Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Discussion about casualties

Use Citations + Disclaimer

1. If you update the number of casualties, please add citations, as diffrent sources report different numbers, and the number changes as the time passes. Also, can anyone confirm the 10 children noted on the page? Even arab Al-Jazeera isn't reporting that. --darkskyz 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
2. also should point out that in the infobox, (lebanese government account) appears at the bottom of the list of lebanese and hezbollah casaulties, but no such disclaimer is placed under the israeli list of casualties. this is actually a significant trend in both corporate and 'independent' media when using official sourcing. 'our' official sources, or those friendly to us ('us' being western, 'democratic', global north industrialized capitalist nation states or their client states e.g. israel) are assumed to tell the truth in casualty reporting, while 'their' official sources ('them' being 'non-democratic', global south developing/thirdworld nation states) are assumed to have motive to lie or be otherwise unable to give an accurate casualty report. the reason for this seems to hearken back in a cultural sense to the identity of the 'other' as suspicious and untrustworthy, and in a socio-economic sense to the need to see those nations as 'rogue states', while in reality many are only classified as such because their rebellion against their subjugation to the hegemony of Euro-American Empire is seen as unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).

In this case, the Lebanese government can't possibly tell the truth in casualty reporting because the information just isn't available to them--or to anyone else. Recognizing that obvious fact isn't bias. There's simply nobody who can communicate with all of the hospitals and rescue workers in Lebanon, much less the untracked refugees, after the Israeli attacks. So the best anyone can offer is an estimate. It has nothing to do with "us" vs. "other". Falcotron 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Children Killed?

There seems to be an edit war going on about noting that "several tens of children" were killed. Should this be noted? Are the sources even reliable enough? --darkskyz 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

is reuters/bbc reliable enough? I'd say so.--Jadelith 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "children" should be cited separately at all as I don't think there is a reasonable line on what "children" should mean. For example, what age separates "children" from "civilian"? Is "children", who is a member of Hezbollah, a "militant", "civilian", or "children"? Is unborn baby a "children", "civilian" or something else entirely? You can artificially inflate number of "children" by setting age high (like 20) and even including young enough militants. Claiming a large number of "Children" killed will be a great propaganda tool but an unverifiable POV.--Revth 09:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud children should be included seperatelly. I think its a long held, humanity convention that children are listed seperatelly as victims of violence, sexual, psychological or physical. I can not on earth imagine why children, which by most law is people under the age of 16, should not be listed separately.

the thing is, its possible to get the # of children killed in many other war articles, which shows the extent of damage done by the aggressor. I think it is fit to add that here as well, the major problem in this assault being Israel's bombs killing people who probably didn't even support hezbollah. we always hear the number of children killed in other wars, why not here? but I do understand that its hard to specify what is meant by children. I still think its safe to add them if we have sources.--Jadelith 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By which laws is childhood defined as ending at 16? The age of majority in almost every country is somewhere between 18 and 21. There are often exceptions for sex, marriage, or driving at around 16, but even in such jurisdictions 16-year-olds are still minors with a few adult privileges. Or maybe you're referring to [[1]], but that's usually somewhere between 8 and 14. This may sound like a nit-picking triviality, but it points out that Revth's point can't be dismissed that easily; there is no universally-recognized cutoff for "children." --Falcotron 22:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the phrase that said "...and killed 110 people, many of them civilians who were women and children" to just "many of whom were civilians. tacking on "women and children" makes it seem that much worse. They were civilians and not military, so I think we should keep it out. --Crucible Guardian 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BS nr's of dead children should not ever be hidden or restricted. However more are to come. Civilian casualties implies: civilians staying at military locations, that is wrong. I dont care about a dead children count, but not wanting to show the nr is not NPOV and is pro-israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

I think its clear on what the aggresors and apologetics are driving to achieve by down-playing civilian deaths particularly women and children by grouping them under a vague, unclear heading of mere civilians. We must all reflect on what the "Current" israeli barbaric, disproportionate, and genocidal response is doing to lebanon. The massacres from this government is well documented. No matter how direct or Indirect, God's chosen people are displaying what exactly they were chosen to do in this world. Even Jesus did not survive their terror.! Lets' face it, no matter how secular you approach this, it matters how the warring parties see this destruction deep down from their own religious perspective!!.

___ Quite frankly, the above comment should not be considered whatsoever when talking about this issue. It is absolutely anti-Israel and anti-Jewish even. Jesus's death has nothing to do with this topic, it is just a common cry of anti-semites. Discussing whether or not the attack is justified or "genocidal" (which would insinuate that they are in fact trying to eradicate the Lebanese people) is irrelevent to this topic. It is about whether or not listing children killed should be allowed, as it may lead to over-dramatizing, for lack of a better word, of the situation. Please keep it on topic and keep the insults to a minimum on this highly-inflammatory article. Sterkarm 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Adding Children is a clear POV that children are more important than any other death. That is like breaking down the death of race, gender, religion, creed or what not. STOP the POV, it is disgraceful...it isn't genocide or what not where there is only a paticular race or what not being targeted...so stop the agenda to make the lives of children worth more. Not everyone feels that way.--Jerluvsthecubs 10:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2 killed Arab children is listed under "Foreigner", I´m convinced though living in Nazareth that they actually are Israeli citizens, anyone can clarify this? Thanks Alexmcfire

deaths in conflict

If there is, as one person stated, no way to tell the difference between a militant and a soldier, then they should definately not be combined under one category entitled "militants and civilians". This clearly distorts that level of civilians who may have been civilians. Since no such categorisation is added to the Israeli side (nor should there be), it should not be on the Lebanese section. I am removing this categorisation and reverting back to "1 militant" and 55 civilians killed. I assume someone found a reference when they put the original claim of one militant killed. There is no justification to label 55 civilians as possible militants. Do we label civilians in israel who may be a member of the IDF (due conscription and reserves) a soldier? No, of course not.

Israel separately counts casualties of civilians and military personnel. Since Hezbollah hides its deathtoll, it is clear that it's included in the Lebanese deathtoll. In simple words, if you write that 55 civilians were killed, you have to source it. Otherwise, it's 55 Lebanese killed. --Lior 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should err on the side of caution and presume they are civilians unless shown otherwise. Andrew Riddles 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

civilian casualties: Lebanese govt numbers??

about the infobox: sorry guys, but I really don't see the point of doubting their numbers if reuters believes it here. and this is yesterday's numbers, not counting last night's two deaths. obviously, israeli casualties are israeli govt numbers, and lebanese casualties are lebanese govt nmbers. there is no need to be belligerent here. if reuters believes lebanese numbers enough to mention in their reports, I really don't see the point of doubting them here. So I'm deleting that comment.

if you don't believe the lebanese govt numbers because they're terrorists, than maybe we should delete the word "civilian"? you know, since they're born with ak47's attached to their bodies.. --Jadelith 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I doubt the Lebanese government's account is simple, because they have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties. The 52 number has seperately been reported as coming from the Lebanese government, not as a result of some sort of independent count. Given that there is both means and motive to mislead about the number of casualties, I think it is wise to note that in the infobox. This is the established precedent in other articles where death totals are coming from sources which are not perfect Wikipedia reliable source. I am going to put the note about the source of the numbers back in for the time being. It can be removed in the future once their is an independent count available. Bibigon 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources are sources. This is not a place to judge sources (let people do that for themselves). Because I have a good reason to say "my car runs well" when I'm selling my car, doesn't mean it doesn't run well. Because Israel has good reason to inflate the number of Israeli civilians killed, doesn't mean they did. (while I would be less likely to trust the lebanese number, if its the only source, then thats what we have to work with.) If you can find a source that calls into question Lebanon's tally (preferably with some evidence that they are inflated numbers), then by all means include it. But if your just speculating, then its OR if you include any such speculations in the article. 72.129.2.117 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as having to do with whether we "believe" Lebanon or not; as encyclopedia editors that's not our job. It's pretty standard in our articles to label official numbers as such if the sole source is an involved party and there's no independent confirmation. See, for example, Operation Dewey Canyon, part of the Vietnam War, where we label the official US Marine Corps numbers as such. I don't see why official Lebanese-government numbers should be treated differently. --Delirium 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, simple logic seems to be escaping most of our writers here. Lebanon is getting attacking by a Callous government, so folks carrying a Ak's should be carrying it regardless of whether they are Hezbollah adherents or not. They rather carry that to protect their families against what is seemingly an irrational, over-amplified response from a belicouse israeli government. Israeli as usual, is shamelessly justifying killing civilians by scapegoating Hezbollahs. What's next-- attack Pakistan or Iran because dissents have safe haven there.

I'm new to wiki so I don't know whether wiki has a set of reliable sources and a set of unreliable sources, but I read most of the tutorials etc and I believe I understand the philosophy behind wiki. AFAIK, the Israeli casualties are also counted by the Israeli officials, and they also have a "good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties". I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here, but you saying that Israel govt is trustable and Lebanese not is definetely not helping here :/ --Jadelith 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your neutrality and your nice response. I was sorry to read Bibigon's comments. CG 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are doubting the lebanese, we must also doubt the Israeli. I believe it looks a LOT better when both comments are gone, but if some people don't believe the lebanese, we should also do the same for the israeli numbers. I believe you will understand this. --Jadelith 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If one thinks that the Lebanese "have a good reason to mislead the press as to the true number of casualties", then one could certainly make the arguement that the Israelis have an equally good reason to do the same. While I don't think the comment is needed under either nation, if we include it for one, it needs to be included for both.

I never denied that the Israelis might also mislead regarding the number of casualties. Please read WP:RS. There's simply no reason for the Lebanese government to be considered a reliable source simply by virtue of being a government. We doubt what governments say with regularity. Bibigon 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are using a classic case of diversion, intentionally, by judging a source while remaining silent on the flip side of the case. Again logic should tell you, 3 sides are at war here, scrutinizing one side, will first wholly discredit them, and remaining silent over the other parties perspective will implicitly create this false impression of their reliabitiy and accuracy.

In the casualties section some information was manipulated from prior updates. As well as removing the number of Injured civilians in Lebanon and more. Why is that? Please who ever is responsible for this should change it back to the correct information. Hiding facts isn't going to be in the good of anybody. Otherwise, can anybody clarify please. -- Omernos 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem is both of them would have reasons to either up or downgrade the nr of victims. My estimate is the lebanese undercount, iafap because they don't want to be cause to an arab outcry.( Since we don't like israel that much anyhow as a souvereign entity) Israel has the typical agressionist reason to hide their real casualty nr's, they don't want to distract or disencourage their population and armed forces.If i wanted to guess the more objective nr's i would stick to the ones given in gaza. onix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

I am trying to update the casulaties list for Lebanese civilians, I have a source from Al-Jazeera, which the last time I checked, was a credible news agency. Someone keeps reverting the figure from the updated 130, to the previous 90. This childish data manipulation only undermines Wikipedia's credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.72.251 (talk • contribs). 16 July 2006

• How many of the Lebanese casualties are innocent civilians, and how many are Hezbollah men? Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An article from today's Al-Jazeera suggests that all but 14 are civilians. The 14 are presumably military. The article doesn't state Hezbollah casualties which is understandable as Hezbollah is not releasing casualty figures. It seems eminently reasonable to assume that the majority, if not the overwhelming majority, are unarmed civilian casualties. This article keeps being removed by POV vandals.

"Civilians"

Important : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

While on the Israeli side the distinction is clear: 8 soldiers dies, 2 soldiers kidnapped, 4 missing and several were wounded. The numbers on Civilians casulaties are: 4 dead and hundreds wounded.

On the labneese side all casulaties are described as"civilians" . - How is that possible ? 60 civilians death and not one Hizbulla militia person injured or killed ? - Is Israel so bad at targeting ? Zeq 06:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hizbollah does not release casuality figures. The Lebanese goverment makes a distinction between civilians and military. Since they are not involved with any fighting, is it hard for them, or anyone other than Hizbollah to estimate how many Hizbollah militants have died in the fighting. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that amongst the civilians counted, there were not many active militans. 83.161.4.134 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are aiming at cities, yes chances are huge that you are hitting 99.99999% civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me, really.

Actually, no casualties on Lebanese side are described as civilians or militants, presumably because the breakdown is not available. Zocky | picture popups 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Our article talks of civilian casualties. Undoubtedly some are. In fact, if militia are counted as being civilian because they are not members of the regular forces, even armed combatants would be listed as civilians. We should be careful about listing casualties as civilian. --Jumbo 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Three Lebanese Soldiers have been killed in airstrikes. The majority of Lebanese casualties have been civilian. Israel is shelling residential areas and densely populated areas indiscriminately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

This is a good example of propaganda in action. Israeli attacks seem to be targeted precisely. The attacks on beirut International are the minimum require to put the airport out of action by cratering the runway intersection and setting the fuel storage areas ablaze. Nearby assets such as the air terminal and passenger jets were untouched. It is in the interests of those opposing Israel to portray all or a vast majority of casualties as civilian, especially women and children. We should not kid ourselves that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from being twisted one way or another. Please - reliable sources for all statements. --Jumbo 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not like Heathrow to be bombed "to force Blair to deal with Al Quaida in the UK". Which is just what is happening in Lebanon.

Please, London does not have big building which have big "Al Quaida" signs on them. Nor are hundreds of Al Quaida missiles being fired from England at a neighbouring country. Nor will such actions be tolerated by the English government. Please don't compare things in that sort of way just to promote your own propaganda. Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

London never bombed dublin airport to deal with the IRA. In 1982 Ireland elected to power a man believed to have helped supply the IRA, and it was well know that the IRA had safe areas in places such as Drogheda and elsewhere in Louth, but the UK never bombed Tallaght, or similar civilian areas. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the airport could have been stopped from operating simply by the air blockade, without doing any damage to the infrastructure. But this is not the place to discuss our personal opinions on propaganda or intentions of various sides. There are websites for that sort of thing, and Wikipedia is not one of them. Zocky | picture popups 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence from the 1978 and 1982 might seem to suggest that yes, the Israelis are that bad at targetting. However further investigation by the International Committee of Jurists showed that they were targetting civilians. SO no, they are not that bad at targetting - they know exactly what they are doing. Andrew Riddles 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

- *Actually, Israel first drop leaflets telling civilians to leave the Hizbula controlled areas before they are being bombed - this is why the casulties numbers are so low. Hizbulla also ran away in such cases. But surly, when israel target a rocket launcher this is a not a "civilian" who operates it.... Zeq 07:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, how reasonable and effective it is, to tell people to "leave" while in the middle of a military campain, and after crippling all of the infrastructure, is debatable 83.161.4.134 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If some country dropped leaflets in my country, telling me to leave because they were gonna bomb it, I would _join_ the militant organisation, as would any person who loves his relatives, friends and surroundings. Israel is _breeding_ militants.

Can anyone confirm the information on this blog post from a news site? She says that local TV reported that Lebanese civilians were allegedly stocking missiles in their homes. 68.239.119.190 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Desperate ones. Ever wondered why Israel has an advanced army? Massive donations by the US. That's all there is to it. The US is handing out weapons to Israel to slaughter Arab civilians who's only defence is indeed some pathetic bottle rockets. That is how sick our western civilisation has become...

They have an advanced army because if they didn't, they would have been wiped off the map long ago. Israel is surrounded by enemies (except Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel). I don't think Israel is sick for wanting to live. I do think the Hezbollah and Palestinian leaderships are sick for not wanting to live in peace. 68.239.119.190 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, according to the CIA factbook [2], Israel receives only $662 million in aid from the US, while she spends $9.45 billion on the military each year. So Israel doesn't have an advanced army because of "Massive donations by the US." That's preposterous. -Preposterous 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has peace with Egypt because it give back the Sinai peninsula, and with Jordan because they just dont care about the Palestinians. May if Israel could decide to return to the borders of 1967, by giving back autonomy to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, and returing Golan to Syria then it would really mean peace.

The number 5 link [3] I provided makes it clear. 103 Lebanese dead, all but 4 were civilians. 99 civilians dead and the other 4 are militants or soilders. To be fair though they are going after infostructure that the Israeli's believe Hizbullah uses or can use and the are warning the people. But, there is evidence to show 99/103 deaths are civilian deaths.--Jerluvsthecubs 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

see this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html Zeq 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, similar to the Battle of Jenin, when it comes to the Middle East, there is simply no reason, no reason at all, to trust "official" casualty counts counts. There is means, motive, and oppertunity for them to totally inflate the numbers of civilian dead, or to classify dead militia as civilians. There is a pretty well established history with drastically inflated body counts when it comes to Israel. However, right now, there are no independent sources giving these numbers. Reuters and all are just quoting the Lebanese governent, because there isn't any UN or IDF report to cite instead.

This is why I've suggested many times that we remove the casualty counts from the info box at least, and replace them with "Unknown" until some independent organizations can do these counts themselves. Right now, in the info box, we don't have room for debate, and we give the numbers an air of legitimacy by presenting them like that. In time, there will be more reliable numbers available. While having up to date information is important, having accurate information would seem to be even more paramount. Just my take however... Bibigon 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article already states that the Lebanese casualty numbers are according to the Lebanese government... There is no source for the claim that some of them may have been members of Hesbollah. Until the truth of this is established, it is at the least unencyclopedic to make this brazen claim. 12.148.42.44 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There ZERO Hebulla casulties reported so far. mmmmm.... Zeq 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we make any specific claim. Merely that we refrain from giving casaulty counts until such time that reliable figures are known. Bibigon 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon his a democracy with an active free press currently freely scurrying around the country. Do any of these sources, and most, by far, are non-lebanese, give you any reason to draw doubt on the figure of civilians Israel has killed? Has Hezbollah ever denied that one of its members had died, or become a Shahid? The civilian deaths happen mostly in bulk, if I can be so crass about human life. A house of 12, all dead. A van is destoryed killing 15. Another house bombing kills nine. Et Cetera. Most of this is reported by the free press, and then confirmed by the government, and if you tune to Al Jazeera (If you have sky) though charred remains are the dead civilians. Hezbollah has no use of those infants. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)\

In response to Jumbo up there, how do you explain Israel targeting an airport? and a bridge? and highway? Civilians are the ones who will be fleeing. And what a better way to slow them down, then trap them in the middle of the crisis. Also, Israel is just rooting to the downfall of Lebanon. Every tourist who goes to Lebanon will NOT go to Israel. I agree with Irishpunktom, Lebanese are being killed.Israelis have trapped them in the city, but bombing a bridge, highway, and airport. This is going to become a massacre. Also, Lebanon is one of the only remaining uncorrupt democraties in the middle east. Israel want to dispose of it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).

I think it is very likely that the killed people described by news agencies as civilians are indeed civilians, for example for the following reasons: 1. As is mentioned above, there has been reports by independent media of entire families killed in their homes or cars. They can not very well have been Hezbollah patrols. If we sum up all the people that have been reported as killed by independent media, that would make up a large portion of the killed. 2. Most people reported dead have died in the cities. If a bomb kills someone in a city, it is most likely that it is a civilian, as most inhabitants of the cities should be civilians. 3. If someone from Hezbollah is killed, that should be in the Hezbollah strongholds in the south. If I understand it correctly, Hezbollah, and not the central government controls the south of Lebanon. Would this dead person be registered in the official toll? 4. Of the killed, 17 were citizens of other countries than Lebanon, and from the description it seems that they were there as tourists rather than to fight for Hezbollah. How many tourists and expatriates are there in Lebanon? If seventeen of them were killed in the Israeli raids, then statistically the same quotient of the about 3 million Lebanese that are not Hezbollah militants can be assumed to have died. --Battra 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that we haven't mentioned civilians specifically is that the current sources do not distinguish between civilians and military/Hezbollah deaths (ex: 24 Israeli dead). If new reliable sources are availiable that do distinguish, we will too. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The tolls maintained by news agencies (Reuters, AFP) distinguishes between civilians and soldiers. They probably get correct numbers for how many Lebanese soldiers that have been killed. "We" have indeed distinguished civilians/military at WP, though it is one of the things that is constantly removed & readded. Supposing that the people called "civilians" by news agencies are not civilians, wouldn't that be original research?--Battra 10:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some sources say "people" or "Lebanese", and we don't really know what those specific source mean. However, we have seen several sources that do say civilians or say something of the sort "179 Lebanese killed, all but 13 civilian". I think it is disingenuous if a day later a new source comes out with higher numbers yet does not use the word "civilian", then remove the former source and forget we ever heard that civilians were killed in Lebanon when we have no reason to assume that the bulk of that new number have somehow revealed themselves not to be civilians. Also - why are we specifying that the numbers are from the Lebanese government? Are the Israeli numbers from other organizations? I would imagine the news sources there also get these numbers from hospitals, police, EMTs and other government workers?--Paraphelion 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the number of casualties

The number of casualties in the fact box is being changed constantly, both because of some people thinking it is funny to change them, and because different sources are used. What sources should be used? In my opinion, the best would be newsagencies like Reuters, AP, AFP, or official sites of Israel and Lebanon in english if that exists.

At the moment the reference used for the number of killed lebanese civialians has disappered. Some hour ago the fact box said 147 i think, now it says 99. AFP says 129. [4] --Battra 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

141 dead is stated on the Daily Star's website, a right wing Lebanese newspaper delivered with the International Herald Tribune throughout the Middle East. As of 2200 GMT. 16 July 2006.

500 Israelis injured with 10 dead, compared to 268 Lebanese residents injured and 148 killed? I really doubt the veracity of that injury figure. How are Hizbollah approximately 30 times better at causing injuries than the IDF?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).

We need to find something better or remove it... 130.195.86.38 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah somebody needs to confront the 500 Israeli injuries, with more credibility other than an Israeli newspaper. Should we revert it back to what it originall was. In the following BBC Article written on Friday it says "dozens injured" referring to Israelis.[[5]]W123 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me how can you say that Hezbollah 30 times better at causing injuries than the IDF? If you do the math, it doesn't equal 30 times. While Israel may have 500 injuries(most have been confirmed to be merely shock) and Lebanon only 268 injuries, there were 148 Lebanese killed compared to the 10 Israelis. Do Lebanese count for half of an Israeli life? Please make sure of what you are posting.

THough it is mathematically illogical to have 12 killed with 500 injured. PLUS if you check ynetnews, it's OBVIOUSLY biased, and makes the stories rather sentimentally hollywood to the Israeli side, but when VILLAGES ARE RAZED TO THE GROUND in lebanon, it's attacking hizbullah militants. I am starting to doubt wikipedia's credibility in staying neutral and showing the truth as it is, and not as CNN and BBC fabricate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by unknown user (talk • contribs).

Perhaps we could omit the number of injured in the infobox, and just keep the number of killed persons? It doesn't make much sense to keep a number of injured people if "injured" means different things for the different sides. "Killed" can mean only one thing.

Somebody removed the number of casualties given by AFP, which I had inserted in the "Casualties" section, without giving any reason. I'll reinsert it again, and suggest we remove the figures given by BBC and CNN, and just keep what the news agencies says. --213.65.178.172 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well. the sentence that disappeared had not been removed, it just doesn't appear because of some bug. I'll see if I can fix it. --213.65.178.172 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is obviously some dispute over the casualty figures. This is not surprising because who is to say what constitutes a casualty. It could include in the definition people scratched or just in shock from what they have witnessed alternativly it could mean seriously injured. I strongly believe that the factbox is not the place for such ambiguous 'facts'. I don't mean to belittle the significance of the non-fatal injures done, I only question the value of the information as currently presented. If anyone disagrees please come back on this otherwise in a bit I'll grasp the nettle and remove them / move to a different section.--IanOfNorwich 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have written about the 500 Israeli injury figure elsewhere here. I don't think it's fair to have an injury figure for Lebanon and not one for Israel when we have sources for both.--Paraphelion 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding who is to say what constitutes a casualty.. we are taking fatality numbers from these sources - why not take injury numbers?--Paraphelion 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The No. of Lebanese killed keeps edited downward by people promoting disinformation for POV reasons. It is very irresponsible to do this. Makes wikipedia seem unreliable and full of bias. Also an Al-Jazeera news source on casualties is continually being removed. Al-Jazeera is a well regarded news agency in both the Middle East and wider world and it seems to me that Arab speaking reporters are at least as able to gauge casualty numbers than Western news agencies. Please refrain from doing this whoever you are. 16:15 18 July 2006

The infobox should contain the most important information, and it is best that it do not contain information about neither Israeli nor Lebanese injuries (the reason has been mentioned by me and by IanOfNorwich above). On the other hand, the number of injured should be mentioned in the casualties section. --213.65.178.172 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the numbers to match the numbers cited by AP and AFP. The numbers given by the two are pretty close. Please refrain from changing any numbers without giving a good source that agrees with another good source. --Elliskev 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lebanese" killed

Do you know all of them are Lebanese? Eight Canadians were killed, although they were supposed to have dual citizenship. It should be "civilians" so that all deaths can be reported without having to note nationality. Also, those arguing that Hezbollah are civilians, I beg to differ. If they are an armed militia, you can clearly consider them soldiers, militants, fighters, whatever--but not civilians. OzLawyer 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you consider them to be combatants? or terrorists-unlawful combatants?—Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user (talk • contribs)

The casualties given in the infobox has been refered to as "Lebenese civilians". That might be wrong, since there has been at least 17 civilians of other nationalities killed, so I agree with OzLawyer that it might be best not to give the nationality.

Whether the official toll includes some Hezbollah members, it is hard to know, though it does seem unlikely that many Hezbollah members are registered there. To know the number of Hezbollahs that have died, I guess we can only wait until Hizbollah releases some "martyr list".--Battra 22:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A point about nationality: Israeli attacks are indescriminate and as over 1000 non-Lebanese civilians were killed by the Israelis in 1982 when they invaded (from a total of around 25,000 civilians killed by the Isaraelis), it seems likely that perhaps 1 in 25 civilans killed in this conflict are foreign nationals. In addition American and Israeli sources say that some of the Hizbollah are Iranian Revolutionary Guards. So they are not Lebanese. Andrew Riddles 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cause of casualties not clear in source

In the "Casualties: Foreign nationals" section: "A Sri Lankan maid of a Lebanese family was killed in an Israeli bombing.[1] One Iraqi was killed by Israeli bombing.[1]" The only information given in the source([6]) about these casualties is "Among the civilian deaths are 8 Canadians, 2 Kuwaiti nationals, 1 Iraqi, 1 Sri Lankan, 1 Jordanian, police have reported." The article does not mention that the Sri Lankan was a maid of Lebanese family, nor does it mention that either of these casualties are caused by "Israeli bombing". A better source is required.--70.49.109.180 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further people have been injured.

I am disturbed that the article currently lists about 200 Lebanese killed, and 'further people injured', while there have been 13 Israeli civilians killed and a further 500 civilians injured. It gives me the impression that the toll on Israel has been much larger, seeing that number 500 against the Lebanese 200. However, given that the numbers refer to injuries vs. deaths, it seems misleading, as there have most likely been far more Lebanese injuries. Considering that there have been reputable sources of estimated Lebanese injuries, I think it important that these be included in the article, even if the numbers are stated to be estimates. Especially as the 500 cited is also probably an estimate. Or, to give balance to the article, perhaps the number of Israeli injuries could be removed. - Aaronwinborn 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Losting count of Lebanese casualties

Earlier today the killed figure for the Lebanese was "283" and now it is "300+", have we lost count? Surely it should be yesterday's figure plus the number killed today. The numbers aren't that big.--Manc ill kid 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Van Incident

Just a heads-up: The reuters link for van incident, where fleeing villagers were hit and 12 were killed, is broken. Since the other two sources for this are an Arab site and a site in German, we should make the effort to fix that link62.0.125.178 07:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

Fajr-7 missile

This is the missile Israel claims was used in the attack on Haifa. There is no article on it at the moment, so I set out to create one. However, I am having trouble finding information on any missile by that name, beyond the reports of it being used against Haifa. Theres plenty of information about a Fajr 3 rocket around. Is it possible the designation is wrong? Damburger 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Designation is probably wrong, as we're only familiar with Fajr 3 and Fajr 5, probably both capable of hitting Haifa. In fact, I have found no Israeli sources for a Fajr 7. Some Israeli news sources claim it's no Fajr, but the same kind of rocket hitting other Israeli towns (Raad or Katyusha or something). Personally, I think it's another exaggeration of Fox news. --Lior 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We aren't paid to think though. I'm creating a page on the Fajr 7 anyway, hopefully if the issue clears up the relevant information can be added there. I'd appreciate any help with this page that people can offer. We can only add to the wikipedia what the news organisations are reporting, even if it is nonsensical. Damburger 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If I have to create a wiki article for every weapon system mentioned in American blogosphere, wikimedia would have to raise my salary by 30% once more. We're into citing *reliable* sources. The Hotair post doesn't mention Fajrs, and the PeaceWatch post [7] only says Hezbollah has these Fajr-7 rockets. If a non-Israeli news source claims that Fajr-7 is "the missile Israel claims was used", I expect some Israeli source to say the same. This is not to say, of course, that Israeli sources are more reliable than others. --Lior 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The weapon system was apparantly mentioned on Fox News, and also by a thinktank cited in the Fajr 7 article I created. I agree its likely they got the name of the weapon wrong given that the Fajr 3 was only tested in March, but as I said until better information comes along we should just present what is being given out by the media, albeit with qualification. I'll have a look at changing the wording to reflect this. Damburger 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Do note that the NTI source you provided [8] talks of a series of military exercises titled Fajr-#, not of rockets bearing those names. There is no reason to believe that a guided missile have hit Haifa, rather than a ballistic rocket. On top of all that, the impact crater seems too mild to result from a 333 mm rocket. Then again, if they said so in the news, it's wiki worthy. Cheers. --Lior 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the links on the page Fajr 7 is to the military exercise, the other references missiles by that name possibly being moved into Southern Lebanon (which ties in quite strongly with whats been reported about this incident). If you want to discuss this further can we move it to the talk page for Fajr 7? Damburger 11:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is done. --Lior 12:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz in hebrew [9] is now listing the rockets that hit Haifa yesterday as Fajr-3. Also talks about other rockets Hezbollah have, Fajr-5 and Zilal-2 as well as an unnamed Russian 220mm rocket. --darkskyz 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew article you mentioned currently asserts Hezbollah made no use of its Fajr rockets. Google News found only one Israeli news source speaking of Fajr 7. This source says the following: "...Hezbollah spokesperson denied that his organization has fired missiles towards Haifa. Nevertheless they report that the missile fired towards Haifa is a Fajr 7 with a diameter of 336 mm, capable of carrying a 100 kg warhhead." Please have a look at the photos provided in this link. My untrained eyes assert this is no 336 mm rocket. Just compare it to the shoes near it. I can't tell whether it's 107, 122 or 152 mm, but 336 mm it certainly ain't. I think we can close the argument and remove the Fajr-7 speculation, but it's really up to you. --Lior 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We have the funding source of the Israeli rockets and equipment. Where does Hezbollah get thier funds for weapons. I have read that their source of funding for military equipment and other non-military articles comes from the country of Iran.

The missiles used by Hezbollah are Fagr (Dawn) type and Raad-2 and -3 (Thunderous Roar-2 and -3) type. Cionist army says the actualy Haifa missiles were of the Fagr type, but Hezbollah said in press release that only Raad-2 and -3 was used. Raad is very new type, the first ones were made in 2004 in Iran. One unguided missile hit a big oil drum in the oil refinery of Haia and one other missile hit the railway waggons depot, which is very nearby. The depot missile hit killed eight or nine people. Photo of the aftermath is here: http://index.hu/cikkepek/0607/kulfold/lebanon0716//.gdata/gp_11.jpg

What rocket type has hit the Israeli navy vessel?

Does anyone have any information regarding the type of weapon used? Apparently its a missile.... but guided....? Ryanuk 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz is reporting it was hit by an explosives-laden drone. [10] --darkskyz 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN reports that it was a missile, not a drone hittinh the ship [11] 89.138.118.113 10:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is sourced from the IDF, if it was a missile, surely it was guided somehow? At least when we thought it was a drone, that explained how it was so accurate. This is alittle strange, does anyone have any information on this? Ryanuk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added to the main article that a Silkworm_missile was used in the attack. However i see no citations for this..... That is one hell of a missile to ship to Lebanon Ryanuk 11:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet says it was an Iranian missile called C802."A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile". Máfiàg 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that the Israeli ambassador to the US says that the C-802 missile used is Chinese-made. [12]--Paraphelion 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that the missile is Iranian made. 4 links are given as citations. The first is in Hebrew which I cannot read. The second is techincal data about the rocket which indicates they have been used by Iran and only says China and Russia produced them. The third is about Iran testing a silkworm missile. The fouth is a report about IDF claiming it was a explosive-laden drone, which has been redacted. --Paraphelion 05:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited the article to reflect the above - if someone can read the Hebrew article and see what it says that'd be great. I'm leaving the other cites/links for awhile so people can check them out. The last cite about the drone no longer seems relevant.--Paraphelion 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is referred to as "an Iranian missile," it is unclear whether that means supplied or produced. The C802 designation is included though, so perhaps that can be looked up. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it give a source for that and is it before or after the CNN? Not sure what to do.. combine both sources some how? Note that the CNN source also covers the Haifa missiles and says that Israeli military says that the Haifa missiles are Iranian-made. One of the other links [13], is about that type of missile in general and implies that the C802 is Chinese-made. --Paraphelion 08:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

China designed the missile, Iran produces them under license. 167.24.104.150 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is odd - the CNN article I linked above citing the Israeli ambassasdor to the US saying that the missile is chinese-made has been edited. If you search CNN for "israeli ambassador" or "c-802", the article does appear in the search results, despite that neither of these terms appear in the article any longer! Another source reports : [14]- a KLYV article which cites CNN.--Paraphelion 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to edit this paragraph to reflect the various sometimes contradictory reports. I looked for sources about Iran producing C801 or C802 missiles, but did not find anything concrete. I did find one link from 1996 saying Asian intellgience says that China was helping Iran develop a similar missile system and that they may have even tested it.--Paraphelion 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Katyusha or 9K51 Grad?

Most major news articles mention Katyusha rockets, but this articles consistently says 9K51 Grad rockets are being fired by Hezbollah. These look like distinctly different systems. Were is the citation for the 9K51 Grad rockets? --MarsRover 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Katyusha is not just a specific weapon system anymore, it has also come to mean smaller rocket artillery in general. Same way that not all hoovers in the UK are Hoovers :) --Narson 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

Media

On Larry King Live Newt Gingrich called this World War III, with Senator McCain agreeing to a certain extent. Perhaps a mention of media coverage and terminology somewhere? Media is going to play a huge part in this. Frinkahedr0n 04:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Casus belli and Hezbollah raid

Most of the articles say 8 killed and two captured in the raid. This page says 3 kills.

In the initial raid, three soldiers were killed. When Israeli troops entered Lebanon on the tracks of the abducted/captured soldiers, a tank hit a land mine. The four crew memebers are currently defined as MIA, but I think that it is safe to say that they are dead. In the attempt to extricate the bodies from the tank and bring them back to Israel for burial, a further soldier was killed. This makes a total of eight.

The reason that there was such a fast attempt to bring the bodies of the tank crew back was two-fold. Firstly, Judaism (and also Islam) requires a speedy burial. Secondly, Israel was worried that Hezbollah would take the bodies and use them as bargaining counters. Cymruisrael 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that adding "military wing, whose civilian wing has a minister in the Lebanese government" does not belong to casus belli clause. Whoever interested in the group structure can click on Hezbollah link and study it. Can we shorten it to "Border attack by Hezbollah, killing 8 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers"? What do you think?

I emitted the "trying to free Palestinian prisoners" from the Casus belli cause. Palestinian prisoners were nowhere near the scene where the raid took place. Hizbullah captured two soldiers to use them as a ransom, this is discussed later in the article. 87.69.70.61 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was on my vandalism watchlist and I reverted b/c it was unexplained in the edit summary (sorry about reverting so quick). In any case, on the merits, it seems like the alleged ransom was integral to Hezbollah's purpose, so it should remain. Still, I'll probably defer to regular editors of this page on this point.--Chaser T 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do rephrase it then yourself if you won't let others do it. From the current phrasing it can be understood that the 'prisoners' were transported in the attacked humvees, which is not the case.87.69.70.61 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The casus belli here, as well as in the opening article, addresses IMEMC News as a source. IMEMC web site quote: Being a joint Palestinian-International effort, IMEMC combines Palestinian journalists' deep understanding of the context, history, and the socio-political environment with International journalists' skills in non-partisan reporting. The use of such a source for the casus belli definition is questionable. 87.69.70.61 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I will now add more on past prisoners exchange and the prisoners cause to the "historical bckgr" clause.87.69.70.61 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What about adding that this might have occurred to distract the G8 conference from Iran? [15]

Purpose of the operation

The opening paragraph says that the purpose of the Israeli operation is "to free the captured soldiers". Is that accurate? Or is the purpose to punish Lebanon and/or Hezbollah for capturing them in the first place?

William Jockusch 07:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And to prevent the supply of weapons to Hezbollah, who are using missiles to deliberately target civilians. Yes. But primarily for (and would not have happened but for) the kidnappings. Xtra 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats what the Israeli officials said, so yes. But we can add something like "but person a suspects that they have wider goals there", if we have that person a of course. --Jadelith 08:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a bias here :

"In an operation to free the captured soldiers, Israeli forces launched an offensive into Lebanon in which five more Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops were killed." - given with no source, taken as fact

"Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of the group, claims it is part of an ongoing plan to free Lebanese citizens and/or members of Hezbollah in Israeli prisons." - given with a source, not taken as fact but instead phrased a only a 'claim'.

Most of the news I have seen (US news sources) about Israel's goals focus on how Israel's response will be "severe and harsh" rather than on recovering the soliders. An israeli General is reported as saying, "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts."[16]. Given the extremely high civilian to military casualty ratio it seems reasonable to assume the kidnapped soldiers are not the main target, but instead civilians are, or at least reduce the phrasing to a claim, as Nasrallah's is, rather than implicit fact.--69.60.118.148 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

yes but we don't assume. we report what has happened and who said what. --Jadelith 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, the claim that the purpose of the operation is to free the captured soldiers should have attribution. William Jockusch 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

With no response to my latest, I have gone ahead and changed the purpose in the opening paragraph to "in response". I'm not 100% clear on the etiquette here, so if I'm out of line feel free to revert me. William Jockusch 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1150886009750&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "Jerusalem Post - 'Lebanon can be shut down for years'" details several purposes of the air strikes and blockade according to senior Israeli military officials including A) Destroying Hizbullah infrastructure; B) Preventing future rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon and C) Preventing prisoners from leaving, and help from entering. The wikipedia entry seems to imply that the whole response from Israel is simply punishment for taking a soldier, this should be changed to reflect what Israel has now said is its purpose. Mathan 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WashPost:Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

"U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants. Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials. For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him. For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say...." From today's Washington Post. This should be mentioned in the article appropriately. --Ben Houston 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in Casus Belli

How is the Israeli retaliation part of the Casus Belli? For the past few days it's been good enough for the Hezbollah raid to cause this conflict. I'm afraid trying to be super NPOV has caused us to to miss the meaning of Casus Belli. It should be changed back. Also why was the decision made to split up the actors of Lebanon and Hezbollah. I know the Lebanese government would love to rout out the militants but I've yet to hear reports to the contrary that the Lebanese military is fighting Hezbollah. The new layout makes it seem like each party is fighting each other, when there have been no reports to back this up. This should also be changed back. Njjones 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. After the response of Israel in Gaza to a nearly identical provocation just a week or so earlier, it is disingenuous to suggest that Hezbollah was expecting anything less than a military response when they did the same thing. The casus belli is the incursion and capture of Israeli military personnel, period. Fishhead64 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Tewfik^Talk 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Introductory Paragraph

This is garbage:

"The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is a series of military actions in Lebanon and northern Israel. On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated their Operation Truthful Promise[10]; Israel then responded with Operation Just Reward [11], later renamed Operation Change of Direction.[12]"

What kind of descriptive opening paragraph is that? Having read that introductory paragraph, can I walk away able to define in any way what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is? And what's with all the bold type?

Outlining the topic description in the opening paragraph by lacing it with the various designations of the military operations is not encyclopedic. It is essentially jargon, albeit very colorful jargon, and does not plainly define the topic. It's overly sensationalistic, colorful, distracting, and confusing. While these may have a place as relevant descriptive information somewhere, they should not be jammed into the opening three sentences of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in this way. Someone needs to rewrite --Leaf2001br 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading it again, I realize this can be nothing but an attempt at some sort of joke or vandalism. --Leaf2001br 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the inclusion of military operation designations is not encyclopedic ... there are many articles of various operations such as in WWII articles. They should be used to form sub articles to this one. Jon Cates 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from lead - Few weeks ago Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would carry out further operations at a later date to gain the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners like involving Rafiq Yehia Skaf, Nassim Nisr and Samir Kuntar who are jailed in Israel for several years.[17]

On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight more during a dawn raid termed Operation Truthful Promise.

Some of this should be in the article, but not right in the middle of the lead. Tewfik^Talk 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is written at the begining of article that Hezbollah called the operation "Operation Truthful Promise". What is the promise? Why did they attack Israel?

When you remove "Few weeks ago Hassan Nasrallah declared that Hezbollah would carry out further operations at a later date to gain the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners like involving Rafiq Yehia Skaf, Nassim Nisr and Samir Kuntar who are jailed in Israel for several years.[30] " from the begining nobody finds the answer of these questions. If this part "The attacks came two weeks after the beginning of the Gaza-focused Operation Summer Rains whose objective was to free the soldier Gilad Shalit captured by local militants in an earlier cross-border attack organized by Hamas. Eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were captured." relates to the lead of the article , the reason of attack absolutly relates.--Sa.vakilian 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Convert to timeline-based article

As this crisis turns into a multi-day event, wiht numerous attacks and counter attacks, parhaps the "current conflict" section should be restructured in chronologial order rather than by sides, as this would make the timeline of the events more understandable, rather than a list of events on each side with no correlation between them? --darkskyz 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I think this is the most important thing to do right now for this article:

Seeing as the conflict does not look like it is going to end quickly Restructure Article to be timeline based over the current format mcwiggin 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Having an "Attacks on Israel" vs. "Attacks on Lebanon" seems to be unwieldy and vague. Almost none of the attacks and casualties have dates or times recorded. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Once the crisis ends (or evolves into something else) a more content-based division of the article could be used. Sijo Ripa 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article is significantly worse than the Operation Summer Rains article, which I think is a rather good read due to its structure. No offense to anyone, but this article has not come together well so far with the constant allegations of bias of POV, along with the constant removal of facts from the Infobox. But I think this would be a good way to work give the article some flow - a chronological order like that of Operation Summer Rains. Than perhaps this can be brought into a higher order of articles. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about staring to put it together at 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis/Timeline? -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the big debates about this crisis is the proportionality of the responses on behalf of Israel. Need to know the each time of each major event. Did Israel attack Beirut before Hezbollah attacked Haifa? Having the exact time that Hezbollah first attacked is useful, but can we put a time in front of other major events? --MarsRover 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

International reactions Isn't one of the biggest stories of all in this area the elephant in the room that most feel is ... Iran? Many feel that this is a proxy war being fought by Iran in order to assert itself as a rising power which is alarming to many governments, not the least of which being the traditionally influential Sunni arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Their statement the other day condemning Hezbollah, a group that was fighting Israel, was practically unprecedented and I think it should be included. Not to mention that it underscores the frightening Sunni-Shiite front that is lining up across the Middle East as we speak. I can't think of a more relevant story under the heading of "Interneational Reactions". Anyone else think that this story should be featured--and prominently--in that section? --Leaf2001br 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah or Hizbollah - Need of being consistent

I've noticed that down there in the article, there are some "Hezbollahs" and some "Hizbullahs". I think that we should be consistent in naming those terrorists. So, which should it be? Personally, I'm inclined to "Hezbollah". --Terrancommander 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Consistency one way or the other is essential. 172.200.205.217 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• The Arabic form is Hizbullāh = "the [political] party of Allah". Replacing Arabic short i and short u by short e and o are a feature of Persian (Iranian) pronunciation. That is why people usually write Osama bin Laden and not Usama bin Ladin, and Al Qaeda and not Al Qā'ida. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"...consistent in name those terrorists.". YIKES!!! Let's just call them an entity, group, whatever, and avoid a whole new discussion within this discussion on "terrorists vs. militia" or whatever else. Cheers. --Jamal 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding footnotes

Is it possible to have a button to hide the footnotes? There's nearly a hundred, and they take up about a quarter of the page. I've seen some pages with sections that can be clicked on to hide/show. --Iorek85 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Its good to have citations and references but this is sort of getting out of hand. sikander 04:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a set way to hide footnotes? Frinkahedr0n 14:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many footnotes to begin with. it is kind of a slippery slope when people disagree with a point, back and forth, and they just list the "prove-it!"/ "sources" comment to the sentence. and this kind of bickering keeps happening back and forth, even though many of these sources can be found together in a single article. it seems kind of repetitive and annoying/excessive. i put one of the footnotes in as an answer to a "needs sources" request, although i dont think it was needed in actuality, with all of the sources already listed at the bottom, i think it was about 100 at the time i did it, now it's 30% or 40% more than that. sorry about the rant, it just seems like there needs to be some kind of checks and balances about that issue... --72.20.207.29 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really worth touching the references at the moment. Once the conflict is resolved and interest in the article dies down, the references can be condensed. Hiding them seems a good compromise for now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for; the template at the bottom of Cold War articles, like in Potsdam Conference. You can click 'hide' and it shrinks to one line. Problem is, it's a template, I don't know if you can do it to normal article text. However, I'm seeing if I can add that functionality to the Arab-Israeli conflict template at the bottom of this article. --Iorek85 23:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking about it on the Village Pump produced a few suggestions, although some (like here) would like the article itself to be cut down as it is growing to a large size. Anyway, click to see. Frinkahedr0n 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical mistakes

I found four grammatical mistakes in the first major paragraph of this article before I gave up and stopped reading. My hunch is that these glaring grammatical mistakes are a result of the number of non-native English speakers editing this article. I suppose it's rather blunt to say so, but if you're not entirely confident of your ability to write in near-flawless English, then why not edit the Wikipedia article about this crisis that's written in your native language? This is an important and serious article, and Wikipedia is not served well by an article written in obviously incorrect and choppy English. 70.92.166.154 05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, why didn't you fix the four grammatical mistakes, and improve the article? We don't have any policy around here saying editors need to be entirely confident of their ability to write in near-flawless English. The editors contributing to the article with flawed English are doing far more to improve the article than you just did. Tempshill 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I even think there is a Wikipedia policy called "the joy of editing": no one has to be a perfect writer or needs to have the best expertise. As long as someone can add something valuable, his/her contribution is appreciated. (Note also that almost every article has its importance - you could very well argue that only native speakers have the right to contribute on this Wikipedia). If this article would be written by native speakers only, I think the systemic bias (POV) would be much more pervasive. I also think that this page would never have reached the same size. Don't forget that most Wikipedia language communities often translate (parts of) the English page, which wrongly gives the impression that each language community can reach an equally large page on its own. Just contribute and fix those errors. :-) Sijo Ripa 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the time that it took to tell us you found four mistakes, you could have fixed them and probably more. Stop bragging about spotting mistakes and start fixing mistakes.--Smallwhitelight 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Is there a purpose to the quick vote link from CNN? --aishel 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No. So, deleted. --Cerejota 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"International reactions" section

Someone added a section about the various evacuation efforts of different countries. It seems to me that it takes up alot of space without saying anything that couldn't be said in the main article of "international reactions". Most of it isn't sourced or cited either anyway. I propose to move it to the main article somehow, or delete it. Mlrts 07:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Other comments on the "international reactions" section? I feel a lot of space could be saved there if it was restructured, so as to present a more general view, instead of reports about different countries and organizations. That's the main articles job to present. Mlrts 08:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mlrts is correct. There is already an entire article devoted to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict so it is pointless to go into "double detail" in the main article. IZAK 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the evacuaton efforts, there is a discussion about that under "Reported Events/Supposed Events".--Battra 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The international reaction section makes reference to unscripted and eavesdropped comments by U.S. President Bush (get Syria to stop this shit, is the general gyst). While certainly illuminating his doltishness and poor grasp of foreign affairs, I don't believe they are appropriate to this section insofar as private comments do not represent public policy, and a president's personal opinions cannot necessarily be construed as "international reactions". Bush also made the startling revelation to Putin that "Russia is big and China is big"; while this is certainly risable it is not a good candiate for inclusion in the Geography article for either nation.

Hezbollah's arguments for raid and Lebanese government political reactions

I took this from someones redundant and badly placed edit, cleaned it up removed redundacy and included as sub sub section. I would delete but I think the info can be used... may its just in the wrong place? Dunno, it is a combination of background and post-raid stuff... ...comments? --Cerejota 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The page still needs the combatant box to show Hezbollah as the first actor, Israel the second and Lebanon third... but I've given up waiting (and my efforts to change it seem to end up as character stew in preview) 210.86.74.223 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

fixed.--Cerejota 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted the change. Please don't do this.

The reason of the change is to retain NPOV by listing the actors in Alphabetical order, which is commonly understood as an unbiased way of listing country/actor names.

For example, we have "Israel-Lebanon COnflict" but "Arab-Israeli COnflict".

Lastly, this edit was done without discussion here, and there has been no objection to the change, so I can assume there is consensus about it. If we really want to work hard to remove ugly-ass tags, then we must make the page NPOV. --Cerejota 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Page has a side scrolling bar

Did someone try some new code or something? I get a side-scrolling bar at 1024x768, Mozilla Firefox. Frinkahedr0n 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it was fixed. Dunno what happened. Frinkahedr0n 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Please POST a picture of the damages caused by a Hezbollah strike

Someone please post a picture of the damage caused by a Hezbollah strike such as the fires and damages in Haifa. --68.1.182.215 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Link added to Getty photo. --Lior 12:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Would be good if u can publish any pictures but that under GNU. In the german Wikipedia we haven't any photos bout the situation. And here the ones we can't use cause the License isn't clear. --Japan01 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)The transmitter and photographers of the Ter Hafra war crime WANT the photo to be published. Why was it removed?

Pictures of bombings of Lebanon

I was surprised not to find any pictures of lebanon being bombed. Seeing those pictures will create some kind of understanding to what happens, and will change the point of view and make it more neutral. Eshcorp 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone doesn't want to add such a picture. In fact, I even think that such pictures were added, but had to be removed due to copyright violations. Freely available pictures are scarce. Therefore this is not caused by POV (and that's one of the reasons why I moved this comment down to the pictures section). Sijo Ripa 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, several images have been placed up depicting it, but they were deleted shortly thereafter for not qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Could u try 2 use GNU license? Would be great so we canuse the pictures in the german wikipedia 2. --Japan01 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, we don't have any say in the matter on whether the images are released as GFDL. That choice lies with the person taking the photographs, and none of the news agencies release their images under free licenses. Maybe if there was a Wikipedian in Lebanon with a digital camera then we could get something good we can use, but until then, we can't just take a news organization's photo and try to pass it off as GFDL when it clearly isn't. --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Phabi0: While I appreciate your effort for a picture of the Israeli bombings, (1) could you prove it's a picture of such a bombing during this crisis? I visited the source site of this photo, but couldn't find any confirmation. (2) Could you also make the copyright status clear? Thanks! Sijo Ripa 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 4 pictures up of the bombings - I am deleting them, as they are copyrighted and not published under a free license. -Preposterous 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath Photo

I have replaced the aftermath photo with the Howitzer once again because the aftermath photo does not qualify for fair use [18]. Its a press image. I noticed that it had been removed several times before by people for this reason, upon which the original uploader reverted it and said he was "rightfully accusing you of bias" and said they were "covering up warcrimes." It seems he has since been blocked from editing, but in any case, it has been removed by me due to its lack of qualifying for fair use. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I also replaced the battleship image with the original fair use qualifying one. The new one provided a better view of its side, however no link was provided to its source so we cannot determine if it qualifies. The one currently up does, however. ~Rangeley (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the talk page

Talk about Talk Pages

Is it possible to reorganize the talk pages using subpages? The multiple archives can be confusing...

I recommend

• Talk/Article Structure
• Talk/Status of Action (conflict v. crisis v. war)
• Talk/Combatants
• Talk/Developments
• Talk/POV Issues
• Talk/Events Reported v. Supposed
• Talk/Casualties
• Talk/Weapons
• Talk/Historical Background
• Talk/Maps
• Talk/Pictures
• Talk/Status of Article

I think this will aid in fluid discussions instead of needing to go to 5 various pages that cover 15 issues to read about one? Jon Cates 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary and even more confusing for new contributors. What needs to be done is some archiving and summarizing these archived discussions in a few sentences (which is often quite easy as only a few positions are taken and only a few arguments are used). Sijo Ripa 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I know I did this in the past days, but I don't have time today and the following days. Can someone else do it? Thanks. Sijo Ripa 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of discussions?

At 19:36 on July 19 several sections of the discussion disappeared, at about the the time MrK did an edit. The following was part of that wholesale deletion of discussions: —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Nonsense

Convicted Palestinian Prisoners

Since it is internationally recognized that Israel is the occupying force in West Bank, Gaza and Southern Lebanon (1982-2000) it has no right to characterize captured resistance members as somehting other than POWs. Even if some Israeli legal proceeding is underway, it is in the first place non-legal since it is held on illegaly occupied teritory by Israel. None Israeli court can judge this people for resisting the Israeli authorities since they are at the same time the illegaly occupying force.

All Palestinian prisoners have been convicted in court, or currently undergo legal proceedings. They are not held as prisoners of war and never have been. This is a matter of fact, not of point of view. There's no place to write they're "allegedly prisoners of war" because they simply aren't. Israel used to hold several Lebanese figures as POW, in order to exchange them with Israeli POW held by Hezbollah, but these actions were banned by Israeli supreme court. It is not been done for ten years or so, and has never been done with Palestinian prisoners. There is certainly no place to say that there are thousands of Palestinian POW in Israeli prisons, even if one objects Israeli policies. There should be some minimal sense behind the continuous edit war over the POV of this article. --Lior 04:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several articles mention that the Palestinians are held without any charge. Also, you're attributing to that statement to a source (see the end of the sentence) which says nothing about them being convicted. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please name one reliable source reporting that a single Palestinian is currently being held by Israel without charge. The fact that Hezbollah radio uses the POW terminology still does not imply it is reliable. Hezbollah radio was also the first to "report" the Mossad was behind the September 11 attacks, and no wikipedia article cites this as a fact. --Lior 05:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"The prison service says that of its 2,700 security prisoners, about 1,250 are being held on remand and 1,450 have been convicted. The IDF holds 2,900 prisoners, including 970 who have been convicted and 1,400 on remand or arrested on judges' orders. There are also at least 530 "administrative detainees" in IDF custody, who are held without charge or trial for renewable six-month terms." [19] So I really don't see how you can classify all of them as "convicted prisoners." BhaiSaab ^talk 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, we're making progress. We're left with 530 detainees held under 'administrative detention'. Their detention is approved by a judge every six months in the face of evidence linking them with terrorist activity. You are right about them been unconvicted, and I stand corrected for that. They're not held as prisoners of war, do not serve as baragain chips for future negotiations, and never have been released in any prisoner swap. Administrative detention has been argued against by civil rights groups and the procedures for applying it have been stiffenned. It exists in other Western countries (as mentioned by BBC, it is derived from British law). Anyways, there are no prisoners of war in Israeli prisons, neither Palestenian nor other. Hezbollah demands the release of thousands of Palestenian prisoners, and one Lebanese prisoner, the killer of two small girls and their father. --Lior 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"In remand" doesn't sound like they were convicted. Also, Israel has in the past engaged in prisoner exchanges with Palestinians, including the one mentioned at [20]. Zocky | picture popups 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Those held "in remand" face legal proceedings, as noted above. They have to be brought in front of a judge and face charges within 24-48 hours (soon about to be 96 hours in extreme cases). Hezbollah has never released its Israeli hostages (or bodies) in exchange for fresh detainees, only in exchange of prisoners. The prisoner swap you cited followed a war and included prisoners of war. The fact that convicted prisoners were also released in the 1980s has been gravely criticised, leading to the current change in Israeli policy. I accept your current edit (i.e. "Palestinian prisoners" instead of "convicted Palestinian prisoners"), yet Hezbollah (or Hamas) won't accept week-long detainees and Israel won't release administrative detainees, leaving convicted Palestinian prisoners as the only source for potential agreements.--Lior 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the 2650 people held on remand back in 2003 were arrested in 48 hours before the data was obtained, but that's a question for another article. "Prisoners" is good enough here. Zocky | picture popups 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that within 48 hours they were faced with charges, hence not held without charge. This is dangerous ice I'm walking on as possibly some of the 2650 have not seen a judge on time, but that's a mishap, not a policy. As long as legal proceedings go on, they're on remand, not convicted. Some are later released and some aren't. Have a nice day.--Lior 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to B'tselem IDF held 3,111 Palestinians in January 2006 and IPS held another 5,127, whereof more than 1,000 were not yet serving a sentence [21]. If you add up all those not yet serving a sentence (they have not been able to get figures for the number of sentenced IDF prisoners, but previous years' figures indicate that slightly more than half of the IDF prisoners are not serving a sentence), you get a total of some 3,000 held without a sentence and 8,238 held in total, whereof the overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons [22]. Unfortunately B'tselem doesn't have any more recent figures, as the Israeli Prison Services have stopped providing them with the monthly figures they had before. Also, B'tselem points out that they have no statistics on Palestinians held by the Israeli Police. Thomas Blomberg 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see how the fascinating B'tselem data you provided argue against what I wrote. Let's Look at January 2006, beginning with IPS figures: There were 4,019 prisoners serving sentence. There were 105 detainees (I assume this refers to those not faced with charges yet), 950 detainees faced with charges and awaiting for their legal proceedings to end, and 53 administrative detainees. Now let's look at IDF figures: a worrisome number of 741 administrative detainees, and 2370 other prisoners and detainees. Please note, that from January 2005 and on, the vast majority of individuals in these three categories were prisoners serving sentence. But let's follow your suggestion, that only about 1200 of the uncategorized 2370 individuals are prisoners serving sentence. The number of detainees held by IDF and not faced with charges is still supposed to be about a 100. This sums up to about 200 individuals being held by Israel without charge on January 2006. 200 out of 5,127 is no overwhelming majority, it's about 4%. I don't see how you infer that the "overwhelming majority are imprisoned for political reasons", unless you take all non-criminal prisoners to be political prisoners. B'tselem does not report that there are thousands of political prisoners, not as far as I could figure out from the link you provided. Needless to say this has nothing to do with my original assertion, that Israel currently holds no prisoners of war of any nationality.--Lior 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that some arab and muslim people are now spending 15th to 20th year in israeli capticity and have never been charged or tried officially, they are in total limbo forever. That amounts to 1/3rd capital punishment, considering the average life expectancy of arab males is about 60 years, so jews took away 1/3rd of their livetimes.

Even the israeli politicians are recently admitting there are 20-year-long held palestinians and in press they said some those, exactly the ones deemed permanently phyisically unfit, might be released if arabs behave and bend. It should also not be forgotten that Guantanamo Camp X-ray idea was conceived by a US military comitte, whose lead advisor was the jewish army officer who designed the administrative detention scheme against the palestinians. 195.70.32.136 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

U.N information on the subject hunger strike in Israeli detention facilities and Imprisionment and conditions of imprisionment, paragraph 63-75 page 15 2000 has some credible ststistics from the U.N General Assembally number 55, sources are varied from newspapers to the North District Public Defender in israel, both Palestinian and Israli. Second periotic report on Israel International covenant on civil and political rights. especially Page ,7:28. All this is very exstensive and long and some what tiresome. Arbitrary arrests and detentions, I wonder if there arrests are internationally legal? as I dont know. Enlil Ninlil 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Much Better

My compliments for the article, it looks and reads much better than a couple of days ago. Also, it's much more balanced in terms of NPOV. Let's try to keep it this way and let's hope people can restrain themselves from waging implicit (or explicit) edit wars. 84.193.50.72 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)