20lost%20in%202006%20war&f=false . Mr.User200 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Cordesman book clearly says that 5-6 tanks were lost, again on page 110. All other sourcessay 5. The source you are using explicitly says 5-6 tanks. The appendix is just added by editors for quick reference - and uses the wrong word to describe every tank that was damaged including ones which continued working on the battlefield - that is not an equipment loss, less alone destruction. Read the book you are citing.  Avaya1 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have shown you the proper reference. Now you know the background.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote 'Other sources say' - the source -Cordeman, does not say this. He says clearly - 5-6 lasting tank kills on page 110.
 * Read by yourself, stop spouting propaganda and read your own Sources. https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=Ela6DjyEBQwC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=israeli+helicopters+lost+in+2006+war&source=bl&ots=hA-9y0HIqr&sig=JDxP_hJcMkRtNf5lLAhJcS0x9Z0&hl=es&sa=X&ei=Tb2jVeLjIcG9eYCfsMAF&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=israeli%20main%20battle%20tanks%20destroyed&f=false Mr.User200 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse editors of "spouting propaganda" etc. It seems that the Cordesman source gives different number in different places. It says 5+ tanks destroyed (estimate) on pg 110, and gives 20 tanks destroyed estimate on pg 157. Perhaps one could write 5-12 or something like that. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The number 20 destroyed tanks is also based on IDF sources and is reproduced in several secondary sources, not only by Cordesman. The number 5 seems to be based on a much more narrow definition of "destruction". I can't say which of the two definitions are more correct, although my feeling is that the narrow definition mainly serves propaganda purposes. IDF could not operate its tanks in broad daylight without being targeted. When they did, they were often hit and when hit they were often penetrated. Hence former chief of staff Yaalon's scathing criticism of the IDF use of tanks in the war. 1.


 * The narrow definitions seems to indicate that this Merkava tank was only "damaged". http://assafir.com/Article/86829 It was hit Aug. 9 at Ayta ash-Sha'b by a missile, blowing off the turret, and the tank catching fire. The crew of 4 were killed instantly. Most people would agree that this tank was destroyed. But I don't know: maybe the hull of the tank can be recycled and used to build a new tank.


 * I see no reason not to include both estimates. But we should keep in mind that they are both IDF figures. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The ideal edit we had - which was reverted - clearly explained what all the sources, in English and Hebrew - state. 5 tanks were damaged beyond repair. 22 tanks had armor penetrations. And 52 tanks were damaged. Equipment loss was 5 tanks. The only ambiguity in the citation is Cordesmann who explains clearly that 5-6 tanks suffered vehicle kills (rather than 5).


 * Finally the photograph you cite. It is not indicated as 'damaged' but as 'destroyed'. That is a destroyed tank. 5 tanks were destroyed, such as that one - which is a 'lasting vehicle kill'. The other tanks were assessed as being able to be returned to service. We can stick to our sources - which are reported directly by Globes from the IDF. The source of 20 tanks was from newspaper articles immediately during the war - which has a fog of war. The figure isn't even accurate if you are talking armor penetrations - since the number of those was 22. Avaya1 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give some other secondary sources for the "20" figure? I do not see anywhere in the Cordesman source where he says it is reliant on newspaper report and fog of war etc. Why is the 5 figure more credible than the 20 one, if they are both given by the same source? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple google yields:
 * Israel-Hezbollah Conflict Part-4 : Weapons Employment Profile, by Maj Gen GD Bakshi, Indian Defence Review, Issue Vol 22.1 Jan - Mar 2007 | Date : 26 Apr, 2007
 * http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/israel-hezbollah-conflict-part-4-weapons-employment-profile/
 * “Out of some 20 Israeli MBTs destroyed in this war, 14 were lost to ATGMs (mostly Russian third generation ATGMs) However, the crew loss rate has now been brought down to approximately one per penetration.”


 * All Glory Is Fleeting - Insights from the Second Lebanon War, by Russell W. Glenn, Prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 2012, p.7
 * http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG708-1.pdf
 * “It was these missiles that would prove the insurgents’ most effective killers during ground combat. They would, in the end, destroy 14 Israeli tanks; mines would ravage another six.14 Even the IDF’s most advanced model, the Merkava 4, proved vulnerable.” Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jokkmokk-Goran, those are repeating what is written in reports from August 2006 (as written in the Hebrew news sources during the month). We have the official data from the end of the month, with a full breakdown, so in my opinion it is obfuscation not to give the full breakdown -   "52 damaged; 22 armor penetrations; 5 damaged beyond repair." We can also bring up statements from the head of armored corps.  If the figure for 'destroyed', is listing all armor penetrations - then the number should be 22, not 20 anyway. In total, 44 tanks were actually knocked out of combat during the war (so we could write that 44 tanks were destroyed). But 5 of the tanks were pulled out of service (destroyed beyond repair), the other 47 tanks are operating now after repairs. Avaya1 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no need to use the word 'destroyed' (if this is ambiguous) - when we can accurately and directly write "5 tanks damaged beyond repair, 22 suffered armor penetrations and 52 were damaged". Cordesman says "Only 5-6 represented lasting vehicle kills". And "another source provides a more detailed account". I can see the 20 figure is written in the August 2006 Israeli newspapers in Hebrew (which were reported by Cordesmann immediately in the same month). It was a close-to-accurate figure if we are talking about tanks penetrated (which was 22 tanks). But  the official figures were released at the end of the month- provide the full breakdown, and that comes directly from the Ordnance Corps at the end of the month - "which is 52 damaged; 22 armor penetrations; 5 damaged beyond repair." If we want the accurate information - that is what should be written here. Avaya1 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I cannot understand the nuances of the terms used here. I will leave this to people who are more knowledgeable and more interested in this than I am. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A radical proposal
Let's remove all so-called "supporters" from the infobox. This was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, and if we are to include everyone who somehow contributed to the war, we would have dozens of small militias on the Lebanese side. Let's keep it simple and correct. Anyone agree/disagree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being late in answering. I totally agree with your proposal. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What's the point? "Keeping it simple" means removing information, which is counterproductive. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No point in keeping irrelevant or misleading information. Did PFLP-GC really participate in the war and can its leader Ahmad Jibril realy be described as a leader on the Lebanese side? I have read extensively on the war, and as far as I can remember, I have found no indication that PFLP-GC took part in the war. True, two of its bases was bombed by Israel, killing one fighter. But Israel also bombed and totally destroyed LibanLait, the largest dairy producer in Lebanon. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Business/Lebanon/2006/Aug-30/43373-bombing-of-liban-lait-leaves-a-sour-smell.ashx Maybe we should include LibanLait as a participant and its CEO as a leader?
 * I have only rarely come across information of anybody but Hizbullah fighters takig part in the ground war. AMAL took part in the fighting in Maroun al-Ras and lost one of its commander. A few SSNP fighters fought in Marj'ayoun. Some communists apparently took part in the defence of Ayta ash-Sha'b.
 * I don't think that anybody but Hizbullah carried out rocket attacks on Israel.
 * So, the participation of Lebanese factions, apart from Hizbullah, was minimal and does not merit special treatment in the box. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If specific groups didn't take part, simply remove those. That has nothing to do with removing all "supporters". FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This. Removing information is counterproductive. If dozens of identifiable groups participated, list them. If the layout of the page suffers, still list them: just have "Other Lebanese militas" in the infobox with a footnote. In the footnote, list them. — Llywelyn II   22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Radical changes to the box
I've made some radical changes to the info box. I removed a lot of crap and simplified it. For example, there is no reason to include initial official Israeli estimates of Hizbullah casualties of 800 if Israel subsequently revised it to 600. Maybe it shouldn't be in the article even? Also I threw out all the "supporters" of Hizbullah. (I would prefer to throw out Iran and USA as well.) They are simply not important enough to be mentioned in the box. And I condensed the information generally. Please let me know what you think of my changes. And please don't just revert the whole thing, without discussing it. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Cordesmann states that the IDF estimates 600-800, without any revision, so that is the estimate given in the most reliable source we have in the infobox (WP:RS). There are also other sources giving that estimate. If I recall there was one article that you cite which says that the IDF revised it to 600, but then other later sources often cite 600-800, including in Israel.  So there are multiple different estimates given, but there was one estimate in which they gave 600 as their estimate. That's presumably why Cordesmann gives 600-800 as their estimate, since the IDF was not consistent.


 * The other part which I am sure we should not remove is the source of the estimates - and the different estimates. The sources - Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. There is no reason to remove that information, since it is extremely informative. So I can't understand the rationale for removing the source of the data here? How does it make the infobox more informative, when we can no longer see who is providing the estimates?


 * Also adding the HWR estimate to the top makes no sense - the estimates should be from the main figures (otherwise we may as well add other NGO - some the Stratfor one was considered to be not notable enough). Moreoever, HRW estimate is already included on the lower part. HRW source is an indepth investigative report focusing on civilian deaths (so it is noteworthy for the lower half of the infobox on civilian deaths), but they themselves use different definitions to the ones on the top part of the infobox, since they do not count civilian Hezbollah members as combatants, whereas the other estimates are including non-combatants who are affiliated with the organization. (Their estimate is (from the particular airstrikes they investigated) is of 510 civilian lives and 51 combatant deaths) Their total estimate is  "An examination by Human Rights Watch of the circumstances in which more than 150 Hezbollah fighters died—'probably approximately more than half of the total number of Hezbollah fighters killed in the conflict—shows that the vast majority died in ground-based firefights with Israeli forces."  They extrapolate that the final death toll may tally with Hezbollah claim that only 250 members were lost, but the basis of the 250 number is the Hezbollah statement which we already have on the top.


 * I also don't understand the rationale for removing the 'supported by' section, since it is sourced and the box itself opens and closes, so it doesn't use up any extra text. Those supporting groups play an important role in Lebanese politics and it is important historical information. Avaya1 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, yes, removing information is a bad thing and it is opposed. "Streamlining" is never an excuse. If you don't like how it looks, shunt things into footnotes or refn endnotes with sources. — Llywelyn II   22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Result in info box.
Please state any objections to "Proclaimed Strategic victory by Hezbollah" here.

Sourced by: sourced by Discussions most welcome.. 's signature was not added due to misformed closing tag
 * This is not how WP:BRD works. The side proposing a change from the consensus (which did not include Hizbollah's claim of victory) has to gain consensus for the new version.


 * The objection is rather obvious - the fact that Hizbollah claimed strategic victory is irrelevant to description of the result of the conflict. There are sources saying that Israel claimed victory as well, so the existing description of stalemate is sufficient, there is no reason to prefer claims of one side over the other. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, please avoid edit warring. You've reverted the same edit 3 time in the last 24 hours, while the limit on these pages is WP:1RR. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Claimed victory is very important, please see Operation Pillar of Defense, Battle of Toro, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, and versions of  page (2006 Lebanon War) in other languages (e.g. hebrew, polski, ....). All contain claimed victory. 495656778774  (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Working on a version that includes Victory claim by Israel and Strategic victory claims by Hezbollah. Victory claims post conflict integral part of conflict result. 495656778774 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deployed vs introduced - the word introduced means that it wasn't present there before, this is more informative than plain "deployed".


 * Ceasefire vs military stalemate - military stalemate is more informative since it says that neither side was able to win, while ceasefire only means that the sides agreed to stop the hostilities for whatever reason. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will make my pitch again for simply removing the result from the infobox. It contains no useful detail, and is often a magnet for POV-pushers, vandals and trolls. There are no simple "victories" or "defeats" in this part of the world. It might have been true in the times of 6-day war, but not now. The matter can be discussed more fully in a section, but cramming it in the infobox will just make it worse. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the detailed description belongs in the body. I do believe however that we need a short description in the infobox, and stalemate sounds right: "In popular usage, the word stalemate refers to a conflict that has reached an impasse, and in which resolution or further action seems highly difficult or unlikely." &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all recent wars have resulted in "stalemates". It is superfluous to keep this in the infobox. However, this affects more than just this article, it would be better to remove it from all such articles. I don't have the energy for now to consider all such articles. Perhaps in the future. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not superfluous in the least to include "stalemate" in the infobox. ("Military stalemate" is superfluous: we're talking about a minor war, so of course the stalemate is a military one; further, there's no "political success" it's being distinguished from.) Any removal from other articles would also be wrongheaded. Anyone who isn't a partisan or scholar isn't wading through the jungle of claims and footnotes: they're going to the infobox to see "who won?" The information that "no one, really", did is essential.


 * I support including claimed victories, as that is also important for each side. However, it would be to the point of iness to include Hezbollah's claim without Israel's. It doesn't have to be verbose, though. "Victory claimed by both sides." is fine.


 * Personally, I think mention of the ultimate return of the bodies of the 2 seized Israelis is important, given the original casus belli, as well as mention of the Lebanese who were freed from jail in the exchange. It's what Hezbollah "got" in exchange for its original action. — Llywelyn II   22:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Update to victory claim by both sides. No sources on stalemate. Gizmocorot (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This was discussed extensively years ago. Most observers concluded no one won, and the opinions of either side is not really a "result". (Who's claiming victory? The Olmert government? The Winograd Commission?) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, victory proclamation 'integral' part of battle/war result, specially important for military history. Some  more example battles and wars where both sides claim victory:


 * 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
 * Battle of Kadesh
 * Battle of Malatitze
 * Battle of Mantinea (362 BC)
 * Sino-Vietnamese War
 * War of Attrition

As such, it is pretty consistent to include victory claim, part of military history. Perhaps a WP:RFC should be created by those who support removing victory claims from result info box for this page and site-wide battles and wars.. Gizmocorot (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be a rigid principle. For instance, Syria claimed victory in the Six-Day War. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead link question - Israel Broadcasting Authority
These ref links are dead (I think):





Unfortunately the refs contain so little information, without working links I think these refs should be deleted because there is no way to find the source offline. Any thoughts? -- Green  C  15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both links in question seem to be videos from the IBA programs, Yoman and Mabat. Not sure if they are still available online, and even if they are - they are probably not the best sources to support the statements in question. I'll try finding different sources to replace them. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Commanders
Whoever inserted George Bush, Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad as commanders - don't do it again. Thank you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)