Jump to content

Talk:2006 Lebanon War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Discussion about the name of the article

Article-name-related discussion all refactored into this section (as subsections) to keep this page moderately organized. Please add new discussion about the name in one of these subsections, or a new subsection beneath this top-level heading. --Delirium 18:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Operation_Summer_Rains#Article_name--TheFEARgod 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

WHY DONT JOIN THIS ARTICLE AND THE ONE OF SUMMER RAINS?

In fact, this conflict is going on since the creation of Hezbollah (frequent border skirmishes etc.) This event is a part of it.--TheFEARgod 13:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are going to rename this article into the 2006 Lebanon War, or by the name of the operation.... hope not..--TheFEARgod 13:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the name to 12 June 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash temporarily. --TheFEARgod 13:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ks of Bashan, the incursion into Northern Gaza. Knowing that there are more or less similar goals, I think we should keep an eye on this. Rangeley 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be 12 July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash, not June--Soul assassin 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Stub StatusHello32020 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the naming error. As soon as heavy airstrikes and further Israeli advance take place I'm renaming the name to 2006 Lebanon War. (see 1982 Lebanon War)--TheFEARgod 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
But, to me, it seems that this is connected with the Gaza thing. Their spokesman of Hezbollah said that they did this to aid the Palestinian militants in Gaza, so in their minds it's connected at least. Rangeley 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is all part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (your presumptions are right, but Lebanon NOW is not connected to the Palestinians cause. (similar to War in Croatia-War in Bosnia 1991-1995 = 2 different wars)--TheFEARgod 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is that Croatia and Bosnia did not fight for the same cause, they fought for two different causes against the same opponent. In the case of this, Hezbollah is saying it joined the conflict to aid Hamas in Gaza. Rangeley 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israelis won't certainly fight them under Operation Summer Rains-I think--TheFEARgod 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
They wont necessarilly. But it doesnt need to be the same operation to be the same war. Rangeley 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli-Arab Kidnapping War? --TheFEARgod 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, that sounds sort of silly. Perhaps we will just have to wait to see how the press classifies it. Rangeley 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (2006)? — ceejayoz talk 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should at least be changed to "July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash" as soon as we know that it has continued into tommorow. (which i'm pretty sure will happen)Hello32020 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The operation has been given a name: "Shakhar Holem", which is something like "they get what they deserve", in Hebrew, shakhar=payment, holem=apropiate. so I don't really know how to translate this into English, so I'm doing my best. (=

Forget the formal propaganda names for an article name. In the interest of NPOV, something like 2006 Israeili conflict should suffice. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this follow the conventions of the other article(Summer Rains) and be called Operation Just reward under its official name?--Elatanatari 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Any objections?--Elatanatari 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation name

There is a name for this operation - שכר הולם. I don't know the exact English name; it can be translated into - Proper Retribution. --TheYmode 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw this earlier, but only by one source so I wasnt sure. Do you have a source for it? Rangeley 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
From Ynet - Its in Hebrew. --TheYmode 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It says so also in Hebrew Wikipedia and I also read it in the Israeli Newspaper "Yediot Aharonot".
Should we rename to Operation Proper Retribution than? Rangeley 04:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"Proper Retribution" is just my attempt for translation, I guess we can wait for an "official" English name. --TheYmode 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Its also worth keeping in mind that this is touted as a "second front" in the war that began with Operation Summer Rains. Rangeley 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth keeping this in mind, but these two operations are seperate, even though they are related in some instances. Each operation has its own name. We should wait for an official name like TheYmode suggested. Mafiag 08:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

JPost is translating the operation as "Operation Just Reward". I don't know if that translation is going to stick, but it is the first I've seen from a real news organizationJacksatan 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Operation Reward" is a more fitting name, more catchy =] D.Reider (not registered yet)

I think we should keep the article at a more descriptive name. This article is about the whole clash, including the Hezbollah attack, the Israeli response, any international interventions, and so on, not just specifically about the Israeli military operation. Sort of how we have Gulf War rather than Operation Desert Storm. --Delirium 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for an official English name. In Europian and American news channels they call it "Mideast Crisis", "Lebanon-Israel crisis" etc. Still no official name. Máfiàg 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes please keep an NPOV title not just the one designated by the Israeli gov. By the way, Hezbollah called it something like "keeping the promise" (I'm very weak in translation), while Future TV has mentinoned the "War on Lebanon" name. CG 09:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, also is this the real name or the "public", media name for the operation? For example, wasn't "Operation Grapes of Wrath" just the public propaganda name and it had a different actual name in the IDF? Dan Carkner 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Even though we should still wait for official name, I want to note that the article on operation Summer Rain is named after the Israeli government designation. Both the Gaza and Lebanon operations began after an Arab attack and soldier kidnapping.

Please what I know and heard and read in several newspapers, the casualities have reached 27 kills, among them 10 children on the arab side, would anyone so kind to change this?! Thank you

שכר הולם is what is usually used when when advertising job vacancies. It means "a suitable or appropriate wage/salary". I think that "Just Reward" is a very good English equivalent. Cymruisrael 09:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The common turn-of-phrase in English is Just Deserts. A punishment that is deserved. A payment for what has been done. Having nothing to do with arid lands, or a large cake, for that matter.--Tauto 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

War

OK, Israel is attacking Lebanon's infrastructure, with 20 casualties, Lebanon has been blocked (we see the war has moved well into Lebanon), we have fierce exchange of fire along the border. It's obvious Israel will invade South Lebanon. Lebanon and Israel both called the strikes an act of war. So it's a war, not a clash. I'm renaming it to 2006 Lebanon War [1] --TheFEARgod 10:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a war untill it's declared. You don't have to write history.-- tasc wordsdeeds 10:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You are lying. Under wikipedia standars we call the conflict in Iraq the Iraq War....AND NO DECLERATION OF WAR HAS BEEN MADE. SO WHAT THE FUCK IS IT????--Jerluvsthecubs 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Please assume good faith and be civil. You may wish to read my comment below of 10:45 13 July. MLA 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
daily airstrikes ARE war.--TheFEARgod 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's war for wikipedia when the consensus of external opinion is that it is war not when we feel that it bears similarities to war. MLA 10:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I couldn't put it better. Thanks. -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Daily qassam rockets are war! -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but if we have a confirmed name of the Israeli operation, we should change into it (like Operation Grapes of Wrath)--TheFEARgod 10:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


NEWS: 47 dead civilians and 2 Lebanese soldiers killed in airstrikes--TheFEARgod 10:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

27 civilians injured for ISreal??? The yahoo article posted said 35 Lebanese??? But 75 civilian casualites in a few hours and many soilders on both sides dead??? That is war. By the way it isn't Lebanese soilders, but Hezbollah. They aren't supported by the Lebanese government. The civilians though are Lebanese. Lets keep it fair here.--Jerluvsthecubs 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
2 of the dead are Lebanese soldiers. For a name I suggest the Assault on Lebanon. I am pretty sure Hezbollah do not own Beirut airport.
hey feargod, can you cite that? the casualties part really needs some work, and if those numbers are right it'd be nice if you could edit them in with the citation (we need citation there as well) Jadelith 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a war, if only two days old. The Six Day War (1967) is considered a war and features many parallels to today's conflict. I think we should call it what it is, a war.

~~Flora.

2006 Israeli War suggested...

If you want a name for this conflict, could 2006 Israeli War work? I'm basing this conclusion on the following....

  • Historical precedent: Six Day War
  • Operation Summer Rain
  • This article's conflict
  • The apparent threats against the Syrians (they apparently threatened to kill Assad the other day).

This whole mess reminds me of what I've read about the Six Day War: if I recall correctly, the original point of that war was to take out the Egyptian strike forces, not to conquer a Greater Israel. This situation seems to be a similar expansion from original intent. Cwolfsheep 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the "Six Day War" was called that until afterwards. Right now this is best considered an escalation in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, not a new war. That could change, of course, if the Lebanese military gets involved. — ceejayoz talk 13:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
They have had a base been bombed, so yea. They would not have called it the 6 day war before it ended, but they would call it a war nonetheless. Rangeley 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
How about the Tammuz War because the fighting started in Tammuz (month), and was especially grusome on Seventeenth of Tammuz? --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Just Reward

...confirmed [2]. Better name than current--TheFEARgod 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can simply use a rather semantically loaded name used by one of the conflict's sides as the title of this article. Next thing you know, somebody will want to call it 2006 Lebanese war of liberation or something. How about a title that factually describes the event, even if somewhat awkward. We can move it to something better in a week or so when media agree on a designation for the conflict. Zocky | picture popups 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm happier with this than with the suggestions of War. If this is the verified name and is used substantially by the external media then it's the one we should go with. If the external sources are not using this then we should go with whatever they're using. At the moment, Just Reward might well be it. MLA 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki uses a lot of operation names as titles. Check Category:Military operations. They are almost always something that has been used by one side, and often what you call semantically loaded - Operation Wrath of God, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation Restore Hope. Solver 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Consider the possiblity that Israel starts a new codenamed operation as a part of the same conflict. Those titles are properly used for articles about the operations themselves, in this case this would be the Israel's currently on-going operation in Lebanon, which is codenamed Just Reward. But the article about the conflict should be just as much about Hezbollah and Lebanese government actions, which are clearly not a part of the Operation Just Reward.
So, how about moving the general article about the conflict to 2006 Israeli intervention in Lebanon (or another name if this is not neutral enough) and using Operation Just Reward for the details about the particular Israeli military operation? Zocky | picture popups 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That's preferable to the current situation, IMO. Operation Just Reward is only the name specifically for the Israeli military operation, not for the conflict in general. Compare Gulf War (not Operation Desert Storm) and 1982 Lebanon War (not Operation Peace of the Galilee). --Delirium 15:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1982 Invasion of Lebanon was titled Peace for Galilee. That shows the pitfalls of using offical names of Israeli military operations for article names, as this didn't bring peace for Galilee (as illustrated by this war, 24 years later) except in an extremely ironic way.

Article name revisited

The article looks great, good, fast work everyone. One suggestion - the MilHist project has a guideline that suggests not using operation names as article titles;

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.

What does everyone think about changing back to a geographic/time title? Thanks, TheronJ 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, the primary reason for returning back to the geo/time title is NPOVness. The current one is just POV and reflects an Israeli POV disregarding the Lebanese one. CG 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

move back to July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash

Could we move back the article to July 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah clash. It'a for now the most NPOV title. The current one is just POV and reflects an Israeli POV disregarding the Lebanese one. CG 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for 2006 Arab-Israeli War--TheFEARgod 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

true. I doubt a Lebanese would call this operation just reward. We are not only talking about the operation here, but the whole conflict. Maybe we can make another page with this name that has a link to this page? however, if we are going to change the name of this, why aren't we changing the name of operation summer rain? I don't see the difference... but still overall, I would like to see the name changed (yet I wouldn't do it myself : P)

oh, by the way, IMO arab-israeli war would be a huge generalization, since egypt/syria/iraq are not involved. --Jadelith 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not every Arab was in every previous Arab-Israeli war. This isnt implying that every Arab, or every Arab nation is at war with Israel. Rangeley 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need every Arab nation to be involved but surely it needs more than one to be given a pan-nation name. Also it's not a war at the moment. I'm currently content with either the current or former name. MLA 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking about calling this, Operation Just Reward, the Arab Israeli War. The 2006 Arab-Israeli War is the wider conflict for which this, and Operation Summer Rains is a part. Rangeley 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict until the media settles on a historical name. CG 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. --Delirium 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Though there is some connection to the happenings in Gaza, this is not yet a full out war. The 1982 Lebanese war also started as an operation, and was only later considered war by the concesus. Maybe July 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict would be better, in case there are more conflicts later in the year.--darkskyz 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done this move since no one seems to be opposing it. A separate article on Operation Just Reward (as a military operation, rather than a conflict) could also be created. —Cuiviénen 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The same thing should be done with Operation Summer Rains--TheFEARgod 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because that details the operation. As we consider this part of the 2006 Arab Israeli war, we cant consider this specific part to be a war in itself - for instance in the Six Day War there wasnt a 1967 Egyt-Israeli war, Iraq-Israel war, etc. Rangeley 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am for 2006 Arab-Israeli War too. Operation Just Reward is Israeli POV. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Or may be since 2006 Arab-Israeli War already exists, it can be July 2006 Hezbollah-Lebanon-Israeli Conflict. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: name was changed to "2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis" Hello32020 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP

Do not move this article again without talking about it. It causes so much confusion with redirects, double redirects, triple redirects... Talk about it on this page before taking any unilateral action by moving it. Rangeley 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have protected it from move. Please message me on my talk or another admin when it is appropriate to remove this protection.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed slight alteration to current name

How about July 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis? The word "war" puts a heavier connotation to the conflict than we have reached yet, simply the operation name is too limited, and IMO just "2006" makes the article title not that helpful. Adding July makes the article more specific (should the governments clash again this year makes it clear WHICH clash this article refers to). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an adequate compromise. This is more than a conflict but less than a war, and "crisis" suggests that. User:Pahoran513, 20:32, 13 July 2006

So we don't know the real name

i called it 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. Robin Hood 1212 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be best for now, at least until historical researchers and/or international organizations give it a more permanent name. -- SwissCelt 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My guess is that it'll end up at 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. We don't want to use a propaganda name, either Israel's "Operation Reward" or whatever Jihad name Hezbollah is calling it. We need to remain neutral. 2006 Israel-Lebanon War is a good, descriptive, neutral name. --Cyde↔Weys 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Connection to Operation Summer Rains?

cleaning up

IMO the hezbollah raid and the attacks on israel parts should be conjoined. They both say the same things. Also, we should add a summary that links this to operation summer rain.

I didn't want to edit anything in as I'm new to wiki..Jadelith 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is part of a larger two-front war in Gaza and the Lebanese-Israel border that could easily expand to include Syria, Iran, and maybe even the U.S. Thus, we might have to have a larger article called the 2006 Middle East Conflict or something.--24.154.173.243 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Created war article

2006 Israeli War

Unless someone can come up with a better name, the press thinks its all related. Cwolfsheep 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Depending on the level of escalation, it may get difficult to determine where what goes. --Elliskev 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Urgh, edit conflict. I disagree with this action. It does not have consensus on this page and there was discussion ongoing about the very point. Unless Israeli War is the term used by the consensus of external sources then it's not the correct term for Wikipedia. Also, the new article draws inferences that I believe are dangerously close to original research. MLA 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should name it as a war before any official declarations have been made. I believe this is far too early to unite both events into a single war. Yes, the hezbollah reaction was provoked by the Israeli offensive in Gaza, but naming both events as the Israeli war seems.. just not right. Jadelith 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is a really problematic title now, and making it 'war' is not much better. How about 2006 Israeli conflict or something of the like. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Its clear that the two operations/fronts are part of the same thing (war/conflict/battle, whatever you want to call it). It is appropriate to include them together in some way, and 2006 Arab-Israeli war seems appropriate, and NPOV. Rangeley 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not about whether it's clear to you or clear to me, it's about whether this is what external commentators choose to collectively describe the conflict as. This is not wikinews, it's an encylcopedia and everything must be based on sources. MLA 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, and why it is clear to me is because news sources are calling it a two front war [3] [4] etc. Just take a search for "Two Front War" in Google News. Further, Hezbollah said they attacked to help Hamas, thus making what they do part of the same conflict. We know that the involved parties and press see it as a two front war, and we decided to call it the 2006 Arab-Israeli War. Perhaps it will later be named officially, like the 6 day war. Until than, this is good enough. Rangeley 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, and only currently, the overwhelming weight of sources are not calling it a war. These sources include every global government spokesperson to comment to date. Also war between Israel and Hezbollah or Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas is not necessarily a war. Further, it most certainly is not an Arab-Israeli war at the time of writing as it is a conflict between Israel, two non-state actors, and potentially one Arab state. MLA 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has as of yet declared it specifically NOT to be a war. They did however note at the time of the Hezbollah incursion that that was an act of war, and identify the Lebanese Gov't as the responsible party for the actions of militias acting in defiance of the UN Resolution for disarmament. All that said - why "Israeli" war, why not "Lebanese" war? for the moment I recomend leaving it as a conflictJacksatan 19:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli War

I think this should still be listed as part of the hypothetical 2006 Arab-Israeli War, as long as this debate is ongoing. --Pifactorial 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not hypothetical, the conflict is real. There seems to be an issue of what to call it, I proposed a renaming of it to the 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict to try and reach a compromise. But there is no debate that this is a part of the conflict that began in June, because Hezbollah itself said it carried out its attack to aid Hamas in Gaza. Rangeley 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's part of the same conflict, and that conflict deserves an article, but it could probably be argued otherwise. The reason I made this comment is because somebody changed 2006 Arab-Israeli War to Arab-Israeli Conflict in the infobox. --Pifactorial 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I am talking him about it to see why he objects. Rangeley 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently the only ones making a connnection between the Gaza Strip events and the Lebanon events are the Hezbollah, as justification for their attacks. This is hardly NPOV. --darkskyz 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, more than Hezbollah make the connect, [5]. And why is it in violation of NPOV? If they say they joined the conflict to aid Hamas, and that they are working together, its a fact that they are in the same conflict. Rangeley 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That link lists nothing, neither does a search on google give any results. It isn't NPOV because there is no real connection between the two events, Hezbollah is only using the Gaza events as justification for hostilities. They aren't realted more then any other two events in the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict. --darkskyz 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The link I gave you shows tons of news stories through a search on Google that refer to it as a two front war. [6] this one too. Israel views this as a second front, Hezbollah views this as a second front. The press sees this as a second front. Rangeley 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think in terms of media coverage, actual events, and combatants, even if these are two fronts of one war, it's still more useful to our readers to have two separate articles on the subject. Whether there should be one overview article linking to these two is a separate question better discussed at Talk:2006 Arab-Israeli War. --Delirium 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I entirely agree, noone is even suggesting merging articles. All we are talking about is saying that this is a part of the larger conflict. Rangeley 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this should be named the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah considered Israeli actions as an act of war. Robin Hood 1212 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

referring to operation summer rain in the introduction

shouldn't we include that operation in the introduction? I remember hezbollah saying that this was their reaction to the gaza offensive. I added that yesterday to the introduction but it seems like someone deleted it. If anyone can find the source for that, I think we should add that to the introduction again. --Jadelith 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the Combatants

I added the name of the general of the LAF

since the army too is participating. Robin Hood 1212 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, I re-added Hezbollah's leader, as someone removed it. Rangeley 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah flag gone

Anyone have it?Hello32020 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently deleted because of license issues: [7] --Pifactorial 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The old image can be found here, but it's non-free. Anybody have a free version? Want to trace up an SVG? --Pifactorial 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Shouldn't the flags in the intro box be Lebanon and Israel, rather than Hezbollah and Israel? Whether they wanted it or not, Lebanon is now involved, and its a bit unfair to state that the Lebanese civilian casualties were Hezbollah members RedEnsign 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Hezbollah and Lebanon should be in the infobox. Rangeley 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper names for combatants

Starks 22:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Commander?

We have Israeli commanders and the leader of Hezbollah. Who would be considered the Lebanese commander? The President? The Prime Minister? A Chief of Staff? —Cuiviénen 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Country Names: Palestine

Links to titles of countries lists Palestine as "Palestinian Territories". It links to the article titeld "Palestine". The article states "Since the first half of the 20th century, nationalist Palestinians in the region have promoted statehood for themselves as a "State of Palestine," which is recognized by 99 countries."

99 countries is hardly a majority. --Pifactorial 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At the State of Palestine article it states that only 93 countries recognize it.
If you take the maximum count of world nations you get 192. Half of 192 plus one equals the majority needed if you want to take that route: 97 countries. Palestine is recognised by a majority of world countries plus two.
Alright, the State of Palestine is the proper name of the government of the Palestinian Territories, but "Palestine" isn't the proper name for either. --Pifactorial 04:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine. We can change it in the article to the "State of Palestine". Objection?

Yes, there is no such state yet. The State of Palestine refers to a political action in 1988, "The proclaimed "State of Palestine" is not and has never actually been an independent state, as it has never had sovereignty over any territory." The government of the Palestinian territories is known as the Palestinian National Authority. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we both stand corrected. About the "hardly a majority", I was taking the figure of 243 countries from List of countries. (But the "99" probably did refer specifically to the UN, which has only 192 members.) --Pifactorial 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok. You mean the 243 countries in the List of countries which includes "Palestine - State of Palestine". That list?
And thus was my confusion too. Please sign your comments. --Pifactorial 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the United States listed as a combatant in the infobox?

The article says nothing about it. Am I missing something? Admiral Rupert 05:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No US soldiers are involved in the conflict in any way. I removed the USA from the infobox. --dm (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was just reluctant to remove it myself, in case somebody knew something I didn't. Admiral Rupert 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Worst case, someone will put it back with a citation. Be bold! (-b, to lazy to sign in.) 68.146.8.255 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon

Should Lebanon be listed as part of the conflict or not? 62.0.108.180 doesn't think so. --Pifactorial 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. They've had a couple of military air bases hit and a couple of soldiers killed. They've basically lost their airport. They are under a blockade. --Elliskev 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thought so. Should we consider 62 a vandal then? --Pifactorial 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should. People keep removing commanders, messing with combattants, messing with what it is a part of. This is very hard to put together with people constantly removing information. Rangeley 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Put a semi-protected state on the article? This is probably gonna be vandalized a few more times before this is over. Frinkahedr0n 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Lebanon should not be listed, having taken no active part in combat to this point. Non-user MJZ 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about POV

keep this article balanced

There's nothing in this article about Israeli raids in Lebanon, the destruction of most of southern bridges and a power station, and the attack on the Beirut Airport or the killing of civilian. Please keep this article balanced. CG 10:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, above there is a question regarding power station. do you have any reference? -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has killed ten children, why are they not included in the opening tally? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Include them! -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The 10 children parenthesis thing seems a bit POV to me. Anyone else? --Shizane 13:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, I'm sure some of the injured israelis are children, but I don't think it's relevant to the article. --Mlrts 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
When I was reading the article, I saw that 10 children had been killed in (). I think this is biased. If you are going to list the children, you need to list all men and women also for both sides. It makes the article sound like Israel is evil for killing children while Lebanon is alright. --Kranar drogin 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be balanced out more, the bulk of the article seems to be "the IDF said.." "Israeli authorities have said.." Inevitably biased until more sources are used, and not just newspaper articles that quote the IDF. Dan Carkner 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That may purely be because the Israelis have been saying more about it though, don't you think? The Lebanese government has been quite quiet up until to-day. Shirelord 2355, 18th July 2006 (British Summer Time)

I've been following this issue pretty dilligently since the news broke, and I've search hundreds of news articles, there is has been almost no reaction a all from the Lebanese Gov't aside from a request for cease fire. The really isn't any good new source on the Lebanese front at the moment. If you want to find out what has been happening in Lebanon your only source will be the IDF.Jacksatan 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Nomination

Since this will be both controversial and plenty of POV, lets agree to disagree and nominate... --Cerejota 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV check tag

If there's not going to be any discussion, that tag could stay there forever. I'm removing it soon, unless I see something here. --Elliskev 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I came here to see the reason it was added, but it appears the adder hasn't posted anything? --Delirium 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed it to the "POV disputed" tag. Now, let's dispute. --Pifactorial 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I placed a request on the editor's talk page to address his concerns here. --Elliskev 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I came here for the same reason. I generally think it's okay to remove dispute and warning tags that aren't backed up by anything on the talk page. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The editor who placed it responded on my talk page with his concern. It's a good faith edit (the template). I invited him to bring his concern here for discussion. --Elliskev 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that user's contributions and talk page, it would seem that he recently edited some pages in order to remove cited information regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict in order to bend the articles twords the Arab POV, and has been banned already for such practices --darkskyz 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall we hold a vote to remove the tag then? --Pifactorial 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it already. He can put it back up if he wants to discuss it here. --Elliskev 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing, bias, and sloppiness

This is the type of POV stuff am talking about:

"Hezbollah does not recognize the Blue Line and does not consider as the real borders between Israel and Lebanon."

No sourcing. Are we supposed to belive this?

It is worse, because it is not true. According to the SOURCED Hizbollah entry, the Government of Lebanon (not Hizbollah), doesn't accept the Blue Line *only* in the Shab'a farms area. It accepts it in the rest.

Not only is this a biased comment, but it doesn't meet Wiki quality standards. Am putting cleanup too if comments like this appear again. (I apologize for my spelling mistakes, if any, please fix them!) --Cerejota 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New POV tag by Cerejota

That is a weasel words cop-out. There is plenty of news that describe not only Hebzollah's views and position, some of which is sourced here, but ONLY the parts that apply to Israel are included. A better prepared bias doesn't make an article NPOV. In reading, editing, viewing, and in reading the talk page, I have realized this article is not NPPOV and have tagged it as so.

As an example, there was speculation as to the motives of Hezbollah for their initial raid, saying (with out sources) that it was related to the palestinian thing. Now, any reasonable person might reach that conclusion, but a quick web search demonstrated (in an article in Haaretz!!!) that Hezbollah itself doesnt claim this.

  • Actually the citation Haaratz article[8] does say exactly that. Quoting: He (Nasrallah) also made sure to emphasize that his organization was acting on behalf of the Palestinians, lest the operation be interpreted as a broadening of Hezbollah's mandate (within the Lebanese national agreement) to limit its resistance activities to Lebanese targets within the country's borders. --TheYmode 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I thin this is a mistype, because in context it makes no sense. The article is about Hizbollah precisely claiming this operation had been in the works for month AND saying it is in support of the palestinians IS interpreted as a broadening of Hezbollah's mandate within the Lebanese national agreement, which makes the "lest" incongruent.
--Cerejota 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Either way it in support of the palestinians. --TheYmode 02:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect this thing, but it is an example of the obvious pro-israel bias of the current editors. I lack time to do much in depth editing, but will do so as time permits. I call on others to also help make this article NPOV. IN the meantime, labeling the article as not NPOV until some semblance of NPOV is reached seems to be the correct step. --Cerejota 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV check tag

the portion "and the occupation of Shebaa Farms, a territory which they consider Lebanese despite the United Nations' rulings that it is occupied Syrian territory" is conterversial.Yousaf465 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing controvertial about it - it clearly states both sides, one being the Hizbullah and Lebanese side considering them Lebanese, the other being the rest of the international community as represented by the UN, stating it is Syrian. --darkskyz 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is NOT NPOV until it is better sourced with the viewpoints of other actors, rewords how comments are entered (for example, a pro-Israeli blog/news site/analysis group was not labeled as such, but in a way that gave an impression of neutrality). I am not asking for equal time, but everything from the photographs, to the sourcings, etc is extremely pro-Israel (there is a lot of pictures of Israeli soldiers, but none from Hizbollah militias, for example). Until a time comes this is not so, then the article is POV. Face this:

This is not a page about Israel's position on the crisis, but about the crisis itself, of which the position of either side is but a part of the whole picture.

Except for the part where the positions of the international community are given, and a few edits here and there (including mine), the page doesn't meet NPOV.

Am re-tagging. No one addressed WHY I put the POV tag in the first place. I hope this time around a substantive discussion is given before a capricious removal. --Cerejota 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cerejota could you help me make this article more NPOV and tell me what you think are the most POV bits of this article.Hypnosadist 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, follow my edits. I want to eliminate redundant photos, add sources where there are none, eliminate where possible bias, add content that gives a voice to all sides of the conflict, etc.
So I have fixed. And bias is not only direct. For example, failure to mention things such as the name of Beirut and its international airport (both who have wikipedia entries), are part of the original pro-Israel bias that still permeates the writting. As I find examples, I edit, and when I am satisfied, and will support removal of POV tag. Of course my edits might be reverted, but if they are not disucussed I will revert it back. And when I find that my editing might go beyond my stated aim of removing bias and adding balance, I will disucss before editing.
In how can you help, I think it will be good to find quotes from actors other than Israel. I have little time for this.
--Cerejota 02:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag added

Currently, the article notes that the lebanese victims are According to the Lebanese government, according to The Lebanese security officials, etc, while no such qualifiers used for Israel, making a pov problem. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's an issue that not every statement has a "qualifier." Every statement should. Read WP:NPOV - the section about Attributing and substantiating biased statements. In other words, please stop removing attributing qualifiers. They are a good thing. --Elliskev 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported Events/Supposed Events

This is discussion of events/supposed events and source searches.

Power Stations

Is there a reference for Israel destroying power plants in Lebanon? The closest I have seen to this was that it was speculated that they may do that, and that they destroyed communication infrastructure connecting Berut to the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksatan (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 July 2006

CNN has this picture [[9]] with the label 'Fuel tanks at a Beirut power station burn today.' It's CNN so it is pretty useless and unreliable but I am not sure why they would lie in this case.

"Hezbollah claimed that the soldiers crossed the Blue Line."

This better get a citation or is getting deleted. There is no need for claims of terrorist organisations to be mentioned unless we even have a source for it. Xtra 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

hold on, I remember reading it somewhere. --Jadelith 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
meh, I couldn't find it. but still, this is a recent event so a lot of things aren't cited. No need to be hasty in deleting stuff; I sincerely remember reading it somewhere (well, before opening up wiki that is, so it should have a source : )) --Jadelith 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
But this is saying they claimed something. There should be at least some report of it. Xtra 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only Hezbollah said that, but the General of the Lebanese army has included this in his report during the last government meeting. And please be Civil. CG 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There are historical claims of Hezbollah claims, but it is not being claimed in this instance. BTW, most historical claims have been proven false. I am removing it. nmourfield 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese airbase bombed

watch news....CNN mentions term 2 front conflict--TheFEARgod 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[10] Lebanese army involved--TheFEARgod 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I already added it to the article. Do you think we should re-add Lebanon as a combantant because of this? Hello32020 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon IS now a combatant--TheFEARgod 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Bombing Shia Prayer House

This is not reported in cited article, being removed until correct citation. I couldn't find a source. --Nmourfield 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No word on that. Italian tv reports a mass exodus from Lebanon into Syria [11]--TheFEARgod 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Congrats to Nmourfield. Great to find that you came out to edit after your first edit in April 2006. I hope that you shall continue to guide all of us with your insight. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source

I found an arabic timeline of Israeli attacks in Lebanon during these two dayshere. It's of course a lebanese POV but materials could be added to balance this article. CG 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Haifa

AP reporting Israeli officials say a rocket has hit the city of Haifa. Any confirmation? --Shizane 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed an uncited statement to that effect. When the reference is available, add it in. mdf 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A rocket hit Haifa. [12] Hello32020 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation [13] --Pifactorial 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My account only 1-2 days old so i can't.Hello32020 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Added. --Elliskev 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
New TV has just stated that Hezbollag denies any invlovment in this rocket. CG 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I reworded the article to reflect that. Can you take a look and see if it's okay as is? --Elliskev 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, great. CG 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Airport Attack #2

Anyone with more info please add (i already added my limted info). (CNN/AP)

I saw at the Israeli news channels, at around 22:00, 13.7 (Israel local time), that Israeli ships hit some fuel tanks in the airport, and the 3rd landing stripe. I believe that if Israel admit at bombing the airport again, it should be true. I'll try to look for citation. Máfiàg 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the CNN says exactly what I saw in Israeli channels. Máfiàg 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Report: Iran Rev Guards fired missile at Israel

I'm looking for link, saw on Fox News. Please look for link online. Hello32020 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we really talk about the need for reliable sourcing and then in the next breath cite Fox News??ariddles
A story like this could take a while to be said online. Do you have any more information than that? Rangeley 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No but I will come back if link appers on foxnews website or other news org websiteHello32020 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Should we add Iran to combantants if this is confirmed online? Hello32020 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How did they present this news, was it in a quick "Fox News Alert" that interupt other things, or was a guest speaker on that said he had reports that they fired it? Rangeley 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't have access to Fox News, but have been listening to the BBC and checking the IRNA website. No word from either of those sources. -- SwissCelt 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it was a "Fox News Alert" but it lasted 45 seconds-1 minute 15 seconds (estimate)Hello32020 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be important. I find it quite strange that it doesn't get more attention. Sijo Ripa 21:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably waiting for more detailsHello32020 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do remember them saying that it was the one that hit Haifa earlier Hello32020 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive been watching Fox News for a while, nothing there. Nothing on their site, nothing on googles meta search, nothing on Jpost news flashes or Haaretz. Perhaps you misheard it? Rangeley 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they said itHello32020 22:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they did, and Sky news has reported on the fox news reports. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sky News is stating (on their website) that Hizbollah [sic] is backed by Iran and Syria. Is this where we're getting that Iran is involved? -- SwissCelt 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw a Fox News Alert similar to this title and Irishpunktom confirmed that they stated it on Sky News. But there is no confirmation of either online yet.Hello32020 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they wait till 7:00 eastern time to break major news again cause this is Fox News's evening news hour. I think they did that last night too. Hello32020 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, if its anything, I assume they will break it at 7:00 which is the start of their evening news. Right now its just sort of political analysis of stuff. Rangeley 22:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you found reports of anything onlineHello32020 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Suprised no non-Fox News afialted networks have broke the story Hello32020 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Some more information on this report --Pifactorial 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets hope they'll brake it again in the next minuteHello32020 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They're reporting it nowHello32020 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) on FNC

The link given to Pifactorial contains a video of it,[14], and it also says CNN reported the story. This is certainly interesting, but so far Israel hasnt really commented on it. Its cited as from Israeli intelligence, so its possible that Israel is trying to keep it quiet before they can certify it. Rangeley 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have roughly what they said at 7:02 should i post it?Hello32020 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure Rangeley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Report around ~7:02 on FNC: Shep, Israeli inteligence is working under the assassumption that it was a alfowlger(Don't know how to spell)-7 missile that struck haifa earlier today...it is a missile with a 50-mile range it has never been fired at Israel before, it is Iranian made shep, reportely developed with the help of North Korea and China. Israeli inteligence again is again working under the assumption that is was fired by Iranian revoultionary guard units based in South Lebanon who worked side by side with Hesbalah. (Rough spelling, paraphased) Hello32020 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Hezballah haz Fajr-7 missiles:

Hizballah has up to ten thousand rockets, mostly katyushas, but also some Iranian-made Fajr-7 rockets capable of reaching a range of over forty miles. Fajr-7 rockets are considered by Israel to be strategic weapons because their range can put at risk approximately 1.5 million Israelis, in cities as far from the border as Haifa and Tiberias. [15] --Pifactorial 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a page on the Fajr 7, if such a thing exists. I'm strongly suspecting it might be a case of mistaken identity. I'd appreciate any help getting some correct information for the article. 86.137.62.213 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone posted these developments with sources on the article page yet?Hello32020 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Do you think we shouldHello32020 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)?

Okay i added itHello32020 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice definition of strategic weapons that... it explains the attacks on airports all over the world... evrything that can go 50 miles can endanger millions, so cars too should be abolished as strategic weapons. (in my opinion a strategic weapon is a weapon that with a few apllications has a major strategic impact. (so not firing 1000 fold the nr of fajr7 rockets that exists. Still, its not evry polite to fire rockets, tehn again, its not very polite to maintain the state of israel, its outright wrong how the palestineans are treated, and it's likewise sad, the world makes it UN policy to forget that fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.57.243.72 (talk • contribs).

Discussion about casualties

Intro

Does anyone else think we should amend the introductory paragraph to mention the Israeli retaliation and/or Lebanese deaths? Right now, it largely describes only the deaths of the IDF soldiers. --Elcocinero 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Eight Israeli soldiers and two civilians have been killed, two soldiers and 120 civilians were wounded and two reserve duty soldiers were captured.

There's a citation for the Lebanese casulties [16], but I didn't find one for this piece of information. -- Omernos 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC) added citation. --darkskyz 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Also could we reword this? "As a result, Israel has killed 48 Lebanese terrorists and civilians" - this sound quite clunky and not very NPOV. Maybe we could reword this to "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed by Israeli forces" or "On the Lebanese side X (suspected) terrorists and Y civilians were killed during the combat operations" CharonX/talk 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
changed it.. but its still sounds ugly... could anyone make that sound better? : ). We should use the word "militant", not "terrorist" IMO. Also, yes 48 militants and civilians doesn't really show the problem as the majority of the casualties are civilians. Jadelith 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, militant is far better, couldn't think beyond adding "suspected" in front of the word, good idea. CharonX/talk 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, The casualties in the article body and the infobox should match - right now, each lists different numbers. Please update both when updating the numbers, and add as of what time these numbers are correct. --darkskyz 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

thefeargod said something about 47 civilians and 2 militants above. I wonder if he has a source for that. If he does, we should edit both casualties parts. --Jadelith 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties source: Reuters says 52 Lebanese casualties. [17]

2 Israeli civilians killed from this citation. --TheYmode 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

, 1 more Israeli civilian dead. [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885981850&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ]--TheFEARgod 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok I added 52 civilians. No idea on the number of militants though. maybe this number includes them? --Jadelith 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1 militant casualty confirmed earlier, I cannot find the source now.. Italian newspaper La Repubblica mentioned two Lebanese soldiers dead.--TheFEARgod 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reuters source for the civilian deaths confirms the death of 1 lebanese army soldier (2nd page).. maybe some sources call him a soldier and some a militant? The chances are they are different people, but you know sometimes sources can have different ways of wording stuff. --Jadelith 14:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 36 confirmed Lebanese civilian deaths (all major news sites) - why are we not being specific?

Infobox casualties

Two points: 1) Have there really been 90 Israeli civilians injured? At the moment this is unsourced - I haven't come across a figure even approaching that anywhere. Conversely, there aren't at the moment any numbers in for Lebanese injured which seems unlikely. 2) Also there seems to be some variation as to wording: we have Israeli soldiers "KIA" and "WIA", others are "killed" or just "2 Lebanese soldiers". See Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict --Jobrahms 16:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


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.

Civilian Casualties

Are there no civilian casualties on the Lebanon side? Did those facts get removed from the overview window?

The numbers don't seem to agree, but I think the removal is just vandalism. Anybody have a reliable figure? --Pifactorial 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed it due to a lack of a WP:RS for those numbers. Either they were based off the Lebanese government's claims(which do not fit with Wikipedia's requirements for reliability), or they were figures of general casualties, without differentiating between civilians and militants. I think we should refrain from putting up numbers until there are some actual well established facts out there. Right now, everyone is giving different numbers. I suggest we put "Unknown" as the number of casualties until things calm down some. Bibigon 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Pifactorial 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a source up there a little while ago from [18] that says 47/103, killed/injured.--Paraphelion 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That source says 47 Lebanese killed, not 47 Lebanese civilians. It also cites Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife as the source, not the AP itself. The AP is a reliable source, the Lebanese government on the other hand should probably not be considered a reliable source for these purposes. Bibigon 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to judge who is reliabel and who's not? If were going to consider the Lebanese government has a null, then we should do the same with teh Isreali side. Your the one that seems to be pushing POV here Chaldean 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Lebanese-government claims should certainly be reported, properly labeled. It's not really our job to determine if their estimates are accurate; we should report them matter-of-factly as something like "According to the Lebanese government ...". If Israel disputes the numbers, say that too. If in the future the UN or some other third party comes up with independent estimates, report those too. --Delirium 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure I think the Lebanese government claims should be reported in the main casaulties section. My point is that in the infobox, we don't have room for the back and forth debate over these casaulty figures, and we can't just report their POV, otherwise we would be violating the NPOV policy. In the main article, the Lebanese claims should be mentioned however, along with other reports. That's why I haven't touched that section. The infobox is more for confirmed and undisputed info however. Make sense? Bibigon 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem taking the world of the Israeli government as only one POV, and not as fact. To my knowledge however, Israeli casualty counts are not routinely disputed, and thus I was less concerned about that. I think it would be reasonable to keep both sides of the infobox as "Unknown" in terms of casualties, because of the difficulty of getting accurate information. Bibigon 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

55 civilians killed. source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4466E69B-1433-46A5-A837-39A1C22D8A9F.htm -STREETasmyCanvas

Again, that's a source reporting what the Lebanese police are saying. That is not indisputed, and thus does not belong in the info box. It belongs in the casaulties section, where a full discussion of the various counts can take place. There is no room in the info box for the back and forth needed to avoid a NPOV issue. Please revert to "Unknown." I will not revert myself to prevent an edit war. Bibigon 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say it should go in the infobox with "(Lebanese government account)" after it, analogous to how we do things at articles like Operation Dewey Canyon. --Delirium 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This would be acceptable to me. I don't want to make the change myself, as I've already edited this part of the article several times today and don't want to start an edit war, but anything that notes that the numbers are from the Lebanese government works. Please make the change. Bibigon 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is currently impossible to tell Hezbollah casualties from other civilian casualties. Reports on one Hezbollah militant dead are based on this funeral (Getty). I suggest we accept the death toll reported by Lebanon and note it includes 'civilians and militants'. If you find a single source telling the two apart, add it instead. --Lior 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it is impossible, you obviously can't say "civilians and militants" there is nothing to back that up. You can't assume anything. You need to cite referecences for each "militant". If not they should be considered a "civilian". Since the only reference is the Lebanese government for the civilians, and the one funeral for the 1 militant, it should remain that way until new sources surface.

Inconsistent Numbers

In the box at the top the Hezbollah/Lebanese Casualties have 53 civilians dead, in the article under casualties it says 47 civilizans dead. Which is it? Shouldn't it be consistent or am I missing something.--Jerluvsthecubs 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Different numbers here at Yahoo!.com. I think the difference comes from the fact that wikipages are updated sporadically, and one part might be out of date. -Litefantastic 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that AP is reporting the 47 mentioned by the Lebanese gov't, while reuters is reporting some "over 50" from unidentified "security sources". I tend to take the AP numbers as more official right now, until some more reliable sources are found. Also, I belive this is a bit moot, as unfurtantly it seems the number of casualties is going to rise... --darkskyz 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualties

Ynet reports two more civilians killed in a bomb attack on Moshav Meiron - a young woman and a child. 89.138.32.183 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about whether it is a war

World War III

Am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plasmacannons (talk • contribs).

No you are not.

At least youre not right yet.Cameron Nedland 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It might become that, it certainly has the potential to, but it hasn't....yet --CD

nah, we won't see a ww3 here. even if syria and iran attacked israel, the only other participant in the war would be USA. so.. no wwIII sorry :/ --Jadelith 10:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

who knows? Russia or China may become involved because of the oil --68.1.182.215 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm more worried about India/Pakistan getting involved in this than Russia or China. Pakistan is Islamic. It also has nukes. India accuses Pakistan of not taking care of the folks who bombed Mumbai. Who knows what might happen over there? And what if it starts kowtowing to Iran? 205.188.116.131 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't anything new. It's not like everyone turned on the TV and collectively gasped: OHS NOS! THE ARABS ARE FIGHTING THE ISRAELIS (and vice versa)! This won't boil to World War III. Want to know why? Because China, Pakistan, and India are the only nuclear powers in the area, and since they haven't gotten involved for the past half-century, I doubt they'd dive in now. No nation has the guts to use their arsenals on Israel because they only got a few bullets (compared to the US). Taishaku 04:11, 14 July 2006 (GMT -8)

Discussion about the captured soldiers

Druze solidier

It was initially reported that the soliders captured by Hezballah were Druze. Based on their surnames, it would appear that only one is a Druze, if either. Relevant? Should it be noted? This has a great deal to do with Arab-Israeli relations and that one of the soliders taken is an Arab says a lot about the conflict.

Neither of the soldiers is Druze. One or two of the dead soldiers is Druze, however I'm not sure that this info is relevant to the topic. --darkskyz 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Soldiers' names

It's a war, Wikipedia won't mention every single name of soldiers who dies there (not mentioning creating articles for them), I've removed for that soldiers' names from the Israeli side casualties --Mido 07:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

true. We should still have the names of the captured soldiers though. --Jadelith 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about weapon types

Tank Name

The article states that the tank that was destroyed by the mine is "An Israeli Merkava Mk. II Tank." Is this correct? I was under the impression that the Mk II is an old tank and was replaced by MK III in 1990. Please confirm.--24.188.141.194 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Merkava MK 2 (actually all the MK 2 are upgraded to MK 2B) is still in use in the IDF. --TheYmode 07:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Katyusha

The picture is for WWII Katyushas, very different from those used by Hizbollah. --Cerejota 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about casu belli/purpose military operations

Lack of clarity

Casus belli should state "Hezbollah border attack" ... it is not clear who is doing the attack. Please make it clear!

Done. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the structure and general content of the article

Spelling

Could whoever is restoring the spelling and grammatical mistakes please quit it? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

International reactions section/page

Separate page needed?

Should we move international reactions to a separate page, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:11_July_2006_Mumbai_train_bombings#Too_many_international_statements --Pifactorial 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think there should be a nice summary of international statements (from the involved parties and big players) with a split-off to a more complete list. On a similar subject, since Wikipedians tend to dislike bulleted lists, think the list should be converted to a table with cells for "Nation", "Spokesperson", and "Statement" to make things uniform? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is one of the only solid parts of this article, since there is no room for editors themselves to put their sleazy "spin" on it.. Dan Carkner 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, there is clear spin in the existing article. The only country that has held Lebanon responsible for Hizbollah's actions is Israel.

Bosnia

About the article, I am wondering what Bosnia's reaction (bottom of the page) to all of this is doing there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.253.169.203 (talk • contribs).

It's one of 2 European Muslim countries and a recent victim of a war, why not include it? To me it's probably a more valid reaction/opinion than that of other countries working more of a political angle..Dan Carkner 03:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Next to all the other countries of the world. --Cerejota 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Bosnia entry gone? It disappeared form the International reaction page? Why? ariddles
Clevelander removed it because it didn't have a reference. Sijo Ripa 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Page Created

A Seperate page for Int'l Reactions was created as of 07:12, 14 July 2006 by Siqbal. Copying discussion on the matter to talk page for that article, please continue all discussion on the matter there. --darkskyz 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible escalation section

Originally this dealt with escalation in the fighting. That's already happened. Newer edits are refering to possible expansion. Should the section be renamed or removed? --Elliskev 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the status of the article

Semiprotection

I've semiprotected this page after a wave of vandalism by IPs. It can probably be unprotected in an hour or so. —Cuiviénen 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Let it be semi protected. I can see bunch of ip are doing lot of Vandalism. --SkyWalker 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Other IPs have been making good contributions. I think semiprotection should be lifted after, say, ten minutes tops. --Elliskev 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
But IPs edits are extremely biased. I prefer we semi-protect it to preserve the balance of the article. CG 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you enable it, if you can, I've made many contributions and would like to start again (My account is only 1-2 days old.) Hello32020 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have unprotected it. It's been protected for more than half-hour. Will keep a watch for vandalism. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ARticle

Article just had werid errorHello32020 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Nevermind Hello32020 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Can someone remove the "TWINKIE IS GOOD" in the fact square to the right,please/ Thank you/Alexmcfire

There's pro-Twinkie propoganda all over the article! It's all caps though, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Canuck90 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Old Map

im making maps right now... 71.71.54.198 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)User:STREETasmyCanvas

Lebanon is spelled wrong in the map. --Elliskev 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I did a quick photoshop of the map with the correct spelling of Lebanon until the original author (STREET) does so. Hope that's okay. Cep76 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

Current times or End Times

This could very well be the thing that starts the tribulation. This might make the twelve tribes of Israel finally regroup. That could have a giant battle or massacre in Megiddo. A leader could promise "world peace" under his rule. Israel rebuilds the Temple. Jesus Returns. --66.218.22.85 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the end is nigh. We better hurry up with finishing the encyclopedia then. Zocky | picture popups 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Imagine the NPOV problems the rapture would cause ("That is Christ Our LORD!!", "No It's NOT!!").
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_1&oldid=1142749001"