Wikipedia

Talk:2006 Lebanon War

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cafzal (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 9 September 2006 (→Pie chart). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Cafzal in topic Pie chart

Template:Moveoptions

Template:Calm talk Template:Todo priority

Archive

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28
A box-soap or a soapbox: What wikipedia most decidedly isn't! --Cerejota 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about the name of the article

Latest comment: 19 years ago81 comments33 people in discussion

Earlier discussions


These polls will close on the 31st of September 2006 at 11:59pm GMT

Issue 1 - Date placement

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

2006 [description of combatants] [description of conflict]

Comment here

  1. Support - I actually prefer the combatant-description (2006) title, but pretty much all of the relevant conflicts/wars in this arena follow this format - 1920 Palestine riots, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1982 Lebanon War, 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict. Iorek85 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support - convention per Iorek, TewfikTalk 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Although I originally thought to follow the military history project's nomenclature, as all of the Israeli conflicts seem to follow this method, we should keep it. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support - It's not broke - let's not fix it :-) HawkerTyphoon 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support - If including the year is important, than this seems to be the most logical. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support - I agree with Lorek that combatant-description (2006) looks better, but that we should follow the existing convention. TheronJ 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  8. Support - I agree with Iorek85 and TheronJ that [description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006) is the better form but I support following the existing conventions unless a consensus can be reaced in re-naming all the articles that follow the existing convention. Edward Lalone 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support per existing practise. Cynical 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

[description of combatants] [description of conflict] of 2006

Comment here

[description of combatants] [description of conflict] (2006)

Comment here

  1. Support Who fought is more important than when. --Doom777 15:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Issue 2 - Description of Combatants

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

Israel-Lebanon [description of conflict]

Comment here

  1. Support - Lebanon was involved, and bore the brunt of the damage. Iorek85 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support - This seems to be the most common reference in the media... TewfikTalk 07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Most common reference. -- Avi 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support The war ranged over all of Lebanon, and northern Israel. 132.205.44.134 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support Lebanon suffers most damage, and hezbollah is lebanese citizens too. and, we should also consider that Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, stated that “[i]f the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years."[1] Nielswik 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support My understanding is that this is the most common reference from among the available choices. TheronJ 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  8. Support This is the more commonly used reference for the Israel Lebanon Conflict (2006). Edward Lalone 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support This is the most common reference. It's also consistent with other usage; for example we speak of Israel's 1982 Lebanon war - not of Israel's 1982 PLO war. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  10. Support. As for this being pro-Hezbollah POV, after the capture/abduction/kidnap of the Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government itself said that this was 'an act of war by the state of Lebanon against the state of Israel' - so both sides saw it as Israel v Lebanon. That aside, a conflict where Israel is bombing Lebanon and people in Lebanon are firing rockets at Israel seems like a no-brainer namewise as far as I'm concerned. Cynical 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  11. Support. Lebanon was clearly involved in the conflict and arguably suffered the most from it. Crumbsucker 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  12. Support - In a conflict where the overwhelming majority of the dead are non-Hezbollah Lebanese civilians, excluding the name Lebanon seems absurd. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah [description of conflict]

Comment here

Israel-Hezbollah [description of conflict]

Comment here

  1. Support Hizbullah attacked Israael. Israel responded by attacking Hizbullah. The Lebanese Army was not involved. Israel did not declare war on Lebanon. Lebanon did not declare war on Israel. Any name that includes Lebanon is inaccurate and POV nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.5.7 (talk)
  2. Support All the fighting was between Israel and Hezbollah, Lebanon did nothing except get bombed. --Doom777 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Unless someone can prove Lebanon was a combatant this was clerly not a war between Israel and Lebanon, hence it should not be falsely labeled the Israel Lebanon Conflict. --138.162.5.7 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Dupe vote. Crumbsucker 07:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support The war/conflict was between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanease army wasn't involved. --The monkeyhate 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support Misnaming this conflict to include Lebanon is as POV as anything I've seen on Wikipedia. --67.72.98.85 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support Like users above --TheFEARgod 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support --Medule 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  8. Support -  AjaxSmack  05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose Hezbollah is not a territory, otherwise you should call this the IDF-Hizbollah war. Pancho Villa was not Mexico, and it is not called the Pancho Villa -American war. 132.205.44.134 05:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC). No, but it is called the Pancho Villa Expedition. -  AjaxSmack  05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support - Defines pretty finely the event, since Hezbollah is only a relatively small fraction of Lebanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CP\M (talk • contribs)
  10. Support- Lebanon wasn't involved, although to be fair, the conflict did occur in these two countries HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  11. Support, Lebanon the country was not a party to this conflict. This was solely between the Israeli army and the Hezbollah organization. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  12. Support - This seems to be the most accurate description of the combatants. --Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  13. Support per the first persons comments. TJ Spyke 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  14. Support Retropunk 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Issue 3 - Description of Conflict

Please express support for only one of the following options, or add an additional option, with an explanation of your reasoning:

[description of combatants] conflict

Comment here

  1. Support - After earlier supporting "war" - I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war. It was too short, pretty much one sided, and didn't result in large numbers of military deaths. If anyone can think of smaller "Wars" then sure. Iorek85 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support - Again, Iorek says it best, TewfikTalk 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support per Iorek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Valtam 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support Most common reference, not the same scope and danger as other wars such as Iran-Iraq/Yom Kippur/etc. -- Avi 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support No formal DoW issued HawkerTyphoon 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support, not only was this not a declared war by either side. It was a limited conflict that wouldn't classify as a war in any other part of the world. Also I would question naming it Israel-Lebanon Conflict. It would be better served at 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict. The government of Lebanon was not a party to the war but rather a terrorist organization in southern lebanon was the co-party with Israel. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  8. Support I support calling it a Conflict and not a war because I do not think that this conflict meets all the requirements of being a war. Edward Lalone 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support TJ Spyke 05:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  10. Support. It doesn't matter what inaccurate terms news organisations were using, legally and factually this was not a war, as there was no formal declaration of war between two countries. Cynical 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  11. Support. Crumbsucker 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  12. Support Carbonate 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  13. Support - More acuarate term. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

[description of combatants] war

  1. It's not for us to measure its seriousness - we should just follow the general usage. Everybody calls it a war, so it's a war. And as for "If anyone can think of smaller Wars", Anglo-Zanzibar War springs to mind. Zocky | picture popups 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Everyone calls it a war, it lasted for 34 days, much longer than the Six Day War, a lot of explosives were used, Israel called out Order 8, and most call it a war. --Doom777 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - No one died during the Ohio-Michigan War. The Red River Bridge Controversy is sometimes knwon as the Red River Brige War, but there was no bloodshed. There's several wars that had little or no bloodshed. Retropunk 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Of course it's a war. The fact Hezbullah acted criminally in failing to declare a war does little to negate this. --138.162.0.42 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment This is and should be the ONLY reason to not call it a war. Severity and length have little to do with the definition. However, I believe the UN does state that even an 'armed conflict' constitutes as a war. Retropunk 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support - All the media use the term "war", and there was enough casualties to call it a war. --The monkeyhate 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support - If this is war... --TheFEARgod 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support, the US never declared war on Vietnam either, it's still called the Vietnam War. 132.205.44.134 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  7. Support, due to both sides aiming for total destruction of each other, and large scale. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  8. Support, it has killed thousands of people, isn't that war? another point : Wikipedia says "War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups" in War article. This is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons by Israel (a state) and Hezbollah (a large-scale groups) Nielswik 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  9. Support - I'm finding it hard to call this anything but a war.--Bobblehead 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • comment - hey, what about "israeli destruction of lebanon"?
  10. Support - AFAICT, "war" is the popular term, and it was a war, if one-sided. TheronJ 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  11. Support All the major news outlets (e.g. CNN, BBC, Fox, etc) including Israeli ones such as Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth call this a war, the prime minister of Israel, the president of Lebanon and the US secretary of state call this a war, the Israeli army calls this a war, international and transnational organizations such as the UN and the EU call this a war, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel call this a war - I think this encyclopedia should call this a war also. "Conflict" is a more generic expression which is also used but much less frequently than "war". By now the dominant expression in Israel at least appears to be "Second Lebanon War". I think "2006 Israel-Lebanon war" is the best title with "Second Israel-Lebanon war" reverting to it. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rename to "war"

I see now that the Hebrew Wikipedia has renamed their article (belatedly, I think) to "the Second Lebanon War" and now with this as an encyclopedic (as opposed to journalistic, of which there are plenty) reference, I'm inclined to rename the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon war (i.e. beyond a conflict). So unless there are objections, I'll be implementing the move in the near future. Thanks. El_C 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The following comment was inexplicably archived; I'll keep an eye that this dosen't happen in the future and give it a few more days. El_C 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In response too ILike2BeAnonymous (and not El_C), until we do come to a decision, your arguing that "men raining destruction on each other in the form of high explosives" constitutes a "war" is fine, but shouldn't affect the article. Also, please be careful about fully reverting changes - the syntax, which I noted in the edit summary, is hardly controversial. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer that its called Israel-Hezbollah War, since the main combatant was Hezbollah, and not Lebanon. --Doom777 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It took place in Israel and Lebanon; we're not gonna call it IDF-Hezbollah war.
Further arguments for "war" are based on clear rationals:
  1. Political echelon & media in both Israel and Lebanon call it "war"
  2. Sustained high-intensity warfare throughout a period of weeks
  3. Unlike in Gaza, entire divisions were mobalized (in Israel)
  4. Scholarly sources call it "war" (e.g. lib.utexas.edu)
Where it took place is not as important as who fought it. --Doom777 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
El_C 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, whether it's called a war or not has nothing to do with the intensity, actors, weaponry, length, etc. What matters is what the thing is called, nothing else. Israelis call it a war, Lebanese call it a war, Hezbollah calls it a war. Even if there were no dead people and everybody called it war, Wikipedia would call it a war too. Zocky | picture popups 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I opposed calling it a war previously in order to err on the side of caution, I think that now that time has passed we can faithfully call it a war with legitimate backing. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree entirely. Iorek85's contention that "I don't think the scope of the conflict justifies war" is clearly mistaken; it involved the entire territory of one country and a good third of another, the number of casualties was far higher than in other recent conflicts universally called wars (cf. Falklands War) and the scale, scope and tempo of military operations was consistent with a full-blown war. I'll support El C's proposal to move the article to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. -- ChrisO 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I also got involved with the above polls, this really isn't an issue to be determined by votes. What we should do is have a listing of current references to the event, and name this article based on the factors that are most prevalent in them. TewfikTalk 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting to note that the Israeli government opposed (and still opposes) calling this conflict a "war", because it has economic implications, dealing mainly with recompensations for damaged property. Instead of "war" it is formally called "fighting". However, "2006 Israel-Lebanon fighting" doesn't sound very encyclopedical. --Gabi S. 06:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Conflict seems to fit best. This was not a widespread incident with a small number of casualties that took place between a country and a terror organization. There generally has to be two countries for there to be a war and it usually has to be declared. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since scope isn't apparently an issue in whether action is called a war or not, it seems to be only popular opinion that gives it the name. I agree with tewfik, but I don't know how one would go about collecting enough sources, or which sources should be used. I disagree that voting isn't important, though - wikipedians are members of the international public after all, and thus decide whether it was a war or conflict just as the public do. Iorek85 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please look this: Ten-Day War - it was a war and this isn't???--TheFEARgod 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That was two countries duking out. Our own page on conflict says - "Another type of conflict exists between governments and guerrilla groups or groups engaged in asymmetric warfare." Still, I've said size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary. Iorek85 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

And Second Chechen War?? --TheFEARgod 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war." - Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, this qualifies as a war. Both Israel and Hezbollah have the (relatively for Hezbollah) organized use of weapons and physical force and Hezbollah is a rather large-scale group (5,000-10,000 active members, 50,000 volunteers according to CNN), they both held territory that they did win and lose, and both do have a leading person and/or organization that can surrender of collapse that would have pretty much brought the end of the conflict.

Then what is a conflict? As I said "size apparently isn't the reason wars are wars and conflicts are conflicts, it seems to be completely arbritrary". Iorek85 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The whole poll is really not the proper manner for deciding on a name change, rather as I've said before, there should be an attempt to analyse the various relevant sources, and name based on what is most used in them. TewfikTalk 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about POV

Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Older discussions

Please do not edit these archived discussions.

NPOV Violation: Casus Belli

I have updated the casus belli to include the Lebanese version with appropriate citation to counteract the POV being expresed by those who are pro-Israel that Hezbollah started the conflict by crossing into Israel, kiling 8 soldiers and kidnapping two. Here is my addition: "Lebanon: IDF soldiers crossed into Lebanon and were captured by local Lebanese police, subsequently resulting in Israel attacking Lebanon." My current reference is a Forbes article by Joseph Panossian since one editor decided that a Bahrain news source isn't reliable enough and decided to revert my edit. I trust that anything other than an American or Israeli news source would not be considered reliable so I have chosen to go with the reliable because not once has this edit been changed without discussing it with me but several times. It's clear what the person's POV is and that they do not want anything posted that contradicts that view but it's important that Wikipedia does not reflect the narrow POV of a few editors. There is a world that is larger than the United States and while many editors may be Americans it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to promote our POV. [1] Edward Lalone 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article you link to says this: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon..." Across the border. IronDuke 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, "across the border", but it don't say in what direction. and it does say "in southern Lebanon", not "in northern Israel". // Liftarn
It really doesn't matter what it says, because it is from 07-12, and neither the AP, nor any other RS, have repeated this basic claim in the month+ since then. This is the original AP report to which we devoted so much discussion many weeks ago, and there is no reason to do it again. If you can find reference to this version in a current RS report, then we can discuss, but so far the "UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media, including Al Jazeera, have characterised the Hezbollah action as cross-border." Maybe we should make a list at the top of the Talk page listing the basic points that the consensus holds here. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm very concerned that this article is not following the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

The facts as to the cause of the conflict are in dispute and I believe that the standard that applies here is Information Suppression, which states "In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability." I believe that this is taking place in this article specifically in respect to the cause of the conflict. If a reliable source disputes these reports and has provided evidence that refutes the claim it should be linked to but we should assume that the claim is based on factual evidence until it has been demonstrated to be false. I've decided to focus on this issue as a part of the Neutrality Project because I feel it is important enough to warrant attention. Edward Lalone 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • Get back to reality mister Lalone. Even The statemets of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah contradict your claims. He admited exactly in what the Casus belli states. So, are you going to argue with your god? 18:19, 2 September 2006 (CET)
  • I am stating that there is information that is being suppressed which contradicts the claim that Hezbollah entered Israel and kidnapped the soldiers and that this is in violation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and does not allow people to draw their own conclusions based on all available information. Also, greater weight is being given to the current information even though it is an accepted historical methodology to rely on the proximity of the source to the event (that is the closer it is to the event the more valid the source) when determining the weight that should be given the source. There are many other criteria people use for forming their own judgments but they cannot form their own judgment if they do not have all available information because it has been suppressed. Secondary sources such as Wikipedia must maintain objectivity and not suppress information which contradicts othe proximate sources. I believe that your statement to the effect "So, are you are going to argue with your god" and telling me to "get back to reality" was totally unwarranted and inappropriate and also a violation of Wikipedia policy and isn't helping this discussion. However, this is not about your comment instead I disagree with your approach to this issue not because I agree with or disagree with the July 12th reports but instead believe that this information should be available on Wikipedia. The fact that current reports contradict previous reports can be given appropriate consideration by knowledgable and informed users (including yourself). There is nothing to be afraid of in listing as a contradiction these sources. Edward Lalone 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • You don't understand a very simple thing. Both of the sides agreed on that point. We should put different sources if there is no agreement, but there is. Both Hezbollah and the rest of the sane world(you are more than invited to join it) agrees on that point. I am going to found a newspaper and write that USA was conquered by el-Quaeda. There are many people like you that want that to happen and will surely believe it, are you going to publish that in Wikipedia? This is ridiculous. Your source is so ridiculous that even the statements of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,the best representative of the other side, contradicts it. Wish me luch with the newspaper. 12:15, 3 September 2006 (CET)

The Issues

First, on July 12 Michael Hirsch writing for MSNBC wrote "After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the Mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war." [2] Joseph Pannossian writing for AP states "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon..." [3]. Both of these articles were written on July 12th. Both would later change their reports.

Second, according to Reuters the Israeli army "confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier" [4]. This reinforces the previous two reports and adds an additional issue that should be discussed. If the Israeli army did in fact confirm the report that the capture of the soldiers took place inside of Lebanon than the report by AP, and the other wire services which I will mention below is reinforced. Reuters actually reports that the Israeli's confirmed the report that the capture took place inside of Lebanon and not in Israel. In addition to AP and Reuters the Agence France Presse and the Deutsche Presse Agentur wire services confirm in their reports that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. That these wire services would have compiled their reports independent of each other re-inforces the validity of all four reports. That Reuters sought comment from and received confirmation of their story from the Israeli army does much to validate the original reports.

Tewfik has written "This is the original AP report to which we devoted so much discussion many weeks ago, and there is no reason to do it again." So if you do not wish to discuss the AP report we can discuss the Reuters, Agence France Presse or the Deutsche Presse Agentur reports. Yet my objection remains that this information is being suppressed in violation of the NPOV policy by "selectively citing some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it." He also attempts to make the point out that a consensus has been reached and has even suggested that we "should make a list at the top of the Talk page listing the basic points that the consensus holds here." It is not a consensus that we are attempting to reach as to fact. We are not discussing opinion or the point of views but actual important information that would help people understand this conflict and how those here with a POV (regardless if they make up a consensus) are suppressing that information so as to advance their POV. We all have point of views and therefore it is even more important that information that deals with something as important as the cause of the conflict is not suppressed. Edward Lalone 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, we can by all means include the claim if you can find a current source that makes them. All of the reports that you've cited are from the first week. No one is now making these claims. I understand your concern Edward, but I assure you that this is not an issue of POV. Cheers, TewfikTalk 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here is where we disagree. A historian 150 years from now will rely more on the reports of July 12th than on the reports of September 1st because it is an accepted historical methodology to rely on sources in proximity (in time and place) to the event than on sources that are removed from the event (in time and place). It may well be that other sources contradict the information reported by the wire services on the 12th of July but it is information that does exist and should be available. Even if the current reports are correct and the reports of July 12th are incorrect it is essential that the reports of July 12th are available to Wikipedia users (until proven irrefutably to be false) so that they can form their own judgment as to the validity and accuracy of all the sources.
How do we know that the current report is any more accurate than the reports of July 12th? We do not and that is why it is our duty to present these sources objectively. If someone were to read this article without any past knowledge they would automatically assume that the cause of the Israel Lebanon conflict was Hezbollah crossing into Israel and they will go away with that opinion never knowing that the reports of Reuters on September 1st are contradicted by the reports of Reuters on July 12th. They cannot ask themselves, "was Reuters report of July 12th inaccurate or are the current reports of Reuters inaccurate." They will be unwilling to research primary sources which either confirm or disprove the current reports or the previous reports.
We disagree because I do not accept secondary sources written days, months and years after the event as being more reliable than sources that are proximate to the event. So in short here is how I would judge the reports:
  • 1) a primary source (i.e., newspaper report) that was written the day of the event is more reliable than a primarcy source (i.e., newspaper report) the day after the event, or in subsequent days, months, years, decades or centuries,
  • 2) a primary source (i.e., tape, transcript, government document, etc) of the event made on the day of the event by the primary actors is more reliable than a primary source (i.e., newspaper report) of the event made by non-actors,
  • 3) a primary source (i.e., document, transcript, newspaper report, etc) is more reliable than a secondary account (i.e., Wikipedia) of the event,
In summary, the reports of September 1, 2006 are less reliable than the reports of July 12, 2006 and it would take another primary source that is of the same proximity (i.e., made on July 12, 2006) to the event to disprove the reports of July 12, 2006. The source would have to be a more reliable source than the primary source that they refute and of greater quality and quantity. A secondary source such as a newspaper report of these more reliable sources would be sufficient evidence to disprove the reliablity of previous reports. I would gladly accept your thesis that the current news reports are more correct than previous news reports if you could provide a report that proves or at least attempts to prove the claim that the original sources are inaccurate. In my opinion your view that the current reports of Reuters, AP and others are more reliable than reports by these same wire services on the 12th is irrational because it claims that these same wire services that were inaccurate and incorrect in your view in reporting the events are now reliable sources even though they are now further removed from the event. For me to trust these sources it would require that they have proven their previous reports to be false based on other primary sources. They cannot simply change their reports and ignore their previous reports. As I've already noted. I am not really interested in this issue except that I believe that it undermines Wikipedia's NPOV policy by suppressing information which contradicts information that you feel is reliable. I don't think it is appropriate that you and other editors get to decide what is and isn't reliable information and sources. That is best left to the reader. Now if the reports of July 12th are proven to be unreliable than I think it is totally appropriate to ignore them except as they relate to claims made. Edward Lalone 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
What you are overlooking here is that the overwhelming majority of journalists, commentators, and diplomats who have written or spoken on this conflict agree that Hezbollah crossed the Israel-Lebanon border to capture the soldiers. The official UNIFIL report, dated 21 July 2006, also says this. Surely future historians will consider this a significant document! Keep in mind the WP:No original research policy: we are not allowed to present sources that we (in our research) think are important to advance a position that is not widely accepted. If it was the case that the government of Lebanon or Hezbollah was maintaining this version of events you would be justified, but that is not the case. Use some common sense: Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora has repeatedly denounced Israel's retaliation for the kidnappings, calling it "agression" and begging the UN to stop it. The claim that the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were not in Israel at all, but actually participating on a raid inside Lebanese territory, would, if accepted, strengthen Siniora's case considerably. Yet Prime Minister Siniora has never made that claim. Why? Consider also Hezbollah leader Nasrallah's widely publicized statement of regret for the capture of the soldiers. If Hezbollah was simply taking prisoner soldiers who were invading Lebanon what is there to "regret"? Sanguinalis 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You seem to base your assumptions on "the overwhelming majority of journalists, commentators, and diplomats who have written or spoken on this conflict" and their agreement that Hezbollah crossed the Israel-Lebanon border to capture the soldiers. Yet, the majority of journalists and commentators on July 12th said the exact opposite so your decision to rely heavily on their agreement is undermined. This isn't original research and if it were original research than this entire article would be based on original research and therefore the entire article would be a violation of Wikipedia policy but since it is not original research to cite sources that provide information important to this article and to adhere to what those sources say this article and these sources are not in violation of the no original research.
The violation is in the NPOV policy, and specifically in the Information Suppression policy. You commented, "The claim that the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were not in Israel at all, but actually participating on a raid inside Lebanese territory, would, if accepted, strengthen Siniora's case considerably. Yet Prime Minister Siniora has never made that claim. Why?" As I am not Siniora and cannot read minds I will set aside your attempt to imply that a lack of someone saying something somehow supports your position that important information should be suppressed. I have no idea why Siniora's government temporarily supported the claim that the soldiers were captured in Lebanon and when that no longer served their purpose reverse course and settle for appeasement. It's entirely possible the information was inaccurate or false and the Lebanese government knew that and that is why they decided not to pursue that route but whatever their reason the information that was available on July 12th conflicts with the information used in this article and Wikipedia users have a right to have that information made available to them. Even when writing an article like this one it is important to keep in mind that incorrect, or false that played an instrumental part in the early part of this conflict should be noted and referenced. On July 12th a lot of what took place was based on this information and not on the information that the soldiers were captured in Israel and would have affected the decisions made by all interested parties. That alone warrants attention. I see no legitimate reason to suppress this information. I do agree that conclusions should not be drawn in this article from this information because I believe that is best left to the Wikipedia user. Edward Lalone 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You don't understand a very simple thing. Both of the sides agreed on that point. We should put different sources if there is no agreement, but there is. Both Hezbollah and the rest of the sane world(you are more than invited to join it) agrees on that point. I am going to found a newspaper and write that USA was conquered by el-Quaeda. There are many people like you that want that to happen and will surely believe it, are you going to publish that in Wikipedia? This is ridiculous. Your source is so ridiculous that even the statements of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,the best representative of the other side, contradicts it. Wish me luch with the newspaper. 12:15, 3 September 2006 (CET)
Your comments are both offensive and inappropriate. Based on such comments I can only conclude that the real motivation behind suppressing this information has to do with an un-willingness to dis-associate from the issue long enough to consider all available information and Wikipedia policy. This information is clearly being suppressed and it is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy. This information is as reliable as the information this article uses to conclude that the soldiers were captured in Israel and not in Lebanon.
If there is information from a reliable source that disagrees with the information you choose to use it is in my view unethical to suppress that information no matter how ridiculous it may seem. This information is not from a un-reliable source but is taken from primary source documents and therefore every Wikipedia user deserves to have the information available to them. So at minimum a link should be given to one of these articles that contradicts the information that is commonly being referenced here. This could be in the bibliography but as I consider whether a source is reliable (including Wikipedia) I ask myself whether it suppresses information that contradicts or counters the information that is used by that source.
Let's use another example. Let's assume you are reading a book and as you are reading the book you come across information that supports the position that the book is taking but as you read on you cannot find any citation to information or books which contradict the information being used but you know that such information exists as you have read enough books on the subject to know that there is information that does contradict the information the author is using. What would you think of the reliability of that book? I personally would pick it up and throw it in the trash and that is about where I am at with this article. I am about to pick it up and throw it in the trash because in my eyes the suppression of information that contradicts the information in this article that forms the basis of the article is not being fairly presented.
Your comment about starting a newspaper and writing that al-Qaeda defeated the United States goes to show just how unreasonable you are being. Either you accept Reuters, AP, and the other wire services as reliable sources or you must conclude that the majority of what we read in newspapers is unreliable and the basis of this article which comes from such sources is unreliable. Either way it is important that Wikipedia users have this information available to them to make their own conclusions based on all available information. I am not arguing that any source that contradicts other sources should be included here but that when the source that is being used contradicts itself that the information should be included.
I want to thank you all for your comments and clarify that I cannot see any real reason to not include this information in this article (either in the body or the bibliography). Edward Lalone 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your response has nothing to do with my message. Read it again, Take some logics lessons because I can notice some connection problems and stop drinking(Oops, that's forbidden).
Let's be clear that my comments here are not responses to your messages because this is not a message board. If you wish to debate the pros and cons of the issues you can find a forum more suitable for doing so. My comments are based on the nature of this forum which is to discuss the article and Wikipedia policy as it relates to this article and that is why I have chosen to ignore the points made by you and others which are not relevent to the core issue here which is that suppressing information because it is regarded as inaccurate is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I will continue to focus on this core issue in all the comments (not responses) I make here. I am not debating nor do I intend to debate the accuracy of this information as that is irrelevent to the policies in question. The policy clearly states that we are to report information from reliable primary and secondary sources without consideration to accuracy (as opposed to verifiability which is the standard). You may want to put me on the defensive where I only post responses to your comments because that would allow you to divert the flow of the discussion away from policy to the factual accuracy of the information when Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to determine accuracy of information. We let the readers make that decision. Edward Lalone 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edward Lalone, you are welcome to add the position that the raid took place in Lebanon just as soon as you can source it. As of now, there is not a single reliable source that makes this claim, nor do any of the parties involved make this claim. No one (except for on this Talk) makes this claim. Mistakes are always made in reporting news, especially in initial reports that lack clarity. The position that the initial reports from this conflict should be presented as an alternative claim as to what happened is original research, since again, no one claims that these sources were subsequently covered up or any such idea. Again, if an RS actually put forward this argument, then we might include it with the proper weight, but no one does so. I hope I was able to clarify this for you. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tewfik, Wikipedia’s policy governing No Original Research does not apply here as the policy states that “research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.” The Reuters, AP and other reports of July 12th are primary sources and it is appropriate to collect and organize this information and to provide it to Wikipedia’s users in its raw form. If you disagree with the form that is used to disseminate the information you should provide suggestions as to how you would adequately include this information while ensuring that the information remains POV neutral.
I have sought to do this on several occasions and my edits are reverted notwithstanding their POV neutrality. I am cognizant of the fact that this information can be used to develop a point of view yet Wikipedia policy clearly states that we are to “report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.” This is consistent with the information suppression policy.
We can all agree that both Reuters and AP fall within Wikipedia’s scope of reliable sources and therefore we are to report what they have published. I have chosen not to include any “generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of this information” as the secondary sources available to me do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia’s reliable source policy and my own opinions, analyses, and interpretations would constitute original research.
That my opinion is that this information is not accurate constitutes original research and until I am able to include a secondary source to that effect I am required as much as you to refrain from including my opinion and analysis in the article and from suppressing the information. If you have a reliable secondary source that directly refutes the information reported by Reuters and AP on July 12th you should feel free to add it to the article because it would greatly benefit Wikipedia’s users to have current secondary sources that analyze the July 12th reports.
We would all benefit from not having to have this debate every few weeks simply by acknowledging the existence of the reports and to make it clear that we do not look favorably upon inserting POV into the article. I will continue to maintain my stand on this issue because Wikipedia policy is being violated as far as I am concerned in suppressing this information because it is regarded as inaccurate or not current even though Wikipedia does not allow for suppression of information that is published by reliable sources based on our belief that it is inaccurate. Edward Lalone 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with his response. Can you please do us all a favor and go to pray?
I'm talking about Wikipedia policy and that is what I will continue to talk about. That he attempts to make a point about Wikipedia:no original research when that standard does not apply is what I chose to focus on because the issue is that the Information Suppression policy has consistently been violated in respect to this information. As for my prayer habits they are my concern and not yours. I will not discuss or respond to issues that are not relevent to the core issue being discussed including prayer. Such comments are both inappropriate and irrelevent and a violation of Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Obviously whoever made the prayer comment was out of line, but that doesn't change the issue. You are trying to insert the obviously mistaken initial reports, and which all subsequent reports from the same organisations have contradicted, and not even acknowledged. No one claims that these reports are accurate. Not Hezbollah, not the government of Lebanon, not the UN, and most importantly in this regard - not the media, including the organisations that originally reported them. The only context in which they are relevant would be to illustrate the media's confusion in the very beginning, however that is hardly something unique to this event, and while mention was made in the past, it was removed due to space constraints and a lack of relevance. The reason that most editors who have tried to insert it to this point has been to to imply the argument that it is not clear where the raid happened - this is totally contradicted by all verifiable sources, and thus constitutes a degree of original research. Cheers, TewfikTalk 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that there have been no peace between Israel and Lebanon so there has been a low intensity warfare going on for may years. // Liftarn

General Discussion

Latest comment: 19 years ago129 comments26 people in discussion

Earlier discussions


Please do not modify these archived discussions.

Propaganda

Here is an article about what Israel wants to be seen as: They want to creat events that will have the Arabs think that they are, i quote from an Israeli: "The Jews Are Crazy": article, opinion, amnesty --Striver 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are lots of doubts about the reporting from the Libanon side. Reports that Hezbollah threatened reporters. A few links : http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

These are encyclopedic quality imho, and quite NPOV. They seriously discredit one side of the conflict, but they do not say anything about the other side, they're just looking at the reporters themselves. What do you think ?

I think not encyclopedic at all, a very POV site, is zombietime.

The zombietime article has been discredited here and in The Australian. Iorek85 07:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The zombietime replied to the Australian "rebuttal", and is quite convincing: His only "evidence," yet again, is the testimony of the people who claim to have been attacked. And though he informs his readers that he went back to "inspect the damaged ambulances" he took no pictures to either validate his claims or to challenge the evidence here. . It may not be NPOV but it adheres to facts, and the pictures don't lie. It clearly shows that any claims that Lebanese ambulances were hit by Israel are false, since there is no supporting evidence. It was not "discredited". Moreover, the reporter that was sent to reinforce the accusations returned with empty hands. --Gabi S. 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

At what point do we move past these contradictory "estimates"?

It's been a week, now. At what point do we stop using these varying "estimates" from the tourism minister, etc., and start using Israel's confirmed Hezbollah headcount? At what point should these "estimates" be disregarded for statistical purposes, given the IDF is also releasing confirmed kill counts? Thanks, Italiavivi 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The IDF has one list of confirmed kill - actual names of combatants killed, obtained when they have the actual body. In addition, there is an estimate of Hezbollah fighters killed, whose identity is unknown - such as thoe killed when in air attacks on areas not in IDF hands. These lists are not contradictory nor are they mutaully exclusive. they are not "estimates from the tourism minister", but IDF estimates published by WP:RS. There is no reason not to use them in the article. I remind you that WP policy is verifiability, not truth. If you are the anon editor 206.255.1.73 - sign in before editing. Isarig 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
And yet the IDF is not the only government entity releasing "estimates." So long as Israel's government allows both its ministers and its military to make "estimates," all such estimates should be included (if they are to be included at all). Using only the highest of such estimates is irresponsible, in addition to looking quite POV. Italiavivi 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Give it up. First of all, you were the one who insisted we use IDF esimates only, not gov't official's estimates (when you thought those IDF estimates were lower, that is). You are using an old report issued while the war was still raging. The current article is both post-war, and more current than your article. Using low estimates from a week before the war ended can only be described a POV pushing. What would your reaction be if I added an estimate of Lebanese civilian casualties of "300", from two weeks before the war ended? I have several of these on hand, just say the word...Isarig 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Incorrect. I have said that we should use IDF confirmed kills only, and leave the varying "estimates" out of the infobox altogether. I will not "give it up" in the face of blatant POV-pushing and wikilawyering on your part. Italiavivi 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't lie. In your edit summary you said "estimates from the tourism minister have no place" - but now, when IDF estimates are higher, you are suddenly in favor of including these estimates, which earlier you contended "had no place". Are you in favor of using only confirmed numbers for Lebanese civilian casualties as well? Why the double standard? I repeat: the article you are using is from August 10 - nearly two weeks before the war ended. Of course it is going to have lower estimates than an article published after the ceasefire. Why on earth would we wnat to use a figure 2 weeks out of date? It is blatant POV pushing of the worst kind. Isarig 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are getting way too long. I think that post conflict, the news links are no longer needed unless they give a special insight to the conflict - before, they were good as they allowed quick access to updated news, but that's irrelevent now. Maybe even the blogs, since the conflict is over. Iorek85 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

New image for box...

Image:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict titlepic.png What do you think, I think it would be proper to show the several aspects of the war.--TheFEARgod 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like it! Nice work. Iorek85 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I'm not crazy about it (sorry =D) - something about the coloration just doesn't appeal to me. Also, it might be slightly more interesting if we include one of the Hezbollah rocket force pictures. Cheers, TewfikTalk 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The bottom left picture is Haifa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.121.147 (talk)
I realise that - but that's not my complaint. TewfikTalk 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Map of lebanon Info Box

Just a remark that the INFO box on the lebanees map depicting Israely bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg) is rather biased against Israel. The remark that "Factories,warehouse..... CHURCHES AND MOSQUES ... were bombed" is false. The remark that "Reported Israel use of internationaly banned bombs" is False.

Agree. I've created a derivitive map that retains the useful info in the map, but blanks the POV "fact box" Isarig 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The rest of the info is accurate, why do you think that that particular claim isn't? Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate, no, but isn't far from the truth. Israel has been criticised for using cluster munitions on civilians, as well as phosphorus weapons. And what is the rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" in the comments? Just becuase it says something an Israeli doesn't like, it's got to be from Hezbollah? The orginal was fine, but the edited version is good, too. I just fear we'll end up stripping the article of any claims because someone will find them POV.Iorek85 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate, but it is at least not POV. You agree that 'Internationally banned bombs isn't accurate' - so what are you complaining about? Surely we don't want information that we both agree is not accurate in an encyclopedia. The "rubbish about "non hezbollah sources" " appeared in the comments of the original file, and I merely copied them into my summary. Feel free to edit it out if you like. Isarig 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
If the info is accurate, then it isn't POV, is it? I've said why I don't mind the the change, but also why the removal of anything that offends anyone as POV worries me. Iorek85 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
reread what I wrote - "I don't know that the rest of the info is accurate". In simple english: The map says: "Israel attacked ___location X". I don't know if that is true, but it is not blatantly POV, so it stays, for now. The map used to say "Israel used internationally banned weapons". That I know to be false (and you agree) PLUS it is blatantly POV, so out it goes. And BTW, if removing POV statements worries you, you should not be editing WP. Isarig 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've no problem with removing that statement. But you removed all of the statements, including the one that the first poster here had a problem with. And be careful not to mistake NPOV with No Points of View. I've no problem with removing POV - but I do have a problem with removing information because people with no evidence claim it is POV when it isn't. If both 'sides' had their way, there would be no information in the article, because it's all "POV". Listing civilian deaths makes Israel look bad, listing Hezbollah as the initators of the conflict is POV, etc etc etc. You end up with not a balanced article, but something which says "There was some sort of a conflict that could also be called a war in which people of various types may or may not have died. Generally, it was considered bad, but some people think killing people is justified. There were combatants, but how many and at what level they were involved is disputed. The conflict might have ended with a ceasefire, but It might not have because there was still fighting after the ceasefire, but that might or might not have been a breach of the ceasefire." Just so we're not getting off on a tangent (my fault) here; I don't mind removing that one claim. I do mind removing all of the claims without proof they aren't accurate, for "POV" reasons. I don't mind removing them overall becuase the map is just one of "areas struck in Lebanon" - the rest of the details are already in the article. Iorek85 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The image is not in the public ___domain and can not be used in an altered condition without obtaining permission. Regardless of any factual errors in the sidebar, the main focus of the image is to show the distribution of attacks on Lebanon by Israel and it seems to do that accurately. If you want to modify the image and post a new one, you must obtain permission. I nominated the altered image for deletion and it seems to have already happened. Carbonate 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are mistaken. The original image was uploaded with a CC license, which clearly reads "You are free:
   * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
   * to make derivative works
   * to make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions: by Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. sa Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. I have created a derivative work, which is allowed, since I have properly attributed the work and disributed it under an identical license. I can't find your nomination for deletion - could you pint me to it? Isarig 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Displaced is blatantly inaccurate

This term is used incorrectly throughout the article and extremely skews the degree of damage to civilian infrastructure.

1,000,000 is the widely cited number of Lebanese civilians that were fleeing their homes for the time of the Israeli attacks. Der Spiegel writes about Uno estimating that 200,000 Lebanese were not able to return to their homes. 130,000 homes are said to be damaged or destroyed (50,000 of which in southern Beirut suburbs). The GOL Higher Relief Council (HRC) reports that nearly 975,000 Lebanese fled their homes at the height of emergency. It estimates that 718,000 displaced persons have returned to their home areas since August 14, leaving 257,000 internally displaced persons (I guess the rounding is safe).

However, I don't see the number of 500,000 Israeli civilians anywhere. NYT speaks of 300,000, and I don't know where they got their numbers from. People that stayed temporarily at friends' or relatives' homes to avoid getting hurt by rockets are hardly displaced. In any case, I guess the number of Israeli civilians that are not back in their homes by now is more like...uhm...10. I am waiting for someone to source reliable numbers.

I am going to edit the article according to these data points and will remove the action item from the top of this page. Kosmopolis 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Totally removing the reference to one side's displaced is hardly fair, even if the other side was more severely damaged - we must let the facts speak for themselves. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please show me a single source other than nyt (which btw states 300k, not 500k) that mentions Israeli civilians being "displaced". "Displaced" means either "home is gone" or "not allowed to return". Even if every single one of Hezbollah's rockets had destroyed the home of a family of 4 (which was not the case), you had roughly 4 * 4000 = 16,000 people displaced. The number of 500,000 is misleading, unjustified, unsourced and totally nonsensical (btw, same goes for "1,000,000" Lebanese). We must let the facts speak for themselves. Kosmopolis 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time to research now, but do you actually dispute the NYT claim? What is gained by erasing reference to the other sides' displaced? And who said that displaced is limited to "home is gone"? TewfikTalk 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Displaced" is surely a standard term, as in "internally displaced people" (IDPs), the standard term used for war refugees within a country. -- ChrisO 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
In any case, we need some way to distinguish people who just moved away for a while from people who no longer have a home, and will never have. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

How can you know who "will never have" a home? Displaced doesn't mean that one's home has been destroyed - I don't think anyone is arguing that the homes of 1,000,000 Lebanese were destroyed. I'm sure that you're only acting out of the best intention, but totally removing reference to one side's displaced doesn't serve to increase neutrality in this article, so I'm restoring the passage. We must recognise that suffering can be experienced by both sides in a conflict like this. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tewfik, your editwar is getting ridiculous and you are wasting everybody's time (yours included). I see that you don't have time for research, but you do have time to continue deleting sourced information. First of all, where does your number of 500k come from? You realize that you keep reverting to unsourced information, don't you? Secondly, yes, I dispute the NYT claim in that it is technically incorrect. These people were not displaced, neither the NYT-reported 300k Israelis nor the elsewhere-reported 1,000k Lebanese. Displaced are exactly those who were forced to flee and CANNOT RETURN now. Please show me one source that mentions Israeli civilians who were not able to return to their homes. Yes, Israelis did suffer in this conflict, but your way of artificially trying to "balance the suffering-account" makes me sick. This is not about "neutrality", it is about facts, and I hope you are honest enough to acknowledge the fact that 3,970 ragged amateur rockets cannot possibly make 500,000 people homeless. Kosmopolis 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
2Tefwik: I didn't say anything about the number. The only thing is that we must use some way to separate people who moved out just in case to return a month later and people who can't return (and, with Lebanese infrastructure removed, won't probably be able to). This is related to both sides. However, I agree that a few thousands of light improvised rockets, most of which missed completely, are far less effective than massive air raids, so numbers might differ significantly. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't know where you got the idea that these were "light improvised rockets". Perhaps you are confused with the Gaza conflict. The rockets that Hezbollah fired in this conflict were state-of-the art military grade heavy artillery rockets, some with warheads as large as 100Kg of explosives. Take a look at [[Fajr 5] and Khaibar-1. Isarig 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
From article you linked to: "...The Khaibar-1 rocket reportedly has four times the destructive power (about 100 kilograms of explosives) and range of Katyusha rockets, Hezbollah's until-now standard rocket launcher". Fajr-5 is other name for the same thing. Hezbollah tech level and weaponry are, according to available info, over 60 years old, only replicating a WWII weapon. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
None of these are "improvised rockets". The standard Katyusha has a warhead weighing 22KG, and according to the WP article "are able to deliver a devastating amount of explosives to an area target in a short period of time" - compared to other military-grade artillery systems. The fact that the original Katyusha was developed in WWII is irrelevant. And contrary to what you claim the tech level of Hezbollah rivals that of most modern armies - including state of the art surface-sea missiles, SAMs, advanced AT misiles etc.. Isarig 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but you are currently trying to redefine what displaced means. We are not talking about displaced at 01:04, 22 October 2025 UTC [refresh], but rather the total displaced throughout the entire conflict. The USAID report that you are citing says:

Nearly 975,000 Lebanese fled their homes at the height of emergency, but the HRC estimates that 718,198 displaced persons have returned to their home areas since August 14. Most of the remaining 255,986 internally displaced persons (IDPs) are staying with host families.

There are lots of possible reasons for why people haven't returned home (no electricity, water, medical facilities), but it is original research to try and tie the 255k number to 'cannot return now because homes were destroyed'. As for sources, it seems the 500k number for Israeli displaced comes from the HRW reports here and here, though I recall seeing them elsewhere if you seriously dispute this number. I'm sorry that you 'feel sick', but I would hope that you assume good faith and respond to these arguments. TewfikTalk 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As for definitions, of course there is no exclusive causality between number of homes destroyed vs. number of people not returning. Furthermore, "home destroyed" is not per se part of my understanding of IDP—sorry if you had the impression. I think of IDPs in terms of "not being able to return", thus reflecting the involuntariness. Contrary to "refugee", the term "IDP" lacks a definition beyond basic terms (see Who is an IDP), but as there is no aspect of time weaved into the concept (see this UNHCR/Brookings Refugee Survey Quarterly paper), I will restate my earlier assumptions and say: yes, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs. As for sources, HRW were the first to report 500k, saying "authorities believe that up to half the population has left the area" ("authority" presumably being the Israeli gov). The Norwegian Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimates the number at 300k-500k. They cite the Israeli gov as well and Brookings' Khalid Koser, who himself speaks of "more than 300,000 northern Israelis". Notice that Koser also refers to HRW press releases, so we may end up where we started: at HRW's 500k (which may or may not derive from Israeli gov). Now, I have profound distrust for a human rights org that resides on the most expensive street in the world, but nevertheless, I do not oppose including these refs, and I support the current revision. As for feeling sick: the numbers of casualties (not reports thereof) among involved parties represent absolute truths and—to a certain extent—absolute measures of human suffering. In my opinion, this should manifest accordingly in the description of the event. Kosmopolis 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I received this impression from your edit summary: tewfik, how about US gov relief effort as a source? "displaced" means "home is gone" or "not allowed to return" (see talk). however, i stand corrected, it's 256k, not 257k. now go do your homework. Since you seem to agree that a million Lebanese and 500k Israelis were at one point IDPs, then I cannot understand why you resist saying that, and instead choose to only document who is still an IDP. Do you propose we remove all mention of IDPs in a few weeks, or however long it takes for the remaining 255k to be settled, when there will no longer be any? TewfikTalk 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I told you, I do not resist saying that. According to the definition, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs, and I support the current revision as it is concerning this. What I oppose is that you seemingly intended to make no distinction whatsoever between people who returned to their homes and people who couldn't. Is this your understanding of "neutrality"? Kosmopolis 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The operative word here is concise. Everyone is a temporary IDP - they are only IDPs until they aren't. The distinction about who can return home and who can't is totally unsupported by the sources. All we know is who has returned so far, and who has yet to. TewfikTalk 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the definition, the Israelis were—at least temporarily—IDPs, unlike the 256,000 Lebanese, who are IDPs as of now. The distinction about who can return home and who can't is totally unsupported by the sources, indeed. Are you saying that those 256,000 Lebanese could return if they wanted to? Kosmopolis 15:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is extremely bad form to claim that a content-reversion is a reversion of vandalism. Please don't do this again.
The 256k (assuming that is still the number) are only IDPs until they return home - there no source that says they can never return home. And there is no reason to say that because people did return home, we should not say they were once displaced. Do you think that when the 256K return home, we should no longer mention that they were displaced?
In any event, the majority of your RVV [sic] was just a restoration of detail that is already included in the article, and does not belong in the Lead. TewfikTalk 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You're trying to make the article worse by preventing it from being improved, that's vandalism. When did I say that the 256k could never return home? The passage now says: Over 900,000 Lebanese [...] were displaced, as were about 300,000 Israelis [...]. Even after the ceasefire, 256,000 Lebanese have remained internally displaced. What's wrong with that? Again, what you call "detail" is a summarization of the scale of destruction that took place. It is included in other articles that this one points to, and it is summarized in the lead. Kosmopolis 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Treated for shock???

Are we now going to add this important information for every other conflict or will it be reserved for Middle East exclusively? Seriously, this kind of (laughable) statistics side by side with thousands of dead and mass graves makes this article hardly encyclopedic. What was the point in addinig it? To show that Lebanese do not treat their people for shock? I suggest removing this "treated for shock" altogether. --Magabund 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's really funny. --Hossein.ir 11:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It does seem inconsistent to single out a particular kind of injury - we don't list "treated for blast injuries", "treated for burns" etc. I suggest either removing this or merging it into the "injured" figures (assuming that "injured" doesn't already include "treated for shock"). -- ChrisO 11:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Shock was originally included because the Israeli casualties listed shock, while the Lebanese made no mention of it. To list only the non shock casualties for Israel, and all for Lebanon would be "unfair" to Israel (as Lebanon might be mostly shock), while counting shock as an injury would be "unfair" to Lebanon (as Lebanon might not include shock). Hence, listing shock separately. Iorek85 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why not simply omit shock altogether? As I said, it's very inconsistent to single out one particular type of injury, no matter which side the figure represents. -- ChrisO 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I strongly support leaving it in, everything else is misleading. Just look at this quote from Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: [...] Hezbollah has fired about 3,900 rockets into Israel [...] killing 44 civilians and 106 soldiers including 12 reserve soldiers, and wounding some 1400 civilians. Someone has taken this 1,400 number and just declared 875 shocked people as 875 wounded civilians. Big difference and a lot of irresponsibilty on the editor's side. The Hezbollah rocket campaign was not a military success, and you are making one out of it. Kosmopolis 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I would welcome if someone had numbers about wounded Lebanese civilians, but a dead:wounded ratio of 3:10 seems reasonable given the tactics that were implemented.Reply
Shock is a temporary emotional/mental state, not an injury or physical condition. Each person who returns to where their homes were to find rubble could be treated for shock too. I think including this 'shock' thing is totally unreasonable and doesn't not serve to do anything more than make the list of casualties on both sides appear less skewed than they are. -Killa4luv

Amesty's accusations

"Amnesty International called on Israel to consider refraining from the use of depleted uranium munitions..." is a false accusation. Israel did not ever use such weapons, not even in the 2006 Lebanon conflict. The fact that it didn't use it acts as a counter-balance to the accusation, and doesn't need any proof. On the contrary, if someone claims that Israel did use such weapons, then supporting evidence from reliable sources must be provided. It would be a distorted POV to leave Amnesty's accusations on the article without mentioning that they have no relationship to reality. --Gabi S. 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you have some evidence of this, then please, put it in. Until then, you can't say Amnesty is wrong without evidence. It's not at all POV to leave a comment unrefuted when you can't refute it. Iorek85 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Amnesty called Israel not to use depleted uranium. Israel didn't use depleted uranium. These are simple facts. You keep deleting it, but I can't prove what has not been done. You want only one side (Amnesty's accusations) to remain in the article - this is not NPOV, you should show both sides of the issue. --Gabi S. 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's rich. "Israel never used them and my word is proof enough that they didn't, but if they did you would still have to prove that they did because your word isn't proof." Does that about sum up your arrgument? Carbonate 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it not the policy of Wikipedia that an accusation must be proven to be fact (i.e. Israel used cluster-bombs), rather than a accusation needs to be disproved (i.e. Israel has not proven that it did not use cluster-bomnbs). For example, Hezbollah used missles designed to kill as many people as possible due to the recovery of thousands of pellets.

This is a major problem for Wikipedia. Using organizations comments as fact has become a trademark of Wikipedia. However, many of these organizations have shown bias and can no longer be used as a factual source. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and many other agencies have made statements that were later proven incorrect. Whether they knew this at the time the statements were made is open to debate. One way of resolving this issue is to contain a section in this and other articles called "Accusations made during a current event". It may only take a few days, a few weeks, a few months or many years, but the accusations can become facts. It would be wonderful for there to be organizations free from any bias and any political motives whose statements could be used as facts, but, these days, that does not seem to exist. user:mnw2000 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Screw AI, they're in bed with Hezbollah, anyway—it's a bunch of islamofascist crackheads spouting propaganda. I tell you, the IAF dropped pink balloons, and that's all there is to that. Kosmopolis 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
And don't forget the IDF. They can lie better than the rest. Carbonate 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mnw2000, above you wrote: "Are there any honest brokers out there anymore? You have to admit that democratic governmeents are being held to a higher standard than non-democratic instituations by these so-called non-political organizations [AI, HRW, etc]? This, by itself, is unfair and shows the bias." But shouldn't democratic governments be held to a higher standard than non-democratic ones? Isn't it reasonable to expect more excellence in the actions of the governments of the USA or Israel or Sweden, than, say, of the governments of North Corea or Sudan? After all the actions of a democratic government reflect on the entire population, and I daresay reflect on the very principle of democracy. Conversely should one's expectations of the democratic government of Israel be the same to one's expectations of the governments of North Corea or Sudan, wouldn't this be demeaning to Israel? - You write that AI, HRW, IRC, UN have all been wrong sometimes in some of their statements. What other organizations would you suggest are more reliable as a source of information about current wars? Dianelos 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Suggestion: Since Amnesty's call to Israel to refrain from using depleted uranium did not materialize (Israel did not use such weapons - there would be clear evidence if it did), I suggest to delete the whole accusation paragraph. It is irrelevant. Please write your opinions here; I will wait a couple of days before changing it. --Gabi S. 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Done. --Gabi S. 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The human and material costs of the war / what else belongs in the lead

When the subject matter is a war one of the most important pieces of information that interests people and helps them understand what really happened is to learn about the destruction caused by this war. I understand it’s difficult to maintain neutrality in a subject as emotionally charged as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Precisely for this reason I find it particularly useful to include facts about this conflict’s human and material costs on both sides, so that the readers can build their concept about the war based on objective data. I think that to deny the readers such information is unconscionable. Tewfik claims that such lists don’t belong here. Why? Is there any piece of information in this list that is redundant or insignificant in an encyclopedia? Tewfik also claims that this information should not be put in the lead. Why not? I think that the consequences of a war are one of the most basic facts about it and should be in the lead. So before deleting this well-referenced and relevant information for the third time Tewfik please state your reasons here.

Incidentally, the other important information I would like to have in the lead is about the reasons that led to this war. The article’s lead as it now stands leaves the reader with the impression that Israel bombed and invaded Lebanon because of the killing of three and the capture of two of its soldiers on July 12. I personally find this ludicrous and actually unfair for Israel. I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to correct this, but isn’t it fair to state that the reason for Israel’s actions was the increasing strength of Hezbollah military presence north of Israel’s border and the menace this represented for Israel - and that Hezbollah’s raid was only the spark that started the conflagration? And wouldn’t it be fair to state that the reason of Hezbollah’s actions on July 12 was to achieve a prisoner exchange of Israel, which holds thousands of Palestinians as well as a few Lebanese? Dianelos 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your stance on the intro. Numbers don't lie and are apolitical, and the more we have, the better. The striking aspect of this conflict (and the one most widely reported on) is the degree to which civilian life and civilian infrastructure was involved. It is not so much its political implications (local, national, regional or world-wide), the role of the Lebanese government, the involvement of Syria, Iran or Israel's long-term strategy, but the sheer scale of destruction on the part of IDF. However, I would also like to see more numbers from the Israeli side. Regarding the reasons that led to this war, we will have to wait until senior Israeli military officials join the ranks of WP editors (i.e. forever). All I know is that disarming paramilitary units usually does not involve massive air raids and conventional tactics. Kosmopolis 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This information is already included in the appropriate parts of the article. The WP:Lead is not the place to list all the destruction caused in the conflict, especially not to only one side. And whatever underlying tensions and reasons may have been present, the casus belli is not disputed, and it should not be replaced with analysis. TewfikTalk 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you don't want all the destruction listed there, why do you delete all the other valid parts, too? For example:
- The conflict killed over 1000 Lebanese, mainly civilians, and over 150 Israelis, mainly soldiers.
vs.
- 211 members of Hezbollah militia and allied factions, 119 Israeli soldiers, 1,187 Lebanese civilians and 44 Israeli civilians were killed.
Which one is more objective?
- Israel's estimated 4,500 bombing raids
Who needs estimates when we have official information? The Air Force has confirmed 12,000+ combat missions. Why do you delete information about the Navy's part in this? Why do you delete information concerning the strategic targets? Don't you think it's an essential part of the conflict to know what the targets were? WP:Lead states that the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. At least it is beginning to move in that direction. Kosmopolis 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, the operative word is concise. The specifics are for the most part already included in the article. If they aren't, feel free to include them in a neutral manner, but they do not belong in the Lead. TewfikTalk 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Concise" meaning exactly what? Hiding information that is essential in understanding the conflict? What is non-NPOV about the description as it is, now? I am not alone in thinking that those numbers belong in the lead, and the passage has already been copy-edited by other editors, so please stop vandalising. Kosmopolis 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, please review the definition of vandalism. There is nothing "hidden," as the relevant numbers are already included in the appropriate parts of the article body - if you feel something is missing, include it in a neutral manner. However the WP:Lead is not the place for a detailed fleshing out of the article or a listing of all the damage, especially when it is one sided. TewfikTalk 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're trying to make the article worse, that's vandalism. People who come here expect a concise overview of the article, and that's what the lead currently is. You still haven't answered what's non-NPOV about the passage. What you call "fleshing-out" is a summary of human and material cost. The section you keep deleting deals with casualties, Israeli efforts, Hezbollah efforts, Israeli IDPs, Lebanese IDPs and environmental damage, everything backed up by reputable sources. I still would like to hear your explanation on why this is one-sided. Kosmopolis 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

chart of casualties

Does anyone know of a chart (or could make one) that shows the percentages of casualties suffered by each side? Carbonate 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be too hard to whip up in excel, I'd imagine. Wouldn't it be better in Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, though? Iorek85 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Bombing Chart

The bombing chart provided by samidoun.org should be removed or changed to something coming from an NPOV source. Samidoun.org, while primarily a relief organization, is not the Red Cross or even Amnesty International. Their website contains materials demonizing Israel as racist and they definitely are non neutral. Claymoney 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The picture is factually correct, I see no reason why it should be changed... if you can prove that its not factually correct, than fine, but as long as it is factually correct it should remain; Amnesty International and the Lebanese Red Cross are not the only two organisations out there, and the chart is very informative. What the organisations claims Israel is or isn't does not in any way make the chart inaccurate. Amjra 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There has been concerns raised about the text in the box. The most valid of those being the bombing of churches and mosques and the use of illeagl munitions statments are false. BUT, the US is investigating the illeagle use of cluster bombs and it is very difficult to prove that not a single bomblet fell on a church or mosque. Even if these individual items are inaccurate, the bulk of the material presented in the map is the locations and numbers of bombs being dropped and no one has yes shown that to be innaccurate in any way. Carbonate 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's an interesting reversal of the onus of proof - since we can't prove something is false - it stays, even if the ones making the claim can't support it. I've already addressed your issue - and created a derivative work of that map, that has all the locations and # of attacks intact, but removed the POV text. You removed this map. Why? Isarig 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why was this changed to war?

Was there a discussion on this? I don't think any of the involved parties made and official declaration of war... Should we have a vote to move it back to conflict? Carbonate 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

While you may believe in wikivoting — I urge against that and opt for careful discussion, as was the ten day-long discussion over the renaming; but regardless, please do not create an inconsistency between the lead and the title; that is really basic style criteria. El_C 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to know, as well. User:El C moved it, without comment, and despite the fact there is no consensus on moving it. Iorek85 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but there will be no vote. I moved it for the reasons stated, after waiting ten days. And I understood that there was consensus. El_C 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
7 to 5 is a consensus? I don't think so. Iorek85 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
That certainly wasn't the tally at the time of the re-naming, nor is it the tally now. I submitt that you are confused on this point. El_C 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry - you're correct. You renamed it at 4.52am GMT, Sep 5 - the voting was at 6:5 in favour of War at that time. Even less of a consensus. Not only did you move it while the poll to see what it should be named was still running, you moved it when people were roughly evenly split on the issue. I'd appreciate if you'd move it back and wait to see what the poll comes up with. Iorek85 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What voting? There was no voting. Nobody voted for anything. There was a discussion about the renaming, as there should have been. My rationals were not contested in any substantive way and I'm not interested in creating a poll about it after that. I'm not moving it back. El_C 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

All wars are conflicts but not all conflicts are wars. So if this event can reasonably be called a war then I think it should, as this expression conveys more information. A month long event with thousands of bomb raids and thousands of rocket launches - and where one fourth of a country's population is displaced - does look like a war to me. In any case most of the world thinks so too: If one googles israel lebanon 2006 conflict one gets 26 million hits; if one googles israel lebanon 2006 war one gets 58 million hits. In google's news section the results are 3,400 and 5,520 respectively. In google's news section the results are 14,400 and 33,900 respectively. Dianelos 14:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dianelos has the right idea here, although such a Google search is not the most accurate method. The title should only be changed if we can show that the new title is more notable. As I've said a few time previously, we must analyse the notation in the media etc, and see what they most commonly use, taking into account the statements from all sides and any academic positions on the matter. TewfikTalk 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would say that before this can be called a war, someone actually has to declare war on someone else. I have not heard of that happening by anyone. For this reason I would consider "conflict" to be appropriate regardless of what the hebrew wiki or the media is calling it. Carbonate 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether you like polls or not, El C, is irrelevant - the page was being moved in accordance with the process on WP:RM. Since the page is protected from moves, only an admin can move the page back. Iorek85 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Good move. Seems the Israel-Hezbollah option is going to prevail also --TheFEARgod 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This move should be reversed ASAP. There was no consensus for the move. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Iorek85 and JBG seemingly intent on maintaining paralysis and preventing substantive discussion. El_C 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bollocks. You're the one who moved it without consensus, not me. I welcome substantive discussion, just as much as I welcome the opinions of the editors who voted in the polls according to procedure. Iorek85 02:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
And moving the article while there is an ongoing discussion of where to move it is real productive, El C. Here's a thought, wait until the discussion here is done before moving the article to save on rework. You complained here about Arthur Rubin abusing his admin bit to revert your move, what about your abuse of your admin bit to move it away in the first place. --Bobblehead 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I said that I was going to rename it if there was no strong objections, and there was no strong objection. There is no excuse for wheel-warring, even if it serves your own ends. El_C 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well there was no consensus to move to the name you chose arbitrarily and not moving does not equal paralysis. There is substantive discussion going on, you're just chosing to ignore it. Also there are obviously strong objections now ;). JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Israel's prime minister Olmert calls this a war: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning" in this Times interview on Aug 2. On Sept 4 he keeps calling this a war: "The order of priorities of the government has changed since the war in Lebanon", see here. Lebanon's president Lahoud calls this a war too: "Before the attack I said Hezbollah couldn't be disarmed and still after the war no one can disarm it" in this interview. The president of the American Lebanese Foundation calls this a war too in his article "Are there real winners in the Lebanon war?"; an interesting read BTW. I personally think it's more precise to call this a war, and I think most people who go to wikipedia to search for this article will use "war" as a keyword, so using "conflict" in the title will make it more difficult for readers to find the information they are looking for. Dianelos 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved back in response to lack of consensus for move, as well you would know if you read the arguments. Some of the "votes" for conflict gave valid reasons. I was assuming that User:El C had agreed not to move the article without consensus. Do we need to take this to RfAr again? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Lack of consensus is your (misguided) interpretation. You over-ruled an admin action without discussion. I was not aware there was an RfAr (again?), but regardless, I would'nt at all mind your wheel warring being looked into there. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nope. User:El C said that he would move the article unless there was strong objections. That is out of process — moves should only be made if there is consensus. There were objections, clearly showing there was no consensus for the move.
I've never brought an RfAr before, but there was an RfC on this article already, which suggested that moves should not be done without consensus. If someone else brings up an RfAr, and lets me know, I'll make a statement. I think it's time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mister Arthur Rubin, you will be a party to such an RfAr, not merely a commentator. El_C 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suppose so. Still, I was following process WP:RM; even if I believed your move was made without requesting comment at first, it was still made without consensus; and you never got around to fixing double-redirects, as should be done with any move, requiring Admin or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, can you not use italics instead of bold? It's much more understated. Regardless of what happnes here, if I ever see you wheel warring again, I'll be filing the RfAr before you're able to, belatedly, start explaining why you wheel warred. El_C 14:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You could not have followed process because you wheel warred. You had to discuss the matter first, and you didn't, which is way out of process. El_C 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is no wheel war here. This page was protected against vandalism, not due to an ongoing content dispute. There is no prohibition against making content related changes (which is what a move is) when the protection is for vandalism. Further, if you consider moving a protected page to be wheel warring, then both El C and Arthur Rubin wheel warred, since it was protected at the time of both moves. But let's not claim wheel warring when it does not properly apply. NoSeptember 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but wrong. You don't over-rule (move war revert) an admin action without discussion. El_C 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not all admin actions are created the same, content actions on vandalism protected pages are not the same as reversing blocks or deletions, and you know this. Don't confuse an edit war with a wheel war. By your definition, every time an admin edits the Main Page he is wheel warring by reverting at least in part a previous admin. That page, like this page, is only protected from vandalism. You may want to check WP:WW again, the actions on this page do not fall into that policy. NoSeptember 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, but, IIRC in the Israeli Apartheid matter, moves of move-protected pages were found to be Admin actions, and reverting such actions, even if the actions were unjustified, were found to be wheel warring. I should have remembered that. Still, are we going to have to bring this to RfAr so I can avoid having multiple messages on my talk page and move the discussion to one place? (It's presently spread in three sections of this page, and on WP:AN/I, User Talk:El C and my talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see. Well you can tell that I don't watch this page or related discussions about this page or middle east topics in general. I imagine that such a ruling was based on a history of page move warring. Is there a history of move warring on this page? If not, it seems premature to apply that standard to this page. It seems hard to believe that ArbCom intended to apply a rule to thousands of articles that did not have a previous history of move warring. But you guys may know the particulars better. NoSeptember 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware of any rulings on this page. AR could have informed me of these before move-reverting me, but he didn't, thus, sowing all this discord for naught. All I know is that I facilitated a discussion for ten days, a discussion that at the time of the move enjoyed consensus. It appears someone started a poll about the War rename two days after I had initiated this much more substantive discussion. A discussion that kept being moved (and archived!) against my wishes. It seems impossible to get anything done on this talk page. You can't start a discussion without the thoughtless specter of "let's vote on it." I'm out. El_C 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Depends what you mean by move warring. A quick check of the move history for 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, 2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict, and 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis finds 6 moves between July 13 and July 22 when Cyde move protected the article here with instructions not to move against consensus. --Bobblehead 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, well, I did not look at the move history closely, nor should that be key to any of this. I saw that the Hebrew wiki renamed their entry to War, so that reminded me that I wanted to see the English one renamed to war quite a while back before that, but never got around to it. Then I facilitated a ten days discussion (which obstructively kept being archived and moved around from the foot) on re-naming it. After ten days (at.the.time.of.the.move, not after) there was consensus for it, so I moved it. End of story. But I am no longer interested in speaking to you at this time. So don't waste your breath, I am leaving this page for a long while now, after having extensively contributed to it, if I may add. El_C 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Haaretz, one of the main Israeli newspapers also calls this a war, in fact it calls it the "Second Lebanon War". See here. [Yedioth_Ahronoth], another Israeli daily, also calls this "Lebanon war", see here. So does CNN, see here. So does BBC, see here. Frankly it's hard for me to understand why so much energy is expended in discussing this issue; why not change "conflict" into "war" in the title and invest our time on improving the article itself? Dianelos 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
If it's not a war, it's not a war, even if every newspaper on the planet were to call it a war. Valtam 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
True. In this case though it's like every newspaper and also every relevant watchdog organizations (UN, AI, HRW, ACRI), and the two fighting organizations themselves (Hezbollah, IDF), and the relevant leaders (Israel's prime minister, Lebanon's president, etc) all calling this a war. I think under these circumstances an encyclopedia should call this a war too. Dianelos 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lead

Kosmopolis, please don't keep on adding those details to the lead. It's making it far too long and overly detailed. See WP:LEAD for how to write a lead section and for advice about length. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am in the process of remerging your edits and shortening the lead while you indiscriminately reverted my edits for the 2nd time, now. Please limit your rvs to the lead if you have objections thereto. Thanks. Kosmopolis 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ongoing?

I know there was some violence after the ceasefire, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the conflict is still on. The last recorded violence was (according to the page) was on August 19, over two weeks ago. Iorek85 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP:3RR

The user from the 80.135. IP range should consider themselves warned in regards to the [[ Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]] rule. Please discuss the issue instead of continuosly reverting. TewfikTalk 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

this art. is continuously and deliberately skewed towards pro-israeli pov. and you be careful. according to the hist. you've screwed up the intro 3 times already in < 24h. -- 80.135.175.130 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Iorek85 deleted the external links on August 1, stating: "They are getting way too long. I think that post conflict, the news links are no longer needed unless they give a special insight to the conflict - before, they were good as they allowed quick access to updated news, but that's irrelevent now. Maybe even the blogs, since the conflict is over. Iorek85 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"

I don't agree at all with this reasoning and have reverted the previous list of external links. We need to consider how the list of external links can best serve the interests of our readers, as well as what Wikipedia:External links states. In particular:

  • We should link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." (WP:EL). By any sane reasoning, coverage from CNN, the BBC, the NY Times and other media outlets provide such material and should be linked to. Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments in a more in-depth way than we could in an overview article.
  • The links should not include non-neutral and inaccurate sources. Iorek's preferred list plainly does, including things such as "video about photo fraud at the war" (sic) and the deeply tendentious hirhome.com website (whose webmaster seems to have been anonymously spamming links into articles all over Wikipedia - I must have nuked 30 or 40 of them by now). We need to take care that what WP:EL calls "Links normally to be avoided" don't creep into the list.
  • Nor should we single out individual news stories - that's why the external links go to compilations of news stories from reputable news organisations.
  • The list of links should be structured. A mess of undifferentiated links is unhelpful.

I strongly suggest that editors should read Wikipedia:External links carefully before editing the list. -- ChrisO 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP:SPAMHOLE is where this article is. We should aim to have five links, tops. HawkerTyphoon 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
You're exaggerating. :-) It could probably do with shortening (do we need to link to blogs?) but otherwise it seems about right to me - we certainly need to link to the major combatant and international news outlets' coverage of the conflict. Compare 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#External links. -- ChrisO 07:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Contemporary news coverage is never irrelevant for those who wish to track the day-by-day developments. I couldn't agree more! But the conflict is over - hence the lack of a need to link to the general conflict pages on a variety of news sources any more. Same goes with the blogs. I was happy to have them when the conflict was ongoing, so readers could get the latest, unique information (I defended their inclusion repeatedly, in fact) but now the conflict is over, they don't provide anything unique or important. As for bad links - I culled based on the links claimed content, not the reliability of the source. I thought specific articles were fine - detailed analysis should be included, of course. I just deleted the links to the israel-lebanon section of the newsagencies. As for structure, sure, but ideally, there should be so few as to not require headings, as with most pages here. Iorek85 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Background section

It's massive! Far too long. This is not the history of conflict between Israel and Lebanon, it's about the 2006 conflict that started in July and ended in August. I know it didn't happen in a vacuum, but a background section longer than the section about Israeli attacks is way out of proportion. Iorek85 09:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know, it's long, arguably too long at the moment. I am at it, right now, looking at which parts can be spared. Kosmopolis 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Would it make sense to put the Background section after the description of the conflict? That way, a reader could move on to the background after reading about the events of July and August 2006. Valtam 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I restored much of the previous consensus background, which was more concise. Of course if anyone feels that there is a specific point that is relevant to the background for this conflict that isn't in the article, then they should make mention of it. TewfikTalk 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I moved the "non-consise" version to a new article. -- Kendrick7 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, but it seems a bit drastic. Some background is necessary in the main, article, though you can feel free to trim it down. And I'm not sure that there should even be a subarticle called Israel-Lebanon conflict. TewfikTalk 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Media Controversy

Why do the staged and rather primitive PR efforts of Hezbollah merit a section in the article about this war? Nor do I find one Lebanese freelance photographer's use of photoshop to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings to be so noteworthy (Incidentally have you seen an example of what he did? – it’s so crude it almost looks as if he wanted to be caught).

I suppose all readers of wikipedia know that there is measure of propaganda and exaggeration of reporting by each side in any war - and it's the editors' job to make certain that no such propaganda leaks into the article. I trust no editor doubts that Lebanon did in fact suffer widespread destruction of its civilian infrastructure, and we should be careful not to present this article in a way that might lead the reader into doubting this basic fact. So I suggest we remove the entire media controversy section. As the story is kind of interesting we should leave a link to the specific article in the "See also" section. Dianelos 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I haven't yet formulated an opinion regarding how important the section is in the greater article, its important to note that whatever Hajj's failings, he was supposed to be a neutral party, and he unfairly influenced public opinion in a manner that journalism is supposed to stay far away from. The section isn't about Hezbollah or Israeli PR, but about an unfair manipulation of one side's image internationally, and the varying levels of complicity in this sophisticated campaign. And while nobody (I hope) is denying the suffering of the Lebanese people, that at times the image portrayed is a false one is also significant. TewfikTalk 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It is very important. As noted here, reports that an Israeli missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact. --Gabi S. 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but those ambulances really were attacked. That blogs comments have been refuted by both the media there, the victims and the Red Cross. Iorek85 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The ambulances were not attacked. No proof was provided that ambulances were targetted. [The reporter] remains completely unverifiable. His only "evidence," yet again, is the testimony of the people who claim to have been attacked. And though he informs his readers that he went back to "inspect the damaged ambulances" he took no pictures to either validate his claims or to challenge the evidence here. [5] These are the plain facts, and the pictures don't lie. They clearly show that any claims that Lebanese ambulances were hit by Israel are false, since there is no supporting evidence. Moreover, the reporter that was sent to reinforce the accusations returned with empty hands. --Gabi S. 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a reliable source for your claim? (No zombietime.com does not count.) // Liftarn
I believe that zombietime would admit it if there were pictures proving that ambulances were really hit. But even the Hezbollah propagandists could not bring the Australian reporter to real evidence. He came back to the hospital just to find healthy drivers fabricating more stories, and no pictures. Not a single picture. I don't think that the Hezbollah propagandists would miss a chance to show real damage done, so this is proof enough for me. I count the missing evidence as a reliable source. --Gabi S. 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Zombietime is a single person crank website. It simply isn't a reliable source. On the other hand we have reliable sources saying it did happen. "Missiles hit two Red Cross ambulances last weekend, wounding six people and punching a circle in the center of the cross on one’s roof." (New York Times), "The Israel Defense Forces said last night that Israeli fire hit an ambulance"(Boston Globe) and so on. // Liftarn

I don't know what a "crank website" is, but what do YOU think about the coincidence of a missile hitting exactly the center of the cross, where the ambulance just happens to have a ventilation cover of the exact same diameter at the same ___location? The Boston Globe article shows just the hoax picture. And it even quotes the IDF spokesman saying "The IDF never intentionally targets civilians, much less ambulances". Newspapers make mistakes, and you can see the Adnan Hajj cases to see how easily they fall. In this case, I find the "crank website" much more reliable than the articles that you give as reference. --Gabi S. 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pie chart

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

The pie chart is a POV. The number of dead Hezbollah guerillas is from Hezbollah suorces... 89.1.237.56 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As is probably the number of dead Israeli soldiers from Israeli military sources! Who is to say they both aren't lying? We deal with the appropriate data we have and should be neither pro-Israel nor pro-Hezbollah. It is only POV if you are strongly pro-Israel... Wikipedia does not censor information nor should it exclude factual items such as this chart. ~ clearthought 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
So we should put below it a chart from Israeli sources, or at least to write that the chart was made by Hezbollah sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.24.155 (talk)
By that logic, we should have a chart showing Israeli [military] casualties by Hezbollah sources... ~ clearthought 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, if you have such figures, such would be the only NPOV solution. Otherwise, this Pie chart is misleading. Isarig 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am sure that you know perfectly what are the differances between the sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk)
Obviously there are differences. Hezbollah wants to say that they killed more IDF soldiers than they did and had less casualties as the IDF say that Hezbollah had. In addition, the IDF probably says that they have lost fewer than they actually have and state that they have killed more Hezbollah fighters than they actually have. It is all just agenda-pushing on all sides. From the looks of it, you above IP users seem to be staunchly pro-Israel whilst I am a moderate. ~ clearthought 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not only, I am sure you can find more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.113.92 (talk)
So, you are saying that only Israel is a valid source, and Hezbollah is not. I will be frank here, I don't trust either, but it would only make sense to have Israel report their casualties and Hezbollah report theirs. Having Israel report Hezbollah's figures is POV and vice versa. The best source is an independent source, which neither Hezbollah nor the IDF are. They both have agendas to push. Since we don't really have third party figures, we should use the data — however questionable — that Israel gave for their fatalities and Hezbollah for theirs. ~ clearthought 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the pie chart, as is, is original research, POV and misleading for 3 reasons - (a) it does not list the sources used, and as such it is OR. (b) while it does not cite sources, it seems that it is using the Hezbollah figure for their casualties (74), and not the list of 440 confimed dead by name and address by the IDF - as such - it is strongly POV. (c) it appears to use the figures for total Lebanese killed, and claims they are all civilian - misleading and POV. If indeed it is using the same figures that already appear in theinfobox - this information is redundant, and it seems the only reason it was added was to visually push the POV that the vast majority of casualties were Lebanese civilians. This is a vioaltion of WP:POINT. Isarig 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
But the vast, vast majority of casualties were civilians! Plus, it can be argued that the IDF is just as POV as Hezbollah! ~ clearthought 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Its foolish to try and make a pie chart that will only show one sides view when there are two hot headed sides out there beleiving their figure to be right and no third party ruling on what the real number is yet. Leave the stats to the infobox where it can be noted that there are conflicting figures. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
If we can note conflicting figures in the infobox, why can't we on the pie chart? There should just be a note saying that 'the figures represented in this pie chart come from the respective sources of the ones who casualties were inflicted upon' or a like NB. ~ clearthought 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The reason we can't do that on the pie chart is that the chart itself will have a slice of only one size - so even if you note in the labels that there are differing figures, you will end up showing only one of these. Agian I ask you - what's the point of this chart? what info does it add that is not already in the article? Isarig 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The point of the chart is to provide a visual showing of the casualties. Like the ones (numbers) listed, but in chart form. It is no more POV than the figures themselves. I was also saying for the note to be put not in the image but the image frame box or on a note linked to the caption on the image box. ~ clearthought 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference severe and harsh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War&oldid=74795432"