Talk:Lebanon/Inactive POV debate

Issue 2: Dual Government
My opinion is that this section doesn't belong to Wikipedia. It's just too POV. "According to a number of scholars and leaders, Lebanon has a dual gouvernment."? I was under the impression that "it's easy to find 'scholars' who know nothing". This isn't the Loch Ness Monster issue. There's no room for speculation. Lebanon has one government only. It's that simple. Sure, some political leaders in Lebanon will accuse Hezbollah of "running a country of it's own." While I'm not saying it's not true, devoting a section to presenting one single point of view violates Wikipedia policy. It would be quite easy to integrate this into the text somewhere else (e.g "X, who claims that Hezbollah is running a country of its own, expressed blah blah blah...").


 * no one is claiming hizbullah is running the country on it's own, well, at least no one i've seen. but!!!, many people, including serious people inside lebanon who are not considered pro-US or pro-Syria say that Hizbullah has it's own economy, it's own culture [pro-suicide-assasinations in the name of Islamic Jihad], and even Nasrallah hiself repeats claims as if he's the ruler of Lebanon (we will not listen to *insert*" ... "we have frineds that we shouldn't mention" ... "we are not fighting for lebanon, but fighting for the [islamic] nation"... there's plenty of validated sources on this matter... closing your eyes because you are lebanese is considered POV by any objective source who actually does a little research. here's a couple small samples so you wouldn't say i'm making things up *shrug*:


 * 1) we will not disarm, and kill anyone who tries to disarm us!


 * letting Hezbollah people who's really in control over the country's future.


 * 2) it's our right and duty to kidnap:


 * it's also "your right/duty" to get shot at in return... btw, this "expert on israel" later claimed he never imagined israel will shoot back?!?! and another week after that he claimed israel planned to attack on october anyways and he knew and foiled yet another zionist plot?!?!


 * btw, the prisoners left in israeli jails are [samir kuntar] and palestinain terrorists... but as long as the Hezbullah wants to show it's the real gouvernment of Lebanon (and palestine?), who am I to argue such an "obvious POV" that he isn't in control of lebanon *shrug*.


 * 3) did anyone hear the term [two minutes' hate]??


 * honestly, is that how a leader speaks in arab countries? blame anything bad that happens on some zionist global plot?? .. wasn't it immam abu laben from denmark who created the real cartoon strife for the muslim world? .. on maybe some danish writer who couldn't get any illustrator for a biography he made about muhammad?


 * 4) Hassan Nasrallah: Yes, and nobody said to me: "No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.":


 * "It is true that I did not inform the Lebanese government, but I did not inform my closest allies either. Syria and Iran did not know. No Syrian or Iranian knew. They did not know, and I did not consult any of them."


 * 5) adressing the nation:
 * - is he the president???


 * let me know if 5 examples are not enough.
 * Jaakobou 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, before I continue, let me make this clear: I agree with you. Hezbollah is indeed a highly-autonomous structure, much like a government. However, my argument is: this is just a point of view. And whether you and I like it or not, Wikipedia can't be used to express points of view. You support your opinion:
 * (1) based on examples (I salute your efforts :)). This method of argument is unfortunately not accepted here at Wikipedia. No matter how convincing your examples are, this is considered Original Research (please see WP:NOR) and thus cannot be considered proper "article-material".
 * (2)based on the opinions of other people. This method is, in essence, valid, but you should at least name the people who do (good luck finding someone in Lebanon who is neither pro-US nor pro-Syrian) and provide reliable references. Merely saying that "some people" hold this point of view is not sufficient. However, even if you can provide such references, you would only be proving that Hezbollah is a highly organized, self-sufficient structure, not a government. There's a very, very large difference between the two (take Wikipedia for example: own economy, own culture, own policies, etc...) If you can provide at least one reference from a neutral source, saying that Lebanon has two governments, one run by Hezbollah, then you have every right to include that in the text. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is entirely POV until such time as Hezbollah asserts itself as the legitimate government of Lebanon, or there is a general consensus that it has taken power. Statements by its political opponents do not constitute anything beyond their own personal points of view, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Claims of the threat to the existing government are entirely valid, but do not warrant an entire section of their own. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion here seems to have stagnated. Should I consider that we've reached an agreement that the section is too POV? &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  08:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * we'll get back to this one (after resolving the other less difficult issues) and hopefully find a proper wording on the current dual "ownership"/"democracy" issue or at least make an update on the subject in current affairs. Jaakobou 11:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't have time to go deeply into our discussion, but here's a sample article for your examination: []


 * note: they call themselves "opposition", but they do not listen to rules of democracy, only to nasrallah's dictatorship rule. Jaakobou 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe there might be some confusion. We're looking for sources that explicitly state that there are two governments in Lebanon. Citing sources in order to show why you think there are two governments in Lebanon is POV and original research, and as such doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Citing a claim by Walid Jumblatt of two governments is fine, but dedicating a whole section to his statement based on your personal beliefs, or treating his statement as fact without further references that concur is simply inappropriate. — George Saliba[ talk ] 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The point is not convincing us with evidence; if you are unfamiliar with our original research policy, I urge you to read it right now. What you need to do is provide an official statement that there are currently two governments in Lebanon.
 * I should also express my extreme doubt that Walid Jumblatt has ever referred to Lebanon as having two governments. He has often accused Hezbollah of "running a country within a country" as I said before, but never a "government". I think his quote must have been mistranslated, since the words for country and government in Arabic are very close and often used interchangeably. So, I think it would be appropriate to mention Jumblatt's opinion (within the proper context and correctly translated), but surely not to devote a whole section to it. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Issue 4: "actual casualties and threat from initial hezbollah attack on northern israel"
The missile attack was limited to a few border communities and IDF posts (see here). It seems an exaggeration to say that Hezbollah placed "1,166,800 people under threat."


 * the actual hit terriroty has approx. 6000 residents. however, the area which is under threat and under the range of the hizbullah missiles houses over 1.2 million people (the record i gave was from 2004), arabs, jews, and others were under real threat.


 * I believe the most appropriate place for placing this information is the part which discusses the war itself, i.e. when Hezbollah actually unleashed its (full?) arsenal of missiles (including the long-range ones) against Israel, and thus placed its citizens directly under danger of rocket fire. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, you can't just say that Japan is under threat from the US just because the US has nuclear missiles capable of hitting it. But that statement would be perfectly logical during World War II, in which such weapons entered into use. Anyways, my objection is just to the placement, not statement itself, so it's just a minor technicality. No big deal. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The text as editted is misleading. Saying 1.1 million people were placed under threat can be misinterpretted as saying that Hezbollah had the ability to kill each and every one of them, not just that Hezbollah had the ability to kill some of them. This is POV pushing. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, saying that 1.1 million people were placed under threat implies that Hezbollah could kill any of them, not all of them. To say that it can be misrepresented is of little consequence. Anything can be misrepresented if someone wants to misrepresent it. But this wording stays well within reason. Hezbollah threatened much of Northern Israel, and 1.1 million people were at risk of being hit by rockets... not all at once, of course, but it's not like anyone knew where Hezbollah rockets were going to land, so people didn't know whether it was going to be them who would die, or someone else. All 1.1 million were placed under threat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I m dude2002 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC).


 * During the war, yes. But during the operation of July 12? I hardly think mortar can threaten 1.2 million lives. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is problem I believe. What I'm concerned with is making sure the text doesn't come across to a reader as saying that Hezbollah has an atomic bomb or something, which (as far I know) would be misleading. The wording has to be very careful in clearly indicating that there were 1.1 million people in the range of rocket attacks, not that they were all under threat at once. Furthermore, I agree with the earlier assertion that this doesn't belong in this article, which should only have a summary of the conflict, and especially its relevance to Lebanon (this being the Lebanon article). Consider adding it to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the main article about the conflict. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one seems to be objecting. Are we all agreed to leave the current wording as it is? &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * no no no! .. i was trying to finish one topic at a time (we're done with 3 and almost done with 1), i'm very much against this sharade that "israel went to war over two kidnapped soldiers" (.. and a couple mortars), and i plan on giving many valid sources etc. to break that silly rumor... the current wording is not to my liking, but right now, i'm in a rush... i'll continue this topic another time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Can you please copy and paste the parts of the text you don't agree with? &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Disputed Text:
 * Major events
 * On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border operation, killing three others, and simultaneously launched a missile attack along the border. The operation was considered "an act of war" by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. That night, after a failed rescue attempt that resulted in the deaths of five more Israeli soldiers,[94] Israel launched a massive military operation on Lebanon. The stated goals of the operation, which two US scholars claimed to have been planned in advance,[95] were to retrieve the captured soldiers, eliminate Hezbollah and shield residents of Northern Israel from Hezbollah's rocket attacks.


 * "The operation quickly developed into a widespread 'open war' against Lebanon..."
 * we're starting with the deeper debate over the cause/rational for war (i'm guessing you don't really know much about the 200 hizbullah attacks into israel before the one that sparked the harsh israeli resopnse) and later we'll move on to the ridiculous/outrageous "two US scholars" mentioning afterwards Jaakobou 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you want to start a debate over something that does not exist in the text. I have read the section a hundred times, and I assure you I have not come across any cause-effect relationship between Hezbollah's July 12 operation and the Israeli response. The text you specified indicates (and I quote George) "temportal linearity not causality". Not anywhere in the text will you find "Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers on July 12, so Israel started a war." The article uses a strictly narrative voice. If you find any sentence which indicates the cause-effect relationship you disagree with, then please delete it. I will whole-heartedly agree with you.
 * I also don't see what makes the mentioning of the "two US scholars" so "ridiculous/outrageous". You are contradicting yourself. If Israel waged its war because of all the operations Hezbollah had been continuosly executing on the border, and not because it was a spur of the moment response, then it would follow logically that Israel had indeed been planning to put an end to Hezbollah's operations. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly correct. The article is listing what happened, in the order it happened. It is not making any claim to "a reason why", as such claims are extremely open to personal opinion, and very hard to prove in any event. — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hezbollah attacks against Israel preceded the start of the war, the war preparations and arms deployed by Hezbollah were threatening. Hezbollah kidnapped and killed soldiers within Israel, started launching rockets against civilians, Israel had to respond. It is an oversimplification to insinuate that just the kidnapping started the Israeli defense. The two scholars quoted before, who are they? From where have they been quoted? They oversimplify the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasbraun321 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


 * What about the current passage do you think insinuates a causal relationship? If we can get some concrete feedback about what people think is misleading, maybe we can improve it. — George Saliba[ talk ] 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Various other issues
Last note about exaggerations: this article includes a "major" incident about the death of 4 UN observers done by an Israeli mistake.. this incident would not have been major had the hizbullah propaganda group hadn't pushed so hard to make a story out of it... in contrast, there is no mention of the events in which hizbullah hit UN operatives, or the case where Siniora cried on national television over 40 deaths and 3 hours later admitted only one person died... now THAT's exaggerating!


 * I'm unaware of the events you mention taking place? Hezbollah didn't hit any UN operatives during the war, as far as I know (unless that's part of the media campaigns you mention). I would appreciate it if you could direct me to sources concerning this. Also, I believe the incident that led PM Siniora to cry was the Qana massacre, which has a death toll of about 30. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the way the article currently mentions the UN observer deaths, however I don't have time to clean it up at present. It should be a small note in the total death toll figures in my opinion. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Last, last note: it is a constant rehtoric to blame Israel for going to war over "only two kidnapped soldiers", which is a major defamatory POV accusation which should be removed on a NPOV source such as wikipedia. Israel went to war because of approx. 200 attacks on it's sovriency between 2000-2006 and it's about time the reading public (who uses wikipedia) knows about it.
 * Jaakobou 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with stating that Israel went to war because of the continued attacks on their soverign territory, provided you have sources you can cite that back up such a statement. It is also incorrect to state that they went to war over "only two kidnapped soldiers," as the term only is POV, and the statement is generally badly stated. It is not incorrect, however, to state that Israeli launched attacks 'after' the soldiers were kidnapped, as this is an event that can be readily confirmed, and does not indicate causality, only temporal linearity. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I believe that's all. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for the honest concerns.
 * Jaakobou 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. My concern is that of every other Wikipedian. Though I must note that I think the discussion must also involve George Saliba, who was the one who reverted your edits in the first place. I'm sure George will have some great insight on the matters at hand. I hope you take his comments with the same thoughtfulness. &mdash;  Lestat deLioncour t  18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)