Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 7

Bias in the historical background section
This part of the article is both biased and factually incorrect (and I haven't even looked at the rest of the article yet). It states that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 (Operation Litani) and left "mostly" in 2000. Here are my problems with this presentation:

1. As anyone can see from the entry on Operation Litani, Israel withdrew shortly afterwards, and returned to Lebanon only in 1982. This presentation makes it appear as if there was constant Israeli occupation in Lebanon from 1978 to 2000 (oops, I forgot "mostly").

2. Amazingly enough, only a paragraph later Israel suddenly invades again in 1982, even though it had apparently never left in the first place in the intervening years! Marvelous peace of logic, that.

3. No mention is made that at the end of the 1980's Lebanon War Israel withdrew from all of Lebanon except for the Security Zone. Once again this omission makes it appear as if the Israeli occupation was full and constant, whereas in reality most of the Lebanese territory was returned long before 2000.

4. What is "mostly" supposed to mean, anyway? I assume it refers to the "Shebaa Farms" deal. Need I state that the UN had determined it occupied Syrian territory, not Lebanese? Why is it even brought up without any context?
 * According to the section on Israel in CIA - The World Factbook, Lebanon have claimed Shebaa Farms since 1948 ??. UN appears to have a different opinion, possibly based on ignorant French cartographers mistakes back in the 1920's. MX44 11:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither the CIA Factbook article for Israel (to which you linked) or for Lebanon say what you've written above. Check the Shabaa Farms article for more details on the history of its status (Lebanon ceded it to Syria in the '60s, since Syria has never backed Lebanon's claim and asserted full rights, an assertion backed by the UN). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhmm ... Both of those sections lists the area as disputed, claimed by Lebanon. Given the source I think it can safely be considered an indisputeable fact that the area is disputed. MX44 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They do not say that Lebanon has claimed them since 1948, as you claimed. Furthermore, if you read the Shebaa Farms article and its sources, you would see that 1948 has no relevance to the place (it was not under Israeli control until 1967). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see that section of the page for a discussion on the matter. I've found some UN resolutions that could clarify that. Tamuz (Talk) 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the '48 claim, the CIA page is kind of busy. I did an overstrike and replaced it with '??'. Anyway, If you look at the grandious map of what Syria believes should belong to them, you will understand why Syria considers this a non-issue and why they refuse to lay out any agreements of borders (with anybody!) The locals appear to have considered this area as belonging to the town of Sheebaa since ... since always? Not worth fighting for though, and definately not on this scale. MX44 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understood from the article about Greater Syria, that belief is held only by the extremists. The Syrian government, however, has given the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon, as I have explained here. Tamuz (Talk) 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Why are the Qana shelling and the Sabra-Shatilla massacres haphazardly tossed in? Are they relevant to this current conflict, or is this just a reminder to readers how nasty and evil those Israelis are? Shouldn't there be a parallel list of atrocities committed against Israeli civilians by Palestinians based in Lebanon at the time, and earlier (such as the Maalot Massacre, for example)?

6. If this section is going to do a tally of Israeli-Lebanese invasions, shouldn't it also mention the Lebanese invasion of Israel in 1948 (along with six other Arab nations), instead of the oblique reference to the 1948 war? Or would that spoil the nice picture of Israeli aggression? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naughtius Maximus (talk • contribs).


 * Mistakes happen and sometimes information is overlooked. That's not necessarily on purpose, and by the way, there are some who claim that this article is biased in favor of Israel. It is possible that whoever wrote that part wasn't aware or did not have sufficient knowledge on the subjects you mentioned. You seem to have extensive knowledge on the subject, so you are more than welcome to fix that section. Bare in mind that it is very difficult to write an article on a subject like this with a complete NPOV. Oh, by the way, I'm Israeli. Tamuz 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A user is rewriting this section from the version of the last few days, without discusion in the talk pages. I am reverting the changes to the last good version available. I asked him to stop. See history.--Cerejota 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical background was biased and uninformative until I changed it. The changes I made to this section clear up the bias in it which is displayed by only citing Israeli aggressions, and provide more detailed background about each conflict.

There is no reasonable argument why my changes should be reverted back to the biased "Israel has invaded Lebanon twice before" version. --BillyTFried 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking over it again, Cerejota may be correct in that it is difficult to have all the details there in that section. However, the prior version is clearly both biased and uninformative. Possibly some of the details, like a comment about the cause for the Israeli motivations? JoshuaZ 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I am open to further edits if others think there is too much info there, but I won't accept a revert back to the biased version it was before I changed it. --BillyTFried 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote the following before reading yours, JoshuaZ


 * Why is it biased? I dont think so and for days people havent thought so, in spite of contentious editing all over the place.


 * Yours is too long, complicates the article, goes too far back in time, and there are not one but TWO template/infoboxes on the Arab-Israeli COnflict on the page, which to any person with a third of a brain should suffice to satisfy any need on clarity and/or depth in historical background and current events not directly related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.


 * Furthermore, you started your edits without first discussing it in this page, which considering the prominent POV Check and Controversial tags (which are there for a reason) shoudln't have let you to belive that it might be a good idea to discuss a major change before doing it.


 * This is a major breach of ettiquette and you cant possibly expect people to just sit there and watch as you destroy hard to build consensus.


 * If you are concerned about POV, please discuss it, and I am sure we can workout something short, simple, and not article size breaking.
 * --Cerejota 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not open to further edits and oh by the way there are no resonable arguments for there being any further edits. Just kidding, I just wanted to see what it was like to use that line of reasoning.  Or lack of reasoning would be a better term.--Paraphelion 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Now lets work it then, what is your concerns on the specifics? I mean, there ARE mossad agents, israeli reservists, and all others kinds of pro-Israeli POV editors who seem to have overlooked this, so I am all ears...--Cerejota 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your version was CLEARY biased. Do you really want to waste everyone's time trying to argue that it wasn't or would you rather focus on the argument that my far more informative and unbiased version which got all it's info from other established Wiki articles may be a bit too much info. Which is it? --BillyTFried 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove anything that was pertinent to the article. I only added info that made it more informative and less biased.
 * Please state which parts you feel are inappropriate, or what info you feel I removed that shouldn't have been --BillyTFried 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, it wasnt my version. It was the version in the article for ages. Second, I haven't wasted anyone's time. I simply assume that if people from both sides of the POV didnt botter thinking it was POV, then it wasnt POV. You just dont waltz in, declare THIS POV and then play g_d/god/allah. Now, could you explain why the version before your edits is POV? I dont think it is, but I am open to have my eyes shown the truth. BTW, wikipedia ITSELF is not considered WP:RS so please have this in mind.--Cerejota 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you dont reply soon I am reverting to the original section, until a discusion can be had.--Cerejota 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on there, I think I have mastered BillyTFried's argumentation style and feel I can fill in for him at this time : You have no rational arguments to make and my actions are above questioning.. oh right any discussion with you is a waste of time. Do you want to waste everyone's time?  You wouldn't want to do that would you?  Then the terrorists have won.  You wouldn't want them to win?  Are you going to say you want the terrorists to win?
 * There, how was that? I think I got it down pretty well.--Paraphelion 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have the right to revert all of my work because 90% of it was VALID ADDITIONS and not removals of info already there. DO NOT remove ANY of my additions unless YOU have valid reasons.

Second, I have already stated why the original version was biased. Because it only named Israeli aggressions, and never gave what their reason for such actions. Do I really need to pick the entire thing apart and point out every single example of that when it was so obvious to anyone who read it? It that good use of both of our time? Do you really think that section has been damaged by my additions? --BillyTFried 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Paraphelion, unless you have anything constructive to add, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself and focus on making this a great article. In the meantime you may want to review the guidelines at Civility and try not to make any more personal attacks. --BillyTFried 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what changes you specifically made and I probably don't have any problems with them. I just find that your telling people that your actions are above questioning and telling people discussion is a waste of time is not productive, is not civil and that you're a dick.--Paraphelion 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BillyTFried: you started with the insults right of the bat. Of you give pain expect some in return. Its what people call, well, being normal. As to the thing at hand, your rewrite is too long, POV, redundant, and mostly souced by wikipedia which is not WP:RS. Will be editing accordingly, not reverting because it seems there is consensus that the previous was POV.--Cerejota 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quote me where I insulted anyone or admit that you made that up --BillyTFried 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

War crimes?
Link to Israeli war crimes. I think that the link to Israeli war crimes should be deleted. That article is currently up for deletion via AfD, the vote so far is 23 delete 2 keep. When 96% of editors think that an article should be deleted on the grounds that it is a POV fork, we should not link to it in other articles. GabrielF 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

War Crimes category. Until it is proven, agreed and established by the UN or some international court of law that war crimes were commited during the events, I have removed this article from Category:War crimes. Tamuz (Talk) 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that war crimes don't belong in the introduction of the piece. This is supposed to be a balanced article, stating facts, not suppositions, kind of how it was 10 hours ago - before sections of "targeting civilians" and "war crimes." Where do you think the Katyusha rockets are aimed? Civilian population centers.  I think we should stick to events, not accusations.  -Preposterous 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The war-crimes allegations should not appear in the introduction, though they should be mentioned later on. Tamuz (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you add this article you'd also have to add every other conflict in human history since allegations of war crimes have been made in all of them. In that case the category would become meaningless. Lets save the war crimes category for articles where there is solid evidence of war crimes. GabrielF 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

War crimes. 300 civilians died. Israeli forces bombing houses on purpose. Israel blocking humanitarian aid. Survining civilians with their view: Terrible bombing and shoting on the night. It is 100% war crimes. Killerman2 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but jewpedia Wikipedia dosen't really care. After all these people are "islamic terrorists". --Werto 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not pro jewish- its the Encyclopedia of the people, and as far as I know Arabs are people too.

Too bad your Islamic laws are strict, maybe if you were more open as a society you would use the internet more and then your voices will be heard. I also think you should be aware that your insults are pointed at a very general direction; not all jews are pro Israel- there are many different voices, also inside Israel I for one am against the Israeli occupation and I live IN Israel. So don't write things like jewpedia, arabpedia or Allahpedia if you ever want peace between our people.

Who said Islam forbids the use of the Web? I know a lot of Muslims who do so. Robin Hood 1212 00:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You may post quotes of people saying that these are war crimes, you may put links to articles that call it a war crime, you can write the facts as they happened and let the readers decide if it's a war crime. Really, you can do all of that, I won't stop you and I will defend your right to do this. But you cannot just say that war crimes were committed, as neither the UN nor any court of international law has decided that this is the case.
 * Werto, there is no need for such comments here. You have no reason to state that the English Wikipedia supports Jews. Please concentrate on making the article better and more balanced instead, and assume good faith by all writers here. Thank you, Tamuz (Talk) 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Killerman2 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Equipment losses: tanks, warships, etc.
In most (if not all) Wikipedia battle and military operation articles damaged and sunk warships are mentioned (of course only when sufficient information about such casualties is available). Just check for instance: Battle of Taranto and Attack on Pearl Harbor. War articles however do not always mention such casualties, see for instance: World War II or Falklands War. Nevertheless do even some war articles report about damaged/destroyed tanks, planes and ships, such as: Yom Kippur War. As this is still considered a battle/operation article, damaged warships should be mentioned. It's open for discussion once it's considered a war. (I actually think they are seldom mentioned in war articles, simply because information is not available or reliable) Sijo Ripa 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have the equipment losses seperate from casualties? It seems more appropriate to count as casualties those individuals wounded/killed not various pieces of equipment. Personally, I've never seen a warship counted as a casualty before in any media account or historical record. For example, in every media account I've seen of the incident in this particular conflict you are referring to, the INS Hanit is never referred to as a "casualty"--it is referred to as an Israeli Navy ship damaged by a missile. The casualties mentioned are those sailors who were killed, not the ship. As such I'll be changing the info box to reflect the generally accepted principle of counting equipment as equipment and casualties as casualties.Publicus 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. (1) most of the times accurate information is not available, which explains why such casualties are not always mentioned. (2)The argument of navy battles (which you used on my talk page) is not appropriate either as the Yum Kippur war was mostly a ground war. (3) equipment losses are in conflicts and wars often more significant than human casualties as such (in tactical/startegic terms). I don't object a separate listing in the infobox, but please do not remove it from the infobox itself. Sijo Ripa 13:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

16:30 18 July 2006 (BA)
 * I agree with removing equipment losses from the infobox. This is not a conventional war, the tank and warship were attacked by militants, not soldiers. It is a misleading 'tally' because the war is asymmetric and not all sides are utilising these weapons systems.

Sijo Ripa, I think your suggestion is a good solution-keep "warship/tank" in the info-box, but under an different heading titled "Equipment losses". That works for me, since they are important to track, but I just didn't think they should be with the civilian/soldiers numbers. To the other comment on this, as far as whether to track the losses because militants did this vs. soldiers--I don't think who destroyed them is relevant. The fact that they were destroyed as a result of the conflict is important as Sijo has mentioned, so they should be in there somewhere. 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is very relevant and should mentioned somewhere (and currently isn't). We could have a section below the "Casualties" section called "Damage to Possibly Combat-Relevant Property" (well, we'd need a much better name than that, but that's the idea) that lists the warship, tanks, etc. that Hezbollah has damaged/destroyed (or has claimed to) along with the airports, bridges, etc. that Israel has damaged/destroyed (or has claimed to). What does everyone think about this? --srostami 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties
No reference is given for the claimed "4 Hezbollah Deaths" in the infobox [UPDATE: Ok, somebody added a "no reliable source" to the infobox]. This claim can be found later in the article (search for "Four Hezbollah") with a reference, but the reference does not mention anything about Hezbollah deaths [UPDATE: This problem still remains]. This does not appear to be a case of the site changing the story that the reference links to since the title of the reference in the wikipedia article is the same as the site's title for their article.

(I think 2 of these deaths took place during two failed infiltration attempts.)

For that matter, the same problem exists with the claimed "3 Lebanese Soldiers", also in the infobox.

Whatever the previous total of Lebanese soldier deaths was, my intention is to increase it by 8 due to the following very recent story on aljazeera.net: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4BA16706-0A31-4524-ACE6-FD3420939327.htm.

Anyone know about the existing numbers? --srostami 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, every 5 seconds all the numbers are different and have different qualifiers. Can we, like, agree to only update these numbers at most every hour or something? --srostami 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing Hassan Nasrallah or a spokesperson for Hezbollah is claiming 4 Hezbollah deaths - I'm urgently trying to find a source, it's just a shame NPR hasn't web-posted it yet, but they have spoken of it on the radio. Can we trust news organizations trusting Hezbollah to give out accurate numbers of their own casualties? Ranieldule 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We just need to qualify with "Hezbollah says" or "Hezbollah sources" if there are no external citations.  Tewfik Talk 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tewfik. Doing that makes the statement true, and having it at all is better than nothing.

I am still seeing the exact same problem with casualties that I have pointed out before and it's getting pretty frustrating. Specifically, numbers are claimed, references are given, and the article says absolutely nothing about the claimed numbers. Note that, as before, this is *not* a case of the link pointing to a different article (one can see this by considering the name of the link on wikipedia vs. the name of th article on the target page).

One thing I noticed that is excellent is the "grid" style listing of casualties in the "Causualties" section, naming several sources and giving their respective dates and numbers with no attempt to choose one over the other. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is missing from this section. I think we should add it (it used to have a Hezbollah section anyway, not sure why it's gone) --srostami 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese casualties
Can we please be careful when labeling casualties civilians? The current Lebanese civilian casualty count is based off a Reuters article which says "He said more than 300 people had been killed and 1,000 wounded in the eight-day-old Israeli assault." The article does not specify civilians. As a result, neither should Wikipedia. It's that simple really. Bibigon 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However there are sources that do specify civilian death tolls of over half that number, but of course that source has been removed and now you and others for some reason would rather forget that piece of information, which presents the infobox as one particular side as the only one to have civilians killed.--Paraphelion 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those should be cited in conjunction with the infobox text, then. Nysin 09:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is now 300 people dead and 500,000 people displaced by the fighting, Could someone add this? (I don't know how to properly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5196800.stm

BBC Casualties update. There is now 300 people dead and 500,000 people displaced by the fighting, Could someone add this? (I don't know how to properly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5196800.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

Hezbollah and Israeli viewpoints DIFFER
There are some various differences in approach by what some media report,


 * Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers Within the blue line.
 * Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers Outside the blue line.

Both should be included.

Also, The article was for a long time made to seen as if Hezbollah started the war by words like "Hezbollah Initiated..etc" when this is infact a ongoing conflict.

It is a fact that Israel has ever since its withdrawal flown planes inside of lebanese airspace and thereby violated lebanese airspace and has attacked parts of Lebanon with these planes such as the assassination of Abbas Musawi by Helicopter, senior Hezbollah leader.

It should also be stressed much more that there has always been an exchange of fire between the two and that this was not something "Hezbollah brought on itself because it attacked soldiers" as the article seems bias for a very long time and does not sufficiently provide the Hezbollah/Lebanese viewpoint.

The reader should know both of these sides and what their argument is for the war, not what some writers would like to parrot from mainstream media as simple as the conflict may seem to some one sided people its far from simple.

--Paradoxic 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As said earlier, I agree that the claim the soldiers were captured on Lebanon territory should be presented, but not at the intro. By the way, if you know of more sources that could verify who made this claim, please reference them in the article.

Here's the French wikipedia. Read it.

http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage2.php?lp=fr_en&urltext=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCrise_isra%25C3%25A9lo-libanaise_de_2006

Here's another:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1180404.php/Hezbollah_back_in_the_spotlight_after_capturing_soldiers


 * I would just like to note that the article you have cited specifically mentions that it was a "cross-border raid," that means in Israel. And while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it only mentions that this is a Lebanese claim, then qualified with other information. Best of luck with that,  Tewfik Talk 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the POV matter, until not long ago it seemed to me that the article made it seem as if evertything was Israel's fault, because the introduction explained about the harsh bombings in Beirut without reminding the Grads launched against cities in Israel. What I'm trying to say is, it's very hard to write an article that would seem complete NPOV to everyone. Of course that the viewpoints of both sides differ, but I believe that the article still manage to maintain NPOV. As for you specific complaint, I agree that it should be mentioned that the Israel\Lebanon border has never been quiet, and that Hezbollah didn't just kidnap (er, sorry, capture) soldiers.
 * Oh, by the way, just to make it clear - I myself am Israeli. Tamuz (Talk) 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my own personal musings, but since Hezbollah isn't the official army of Lebanon they have no right to capture other nation's soldiers for territory encroachment. -- Cyde↔Weys 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal viewpoints are ultimately irrelevant. As I gather it, there is a difference of opinion in the specifics of what really happened. It should be reflected in the article, if it can be sourced, and presented in NPOV. Simple.--Cerejota 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology between rocket and missile
I think we should use rocket only. A missile is something with intended target...more technological. A rocket is more sensical, because they are just shooting them over...there is no intended target beside the a city. Kind of shooting off a bottle rocket...you can't come close to pin pointing it.

And a more accurate assesment of a missle is percision guided...these rockets aren't precision guided.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're confusing guided missiles with missiles. A missile is anything shot through the air ... could be a rock, a bullet, an arrow, a Taepodong, etc. -- Cyde↔Weys  14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct - the term is rocket. What Hezbollah is using was originally developed by the Soviets during World War II. They were either truck-mounted or on towed cassions. These rockets were not guided but intended to be fired in salvos of hundreds of rockets and used to totally soften up some sector of the German lines that Soviets would then charge thru with Tanks and infantry. Firing them in a couple at a time is really more of a nuisance (terror weapon) than an actual tactical weapon. In a way, their very inaccuracy is unnerving to the Israelis - "where will the next one land."  That the Israeli army feels no threat at all from them, is clear when you see the Israeli IDF pilling up palot after palot of 155 shells with NO overhead protection - with point detonating fuses (geesh that's dangeous - you can set one off with a hammer) literally screwed into the projectiles.  Also you see the wooden boxes carrying the propellant - itself highly explosive, just sitting out in the open.  All these practices would be suicidal if the IDF felt there was even the remotest possibility of enemy return (counter-battery) fire.  I've even seen photos of Israeli kids writing "death to Hezbollah" on the projectiles with markers - Incredible! I'm a retired US Marine Artillery officer and I know this is kind of nuts.  Almost reckless. SimonATL 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I had to find something geeky warefare technical to get in on this with! *smiles* The term should be rocket. To be exact, it is a rocket powered missile. The rocket engine making it fly makes things rockets to engineers. But any unguided rocket powered missile is considered a rocket by common convention. A jet powered missile with wings is commonly called a cruise missile, no matter if it is crusing or not. A rocket engine powered missile of war that is guided in flight to the target is technically called a guided missle, but is just called a missile by common convention. Now, rockets are often shot toward targets, intended targets, and sometimes quite accurately. A hellfire rocket, shot from a helicopter, is unguided, certainly aimed, and often hits an intended target with plenty of effect. I don't understand why the Arabs shooting so many rockets over so many years haven't learned to shoot with at least some useful effect. If it is not the people being completely untrained or untrainable, but the rockets are really that bad, shouldn't they be classified similar to landmines left unattended for long periods, and possibly be banned on humanitarian grounds? This is like an arrow. If you can aim it to hit an enemy soldier that is one thing. If the only use it so shoot the arrow into the air, blindly, to land someplace in a village of people going about their business, just because your upset at the butthead who lives in the palace.... that's not nice, or fair, or civil, or humane and is not OK because somebody else also once played not nice. Find another weapon or learn to shoot at a target. Bptdude 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocketry was officially invented by the koreans some hundred years ago, theirs were similiar to the earlier mentioned "stalin orgel" used by russians in WW2. A jet engine doesnt make a rocket a cruise missile. V1 and V2 invented by the germans in WW2 were using those and are called rockets. A cruise missile is a guided rocket being able to fly mid to long range whilst being able to react to its surroundings aka mountains, valleys, trees etc. @bptdude give hizbollah some 100mil $ and they might be able to build guided rockets or buy a helicopter to shoot them accurately. jaysus 11:55, 20 July 2006 (CET)

Article Size
Wikipedia is warning that the size of the article is too big. I suggest we find ways to fix it. I would begin by moving all info besides an introductory paragraph from the "International Reactions" section into the main article for that. Also maybe two new subpages, one on attacks on ISrael another on Lebanon might be in order. Support, objections?

Please keep in mind that what we want is to reduce article size without reducing article or information quality.--Cerejota 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"International reactions" does sound like the logical thing to move to a subpage, as it's not entirely relevant to the core of the article anyway. Support! -- Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support for moving International reactions at first Frinkahedr0n 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is actually bigger now!

What about we move all of the "Attacks on" sections to either one page for both countries or two pages for either?

I mean, this is getting critical and a lot of it is the necessary citations, which would diminish if moved to to other pages.

Don't know, and even toying with the idea of turning this into a kind of portal page that then links to a range of subpages... some of which havent been explored fully (such as weaponry used in the conflict). --Cerejota 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is too long!!! I know is an ongoing event and need to be well cited with information. But the article is too long, takes time to load in a slow computer and need to be purged to safe room for new edits. To make things worse there are many photos that are a litte bit out of content like the 3 sailors looking with binoculars. 1) the picture looks like a photo from a 90s military comedy movie. with 3 soldiers one tall other small and the thin one looking to the same thing. 2) The photo may try to show that this conflinc is a sea battle. And you know that the blockade is a fact but not so representative of this conflicts like the city bombins. 3) There are already a photo of ship(much more better than the 3 sailors) and another navy phot make the article a little bit misdirected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

The article is still huge, I suggest we start moving stuff to sub pages... objections? --Cerejota 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved most of the military operations related stuff to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict-Military_Operations for size reasons. I have edited the remainder in this page to be an overview, feel free to fix up etc.--Cerejota 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the section in Israel's response about Al-Manar reporting casualties seems out of place. I have deleted it.

Although it is still "too long" (47 kb>32kb), the prose part, excluding tags, pics, and links and footnotes (see WP:SIZE), is only 22kb. So we're fine stylistically. -Preposterous 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Sub Articles
Operation specific information on Operation Truthful Promise, Operation Just Reward. and Operation Change of Direction would be more appropriate in my opinion as to ensure article length considerations, and as to ensure ease of reading and full information on the Operations. 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the section Possible expansion and resolution should be removed entirely, as it's a little close to a Crystal Ball for my liking. It also doesn't add that much to the article. The Historical background could be moved out, too. --Iorek85 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, Wikipedia is not here to predict the future, and speculation can easily turn into a masquerade for opposing theories and POV. It also clutters up the article with random factoids. 17:18, 18 July 2006 (BA).


 * I have deleted the section, it is too much like extrapolation and speculation to remain and violates Crystal Ball policy. I believe the article flows much better without it, and addresses the problem of length, 21:28 18 July
 * Correction, apparently it is vandalism to remove sections and it has been reverted. Does anyone else agree that Possible expansion and resolution should be removed entirely to keep the article coherent? 22:38 18 July


 * Regarding the section "Possible expansion and resolution", I agree that it should be deleted, since we shouldn't speculate. That section also contains paragraphs that strays from its subject, such as "The situation is further complicated by the thousands of foreign nationals who are stranded in the country. Although at least 15,000 tourists and Lebanese citizens fled via road into Syria on 13 July, an Israeli strike on that road has now made travel into or out of the country much more difficult." (The evacuation is already being discussed at two other places in the article.) There are some things I think should be somewhere in the article, for example Syria backing up Hezbollah, and Iran backing up both Hezbollah and Syria. And the talks about ceasefire, in the subsection "Proposed ceasefire" should of course remain in some form. --Battra 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I have removed the section. It is not up to wikipedia standards. (Downs 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Infobox Military Conflict. I have been thinking of making that Infobox a template, but the idea of it being an included subpage looks much better. The reason for this is that the Timeline page is out-of-sync with this page. -- Jokes Free4Me 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on the gaza strip?
acording to cnn Israil has invaded the gaza strip and there is fighting on that front as well (the second front) i couldnt find any mention on that in the article, i think it should be put in.
 * Because Gaza is not part of Lebanon? Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's always fighting in the Gaza Strip. No offense, but that's like saying Detroit has a high crime rate. It's not news.
 * HOWEVER, didn't Hamas kidnap two soldiers a month ago, and Hezbollah simply did a copycat attack in Lebanon/Northern Israel? I'm not one to normally be racist, but that sounds like Israel wants a justification for invading another sovereign nation (Lebanon) for either annexation or to attack Israel (like how Germany invaded Benelux to defeat France early on in World War Two. Being a Lebanese-Canadian, this issue is of particular concern.  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Gaza conflict see 2006 Gaza conflict. This is about the current war in the Gaza strip. Enlil Ninlil 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

i believe hamas did kidnap a soldier but THIS IS NEWS and should be put in, it shows that israel is fighting 2 fronts, if we dont put it in we are hiding information or not giving a ful account of it, its like writing an article on ww2 without mentioning the russian theatre of operations!

What did you not understand about Blnguyen's reply? The Hamas kidnapping belongs in and IS in another article. This is Hez-bol-lah. Not Ha-mas. Ga-za is not in Leb-a-non. --srostami 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kidnap?? Israeli POV??? I dont class captured soldiers as kidnap, considering the peace agreement is only in place in theory not reality. Enlil Ninlil 04:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It may not be as inaccurate as POV or you claim, if two nations (or in this case, one nation and Hezbollah) have not declared war on each other then they can't legitimately "capture" each others troops. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on WHY Hezbollah captured two soldiers... the Cause of war is not the capture of the soldiers but rather Israel's occupation of Palestine and the ongoing struggle in the region including Israel capturing and holding thousands of Palestinians/Lebanese prisoner. Yahuddi 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To Cyde, so that is why the U.S.A didn't declare war in North Vietnam, or the U.S.S.R on Afghanistan, they are classed as the similar type of war. Except the central government (Lebanese) is not on the Israeli side. Enlil Ninlil 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah campaign
I understand that we are trying to keep the article short, but non-coverage of the Hezbollah rocket attacks makes creates a twisted perspective on the events. I am going to restore some of the removed information in the interest of balance and NPOV. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What you mean? Are you sure they weren't removed to Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? --Cerejota 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They have been, but the main conflict article makes one passing comment on what is a major component of the hostilities. I don't have time to do it now, though someone should. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Background
I have no problem with it stretching back to 1948, etc, but I have reneged on my promise to edit because I cannot find a way to reduce it that still makes sense, and in time to not get an edit conflict.

It HAS to be shortened, I think we must agree on this. I mean, by choosing one storyline on background over the other we are dangerously approaching POV, but if on top of that all that we are doing in citing other wiki pages, then why not just go out and out and do it?

This is what I suggest: either we rewrite it to make it shorter, or come up with a minimal paragraph or two pointing at specific events, and then linking to seealso's. If we have done it with Hezbollah, I think we can do it here.--Cerejota 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor of http://pixane.net/blog/
Claims that his blog isn't frontline when he said : "Amusing, since I’m far from being frontline" in his "Frontline?" Issue. I will remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

Russian
A person who browses English Wikipedia most likely doesn't know Russian; therefore the link to a Russian website is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

Free Lebanon: WTF?
What the hell is "Free Lebanon", why is it quoted in an encyclopedia article, and why do its press releases sound like they were copied and pasted from a 13-year-old's blog? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs).

Robert Fisk
I removed this from the article - not sure as to the relevance.  Tewfik Talk 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

", most notably Robert Fisk claims to be witness to many thousands killed when "17,500 Arabs were slaughtered during three months in Lebanon"R Frisk Quote Ref, of which included such incidents / massacre's as"

Operation Truthful/True/Fulfilled Promise?
Okay, this is it. In te article and related article are three are used. Yet only one its true (or truthful, he-he). So why dont fetch the arabic original term, request some arab speakers with near dual fluency in english, or even better translators, and get this one settled.

Once we do, lets freaking get it together and for qualities sake edit the thing all across the boad with just one name... how about that?

--Cerejota 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Truthful Promise" is what Daily Star of Beirut translates it as, and they are probably better in translating Arabic than most Western news agencies. Also, if you Google the various expressions, "Operation Truthful Promise" gets four times as many hits as "True Promise". I've now changed the one "True" to "Truthful", so there shouldn't be any variants anymore, as "Fulfilled" disappeared some time ago. Thomas Blomberg 01:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! it might still exist in some of the related pages (Military operations, timeline, and international reactions) so lets check that!--Cerejota 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests
The article is very informative, and amazingly short, considering how long the discussion page is. But, is there a map of the land practically held by the Hezbollah's? I checked the Hezbollah's page in Wiki and there is no map there? I would appreciate it. Bptdude 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone take this BBC map and make an equivalent for Wikipedia? It's by far the best map I've seen so far. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Map of Arab-Israeli Conflict
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it. The map of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in the scond infobox looks like poop. It's beyond blurry so as to provide little to no information to anyone coming wanting to learn about this important topic. It should be fixed or reverted to the old map. Njjones 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An additional objection: this is the map of the Arab League, rather than the Arab World. The main difference is that the Arab World Map includes Western Sahara and partially excludes Sudan and Somalia. IMHO, neither should be used. North and East Africa (apart from Egypt) are historically tangential to this conflict, and a closer study of the actual area surrounding Israel/Syria/Lebanon with some focus on extremely relevant but non-Arabic Iran would be preferable.

Volunteer
Hello, I am hereby volunteering for map-making, here is an example. I will consider the outstanding requests and see what I can do tomorrow. KWH 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't want to overlap with the second map illustrating the rocket-attacks in Israel, if you follow somewhat the format of the previous maps and incorporate some conflict zone, then please extend it to the current reach of those rockets (I can supply further information if you like), which would require extending the map a few cm south. Other key features are the Israeli blockade of Lebanese ports (Beirut, Tripoli, etc.) as well as bombing of various airports (Beirut, Rayak) and the highway to Damascus. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice map. I'd love to see what you can do for this article! --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Map Update
I'm trying to go through the notes of all members or contributors here, but it's not quite clear and I'm confused of how is it possible to update the map. I am more than open to editing it and make it fit into the information, facts and representation issues. So please sum up what you'll be needing to add, substract or change for the map and I'll be more than happy to edit it for you. And I would take the suggestion by members mostly NOT anonymous contributors. -- Omernos 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

list of locations hit?
What do people think about creating a list of all locations in Israel and Lebanon hit as a seperate article, and linking it from here? Ideally we should have a table and map showing the break down of all known strikes and casualties, if we can keep up with the news that is. Dsol 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have a page for that Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. You could make an infobox with the known strike, althought I think it could get unwieldly. We already have an infobox showing casualties.--Cerejota 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marwahin.jpg
where does Image:Marwahin.jpg come from? It does not appear in the linked BBC article. I have no problem with graphic images but at present we have no idea where this image comes from, who the people are, when and how they were killed, or whether there are any copyright issues. These all need to be adressed or cannot be used. Dsol 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy who uploaded it is claiming it as a montage of "private photos" without releasing any more source information. This image has significant copyright issues. Also, we don't know the image source, so we don't even know that it's from the current conflict. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are almost certainly from Lebanon -- it's a hallmark of war that this sort of stuff becomes as common as spit. You can peruse more at http://fromisrael2lebanon.com/ and similar (http://www.cryptome.org is also hosting daily selections, with his usual acerbic commentary).  The images, however, are likely to be news agency "rip offs";  I recognize several at the fromisrael2lebanon.com site that were distributed by AP.  mdf 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you say they are almost certainly from Lebanon if they don't even have any sources given? They could just as easily be from Iraq, or they could just be older pictures from other violent outbursts.  No source information means we can't say anything for sure about them.  -- Cyde↔Weys  16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bayesian inference. Notwithstanding, it is likely the problem of provenance will be solved when the copyright is worked out.  mdf 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After f/b from Cyde, I double checked the provenance of these photos. They are from the attack on civilian families at Marwahin (Macleans has the story and one of the images), but one is from the Associated Press, and therefore therefore I expect that the others are too, and thus copyrighted. AdamKesher 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely can't use them if they were don't know for sure, and anyway, who wants to get involved in a propaganda edit war? Leave the gruesome pictures out of it. If you must, get a picture of a missile that hit its target, like a building or something. -Preposterous 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved here to keep discussion together Ryanuk 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper photo of Nasrallah
Can we please find a photo of Nasrallah? Using a photo of a billboard is inappropriate for a few reasons, including 1) it is a photo of a painting, and therefore it's accuracy is suspect. and 2) the painting used is a glorification billboard commonly seen in the middle-east and to use it as Wikipedia's sole representation of the man violates the article's neutral POV. This image is so glorifying, he practically looks deified.

If there was a normal photo of the man at the top with a caption of his name, and then lower down there was an image of this billboard explaining about where the billboard was and about these forms of propaganda - that would be fine.

--Drewson99 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I agree a photo is preferable, but no photo that is valid is available. When it is, we will surely substitute the billboard image.

2) We use an official israeli press photo of their commander in chief, which is also a propaganda image, and hence represents a balance, which is what you strive for when you inevitably have to present POV materials.

3) I know many realist artists who would disagree with your derision of painting. As will of course the Wall Street Journal which routinely carries realistic artistic representations of news events in lieu of photographs.

4) Your assertion of photography as truthful is a subject of debates in many fields, not to mention that any semi-competent photographer can achive wonders with the camarera. THis is without mentioning the power of digital photo editing and manipulation. --Cerejota 07:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)